Slashdot Mirror

The very oldest hyperlink patent is for programing and is avalible Here. The Second "A technique for navigating between a first and second object in an object-oriented computer system" which could apply here,but still probably doesn't
This is probably the oldest having to do with anything like that:A reader for displaying an electronic document stored in a predetermined format and allowing articles of the document to be read in the direction of their content information flow
These are the best I could find.

The very oldest hyperlink patent is for programing and is avalible Here. The Second "A technique for navigating between a first and second object in an object-oriented computer system" which could apply here,but still probably doesn't
This is probably the oldest having to do with anything like that:A reader for displaying an electronic document stored in a predetermined format and allowing articles of the document to be read in the direction of their content information flow
These are the best I could find.

The very oldest hyperlink patent is for programing and is avalible Here. The Second "A technique for navigating between a first and second object in an object-oriented computer system" which could apply here,but still probably doesn't
This is probably the oldest having to do with anything like that:A reader for displaying an electronic document stored in a predetermined format and allowing articles of the document to be read in the direction of their content information flow
These are the best I could find.

From this url given elsewhere by another poster, I looked up all the patents that Thomson Multimedia and Fraunhofer have in the US (apparently some weren't approved in US but in other countries). With all the hub-ub about overbroad/silly patents I thought I could go read some in more detail. The list of patten numbers is:

• 5,742,735
• 5,455,833
• 5,579,430
• 5,559,834
• 5,703,999
• 5,706,309
• 5,736,943
• 5,701,346
• 4,942,607
• 5,214,742
• 5,227,990
• 5,384,811
• 5,321,729
• 4,821,260

Some interesting things I noted:

1. I know something about math (and signal processing) and I couldn't decipher what was meant by a lot of them. In other words, how can the patent office people decide if an application is a valid patent if the application is incoherent? I know that specialists are supposed to look at applications for patents in their field but they might not be up to speed about everything in their field. Yeah, they might reject it for that reason but aren't they just as likely to approve it, thinking "maybe I'm just stupid/ignorant about this sub-field."
2. They seem to be fairly specific (although specificity doesn't necessarily mean something is patentable).
3. These "ominous words" were found at the end of patent #5,579,430, titled "Digital encoding process":
   • Although the invention has been described and illustrated in detail, it is to be clearly understood that the same is by way of illustration and example, and is not to be taken by way of limitation. The spirit and scope of the present invention are to be limited only by the terms of the appended claims.
   Since most of the patents I found did not specify that the encoded signal had to be audio, this seems like they have a patent on any use of whatever their algorithms are trying to do (which I found not very clear...) In other words, it is almost like somebody patented a specific hash table function (I'm sure someone has) and then patented it specifically for application X, but didn't rule out the possibility of "owning" it in any application that uses hash functions.

4. All of the above must be taken with at grain of salt because the legal-ese in the patents (especially the beginnings where the claims are listed) is very weird and I had trouble deciphering what kind of math they were getting at. Not to mention one could spend days if not weeks reading them all and all supplemental material. Overall it looks like Ogg would have to include some very specific algorithms to be infringing (unless just the fact that the patents claim to patent one method of doing a certain type/part of encoding signals is enough to claim infringement--i.e. one form of encoding algorithm counts as owning them all...but that doesn't seem very reasonable.)

   Rachael

Don't just read the abstract. CDDB claims 19 components comprise its patent, none of which extend on CDDB.

The USPTO has Full text available at this location.

Basicly the patent claims a centralised database, accessible over phone lines, of information pertaining to audio recordings, accessible through the generation of a unique key based on the lengths of tracks on that recording medium. While the patent article explains in great detail how this could be synchronized with a web browser or IRC client, the claims describe a far more generic patent that could concievably conflict with FreeDB.

First, there is no such animal as a "North American Patent" there are Canadian patents, and there are U.S. patents, but there are no "North American patents."

Second, you can not get a patent for "a secret formulation", since in order to obtain the patent, the formulation must be disclosed.

Third, I did a search of the U.S. Patent Office and of the Canadian Patent Office, and found no patents issued to Jocelyne Piret.

So, the above data is obviously wrong. Hope you didn't get all riled up.

I do expect that there is a patent application pending for this. However, that is not necessarily a problem, if the patent is licensed, either for a nominal fee or free. So, don't get annoyed before you have all the facts.

Thalia

Patent 5,735,548

I take that back. The patent they refer to is completely different. So it's bogus.

The patent refrenced above on "method of playing games" can be found here in the US Patent Office's own database.

The patent of a screen cover protection is not a hoax, as can easily be verified by checking the patent number RE35,318 at the US patent office homepage database.

Could it be here?

Unfortunately, that one's for real. Do I still qualify for the prize?

Uh, British Telcom dosent have to go through the Unites States Patent Office.

You can find it by going to the USPTO search by patent number, selecting patent number search and entering 5,443,036.

the invention must be "useful,novel, and unobvious"

Unobvious it ain't. It seems to me that the 1-click patent is merely an online extension of the long-established and widely-used business practise of a client having an account with a supplier and being able to order goods or services without having to supply billing/delivery information each time an order is placed. Instead, you use an account number.

Not to mention that the "client identifier" from Amazon's patent sounds awfully like a cookie to me.

D.
..is for Dumb Patents.

1. there is an Internet Explorer exploit that allows any website to
2. any cookie on your machine.

1. Multiple people may use the same computer.

Actually, if you take a close look at these patents, you have to ask yourself "What's going on here???".

First, let's backtrack to the one patent that we know that Digital Convergence has.

That would be this one:
Patent #6,098,106 Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal. Granted Aug 1, 2000

This one references the above patents mentioned in parent post. We know this patent by that cable you can plug from your TV to your computer.

What is interesting is this little blurb in the patent;

This application is related to copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/151,471, entitled, "METHOD FOR INTERFACING SCANNED PRODUCT INFORMATION WITH A SOURCE FOR THE PRODUCT OVER A GLOBAL NETWORK" filed of even date herewith.

But this patent has yet to be granted, and is probably the one that they think is going to (or already does in their minds) protect their IP.

Call me a nit picker, but isn't "global network" the same as "the internet"???

isn't that the same as "clent/server"????

So if they manage to get this patent (I wouldn't put it beyond the patent office), they would essentially be patenting location.

But this raises a deeper question (like from an outhouse :)), Isn't "Global Network" the same as "Web Browser". Parsing "Web Browser" (I know, it's sinking lower, but it's not my fault), it is intended to mean (or is a shorter version of) "World Wide Web Browser".

So, isn't "World Wide Web" or "Global Network" or "Internet" interchangable??

Maybe this is one of those "Business Methods" patents. If it is, then it might be infringing on this patent;

patent #5,918,214 System and method for finding product and service related information on the internet. IPF inc - filed Oct 25, 1996 - granted June 29, 1999 Classification 705/27:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:Electronic shopping (e.g., remote ordering) - Presentation of image or description of sales item (e.g., electronic catalog browsing).

Let's review the Neomedia patent;

patent #5,978,773 System and method for using an ordinary article of commerce to access a remote computer. Neomedia Technologies - filed Oct 3, 1995 - granted Sept 2, 1999 Classification 705/23:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:. Including point of sale terminal or electronic cash register - . . Input by product or record sensing (weighing, scanner processing).

Then, let's compare it to this one;

patent #5,804,803 Mechanism for retrieving information using data encoded on an objectIBM - filed April 2, 1996 - granted - Sept 8, 1998 Classification 235/375:REGISTERS:SYSTEMS CONTROLLED BY DATA BEARING RECORDS.

First, let me state that IANAL before I make these observations;

Clearly, what is been patented here is "use" more than anything. The claims on some of these patents are so utterly specific that half a turn on a screw would make them a different patent. One could cogently argue that novelty is lost in the patent office. The IBM patent while filed later than Neomedia one seems to cover the actual working setup, in which case Digital Convergence may need a license from them (if they don't have one already). What's left is "The doing business this way" patents.

Second; this is valid if and only if all these patents are valid (Hold up in court). So, if you are hauled into court remember that chances are quite high that the judge will be technically illiterate and judgement may rest on who dresses the nicest.

Third; No business practice should interfere with freedom of speech. I am positive that allot of IP holders are assuming now that they are empowered to control what you say. Again, depending on which judge they may be able to buy, they might be right.

Fourth; I just covered scanning "objects". There's a whole slew of Metrologic patents that cover scannning "printed" barcodes and going to the internet and variations thereof. I wonder if Digital Convergence has licensed those?? Maybe they think that they can use "slanted line barcodes" like in the radioshack catalog and that makes it different. Knowing the patent office, that could be the case. But if I were Metrologic I'd be looking for a piece of DC's butt.

Fifth; IBM might be reasonable on licensing their patent to GPL applications. This would benifit IBM as it would help validate the use of their patent and find other possible applications for this technology. And as long you don't use your barcode scanner to go to a catalog or show where you can buy something or show it's price (i.e. commercial applications, because there are probably countless variations on a theme here, and other hostile companies like Digital Convergence) you wouldn't be infringing on other patents. They probably will be easier to work with than Digital Convergence in any event.

Most importantly, if I were on the receiving end of one of these letters by Digital Convergence I would find a smart lawyer and have him write a letter back asking for specific information as to what patents/IP (as the DMCA could come into play) you are violating. Without them presenting this information, they really don't have a right to crow. If the patent that they quote is one that they don't own, then they may not have standing. But again, let your lawyer decide that.

As citizens, we really do need to take back our "fair use" rights.

Actually, if you take a close look at these patents, you have to ask yourself "What's going on here???".

First, let's backtrack to the one patent that we know that Digital Convergence has.

That would be this one:
Patent #6,098,106 Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal. Granted Aug 1, 2000

This one references the above patents mentioned in parent post. We know this patent by that cable you can plug from your TV to your computer.

What is interesting is this little blurb in the patent;

This application is related to copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/151,471, entitled, "METHOD FOR INTERFACING SCANNED PRODUCT INFORMATION WITH A SOURCE FOR THE PRODUCT OVER A GLOBAL NETWORK" filed of even date herewith.

But this patent has yet to be granted, and is probably the one that they think is going to (or already does in their minds) protect their IP.

Call me a nit picker, but isn't "global network" the same as "the internet"???

isn't that the same as "clent/server"????

So if they manage to get this patent (I wouldn't put it beyond the patent office), they would essentially be patenting location.

But this raises a deeper question (like from an outhouse :)), Isn't "Global Network" the same as "Web Browser". Parsing "Web Browser" (I know, it's sinking lower, but it's not my fault), it is intended to mean (or is a shorter version of) "World Wide Web Browser".

So, isn't "World Wide Web" or "Global Network" or "Internet" interchangable??

Maybe this is one of those "Business Methods" patents. If it is, then it might be infringing on this patent;

patent #5,918,214 System and method for finding product and service related information on the internet. IPF inc - filed Oct 25, 1996 - granted June 29, 1999 Classification 705/27:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:Electronic shopping (e.g., remote ordering) - Presentation of image or description of sales item (e.g., electronic catalog browsing).

Let's review the Neomedia patent;

patent #5,978,773 System and method for using an ordinary article of commerce to access a remote computer. Neomedia Technologies - filed Oct 3, 1995 - granted Sept 2, 1999 Classification 705/23:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:. Including point of sale terminal or electronic cash register - . . Input by product or record sensing (weighing, scanner processing).

Then, let's compare it to this one;

patent #5,804,803 Mechanism for retrieving information using data encoded on an objectIBM - filed April 2, 1996 - granted - Sept 8, 1998 Classification 235/375:REGISTERS:SYSTEMS CONTROLLED BY DATA BEARING RECORDS.

First, let me state that IANAL before I make these observations;

Clearly, what is been patented here is "use" more than anything. The claims on some of these patents are so utterly specific that half a turn on a screw would make them a different patent. One could cogently argue that novelty is lost in the patent office. The IBM patent while filed later than Neomedia one seems to cover the actual working setup, in which case Digital Convergence may need a license from them (if they don't have one already). What's left is "The doing business this way" patents.

Second; this is valid if and only if all these patents are valid (Hold up in court). So, if you are hauled into court remember that chances are quite high that the judge will be technically illiterate and judgement may rest on who dresses the nicest.

Third; No business practice should interfere with freedom of speech. I am positive that allot of IP holders are assuming now that they are empowered to control what you say. Again, depending on which judge they may be able to buy, they might be right.

Fourth; I just covered scanning "objects". There's a whole slew of Metrologic patents that cover scannning "printed" barcodes and going to the internet and variations thereof. I wonder if Digital Convergence has licensed those?? Maybe they think that they can use "slanted line barcodes" like in the radioshack catalog and that makes it different. Knowing the patent office, that could be the case. But if I were Metrologic I'd be looking for a piece of DC's butt.

Fifth; IBM might be reasonable on licensing their patent to GPL applications. This would benifit IBM as it would help validate the use of their patent and find other possible applications for this technology. And as long you don't use your barcode scanner to go to a catalog or show where you can buy something or show it's price (i.e. commercial applications, because there are probably countless variations on a theme here, and other hostile companies like Digital Convergence) you wouldn't be infringing on other patents. They probably will be easier to work with than Digital Convergence in any event.

Most importantly, if I were on the receiving end of one of these letters by Digital Convergence I would find a smart lawyer and have him write a letter back asking for specific information as to what patents/IP (as the DMCA could come into play) you are violating. Without them presenting this information, they really don't have a right to crow. If the patent that they quote is one that they don't own, then they may not have standing. But again, let your lawyer decide that.

As citizens, we really do need to take back our "fair use" rights.

Actually, if you take a close look at these patents, you have to ask yourself "What's going on here???".

First, let's backtrack to the one patent that we know that Digital Convergence has.

That would be this one:
Patent #6,098,106 Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal. Granted Aug 1, 2000

This one references the above patents mentioned in parent post. We know this patent by that cable you can plug from your TV to your computer.

What is interesting is this little blurb in the patent;

This application is related to copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/151,471, entitled, "METHOD FOR INTERFACING SCANNED PRODUCT INFORMATION WITH A SOURCE FOR THE PRODUCT OVER A GLOBAL NETWORK" filed of even date herewith.

But this patent has yet to be granted, and is probably the one that they think is going to (or already does in their minds) protect their IP.

Call me a nit picker, but isn't "global network" the same as "the internet"???

isn't that the same as "clent/server"????

So if they manage to get this patent (I wouldn't put it beyond the patent office), they would essentially be patenting location.

But this raises a deeper question (like from an outhouse :)), Isn't "Global Network" the same as "Web Browser". Parsing "Web Browser" (I know, it's sinking lower, but it's not my fault), it is intended to mean (or is a shorter version of) "World Wide Web Browser".

So, isn't "World Wide Web" or "Global Network" or "Internet" interchangable??

Maybe this is one of those "Business Methods" patents. If it is, then it might be infringing on this patent;

patent #5,918,214 System and method for finding product and service related information on the internet. IPF inc - filed Oct 25, 1996 - granted June 29, 1999 Classification 705/27:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:Electronic shopping (e.g., remote ordering) - Presentation of image or description of sales item (e.g., electronic catalog browsing).

Let's review the Neomedia patent;

patent #5,978,773 System and method for using an ordinary article of commerce to access a remote computer. Neomedia Technologies - filed Oct 3, 1995 - granted Sept 2, 1999 Classification 705/23:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:. Including point of sale terminal or electronic cash register - . . Input by product or record sensing (weighing, scanner processing).

Then, let's compare it to this one;

patent #5,804,803 Mechanism for retrieving information using data encoded on an objectIBM - filed April 2, 1996 - granted - Sept 8, 1998 Classification 235/375:REGISTERS:SYSTEMS CONTROLLED BY DATA BEARING RECORDS.

First, let me state that IANAL before I make these observations;

Clearly, what is been patented here is "use" more than anything. The claims on some of these patents are so utterly specific that half a turn on a screw would make them a different patent. One could cogently argue that novelty is lost in the patent office. The IBM patent while filed later than Neomedia one seems to cover the actual working setup, in which case Digital Convergence may need a license from them (if they don't have one already). What's left is "The doing business this way" patents.

Second; this is valid if and only if all these patents are valid (Hold up in court). So, if you are hauled into court remember that chances are quite high that the judge will be technically illiterate and judgement may rest on who dresses the nicest.

Third; No business practice should interfere with freedom of speech. I am positive that allot of IP holders are assuming now that they are empowered to control what you say. Again, depending on which judge they may be able to buy, they might be right.

Fourth; I just covered scanning "objects". There's a whole slew of Metrologic patents that cover scannning "printed" barcodes and going to the internet and variations thereof. I wonder if Digital Convergence has licensed those?? Maybe they think that they can use "slanted line barcodes" like in the radioshack catalog and that makes it different. Knowing the patent office, that could be the case. But if I were Metrologic I'd be looking for a piece of DC's butt.

Fifth; IBM might be reasonable on licensing their patent to GPL applications. This would benifit IBM as it would help validate the use of their patent and find other possible applications for this technology. And as long you don't use your barcode scanner to go to a catalog or show where you can buy something or show it's price (i.e. commercial applications, because there are probably countless variations on a theme here, and other hostile companies like Digital Convergence) you wouldn't be infringing on other patents. They probably will be easier to work with than Digital Convergence in any event.

Most importantly, if I were on the receiving end of one of these letters by Digital Convergence I would find a smart lawyer and have him write a letter back asking for specific information as to what patents/IP (as the DMCA could come into play) you are violating. Without them presenting this information, they really don't have a right to crow. If the patent that they quote is one that they don't own, then they may not have standing. But again, let your lawyer decide that.

As citizens, we really do need to take back our "fair use" rights.

Actually, if you take a close look at these patents, you have to ask yourself "What's going on here???".

First, let's backtrack to the one patent that we know that Digital Convergence has.

That would be this one:
Patent #6,098,106 Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal. Granted Aug 1, 2000

This one references the above patents mentioned in parent post. We know this patent by that cable you can plug from your TV to your computer.

What is interesting is this little blurb in the patent;

This application is related to copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/151,471, entitled, "METHOD FOR INTERFACING SCANNED PRODUCT INFORMATION WITH A SOURCE FOR THE PRODUCT OVER A GLOBAL NETWORK" filed of even date herewith.

But this patent has yet to be granted, and is probably the one that they think is going to (or already does in their minds) protect their IP.

Call me a nit picker, but isn't "global network" the same as "the internet"???

isn't that the same as "clent/server"????

So if they manage to get this patent (I wouldn't put it beyond the patent office), they would essentially be patenting location.

But this raises a deeper question (like from an outhouse :)), Isn't "Global Network" the same as "Web Browser". Parsing "Web Browser" (I know, it's sinking lower, but it's not my fault), it is intended to mean (or is a shorter version of) "World Wide Web Browser".

So, isn't "World Wide Web" or "Global Network" or "Internet" interchangable??

Maybe this is one of those "Business Methods" patents. If it is, then it might be infringing on this patent;

patent #5,918,214 System and method for finding product and service related information on the internet. IPF inc - filed Oct 25, 1996 - granted June 29, 1999 Classification 705/27:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:Electronic shopping (e.g., remote ordering) - Presentation of image or description of sales item (e.g., electronic catalog browsing).

Let's review the Neomedia patent;

patent #5,978,773 System and method for using an ordinary article of commerce to access a remote computer. Neomedia Technologies - filed Oct 3, 1995 - granted Sept 2, 1999 Classification 705/23:DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION:. Including point of sale terminal or electronic cash register - . . Input by product or record sensing (weighing, scanner processing).

Then, let's compare it to this one;

patent #5,804,803 Mechanism for retrieving information using data encoded on an objectIBM - filed April 2, 1996 - granted - Sept 8, 1998 Classification 235/375:REGISTERS:SYSTEMS CONTROLLED BY DATA BEARING RECORDS.

First, let me state that IANAL before I make these observations;

Clearly, what is been patented here is "use" more than anything. The claims on some of these patents are so utterly specific that half a turn on a screw would make them a different patent. One could cogently argue that novelty is lost in the patent office. The IBM patent while filed later than Neomedia one seems to cover the actual working setup, in which case Digital Convergence may need a license from them (if they don't have one already). What's left is "The doing business this way" patents.

Second; this is valid if and only if all these patents are valid (Hold up in court). So, if you are hauled into court remember that chances are quite high that the judge will be technically illiterate and judgement may rest on who dresses the nicest.

Third; No business practice should interfere with freedom of speech. I am positive that allot of IP holders are assuming now that they are empowered to control what you say. Again, depending on which judge they may be able to buy, they might be right.

Fourth; I just covered scanning "objects". There's a whole slew of Metrologic patents that cover scannning "printed" barcodes and going to the internet and variations thereof. I wonder if Digital Convergence has licensed those?? Maybe they think that they can use "slanted line barcodes" like in the radioshack catalog and that makes it different. Knowing the patent office, that could be the case. But if I were Metrologic I'd be looking for a piece of DC's butt.

Fifth; IBM might be reasonable on licensing their patent to GPL applications. This would benifit IBM as it would help validate the use of their patent and find other possible applications for this technology. And as long you don't use your barcode scanner to go to a catalog or show where you can buy something or show it's price (i.e. commercial applications, because there are probably countless variations on a theme here, and other hostile companies like Digital Convergence) you wouldn't be infringing on other patents. They probably will be easier to work with than Digital Convergence in any event.

Most importantly, if I were on the receiving end of one of these letters by Digital Convergence I would find a smart lawyer and have him write a letter back asking for specific information as to what patents/IP (as the DMCA could come into play) you are violating. Without them presenting this information, they really don't have a right to crow. If the patent that they quote is one that they don't own, then they may not have standing. But again, let your lawyer decide that.

As citizens, we really do need to take back our "fair use" rights.

Ok, I correct myself: that patent is on the vehicle; on their site they claim to have patented the air-launch method, but the only method-patent I can find is some more obscure flight-path-angle deal. Maybe they were just being vague as a form of advertisement...

Sorry about the deja vu sentence there. I wanted to add that, apparently, Orbital has even patented this launch method. Sheesh.

Digital Island press release

I would post the link to Digital Island's patent, but neither their press release nor the news stories I've seen contain the patent number. A search for "Digital Island" or "Sandpiper" on patents.uspto.gov turns up nothing. Any ideas?

Note that these claims are not for the same thing. Akamai's patent, titled "Global Hosting Service", covers something which is basically their FreeFlow service, down to very specific details. It talks about modifying a site's pages to point at Akamai, using DNS to direct users at the optimal host for them, specific methods of redundancy for web and DNS servers, specific algorithms for overflowing between regions in case of overload (use of a "min-cost multicommodity flow algorithm"), and so forth. While I'm not keen on software patents in general, this seems like one of the less sinister ones; it is nonobvious and highly specific, not a patent-the-world sort of thing.

Digital Island has been doing content delivery for a while, and as they've been outperformed by Akamai, the workings of their service have been getting closer and closer to what Akamai is doing; Akamai argues that they've gotten to the point of basically copying. I have no idea whether their claim has merit; maybe someone who is more familiar with these services could comment.

DI's infringement suit is based on a patent on "fingerprinting" content to check for freshness. I don't know what their patent claim is; my only guesses seem like pretty obvious things, like checking MD5 hashes for web content against those in a cache. But it's clearly a very small part of a content delivery system, and not at all the same thing that Akamai's patent covers.

DI also claims to have preexisting patent-pending claims for the same thing Akamai has patented, but since it's not an actual patent, I'm not sure how to examine this for myself.

This is the same as my cue cat. And here I thought I was going to do well by the play by play of the circuit!!
I got delayed because from the description it became apparent that we are talking about two different cuecat internals.
Post #43 talks about it being a toshiba CPU. Specifically, this cpu belongs to TLCS 870 family of microcontrollers. It is register rich and C code compiles to it very easily. You use this kind of core if you want to do a lot of math on your data (so yeah, you could do a linux port!)

My Cuecat, like the one pictured in the above link, has a Hyundai 90c54 which is an 8051 knock off. Everybody and their dogs makes a souped up 8051 which this probably is. The memory is 8k byte wide (64k) which is a lot for a little microntroller. So, they must write their code in C, and do alot of processing on what it reads. My guess is that they switched to the 8051 core for cost reasons, as there is a bit of loss lead taking place. While the first response of some would be "I would have used a pic" I have found that in a manufacturing enviroment that 8051 can be more cost effective, just because there are so many of them available. Pics are good for small scale manufacturing.

Notice that the inside of the cuecat is black, and the top part of the housing has some black carboard material, black plastic piece cover, and the sensor had black tape around it. That's alot of effort to keep out extraneous light. They probably don't want _any_ extraneous reads (work first time). Nice touch to improve product acceptance.

The chip next to the photodiode is probably an OTA, (i.e. transconductance current amplifier), and the opamp next to it probably is used as an amplifier/comparator combination that feeds into the microcontroller.

From the description, it looks like that optics have been simplified also to remove the IR module and replace it with a photodiode/led light pipe combination. Again, cheaper to make. Notice that the photodiode sits an inch hehind a lens, and the diode has a pinhole covering. I think that achieves a camera obscura effect that probably means that it is very sensitive, can read at different angles and no miss reads. So it can probably read other barcodes where other readers might fail. Very cost effective design. I think that this optical systen is probably covered by patent "4,816,659 Bar code reader head".

Metrologic has three patents on barcode input going to browsers and the World Wide Web. So I would worry about them before I would worry about Cuecat.

On the serial id number, there has to be a way to program the device once it is assembled, so that means that it is probably done with a special sequence through the connector. Maybe even by typing in a special code!. So you 31337 types can get busy. Myself, I'd rather think about a more cost effective/easier to manufacture design. It is easier to design something anyway than to reverse engineer the whole thing. A great place to start is h ere, thanks to Mr. 1010011010 and his post #52 below :-)). I would use a pic in this, because it would be quick and easy. I also looked through the expired patents and got some good ideas how this design could be simplified.

The Cuecat does reflect alot of engineering that results in a robust design to achieve high performance. This is probably necessary to ensure consumer acceptance. I do not think it is the most efficient design though. For somebody who wants to make a cheap barcode reader for their own CD/book inventory, there are cheaper and easier ways to make their own, and achieve the same result (outside of obtaining more Cuecats/other bar code readers).

I think we can come to this conclusion ourself, if need be, thanks.

Petrely writes:

"The fact is our current system entitles us to some free information, and it requires us to purchase or license other information. You may not like the fact that some information must be licensed, but that's how it is. Those who want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some information and make it free. But what they shouldn't do is license or buy existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without permission. That's just plain wrong,..."

There are two types of objects - tangible and intangible. Tangible objects (food, your car, a minidisc player) can only have one owner at any given moment. Intangible objects (music, inventions, words) can have any number of owners. Physical objects have a single owner out of nessesity - it cannot exist in two places at the same time. But what about an idea? Clearly I can make a copy of your poem without depriving you of that poem.

So what is the point of giving exclusive ownership of an idea when it can be shared by all without depriving the creator of that idea? It is power, clearly enough. I have, you don't, let's negotiate. It is easy to use Napster as a sort of strawman to attack, but it's another issue entirely when you look at intellectual property in the light of the AIDS epedemic where millions have died and continue to die because pharmecuticals own the right to the knowledge. "Give us a half billion for the rights to create our vaccine. OH, you don't have that kind of cash? Oh, your entire country's GDP isn't even half that? Sorry." How about irrigation technologies? I could go on but I think my point is made.

I'll grant that there needs to be an impetus for the company to create the vaccine in the first place, but once it's created that knowledge should be in the public domain.

"...and it demonstrates that what they are interested in is not free speech at all but getting stuff without paying for it."

This is akin to saying electronic hobbyists are only interested in descrambling their cable feed. Can it be a side result? Yes. Is it the point? No.

Are you not aware of what a 21st century, western idea ownership of knowledge is? Is it beyond your ability to comprehend - not even nessesarily to understand but to just acknowledge - that ownship of an idea is repugnent, almost humorous?

As an aside, I enjoy the fact that I can get a song and erase it if I don't like it. No blood no foul. I appreciate the fact that I haven't heard a single radio ad in 2 years. I can't name a single radio station and I live in metro Boston. I haven't seen a single TV ad that I haven't gone out of my way to see.

Free speech, Nick, isn't only about the right to speak myself but the right of others to speak so I might hear them. You've got this idea that free speech means "me me me" but what it really does (and should) stand for is "them them them". And what does a company that control information fear more than anything? Loss of market share, loss of mindshare, loss of control.

And what is intellectual property about if not control?

My .02
Quux26

If you wish to check out the patent, you can find it here. They make reference to another application filed at the same time, but I can't seem to find it online.

• Write Combining Memory Implementation Guidelines.

What a user has to understand in referencing these regions of memory is that order is not guaranteed. So if my application writes to memory locations 1, 2 and then 3, if this is WC memory then there is no guarantee what order they will happen in. If I am just writing directly to the frame buffer (turning pixels on and off) then I don't care about the order, the faster the better, as long as they all happen. But what if I was trying to write commands to the device? If I don't mark the memory as WC then the writes may not happen as fast as if I do. And how do I know when all the writes have been performed? (I don't even know how many there are.) To solve this problem you use a DMA as Intel suggested above. Oh, and don't forget to patent it.

There is also just some relation to the burst architecture of PCI/AGP. If I write ten consecutive addresses as one burst then it happens faster than if I write ten individual addresses. The patent that offends me the most is the Register array for utilizing burst mode transfer on local bus. It basically says that if I used to write to one address repeatedly to give the graphics chip a bunch of commands; instead I should write to a range of addresses and the device should treat them as if I wrote them to the same address repeatedly (i.e. execute all the commands in order). This way the writes appear as a burst write and get transferred faster.

The patents that NVIDIA is suing boil down to methods for efficient I/O - in the words of Derek Perez of NVIDIA

3dfx infringes on at least 5 patents dating back as far as NV1. All 5 patents are essentially I/O patents relating to efficiency of the interaction between the graphics processor and the core logic, memory or CPU.

But like all patents, these are't easy reading. Trying to get to the essence of the method isn't easy. But here goes anyway:

Patent 6,092,124 can be sumarised as being very similar to a local cache - a DMA sits next to the I/O bus and acts as a buffer for passing information over the I/O bridge or back down to system memory depending on the value of pointers held in the DMA. To me this does not sound very original - it sounds like a primitive level 2 cache.

Pate nt 5,758,182 This one is an autonomous (of the OS) memory manager - it maps virtual addresses to physical ones. It uses pages to map memory and holds structures keeping tabs on that memory. Hardly mind blowing stuff. The main swansong of this patent is that it does this without the need for the OS to be involved, but I strongly suspect this is a commonly used technique and hardly worthy of patent protection - indeed for an autonomous device like a graphics card I think it would be difficult to avoid coming up with something like this regardless of your prior knowledge - you have to have something managing the memory on the card and it has to live with getting it's info from the application because most OS's won't necessarily be aware of the memory configuration on the board. In fact, the only work around for this patent as far as I can see is to expose the memory to the OS and let it use it as it sees fit. I have used one system where the VRAM could be used as system memory (Acorn RiscPC) but there was no hardware acceleration on that system. As soon as the GPU does any work on the memory at its fast IO busses to that graphics card RAM, there would have to be negotiation between the OS and the card to update the page tables on memory and that would hamstring a GPU card.

I could go on but there are other people here on Slashdot who can do a better hatchett job on these patents. But these patents strike me as being 'obvious'. And I'm an NVIDIA card owner too so I'm not some disgruntled 3dfx owner with an axe to grind.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

The patents that NVIDIA is suing boil down to methods for efficient I/O - in the words of Derek Perez of NVIDIA

3dfx infringes on at least 5 patents dating back as far as NV1. All 5 patents are essentially I/O patents relating to efficiency of the interaction between the graphics processor and the core logic, memory or CPU.

But like all patents, these are't easy reading. Trying to get to the essence of the method isn't easy. But here goes anyway:

Patent 6,092,124 can be sumarised as being very similar to a local cache - a DMA sits next to the I/O bus and acts as a buffer for passing information over the I/O bridge or back down to system memory depending on the value of pointers held in the DMA. To me this does not sound very original - it sounds like a primitive level 2 cache.

Pate nt 5,758,182 This one is an autonomous (of the OS) memory manager - it maps virtual addresses to physical ones. It uses pages to map memory and holds structures keeping tabs on that memory. Hardly mind blowing stuff. The main swansong of this patent is that it does this without the need for the OS to be involved, but I strongly suspect this is a commonly used technique and hardly worthy of patent protection - indeed for an autonomous device like a graphics card I think it would be difficult to avoid coming up with something like this regardless of your prior knowledge - you have to have something managing the memory on the card and it has to live with getting it's info from the application because most OS's won't necessarily be aware of the memory configuration on the board. In fact, the only work around for this patent as far as I can see is to expose the memory to the OS and let it use it as it sees fit. I have used one system where the VRAM could be used as system memory (Acorn RiscPC) but there was no hardware acceleration on that system. As soon as the GPU does any work on the memory at its fast IO busses to that graphics card RAM, there would have to be negotiation between the OS and the card to update the page tables on memory and that would hamstring a GPU card.

I could go on but there are other people here on Slashdot who can do a better hatchett job on these patents. But these patents strike me as being 'obvious'. And I'm an NVIDIA card owner too so I'm not some disgruntled 3dfx owner with an axe to grind.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Here's the links to the patents ... pretty interesting stuff if you ask me

6,092,124 Method and apparatus for accelerating the rendering of images

6,023,738 Method and apparatus for accelerating the transfer of graphical images

5,758,182 DMA controller translates virtual I/O device address received directly from application program command to physical i/o device address of I/O device on device bus

5,721,947 Apparatus adapted to be joined between the system I/O bus and I/O devices which translates addresses furnished directly by an application program

5,687,357 Register array for utilizing burst mode transfer on local bus

Here's the links to the patents ... pretty interesting stuff if you ask me

6,092,124 Method and apparatus for accelerating the rendering of images

6,023,738 Method and apparatus for accelerating the transfer of graphical images

5,758,182 DMA controller translates virtual I/O device address received directly from application program command to physical i/o device address of I/O device on device bus

5,721,947 Apparatus adapted to be joined between the system I/O bus and I/O devices which translates addresses furnished directly by an application program

5,687,357 Register array for utilizing burst mode transfer on local bus

Here's the links to the patents ... pretty interesting stuff if you ask me

6,092,124 Method and apparatus for accelerating the rendering of images

6,023,738 Method and apparatus for accelerating the transfer of graphical images

5,758,182 DMA controller translates virtual I/O device address received directly from application program command to physical i/o device address of I/O device on device bus

5,721,947 Apparatus adapted to be joined between the system I/O bus and I/O devices which translates addresses furnished directly by an application program

5,687,357 Register array for utilizing burst mode transfer on local bus

Here's the links to the patents ... pretty interesting stuff if you ask me

6,092,124 Method and apparatus for accelerating the rendering of images

6,023,738 Method and apparatus for accelerating the transfer of graphical images

5,758,182 DMA controller translates virtual I/O device address received directly from application program command to physical i/o device address of I/O device on device bus

5,721,947 Apparatus adapted to be joined between the system I/O bus and I/O devices which translates addresses furnished directly by an application program

5,687,357 Register array for utilizing burst mode transfer on local bus

Here's the links to the patents ... pretty interesting stuff if you ask me

6,092,124 Method and apparatus for accelerating the rendering of images

6,023,738 Method and apparatus for accelerating the transfer of graphical images

5,758,182 DMA controller translates virtual I/O device address received directly from application program command to physical i/o device address of I/O device on device bus

5,721,947 Apparatus adapted to be joined between the system I/O bus and I/O devices which translates addresses furnished directly by an application program

5,687,357 Register array for utilizing burst mode transfer on local bus

The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196

Interestingly, the patent has two dates on it. Clearly marked is the date of filing, December 14, 1977. However, I am not a patent/trademark lawyer, so I don't know what the second date of September 20, 1983 signifies. Possibly a reissue date?

I'm sure someone else can offer more detailed insights. Me.

you think it might be a very good fake. read the patent.

It seems to me, after briefly reading the patent , Adobe are not trying to protect just any old use of tabs.

Their first claim describes a standard tabbed dialog box UI component, with the additional function:


"and

combining the additional set of information, displayed in a different area of the display from the established area, into the group of multiple sets of information so that the additional sets of information may be selected in the same manner as the other sets of information in the group. "

I have not seen this software in use, but this sounds like a control in which other controls can be dragged into it, and appear on a new tab.

Make sure you don't use your word processor, either. It was "tainted by an evil patent" long ago.

Some of it has. NSA has a search engine patent, for example, and it's an impressive technology.

In the Cold War years, NSA was in the forefront of computing. The first digital tape drives were developed for NSA shortly after WWII. The first automated tape library (Tractor) was developed for NSA by IBM. NSA supported much early computer, supercomputer, and networking development. Much of this was published in "IBM's Early Computers", part of a history of IBM. Most of it made it into commercial products eventually. NSA may have a better technology spinoff record than NASA.

There were dead ends. Twenty years of effort went into cyrogenic computing in the '60s and '70s. ("I want a thousand-megacycle computer. I'll get you the money!" - Director, NSA, circa 1960.)

Since the 1980s, though, when the commercial sector pulled ahead of the military sector in technology, NSA has fallen behind. This problem has become embarassing enough to have been investigated by Congress. This is a generic problem with Government computing; things are changing too fast for Government procurement cycles, and the Government penchant for custom systems built to specified requirements holds them back.

6,006,227 Document stream operating system

Just FYI

The National Security Agency (NSA) specification for data erasures require that the file be written over seven times using an alternating byte write sequence of: 00, FF, 00, FF, 00, FF, F6. Normal commercially available Disk CleanUp erasures simply write the F6 character to deleted files.

For more info on Rambus' past business practices, check Tom Pabst's article on "Why We Don't Trust Rambus"

However, I am puzzled by this strategy. For one thing, despite TI's success at defending their patents on fundamental aspects of DRAM (one of many legitimate IC patents they obtained in the early days of IC manufacturing), RAMBUS must know that there is prior art that weakens their claim. While exisiting licensees would arguably tend to support (or stand idly by) as they pressed others to license their technology, cockily taking on an entire industry in this manner is just begging for a barrage of assualts on the patent itself.

I can't believe they would be so blind, even in the heady glee of being gran such ridiculously broad patents like #6,067,592 System having a synchronous memory device [May 23, 3000] and #6,049,846 Integrated circuit having memory which synchronously samples information with respect to external clock signals

In fact, I think we have a duty to use the accumulated experience of our older (and much underappreciated) readers to start picking off the more outrageous patent claims one by one.

The easier we make it for the remaining memory companies to see their options, the better for *us*

To save you some work, here's a partial list of active Rambus patents (and linked to each of the patents themselves). It's not a complete list (IANAPA), but it should save everyone some work getting started. See anything that looks familiar from "way back when"?


1. 6,075,743. Method and apparatus for sharing sense amplifiers between memory banks

2. 6,075,730. High performance cost optimized memory with delayed memory writes

3. 6,070,222. Synchronous memory device having identification register

4. 6,067,592. System having a synchronous memory device

5. 6,049,846. Integrated circuit having memory which synchronously samples information with respect to external clock signals

6. 6,044,426. Memory system having memory devices each including a programmable internal register

7. 6,038,195. Synchronous memory device having a delay time register and method of operating same

8. 6,035,369. Method and apparatus for providing a memory with write enable information

9. 6,035,365. Dual clocked synchronous memory device having a delay time register and method of operating same

10. 6,034,918. Method of operating a memory having a variable data output length and a programmable register

11. 6,032,215. Synchronous memory device utilizing two external clocks

12. 6,032,214. Method of operating a synchronous memory device having a variable data output length

13. 6,021,076. Apparatus and method for thermal regulation in memory subsystems

14. 5,995,443. Synchronous memory device

15. 5,966,731. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

16. 5,956,284. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

17. 5,954,804. Synchronous memory device having an internal register

18. 5,953,263. Synchronous memory device having a programmable register and method of controlling same

19. 5,940,340. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

20. 5,928,343. Memory module having memory devices containing internal device ID registers and method of initializing same

21. 5,913,046. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

22. 5,896,545. Transmitting memory requests for multiple block format memory operations the requests comprising count information, a mask, and a second mask

23. 5,872,996. Method and apparatus for transmitting memory requests by transmitting portions of count data in adjacent words of a packet

24. 5,844,855. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

25. 5,748,914. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

26. 5,748,554. Memory and method for sensing sub-groups of memory elements

27. 5,680,361. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

28. 5,657,481. Memory device with a phase locked loop circuitry

29. 5,606,717. Memory circuitry having bus interface for receiving information in packets and access time registers

30. 5,511,024. Dynamic random access memory system

31. 5,499,385. Method for accessing and transmitting data to/from a memory in packets

32. 5,499,355. Prefetching into a cache to minimize main memory access time and cache size in a computer system

33. 5,434,817. Dynamic random access memory system

34. 5,430,676. Dynamic random access memory system

35. 5,390,308. Method and apparatus for address mapping of dynamic random access memory

For more info on Rambus' past business practices, check Tom Pabst's article on "Why We Don't Trust Rambus"

However, I am puzzled by this strategy. For one thing, despite TI's success at defending their patents on fundamental aspects of DRAM (one of many legitimate IC patents they obtained in the early days of IC manufacturing), RAMBUS must know that there is prior art that weakens their claim. While exisiting licensees would arguably tend to support (or stand idly by) as they pressed others to license their technology, cockily taking on an entire industry in this manner is just begging for a barrage of assualts on the patent itself.

I can't believe they would be so blind, even in the heady glee of being gran such ridiculously broad patents like #6,067,592 System having a synchronous memory device [May 23, 3000] and #6,049,846 Integrated circuit having memory which synchronously samples information with respect to external clock signals

In fact, I think we have a duty to use the accumulated experience of our older (and much underappreciated) readers to start picking off the more outrageous patent claims one by one.

The easier we make it for the remaining memory companies to see their options, the better for *us*

To save you some work, here's a partial list of active Rambus patents (and linked to each of the patents themselves). It's not a complete list (IANAPA), but it should save everyone some work getting started. See anything that looks familiar from "way back when"?


1. 6,075,743. Method and apparatus for sharing sense amplifiers between memory banks

2. 6,075,730. High performance cost optimized memory with delayed memory writes

3. 6,070,222. Synchronous memory device having identification register

4. 6,067,592. System having a synchronous memory device

5. 6,049,846. Integrated circuit having memory which synchronously samples information with respect to external clock signals

6. 6,044,426. Memory system having memory devices each including a programmable internal register

7. 6,038,195. Synchronous memory device having a delay time register and method of operating same

8. 6,035,369. Method and apparatus for providing a memory with write enable information

9. 6,035,365. Dual clocked synchronous memory device having a delay time register and method of operating same

10. 6,034,918. Method of operating a memory having a variable data output length and a programmable register

11. 6,032,215. Synchronous memory device utilizing two external clocks

12. 6,032,214. Method of operating a synchronous memory device having a variable data output length

13. 6,021,076. Apparatus and method for thermal regulation in memory subsystems

14. 5,995,443. Synchronous memory device

15. 5,966,731. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

16. 5,956,284. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

17. 5,954,804. Synchronous memory device having an internal register

18. 5,953,263. Synchronous memory device having a programmable register and method of controlling same

19. 5,940,340. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

20. 5,928,343. Memory module having memory devices containing internal device ID registers and method of initializing same

21. 5,913,046. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

22. 5,896,545. Transmitting memory requests for multiple block format memory operations the requests comprising count information, a mask, and a second mask

23. 5,872,996. Method and apparatus for transmitting memory requests by transmitting portions of count data in adjacent words of a packet

24. 5,844,855. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

25. 5,748,914. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

26. 5,748,554. Memory and method for sensing sub-groups of memory elements

27. 5,680,361. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

28. 5,657,481. Memory device with a phase locked loop circuitry

29. 5,606,717. Memory circuitry having bus interface for receiving information in packets and access time registers

30. 5,511,024. Dynamic random access memory system

31. 5,499,385. Method for accessing and transmitting data to/from a memory in packets

32. 5,499,355. Prefetching into a cache to minimize main memory access time and cache size in a computer system

33. 5,434,817. Dynamic random access memory system

34. 5,430,676. Dynamic random access memory system

35. 5,390,308. Method and apparatus for address mapping of dynamic random access memory

For more info on Rambus' past business practices, check Tom Pabst's article on "Why We Don't Trust Rambus"

However, I am puzzled by this strategy. For one thing, despite TI's success at defending their patents on fundamental aspects of DRAM (one of many legitimate IC patents they obtained in the early days of IC manufacturing), RAMBUS must know that there is prior art that weakens their claim. While exisiting licensees would arguably tend to support (or stand idly by) as they pressed others to license their technology, cockily taking on an entire industry in this manner is just begging for a barrage of assualts on the patent itself.

I can't believe they would be so blind, even in the heady glee of being gran such ridiculously broad patents like #6,067,592 System having a synchronous memory device [May 23, 3000] and #6,049,846 Integrated circuit having memory which synchronously samples information with respect to external clock signals

In fact, I think we have a duty to use the accumulated experience of our older (and much underappreciated) readers to start picking off the more outrageous patent claims one by one.

The easier we make it for the remaining memory companies to see their options, the better for *us*

To save you some work, here's a partial list of active Rambus patents (and linked to each of the patents themselves). It's not a complete list (IANAPA), but it should save everyone some work getting started. See anything that looks familiar from "way back when"?


1. 6,075,743. Method and apparatus for sharing sense amplifiers between memory banks

2. 6,075,730. High performance cost optimized memory with delayed memory writes

3. 6,070,222. Synchronous memory device having identification register

4. 6,067,592. System having a synchronous memory device

5. 6,049,846. Integrated circuit having memory which synchronously samples information with respect to external clock signals

6. 6,044,426. Memory system having memory devices each including a programmable internal register

7. 6,038,195. Synchronous memory device having a delay time register and method of operating same

8. 6,035,369. Method and apparatus for providing a memory with write enable information

9. 6,035,365. Dual clocked synchronous memory device having a delay time register and method of operating same

10. 6,034,918. Method of operating a memory having a variable data output length and a programmable register

11. 6,032,215. Synchronous memory device utilizing two external clocks

12. 6,032,214. Method of operating a synchronous memory device having a variable data output length

13. 6,021,076. Apparatus and method for thermal regulation in memory subsystems

14. 5,995,443. Synchronous memory device

15. 5,966,731. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

16. 5,956,284. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

17. 5,954,804. Synchronous memory device having an internal register

18. 5,953,263. Synchronous memory device having a programmable register and method of controlling same

19. 5,940,340. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

20. 5,928,343. Memory module having memory devices containing internal device ID registers and method of initializing same

21. 5,913,046. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

22. 5,896,545. Transmitting memory requests for multiple block format memory operations the requests comprising count information, a mask, and a second mask

23. 5,872,996. Method and apparatus for transmitting memory requests by transmitting portions of count data in adjacent words of a packet

24. 5,844,855. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

25. 5,748,914. Protocol for communication with dynamic memory

26. 5,748,554. Memory and method for sensing sub-groups of memory elements

27. 5,680,361. Method and apparatus for writing to memory components

28. 5,657,481. Memory device with a phase locked loop circuitry

29. 5,606,717. Memory circuitry having bus interface for receiving information in packets and access time registers

30. 5,511,024. Dynamic random access memory system

31. 5,499,385. Method for accessing and transmitting data to/from a memory in packets

32. 5,499,355. Prefetching into a cache to minimize main memory access time and cache size in a computer system

33. 5,434,817. Dynamic random access memory system

34. 5,430,676. Dynamic random access memory system

35. 5,390,308. Method and apparatus for address mapping of dynamic random access memory

Since the ideas of intellectual property, copyright law, and the U.S. patent system first came about, a lot has changed. Methodological concepts have become as valuable as machine designs once were-- the design for a new type of cog or a better steam engine was conceptual, but it had specific mechanical specs. Concepts such as (for instance) one-click shopping are also conceptual, but the applications are much more varied due to the very nature of the medium in which they're applicable. You don't need to buy the parts and weld and build and test and hand your sponsors a lump of metal before going into mass produciton; mass production is cutting and pasting, or copying, or making available for download. You can try more things. One of the most obvious results of this is that new technologies mutate and evolve at a much faster rate. Ten years ago, hyperlinking was patented by IBM, but today it's an integral part of an entire breed of technologies. This kind of proliferation would not have been possible had that patent been enforced. The original concept of the patent was supposed to be a limited right that would create an incentive for authors to produce, and that "after a short interval," as Justice Joseph Story put it, what was produced would pass to the "full possession and enjoyment" of the public "without restraint." Not a restriction on proliferating or elaborating on the idea, but incentive to spread the idea in the first place.

Another result of this is the fact that the "thing" that is being protected has become an idea, not actually a "thing" at all. At most tangible, it is a process or method; at least tangible it might be innovative concepts for which the originator should not go unrecognized. Copyright is no longer restricted to "maps, charts and books." It reaches anything "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." It no longer regulates only publishers; it reaches anyone who makes a "copy." ...and it is also beginning to reach copies that are not "fixed in a tangible medium;" take, for instance, the recently e-published-only novels and e-released-only albums; though they might not be fixed in a tangible medium, they still seem to be suceptible to copyright laws.

Perhaps the IP laws, copyright laws, and patent system need an overhaul. Well, certainly they need an overhaul. The emphasis needs to be returned to innovation and progress, and the periods of protection need to be shortened. A serious dialogue is a good start. Getting the government to change things takes a long time. What can we do in the mean time?

The United States Patent + TradeMark office has a copy of the patent -- check it out here.

.- CitizenC (User Info)

The one thing that this highlights in big bold underlined (but not hyperlinked!!!) is that the US patent office needs some serious updating.

Relevant bit from the UK patents office, also most people in the UK wouldn't be able to do this as you have to register your patent inthe UK before you are allowed to register it internationally, but I guess if you have a presence there. . .

also, The Register articleThey have a link to the patent, apparently it was filed in 1976, when came gopher?

Basically BT claims it filed a patent in 1976 (eventually granted in 1989) due to its work on the old Viewdata and Prestel systems it ran as part of the GPO.

You can actually view the patent on line (it is a US patent) as number 4,873,662 entitled 'Information handling system and terminal apparatus therefor' (phew!)

To all those claiming this is a sign that patent reform is forthcoming are probably right but for the wrong reasons, in 1980 this was probably an original idea/

Looking at the patent, I see that it was granted in 1989, 9 years (!!) after it was filed.

What an obscenety.

What the hell was the patent office doing sitting on this for nine year! If it had been granted in 1980, the patent would have expired in 1997 and this wouldn't even be an issue. Patents have long since outlived their purpose -- the market encourages innovation without government enforced monopolies. I don't know if this particular abuse will lead to reform or not, but even if it does, reforming the patenting system will simply mean tweaking a broken and destructive system such that the net negative effects become tolerable to a majority. It will still be a millstone around our collective neck, perhaps with a few pounds chipped off to appease us but still weighing us all down.