Slashdot Mirror

There was the TRS-80 Model I (my first computer!) - 4K, and a Z-80. It wasn't really a business computer -- that was the much more pricey Model II, which I think ran

Then there was the Tandy Color Computer Model I - Much later and with a 6809 and entirely incompatible with the original Trash-80s.

There was the TRS-80 Model I (my first computer!) - 4K, and a Z-80. It wasn't really a business computer -- that was the much more pricey Model II, which I think ran

Then there was the Tandy Color Computer Model I - Much later and with a 6809 and entirely incompatible with the original Trash-80s.

Coleco Adam (sold standalone or as ColecoVision Expansion Module #3)

The "you can turn it into a computer" logic seemed to appeal to my parents too, even though we had a funky greenscreen Apple ][+. The Adam shipped a little too late and with too few features (such as pricy highspeed tapes instead of disks), and never really could compete with Commodore and Atari.
--

I'm sure Stevie's speeches will be watched very closely for "errors". I remember the time when Apple claimed that theirs were the first desktops with RISC processors, when in everyone outside the US of A knew for a fact that the Archimedes was years ahead. But even today it's bloody difficult to correct this misinformation.

by plugging our computer into an office desk, its top becomes a gigantic computer screen--an interactive photonic display. You won't need a keyboard because files can be opened and closed simply by touching and dragging with your finger
Sounds like Dilinger's computer in the cult-movie "Tron".
Is SF the first inspiration source for engineers?
(No answer needed)
Anyway, something really scares me: They still have this need for mono-processor machines with one harddisc, etc.
I think it would be cooler to just design Lego-like components, each of which would be a tiny computer that could interact with one another like in the good old times of Atari ATW.
So, instead of paying a huge amount of money to change computer every 6 months (however quick they are you know people will still pay to upgrade them, a friend pertinently compared computers to cars : you want them to work properly but to amaze your neighbours) why wouldn't we pay a few bucks for some more GIPS to fit ? With wireless communication, this would then be tomorrow's computer and I bet my vision is far realistic than ASAP's nice-looking box.
--

For specs on just about any old computer you can think of (and more than a few you can't), go to www.computingmuseum.com. Surf down 2 pages to the museum and have a gander. I myself used to have the TRS-80 model 1 level 2, the Aquarius 1 by Mattel (YES MATTEL makers of Barbie), and a laser Apple 2 compatible. Great blast from the past... I reccomend it to anyone who has played with old computers or has been computing a while.

Nostalgia just aint what it used to be.

One could argue that the Atari STacy portable computer was built primarily for musicians, and therefore is covered by this patent. It had multiple MIDI ports (note that the music format is unimportant as specified in the patent), and had lots of specialized software packages to record music streams and send them back out again, faster than realtime if necessary for storage. A lot of musicians used 'em for their concerts.

And yes, I've read the patent, and before you answer with "It doesn't cover all 18 claims," I'll say it myself: This doesn't cover all 18 claims. However, one of the requirements for a patent to be granted in the first place is that it is new art and not easily derived from existing technology.

In this case, the STacy argument covers claims:

1

most of 2 (I'd argue all, if anyone ever paid for connect time to Compu$erve to download a MIDI file)

3 (for the same reason)

claim 4 is slightly confusing since, AFAICT, they're laying claim to the fact that the music was transported at all rather than how it was transported

5 is trivially covered by any modern computer

6 is simply an update of the technology (Commercial Off The Shelf -- COTS), and already covered by sweeping clause #4

7 is again covered by 4, which beginng to appear to be just too general to be of any use

8 covered.

9 covered.

10 is quite covered thank-you-very-much by any of the software available for the STacy that lets you control a song play-set for a concert or performance.

11 mostly covered (again, each impingement by prior art weakens the validity of the patent).

12 Duh, yes.

13 See 12 (I know someone who used the joystick interface to control the music programming selections so that he didn't have to ride the keyboard)

14 covered by any reliable exchange protocol (encryption is not necessary since the wording in the patent is "preferably includes an appropriate time dependent encryption/decryption keys")

15 COTS.

16 COTS (closed captioning decoding for TVs)

17 yes.

18 yes, with the caveat that I don't know of anyone who actually encrypted their MIDI streams.

So, while it's not perfect, it's certainly a start on showing that the patent is easily derivable from existing technology, and is not new art, but rather a simple and intended as possible application implementable upon existing technology.

I think this is another example that shows the Patent Office just doesn't have the expertise or manpower necessary to research technology related claims.

Ray
--
Every truth has a context