Yet another patent that describes a technical "invention" both blatantly obvious, and with apparently well-know prior art: "System and method for obtaining information relating to an item of commerce using a portable imaging device".
A method, system, and apparatus are provided for allowing users to readily obtain information associated with a selected item from a remote location. More specifically, a user at the location of the first entity operates a portable imaging device to capture an image of identifying data, such as a barcode, that identifies a selected item. The captured image is then communicated to a server operated by a second entity that is different than the first entity to obtain item information (e.g., price, availability, etc.) associated with the selected item. The item information is communicated back to the portable imaging device for display to the user while the user remains at the location of the first entity. In other embodiments, the information extracted from the captured image may also be used to forecast future purchasing activity for the selected item.
Regardless whether the USPTO will grant the patent to Amazon, reading the corresponding Slashdot story made me realize that Slashdot has been a pretty good resource to check the validity of patents of a technical nature; lots of people active in diverse fields and of varying degrees of expertise read these stories, and a certain percentage is willing to comment on them. Chances are someone has already done prior art; and chances are someone reading the Slashdot story knows about that, or was even a creator of prior art.
Checking the validity of a patent is a long and tedious process, and it requires technical expertise in arbitrarily specific fields, which means there are often only a handful of people in the world who can assess a patent's value, and those are usually not the same people who validate the patent. So why is this process not done in public?
In a way, patents are already publicly fact-checked, of course; but this is done in informal circles, disconnected from the actual process. In online fora, discussion groups, at the water cooler and on Slashdot.
But: few patents get the kind of attention that this particular patent has, and others of its ilk (cf. the infamous Amazon "one click"-patent).
And: the USPTO does not read Slashdot.
Well, they should.
Of course there need to be mechanisms to reduce conflict of interest, and ways to separate objective assessment from opinion; but as a means of collecting anecdotes and obscure knowledge, and as a means of disclosing bogus patents, the wisdom of crowds is unsurpassable. Communities are great to do fact-checking.
What a great idea. I'm on fire! Now who do I speak to regarding this?
(Sir? I would like to apply for a patent. I have devised a means of validating patent applications that removes the strain from the individual USPTO officer. It will revolutionize the world of patents. Oh, and it will put you out of your job.)
But then, a little research would probably reveal lots of prior art for this idea. After all, opening tedious processes to social networks is a commodity idea by now, so somebody has probably tried to apply that to the process of evaluating patent applications.
Comments
Comments are closed. You can contact me instead.