Slashdot Mirror

I also think that MS might successfully argue that "Windows" is not a generic term for operating systems, but is descriptive of an attribute of the goods, thereby opening the door for acquired distinctiveness -- an undoubtedly easy showing.

That says nothing of the argument that "Windows" for operating systems has "ceased to have current generic meaning," and is therefore susceptible to trademark protection. See the dicta of Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1458 (2d Cir. 1999). Does anyone in common usage call OS-X or Linux based GUI's "Windows"? I think the answer is they call them "Operating Systems" or "GUI's" or the like, even if these OS's/GUI's utilize "windows" (lower case "w").

Source: SonnabendLaw, via this forum post.

Besides, "intellectual property" is a weasel expression, use "copyright" or "patents" to make it clear what this refers to, there's no law about "intellectual property" as far as I know but there is about copyright and patents (although there shouldn't be any software patents in my opinion).

IAmNotALawyer. However, "intellectual property law" is a commonly recognized category inclusive of those. Incidentally, you forgot "trade secrets" and "trademarks"; and see also 15 USC 1128 et alia.

And dude, your attempt at trolling was pitiful.

> The song titles are copyrighted as well as the music.
> Therefore, transmitting the song titles via the internet (ie. through FreeBD) is a copyright violation.

> So there!

You can't copyright song titles.

So there there! (non-obiligatory "dumbass" omitted)

"The real problem is that some of these outfits have gotten so big, that if a small-time developer comes out with a new game gets any kind of good response, the big guys swoop in, draw some pretty graphics, and whammo, the little guy has just had his market taken away."

Yeah! Someone should invent some kind of laws to protect the people with ideas.

Oh, and origianlly in 1993, the USPTO rejected the Windows mark:

the term Windows is widely used, both by the public consumers, and the relevant industry, to name a class of goods or a type of software, that is, a genus of goods, referred to as windows programs or windowing software. The term Windows was in existence and known prior to adoption by the applicant. Since the term is a generic designation for the applicant's goods, then, no amount of evidence of de facto secondary meaning can render the term registrable.

As has been mentioned elsewhere Microsoft has, in the U.S. anyway, a trademark on "Microsoft Windows", not just "Windows". Windows by itself has been deemed too generic to trademark.

More information can be found here, in an article concerning the Lindows case.

But it would also appear that there is room for MS to wiggle. A fairly recent discussion on this can be found at Intellectual Property Forums.

I think the most insightful thing I've read so far in this discussion so far has been (paraphrasing) "Oh well, it wasn't worth him to fight their lawyers anyway".

...and buy some green, hardcover West Hornbooks, or some softcover In A Nutshell summaries of copyright, patent and trademark law.

Or you could try sites such as The Intellectual Property Page or one of several hundred other sites that a search engine would provide.

Priority date can be earlier than application date, due to things like continuations. Priority date is what counts as far as invalidating a patent goes - if anyone else published or publically used the invention before the priority date, or if the inventor published or used the invention more than one year before the priority date, that would invalidate the patent.

True, BUT... Priority, in confidence is trumped by diligently reducing to practice. A patent application (PA or PPA) is a constructive reduction to practice, and usually invalidates earlier confidential inventions which languished under a lazy inventor. I would believe that the whole body of patent law can, and should be, interpreted, such that continuations do not protect the new additions or modifications against exterior interim prior art.

That is why I stated that the M$ long-filenames patents could be be busted, on the basis of prior art and insufficiently original (not NEW, not NOVEL) based on the publically displayed long-filenames prior art from the 1995 Windows 95 public use.

Also, older patents were valid 17 years from date of issue, not from date of application. Newer patents are valid for 20 years from date of application. This helps prevent repeated multiple continuations and resubmissions dragging the patent process out for many years, then finally being granted after its already been re-invented and everyone is already using it. There are also problems with the way the scope of a patent can be expanded in a continuation, keeping the earlier priority date but including newer ideas (including ideas that other people invented after that priority date!).

I asked the Patent Forum readers recently about a patent expiration date.
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6163. shtml

I received two responses from patent lawyers.
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6166. shtml
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6164. shtml

On this basis, and six books on patents from my public library, I composed the message to which this thread is attached. It appears that I was confused on the facts about patent duration commencement even after getting lawyers answers. Still, regarding the original statement at the top of thread, FAT would be out of patent every which way you might read the law. FAT32 might have SOME current patent status, but only the portion which was patented-applied-for within 365 days of first public use in Windows 95, and additional patents which contain claims for things already in use in Win95 would be subject to invalidation based on prior use (prior art).

My point of posting was to dispell FUD, propagated from M$, that (new) patents on FAT32 modifications somehow give power to M$ over FAT, which they are selling to suckers for a quarter-megabuck a pop. FAT is, was, and always will be, public domain, forever and ever.

My first use of FAT with longer filenames than FAT12 was in 1986 AmigaDOS v1.0 with 32 character filenames. Macintosh in 1984 already had 31 character filenames but I am not certain they used FAT. The Jackintosh Atari ST used FAT12 in 1985, and was disk compatible with MS-DOS FAT12 filesystem diskettes.

Your comments are appreciated, and appear informed and knowledgeable. Care to say more about your yourself, here or private correspondance? As you can see, I am getting more interested in patents in general, software prior art, and bringing out history which protects the public domain from being stolen by corps with too much cash on hand.

Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
LionKuntz@yahoo.com

Priority date can be earlier than application date, due to things like continuations. Priority date is what counts as far as invalidating a patent goes - if anyone else published or publically used the invention before the priority date, or if the inventor published or used the invention more than one year before the priority date, that would invalidate the patent.

True, BUT... Priority, in confidence is trumped by diligently reducing to practice. A patent application (PA or PPA) is a constructive reduction to practice, and usually invalidates earlier confidential inventions which languished under a lazy inventor. I would believe that the whole body of patent law can, and should be, interpreted, such that continuations do not protect the new additions or modifications against exterior interim prior art.

That is why I stated that the M$ long-filenames patents could be be busted, on the basis of prior art and insufficiently original (not NEW, not NOVEL) based on the publically displayed long-filenames prior art from the 1995 Windows 95 public use.

Also, older patents were valid 17 years from date of issue, not from date of application. Newer patents are valid for 20 years from date of application. This helps prevent repeated multiple continuations and resubmissions dragging the patent process out for many years, then finally being granted after its already been re-invented and everyone is already using it. There are also problems with the way the scope of a patent can be expanded in a continuation, keeping the earlier priority date but including newer ideas (including ideas that other people invented after that priority date!).

I asked the Patent Forum readers recently about a patent expiration date.
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6163. shtml

I received two responses from patent lawyers.
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6166. shtml
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6164. shtml

On this basis, and six books on patents from my public library, I composed the message to which this thread is attached. It appears that I was confused on the facts about patent duration commencement even after getting lawyers answers. Still, regarding the original statement at the top of thread, FAT would be out of patent every which way you might read the law. FAT32 might have SOME current patent status, but only the portion which was patented-applied-for within 365 days of first public use in Windows 95, and additional patents which contain claims for things already in use in Win95 would be subject to invalidation based on prior use (prior art).

My point of posting was to dispell FUD, propagated from M$, that (new) patents on FAT32 modifications somehow give power to M$ over FAT, which they are selling to suckers for a quarter-megabuck a pop. FAT is, was, and always will be, public domain, forever and ever.

My first use of FAT with longer filenames than FAT12 was in 1986 AmigaDOS v1.0 with 32 character filenames. Macintosh in 1984 already had 31 character filenames but I am not certain they used FAT. The Jackintosh Atari ST used FAT12 in 1985, and was disk compatible with MS-DOS FAT12 filesystem diskettes.

Your comments are appreciated, and appear informed and knowledgeable. Care to say more about your yourself, here or private correspondance? As you can see, I am getting more interested in patents in general, software prior art, and bringing out history which protects the public domain from being stolen by corps with too much cash on hand.

Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
LionKuntz@yahoo.com

Priority date can be earlier than application date, due to things like continuations. Priority date is what counts as far as invalidating a patent goes - if anyone else published or publically used the invention before the priority date, or if the inventor published or used the invention more than one year before the priority date, that would invalidate the patent.

True, BUT... Priority, in confidence is trumped by diligently reducing to practice. A patent application (PA or PPA) is a constructive reduction to practice, and usually invalidates earlier confidential inventions which languished under a lazy inventor. I would believe that the whole body of patent law can, and should be, interpreted, such that continuations do not protect the new additions or modifications against exterior interim prior art.

That is why I stated that the M$ long-filenames patents could be be busted, on the basis of prior art and insufficiently original (not NEW, not NOVEL) based on the publically displayed long-filenames prior art from the 1995 Windows 95 public use.

Also, older patents were valid 17 years from date of issue, not from date of application. Newer patents are valid for 20 years from date of application. This helps prevent repeated multiple continuations and resubmissions dragging the patent process out for many years, then finally being granted after its already been re-invented and everyone is already using it. There are also problems with the way the scope of a patent can be expanded in a continuation, keeping the earlier priority date but including newer ideas (including ideas that other people invented after that priority date!).

I asked the Patent Forum readers recently about a patent expiration date.
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6163. shtml

I received two responses from patent lawyers.
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6166. shtml
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6164. shtml

On this basis, and six books on patents from my public library, I composed the message to which this thread is attached. It appears that I was confused on the facts about patent duration commencement even after getting lawyers answers. Still, regarding the original statement at the top of thread, FAT would be out of patent every which way you might read the law. FAT32 might have SOME current patent status, but only the portion which was patented-applied-for within 365 days of first public use in Windows 95, and additional patents which contain claims for things already in use in Win95 would be subject to invalidation based on prior use (prior art).

My point of posting was to dispell FUD, propagated from M$, that (new) patents on FAT32 modifications somehow give power to M$ over FAT, which they are selling to suckers for a quarter-megabuck a pop. FAT is, was, and always will be, public domain, forever and ever.

My first use of FAT with longer filenames than FAT12 was in 1986 AmigaDOS v1.0 with 32 character filenames. Macintosh in 1984 already had 31 character filenames but I am not certain they used FAT. The Jackintosh Atari ST used FAT12 in 1985, and was disk compatible with MS-DOS FAT12 filesystem diskettes.

Your comments are appreciated, and appear informed and knowledgeable. Care to say more about your yourself, here or private correspondance? As you can see, I am getting more interested in patents in general, software prior art, and bringing out history which protects the public domain from being stolen by corps with too much cash on hand.

Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
LionKuntz@yahoo.com

>Ignore the problem and it goes away!

It surely wont go away. In fact, if you ignore the problem our federal govt will do what people that DO NOT ignore the problem suggest they do. The federal govt is currently debating this issue as we speak.

The US is already conforming to the rest of the world on patent matters (e.g., publishing applications after 18 months). so if you want your voices to be heard.. contact congress.

Here is a link on patent legislation in various countries and how the US interacts with them.

Click here!!!