Blog
Comment
DrZuhoch
The USPTO is now a self-supported entity, and must survive by generated fees.A ...
Frank Eory
Many patents are granted that fail the novelty test.
What were they thinking: patent trolling patent
Brian Bailey
2/3/2012 12:54 PM EST
It has been a while since I featured a crazy patent, but this one takes the biscuit. This patent teaches you about how to buy a patent and to sue someone else for violation of the patent – or in other words it patents being a patent troll. Now you think that it would only be a law firm who would want to create such a patent, but in this case it is an oil services company who clearly believes that either they can make money from lawyers or they are afraid that there are companies who have patents that they violate and are scared of them ending up in the hands of someone who could sue them, so they will make it impossible for one company to sell a patent to someone else. The circular logic here just gets to be mind boggling. So with all of the high-tech patents being bought and sold these days – do any of them owe money to Halliburton?
Brian Bailey – keeping you covered
If you found this article to be of interest, visit EDA Designline where – in addition to my blogs on all sorts of "stuff" – you will find the latest and greatest design, technology, product, and news articles with regard to all aspects of Electronic Design Automation (EDA).
Also, you can obtain a highlights update delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for the EDA Designline weekly newsletter – just Click Here to request this newsletter using the Manage Newsletters tab (if you aren't already a member you'll be asked to register, but it's free and painless so don't let that stop you [grin]).
|
|
|
|
|
Eric.Jacobsen_#2
2/8/2012 12:53 PM EST
That's brilliant. Essentially they've cornered the market on patent trolling, so as a defensive measure it's awesome. A troll can't bother them without violating their patent, and, assuming this is ever enforcable, no patent troll can operate again without violating this or obtaining a license.
Somebody should have done this a long time ago. ;)
Sign in to Reply
RWatkins
2/9/2012 10:56 AM EST
Cool published application, BUT that is not a granted patent. In short, it is presently words on paper with priority for being granted over words generated later. However, the fact that the application was published only means that it languished for a year, not that it has any merit or that it may/may-not issue.
We will have to see if intelligence prevails at the USPTO in terms of whether this really does become a patent. It is my understanding that if even one example exists of someone else using the claimed methods 6 month prior to the application, even if it otherwise could be granted, that novelty fails. SURELY there are such sharks in the patent trolling waters.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
2/15/2012 5:13 PM EST
Many patents are granted that fail the novelty test.
Sign in to Reply
docdivakar
2/13/2012 5:28 PM EST
Seems like it is taking a bite out of patent lawyers' livelihood! I am sure there will be many challenges to this... oh well, looks like Bilsky vs. State Street Bank and all that machine vs. transformation discussion will flare up again!!
MP Divakar
Sign in to Reply
Barry_Moss
2/15/2012 4:56 PM EST
Somehow I think this one will fail the prior art test. The fact that it wasn't immediately tossed out unfortunately says a lot about the USPTO.
Sign in to Reply
DrZuhoch
3/22/2012 10:35 AM EDT
The USPTO is now a self-supported entity, and must survive by generated fees.A fee will be charged for reviewing the patent, which will always be refused the first time,so the reasons for denial will have to be challenged, which will send it back again for review of the challenge.This process can continue ad-nauseum until all possible fees have been extracted before ultimately approving or disapproving it.
$$$ for USPTO.
Sign in to Reply