Slashdot Mirror

My favorite patent of all time is for a cat "laser excercise" device ... basically you shine a lazer at the floor and the cat chases it .. but lord its patented. the patent holder obviously has a sense of humour. its as good an idea as anything I've seen patented recently ... anyone have a link to this?

Here it is.

=================================

After reading this article, and looking at one of the patent mentioned, I'm going to hazzard a reasonable guess at exactly what's going on here:

1. They aren't patenting IA-64 codes. That is, the aren't trying to patent JMP for jump, FOO1A for super-duper multimedia instruction, etc. I don't think they're fool enough to believe that anything like that could ever get patented, or for that matter, copyrighted or trademarked.
2. It is unclear if they are trying to protect functionality or implimentation. From the patent application itself, it appears as though they are only trying to protect their implimentation of how to do interrupt context returns, not the concept of interrupt context returns itself. The article, however, sounds like they're trying for the latter.

The problem with this kind of patenting is that the "concept" is closely tied to the "implimentation". That is, the concept may be so narrowly circumscribed that any implimentation is an 'infringing' one.

Also unclear in this whole mess is how a software trap would fit in. Suppose Intel was granted the "broader" patent which covered not just the specific transistor layout of the interrupt return handler, but the more general case of returning interrupt context for IA64. Does this preclude software implimentations of that IA64 instruction (which would be particularly relevant to code-morphers like Transmeta, but even to AMD et al which do translation to microcode)?

I'm by far no Patent Lawyer. If the scope is the narrower one, I see no problem, and indeed, is well within the goal of patents. I'm alot let sanguine if the patent covers more than the circuit design, however.

-Erik

The existence of certain patents would tend to suggest otherwise. The fact is someone was able to patent making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Ralph Bear patented Television Gaming Apparatus and Method". Basically all videogames had to be licensed from Sanders Associates, Inc (Mr. Baer's company). The fact that this was allowed can be chalked up to ignorance. No one person or group should be blamed, there was enough ignorance to go around. While everyone could understand saucer shaped crafts that fly, this was not the case with videogames. No one, not even Mr, Bear himself, had a clue how prevalent videogames would become and no one else knew what they were.

As I understand it, the court case involving pong (just one of the things I mentioned) was not so much about any specific games (Hockey vs Pong) but rather Mr. Baer's 'videogame patent' was being defended. The similarity between hockey and pong was just a damaging bit of evidence against Mr. Bushnell and supported the claim that he deliberately stole the idea as opposed to the claim that any resemblance between Magnavox's product and Atari's was purely coincidental. I do admit I have not read the entire court transcripts from beginning to end but I'm pretty sure I got the important details right.

I'm not bitching that PONG was second hand, just stating the facts. Willy Higinbotham invented it, Ralph Bear patented it, Nolan Bushnell successfully marketed it. Magnavox took Atari to court, where the name Willy Higinbotham was never mentioned. Nolan Bushnell technically lost, but managed a slick licensing deal out of the mess. Videogames began their rise to total entertainment domination. That leads to the present, where many people continue to think Nolan Bushnell invented videogames and don't hesitate to pass on this false rumor, often in credible forums.

The existence of certain patents would tend to suggest otherwise. The fact is someone was able to patent making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Ralph Bear patented Television Gaming Apparatus and Method". Basically all videogames had to be licensed from Sanders Associates, Inc (Mr. Baer's company). The fact that this was allowed can be chalked up to ignorance. No one person or group should be blamed, there was enough ignorance to go around. While everyone could understand saucer shaped crafts that fly, this was not the case with videogames. No one, not even Mr, Bear himself, had a clue how prevalent videogames would become and no one else knew what they were.

As I understand it, the court case involving pong (just one of the things I mentioned) was not so much about any specific games (Hockey vs Pong) but rather Mr. Baer's 'videogame patent' was being defended. The similarity between hockey and pong was just a damaging bit of evidence against Mr. Bushnell and supported the claim that he deliberately stole the idea as opposed to the claim that any resemblance between Magnavox's product and Atari's was purely coincidental. I do admit I have not read the entire court transcripts from beginning to end but I'm pretty sure I got the important details right.

I'm not bitching that PONG was second hand, just stating the facts. Willy Higinbotham invented it, Ralph Bear patented it, Nolan Bushnell successfully marketed it. Magnavox took Atari to court, where the name Willy Higinbotham was never mentioned. Nolan Bushnell technically lost, but managed a slick licensing deal out of the mess. Videogames began their rise to total entertainment domination. That leads to the present, where many people continue to think Nolan Bushnell invented videogames and don't hesitate to pass on this false rumor, often in credible forums.

I'd be interested in what you think of the color calibration used by Splash products. They are print servers that hook up to a large color copier, and do color calibration as well as other things.

The calibration scheme used seems simple enough, using only a scanner, color strip, and the copier. Kodak makes high-accuracy color strips that have standard colors. The scanner scans that strip and is calibrated to it. Then, the copier spits out a sheet of paper with colored squares. That paper is placed on the scanner, along with the color strip, and they are compared and used to calibrate the copier against the color strip (via the already-calibrated scanner).

The computer is then calibrated to the same standard used by the color strip. Then, you can use the copier as a printer, to print accurate colors, as the system is then completely calibrated. Simple enough.

Unfortunately for the GIMP, this is patented. I work at Splash, programming Linux network stuff. This caught my eye, and I thought I'd add this to the discussion...

The infamous cat exercising patent:

US5443036: Method of exercising a cat

A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.

--

Here is a link to that amazingly stupid patent on the IBM patent archive.

Read it here


Chalk this one up as another abuse of the patent system. I can't imagine why the patent office didn't throw this one out... the reviewer must never have owned an electronic device or even an etch-a-sketch. The application of a clear plastic film as a protective covering is so obvious that it has been used on watch faces, eraseable boards, glass sheets, bulk plexiglass, automotive parts, etc. etc. and these certainly predate 1992.
Does the "innovation" of using it on a LCD make it patentable? I think we have our answer.
What this needs is someone with deep pockets to sue this into the ground.
whatever.

Why was I not surprised to discover this...
This one took me a little longer to find than the contest patent.....

U SP# 5,302,965 covers...
A display comprises a static unit (8) on which is mounted a rotating unit (7) driven by a motor (12). The rotating unit carries light emitting diodes (6) arranged as vertical columns which sweep around a cylindrical surface. The light emitting diodes (6) are controlled by a control circuit (6) in accordance with data stored in a memory (61) so as to provide a cylindrical display. The control circuit (60) and memory (61) are located in the rotating unit 97) and the memory (612) has a capacity for storing several different images for display.

I'm thinking maybe I should change my .sig to "Mr Patent Search"

p.s. sorry about the duplicate posting I responded to the wrong message with my first try...

Why was I not surprised to discover this...
This one took me a little longer to find than the contest patent.....

U SP# 5,302,965 covers...
A display comprises a static unit (8) on which is mounted a rotating unit (7) driven by a motor (12). The rotating unit carries light emitting diodes (6) arranged as vertical columns which sweep around a cylindrical surface. The light emitting diodes (6) are controlled by a control circuit (6) in accordance with data stored in a memory (61) so as to provide a cylindrical display. The control circuit (60) and memory (61) are located in the rotating unit 97) and the memory (612) has a capacity for storing several different images for display.

I'm thinking maybe I should change my .sig to "Mr Patent Search"

No, they released the one patent into, but not this one. How many others are there like this, and do they affect SSL?

This is infinitly more useful:
"Device for perfusing an animal head"

Just think, your pet hamster could live forever and impart knowledge to future generations!!

-----------

I found this patent that sound like e-commerce, however the description is quite unintelligible.

Oh, wait, someone already thought of that one. Damn.


If you're not wasted, the day is.

I was about to write back to you and tell you that IBM is simply custodian of the Intellectual Property Network Web site, and does not necessarily have any connection with all of the patents listed there.

However, I see now that the Web site has just been spun off into a new entity called Delphion. So I must say that neither IBM nor Delphion necessarily has any connection with all of the patents listed there.

The patent holders, Kevin T. Amiss and Martin H. Abbott, appear to have registered for the patent independently of any corporation. Perhaps they planned on starting a company based on this patent. In any case, due to the completeness and the reputation of the Web site, I am sure the patent is real. But if you are in doubt, a quick check of the government records at your local public library ought to confirm it.

Since the old link is now broken (geez, doesn't anyone know how to run a Web server anymore?), here is a new working link to U.S. Patent No. 5,443,036.

I was about to write back to you and tell you that IBM is simply custodian of the Intellectual Property Network Web site, and does not necessarily have any connection with all of the patents listed there.

However, I see now that the Web site has just been spun off into a new entity called Delphion. So I must say that neither IBM nor Delphion necessarily has any connection with all of the patents listed there.

The patent holders, Kevin T. Amiss and Martin H. Abbott, appear to have registered for the patent independently of any corporation. Perhaps they planned on starting a company based on this patent. In any case, due to the completeness and the reputation of the Web site, I am sure the patent is real. But if you are in doubt, a quick check of the government records at your local public library ought to confirm it.

Since the old link is now broken (geez, doesn't anyone know how to run a Web server anymore?), here is a new working link to U.S. Patent No. 5,443,036.

It's always wise to check for prior art, you might usefully look in the Gallery of Obscure Patents before submitting ideas to Slashdot. My favo(u)rite is: Method of Exercising a Cat

It's always wise to check for prior art, you might usefully look in the Gallery of Obscure Patents before submitting ideas to Slashdot. My favo(u)rite is: Method of Exercising a Cat

OLEDs have been mentioned for a while: 1998 by Compaq, lightly technical discussion from chemsoc, a view that says OLEDs complement rather than replace TFT-LCDs from Electronic Business-Asia (August 2000), January of 1999 shows that Idemitsu Kosan, a Japanese chemical company, has demonstrated(search for "organic") 640x480x16mil with OLEDs.

Some US patents of interest: US05965901 (Cambridge Display), US05247190 (a 1993 Cambridge Patent), US04539507 (a Kodak claim geared towards reduced power consumption).

And so on.

Two fellas at Eastman Kodak who are real important on this issue are Steven A. VanSlyke and Ching W. Tang, both of whom have were sent in 1995 to give lectures in Japan on OLED technology.

My two cents says, it's about time companies stopped hyping this to the press in underdetailed press releases and actually start showing something for all their R&D efforts. Quit trying to make it the be-all end-all product the first time and get us cheaper, less power-hungry displays. When tube manufacturers realize their goose is cooked, prices will plummet for Digital TV in the US and OLED manufacturers will be handed the display market on a silver platter.

OLEDs have been mentioned for a while: 1998 by Compaq, lightly technical discussion from chemsoc, a view that says OLEDs complement rather than replace TFT-LCDs from Electronic Business-Asia (August 2000), January of 1999 shows that Idemitsu Kosan, a Japanese chemical company, has demonstrated(search for "organic") 640x480x16mil with OLEDs.

Some US patents of interest: US05965901 (Cambridge Display), US05247190 (a 1993 Cambridge Patent), US04539507 (a Kodak claim geared towards reduced power consumption).

And so on.

Two fellas at Eastman Kodak who are real important on this issue are Steven A. VanSlyke and Ching W. Tang, both of whom have were sent in 1995 to give lectures in Japan on OLED technology.

My two cents says, it's about time companies stopped hyping this to the press in underdetailed press releases and actually start showing something for all their R&D efforts. Quit trying to make it the be-all end-all product the first time and get us cheaper, less power-hungry displays. When tube manufacturers realize their goose is cooked, prices will plummet for Digital TV in the US and OLED manufacturers will be handed the display market on a silver platter.

OLEDs have been mentioned for a while: 1998 by Compaq, lightly technical discussion from chemsoc, a view that says OLEDs complement rather than replace TFT-LCDs from Electronic Business-Asia (August 2000), January of 1999 shows that Idemitsu Kosan, a Japanese chemical company, has demonstrated(search for "organic") 640x480x16mil with OLEDs.

Some US patents of interest: US05965901 (Cambridge Display), US05247190 (a 1993 Cambridge Patent), US04539507 (a Kodak claim geared towards reduced power consumption).

And so on.

Two fellas at Eastman Kodak who are real important on this issue are Steven A. VanSlyke and Ching W. Tang, both of whom have were sent in 1995 to give lectures in Japan on OLED technology.

My two cents says, it's about time companies stopped hyping this to the press in underdetailed press releases and actually start showing something for all their R&D efforts. Quit trying to make it the be-all end-all product the first time and get us cheaper, less power-hungry displays. When tube manufacturers realize their goose is cooked, prices will plummet for Digital TV in the US and OLED manufacturers will be handed the display market on a silver platter.

Yes, British Telecom is actually asking 17 big US operators for payment based on this patent, which is valid in the US only and until 2006.

I'm not a patent expert at all, but far from everyone seems to think this patent actually covers hyperlinking.