Slashdot Mirror

People patent all kinds of stuff no one would really ever want. Particularly individual inventors who think the world wants their better dog dish/sex toy/etc. It's always fun to go to Delphion and search on the name of your favorite sex toy, and see if you (or anyone) would really ever want the innovation.

The first big insight on the problem was when Raibert figured out that balance is more important than gait. Locomotion researchers had been obsessing on gait all the way back to Muybridge, and never understood gaits beyond the walk. That's why Raibert did the one-legged hopper, which forced him to focus on balance. This provided the insight that cracked running. The basic concept is that in stance, the goal is to level the body, and in flight, the goal is to land with the foot at the "zero point" landing point which will maintain the current speed and direction. Displacing the landing point slightly from the zero point results in a turn or speed change, and that's how you steer. Very neat.

My big insight on this is that traction control is more important than balance. I figured out (and, of course, patented) how to do anti-slip control for legs. This is necessary to run on hills. One interesting result was that it finally became clear why legs have three joints, considering that two are sufficient to place the foot anywhere. The third (ankle on human, hock on the quadrupeds) joint gives the ability to control the direction of the contact force, which is a big win on non-flat surfaces. This is most true for animals like horses, which have hind legs with three sections of about equal length, but it's true for humans, too. Try climbing in rigid ski boots that lock the ankle joint.

Lots of people have built walkers. It's building a runner that makes it serious.

US5023741:Programmable limited play video tape cassette

US5199663:Limited use video cassette

US4763784:Devices for preventing unauthorized use of video-cassettes

US4660115:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

US4660116:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

Along with a short list of other patents that reference that last one. Seems that people have been busy on this one. Even though a few of the claims do acknowledge the possibility of disassembling the cassette and removing the content protection scheme, unless the casing is made of titanium, there's nothing to stop anyone with a hammer and a replacement VHS shell or DIY instructions from making their own free-use cassette out of it if they like.
Tough call as to wether or not the DMCA really applies, as it's not a program or electronic device that you'd use. But I'd bet some MPAA hired gun could get the government to ban hammers, rocks, and other blunt instuments as they could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes.

US5023741:Programmable limited play video tape cassette

US5199663:Limited use video cassette

US4763784:Devices for preventing unauthorized use of video-cassettes

US4660115:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

US4660116:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

Along with a short list of other patents that reference that last one. Seems that people have been busy on this one. Even though a few of the claims do acknowledge the possibility of disassembling the cassette and removing the content protection scheme, unless the casing is made of titanium, there's nothing to stop anyone with a hammer and a replacement VHS shell or DIY instructions from making their own free-use cassette out of it if they like.
Tough call as to wether or not the DMCA really applies, as it's not a program or electronic device that you'd use. But I'd bet some MPAA hired gun could get the government to ban hammers, rocks, and other blunt instuments as they could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes.

US5023741:Programmable limited play video tape cassette

US5199663:Limited use video cassette

US4763784:Devices for preventing unauthorized use of video-cassettes

US4660115:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

US4660116:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

Along with a short list of other patents that reference that last one. Seems that people have been busy on this one. Even though a few of the claims do acknowledge the possibility of disassembling the cassette and removing the content protection scheme, unless the casing is made of titanium, there's nothing to stop anyone with a hammer and a replacement VHS shell or DIY instructions from making their own free-use cassette out of it if they like.
Tough call as to wether or not the DMCA really applies, as it's not a program or electronic device that you'd use. But I'd bet some MPAA hired gun could get the government to ban hammers, rocks, and other blunt instuments as they could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes.

US5023741:Programmable limited play video tape cassette

US5199663:Limited use video cassette

US4763784:Devices for preventing unauthorized use of video-cassettes

US4660115:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

US4660116:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

Along with a short list of other patents that reference that last one. Seems that people have been busy on this one. Even though a few of the claims do acknowledge the possibility of disassembling the cassette and removing the content protection scheme, unless the casing is made of titanium, there's nothing to stop anyone with a hammer and a replacement VHS shell or DIY instructions from making their own free-use cassette out of it if they like.
Tough call as to wether or not the DMCA really applies, as it's not a program or electronic device that you'd use. But I'd bet some MPAA hired gun could get the government to ban hammers, rocks, and other blunt instuments as they could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes.

US5023741:Programmable limited play video tape cassette

US5199663:Limited use video cassette

US4763784:Devices for preventing unauthorized use of video-cassettes

US4660115:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

US4660116:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

Along with a short list of other patents that reference that last one. Seems that people have been busy on this one. Even though a few of the claims do acknowledge the possibility of disassembling the cassette and removing the content protection scheme, unless the casing is made of titanium, there's nothing to stop anyone with a hammer and a replacement VHS shell or DIY instructions from making their own free-use cassette out of it if they like.
Tough call as to wether or not the DMCA really applies, as it's not a program or electronic device that you'd use. But I'd bet some MPAA hired gun could get the government to ban hammers, rocks, and other blunt instuments as they could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes.

US5023741:Programmable limited play video tape cassette

US5199663:Limited use video cassette

US4763784:Devices for preventing unauthorized use of video-cassettes

US4660115:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

US4660116:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

Along with a short list of other patents that reference that last one. Seems that people have been busy on this one. Even though a few of the claims do acknowledge the possibility of disassembling the cassette and removing the content protection scheme, unless the casing is made of titanium, there's nothing to stop anyone with a hammer and a replacement VHS shell or DIY instructions from making their own free-use cassette out of it if they like.
Tough call as to wether or not the DMCA really applies, as it's not a program or electronic device that you'd use. But I'd bet some MPAA hired gun could get the government to ban hammers, rocks, and other blunt instuments as they could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes.

US5023741:Programmable limited play video tape cassette

US5199663:Limited use video cassette

US4763784:Devices for preventing unauthorized use of video-cassettes

US4660115:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

US4660116:Video tape cassette with internal tape erasing means

Along with a short list of other patents that reference that last one. Seems that people have been busy on this one. Even though a few of the claims do acknowledge the possibility of disassembling the cassette and removing the content protection scheme, unless the casing is made of titanium, there's nothing to stop anyone with a hammer and a replacement VHS shell or DIY instructions from making their own free-use cassette out of it if they like.
Tough call as to wether or not the DMCA really applies, as it's not a program or electronic device that you'd use. But I'd bet some MPAA hired gun could get the government to ban hammers, rocks, and other blunt instuments as they could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes.

i don't think the patent is either concise enough or broad enough for them to use it against something like Linux, nor do i think they really have any inclination to do so.

i don't think the patent is either concise enough or broad enough for them to use it against something like Linux, nor do i think they really have any inclination to do so.

Some of the patents referenced by the Apple one are interesting. Viacom's patent on images in window borders looks pretty bad.

11thangel wrote "I even found an old password protection cgi two YEARS ago that did that."

I presume you didn't read the press release or the patent. The application for Patent #US6192407 was filed on April 4, 1997, and prior art is only relevant if it happened before the patent was filed, not before it was granted.

That tidbit notwithstanding, the mind still boggles at this patent. The U.S. Patent Office is a random and capricious place! I filed for a patent five years ago for an ergonomic stenographic keyboard, split in two parts which could be attached to the arms of a court reporter's chair, lessening carpal tunnel syndrome problems by changing arm positions. The Patent Office declared it to be "obvious." Then they grant this piece of silliness? Good grief!

Seriously though, the patent shows a specific example

All patents do. It's called a "preferred embodiment." All the legal force of a patent resides in the claims. Here's the first claim of the patent in question:

A document delivery system for delivering one or more documents between a sender and at least one recipient, said system comprising:

• a server that temporarily stores said documents, wherein said server generates a URL for each intended recipient of said documents, the URL unique to each recipient, and sends each of the URLs to each respective intended recipient; and
• a database which is associated with said server and which records log data describing which recipients accessed said documents;
• wherein said server sends the log data to the sender of said documents.

Well, someone already beat me to it in pointing out that the patent was filed in 1997 (A suggestion to rob et al: on future stupid-patent stories, please give the filing date of the patent - it's not as if delphion makes it hard to look up.)

Oh, and here's the blatant kharma whoring: the patent (all seven claims) at delphion.

"Electronic Gift Certificate System" (Thinkgeek, are you violating this one?)

"Internet-based customer referral system"

"Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network"

"System and method for refining search"

"Identifying the items most relevant to a current query based on items selected in connection with similar queries"

"Uh, a spellchecker"

"Hypocritical and inherently contradictory process for the written and/or verbal justification of ridiculous patents by an exploiter (and beneficiary) of an easily-abused Patent Registration Office"

"Electronic Gift Certificate System" (Thinkgeek, are you violating this one?)

"Internet-based customer referral system"

"Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network"

"System and method for refining search"

"Identifying the items most relevant to a current query based on items selected in connection with similar queries"

"Uh, a spellchecker"

"Hypocritical and inherently contradictory process for the written and/or verbal justification of ridiculous patents by an exploiter (and beneficiary) of an easily-abused Patent Registration Office"

"Electronic Gift Certificate System" (Thinkgeek, are you violating this one?)

"Internet-based customer referral system"

"Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network"

"System and method for refining search"

"Identifying the items most relevant to a current query based on items selected in connection with similar queries"

"Uh, a spellchecker"

"Hypocritical and inherently contradictory process for the written and/or verbal justification of ridiculous patents by an exploiter (and beneficiary) of an easily-abused Patent Registration Office"

"Electronic Gift Certificate System" (Thinkgeek, are you violating this one?)

"Internet-based customer referral system"

"Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network"

"System and method for refining search"

"Identifying the items most relevant to a current query based on items selected in connection with similar queries"

"Uh, a spellchecker"

"Hypocritical and inherently contradictory process for the written and/or verbal justification of ridiculous patents by an exploiter (and beneficiary) of an easily-abused Patent Registration Office"

"Electronic Gift Certificate System" (Thinkgeek, are you violating this one?)

"Internet-based customer referral system"

"Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network"

"System and method for refining search"

"Identifying the items most relevant to a current query based on items selected in connection with similar queries"

"Uh, a spellchecker"

"Hypocritical and inherently contradictory process for the written and/or verbal justification of ridiculous patents by an exploiter (and beneficiary) of an easily-abused Patent Registration Office"

"Electronic Gift Certificate System" (Thinkgeek, are you violating this one?)

"Internet-based customer referral system"

"Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network"

"System and method for refining search"

"Identifying the items most relevant to a current query based on items selected in connection with similar queries"

"Uh, a spellchecker"

"Hypocritical and inherently contradictory process for the written and/or verbal justification of ridiculous patents by an exploiter (and beneficiary) of an easily-abused Patent Registration Office"

Take a look at this patent. I designed an 11 million gate system (in 1990:-) to implement these guys' ideas. I can't discuss anything not in the public domain, but if anyone has any comments I'm able to answer, I'd be only too pleased, because this subject is one of my long term geek interests.

What matters is to solve three problems simultaneously, not only anti-aliasing but depth buffering and translucency.

Simply untrue. Once you file a patent application in one country, you have a one-year grace period to file in any other country--after that your first patent application counts as prior art in the other countries you would seek to get a patent in!

(assisted by the international treaties which have been signed to allow the "prior art" in one country's patent system to invalidate a patent filed in another country's).

The international treaties may have standardized this practice among all developed countries, but in most countries this was the case even before the treaties: just as both patents and non-patent literature constitute prior art, documents published both in the country in which the patent is applied for and outside constitute prior art.

Are you seriously arguing against this practice? Are you seriously suggesting that if someone in France has invented something but patented it only in France, that I should be allowed to patent it in the US?

Therefore, the pending patent is secret until granted.

Oh please. Here is one it took me about 15 seconds to find. There's thousands of published pending patent applications.

it has been made abundantly clear that many organizations applying for patents only do enough searching (usually in the patent database itself) to ensure that the Patent Office will give them the patent (i.e., implementation stated the exact same way has not already been patented),

I certainly don't deny that the USPTO often does a sloppy job of examining patent applications

then use whatever legal resources are necessary to make the patent worth something (by intimidating others into paying license fees, or using the patent as a defense against predatory patent-abusers).

Excuse me, but I thought that's what patents were for? I'm afraid I'm not clear on your position--are you saying all patents by definition are a bad thing, or are you arguing against the way some companies enforce their patents? If the latter, how are they supposed to do it other than "'intimidating' others into paying license fees or using the patent as a defense against predatory patent abusers?" If you are not against patents in general, what would you suggest would be the appropriate way for companies to enforce valid patents?

• US5519200: Identification and information storage devices
• US5629474: Production of a sensor for carbon monoxide or water vapor including a semi conductor metallic oxide, catalyst, and rheological agent

• US5519200: Identification and information storage devices
• US5629474: Production of a sensor for carbon monoxide or water vapor including a semi conductor metallic oxide, catalyst, and rheological agent

Here are the claims for the patents in question:

• Patent 5,967,763
• Patent 6,109,892
• Patent 6,114,785

These are for particular ways of building fans -- not miniature fans in general. How long have we been cooling 486s with miniature fans?
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze

Here are the claims for the patents in question:

• Patent 5,967,763
• Patent 6,109,892
• Patent 6,114,785

These are for particular ways of building fans -- not miniature fans in general. How long have we been cooling 486s with miniature fans?
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze

Here are the claims for the patents in question:

• Patent 5,967,763
• Patent 6,109,892
• Patent 6,114,785

These are for particular ways of building fans -- not miniature fans in general. How long have we been cooling 486s with miniature fans?
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze

1. US5967763: Positioning devices for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   
2. US6109892: Positioning device for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   
3. US6114785: Positioning device for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   

1. US5967763: Positioning devices for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   
2. US6109892: Positioning device for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   
3. US6114785: Positioning device for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   

1. US5967763: Positioning devices for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   
2. US6109892: Positioning device for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   
3. US6114785: Positioning device for a sensor element of a miniature fan
   
   

• If your program accesses CDDB, it must be a GUI program, not a console program, as it must display the CDDB logo and a clickable "mail info to CDDB" icon.
• A web browser must be installed on any computer that accesses CDDB.
• A client must access the CDDB server and no other server.
• You must accept this license, as the very idea of a CDDB indexed by a hash of track lengths is patented. Read it and weep.
• Bad, bad, bad.

Each change was distributed as a separate file. When you built the system, the changes were applied, and the result used for the build. If you skipped several patches, all the intervening patches would be applied.

Another place to look for prior are is in the Marimba http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05919247__ update patent. (I believe that patent fell to prior art, but since it was a similar system, prior art to it may be prior art to the Symantec patent as well.)

The second patent looks like a way to upgrade... Am I misunderstanding this? Say you upgrade from version 1 to 2. Later, these patches are available: 1 (hub) to, say, 3 (hub); 3 to 4. You locally cache version 1 when patching to version 2, because it's a hub. You get patches from 1 to 3, and 3 to 4, instead of 2 to 4. Then you can erase versions 1 and 2, and keep 3 (hub) and 4.

Note that Intuit uses Castanet to update Quicken.

Note that Intuit uses Castanet to update Quicken.

No, I won't hold my horses, because I've just read Claim 1 of patent 6,052,531. That claim is very general, and there is tons of prior art. Claim 1 tries to conver any system in which there is more than one patch to be applied, at least one "update source", with no qualifications on what that update source is, containing the patches, and finally, a client "disposed to receive transmitted patches from each update source". Guess what: CVS infringes, except that it is prior art. Even the Linux script for seeking out and applying patches infringes.

You may have patentable technology here, but only if the claims are rewritten so as not to cover anything that already exists.

This doesn't really bother me, even the article states:

Yet incremental updates have been around for a long time, most likely for longer than the Internet has been around.

While the patent is pretty stupid, I've got a feeling that no competitor of Symantec's will need to license whatever updating technology they use. One of the patents seems incredibly vague to me, stating:

A software application (110) is updated to a newer version by means of incremental update patches (122). The incremental update patches (122) each contain that information necessary to transform one version of an application to another version. Any version of an application (110) may be upgraded to any other version of the application, through the use of a series of incremental update patches (122). The appropriate incremental update patches (122) are distributed in a multi-tiered manner, such that some update patches (122) update the application (110) by only one version, and others update the application (110) by several versions.

Perhaps others can shed some light on this one (the multi-tiered patent), but it sounds to me like similar technology to update patches used everywhere - small chunks downloaded to update a program from one version to another. Oh well, we'll see what happens.

Why reverse engineer when you can read the ASF patent.

This is nothing. Someone has patented the peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

-Vercingetorix

The patent office doesn't have a clue, and I don't think they ever did.

-B

The patent office doesn't have a clue, and I don't think they ever did.

-B

The patent office doesn't have a clue, and I don't think they ever did.

-B

The patent office doesn't have a clue, and I don't think they ever did.

-B

The patent office doesn't have a clue, and I don't think they ever did.

-B

The patent office doesn't have a clue, and I don't think they ever did.

-B

The patent office doesn't have a clue, and I don't think they ever did.

-B

--

I know that this patent coming out now seems a little fishy, but looking over the page at delphion.com, it says the patent was filed on April 8, 1998. This was almost three years ago, and wireless devices with access to the internet were pretty scarce, if not non-existant back then. If my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't until late '99/early '00 that wireless devices with internet access became as well known as they are today.

I just think that the date the patent was filed adds a new dimension to how it should be looked at. Sure, it wasn't granted until Jan 9th, 2001, but that's due to the United States Patent Office, not GeoWorks.

Once again, let me emphasize that it is simply pointless to speak about patents in the abstract. The abstract and general subject matter of the patent simply does not inform the question whether a patent is infringed or invalid. The bottom line is the specifics of the patent claims asserted and a particular apparatus or method usage alleged to infringe

Okay, I got down to brass tacks and read one of Altavista's patents. Specifically, I read all 44 pages of US6021409: Method for parsing, indexing and searching world-wide-web pages. I chose that one because the title and abstract look like something that should not be patentable.

What I found was very interesting.

The first 27 pages are a bunch of diagrams, mostly of data structures, with a few network and flow diagrams thrown in. Pages 28-42 are a detailed description of the problems involved in creating an index for a "database" as unbelievably massive as the web and a fairly detailed description of a complex set of data structures, encoding systems, compression systems and algorithms that solve the problem (all of which comes under the heading "Preferred Embodiments"). It's a hard problem and it seems to me that the details of a good solution are worthy of protection. Finally, beginning on the bottom of page 42 and continuing through page 44 there are a set of 33 claims.

Now, I understand that a key standard in the application of patent law is that the idea must not be obvious to a practitioner of the field. I'm not sure what standard the court would use as a practitioner of the field, but I guarantee you that the system described in pages 28-42 is not obvious to me or anyone I know (and I know some sharp people who've been in this business for a long, long time). I strongly doubt that Archie did any of the sophisticated things that the Altavista patent describes. If it did, then Emtage should have been shot for implementing a system that was massively more complex that necessary. Archie was a simple file name indexer and when it was big the net was small. Veronica had a little more need for some of the techniques, but again, the web is so *much* larger than gopher ever was that Veronica should have had no need for the levels of complexity described.

However, I've had some significant dealings with patent attorneys in the past, both from the patent application process and from the patent litigation process, and I concur with what werdna said: It's the claims that matter. Well, in Altavista's patent, after the excercise in computer science erudition displayed in the "Preferred Embodiments", the actual claims of the patent are generic, vague and broad.

So, what gives here? Several of the components in the "Preferred Embodiments" strike me as potentially worthy of patent protection, but the actual claims are pretty weak. Does the introductory material that comes before the claims have any weight?

At the end of my read, I'm not sure whether I think the patent is a worthy contribution to human knowledge or a complete crock of shit, because although there's some good stuff in it, I'm not sure that any of the good stuff counts.