In this post:
· fun at the typical European anti-software-patent nonsense
· Payment issues in the Hollywood script writers’ strike
· Was the first clickable flashy Web ad used in ..... 1981?
· Patent used to confirm paintings are not Pollock’s
· Would jazz festivals be patentable?
· Is “system” a vague term?
ANTI-SOFTWARE-PATENT NONSENSE IN EUROPE
UK attorney David Musker has written a
satire of anti-software-patent nonsense in
Europe: “The great free bear debate, or what ales
the patent system?”. Great satire. He should
be appointed head of the EPO Board of Appeals -
the decisions, if not more rational, will at least be
more entertaining. Read here
PAYMENT ISSUES IN THE HOLLYWOOD SCRIPT WRITERS’ STRIKE
If you are following the script writers’ strike in Hollywood and New York,
one main question is what they are actually arguing about, beyond that the
writers want more money. The 1 December issue of the New York Times,
page B4, has some specific examples:
The [writers’ guild] leaders said, for instance that [the new
contract] would pay only $250 for a year’s reuse of an
hour-long program streamed on the Web, in contrast to the
$20,000 currently paid for a network re-run.
The producers have offered writers the same residual rate [for
downloaded films and shows] they pay for DVDs, which works out
to 0.36 percent of wholesale revenues, which amounts to pennies
per DVD but tens of thousands of dollars on the millions of
copies of even modest hits; writers are seeking a rate of 2.5
percent.
[A writers’ guild leader] said guild leaders were “pleased”
to know that [entertainment] companies were now offering an
economic package they say will add $130 million to the $1.3
billion they already pay writers.
$20,000 - multiples of $10,000 - $130 million - $1.3 billion - large
amounts of money for the rights to scripts. Why?
Because NEW scripts and their DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF plot PROCESSES,
at these levels of money, ARE very CONCRETE, TANGIBLE and USEFUL. :-)
WAS THE FIRST CLICKABLE FLASHY WEB AD USED IN ..... 1981?
I recently came across a 1981 book on videotext that mentioned something
called Adflashes, which seems to have anticipated flashy Web ads by over
10 years:
”The advertisement flash, or ‘adflash’, technique consists of
drawing attention to an advertisement on another page by
flashing characters to induce you to request that page .....
The adflash technique attempts to mix editorial and advertising
in traditional newspaper fashion. However, the reader/viewer
for the first time has to press a button to see advertisements,
.... The efficacy of adflashes is questionable at this stage in
the development of Prestel.”
The first clickable Web ad was sold by GNN in 1993 to a law firm, 12 years
after adflashes. Another reminder that much of the innovation in the
Internet had to do with marketing, not technology - the eternal legacy
of Microsoft.
PATENT USED TO CONFIRM PAINTINGS ARE NOT POLLOCK’S
Tne 29 November 2007 New York Times, page C16, has an article on the
disputed authenticity of some recently discovered paintings attributed
to Jackson Pollack. In 2002/2003, the son of artists friends of Pollock
found, in a storage locker, 32 paintings supposedly done by Pollock. Art
experts have been arguing since then if the paintings are authentic or not.
The initial art reviewers said they were authentic, but later art experts
said they weren’t.
One recent study, done by Richard Newman of the Museum of Fine Arts in
Boston, found that for two of the nine paintings Newman looked at, the
two paintings contained a pigment first known to have been patented by
Ciba-Geigy in 1983. Since Pollock died in 1956, the painting is either
not his, or it is one of his painting that has since been altered. There
are also mismatches between the paints used in the 32 paintings, and
paints found in Pollock’s studio.
One for the patent detectives. I remember years ago hearing about a
murder case where the murder victim was bound with an unidentifiable
type of tape. However there was a number on the tape that detectives
realized was a patent number, and used information from the patent in
their case.
What next - Law and Order - Alexandria? In the first episode, a dead
body is found floating in the Potomac with the sign “3(b)” scratched
out on the chest by the victim. Oooooooh, sounds mysterious!
WOULD JAZZ FESTIVALS, IF NOVEL TODAY, BE PATENTABLE?
The November 28 edition of the New York Times, page C12, has an obituary
for Elaine Lorillard, a founder of the Newport Jazz Festival, which in
turn has inspired jazz festivals around the world. Lorillard was a
socialite married to Louis Lorillard, a descendant of Pierre Lorillard,
who found the P. Lorillard Tobacco Company in 1760.
Here’s the interesting question in light of the questionable illogic of
KSR/Graham - if jazz festivals did not exist today (102 novelty for a 101
business method with an easy to create 112 description), would the idea
be unobvious enough to be patentable under 103? And if so today, if
State Street existed in 1954 (the year of the first Jazz festival), would
jazz festivals have been patentable in 1954?
First, the motivation for Lorillard to create the jazz festivals. From
the obituary:
It was a casual remark during intermission at a classical
concert in Newport in 1953 that inspired the Lorillards to
sponsor the first Newport Jazz Festival. Mrs. Lorillard,
already a jazz fan, was seated next to John Maxon, then head
of the Rhode Island School of Design Museum.
”It’s too bad we can’t do something like this for jazz.”, he
said. “That’s another music form that’s worth a big-time
festival.”
The Lorillards got in touch with George Wein, then the owner
of a jazz club in Boston, and asked him to produce that first
festival.
A priori, let’s assume that the business method of jazz festivals meets
101 via State Street, 102 via no prior art, and 112 via a good lawyer.
One simple question remains: are jazz festivals obvious? The examiner
issues an Official Notice rejection with little explanation other than
citing the prior art of non-jazz outdoor festivals, “obviously” combined
with jazz. Indeed, outdoor music festivals have been around for centuries.
The applicant comes back and argues, using KSR, “You can’t make that
objection, it’s hindsight analysis. After all, its been 50 years since
the invention of Jazz (Buddy Bolden and Jelly Roll Morton in 1905). It’s
a clear failure of others to invent. And 50 years is the length of time
the Supreme Court felt comfortable with in Goodyear for something to be
unobvious.”
Who wins? I quote from Goodyear Tire v. Ray-O-Vac, a 1944 Supreme Court
case (321 U.S. 275, 278), which KSR rests on via citation chains:
”We think this case is one of the category of inventions which,
when viewed after disclosure and explanation by the applicant,
seem simple and such as should have been obvious to those in
the field. Yet this does not necessarily [negate] invention
or patentability.”
The next sentence:
”During a period of a half century .....................”
The same half century between the invention of jazz and the existence of
outdoor music festivals, and the invention of the outdoor jazz festival.
An obvious combination (jazz + outdoor music) or not? Obvious combination
or not in light of this foundation language for hindsight bias in Goodyear?
And thus, patentable to not?
I say patentable. There is too much judicial handwaving going on to try
to give meaning to the completely vague 35 USC 103. Inventors should not
be penalized for the incompetence of Congress and the courts, and their
arrogance that they think they understand “obvious” - they don’t.
IS “SYSTEM” A VAGUE TERM?
A reader sent in the following paragraph from an Office Action,
obviously a less-trained examiner:
”Claims 55-66 recite ‘system’ which is vague and indefinite
since a system may be one of several different statutory
classes of invention (including a method or an apparatus).
Applicant must indicate on the record to what statutory
class of invention the system claims belong. For the purposes
of this examination these claims are considered apparatus.”
How do you respond? “Our system claims are for systems that belong to
the statutory class of systems.” “System” claims appear in zillions
of patent - articles of manufacture (systems are comprised of multiple
manufactured apparati). PTO entanglement should shut up about rules changes
until it fixes its many current problems, like Peterlin making it easier
for Chinese spies to steal American secrets by bugging the homes of her
teleworking examiners. See a previous post on claims.
Give an Oscar to the cartoon's creator(s) for being the most unique funny video addressing such a character in US history, the rigmarole he is leaving behind and the snafus he has not (lucky you and me) have the chance to execute.
The video has a tastefully light finish, wherein Dubya the Curious George Cowboy rides into the sunset, which seems to be after the nuclear war-like destruction with the oil rigs in the background, while wind turbines telescope out of the ground and start spinning while the sky turns jubilant with an Obama-esque rainbow. Therapeutically pleasing.
I think lame duck is an understatement. The video offers us comedy relief while reliving the last eight years of the mess.
