IBM Patents Half-day Out of Office Notifications(patft.uspto.gov)
patft.uspto.gov
IBM Patents Half-day Out of Office Notifications
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,095,941.PN.&OS=PN/8,095,941&RS=PN/8,095,941
9 comments
If I'm reading it correctly, the patent covers a very specific implementation, even mentioning use of EJB. Presumably an implementation on a different stack couldn't infringe.
Not necessarily. Patents commonly discuss specific implementations but qualify them as just one of many possible "embodiments" of the invention.
Incorrect. Only what is specifically claimed (in the claims themselves) holds up in court.
The key requirement in that is going to court.
Exactly - no matter now badwrong the patent, it still takes time and money to go to court, and the kind of people that IBM will be using this patent against don't have that time or that money.
The key is to read the claims (particularly the independent ones) - that is the only part of a patent that holds water.
In this case, the first independent claim is seriously narrow. The OP's title is extremely misleading.
In this case, the first independent claim is seriously narrow. The OP's title is extremely misleading.
This is what I read in the claims section:
"What is claimed is:
1. A system for generating an electronic notification containing a portion of a day out of office notice, ..." (and then goes on to explain its implementation).
Could you please tell me how the title is misleading?
"What is claimed is:
1. A system for generating an electronic notification containing a portion of a day out of office notice, ..." (and then goes on to explain its implementation).
Could you please tell me how the title is misleading?
"This invention relates in general to personal information management applications, and more particularly, to a system that generates an electronic notice that displays a portion of a day out of office notice."
Surely this quote is actually from a Monty Python sketch and not an official patent issued by the USA.
Surely this quote is actually from a Monty Python sketch and not an official patent issued by the USA.
You haven't seen their "method and process for swinging a mackerel at high angular velocity in the direction of a colleague's face" yet then, have you?
I patent in your general direction.
It's not, and don't call me "Shirley".
Every patent application needs these three questions answered:
1. What's novel about this?
2. What's not obvious about this to an average professional in this field?
3. What is useful about this?
Right, but money has a way of figuring out 1 and 2.
Seriously, if they get awarded this patent, I'm just going to go through everything I can think of and file patents for half. Apple patents "swipe", I'll patent the "half swipe". Microsoft patents "avoid Ghetto" GPS feature, I'll patent the "avoid areas near a Walmart" feature.
Seriously, if they get awarded this patent, I'm just going to go through everything I can think of and file patents for half. Apple patents "swipe", I'll patent the "half swipe". Microsoft patents "avoid Ghetto" GPS feature, I'll patent the "avoid areas near a Walmart" feature.
Has anyone ever tried starting a community effort, something like IP Commons?
[edit: I just duck'd and fished this out patentcommons.org but the site is down.]
[edit: I just duck'd and fished this out patentcommons.org but the site is down.]
Thanks for the link. I mean, why not start a non-profit "open source" patent organization and start filing patents and hold ownership in commons; GPL for IP. Two can play this game, right?
I'd go as far as to add a "Why should we give this to you?" question, because honestly, why should IBM get a patent over this?
What kind of patent is novel, non obvious and useful, but should not be patentable?
A software patent.
Why should an invention that is novel, non obvious and useful, be patentable if it's hardware but not if it's software?
Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, no idea if you'll see it. One aspect to the answer (and I am not a patent expert by any means) has to do with the much longer time-to-market represented by hardware development--hardware innovation would not be economically viable without the protection that patents provide. The same is not generally true of software development, and many argue that software patents are instead an impediment to progress (because other programmers are unable to build on existing innovations).
Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status.
Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status.
> One aspect to the answer (and I am not a patent expert by any means) has to do with the much longer time-to-market represented by hardware development--hardware innovation would not be economically viable without the protection that patents provide.
I don't buy that.
> Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status.
Copyright just protects expression.
Suppose I invent a new way to compute shortest paths through a graph. Why is that less deserving of a patent than a new way type of gearing. Why should "protection" be limited to "don't copy my bits"?
Consider automatic transmission control. You're suggesting that it should be patentable if done mechanically but not if done via software. How does that make sense?
Disclosure: I have both hardware and software patents. I don't see a big difference between them.
I don't buy that.
> Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status.
Copyright just protects expression.
Suppose I invent a new way to compute shortest paths through a graph. Why is that less deserving of a patent than a new way type of gearing. Why should "protection" be limited to "don't copy my bits"?
Consider automatic transmission control. You're suggesting that it should be patentable if done mechanically but not if done via software. How does that make sense?
Disclosure: I have both hardware and software patents. I don't see a big difference between them.
I readily concede that the situation is more nuanced than "software patents are bad". However, I think we are coming at it from two different perspectives. You seem to be suggesting that ideas are innately deserving of protection. I don't share that point of view.
For fear of beating a dead horse, let me put it this way: (should I be made King) I would do away with patents altogether if that didn't mean removing all incentive for innovation. For physical inventions, patents foster innovation by ensuring that the inventor will have time to bring their invention to market before a competitor. (I mean no snark at all, but I believe the previous sentence to be generally true whether you buy it or not.) For software, the market does a great job of fostering innovation and so I don't see the advantage of software patents (and that is obviously where our views differ). If a person or a corporation believe that a certain software method offers them a particular advantage, they will retain it as a trade secret regardless.
For fear of beating a dead horse, let me put it this way: (should I be made King) I would do away with patents altogether if that didn't mean removing all incentive for innovation. For physical inventions, patents foster innovation by ensuring that the inventor will have time to bring their invention to market before a competitor. (I mean no snark at all, but I believe the previous sentence to be generally true whether you buy it or not.) For software, the market does a great job of fostering innovation and so I don't see the advantage of software patents (and that is obviously where our views differ). If a person or a corporation believe that a certain software method offers them a particular advantage, they will retain it as a trade secret regardless.
> For physical inventions, patents foster innovation by ensuring that the inventor will have time to bring their invention to market before a competitor.
That's one reason. Another is to get disclosure of the useful pieces.
However, you're making some interesting assumptions about software.
Why should I spend $1M to bring something innovative to market if it can be copied instantly by a competitor?
You seem to think that WO patents, the answer is different for hardware and software. Why? (No, hardware vs software doesn't provide a time distinction.)
Note that trade secrets can't be used in every situation.
That's one reason. Another is to get disclosure of the useful pieces.
However, you're making some interesting assumptions about software.
Why should I spend $1M to bring something innovative to market if it can be copied instantly by a competitor?
You seem to think that WO patents, the answer is different for hardware and software. Why? (No, hardware vs software doesn't provide a time distinction.)
Note that trade secrets can't be used in every situation.
Why should I spend $1M to bring something innovative to market if it can be copied instantly by a competitor?
You seem to think that WO patents, the answer is different for hardware and software. Why?
Because software companies have shown repeatedly that it's possible to bring something innovative to market for much less than $1M, and the exceptions usually occur when the innovation builds upon previously patented (and expensive to license) technology. This discourages small independent development in favour of larger companies, which is probably the crux of the problem as I see it.
Manufacturing and marketing a new physical device, on the other hand, can rarely be done for less than $1M (or rather, for applications of comparable complexity I think it is fair to say that producing a software widget will almost always involve less initial overhead than a hardware widget, especially at market scale).
That's where my assumptions come from. I know that trade secrets can't be used in every situation, and I accept that software patents may make sense in a minority of cases. I still think we'd be better off without them.
At any rate, I can see this conversation continuing for a long time, and I don't think it will accomplish anything, so this will be my last comment on the thread. Thank you though (sincerely) for your intelligent discourse.
You seem to think that WO patents, the answer is different for hardware and software. Why?
Because software companies have shown repeatedly that it's possible to bring something innovative to market for much less than $1M, and the exceptions usually occur when the innovation builds upon previously patented (and expensive to license) technology. This discourages small independent development in favour of larger companies, which is probably the crux of the problem as I see it.
Manufacturing and marketing a new physical device, on the other hand, can rarely be done for less than $1M (or rather, for applications of comparable complexity I think it is fair to say that producing a software widget will almost always involve less initial overhead than a hardware widget, especially at market scale).
That's where my assumptions come from. I know that trade secrets can't be used in every situation, and I accept that software patents may make sense in a minority of cases. I still think we'd be better off without them.
At any rate, I can see this conversation continuing for a long time, and I don't think it will accomplish anything, so this will be my last comment on the thread. Thank you though (sincerely) for your intelligent discourse.
> Because software companies have shown repeatedly that it's possible to bring something innovative to market for much less than $1M,
That wasn't the question, and isn't relevant unless you're claiming (1) that all software costs less than $1M or (2) you'll allow software patents for things that cost more than $1M to produce.
The first is clearly false while the second doesn't make sense.
> Manufacturing and marketing a new physical device
Ah yes, marketing. Are you claiming that software is inherently inexpensive to market? If so, you just told me that you think everything is web-based eye candy. Enterprise doesn't work that way, neither does medical, and so on.
> I think it is fair to say that producing a software widget will almost always involve less initial overhead than a hardware widget, especially at market scale).
But, is the difference significant compared to the other costs? (Having been involved in both, I think that the difference is a lot smaller than is required for your argument.)
Thank you for your comments.
That wasn't the question, and isn't relevant unless you're claiming (1) that all software costs less than $1M or (2) you'll allow software patents for things that cost more than $1M to produce.
The first is clearly false while the second doesn't make sense.
> Manufacturing and marketing a new physical device
Ah yes, marketing. Are you claiming that software is inherently inexpensive to market? If so, you just told me that you think everything is web-based eye candy. Enterprise doesn't work that way, neither does medical, and so on.
> I think it is fair to say that producing a software widget will almost always involve less initial overhead than a hardware widget, especially at market scale).
But, is the difference significant compared to the other costs? (Having been involved in both, I think that the difference is a lot smaller than is required for your argument.)
Thank you for your comments.
I wrote code for an employer in 2000 or 2001 that checked against a user's availability, which could be as precise as a half hour, and sent out of office notifications back to the sender of an email that "While so and so will be happy to answer your question, please be aware that they are not on shift until later this afternoon. If your concern is immediate, please call the help desk at blah blah blah."
I wish I'd patented it then, cause I guess IBM would be infringing.
I wish I'd patented it then, cause I guess IBM would be infringing.
I think open sourcing this wouldnt take long. Basically a transaction-al email is sent based on data in a user system. The fact that the patent is for email communication that contains a "notification containing a portion of a da out of office notice. " ... is just ... ridiculous.
A very thorough examination: filed 2006 granted 2012. But i understand why it took so long, they also had to invent multi-base fractional numbers (days hours and minutes: "timestamp to-the-minute" is repeated eight times in the claim) to support the invention. Who had heard that before.
Coming next: a patent that supports notifications accurate "to the second".
Coming next: a patent that supports notifications accurate "to the second".
My second thought was how I will be required to set this up anytime my schedule for a day is a bit unusual :-(
Method and device for making office life suck even more...
Method and device for making office life suck even more...
Sounds like the patent examiner was test-driving this invention himself.
Would explain quite a bit about PTO.
Would explain quite a bit about PTO.
6 minute abs!
Exclamation. Adjective adjective noun, exclamation.