Slashdot Mirror

...unless the original creator has significant patent rights in technology in that standard, at which point everything gets messy.

http://freepatentsonline.com/result.html?query_txt =xaml%20microsoft

1. A psychological development system comprising triangulation, categorization and interpretation.
2. A psychological development system comprising evaluating at least three things in at least three ways in at least three levels that is repeated at least three times.

Reading the whole thing opens up whole new notions of "what is patentable". Of course, how many people are going to want to do all 81 (3^4) combinations. But it does raise another question. If I had a system involving two things in two ways at two levels twice, would it be covered? How about 2*3*3*3?

oops, that is SUGAR, not sugER.. Sorry...

BUT.. Google give me this:

Wiki on Polymer:

"Well known examples of polymers include plastics and DNA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer

And, SUGAR based polymers patented: United States Patent 5270421

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5270421.html

So, I would say... news?

Being an Electrical Engineer I actually designed a four terminal resistor as part of a project I was doing for my degree in 1982 and having worked at a Standards Lab were four terminal resistors were very common It was very easy for me to design and build a cheap accurate (parts in a million) and stable one out of what was to me "off-cuts".

Take a look at this patent (2007) http://www.freepatentsonline.com/RE39660.html (Surface mounted four terminal resistor - United States Patent RE39660). The organisation I worked for had these going back to the early 1960's. It looks like you can patent prior art and obviousness in the USA now even though the US National Standards Laboratory has papers on four terminal resistors going back earlier than the 1970's (I did not look back any further). At least some of the "built on" patents were named as far back as 1984 although I can't see how you can build a patent on top of a patent especially something like a four terminal resistor. Maybe they added more of the Periodic table to the resistor and to them it was innovative.

Now software patents (sigh!) I actually refuse to look since I don't want a headache.

WotC already patented CCGs. You (and everybody else) lose!
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5662332.html

See also:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Trading_card_game #Patent

and improvement of (legally required) catalytic converters on cars, are contributors,

Catalytic converters on cars have NO effect on carbon emission

Overall Catalytic converters increase carbon emission's but I think he is talking about things like: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6840039.html So it's not the presence of catalytic converters that help carbon emissions as overall they still increase them, but by designing a better catalytic converter you rob the engine of less power and thus increase efficiency. Granted it's a minor effect but it does help.

PS: My 91 Volvo had a catalytic converter so it's hardly new tech.

Well, I was joking, of course. But using dummy traffic generation to foil traffic analysis has been taken seriously. Add to this that inbound spam is ubiquitous, and that outbound spam botnet traffic is likely to get accepted as a valid excuse for something that's all too common ("what? me? must've been a virus on my PC!"), is it really so unrealistic to hide in the swarm? Damn, I should have filed a patent "An apparatus for piggy-backing secret communications on top of ubiquitous unsolicited commercial e-mail"!

PS: come by my site (www.twoclick.org/unnamed). Sounds like you're pretty familiar with this stuff

Interesting point, but its a little worse than you think. I count some 2500 patents in which Microsoft is the assignee and the term "user interface" appears somewhere in the patent.

The good news:

• IBM has at least 6300 patents with the words user interface in them.
• Sun has over a thousand more.
• Xerox, which really got the ball rolling on user interface patents, has 2000 plus patents that refer to user interfaces.

The somewhat wierd news: Apple has only 600 or so patents with the words user interface in them. Of course all of these players together account for less than a sixth of all the patents (currently over 70,000 that include the words "user interface".

Interesting point, but its a little worse than you think. I count some 2500 patents in which Microsoft is the assignee and the term "user interface" appears somewhere in the patent.

The good news:

• IBM has at least 6300 patents with the words user interface in them.
• Sun has over a thousand more.
• Xerox, which really got the ball rolling on user interface patents, has 2000 plus patents that refer to user interfaces.

The somewhat wierd news: Apple has only 600 or so patents with the words user interface in them. Of course all of these players together account for less than a sixth of all the patents (currently over 70,000 that include the words "user interface".

Interesting point, but its a little worse than you think. I count some 2500 patents in which Microsoft is the assignee and the term "user interface" appears somewhere in the patent.

The good news:

• IBM has at least 6300 patents with the words user interface in them.
• Sun has over a thousand more.
• Xerox, which really got the ball rolling on user interface patents, has 2000 plus patents that refer to user interfaces.

The somewhat wierd news: Apple has only 600 or so patents with the words user interface in them. Of course all of these players together account for less than a sixth of all the patents (currently over 70,000 that include the words "user interface".

Interesting point, but its a little worse than you think. I count some 2500 patents in which Microsoft is the assignee and the term "user interface" appears somewhere in the patent.

The good news:

• IBM has at least 6300 patents with the words user interface in them.
• Sun has over a thousand more.
• Xerox, which really got the ball rolling on user interface patents, has 2000 plus patents that refer to user interfaces.

The somewhat wierd news: Apple has only 600 or so patents with the words user interface in them. Of course all of these players together account for less than a sixth of all the patents (currently over 70,000 that include the words "user interface".

Interesting point, but its a little worse than you think. I count some 2500 patents in which Microsoft is the assignee and the term "user interface" appears somewhere in the patent.

The good news:

• IBM has at least 6300 patents with the words user interface in them.
• Sun has over a thousand more.
• Xerox, which really got the ball rolling on user interface patents, has 2000 plus patents that refer to user interfaces.

The somewhat wierd news: Apple has only 600 or so patents with the words user interface in them. Of course all of these players together account for less than a sixth of all the patents (currently over 70,000 that include the words "user interface".

Interesting point, but its a little worse than you think. I count some 2500 patents in which Microsoft is the assignee and the term "user interface" appears somewhere in the patent.

The good news:

• IBM has at least 6300 patents with the words user interface in them.
• Sun has over a thousand more.
• Xerox, which really got the ball rolling on user interface patents, has 2000 plus patents that refer to user interfaces.

The somewhat wierd news: Apple has only 600 or so patents with the words user interface in them. Of course all of these players together account for less than a sixth of all the patents (currently over 70,000 that include the words "user interface".

When the rule you suggest was the case, patenting software was easily handled by patenting the combination of a device with the underlying software. See, for example, US 4,490,811, which in essence patents not the software of the "proximity theta" algorithm but simply any electronic circuit running said algorithm. My point is merely that you will find the line between a "software patent" and a "hardware patent" difficult to enforce a clear line around.

Microsoft patents that Linux infringes on almost certainly include their patent of file system symlinks, which have been in Unix systems since the seventies, as well as a slew of other very obvious inventions, none of which have been tested in court. Getting a patent granted, as denizens of Slashdot are all too well aware, seems to be the easy part. Validating those patents in a court of law may be a little more difficult, especially when one of the supporters of linux, might have a patent portfolio that would push Balmer from chair throwing to crying uncle.

I think the real problem is Patents. No we shouldn't abolish them, but we should stop giving frivolous ones. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn965 Google Ridiculous Patent for more Honestly we should have some common sense. Yes you can patent the lightbulb, or A new motor, but some of this stuff is ridiculous.

I remember when this method was in development. We knew that what was being done was so unusual as to be almost sure to be unique, but needed a way to protect our right to use the method. We were correctly advised by our UK patent agent that our only options were to either publish or file for a patent. As we were in the middle of a contractual negotiation, we absolutely couldn't publish, so had to file a patent application to lay down a prior art date.

First to file does work, but it means that from your prior art date you only get ~18 months before your work is published. But a UK patent filing is relatively inexpensive, and at least provides a means of levelling the playing field - a lapsed patent application is still prior art.

An alarm clock in the form of a sports ball has an alarm clock assembly with a snooze-type audio alarm which is temporarily silenced when the ball is thrown against a wall. The alarm clock ball has a feasible and resilient core of a foamed plastic, such as styrofoam, and an overlying cover of a plastic material. The clock assembly is mounted within a recess in the styrofoam core and has display and button controls which are visible and accessible through an opening in the plastic cover. The clock assembly has a quiet electrical switch which controls the snooze alarm mechanism and which is operated by a normally closed deceleration switch located in the foam core. The deceleration switch has a spring-biased metal ball in normal contact with two conductive contacts. When the alarm clock is thrown against a wall, the metal ball is displaced due to its inertia on impact thus temporarily breaking contact and silencing the alarm.
An alarm clock in the form of a sports ball has an alarm clock assembly with a snooze-type audio alarm which is temporarily silenced when the ball is thrown against a wall. The alarm clock ball has a feasible and resilient core of a foamed plastic, such as styrofoam, and an overlying cover of a plastic material. The clock assembly is mounted within a recess in the styrofoam core and has display and button controls which are visible and accessible through an opening in the plastic cover. The clock assembly has a quiet electrical switch which controls the snooze alarm mechanism and which is operated by a normally closed deceleration switch located in the foam core. The deceleration switch has a spring-biased metal ball in normal contact with two conductive contacts. When the alarm clock is thrown against a wall, the metal ball is displaced due to its inertia on impact thus temporarily breaking contact and silencing the alarm.

I wait to see the patent for chewing your food thoroughly before swallowing.

Title: Oral device to aid weight control
Document Type and Number: United States Patent 5924422
Link to this Page: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5924422.html
Abstract: An oral device and method for slowing down the rate of food ingestion, thereby aiding digestion, assimilation, and allowing time for raising blood sugar and achieving satiety sooner, with less food consumption over a given period of time. The device consists of any means for lowering the normally vaulted area of the roof of the mouth. In the preferred embodiment, the vault lowering means includes a molded piece which fits against the palate, and retaining wires to secure the piece to the teeth, while avoiding interference with the teeth on occlusion. The method and apparatus for lowering of the vault reduces the amount of food which can be comfortably ingested per bite. In use, the device allows the user to freely move his tongue and jaws, to talk, to breath, to drink, and to chew food. The method includes altering temporarily the configuration of the palate by lowering the vaulted area of the roof, to reduce the volume in the mouth available for food and reducing the food intake.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4441170.html

This patent seems to cover redundant circuits and one time fuses to patch them and a disable fuse to prevent end user changes. The repairs can be made after packaging. This is not to change code, but to increase manufacturing yeild. A few bad bits can be replaced by patching in redundant spare memory instead of trashing the die.

from the old Cox model aircraft company:
http://www.geocities.com/buckrogers_nz/miscvintage .html?20079
or
http://cgi.ebay.com/COX-flying-saucer-Vintage-COX- glow-powerd_W0QQitemZ220100425113QQihZ012QQcategor yZ19164QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
or another, apparently, similar idea:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4065873.html
also, one you can buy NOW
http://www.bycase.com/Remote-Controlled-RC-Flying- Saucer-WHOLESALE-p-16133.html?gclid=COmWvK-ytosCFQ tzYAodYhNQzQ

these took about 3 minutes to find.... but are they REALLY prior art? I don't know...
ask
an^H^H aeronautical^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H engineer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
a Lawyer

The algorithm he intended to use it to accomplish is not; it's just an artifact of math, and subject to the natural laws clause.

Math isn't patentable? Ha ha ha! That's a good one.

Try searching for patents related to the physical layer of Telecommunications (ADSL modem, etc).

Yes, the analog circuit design is a critical and patentable issue... But there are also thousands of patents on the mathematical algorithms that actually make the modem work. These algorithms are either implemented in software or (often straightforward) digital logic. (At least in Communications), the method in which something should be invent is often blatantly obvious once all the math is worked out.

This is a very simple algorihtm (but a hard-to-read patent)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4679227.html

The first claim is only a very very simple algorithm.

Doesn't Acrobat Reader and Photoshop show on the opening screen that the software is covered by a few hundred patents?

Or, if algorithms aren't really patentable but devices are, then can't someone just patent any device making use of "algorithm X"? Could Adobe patent something like "a system for displaying documents on a computer"?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070027706.html

All replies should be links or pointers to prior art for the above patent. It's not overly-obvious, but I think the exercise will prove the point that patents are far too easy to obtain.

-BA

Citing the $1.65 billion that Google paid for YouTube, the complaint said that "YouTube deliberately built up a library of infringing works to draw traffic to the YouTube site, enabling it to gain a commanding market share, earn significant revenues and increase its enterprise value." The complaint was filed in United States District Court in New York. The lawsuit is the clearest sign yet of the tension between Google and major media companies. With its acquisition of YouTube, Google had high hopes of becoming a central distribution point for online video, dominating the field just as Apple's iTunes Store leads the market for digital music.

United States Patent 7191189
Abstract:
A method or apparatus of organizing data in a storage device includes receiving data in the storage device, and transforming the received data into a first data object. The first data object is stored in a hierarchical data structure, the hierarchical data structure containing plural levels of data objects.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7191189.html

What is crazier is that there are multiple patents for the same concept. Which goes to show that the patent office don't know what is going on.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6505576.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6557495.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6651591.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6701872.html

What is crazier is that there are multiple patents for the same concept. Which goes to show that the patent office don't know what is going on.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6505576.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6557495.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6651591.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6701872.html

What is crazier is that there are multiple patents for the same concept. Which goes to show that the patent office don't know what is going on.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6505576.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6557495.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6651591.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6701872.html

What is crazier is that there are multiple patents for the same concept. Which goes to show that the patent office don't know what is going on.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6505576.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6557495.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6651591.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6701872.html

What is crazier is that there are multiple patents for the same concept. Which goes to show that the patent office don't know what is going on.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6505576.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6557495.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6651591.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6701872.html

You've got a good point. (josath says pretty much the same thing, but I'm only going to reply once =)
I see the value of that kind of thing, and it will have lots of great uses.

My problem is that it still sounds like they've built a perfect spyware API, and they're not mentioning anything about the security model. As an end user I'm left to trust the application developer to not be evil, and I don't like that. Placing too much value on ease-of-use for developers is what led Microsoft to all of its problems with spyware and viruses in places like email apps and the office suite.

[rant mode="petty"]I don't trust Adobe to place their customers' interests first. Sending the FBI after Dmitry Sklyarov was a low blow, and was evidence (to me) that they care more about their business partners than their customers. By being one of the first to use the DMCA as a club they dirtied their corporate hands in my eyes, and I won't give them the benefit of the doubt.[/rant]

On a less ranty note (and unrelated to my objections to the security model), depending on the implementation this feature may violate a patent held by Novell on making applications tolerant to loss of network connectivity. (It was filed by a friend of mine, and I described it the way he does). I'll save the rant on software patents for another time.

Well written. I like alternatives. :) Usually makes for good conversation.

However, your proposal has a lot of problems.

1) Who gets to write a summary of the patent? Doesn't the summary stand a good chance of suggesting the answer? "Can you envision a way to make use of the friction energy generated by automobile brakes?" "Uhhhh... sure... I guess you could, uh, charge an electric battery..." (patent)

2) In some cases, recognizing that there even is a problem is the brunt of the invention. "Let's say you have a telegraph. And let's say you have two people who want to communicate in both directions using that telegraph. How might you do that?" (patent)

3) Is this really a good way of determining novelty and non-obviousness? Maybe you just have twelve really stupid or unimaginative reviewers. ;) And what happens if the invention is in such a niche field that you can't find a full 12 experts to review it? What if you can't even find one?

4) Even if you can find twelve reviewers, and even if they do a good job - can you imagine the expense involved? And the delays?

A two or three year duration is the absolute maximum reasonable time for a software patent. Twenty years is laughable. Outside of obscure specialty software like banking systems, twenty years from now, no piece of software that is currently in use will still be in use in any identifiable way.

Yeah! Like that MP3 algorithm - no one uses that any more. (many patents)

Or RSA public-key cryptography - nobody uses that old thing. (patent)

But this assertion has an even bigger problem than being factually incorrect: it's impossible to apply it. There is no bright-line test for "software" vs. "hardware" vs. "biotech," etc. In fact, many inventions cross these boundaries - that's what's cool about technology. What patent term would you afford to a patent for a hardware circuit that implements a bioinformatics algorithm?

- David Stein

They're trying to say that code is not patentable, but running software as part of a system functioning to accomplish some task is patentable, as it is part of a system.

The principle is the same as the venerable Method of exercising a cat patent. It isn't required that the laser pointer, or the wall be patentable to violate the patent against using the wall and the laser pointer in that way.

Similarly, they are arguing that while the source code may not be patentable as such, executing the source with a processor to accomplish something is patentable. Another way to think of it is that a creative work, say a song or a novel, is not patentable (copyright != patents, remember). However, "Method of transcribing a communication onto paper" describing using any tool for marking paper to inscribe marks in a known or unknown language, is theoretically patentable. Hell, for all I know Harper Collins has it in it's vault ready to make a killing off every other publisher ever when the time is right.

Twice in one day I've answered myself. Do I hear and echo? I forgot to mention an application in desalination. See this patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5553456.html

http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/06/43/5/kreb s.html
http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/05/42/6/macc lellan.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5466213.html

Most RFID chips still have to be attached to a much larger coil antenna to make a tag that will actually work.

Philips patent for a flexible fabric antenna.

My understanding is that PPAR-y is a gene receptor (as well as say alpha and delta). Cancer research with the PPAR-y receptor dates back to at least 2000 afaik. What msnbc, reuters and other new outlets fail to mention (in my estimation) is what that "magic compound" is. But it is a compound. That patent accepts various agents to qualify as such, which she addresses and are probably specific mixtures to incite those gamma receptors. I have heard of various PPAR-y research over the years, including PPAR-y receptor modulator agents like tocopherols (vitamin E) for colorectal cancer and retinoids (vitamin A) for breast cancer, or even chemicals for other PPAR-y disease associations. I am not a chemist, but doesn't even tocopherol (for example) contain phenol chains (which that patent requires for one such PPAR-y compound mixture)?

http://advance.quote.nomura.co.jp/meigara/nomura2/ quote.cgi?F=english/edchart&QCODE=4568&MKTN=T it would appear that they have the patent on PPAR-gamma modulator http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20030134859.html

Based on their behavior here, Microsoft may also already own the patent on having brass balls!

A quick USPTO search doesn't find any specifically covering brass balls as big as these ones, so look for them to file for that patent pretty soon. Amusing sidenote.. I actually did search, and did come across this. And a backup (less amusing) source if first goes down.

I used to work at Doug Jacobson's company, Palisade Systems, so I know a little about his qualifications.

While he is basically an ok guy, his technical skills are very limited. He is one of those guys who knew MS-DOS forwards and backwards, and he knows a few things about networking. In fact, he has a (questionable) patent on sending TCP RST packets as a way to do an inline firewall.

But in general, he is middling associate professor whose main expertise seems to be convincing people that he is a computer expert. He is a favorite of the hometown newspapers when they need a quote about something computer related, and I'm not really surprised that he would be an expert witness for the RIAA. But if he is the best that they could find, I wouldn't be too worried!

Well a cursory glance over the patent looks like you are right.

Each claim of the patent either says "an output signal emitter affixable to the housing and responsive to output signals provided by the electronic circuit to wirelessly emit the output signals for reception by the electronically responsive system." or is a dependent claim that references a claim that has that phrase.

You can look at the patent at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6850221.html

Dang it...I hate coming up with info late into a thread. I hope somebody ends up seeing this.

If you want prior art, please pre-date 1995.

OK, here you go. Patent 5724106 (issued to Gateway 2000). This may not be as early of an example as the all the other things people post, but so far I have to believe it is the most relevant, because

1) It has a patent with an original filing date that predates the one in question (continuation of a patent filed Jul. 17, 1995)

2) It is literally a remote control with a trigger

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5724106.html

Also, check out the images on the
USPTO website (or get them off that site...you can log in with bug-me-not or create a free account)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5487069.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5487069.pdf

Its more or less a means of generating multi pathed radio signals with CRC checking from packet data. So long as they're not greedy with the royalties, more power to em.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5487069.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5487069.pdf

Its more or less a means of generating multi pathed radio signals with CRC checking from packet data. So long as they're not greedy with the royalties, more power to em.

"An apparatus that includes a BIOS routine, and a method executed during a BIOS routine, that includes a stored BIOS program causing a computer to receive information, including error information"

"Methods, apparatus .. for ensuring compatibility between an operating system and a BIOS redirection component"

A method of initializing a computer system equipped with a debugging system"

"a set of BIOS resume tasks specific to that operating system type are dispatched for execution in response to a sleep mode wake event"

"A method and apparatus for implementing a BIOS-level floppy boot-sector virus prevention system"

Now this is funny, the 'protection' consists of the BIOS prompting the user.

"An apparatus that includes a BIOS routine, and a method executed during a BIOS routine, that includes a stored BIOS program causing a computer to receive information, including error information"

"Methods, apparatus .. for ensuring compatibility between an operating system and a BIOS redirection component"

A method of initializing a computer system equipped with a debugging system"

"a set of BIOS resume tasks specific to that operating system type are dispatched for execution in response to a sleep mode wake event"

"A method and apparatus for implementing a BIOS-level floppy boot-sector virus prevention system"

Now this is funny, the 'protection' consists of the BIOS prompting the user.

"An apparatus that includes a BIOS routine, and a method executed during a BIOS routine, that includes a stored BIOS program causing a computer to receive information, including error information"

"Methods, apparatus .. for ensuring compatibility between an operating system and a BIOS redirection component"

A method of initializing a computer system equipped with a debugging system"

"a set of BIOS resume tasks specific to that operating system type are dispatched for execution in response to a sleep mode wake event"

"A method and apparatus for implementing a BIOS-level floppy boot-sector virus prevention system"

Now this is funny, the 'protection' consists of the BIOS prompting the user.

"An apparatus that includes a BIOS routine, and a method executed during a BIOS routine, that includes a stored BIOS program causing a computer to receive information, including error information"

"Methods, apparatus .. for ensuring compatibility between an operating system and a BIOS redirection component"

A method of initializing a computer system equipped with a debugging system"

"a set of BIOS resume tasks specific to that operating system type are dispatched for execution in response to a sleep mode wake event"

"A method and apparatus for implementing a BIOS-level floppy boot-sector virus prevention system"

Now this is funny, the 'protection' consists of the BIOS prompting the user.

"An apparatus that includes a BIOS routine, and a method executed during a BIOS routine, that includes a stored BIOS program causing a computer to receive information, including error information"

"Methods, apparatus .. for ensuring compatibility between an operating system and a BIOS redirection component"

A method of initializing a computer system equipped with a debugging system"

"a set of BIOS resume tasks specific to that operating system type are dispatched for execution in response to a sleep mode wake event"

"A method and apparatus for implementing a BIOS-level floppy boot-sector virus prevention system"

Now this is funny, the 'protection' consists of the BIOS prompting the user.

Though what would be really nifty is to figure out a way of using an electrochemical effect to suppress corrosion... how hard could it be to nickle-plate a "disposable" razor? Hm.

Pure nickel is quite soft, so even though it would give you corrosion resistance, it wouldn't hold an edge well at all. Doing it well requires a bit more work. Fortunately, we have this cool system that lets people like you and me learn about ways people have already invented for dealing with problems like this. For example, you could read through one of Gillette's patents on the subject.

Oh wait: actually showing that a patent could be a useful resource doesn't quite fit with the slashdot "all patents are evil" groupthink. Forget I mentioned it! :-)