Slashdot Mirror

Huh, it seem that they mention exFAT in patents: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2009164440

I don't have the time to read through all those treaties, but I doubt it would apply. The EU's current stance on software patents is, that it'S against it. So I don't think US software patents are worth anything here.

The EU's stance on software patents doesn't matter. US software patents are not worth anything outside of the US, period. For that matter, patents outside of the US aren't worth anything in the US.

Patent rights aren't recognized worldwide like copyright. You have to apply for them (and have them granted) in every country in which you seek protection). Various treaties helps smooth out the process of seeking international protection, but it is costly do so, thus most patent applicants focus on obtaining protection in key target markets.

EU customers probably don't need to be too worried. It looks like this i4i patent application was only used to obtain protection in the United States and Canada.

...and, it looks like we had a little problem with the href tag. The Canadian patent shows up here.

Sorry, you are too late there. Check out the patent.

Why are we rehashing the news from 2005?

WO2005/015989 and WO2005/017204

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?adjacent=true&KC=A1&date=20060503&NR=1651030A1&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_V3&CC=EP&FT=D

Let's get up to date.

Check out some US file history at

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

with application number 10/565548 .

Or some EP file history from

http://www.epoline.org/portal/public/registerplus

with Application number EP20040757318 .

Or stick with old news:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2240

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GUP20060520&articleId=2480

Frankly, I am tired of the amateur approach to patents so prevalent at Slashdot.

Apparently they actually patented various things to do with that burger: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=4653685&KC=&FT=E

Nintendo has always played the legal card to the maximum extent possible, going all the way back to the days of draconian contracts that forbade you from making a game for anyone else if Nintendo published one of your games. They tried to control even how much you can advertise. It got ruled invalid eventually, but in the meantime, yes, they did try to put anyone out of business who no loner toes the Nintendo line.

Or here in Europe they tried to strong-arm the retailers into what they can and can't sell, and basically used the European market as an experiment in whether they can make more money with only a handful of games and restricting access to anything else. They actually got slapped with an anti-trust for that, and were found guilty. Worse yet, it turned out that they knew they're in violation of the law, and had planned to violate it, thinking they can make more money than the fine can possibly be. (Wrong guess.)

To get back to patents and to more recent times, they also patented or filed for patent:

- the XBox Live, basically

- emulation of its own consoles, again, to try to keep other people from doing it (and, yes, they tried to bully emulator developpers before)

- weird stuff, like comparing each other's avatars online, never mind that people have been holding costume contests in COH since the fucking launch in 2004

- something as broad as making a stage magician kinda game/sim

- a "wearable" controller to digitize body motions, never mind that motion capture has been done before like that for ages

- a rechargeable game controller never mind that chargers like that existed for mice, headsets, and everything for freaking ages before that

- just about anything you can put a motion detector into, from bikes to teddy bears

- horror games, or at least stuff like hallucinations or hearing voices in games, never mind that neither is new, and an insanity sim had even been made to train police in how to deal with dementia people

Etc.

Some of those seem to even exist just to keep others from doing it. E.g., they filed for a patent for console online gaming, at a time where they were publicly bashing it and saying they have no intention to do that.

Frankly, I don't get the hardon some people seem to get about Nintendo. While they do have a couple of talented designers, the management has an uninterrupted history of being evil fucks that make MS look good by comparison. They tried every possible way to lock competitors out, and developers in, some of which MS so far never even dreamed about. E.g., I don't remember MS suing anyone for developing for the Mac too. They too broke anti-trust laws. Etc.

And at least the previous management had no problem with even insulting its customers, especially if, god forbid, they're asking for a genre Nintendo isn't currently selling. Yamauchi publicly called RPG gamers "depressed gamers who like to sit alone in their dark rooms and play slow games", for example.

The only thing that changed that was the GameCube being the second dud in a row, which prompted a mellowing out of attitude. If they ever get back in a positio

To my knowledge the first _ever_ software patent was granted in the UK. See here. Note the last sentence in the abstract - The Specification is confined to a description of the programming method (also disclosed in Specification 1,039,142) which is applicable to any general-purpose digital computer. IANAL, but to me that sounds indeed like patent on the program / algorithm itself. According to Wikipedia, "UKIPO regularly grant patents to inventions that are partly or wholly implemented in software". Their enforceability is another matter though.

Go to the patent app to see it for yourself.

For practical details like whether she used a Canon IP3/4/5000 based on ease of refilling cartridges with whatever floats her boat... let's hope Ms. Kuepper writes the article for Make I just wrote her to suggest she write.

Getting the patent info and her e-mail address only took a few minutes of digging via google. Though I'll admit I ... never got around to telling her she's hot, my experience indicates that if one actually wants an answer to a tech question, telling someone something she already knows doesn't work well.

Besides, given that I mentioned slashdot, it's likely as not she'll show up on this discussion somewhere to tell us WTF she actually did.

Looks like this could be the patent: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=AU2006317517&F=0.

Why not include it here? Because after 5 years of countering the lies and obfuscation promulgated by the EPO, UKIPO et al here and elsewhere, I had hoped the facts about software patenting in the EU (and UK) would've been pretty well known by now and I'm pretty sick of having to do the basic legwork over and over again. Here's one for you:

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB2437579&F=0

Enjoy!

So, what exactly is the precedent here? I didn't think you could copyright the layout of a board game.

If they copy the board, even if they subsequently modify it then it's copyright infringement.

So the test is probably whether the same colours are used for the squares, and whether the double-letter, triple-word, etc., squares are in the same place.

---
<Rant on USPTO website starts here!>

Incidentally I tried to view Butts patent from 1938 but the USPTO.gov website is about the worst internet site I've seen. It took about 5 clicks, through pages with absolutlely no UI design, to get to the search. The search hasn't changed in about 10 years, which you'd think might mean it works well - you'd be wrong. Then the search results are displayed so poorly, older patents just having a list of codes next to them. Then to top it off you can't see the images because they require you to use some weird-ass TIFF viewer. Seriously, a tiff-viewer! This website is like something slowly cobbled together by someone who has no clue about the internet, UI design, accessing information.

I'm guessing there's a single "designer" who's the sort of person that simply piles everything up in his room, he can find anything at the drop of a hat. But the appearance is of absolute chaos to anyone else.

I've been on the 'net since about '94 (JANET and all that) and started surfing the www in about '96 (Mosaic on UNIX terminals at Uni). In that time I don't ever recall seeing such a poor website in terms of the expectation of a large organisation, the vast number of users that must be subjected to it and the paucity of the results it produces.

Couldn't the USPTO afford to employ one actual web designer?

Compare their patent search with that of Espacenet from the EPO or Patentscope (RTM) from WIPO or the IBM backed Prior Art DB! Can you tell which were actually designed to retrieve information from?

http://gb.espacenet.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi.exe?Action=FormGen&Template=gb/en/advanced.hts

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/index.jsp

https://priorart.ip.com/search.jsp?searchType=freetextSearch

The huge number of disjunctives in the claim (not allowed in UK patent applications, they'd need separate "main" claims to ensure clarity) make it hard to determine the true scope - as a UK application I'd say it lacks clarity.

For example that end clause

Patent US7321783 claim 1 >>> "said display panel adapted for reproducing images or other data from at least one of said memory or the Internet, said other data including at least one of moving images, combined sounds and moving images, or music with or without images."

[see eg http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2004110545&F=0&QPN=US2004110545%5D

Can be reduced as a display panel for playing music from a memory. How does a display panel play music? Perhaps this is a feature of recordation (Korean derivation?) devices!

You might also interpret the need for "connecting to [...] remotely located telephones" as being some sort of direct connection; this doesn't appear to be in the spec and so the claim would need clarifying to show this isn't the case.

However, looking at the HP OmniGo 700LX as a suggested citation - not withstanding the clarity issues - this is a palmtop for external attachment of a cellphone. The case in point is distinct in claiming "a cellphone provided in said housing" and in context and in light of teh description this appears to mean that it's a single integrated device and not an attachable unit.

Again wrt the OmniGo citation the claim 1 requires "at least one of (1) voice controlled dialing, (2) a wireless earphone or (3) a wire connection jack earphone with a microphone for operation of the mobile entertainment and communication device;" I don't think any of those 3 features is mentioned in that disclosure. Indeed the drafting "for operation of the mobile entertainment and communication device" suggests [I'd need to study the description in detail for this part] that the wireless-earphone or jack-wired-earphone-mic would have to be used to control ("for operation") the device.

Other devices like the Nokia 9210 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9210) didn't have wireless earphones nor jack-wired mics it appears. Indeed were there any phones with wireless earphones before bluetooth?

My brief look at the spec suggests they really thought the invention was the use of a memory card that you could download music from the 'net on to. But that's an instant opinion, similarly I only really looked at claim 1, other claims may be broader. Glancing at claim 10 (for example) I see it's drafted badly for the patent owner too ... that's an awful narrow claim. My gut suggests that file wrapper estoppel will be involved somewhere, that the application slipped through based on some statement made about the invention that isn't explicit in the evidence we have here.

I'm just a failed UK patent examiner though so what would I know! - yeah I know I must be an idiots idiot, hey.

It looks like this patent applies:

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2006124679&F=0

SOLID STATE CRYOCOOLER

WO2006124679 (A3) US2006254286 (A1)

A cryocooler is disclosed which includes a reservoir (11), an electrochemical cell or proton conductive membrane (PCM) compressor (12) coupled to a source of AC current, and a gas expander in the form of a pulse tube expander module (13). The compressor (12) includes a proton conductive membrane (17) positioned between a pair of electrically conductive electrodes (18) and (19). The pulse tube expander module 13 includes a regenerator (21), a pulse tube (22), and in inertance tube (23). The regenerator (21) has a heat rejection part or aftercooler (25) and a cooling part or cold heat exchanger (26). The pulse tube (22) includes a heat rejection portion or hot heat exchanger (27).

We, BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD, a public authority established under the provisions of the Transport Act 1962, of 222, Marylebone Road, London, N.W.l, do hereby declare the invention, for which we pray that a patent may be granted to us, and the method by which it is to be performed, to be particularly described in and by the following statement: -

The present invention relates to a space vehicle. More particularly it relates to a power supply for a space vehicle which offers a source ofsustained thrust for the loss of a very small mass of fuel. Thus it would enable very high velocities to be attained in a space vehicle and in fact the prolonged acceleration of the vehicle may in some circumstances be used to simulate gravity.

It sounds like the zoom function works the opposite of the iPhone, where pulling fingers apart zooms IN and pushing together zooms OUT.

For a description of the technology Microsoft uses in its similar Surface device, see U.S. patent no. 6061177, filed by an independent inventor in December 1996.

http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US60 61177&F=0&QPN=US6061177

The European equivalent is EP-B-1171813, and the main claim requires an infringing system to have a "digital keyboard" and that the system mys display the digital keyboard on the user interface as the user enters text a keystroke at a time. The digital keyboard can be replaced with a display of completion candidates, but it is a requirement of the patent that the digital keyboard re-appear if there are no completion candidates.

This is well short of patenting the predicative interface. I expect that very few systems indeed will infringe this.

Has anyone actually inspected the US file to see the claims that have been allowed in the USPTO, or is everyone just speculating?

It will be a few months before the US patent is granted and the final form of the claim is readily available. Remember that the claims of the published US application

Speculating on what a patent covers without inspecting the claims rarely is helpful, especially if you take the word of the patent's applicant as to what it covers.

Perhaps. But take a look at the 10-K that I linked to. They mentioned european patent application 1171813. This lists "GUNN HAROLD DAVID (CA)" as an inventor. The application that I linked to lists "Gunn, Harold David; (Vancouver, CA)" as an inventor. That's probably not a coincidence.

I'm not sure if this really is the patent in question... but it might be it:
USPTO application 20040021691

It's from a later year than the application mentioned in the story, but I think it might be the same one with an updated date or something. Here's how I got to the application:

WordLogic's 10-K filing mentions some patent applications. In particular, it mentions some titled "Method, system and media for entering data in a personal computing device". I found an application matching this, but it's date is in 2004. However, it references the european patent application CA2323856 with a date of Oct 18, 2000 (this just about matches the date mentioned in TFA... different from the date mentioned in the original post). This european patent says that it is also filed as US patent application US2004021691. If you look at that number, it's the same as the USPTO application that I linked to above.

Abstract of EP0689133 A method for displaying on a computer screen multiple sets of information needed on a recurring basis, comprising the steps of: (1) Establishing an area on the computer screen in which the multiple sets of information are to be displayed, the established area having a maximum size which is substantially less than the entire area of the screen. (2) Providing within the established area a plurality of selection indicators, one for each of the multiple sets of information. (3) Selecting one of the multiple sets of information for display within the established area by pointing to one of the selection indicators within the established area, whereby the selected set of information will be substituted within the established area for the set of information previously being displayed therein. A selected set of information may also be moved out of the selected area by pointing to its selection indicator and dragging it away.

Somebody mod this up. The same thing comes up every time this patent is mentioned. ( every time!) It's not a patent on FAT, it's a patent on patching together many 8.3 filenames to make a long name. RTFP!

That's going to be a tough request - considering the name only shows 7 citations (one of which is this patent) in Scifinder Scholar (a chem. lit. database). Below is the abstract for the patent, though... He (Sean McGrady)is the only author, title = "Hydrogen storage materials comprising gallium", and it's a 2006 Eur. Pat. Appl. Full test at:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP16 72087&F=0&QPN=EP1672087

"Hydrogen storage materials which are solid metal alloys in their hydrided state and liq. metal alloys in their dehydrided state, thereby facilitating their recharging by reaction with hydrogen gas. In a preferred embodiment, the material has the formula M3GaH6, where M is an alkali metal like Lithium or Natrium."

Teletext was also a cyclic system. Pages were broadcast in sequence, until the one you wanted appeared. This is OK when there are a few pages - ie: when latency vastly exceeds the cycle time - but it doesn't scale well. Multicast delivery works by delivering content that is being requested to those who have requested it (and nobody else). If done right, it is not based on push/pull concepts, but is based around pooling common requests and pooling common delivery. If you want analogies, then it's efficient mass transit, not television.

And you'd better tell Nokia that their content delivery system sucks, because they clearly don't appear to know it all by themselves.

Argh, bugger. Try an actual link instead; pasting the above gets killed by the space that /. introduces. http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?CY=gb&LG=en&F=4&ID X=GB1310990&DB=EPODOC&QPN=GB1310990

Actually, maybe not patentless:

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO20 06108276&F=10

Note that this is a patent application, not a granted patent.

The compound itself may not be patentable anymore, but that is no bar for obtaining a patent that covers its second or further medical use. That appears to be the case here.

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US20 07011109&F=0

"Do you have any evidence to back that up? The remainder of your comments seemed to be based on this assumption. To my knowledge, US software patents are only valid in the US, possibly Japan and some Asian countries"

The remainder of my comments were not based on that "assumption" (which isn't an assumption but a well known fact anyway), but that you even need to ask for evidence is somewhat odd: the European situation and the great political battles over the EPO's granting of software patents, ridiculous and otherwise, has featured prominently on /. and elsewhere in the media over the last few years. Where have you been? Perhaps you are also unaware that it is standard practice to apply for patents as widely as possible, either under the PCT or individually at the EPO, JPO, USPTO etc. (depending on one's resources)? That is why the USPTO granted patents of large corporations, especially multi-nationals of course, can be expected to have their equivalents in the EPO database. and elsewhere. So, sadly, it is quite correct but tautological and irrelevant to say that US patents are only valid in the US.

With the threat of EPLA now hanging over us here in Europe, things are getting worse. Perhaps I should not expect that everyone else should follow these matters as closely as I do and I am sorry if I sound a bit peevish (I am getting very sick of the groundhog day nature of /. discussions on this (and other) subjects ;-) but even if you are not familiar with the software patent situation in Europe and latest developments, you really should've read the conclusions of the paper you yourself linked to! As it happens, the EPO Board of Appeal just recently (and infamously) made a very big deal - a "spit in the eye of the enormous opposition to its reckless US-style granting practice" kind of big deal - of its allowance of an appalling Microsoft clipboard patent.

"And we haven't even discussed the very large US corporates with a vested interest in FOSS who wouldn't like to see this happen."

To see what happen? You think they will shed tears over patents used (by whoever) against users of FLOSS, effectively excluding competitors who cannot afford to indemnify their customers or wield their own large patent portfolios as these large corporates can? And that is only one of the many, many insidious ways in which software patents can act to the detriment of FLOSS (and other software, of course).

One of their patents rely on a "magnetic shield" for its work:
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO20 06035419&F=0&QPN=WO2006035419

As I understand this patent, they have rail with magnets on it, and a magnetic shield (drawn as a bracket) that moves along the rail in a manner that requires very little effort. Apparently, the magnets serve to balance each other in some way. It looks like could work but are magnetic shields possible? Wouldn't a magnetic shield have to absorb the magnetic field, i.e. somehow being exerted resistance upon by that field?

I forgot to mention, the objected patents are:

1. Method for automatically handling undesired electronic mail in communication networks at the recipient end (Invented by T-Mobile 17th Sep. 2002 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP154 0904&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1024324 3B4
(Yes, T-Mobile invented SPAM filters in 2002)

2. METHOD FOR ADAPTING A DATABASE DISPLAYED ON A CLIENT DATA PROCESSING UNIT TO A SOURCE DATABASE STORED ON A SERVER DATA PROCESSING UNIT (Invented by Siemens 25th Apr. 2003 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP161 8494&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1031988 7B4
(Yes, Siemens invented CVS, SVN, Internet-Browsing and downloading E-Mails to you homecomputer in 2003)

3. Computer and control method therefor (Invented by Siemens, 30th Mar. 2001 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP137 4031&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1011589 9B4

4. Fingerprint addressing system and method (Invented by Hewlett-Packard, 25th Apr. 2002)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1021853 7B4

I forgot to mention, the objected patents are:

1. Method for automatically handling undesired electronic mail in communication networks at the recipient end (Invented by T-Mobile 17th Sep. 2002 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP154 0904&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1024324 3B4
(Yes, T-Mobile invented SPAM filters in 2002)

2. METHOD FOR ADAPTING A DATABASE DISPLAYED ON A CLIENT DATA PROCESSING UNIT TO A SOURCE DATABASE STORED ON A SERVER DATA PROCESSING UNIT (Invented by Siemens 25th Apr. 2003 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP161 8494&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1031988 7B4
(Yes, Siemens invented CVS, SVN, Internet-Browsing and downloading E-Mails to you homecomputer in 2003)

3. Computer and control method therefor (Invented by Siemens, 30th Mar. 2001 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP137 4031&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1011589 9B4

4. Fingerprint addressing system and method (Invented by Hewlett-Packard, 25th Apr. 2002)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1021853 7B4

I forgot to mention, the objected patents are:

1. Method for automatically handling undesired electronic mail in communication networks at the recipient end (Invented by T-Mobile 17th Sep. 2002 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP154 0904&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1024324 3B4
(Yes, T-Mobile invented SPAM filters in 2002)

2. METHOD FOR ADAPTING A DATABASE DISPLAYED ON A CLIENT DATA PROCESSING UNIT TO A SOURCE DATABASE STORED ON A SERVER DATA PROCESSING UNIT (Invented by Siemens 25th Apr. 2003 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP161 8494&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1031988 7B4
(Yes, Siemens invented CVS, SVN, Internet-Browsing and downloading E-Mails to you homecomputer in 2003)

3. Computer and control method therefor (Invented by Siemens, 30th Mar. 2001 http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP137 4031&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1011589 9B4

4. Fingerprint addressing system and method (Invented by Hewlett-Packard, 25th Apr. 2002)
All Snail-Mail objection correspondence online: http://wiki.prevalent.de/index.php?title=DE1021853 7B4

hey don't have a lot of penetration in the US and I can't imagine the EU holding this patent valid

The European sister patent application is still pending. I can perfectly imagine the European Patent Office (EPO) holding it valid though. After all, they already granted patents for e.g. submitting data to a database via forms and computer-based testing.

hey don't have a lot of penetration in the US and I can't imagine the EU holding this patent valid

The European sister patent application is still pending. I can perfectly imagine the European Patent Office (EPO) holding it valid though. After all, they already granted patents for e.g. submitting data to a database via forms and computer-based testing.

hey don't have a lot of penetration in the US and I can't imagine the EU holding this patent valid

The European sister patent application is still pending. I can perfectly imagine the European Patent Office (EPO) holding it valid though. After all, they already granted patents for e.g. submitting data to a database via forms and computer-based testing.

Although ricin has been prepared in crystalline conditions in the laboratory in small quantities, it becomes necessary for purposes of toxological warfare to prepare relatively large quantities in a high state of purity. This neccesitates that as much as possible of the nontoxic material present be removed in the process.

What do you mean by "same exclusive games"? You obviously don't mean same exclusive series. Yeah, you can play Metal Gear Solid 2 on the PS2 and not buy the PS3, but if you want to continue the story, then you'll want Metal Gear Solid 4. That, and games just get old after playing them 30+ times.

Yeah, because you totally have a Playstation 3 that doesn't work with your original Playstation games to make that statement.

Except that Xbox Live charges $5 a month. You know, after 5 years (average console lifespan), that averages out to an extra $250 on the console. Nothing new sure is right, if you just like making stuff up that is.

Linux wasn't included on the PS2, was meant for hobbyist and Linux enthusiasts, and sold for $200. That just might have something to do with Linux on the PS2 not being a success.

Except that they filed a patent for the PS3 tilt controller back in 1999 and there was also a news article in 2003 that suggested the PS3 may have motion-sensing technology. Yep, they totally ripped off Nintendo again.

How do you know the Wii will be fun? Yeah, Nintendo is a game company and Sony is an electronics company, but just because Sony is selling the PS3 as a media center rather than selling it as "just a game machine", doesn't make the Wii any more fun. Unless, of course, whatever some high-ranking Sony executive says somehow displeases you to the point where gameplay is actually hindered. But I doubt you (or anyone else for that matter) are that shallow, right?

Yes, the 1080p support is a feature of the PS3, but that doesn't mean you should run out and get a 1080p capable television (Sony thinks you should and wants you to, but again, are you shallow enough to be affected by someone making 8 figures a year and on the otherside of the planet has to say about what you want to buy?). And is it really important to include "overpriced accessories", considering that ALL console accessories are overpriced? And the keyboard and mouse support is a good thing. I can tell you it will be much better than a controller pad when it comes to First Person Shooters.

It's really sad to see something like that modded up as "Insightful" when it lacks logic. But then again, anything anti-Sony gets modded up, regardless of how outlandish the comment is.

Sony's Movement-Sensing Controller Patent. Stolen from Nintendo, or making use of the patent at an opportune time?

Peer Impact's patent on Incentives for p2p

Here's the Patent

COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING THE DISTRIBUTION AND REVENUE STREAMS DERIVED FROM WORKS MADE AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORM

Abstract of WO2005038617
Methods and computer systems for increasing the revenue stream from a work made available in digital form are provided. The methods and systems of the invention are particularly useful for musical, video, interactive game files, and artistic or commercial works that can be digitally copied and transferred or distributed, such as via the Internet. Embodiments of the present invention advantageously can form part of a greater system that provides access to digital forms of numerous works or groups of works, such as those that are copyrighted, to thereby extend the revenue-producing capabilities for the copyright holder of digital or digitized works to bona fide purchasers of those works. In turn, bona fide purchasers of a work who later provide copies of that work or other authorized works, or provide transfer or distribution bandwidth with respect to that work or other authorized works may receive incentives. Advantageously, no central warehouse of digital content is necessary with the present methods, and users may introduce authorized content into the present system in a controlled manner, through peer-to-peer systems, while realizing economic incentives for doing so. The present systems and methods also provide a myriad of embodiments of incentive and apportioning payment schedules, configurations and properties.
Data supplied from the esp@cenet database - Worldwide

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO20 05038617&F=0

The most common is to grant patents that shouldn't be granted. To be patentable, an invention has to be more than new. It also has to be non-obvious. And this, especially, is where the USPTO has been dropping the ball. Slashdot has an icon that expresses the problem vividly: a knife and fork with the words "patent pending" superimposed.

The scary thing is, this is the only icon they have for patent stories. Slashdot readers now take it for granted that a story about a patent will be about a bogus patent. That's how bad the problem has become.

I'm not a lawyer, exactly, but I have some law school under my belt.

That said, I think the patent in question would be US5845265: "That when a bona fide purchase price is tendered by a participant 900 or another retailer 902 the legal title to a good as represented by the record will transfer to the buyer with an immediate or nearly immediate finality to the transaction." That is, the listing closes the instant the fixed price is met.

Note that this is one of the earlier ones listed; the patent you gave actually references Ebay as prior art.

There are a couple of interesting things here. What I find most unique in MercExchange's patent constellation is the idea of virtual transfer of ownership of items among possibly competing virtual stores which all exist within the same patent system. This would be just like ebay stores, except they would exchange goods electronically between each other and relist them in hopes that better advertising or a new virtual store location will bring a better sale. Also, they have some fairly hilarious stuff about using a "sound blaster" for "audio stream cues" of an actual auctioneer announcing bids. Thanks, but no thanks.

I take the limit price that you mention as a buyer submitting a quantity and maximum price for an item, and if a suitable item is posted at a below price, a buy will automatically take place. This is sort of a reverse auction, not a buy it now.

That aside, I side with Ebay regarding the injunction issue. Companies which purely license patents, as opposed to create products, should not be allowed to halt the businesses of operating companies until the patent dispute is finalized. That's not necessarily how the law sees it, though.

In my quick review I didn't see anything about combining fixed price offerings with auctions, and especially the ebay model of offering the fixed price only until a lower bid is submitting, at which case the fixed price offer is withdrawn and a regular auction continues. I think this makes ebay's system sufficiently unique. I'm sure ebay's lawyers are on top of that one, though.

All that aside, patents suck ass. And it's a slow day at work.

~e

The bid control 614 may provide a link to a web page that allows a participant to place a "buy at" or limit type order to bid into a dynamic pricing system. Here, for example, the navigational dynamic instance may appear at the sub-sub-topic or brand level and the bid control 614 may provide a link to a branded web page 632 of a brand participant that is participating in a dynamic pricing system.

The bid control 614 may provide a link to a web page that allows a participant to place a "buy at" or limit type order to bid into a dynamic pricing system. Here, for example, the navigational dynamic instance may appear at the sub-sub-topic or brand level and the bid control 614 may provide a link to a branded web page 632 of a brand participant that is participating in a dynamic pricing system.

Unfortunately, the Fluxcapacitor has already been patented (Fig. 1 & 2).

Grid Netorks better pony up a large licencing fee to Peer Impact if they want to offer a incentive scheme seeing that Peer Impact's parent company holds this patent .

"Abstract of WO2005038617
Methods and computer systems for increasing the revenue stream from a work made available in digital form are provided. The methods and systems of the invention are particularly useful for musical, video, interactive game files, and artistic or commercial works that can be digitally copied and transferred or distributed, such as via the Internet. Embodiments of the present invention advantageously can form part of a greater system that provides access to digital forms of numerous works or groups of works, such as those that are copyrighted, to thereby extend the revenue-producing capabilities for the copyright holder of digital or digitized works to bona fide purchasers of those works. In turn, bona fide purchasers of a work who later provide copies of that work or other authorized works, or provide transfer or distribution bandwidth with respect to that work or other authorized works may receive incentives. Advantageously, no central warehouse of digital content is necessary with the present methods, and users may introduce authorized content into the present system in a controlled manner, through peer-to-peer systems, while realizing economic incentives for doing so. The present systems and methods also provide a myriad of embodiments of incentive and apportioning payment schedules, configurations and properties."
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO20 05038617&F=0

Found the patent! This should give all the gory details.