IP: last -- Patent Absurdity

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 17:45:47 -0500 (EST)
> From: Gregory Aharonian <srctran () world std com>
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Subject: Re:  IP: Patent Absurdity
>
> Dave,
>         If you have bandwidth or stupid patents, here are two more.
> Greg AHaronian
>
> !20020103  IBM's crappiest crapping patent; recent dumb software patent
>
>     I will be releasing updated software patent statistics sometime this
> spring (assuming I can generate any excitement to do so).  Based on
> preliminary data, for the most part, the PTO has made zero progress with
> software patent quality when it comes to the handling of non-patent prior
> art.  Nothing surprising here, since corporate America and the patent bar
> still refuse to treat this issue credibly or professionally. Two recently
> issued crappy patents illustrate all of this.
>
>                                       ====
>
> For those of you waiting in line to give me crap for so often using the
> word "crap", I say, using the doctrine of equivalents for the following
> patent I wish to license, I will sue the crap out of you if you do so.
> I wish I had enough imagination to make this stuff up.  And to anarchists
> trying to eliminate all forms of patenting, I ask you, aren't occasional
> headaches due to patents a small price to pay for incenting inventors
> to add the following to the wisdom of civilization?????
>
>
>
>     U.S. Patent 6,329,919
>     System and method for providing reservations for restroom use
>     IBM (filed Aug. 2000)
>     Abstract
>
>     The present invention is an apparatus, system, and method for
>     providing reservations for restroom use. In one embodiment, a
>     passenger on an airplane may submit a reservation request to the
>     system for restroom use. The reservation system determines when
>     the request can be accommodated and notifies the passenger when
>     a restroom becomes available. The system improves airline safety
>     by minimizing the time passengers spent standing while an airplane
>     is in flight.
>
>     What is claimed is:
>
>     1. A method of providing reservations for restroom use, comprising:
>
>         receiving a reservation request from a user; and
>
>         notifying the user when the restroom is available for his or
>         her use.
>
> HUH?   HUH?   HUH?   HUH?   HUH?   HUH?   HUH?   HUH?   HUH?   HUH?   HUH?
>
>
>     2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising assigning a
>     reservation number in response to the request.
>
>     3. The method according to claim 2, wherein said assigning the number
>     assigns number based on a set of priority rules.
>
>     4. The method according to claim 2, wherein said assigning the number
>     assigns number on a first come, first served basis.
>
>     5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising providing
>     the user with an approximate waiting time.
>
>     6. The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining
>     whether the reservation is cancelled.
>
>     7. The method according to claim 1, wherein said reservations are
>     provided on an airplane.
>
>     8. The method according to claim 1, wherein said reservations are
>     provided on a passenger train or boat.
>
>     9. The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining
>     whether the user has entered the restroom within a predetermined
>     time period.
>
>     10. The method according to claim 1, wherein said restroom is stocked
>     with toilet paper with the words of Rule 56 printed on them.
>
> Okay, so I made up the claim 10.
>
>                               ====================
>
> Another case in point, a randomly selected patent issued in October 2001:
>
>         U.S. Patent 6,297,439
>         System and method for automatic music generation using a neural
>             network architecture
>         (filed in August 1999 - August 1998 priority date)
>         Canon K.K.
>
> IT CITES NO NON-PATENT PRIOR ART, which to anyone who reads the Computer
> Music Journal is utterly hilarious.  No wonder Japanese companies are in
> so much trouble if they have money to blow on such stupid crappy patents.
>
>     Had anyone bothered to look, so that the patent could issue without
> CITING NO NON-PATENT PRIOR ART, here is some non-patent prior art (and
> there is much more, I didn't want to waste more than five minutes looking
> for such stuff) that together pretty much renders the patent null and
> void:
>
>
>     Experimental study on arranging music by chaotic neural network
>     Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, April 1997, vol.12, (no.4):323-39
>
>     Generalization tests on an improved neural network for music composition
>     Int. J. of Modelling and Simulation, 1995, vol.15, (no.4):163-8
>
>     Neural networks for a simpler control of synthesis algorithm of musical
>         tones and for their compression.
>     Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Signal Processing
>     Applications and Technology, 1994. p. 1240-5 vol.2.
>
>     Interactive music composer based on neural networks.
>     Fujitsu Scientific and Technical Journal, Summer 1993, (no.2):189-92.
>
>     Machine-generated music with themes.
>     Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference (ICANN-92), p. 1645-6
>
>     The neural composer: a network for musical applications.
>     Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference (ICANN-92), p. 1663-6
>
>     A high performance music composer based on a modified Jordan network.
>     Fifth Italian Workshop. Neural Nets WIRN VIETRI-92, 1992. p. 280-5.
>
>     Principles of the design of D-neuronal networks. I. Net representation
>         for computer simulation of a melody compositional process.
>     International Journal of Neural Systems, 1992, vol.3, (no.1):65-73.
>
>     Principles of the design of D-neuronal networks. II. Composing simple
>         melodies.
>     International Journal of Neural Systems, 1992, vol.3, (no.1):75-82.
>
>     A neural network for music composition.
>     Proc. of the Tenth IASTED International Conference, 1992. p. 211-14.
>
>     Neural based methods for music composition.
>     International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 1991. p. 918 vol.2.
>
>     NEUROGEN, musical composition using genetic algorithms and cooperating
>         neural networks.
>     Second IEE Int. Conf. on Artificial Neural Networks, 1991. p. 309-13.
>
>     A neural network that learns to play in different music styles.
>     ICMC Glasgow 1990. Proceedings, 1990. p. 311-13.
>
>
> Surprise, surprise, surprise.  It is crap like this that provides fuel to
> the fire of the arguments of those trying to eliminate (software) patents.
> Applicants seeking such patents are doing nothing more than showing
> contempt for both invention and patenting.  When is the patent world going
> to grow up about the handling of non-patent prior art?
>
> Greg Aharonian
> Internet Patent News Service

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/