Microsoft pay-as-you-go patent application rejected
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted January 2nd 2009 5:18PM
posted January 2nd 2009 5:18PM
Sorry folks -- we know that you were looking forward to a future of "pay to play" computing, but it seems that Microsoft's application has been soundly dissed by the patent office. Reasons for the decision include the company's "occasional use of fuzzy terminology" and the fact that much of this stuff has already been patented. Of course, the decision can be appealed -- but for the time being, if you still want to pay monthly for a computer AT&T has a netbook for you.
[Via Electronista]
[Via Electronista]
And no one really cares...
How many Apple patents have been rejected?
"Reasons for the decision include the company's "occasional use of fuzzy terminology" and the fact that much of this stuff has already been patented."
Wow, I think that this may be the first time that the above mentioned reason has ever stopped a patent from going through.
Why is this a new thing? They have been piloting this for the past two years in India under a program called Flexgo. AFAIK, not a success. More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_FlexGo
This isn't how the PTO normally operates (for one thing, they got back to Microsoft really fast). I'm thinking your original source misreported what really happened, and it was really just a common indefiniteness rejection, which is very easy to correct. For those of you who are not up on how patents really work (and judging from the reporting and commenting, that is nearly everyone), when the PTO say "No," it usually means "Maybe, if you pay us another filing fee."
As others have noted, this isn't unusual. The rules are convoluted (and probably changing soon), but its normal to have 2-3 rejections on a patent application. In extreme cases you can rack up a lot more, if you count things like continuations and appeals. If you want to read the rejection, you can view it on the USPTO website. Look for something called "Public PAIR" and search for the application number.
As for the USPTO not operating "normally" here, the application was filed about a year and a half ago. That's still fast for the USPTO, but its not unheard of. Plus, this application is related to another patent application, so if its similar enough it wouldn't take much time to review on the part of the examiner.