May 20, 2008
Big Gorilla Cuts A Dud
In an ongoing tussle in various venues, Microsoft had accused patent bad-boy Alcatel-Lucent before the ITC of infringing four patents claiming telephone/computer integration. In the first round, the ITC administrative law judge found one infringed. Today, the full commission peeled the last banana, finding non-infringement. So much for due diligence by Microsoft, member of the Coalition of Patent Fairness, a mega-corporation lobbyist that rails about asserting junk patents.
Posted by Patent Hawk at May 20, 2008 5:02 PM | ITC
All of these BigCorps are like this.
Read Greg Aaronian's column about BigCorps that have $$$$$ for lobbyists, but do not do basic searches before filing.
Then they file junk like IBM's bathroom reservation system patent application, which is supposed to be used "embarrass" the rest of us with meaningful patents and to annectodally "prove" that the patent sysetm is "broken."
Posted by: anonymousAgent at May 21, 2008 1:58 AM
Big multinationals like MShit and IBM are guilty of pulluting US patent system with thousands upon thousands of junk patents, all the while complaining to US Congress about the low quality of patents asserted against them
They want to have their cake and eat it too
Posted by: angry dude at May 21, 2008 5:40 AM
I too do not care for the Microsofts and IBMs resting on their market power. However, I'm curious why you label the lavatory reservation system patent application 20070241927 as "junk"? Is there some empirical reason, or do you just not like the concept itself?
If it is the former, then please state a few reasons. If it is the latter, then that is merely your subjective view. Just because you subjectively find the concept of the invention or the problem that the patent application addresses simplistic or sophomoric does not equate to it being a "junk" patent application.
In my mind, the lavatory reservation application is clearly written and understandable. The claims are present, clear, and short, and the invention is described in reasonable detail. Of course, the claims may very well not meet the standards of novelty or nonobviousness. However, this application is at least clear, addresses a real or perceived problem, and the invention has a market.
On the other hand, "junk" patent applications are those like the perpetual motion machine 20070246939, the imajector 20080068495, and often very poor, direct or machine translations of foreign language applications (I do not have a specific citation, but they are legion). These applications either have no real claims or claims that are almost indecipherable, have little or no description of the invention, and have no market. They are a waste of the public's time, and provide nothing in the way of disclosure. It is these types of applications that are "junk" that should never have been filed, or at least should never have been filed in their presently filed form.
Posted by: anon at May 21, 2008 3:44 PM