Slashdot Mirror

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.

Crispin
----
Chief Research Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Hardened Linux Distribution

Crispin
----
Chief Research Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Hardened Linux Distribution

I disagree; you can have trade which is purely a swap of services. A lot of business-to-business trade is essentially of this form. You only need a concept of property to deal in physical goods which have scarcity (i.e. cannot be duplicated for nothing), like food or computer hardware.

When trading purely services, you are in fact, using your own property, namely your own body, mind, intellect. These belong to you and any services you provide would be based on the use of your property.

If someone wants you to mow the lawn, you would be providing a service. You might use some property to do it more efficiently than otherwise. You might use a lawnmower you own. You use property all the time in the commission of providing a service.

A patent allows you to stop me using an idea which you thought of.

You rightly point out that a patent can even stop me from using an idea I thought about. That fundamental flaw strongly shows why laws to protect intangible "intellectual" property have no place in the information age.

For example...

:-(®

The so-called "frowny" has been trademarked by Despair, inc. Admittedly, it appears that it was registered to make a mockery of the PTO. Though, my use of this trademark in conjunction with a negative comment would "dilute the value" of the frowny trademark, and would be cause for some lawsuit. :P (has the tongue sticking out emoticon been trademarked yet?)
http://www.despair.com/demotivators/frownonthis.ht ml

Someone patented the use of a laser to provide exercise for cats. I have, on a number of occasions inadvertently violated this patent in amusing cats, and if it could be proven, I would likely be required to pay royalties for the use of this idea that was independently arrived at.
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__

Some might argue that it's just a system that needs to be tweaked - fixed through some kind of reform to allow "legitimate" owners of "intellectual property" to be rewarded for their labor.

I propose that all "intellectual property" law does is prop-up old business models and keep new ones from emerging. If we lived in a world without copyright, patent and trademark, it would be different. The presence of such laws has slowed progress where progress would have naturally occurred. Who's to say that the progress such laws protects is more important than the progress that it discourages?

Some argue that without such protections, less innovation and creation would be performed. Kinsella and Mercer argue that there would be as much creation and innovation that the world requires - no more, no less.

In my view, the world would be transformed to the open-source model. That you give away the recipe and sell the chicken. That you can download music free but pay for the live performance. You'd pay to see movies on the big screen with great sound.

In the year 2080, when we get our first replicator at home, if we decide to replicate something, will someone claim ownership to that idea and only allow us to create an instance of it if we pay? Will someone own the concept of a chair and receive royalties everytime someone replicates one?

Laws should never be created to protect the way of doing business. The industrial age transformed the way things were made. If the Luddites had their way, chairs would still be made by hand, or at least those who use machines would subsidize those who make by hand. Laws should only protect our rights to hold real, tangible property.

From the article.

--
All men are great
before declaring war

Check out This insane patent which is referenced in the press release. I almost burst a gut!

Someone has patented crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Okay, when I started reading this, I was chuckling because of the poster's apparent creativity.

United States Patent 6,004,596 Sealed crustless sandwich>

Okay, now I'm scared. Apparently the patent is quite real indeed.

A sad day for PB&J-loving kids everywhere.

--

US5970497: Method for indexing duplicate records of information of a database
US6138113: Method for identifying near duplicate pages in a hyperlinked database
US6021409: Method for parsing, indexing and searching world-wide-web pages
US6128690: System for remote memory allocation in a computer having a verification table contains information identifying remote computers which are authorized to allocate memory in said computer

More can be found at Delphion's Intellectual Property Network.

::Colz Grigor
--

US5970497: Method for indexing duplicate records of information of a database
US6138113: Method for identifying near duplicate pages in a hyperlinked database
US6021409: Method for parsing, indexing and searching world-wide-web pages
US6128690: System for remote memory allocation in a computer having a verification table contains information identifying remote computers which are authorized to allocate memory in said computer

More can be found at Delphion's Intellectual Property Network.

::Colz Grigor
--

US5970497: Method for indexing duplicate records of information of a database
US6138113: Method for identifying near duplicate pages in a hyperlinked database
US6021409: Method for parsing, indexing and searching world-wide-web pages
US6128690: System for remote memory allocation in a computer having a verification table contains information identifying remote computers which are authorized to allocate memory in said computer

More can be found at Delphion's Intellectual Property Network.

::Colz Grigor
--

US5970497: Method for indexing duplicate records of information of a database
US6138113: Method for identifying near duplicate pages in a hyperlinked database
US6021409: Method for parsing, indexing and searching world-wide-web pages
US6128690: System for remote memory allocation in a computer having a verification table contains information identifying remote computers which are authorized to allocate memory in said computer

More can be found at Delphion's Intellectual Property Network.

::Colz Grigor
--

US5970497: Method for indexing duplicate records of information of a database
US6138113: Method for identifying near duplicate pages in a hyperlinked database
US6021409: Method for parsing, indexing and searching world-wide-web pages
US6128690: System for remote memory allocation in a computer having a verification table contains information identifying remote computers which are authorized to allocate memory in said computer

More can be found at Delphion's Intellectual Property Network.

::Colz Grigor
--

This isn't the first spherical motor. A similar device has been built as an eyeball-like pan-tilt mechanism for robotic cameras. That's a nice application for a spherical actuator, and yields small, steerable cameras. So far, though, nobody has produced such devices at Webcam/surveillance camera prices. There's a product for somebody.

It appears to be based off of the same technologies used in DEKA's smart wheelchair that can climb stairs, etc. Just a commercialization of it. http://www.delphion.com/fcgi-bin/any2html?FILENAME =WO%2F01%2F50%2FWO00075001A1.tif&PAGE=1&SCALE=0.35

This is consistent with his patents and the description provided. It's not a medical device, the price and size are about right, and if it takes off, it would change the use of streets and sidewalks. It would have many of the same legal problems as skateboards, rollerblades, and scooters. It also has a major product liability problem, but if he's attempted FDA approval on a wheelchair, he may be able to deal with that.

(Or, if slashdot has a problem w/ that url, here:
http://www.delphion.com/fcgi-bin/any2html?FILENAME =US%2F91%2F10%2FUS05971091__.tif&PAGE=4&USER_HTML= %253CA%2BHREF%253D%2Forder%253Fpn%3DUS05971091__+T ARGET%3D_top%253EOrderPatent%253C%2FA%253E&SCALE=0 .35
)

Anything that's going to be as big as this article suggests is not going to be patented only in the US. They'll have patents filed in all major developed countries. And most countries publish applications 18 months after filing.

Most commonly this is done through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They allow you to file a single application (known as a WO document) for a large number of countries, and they also publish applications 18 months after filing. [Side note before you conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy: WIPO does not grant patents. They only offer a simple method by which to file in a large number of countries, and each individual country still decides whether or not to grant the patent.]

Anyway, the bottom line is that there's less lag in the publication of WO applications than there is in the publication of US applications. If you go to the Delphion patent site (previously the IBM patent site) and search for WO documents listing Dean Kamen as the inventor, the results are even more interesting than the list of US patents (only transportation-related patents published in 2000 or 2001 included--the older ones are largely the same as the US list given in the parent comment):

PERSONAL MOBILITY VEHICLES AND METHODS
MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO A PERSONAL VEHICLE
BALANCING VEHICLE WITH CAMBER AND TOE-IN
CONTROL OF A BALANCING PERSONAL VEHICLE
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WHEELCHAIR
FAULT TOLERANT ARCHITECTURE FOR A PERSONAL VEHICLE

Anything that's going to be as big as this article suggests is not going to be patented only in the US. They'll have patents filed in all major developed countries. And most countries publish applications 18 months after filing.

Most commonly this is done through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They allow you to file a single application (known as a WO document) for a large number of countries, and they also publish applications 18 months after filing. [Side note before you conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy: WIPO does not grant patents. They only offer a simple method by which to file in a large number of countries, and each individual country still decides whether or not to grant the patent.]

Anyway, the bottom line is that there's less lag in the publication of WO applications than there is in the publication of US applications. If you go to the Delphion patent site (previously the IBM patent site) and search for WO documents listing Dean Kamen as the inventor, the results are even more interesting than the list of US patents (only transportation-related patents published in 2000 or 2001 included--the older ones are largely the same as the US list given in the parent comment):

PERSONAL MOBILITY VEHICLES AND METHODS
MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO A PERSONAL VEHICLE
BALANCING VEHICLE WITH CAMBER AND TOE-IN
CONTROL OF A BALANCING PERSONAL VEHICLE
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WHEELCHAIR
FAULT TOLERANT ARCHITECTURE FOR A PERSONAL VEHICLE

Anything that's going to be as big as this article suggests is not going to be patented only in the US. They'll have patents filed in all major developed countries. And most countries publish applications 18 months after filing.

Most commonly this is done through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They allow you to file a single application (known as a WO document) for a large number of countries, and they also publish applications 18 months after filing. [Side note before you conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy: WIPO does not grant patents. They only offer a simple method by which to file in a large number of countries, and each individual country still decides whether or not to grant the patent.]

Anyway, the bottom line is that there's less lag in the publication of WO applications than there is in the publication of US applications. If you go to the Delphion patent site (previously the IBM patent site) and search for WO documents listing Dean Kamen as the inventor, the results are even more interesting than the list of US patents (only transportation-related patents published in 2000 or 2001 included--the older ones are largely the same as the US list given in the parent comment):

PERSONAL MOBILITY VEHICLES AND METHODS
MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO A PERSONAL VEHICLE
BALANCING VEHICLE WITH CAMBER AND TOE-IN
CONTROL OF A BALANCING PERSONAL VEHICLE
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WHEELCHAIR
FAULT TOLERANT ARCHITECTURE FOR A PERSONAL VEHICLE

Anything that's going to be as big as this article suggests is not going to be patented only in the US. They'll have patents filed in all major developed countries. And most countries publish applications 18 months after filing.

Most commonly this is done through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They allow you to file a single application (known as a WO document) for a large number of countries, and they also publish applications 18 months after filing. [Side note before you conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy: WIPO does not grant patents. They only offer a simple method by which to file in a large number of countries, and each individual country still decides whether or not to grant the patent.]

Anyway, the bottom line is that there's less lag in the publication of WO applications than there is in the publication of US applications. If you go to the Delphion patent site (previously the IBM patent site) and search for WO documents listing Dean Kamen as the inventor, the results are even more interesting than the list of US patents (only transportation-related patents published in 2000 or 2001 included--the older ones are largely the same as the US list given in the parent comment):

PERSONAL MOBILITY VEHICLES AND METHODS
MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO A PERSONAL VEHICLE
BALANCING VEHICLE WITH CAMBER AND TOE-IN
CONTROL OF A BALANCING PERSONAL VEHICLE
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WHEELCHAIR
FAULT TOLERANT ARCHITECTURE FOR A PERSONAL VEHICLE

Anything that's going to be as big as this article suggests is not going to be patented only in the US. They'll have patents filed in all major developed countries. And most countries publish applications 18 months after filing.

Most commonly this is done through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They allow you to file a single application (known as a WO document) for a large number of countries, and they also publish applications 18 months after filing. [Side note before you conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy: WIPO does not grant patents. They only offer a simple method by which to file in a large number of countries, and each individual country still decides whether or not to grant the patent.]

Anyway, the bottom line is that there's less lag in the publication of WO applications than there is in the publication of US applications. If you go to the Delphion patent site (previously the IBM patent site) and search for WO documents listing Dean Kamen as the inventor, the results are even more interesting than the list of US patents (only transportation-related patents published in 2000 or 2001 included--the older ones are largely the same as the US list given in the parent comment):

PERSONAL MOBILITY VEHICLES AND METHODS
MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO A PERSONAL VEHICLE
BALANCING VEHICLE WITH CAMBER AND TOE-IN
CONTROL OF A BALANCING PERSONAL VEHICLE
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WHEELCHAIR
FAULT TOLERANT ARCHITECTURE FOR A PERSONAL VEHICLE

Anything that's going to be as big as this article suggests is not going to be patented only in the US. They'll have patents filed in all major developed countries. And most countries publish applications 18 months after filing.

Most commonly this is done through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They allow you to file a single application (known as a WO document) for a large number of countries, and they also publish applications 18 months after filing. [Side note before you conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy: WIPO does not grant patents. They only offer a simple method by which to file in a large number of countries, and each individual country still decides whether or not to grant the patent.]

Anyway, the bottom line is that there's less lag in the publication of WO applications than there is in the publication of US applications. If you go to the Delphion patent site (previously the IBM patent site) and search for WO documents listing Dean Kamen as the inventor, the results are even more interesting than the list of US patents (only transportation-related patents published in 2000 or 2001 included--the older ones are largely the same as the US list given in the parent comment):

PERSONAL MOBILITY VEHICLES AND METHODS
MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO A PERSONAL VEHICLE
BALANCING VEHICLE WITH CAMBER AND TOE-IN
CONTROL OF A BALANCING PERSONAL VEHICLE
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WHEELCHAIR
FAULT TOLERANT ARCHITECTURE FOR A PERSONAL VEHICLE

Anything that's going to be as big as this article suggests is not going to be patented only in the US. They'll have patents filed in all major developed countries. And most countries publish applications 18 months after filing.

Most commonly this is done through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They allow you to file a single application (known as a WO document) for a large number of countries, and they also publish applications 18 months after filing. [Side note before you conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy: WIPO does not grant patents. They only offer a simple method by which to file in a large number of countries, and each individual country still decides whether or not to grant the patent.]

Anyway, the bottom line is that there's less lag in the publication of WO applications than there is in the publication of US applications. If you go to the Delphion patent site (previously the IBM patent site) and search for WO documents listing Dean Kamen as the inventor, the results are even more interesting than the list of US patents (only transportation-related patents published in 2000 or 2001 included--the older ones are largely the same as the US list given in the parent comment):

PERSONAL MOBILITY VEHICLES AND METHODS
MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO A PERSONAL VEHICLE
BALANCING VEHICLE WITH CAMBER AND TOE-IN
CONTROL OF A BALANCING PERSONAL VEHICLE
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WHEELCHAIR
FAULT TOLERANT ARCHITECTURE FOR A PERSONAL VEHICLE

Actually, no.

This patent refers to the all-terrain wheelchair that is Kamen's most recent invention. See Fig. 4.

J.J.

Patent 5971091 with DEKA and Kamen's name on it seems to address a unicycle/scooter type device . . . haven't had a chance to look it over

Here's a bio page for Mr. Kamen. He's got a few patents over on the IBM Patent Server, starting in 1975 and going to the present, mainly for medical devices. You can find more stuff by running a quick Google search.

A patent search on IBM's patent server for ( (Kamen Dean) (INVENTOR,ASSIGNEE)) does not show anything too interesting in recent patents. The "Catamenial Collector" is humorously confusing...it appears to be...almost...a sex toy. Everything else he has patented recently seems to be boring and mostly medical...

• rozzin presents (and timothy does not correct) as a direct quote text which does not even appear in the linked press release. The press release claims that ColorMax licensed the patent rights from the Medical College of Wisconsin, not that ColorMax had a patent granted to them.

• Yes, the press release says that the genes were patented. I'm not buying it. Company press releases aren't exactly unbiased sources of information. The only patent I could find remotely resembling what is described in the press release is US 5,837,461. (And I search patents for a living, so I know what I'm doing.) Know what? It doesn't claim the gene. That patent claims:

  1. A method of detecting cone-photoreceptor-based vision disorders, comprising the steps of a) examining the amino acid sequence of a patient's red or green photopigments, and b) correlating the amino acid sequence with amino acid combinations associated with vision disorder, wherein the amino acid sequence is the sequence at positions selected from the group consisting of codon positions 65, 111, 116, 153, 171, 174, 178, 180, 230, 233, 236, 274, 275, 277, 279, 285, 298, and 309 of the gene encoding the red or green photopigment and wherein the correlation comprises comparison of the amino acid sequence with amino acid sequences shown to be diagnostic of vision disorders.

  2. The method of claim 1 wherein the examination of the amino acid sequence is by examination of photopigment genes.

  3. The method of claim 1 wherein the sequence at positions 153, 171, 174, and 180 can be correlated with a diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration.

  4. The method of claim 1 wherein the sequence at positions 153, 171, 174, 178, and 180 can be correlated with a diagnosis of deuteranomaly cone, degeneration, or B-cone monochromat condition.

  5. A method of detecting red-green vision disorders and determining the severity of the disorder, comprising the steps of a) examining the predicted spectral separation of L and M pigments encoded by a patient's photoreceptor genes, and b) correlating the spectral separation with a degree of vision disorder, wherein a spectral separation of greater than 8 nM is predictive of very mild red-green color blindness disorder, a separation of 5 nM-8 nM is predictive of mild vision disorder, a separation of 1 nM-4 nM is predictive a severe disorder and a separation of less than 1 nM is predictive of very severe disorder.

  6. The method of claim 5 wherein the examination comprises analyzing the patient's photopigment genes at codon positions 65, 111, 116, 153, 171, 174, 178, 180, 230, 233, 236, 274, 275, 277, 279, 285, 298 and 309 of the genes encoding the red or green photopigment.

• If the gene were patented (and the people who are saying you can't patent genes and those who say you can are both right, in a way; technically, you can't patent the gene itself, but you can patent use of the gene to do X, Y, or Z, where X, Y, and Z are so broad as to cover virtually any use of the gene), you would not be prior art just because you were color-blind. Prior art must be published. That thing you've made in the basement for 50 years but never told anyone about is not prior art. For genes, generally the genetic sequence must be included. So unless you've sequenced your gene for color-blindness and published it, it's not prior art.

• Ignore the slashdot story.
• Ignore any other general news sources.
• Ignore the company press release.
• Go to the patent itself, but ignore the patent's abstract.
• Ignore the detailed description of the invention in the patent.
• Ignore the drawings in the patent, unless they're referred to by the claims.
• Read the claims. This is the part of the patent that determines what's legally covered by it.
• Keep in mind that each numbered claim is like a little mini-patent of its own. If a question arises as to the validity of the patent, each claim stands or falls on its own.
• However, for each individual claim, keep in mind that all of the multiple elements described in that claim must be present in order to be covered by that claim. If a claim reads "A device consisting of A, B, C, D, and E," that does not prevent you from using a device which has A, B, C, and D but not E. If you take C, D, and E out of the context of the claim as a whole, and try to claim "Here's a device with C, D, and E which existed (and was described in a publication) 10 years before this patent was filed for! It's prior art," that's completely irrelevant, and it would not invalidate the patent.

The Delphion link includes a good bit of information including a pointer to images of the original paper patent application
`ø,,ø!

The Delphion link includes a good bit of information including a pointer to images of the original paper patent application
`ø,,ø!

here is a patent I found a while ago on "Method of exercising a cat" with a handheld laser. It is patent number US05443036, and info on it can be found at http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__

Besides, I'm sure there are *many* sites that can claim prior art for thumbnailed images...

-mdek.net

In answer to your question, sort of.

Hint: READ THE @#$%@#&@ PATENT CLAIMS!!
(Hint #2: The Delphion (formerly IBM) Patent Server Entry might be handy.)

Now that you're a bit better informed, you understand that it's the terminal apparatus (the client-server system that processes the hyperlinks) that the patent applies to; the patent doesn't apply to hyperlinking generally. =)

It would be difficult for BT to hit Prodigy with a patent infringement claim just for operating servers that could fit the descriptions in the patent; All of the claims treat the whole "terminal apparatus" (client-server system), and not the clients or servers separately. However, it's not unlikely that Prodigy can be hit with some specific case that is actually infringement of the patent; A web-based corporate intranet with modem dialups, something I assume that Prodigy has, would, for example.

There probably is prior art to this patent out there somewhere, but I can't seem to find any of it. (See my post on prior art for some more flame-oriented insight on this subject. =)

A quick search at IBM's Patent Site indicates 2 patents - one filed 1975/granted 1977, one filed 1994/granted 1998.

If I offended you ^^

Anyway, reading the patent, doesn't mp3 do some perceptual encoding magic between the DCT and HUFF processes, to actually throw away non-audible data?

Geek dating!

Or maybe they have a patent on "A method of compressing audio to preserve quality but reduce space usage.

Well according to this patent, obtained by Thompson for his "invention", that may be exactly what they claim. The patent would seem to cover any audio compression method that converts from time domain to frequency domain, does quantization, then entropy coding.

The other Fraunhofer patent is at least a bit more focused, and specifies a breakdown into frequency groups, followed by quantization, then compression. The Ogg Vorbis scheme avoids the first stage of prefiltering into smaller frequency bands, and does the transform in one feel swoop. This requires more work for the transform, but arguably gives better results.

In short, the first patent I mentioned seems difficult to defend against, unless it can be shown to be overly broad or invalid. The second is exactly what Ogg Vorbis was avoiding.

Or maybe they have a patent on "A method of compressing audio to preserve quality but reduce space usage.

Well according to this patent, obtained by Thompson for his "invention", that may be exactly what they claim. The patent would seem to cover any audio compression method that converts from time domain to frequency domain, does quantization, then entropy coding.

The other Fraunhofer patent is at least a bit more focused, and specifies a breakdown into frequency groups, followed by quantization, then compression. The Ogg Vorbis scheme avoids the first stage of prefiltering into smaller frequency bands, and does the transform in one feel swoop. This requires more work for the transform, but arguably gives better results.

In short, the first patent I mentioned seems difficult to defend against, unless it can be shown to be overly broad or invalid. The second is exactly what Ogg Vorbis was avoiding.

No, that's not what is claimed at all. That's what it sounds like from the abstract, but you must read the claims (scroll down page to see them) to get to the legally important bits. For instance, they claim:

• A method of searching for a match in a database of a plurality of records, where the records in the database include length information and number of segments for recordings corresponding to the records
• A method ... wherein said determining obtains a value indicative of a difference in length between corresponding segments of the selected recording and the at least one approximately matching record in the database

I don't agree that this should be patentable, mind you (at least not for the length of time that software patents last), but I wouldn't count on it being thrown out of court.

You need to update your hot grits link

--

My mistake. Looks like that might be claims 6 through 11 of this patent which essentially covers a video terminal with extra bits for each character to identify fields (though not for display appearance attributes, which were invented later). But it's not clear to me through the patentese whether this covers a video terminal cursor as such, or just the implementation of a cursor using a cursor attribute bit. Unfortunately the earlier patents it references are not in the IBM database.

My mistake. Looks like that might be claims 6 through 11 of this patent which essentially covers a video terminal with extra bits for each character to identify fields (though not for display appearance attributes, which were invented later). But it's not clear to me through the patentese whether this covers a video terminal cursor as such, or just the implementation of a cursor using a cursor attribute bit. Unfortunately the earlier patents it references are not in the IBM database.

Reading the related paper about the use of code rearranging (let's not call it code-morphing lest we get a patent infringement notice from TransMeta) for Java optimisation shows some of it being used starting in 1997 (isn't this pre-Transmeta ? prior Art ?). The PDF doco covers the idea about converting Java bytcode into RISC (PowerPC , it is IBM =) ) code that is then scheduled in a magic way to give a degree of parallisation on the right hardware. Hmm this does smell like Transmeta. One of the guys working on that Java Paper has got a few patents in his name for optimization ..
--

The trick is to use a pair of my patented spectral shifting eyeglasses. The extra colors are visible as discrepancies between the two eyes, a somewhat glittery effect.

I have a prototype pair here. I haven't done an experiment along the lines of Dr. Jordan's, but my intuition is that you'd be able to pass the tetrachromat test.

In theory, this technique can give you up to hexachromic vision. In practice, the color shifts in the yellow area are by far the most pronounced.

The prototypes cost me about $1000. The optical coating technology is pretty straightforward, and it should be possible to manufacture these in quantity for $20-$30. Anyone interested in going into production?

Method and apparatus using geographical position and universal time determination means to provide authenticated, secure, on-line communication between remote gaming locations

Authentication of a message source

Method and apparatus using geographical position and universal time determination means to provide authenticated, secure, on-line communication between remote gaming locations

Authentication of a message source

Reexaminations are processed with substantial speed in the USPTO. The result of that will be known soon. It is quite possible that the patent claims will all be cancelled, that the patent claims will all survive, or that some claims will be cancelled and/or some claims amended. If some part of the patent survives, the resulting claims will be STRONGER (in the sense of defensible against invalidity, not in the sense of broader in scope) than the original.

Don't take broad descriptions of a patent to indicate either the scope of its claims, or the likelihood of its validity. Read, at least, the patent disclosure and claims. In this case, it is unclear whether the patent reaches as broadly, or would be clearly invalid in view of the prior art on or prior to 1990, as Greg was quoted to suggest. Time will tell.

But it should be understood that Greg has made a practice of self-promotion and promotion of his search services by publicly attacking the scope or validity of various patents. In some cases, he had manifest a clear lack of understanding of applicable patent law, and in others a failure to have read even the most basic information relating to a particular patent he was excoriating.

While it is certainly his First Amendment right to state opinions on various issues, he has often arguably stepped over the line of reason, perhaps even so far as to defamation of title.

But this case isn't about free speech. Greg was not attacked for having claimed a patent was invalid -- he is attacked for having infringed a patent. He is being invited to put his money where his mouth is, literally and figuratively, to prove a patent is invalid which he has claimed, directly or indirectly, was invalid. Again, time will tell.

Frankly, I am unfond of those heavy-handed tactics, both when they are applied by property-holders or their critics. Neither litigant has a stellar history for being truth-seeking and desirious of finding the truth wherever it may lie. At least, in this case, we'll see the results of these issues determined on the merits by a third party. Greg, hardly defenseless, is a self-acclaimed expert patent-buster, and so he is better equipped than most to find the best prior art.

Again, time will tell. Hopefully, the truth will prevail.

Sike! This is the stupidest, most retarded, pathetic patent ever. What an insult! No prior art? A method of exercising a cat? By pointing a laser and moving it around? Boy, doesn't this infringe on Edison's patent of exercising a cat by playing with string?

HOW does crap like this make it past a review?

The EUS may transmit a query to the Server manually and/or automatically for the purpose of initiating a process in the Server (e.g. data compression, indexing into a very large database, etc.), which requires the high speed processing, large capacity and multi-distributed data storage, etc.) which are typically preferred at a Server.

An improved method and apparatus for downloading compressed audio/visual (AV) data and/or graphical/tabular information from a remote Server to an End User Station (EUS) for the purpose of decompressing and/or displaying said downloaded data. The EUS may transmit a query to the Server manually and/or automatically for the purpose of initiating a process in the Server (e.g. data compression, indexing into a very large database, etc.), which requires the high speed processing, large capacity and multi-distributed data storage, etc.) which are typically preferred at a Server. The EUS provides appropriate inverse processing (e.g. data decompression) which, by its nature, requires relatively little processing power to accomplish. Thus, the method of this invention exploits the inherent asymmetry in the overall process of an EUS querying a remote Server (and/or Server Network) for a data service (e.g. retrieval of AV data in faster than real time) where most of the processing power and global scheduling is performed by the Server.

I haven't actually read the fine print to see what's so "improved" about their method. And if they're looking to compress things server-side on the fly, AFAIK normal web servers don't do that in general.

*shrug*
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??

Trying to read the patent -- and it's not fun, it's NOT the web server. It's more like selecting streaming video through a network.

But judge for yourself:

http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn=US05253341__

It doesn't make it less evil to sue your critics first, though.