Slashdot Mirror

And here is a patent for a time machine: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0073976.html

Someone successfully patented swinging sideways.

No, a patent signifies legally that you have rights to an invention. Now the purpose or usefulness of that invention is questionable but it gives the Patent Holder the right to develop their product and protect it from competition in the marketplace. I'm not sure I agree that all Patents are bad but I don't think you should be given a patent to come up with a new method of excercising a cat using a laser pointer. :-?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html

Yes, but it is a corruption of the US Constitution, ...

Indeed. And that passage in the Constitution was worded as it was, in part because the guys who wrote it were familiar with the way that patent systems in Europe had often been corrupted to create monopolies on common goods. The phrase "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" was designed to prevent patents on things that didn't involve such progress.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would have thought of this infamous recent patent. ;-)

What's with all the hating on Kurzweil here anyway?

So maybe he comes off as a little obnoxious and obsessed, but hell... You've got to give the guy his due. How many of you critics have over 100 patents (many of them quite interesting)? Really... Sounds like sour grapes the way everybody has to knock the guy down.

Nobody ever bothers to actually link the thing, so here is patent 7,301,944.

The only independent claim is:

A media distribution system, comprising: a media file database configured to store media files, wherein one or more of the media files have been compressed prior to storage in the media file database; a computing device configured to receive user requests for delivery of the one or more of the media files stored in the media file database, the computing device further configured to: identify average network throughput between computing device and the requesting users; and route the user requests for delivery of the requested one or more media files to a distribution server capable of servicing the user requests based upon at least the average network throughput; and a distribution server coupled to the media file database, the distribution server configured to simultaneously deliver a single copy of the requested one or more of the media files identified in the routed user requests to the requesting users in less-than-real-time, wherein the distribution server automatically adjusts delivery of the requested one or more media files to the requesting users based on current average network throughput between the distribution server and the requesting users.

Bold parts most important. Note that the "device configured to receive user requests for delivery" must also "route the user requests for delivery". In the bittorrent protocol, the client makes the decision on which peer to make a "request for delivery" to (from the list provided by the tracker), and the peer they request the file chunk from does not "route the user request".

Sadly, our court system has reached the point where defending against such a blatantly invalid use of the patent would still cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it would be easier to close up shop than to prove fundamental operation of the bittorrent protocol is not even close to the claimed patent.

HELIOSTAT CONTROL SCHEME USING CAMERAS : http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0120448.html
I suspect the submitter came in through the search USPTO system.... I had to click "Next" several times to get to this entry.

I can't help but think you're biased. You may have your reasons, but the arguments you put forth may stem from said bias and doesn't really address GP.

i.e.

1. No, GMOs do not create monocultures. Is it possible that a single genetically modified supercucumber sweeps the world because every farmer wants to grow it as it's cheap and resistant and whatnot? Yes, that's a possibility. On the other hand, there might be 20 new supercucumbers genetically engineered. Not all farmers might accept a singular supercucumber (for a variety of reasons). In the event that a singular supercucumber does sweep the world and some supercucumberfungus destroys the world's supply of cucumbers, we might have been sane enough to keep a few 'ordinary' cucumber strains left for just such a scenario.
Regardless of the above scenarios, it's not GM in itself that produces them.

2. You've got me there. Patents on food (and medicine, imho.. probably software too, but I digress) are stupid. But who is to say that if you spent your life combining cucumbers until you get a supercucumber, you can't patent that? In fact - you can; http://www.freepatentsonline.com/PP20666.html . So this is not limited to GMO.

You make a second remark here that rather harks back to the first. Here you suggest that e.g. a cucumber that is a derivative of the supercucumber falls under their patents and so forth and so on. If derivatives are made, how does that gel with the whole monoculture argument? Doesn't a monoculture by definition require there to be only a single strain?
Now, yes, I understand that the diversity in the strains is dependent on the number of generations and actual combinatorial and mutation rates and so forth and so on meaning that the second generation is just about as likely to succumb to the supercucumberfungus as as the first generation - but what about 10 generations down? If 'contamination' occurs naturally, then how is a monoculture ever to be established, globally?

3. If they're built to require -more- pesticide, then don't claim the GMO process in and of itself. Blame the engineer who decided that was a brilliant thing to do. Maybe they hold stock in pesticide producing companies or something; otherwise, producing a supercucumber that is not only resistant to regular cucumberfungus but also doesn't require quite so much pesticide as commoncucumber, sounds like a good idea and more likely to take off among farmers (pesticides and all the regulations that come with them aren't cheap).

And finally the bit where I suspect your bias... "tasteless product". I'm not sure if you meant 'morally offensive' when you said 'tasteless', or literally "not being very flavorful". If the former, carry on. If the latter.. well, tastes differ between crops, seasons, years, and persons of course.. but I wouldn't really try the whole "tasteless product" thing, given that - just for example - research has shown that you can genetically modify a tomato to taste better than the run-of-the-mill standard tomato, in part because said standard tomato has been bred to be bigger, have better shelf life, take less nutrition from the soil, etc. (not so successful in terms of 'taste', there).
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n8/abs/nbt1312.html

Note that the researcher does point out that home-grown tomatoes, or those at the farmer's market, may also taste better. This says nothing of the mass-production tomato in your local grocer's/supermarket/thing, though... regardless of whether the label states GM or not, which was your argument.

I'm not too keen on eating GM stuff myself (mostly due to point 2), but then I do still eat beef and oh boy is that a rotten industry (cornfeed, antibiotics as per the article, etc.). I suppose I could switch to soy-based meat replacement products.. but then I'd just be supporting the deforestation of Brazil's rainforests. Time to grow my own food and stick to chikun? :)

Additionally, the article claims that doing this would grant legitimacy to the Lodsys patent

This. I have STILL not seen any explanation from Lodsys as to how they believe making a purchase in-app is at all related to the patent they are claiming everyone needs to license:

Primary claims:

1. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

54. A system comprising: units of a facsimile equipment...

60. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity and is configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity for generating information about use of the unit of the commodity by the user, the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or support provided for users of the commodity; a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collection of the results of the interactions at the central location and provides access to the collection of results to a third party.

Not a single claim mentions purchasing or upgrading. One primary claim (54) requires a fax machine and is right out. Claim 60 requires that the interface is "configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve user's satisfaction" and is right out in the vast majority of cases. (Does anyone have a "buy" button that asks how they can make the user happier?) Claim 1 requires that the "commodity" be "configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity" and furthermore have a "memory" that stores the "results of the two-way local interaction, ... including elicited information about user perception of the commodity".

Interestingly, this patent is a continuation of an abandoned application that was a continuation of another patent. As I understand it (thanks to wikipedia, since I'm not a lawyer), continuation patents cannot claim new functionality that was not present in the patent it claims to be a continuation of. (note that "continuation-in-part", which does allow adding new "subject matter", appears to be specifically noted when a patent is a CIP patent, like this one.)

As for Apple, Microsoft, etc licensing the patent. They have plenty of documentation pages that ask people to rate how helpful the documentation/support was, some of these p

Additionally, the article claims that doing this would grant legitimacy to the Lodsys patent

This. I have STILL not seen any explanation from Lodsys as to how they believe making a purchase in-app is at all related to the patent they are claiming everyone needs to license:

Primary claims:

1. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

54. A system comprising: units of a facsimile equipment...

60. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity and is configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity for generating information about use of the unit of the commodity by the user, the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or support provided for users of the commodity; a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collection of the results of the interactions at the central location and provides access to the collection of results to a third party.

Not a single claim mentions purchasing or upgrading. One primary claim (54) requires a fax machine and is right out. Claim 60 requires that the interface is "configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve user's satisfaction" and is right out in the vast majority of cases. (Does anyone have a "buy" button that asks how they can make the user happier?) Claim 1 requires that the "commodity" be "configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity" and furthermore have a "memory" that stores the "results of the two-way local interaction, ... including elicited information about user perception of the commodity".

Interestingly, this patent is a continuation of an abandoned application that was a continuation of another patent. As I understand it (thanks to wikipedia, since I'm not a lawyer), continuation patents cannot claim new functionality that was not present in the patent it claims to be a continuation of. (note that "continuation-in-part", which does allow adding new "subject matter", appears to be specifically noted when a patent is a CIP patent, like this one.)

As for Apple, Microsoft, etc licensing the patent. They have plenty of documentation pages that ask people to rate how helpful the documentation/support was, some of these p

Additionally, the article claims that doing this would grant legitimacy to the Lodsys patent

This. I have STILL not seen any explanation from Lodsys as to how they believe making a purchase in-app is at all related to the patent they are claiming everyone needs to license:

Primary claims:

1. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

54. A system comprising: units of a facsimile equipment...

60. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity and is configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity for generating information about use of the unit of the commodity by the user, the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or support provided for users of the commodity; a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collection of the results of the interactions at the central location and provides access to the collection of results to a third party.

Not a single claim mentions purchasing or upgrading. One primary claim (54) requires a fax machine and is right out. Claim 60 requires that the interface is "configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve user's satisfaction" and is right out in the vast majority of cases. (Does anyone have a "buy" button that asks how they can make the user happier?) Claim 1 requires that the "commodity" be "configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity" and furthermore have a "memory" that stores the "results of the two-way local interaction, ... including elicited information about user perception of the commodity".

Interestingly, this patent is a continuation of an abandoned application that was a continuation of another patent. As I understand it (thanks to wikipedia, since I'm not a lawyer), continuation patents cannot claim new functionality that was not present in the patent it claims to be a continuation of. (note that "continuation-in-part", which does allow adding new "subject matter", appears to be specifically noted when a patent is a CIP patent, like this one.)

As for Apple, Microsoft, etc licensing the patent. They have plenty of documentation pages that ask people to rate how helpful the documentation/support was, some of these p

http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/self-guided-sniper-bullets-wanted-by-us-dod/

This is an example of self guided bullets. The technology might not be around yet but the promise is there. Apparently there is a US Patent on the tech: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5788178.html. Interesting.

If anyone were simply restating research for a patent, that would indeed be fraud, but that's not what's happening at Google (or anywhere else reputable, for that matter). Instead, old techniques are being reexamined and improved, and those improvements are being patented. To quote Newton, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." Nostalgia aside, research done in the 60s and 70s did not reach the absolute end of progress in its areas.

The patent in this article, for example, claims both a linked list and a chaining hash table, where the lists used remove expired items whenever they're traversed. The novel and non-obvious improvement is the removal of expiring items upon access. This means that plain old hash tables and linked lists are not prior art in any way that invalidates the patent. If you could find an example of such a self-cleaning list prior to 1999, I'm sure Google would love to hear about it.

As another example, consider Google's patent on MapReduce. The concept of "translate sets, then combine sets" is certainly quite old, but that's not what's being patented. What's actually covered is the specific mechanism used to manage the processing tasks on a cluster, including allocation of workload, tables used, and the addition of intermediate steps to aid processing.

If you'd like to prove me wrong, please feel free to point out any patent from Google (or other reputable company) that is wholly implemented in something from the 70's.

While M$ may prevail in this case, the case itself ironically can be used to invalid many of M$'s own patents.

Don't cry foul when what you wish for come back to take a big bite at your ass, Micro$oft !

Microsoft might be many things, but a patent troll isn't usually one of them. That's one reason that Apple and Google are siding with them on this issue, the other being that these big technology companies are the primary targets for genuine patent trolls like i4i.

The entire patent system is in need of serious reform. Microsoft pushing to make it easier to invalidate all the completely stupid and pointless patents the USPTO has gotten into the habit of granting is only a good thing. It's the first step in (hopefully) bringing some sanity back into the system, and I don't care if it's Microsoft, Apple, or ScumSoft doing the legwork and footing the bill.

PS: That doesn't help your "argument".

While M$ may prevail in this case, the case itself ironically can be used to invalid many of M$'s own patents.

Don't cry foul when what you wish for come back to take a big bite at your ass, Micro$oft !

Microsoft might be many things, but a patent troll isn't usually one of them. That's one reason that Apple and Google are siding with them on this issue, the other being that these big technology companies are the primary targets for genuine patent trolls like i4i.

The entire patent system is in need of serious reform. Microsoft pushing to make it easier to invalidate all the completely stupid and pointless patents the USPTO has gotten into the habit of granting is only a good thing. It's the first step in (hopefully) bringing some sanity back into the system, and I don't care if it's Microsoft, Apple, or ScumSoft doing the legwork and footing the bill.

PS: That doesn't help your "argument".

While M$ may prevail in this case, the case itself ironically can be used to invalid many of M$'s own patents.

Don't cry foul when what you wish for come back to take a big bite at your ass, Micro$oft !

Microsoft might be many things, but a patent troll isn't usually one of them. That's one reason that Apple and Google are siding with them on this issue, the other being that these big technology companies are the primary targets for genuine patent trolls like i4i.

The entire patent system is in need of serious reform. Microsoft pushing to make it easier to invalidate all the completely stupid and pointless patents the USPTO has gotten into the habit of granting is only a good thing. It's the first step in (hopefully) bringing some sanity back into the system, and I don't care if it's Microsoft, Apple, or ScumSoft doing the legwork and footing the bill.

PS: That doesn't help your "argument".

So, back to the couch. Just... dude... where's my beer?

I don't think I'll permit a Chinese company to dictate proper use of the English language, nor a page entitled "Here you obtain information about plastic foils".

*laugh* OK, fair enough ... I've never heard the term before, and all of the hits for "plastic foil" seem to be Chinese companies.

The term seems to be in use, but nothing I would call authoritative on the subject. Though, someone filed a patent relating to it.

You mean something like this wicked contraption?

There are numerous other automatic penis-lacerating devices scattered throughout the USPTO portfolio, including whole metal chastity belts to accomplish the vengeful deed. This is merely the first one that I was able to find this evening.

But really: The most obvious, futureproof, economical, and easy-to-carry solution is for women to simply evolve vagina dentata, as elaborated and dramatized upon in this wonderful film.

Prime examples:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
What is claimed is:

1. A method of inducing aerobic exercise in an unrestrained cat comprising the steps of:

(a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat; and

(b) selectively redirecting said beam out of the cat's immediate reach to induce said cat to run and chase said beam and pattern of light around an exercise area.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said bright pattern of light is small in area relative to a paw of the cat.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein said beam remains invisible between said laser and said opaque surface until impinging on said opaque surface.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein step (b) includes sweeping said beam at an angular speed to cause said pattern to move along said opaque surface at a speed in the range of five to twenty-five feet per second.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html

1. A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is practiced independently by the user to create the side-to-side motion from an initial dead stop.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) inducing a component of forward and back motion into the swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped as an oval.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the magnitude of the component of forward and back motion is less than the component of side-to-side motion.

Prime examples:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
What is claimed is:

1. A method of inducing aerobic exercise in an unrestrained cat comprising the steps of:

(a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat; and

(b) selectively redirecting said beam out of the cat's immediate reach to induce said cat to run and chase said beam and pattern of light around an exercise area.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said bright pattern of light is small in area relative to a paw of the cat.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein said beam remains invisible between said laser and said opaque surface until impinging on said opaque surface.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein step (b) includes sweeping said beam at an angular speed to cause said pattern to move along said opaque surface at a speed in the range of five to twenty-five feet per second.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html

1. A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is practiced independently by the user to create the side-to-side motion from an initial dead stop.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) inducing a component of forward and back motion into the swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped as an oval.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the magnitude of the component of forward and back motion is less than the component of side-to-side motion.

They have materials that absorb cell signals. These materials are not illegal as they don't block the signal. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6479140.html

I already have a number pad that is a mouse.

I don't know about you, but when I'm using a mouse my fingers are resting on the buttons constantly. Asside from the fact that I don't (yet) have transparent fingers, adding a touch screen to the mouse buttons would just make "clicking" strange... Perhaps if the touch screens were just buttons with screens on top it would make sense... I have a keyboard like that... (I use Dvorak and got tired of swapping key-caps.)

I might be able to use the soft buttons when I'm using my mouse in 10-key mode. Honestly, this looks like a solution in search of a problem.

Is it really that innovative to combine a few features of the the two products I already have? Seems like a small improvement, but patent worthy? Psh, when it comes to USPTO, if it ain't patented yet, you can get a patent for it. (I think it's time to get rid of patents.)

The link in TFS is to the "full text" provided by the USPTO--"full text" does not include any figures (images)--to see the figures via the USPTO, a suitable browser plug-in for viewing TIFF is required. If that's not for you, this link (PDF) includes the figures.

The screw desing patented in 1974 is for a "Method of making a thread forming screw". It has noting to do with the bit head.

Cheap Pentalobular screw driver for only $2.35 on sw-box.com ...
Shipped directly from China, with as much as $32.60 shipping fee to California.

Doing a quick search and jumping to conclusion from the listing... OP is a karma whore. The patent find is bogus. His "cheap and easy to find" screw driver is a scam. No part of his post is insightful, the mods are doing crack again.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3758862.html

(except it's patented)...

Sorry but Linked Lists in 2006 are pretty bloody obvious.

Thank you for that one link to back up your wide ranging assertions regarding vaccination, quack doctors, and GMO foods. Me wonders why you are so defensive that you have to use terms like woo-woo to get your argument across.
Here's an interesting video clip about a man called Allan Smith who was in hospital in New Zealand. The doctors decided he was beyond hope and were going to turn off life-support. His family demanded that he be given high doses of Vitamin C and it was administered although the doctors tried their best to stop it from happening. Poor old Allan then came back from the dead. It's terrible that quack sites push the idea that modern medicine doesn't have all the answers.
Every single thing you have stated above can be contradicted by using Google. You may even find peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the assertion that GMOs aren't proven to be safe/beneficial.
And everyone knows that a tin foil helmet can protect a person from the voices in their head.

The term ScepDic seems just so appropriate.

Here is an example response curve with internal gain: http://www.sionyx.com/advantage.html. The QE for a black silicon solar cell can be found in figure 4 of this patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20100224229.pdf. Solar cell performance, measured at 0 bias, is an experimental way to look at the response without internal gain.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6491258.html

This makes me a saaad panda :(

You'd actually be able to solve the energy problem if you built nuclear reactors that output most of their energy as hydrocarbons.

You could get some better economies of scale with larger reactors than we build now but it's hard to transmit and distribute electricity from anything much larger then what we build now.

Imagine that instead of building 1-2 GW reactors you built a 25-30 GW reactor that produce 1-2 GW of electricity for the grid and about 20,000 gallons of gasoline every hour.

LFTR would be an excellent way to do this since it runs at such a high temperature and could supply a large fraction of the energy required to synthesize gasoline in the form of heat instead of electricity.

Looks like reasonable radar decoys have been around for 24 years

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/H000308.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5786786.html

Looks like reasonable radar decoys have been around for 24 years

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/H000308.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5786786.html

Element 95 was patented back in 1964. Not a manner of manufacture, the element itself.

What gives him the idea he can take on a dozen major tech companies out of the Valley?

That would be patent 5714015...

A couple of guys patented shining a laser light on a wall to amuse a cat:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html

That's how out of control patents are. Patents were created to benefit the society by encouraging invention and innovation. Now, they may well be stifling both.

Yeah, I was looking for this. Saw a video on it at least 20 years ago. The patent was filed in 84. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4433681.html

And some before and afters: http://www.limblengthening.com/beforeafter.html

Found another article from 2008 that postulates that the Earth/Sun distance may also have an effect on isotope decay rates.

There was also some "fringe" claims back in the early 1990's about how high voltage electrical fields affect alpha decay in isotopes. A quick search turned up a patent.

If these claims are substantiated its going to hit more fields than we expect. IIRCC current theory's relating to atomic decay, both classic and quantum, state that the decay rate of unstable atoms is totally random and does not change under any normal conditions. This finding would seem to dispute that, even raising the possibility of accelerating the decay of radioactive atoms into stable one. Might be a way of dealing with the nuclear waste issues if its true and we can figure out how to induce it in the lab. Who knows, once we understand it we might be able to make the effect go the other way and create useful isotopes without needing a reactor.

No mater the case this is interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing more research on this.

See: "The IBM Personal Speech Assistant"
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10.6203&rep=rep1&type=pdf
"In this paper, we describe technology and experience with an experimental personal information manager, which interacts with the user primarily but not exclusively through speech recognition and synthesis. This device, which controls a client PDA, is known as the Personal Speech Assistant (PSA). The PSA contains complete speech recognition, speech synthesis and dialog management systems."

Seriously though, that was ten years ago on research hardware, and this is great progress for a commercial and affordable advice with a large vocabulary. It probably works better than what we built then. And I still think software patents are a bad idea. :-)
"Scalable low resource dialog manager"
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6513009.html

Now, if only someone would do in a big way an idea I was pioneering at IBM Research back then on using speech to interact with display walls built using a network of hundreds of otherwise obsolete laptop computers (I only tested using nine though). I hope Google comes out with that soon, too. :-) I wanted to create something like that to help design space habitats that could duplicate themselves from sunlight and asteroidal ore. :-) The idea was that speech would be a good interface modality when you were walking around in front of a display wall, rather than trying to carry a keyboard around with you (although you might still want a pointing device). Anyway, it would also be a good use for all those soon-to-be-obsolete iPads and Android pads in a few years when the next great version of them comes out. I just hate to see an old computer go to waste, even if they are often energy hogs relative to the next generation.

Converting carbon dioxide to hydrocarbons is a solved problem.

It gets worse - if we would have built 13 thorium breeder reactors for every coal plant we've built in the last 30 years (or one plant with 13 times the capacity) the extra energy produced would be enough to, using existing technology, generate 200 billion gallons of (carbon neutral) gasoline per year from seawater and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is one for a cookie pie: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0166435.html

You can submit a patent application for anything you want, that doesn't mean it will be granted. I can submit a patent application that's simply "What is claimed is: 1. A method for creating the first post in a Slashdot thread.", and the patent office has to accept my application. Of course, the examiner will laugh at me, and they might even take the time to write up a page or two telling me off.

I checked the status of that cookie pie patent (go to this USPTO page and enter application number 11/333238), and it was abandoned after the initial rejection. The examiner rejected the application on the basis of prior art.

It's the idea behind the fact that you can patent what amounts to a recipe, along with every variation of said recipe.

Machines are just a bunch of atoms, and you can't patent atoms. The reduction argument doesn't work.

There is one for a cookie pie: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0166435.html ... but that's not my point. It's the idea behind the fact that you can patent what amounts to a recipe, along with every variation of said recipe.

Patenting the algorithm for detecting music from a small sample without listing the method for which you do this is tantamount to patenting a cookie like object that can contain any number of ingredients. Then once you achieve such patent, suing every website that posts a recipe for something that could be baked to look like a cookie.

From the comments on the article: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5431575.html
Not exactly the same from what I can tell (haven't seen the MS patent), but pretty close

Lesson #1 on deciphering patents: Ignore the title and abstract- read the claims. Claims are far more specific, and are the only enforceable part of the patent. Here is the patent you're referring to. Here are the claims:

Claims: 1-59. (canceled)

Obvious stuff found in lots of wire-full networks cut. IOW nothing left.

Claims:

1-59. (canceled)

60. In a mobile communication system, a method comprising:adopting a robust header compression (ROHC) scheme;configuring uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information based on the ROHC scheme, wherein the downlink parameter information and the uplink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

61. The method of claim 60, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

62. The method of claim 60, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

63. The method of claim 60 further comprising:receiving mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme from a mobile terminal.

64. The method of claim 60 further comprising:transmitting mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme to a network.

65. In a mobile communication system, and apparatus comprising:an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer adapted to perform header compression and/or decompression; andan entity in an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer adapted to configure uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information for the entity in the PDCP layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the asymmetric parameter information comprises at least one of MAX_CID parameter information and Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

66. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

67. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

68. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.

69. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the entity in the RRC layer is further adapted to transfer the asymmetric parameter information to the PDCP layer.

70. In a mobile communication system, an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer comprising:a compressor performing header compression based on uplink parameter information transferred from an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer;a decompressor performing header decompression based on downlink parameter information transferred from the RRC layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

71. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

72. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

73. The method of claim 70, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.

In summary: this is a little less obvious than your analysis of the abstract. Unless there is prior art, this patent has teeth.

the patent in question was http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7742468.html

which unless I'm HIGHLY mistaken was filed on 09/01/2009, well AFTER google voice was developed and released into beta. PRIOR ART MUCH?

Based on this patent, it looks like they write, read back an analog signal, and then use any deviation from expectations to compute a compensation factor for a second write which is the actual data write. In other words, the first write is used to calibrate the data writes. I assume this calibration is done rarely or the write bandwidth would be 1/3 of a non-calibrating system.
Variations due to process (the cell is smaller or larger than intended) only need to be calibrated once. Variations due to environment such as temperature or supply voltage require more frequent calibration but should hurt bandwidth too much. I assume the MSP determines when calibration is required.
The patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0103358.html
Although the vagueness of the marketing material made me skeptical, the patent shows they have a significant contribution and this technology does have value.

In GSM the cell size is limited to about 35 km radius, because the frame length limits the amount of timing advance. CDMA is free from such issues, so the max size is largely dependent on frequency, possibly up to 40 mi depending on TRx power and frequency.

You can't patent the way you drive your car....

Are you sure about that?