Slashdot Mirror

The landscape has complete changed since 1987 when the 'burp tank' was filed. Not exactly apples to apples.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4762244/description.html

Well...

You immediately lose credibility by citing ClearType.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering
Originally invented and patented by IBM in1988.

More logically the phrase "no evidence" versus the more commonly expected "no knowledge". So perhaps no recovered alien vessels and no captured aliens versus no knowledge of unknown space vessels, presumably not operated by humans.

Of course one need only look at the reply for marijuana versus say this story http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/jul/23/significance_us_govt_cannabinoid which leads you to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html. So the US Department of Health has a patent on what the US Government in turn denies is of any value.

Then of course who could forget wikileaks and embassy cables, basically the US government lying all over the place, again and again and again.

[0004] Searching online for various media such as video, audio, and still images is known. Further, searching for such media on a user's local hard drive is also known. For example, programs such as Microsoft's Media Center.RTM., Google.RTM., Yahoo.RTM., Youtube.RTM., OSX.RTM., iTunes.RTM., Windows.RTM., and TIVO.RTM., all include integrated search mechanisms to locate specific data.

[0005] However, each of these programs compartmentalizes the search process to specific kinds of data. For example, iTunes.com.RTM. locates all media stored or available within the iTunes.RTM. system, which is a small subset of all the video, images, and audio available online. iTunes.RTM. also only searches for data stored in its own format, and does not search a users locally or remotely stored available data. Youtube.RTM. only searches for videos on Youtube.RTM.. Windows.RTM. only searches for data on the user's internal and external hard drives. Yahoo.RTM. only searches the internet and not the user's hard drive or local media storage devices. Google.RTM., while providing a mechanism to search both the internet and the user's hard drive, cannot search both the internet and the user's hard drive simultaneously and provide a single set of search results. Further, Google only allows searches dedicated to video, audio, or images, and does not provide a mechanism for searching for all media types at the same time.

[0006] Thus, there does not exist a system that searches all known media sources, both local and remote, and presents to a user a consolidated list of search results that is grouped according to media content and filtered and sorted according to the user's preferences.

A quick Google search for Trains shows relevant webpages, images, videos, and news articles. I'm pretty sure they've done this for awhile now, though I couldn't prove it.

It's to make tires more puncture resistant. Akron Ohio, must be Goodyear or an ex Goodyear employee?

We may not like the patent system but this one at least isn't a frivolous one for excercising your cat with a fricken laser beam!

If you are really paranoid then write your software using the Gtk# classes and you can be completely free of Microsoft's influence.

No you can't, because I'm pretty sure that Gtk# infringes Microsoft patents - or at the very least one carefully-targetted Microsoft patent - and for obvious reasons it's not covered by any of Microsoft's patent promises. (That's one of the problems with using C# safely - Microsoft could and apparently did file patents aimed at libraries and applications written in it, patents that avoid prior art by tying themselves to specific C# and .Net features.)

As I understand it, here is the chief complaint that people have about Mono: Microsoft could have some sort of patents that could apply to Mono; and Microsoft could in the future use these patents to do something bad.

I have never seen any specific examples given, it's just a general "there could be some patents" argument. In fact, I believe the theory is that these could be "submarine" patents, not known now but lurking invisibly.

That's mostly because no-one wants to go looking, not because they're hard to find. For example there's US patent 6951022 which covers using .Net delegates to dispatch events that have two arguments, one identifying the event source and another that's a structure containing the event arguments. Seems oddly specific, but GTK.Net does exactly this, and it's likely that many other .Net and Mono-based apps also do so because they're following Microsoft's coding standards. That's enough to take out pretty much every GUI desktop app based on Mono by itself. What's more, the patent is specific enough to make finding prior art infeasible, and because the infringement of the patent is in code outside the core .Net stuff none of Microsft's patent promises apply (though those are fairly worthless anyway).

Remember that what I've described is just one single patent trap. A very clever patent trap, true, but there's nothing to stop Microsoft having a whole bunch of other patents out there similarly designed to entrap anyone that uses .Net features in applications and libraries.

Where it went wrong is when the "big guys" were allowed to pull tricks like patent-slamming and overwhelm the patent office.

That and when the rules were changed so that a corporation, rather than an individual, got to own the patent.

Absurd patents have always existed, but now they're allowed to destroy industries - and not just the software patent. When Wizards of the Coast was granted a patent on card games, for instance, the patent NEVER should have been granted. It's a motherfucking joke.

A copy of Mr. Hoyle's Games Complete, circa THE YEAR 1750, offers every single mechanic WotC's patent describes that could possibly be counted as a nontrivial change. The idea of a "trading card game" in the patent ought to have been invalidated by, to name one early example "The Base Ball Card Game", produced by the Allegheny Card Company in the year 1904.

But some dope-on-a-rope in the patent office, overworked and underbrained, granted the patent to WotC. Sheer lunacy but the patent-slammers prevailed yet again.

And before you say "well but you could sue to have the patent invalidated" - NO. The point is that crap like this should never be granted. Most of the competing CCG-makers simply folded up shop after WotC started demanding royalties. It took until years later for Wizkids to finally offer a lawsuit to try to invalidate WotC's patent, and then it got settled without judgement, meaning WotC can still bully and make asses of themselves on an obviously invalid patent.

So why can I still get a shock when I get out of the car and touch something metal that is grounded?

Rubber is an insulator. Period. Tires were white because that's just the color of rubber, and they became black because of carbon added to increase traction and decrease wear, NOT to make them conductive. Hell, tires are known for building up static electricity when being filled with air because they don't discharge easily.

For the science: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5853461/description.html

Relevant quote:

Pneumatic tires which contain carbon black generally have a resistance of approximately 10^6 ohms, measured from the crown to the bead. There is a provisional specification for this measurement, this being laid down in the WDK guideline 110. According to this a pneumatic tire belongs to "electrostatically active Class I" if it has a leakage resistance of less than 10^6 ohms.

Pneumatic tires which do not contain carbon black do not satisfy this test; their electrical leakage resistance is approximately 10^10 ohms. This may lead to significant problems, as indicated above. There is thus a need for a method for reducing the electrical resistance.

10^6 ohms is pretty damn high. It's 1 mega-ohm, nearly in the insulator class, and well, WELL above the "conductor" class of materials.

How in the hell did this urban myth get modded +5? Are all the moderators stupid, too?

but then again, thats one of the things that made Crazy Taxi Unique. it had super sharp graphics, decent music and the real world locations added a feel of realism to a completely unbelievable environment. In some way it would be like if they took the Pizza Hut ads out of the TMNT: The Arcade Game on the NES, sure the game would be the same, and not even matter to a new generation of gamers, but its all about the nostalgic feel for some games, and pruning that ruins that experience.

It should also be noted that CT hasnt had music from the offspring OR KFC, Levi's, or Pizza Hut ads since 2006 (roughly) none of the portable versions have the orignal ads or music, so i dont know why this would be much of a surprise.

and with that said, it should be noted that CT has one of the most significant patents in console game history. Its still a fun and groundbreaking game, but ill keep playing it on my Dreamcast for now.

a TIFF? Seriously?

via Patent Storm:

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A wireless provisioning device for use in public domain networks wherein the wireless provisioning device is accessible by a user of mobile computing devices, comprising:

a chassis;

at least one network card;

at least one wireless card;

at least one processor;

an operating system, the operating system operably configured in the chassis to control the at least one, network card, the at least one wireless card and the at least one processor, which are operatively coupled with the chassis;

a packet-switched interface capable of receiving a multiplicity of inbound framed packet-data to provide inbound packets and transmitting a multiplicity of outbound framed packet-data comprising outbound packets;

a channeling controller, coupled to the packet-switched interface that channels the inbound packets based on the inbound address information and constructs the outbound packets and channels the outbound packets with the outbound address information, the channeling controller capable of being effectively connected to at least one network via the operating system; and

an authenticator in operative communication with the operating system to allow authentication at the wireless provisioning device;

whereby the user of a mobile computing device connects to the wireless provisioning device without having to first access the Internet.

2. The wireless provisioning device of claim 1, wherein the channeling controller routes the outbound packets.

3. The wireless provisioning device of claim 2, wherein the channeling controller routes the outbound packets.

4. The wireless provisioning device of claim 1, wherein the channeling controller bridges the inbound packets.

5. The wireless provisioning device of claim 4, wherein the channeling controller bridges the outbound packets.

6. The wireless provisioning device of claim 1, wherein the operating system of the wireless provisioning device is an open source UNIX based system.

7. The wireless provisioning device of claim 1, wherein the wireless provisioning device further comprises a second processor.

8. The wireless provisioning device of claim 1, wherein the wireless provisioning device further comprises a memory device and a storage device.

9. The wireless provisioning device of claim 1, wherein the network card, the wireless cord, the processor, the operating system, the packet-switched interface, and the channel controller are operatively disposed within the chassis of the wireless provisioning device.

10. The wireless provision device of claim 9, wherein the authenticator is operatively disposed within the chassis of the wireless provisioning device.

11. The wireless provisioning device of claim 1, wherein bandwidth to individual user can be controlled by the wireless provisioning device operating system.

12. The wireless provisioning device of claim 1, wherein the protocol type of an individual user con be controlled by the wireless provisioning device operating system.

13. A wireless provisioning device, comprising:

a chassis;

at least one network card;

at least one wireless card;

at least one processor;

a LINUX operating system, the operating system operably configured in the chassis to control the at least one network card, the at least one wireless card and the at least one processor;

a packet-switched interface capable of receiving a multiplicity of inbound framed packet-data to provide inbound packets and transmitting a multiplicity of outbound framed packet-data comprising outbound packets;

a channeling controller, coupled to the packet-switched interface that channels the inbound packets based on the inbound address information and that constructs the outbound packets and channels the outbound packets with the outbound address information,

How about a real, ridiculous example instead of a made up one? Putting medication into popsicles and feeding the popsicles to children. Until it expires on Dec 20 2013 we can't do this.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5431915/description.html

That's odd... I don't see "putting medication into popsicles and feeding the popsicles to children" in the claims. Are you sure you're not attempting to refute a patent based on stuff with no legal weight, like the title, abstract, or pictures?

This is the second time I've posted this patent today...

When I was a little kid (let just say, back when OJ was famous for an entirely different reason than now) my mom had one of those tupperware sets to "make your own popsicles" and I occasionally took medication that way per pediatrician advice. Instead of putting plain kool-aid in and freezing them, you put something kids don't like, such as cough medicine, in, fill the balance with kool-aid, stir to mix, freeze... best made onesie-twosie to prevent accidental overdose. Now a days I would like a tupperware popsicle maker kit so as to add ethanol. Oh that patent-violating mother of mine...

And yet, nothing like the system claimed in the patent existed commercially... Do you have any proof that you did that, or are we to simply take your word for it? I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty pissed off if, as an inventor, someone was to say "oh, your invention? I totally did that years ago, but I don't have any proof, documentation, photos, or anything else. But you can't get a patent on it now."

Why should we deny patent protection to an inventor who is disclosing his invention to the public, in favor of someone who, if they're being completely honest, sat on an invention and didn't disclose it to the public or add to the state of the art? We're supposed to be encouraging public disclosure of innovation... not simply undocumented, secret innovation. The latter, at best, is doing the same thing as submarine patent trolls... and I thought Slashdot hated submarine patents.

Ridiculous example: If someone had gotten a patent for "circular apparatus that facilitates low friction locomotion" there might not have been much to do but wait out the 20 years.

How about a real, ridiculous example instead of a made up one? Putting medication into popsicles and feeding the popsicles to children. Until it expires on Dec 20 2013 we can't do this.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5431915/description.html

This is the second time I've posted this patent today...

When I was a little kid (let just say, back when OJ was famous for an entirely different reason than now) my mom had one of those tupperware sets to "make your own popsicles" and I occasionally took medication that way per pediatrician advice. Instead of putting plain kool-aid in and freezing them, you put something kids don't like, such as cough medicine, in, fill the balance with kool-aid, stir to mix, freeze... best made onesie-twosie to prevent accidental overdose. Now a days I would like a tupperware popsicle maker kit so as to add ethanol. Oh that patent-violating mother of mine...

Vaccine patches would be great, particularly if they made it look like a sticker

I hope it adsorbs quickly. If the sticker is generic or not their favorite character, they immediately peel it off their skin/clothes and throw it away, or if it is their favorite character they immediately peel it off and admire it.

which are second only to popsicles in the ability to placate an irritated youngster

So, put the medication inside the freaking popsicle. Hmm, thats a good idea, medicated popsicles. Wonder why those aren't commercially available? Oh yes, that was patented in 1995. Maybe in a few decades we'll be able to benefit from that idea, but not until then.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5431915/description.html

I read that as patents at first, but jokes aside I decided to do a brief search on patents. There seems to be a method out similar to that described in the article, although my guess would be the article is more about the all important application too...
 

Abstract
Germanium-containing organic polymers are obtained by polymerizing 3-trichlorogermylpropionic acid obtained by reacting halogermanium-phosphoric acid complexes with acrylic acid. The polymers are markedly effective in treating opthalmological disorders.
[2/29/1980] http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4296123/fulltext.html

But I will save judgment there because I do not know the details.
Also in the article:

Storsberg helped develop a new version of an opthalmological polymer which the eye will bond to and still allow to function properly.

Anyone who cannot do a simple spellcheck on that word...haha nevermind I enjoyed the read. (Spelled: ophthalmological)

It is almost like inventions happen because the right prerequisites are there, and not because of some monetary incentive.

When I was in high school one of my goals in life was to create a high five machine but, one of my friends informed me that it had already been patented. I even had a simple sketch of what I planned to do when he informed me. The foundation for the primary prerequisite, a high five, had been already invented and it was realized that people without friends could not participant in this by themselves.

... has everyone forgotten the dreaded Seagate 'stiction' problems? And those fun fixes? I was told they were due to contamination, but found out later, not so. But I banged my share of them around just to get them running long enough to copy off the data. Ah, Ghost.

Or the Miniscribe brick scandal, which not a quality control problem, illustrates how your favorite drive manufacturer can become a casualty of even bad accounting?

Is any drive manufacturer immune to problems? Nope.

If you go through the effort of reading the patent (pretty sure it is http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6292218/fulltext.html but it might be a similar, but slightly different, patent) you will find that the Kodak method is, indeed, novel. Previous technology (camcorders as well as the QV-11, which used CCD technology, not LCD technology) converted the signal to NTSC format before displaying it. It appears that Kodak's method "avoid(s) the necessity of generating an NTSC format signal in order to reduce the complexity of the required circuitry". That's about all I have to say about this...

And for people who want proof these are their 3 notable patents:

7058204 - Multiple camera control system. Filed: 09/26/2001. Issued: 06/06/2006

5534917 - Video image based control system. Filed: 05/09/1991. Issued: 07/09/1996

7227526 - Video-based image control system. Filed: 07/23/2001. Issued: 06/05/2007

And for people who want proof these are their 3 notable patents:

7058204 - Multiple camera control system. Filed: 09/26/2001. Issued: 06/06/2006

5534917 - Video image based control system. Filed: 05/09/1991. Issued: 07/09/1996

7227526 - Video-based image control system. Filed: 07/23/2001. Issued: 06/05/2007

And for people who want proof these are their 3 notable patents:

7058204 - Multiple camera control system. Filed: 09/26/2001. Issued: 06/06/2006

5534917 - Video image based control system. Filed: 05/09/1991. Issued: 07/09/1996

7227526 - Video-based image control system. Filed: 07/23/2001. Issued: 06/05/2007

I guess that there is some good news in this article. The patent hasn't been issued yet, it is only being reviewed right now. And this review is accomplishing what it is meant to: showing that the patent claim is ridiculous.

Wrong: according to this, the patent has been issued April 21, 2009.

BTW, the GMP mailing list discussion can be read here and here.

Are you apple apologists just lazy when it comes to verifying anything "not-apple"? Or do you not do a simple google search because you're scared that apple is in the wrong?

Yes, Nokia does indeed have a patent on the internal antenna

For those curious, you can find the patent here. Looks like a generic recommendation engine.

My question is, if this was decided in August, why is it only precedent now?

It that normal? Was it time for an appeal?

Correct. This is a problem with some kind of valve, and is a direct analogue to a hotel that's currently closed for renovation.

I thought people were already trying to do this sort of thing using electroactive polymers. Certainly there seems to be a couple patents on the idea, not to mention someone who thinks the technology could be used to make braille-capable touchscreens.

not sure about c, but, a quick googling give you this, a MS patent regarding virtual constructors in c++, who'd thought?!

For me it seems like the judge was right and the jury didn't understand computer systems.

The Patent Claims

It is basically a serial key registration system that uses online check aswell to validate the key, and that before registering the program runs in demo mode. Surely there we're games/shareware apps that did that before this patent too.

That's what I'm guessing too. TFA is ridiculously underinformative. Neuralstem doesn't seem to be talking specifics for some reason.

A video on their website was -slightly- more informative. They make lines of neural stem cells and inject them into the damaged part. That to me was somewhat questionable. Injecting undifferentiated, replicating cells into your central nervous system, even if they're neural stem cells sounds dangerous. You want the specific type of neuron there, and enough glial cells. Without directing their differentiation, I would expect you'd end up with a random mix of cells, or possibly a glioma.

It mentioned that these were patented methods. I don't know much about patents, but I did find this patent issued to neuralstem biopharmecuticals ltd (same company?).

The abstract to that patent:

A systematic and efficient method for establishing stable neural stem cell lines and neuronal progenitor lines is described. The resulting cell lines provide robust, simple, and reproducible cultures of human and other mammalian neurons in commercially useful mass quantities while maintaining normal karyotypes and normal neuronal phenotypes.

What it actually seems to cover is nothing revoultionary. They isolate a neuronal stem cell, culture it in a wide variety of commonly used growth factors for 30 divisions, transfect the C myc gene, and then culture it in the same growth factors and/or whole serum. That's to make a line of cells. C-myc by the way was one of the transcription factors used to make induced pluripotent stem cells, and is associated with many cancers, which is worrisome. Nothing in that really suprises me. I'd be interested to hear from slashdot's armchair lawyers (or real lawyers) as to whether or not you can simply patent a combination of common techniques to make a line of stem cells.

What is more interesting to me is another patent that Neuralstem has, Use of fuse nicotinamides to promote neurogenesis.
The abstract for that one:

The present invention provides a group of compounds found to increase the number of neurons derived from stem cells for use as a therapeutic agent in neurological conditions or diseases. In one embodiment of the present invention, the compounds are used to detect the mechanism by which the number of neurons is increased.

I'm less of an expert on this, it's a lot of biochemistry I'm not familiar with, but from the summary:

the present invention is related to classes of compound structures that are shown to be particularly effective in promoting neurogenesis includingcompounds of the type, fused imidazoles, aminopyrimidines, nicotinamides, aminomethyl phenoxypiperidines and aryloxypiperidines

It seems they have a patent on compounds which have been shown to nudge stem cells towards making neurons. This might be their answer to the first problem I mentioned: not wanting to inject undifferentiated cells into your spine or brain.

I'm guessing their technique involves 1. Surgery to get tissue samples which would be enriched in neural stem cells (I've heard the cells next to the ventricles in your brain are good spots for that) 2. They take those cells and put them in their culture media that causes the stem cells to divide 3. They transfect c-myc to increase the yeild 4. They harvest the undifferentiated cells and incubate them with their differentiation compounds before or as they 5. Inject the mix into your damaged spinal cord.

If they moved on to humans, I'm guessing they've already demonstrated this works to a degree and doesn't cause a lot of cancers in mice or other animal models. The results on that are probably published, but I've wasted enough time here.

That's what I'm guessing too. TFA is ridiculously underinformative. Neuralstem doesn't seem to be talking specifics for some reason.

A video on their website was -slightly- more informative. They make lines of neural stem cells and inject them into the damaged part. That to me was somewhat questionable. Injecting undifferentiated, replicating cells into your central nervous system, even if they're neural stem cells sounds dangerous. You want the specific type of neuron there, and enough glial cells. Without directing their differentiation, I would expect you'd end up with a random mix of cells, or possibly a glioma.

It mentioned that these were patented methods. I don't know much about patents, but I did find this patent issued to neuralstem biopharmecuticals ltd (same company?).

The abstract to that patent:

A systematic and efficient method for establishing stable neural stem cell lines and neuronal progenitor lines is described. The resulting cell lines provide robust, simple, and reproducible cultures of human and other mammalian neurons in commercially useful mass quantities while maintaining normal karyotypes and normal neuronal phenotypes.

What it actually seems to cover is nothing revoultionary. They isolate a neuronal stem cell, culture it in a wide variety of commonly used growth factors for 30 divisions, transfect the C myc gene, and then culture it in the same growth factors and/or whole serum. That's to make a line of cells. C-myc by the way was one of the transcription factors used to make induced pluripotent stem cells, and is associated with many cancers, which is worrisome. Nothing in that really suprises me. I'd be interested to hear from slashdot's armchair lawyers (or real lawyers) as to whether or not you can simply patent a combination of common techniques to make a line of stem cells.

What is more interesting to me is another patent that Neuralstem has, Use of fuse nicotinamides to promote neurogenesis.
The abstract for that one:

The present invention provides a group of compounds found to increase the number of neurons derived from stem cells for use as a therapeutic agent in neurological conditions or diseases. In one embodiment of the present invention, the compounds are used to detect the mechanism by which the number of neurons is increased.

I'm less of an expert on this, it's a lot of biochemistry I'm not familiar with, but from the summary:

the present invention is related to classes of compound structures that are shown to be particularly effective in promoting neurogenesis includingcompounds of the type, fused imidazoles, aminopyrimidines, nicotinamides, aminomethyl phenoxypiperidines and aryloxypiperidines

It seems they have a patent on compounds which have been shown to nudge stem cells towards making neurons. This might be their answer to the first problem I mentioned: not wanting to inject undifferentiated cells into your spine or brain.

I'm guessing their technique involves 1. Surgery to get tissue samples which would be enriched in neural stem cells (I've heard the cells next to the ventricles in your brain are good spots for that) 2. They take those cells and put them in their culture media that causes the stem cells to divide 3. They transfect c-myc to increase the yeild 4. They harvest the undifferentiated cells and incubate them with their differentiation compounds before or as they 5. Inject the mix into your damaged spinal cord.

If they moved on to humans, I'm guessing they've already demonstrated this works to a degree and doesn't cause a lot of cancers in mice or other animal models. The results on that are probably published, but I've wasted enough time here.

2. Server-group messaging system for interactive applications

Basically this one is about this: you have a server and X clients, and all clients are sending packets to all other clients. Think, an IRC channel, basically. So they propose that instead of dumbly routing between clients, the server aggregates the packets and sends the aggregates periodically.

C.f. Nagle's algorithm. An IRC server running on any TCP/IP stack developed more recently than around 1985 does everything described by claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19. IRC running over a VPN would also do everything in claim 14. I haven't read protocol level details of IRC, so I can't be sure whether it implements claim 5 and its dependents (I believe it doesn't), although I would say claim 5 is so obvious that it is clearly not patentable; there are plenty of preexisting network protocols that synchronize the state between different nodes in the network and avoid sending updates to a node that can be determined to already know the updated data (e.g. because it originated it).

The first problem is that a MMO only does that in a very loose sense. It sends the resulting status, rather than the bundled messages from all other players.

Yes, although the resulting status might well look very similar to the original messages. Consider if the original messages are from player x "move to 123,443" and player y "move to 116,151"; the notifications to player z may look like "player x moves to 123,443; player y moves to 116,151", which is close enough to the description that I would say it is covered. Also, look at claim 18 which is somewhat less specific about the contents of the messages sent by the server than the other claims.

However here comes the third problem: the patent was applied in 1999, a solid two years after UO which _did_ do just that.

You seem to have missed some relevant patents in your search. 5,822,523 is very similar to the second one you listed, but was filed in Jan '96, thus predating UO. Not sure that helps them, though.

If anyone's interested in a link to a US patent for this stuff, here it is:

http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20050037189/fulltext.html

From my brief read, this looks like it's a dilatant sealed inside a foam/gas matrix. The patent refers to Dow Corning catalogue number 3179. The datasheet for that suggests it's a pink compound, not orange:

http://www.dowcorning.com/applications/search/default.aspx?R=7753EN

Couldn't read the articles because i don't have an account there. But the abstracts look interesting: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-30-13-1710 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/440892722-27397378/content~content=a911227137~db=all~jumptype=rss http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/EUM0000000004246 and there seem to be already patents on manufacturing these integrated optic curcuits: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4400052/claims.html

If your idea of an anti-missile is a nuke, yeah it is effective - about as effective as horseshoes played with hand grenades.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4925129/description.html is the patent for the transponder - enabled target missile.

The very idea that we should detonate nukes in the atmosphere is nuts. It is even more absurd as a defense to incoming weapons from enemies that don't exist any longer (China owns our debt; Russia has enough to deal with from the former client states) and Israel, N. Korea, India and Pakistan don't have ICBM delivery systems.

Regardless of the merits of nukes in anti-missile defense, the fact is that ICBMs were effectively obsolete in the 1960s. However, due to rampant idiocy and other political blunders, we forged ahead with them. Did it work out in the end? I suppose so. We're alive, aren't we? Does that mean the people in charge made the right decisions? I doubt it. We were left to foot a bill for a ridiculously overcomplicated, expensive system that has done absolutely nothing to help us in quality of life or scientific advancement.

For what it's worth, a high-altitude airburst releases less radiation into the atmosphere than your average coal plant spews out in thorium... yeah, that's a tragedy.

WHO are we developing this new system to defend against?

We're not. Nike Zeus was a strategic ABM defense system. It neatly countered the Russian threat of the 1960s. Would it be right to deploy an analogous system today? No -- as you said, where's the threat? The airborne laser, on the other hand, can be deployed to a small combat theatre, or any possible danger zone where some idiot with some secondhand IRBMs might be tempted to shoot them off. It's a technology testbed more than anything else -- a proof of concept, if you will. Base a few out of Japan, keep them on patrols, and you've effectively neutralized any chance North Korea had of shooting anything off at their neighbors. High energy lasers, frankly, make more sense in the modern battlefield than anti-missile missile defenses. Why shouldn't we be developing the technology?

If your idea of an anti-missile is a nuke, yeah it is effective - about as effective as horseshoes played with hand grenades.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4925129/description.html
is the patent for the transponder - enabled target missile.

The very idea that we should detonate nukes in the atmosphere is nuts. It is even more absurd as a defense to incoming weapons from enemies that don't exist any longer (China owns our debt; Russia has enough to deal with from the former client states) and Israel, N. Korea, India and Pakistan don't have ICBM delivery systems.

WHO are we developing this new system to defend against?

It's like patenting the ingredients in making a soup. :-(

Or worse, patenting something like this

You take an oxy-acetylene torch, adjust it to a fuel-rich flame, and point it at a big piece of metal, then scrape off the stuff deposited on the metal and separate out the diamonds from the buckminsterfullerine from the soot. Here's a journal article and here's one of the many patents.

Early on in my construction career we used to constantly see electricians using this method to run lines.

They tie a piece of plastic bag on the end of a piece of string and stand on the other end with a vaccum, the plastic bag acts like a parachute and pulls it all the way through the piping in a matter of seconds.

Anyways this is done all of America and I even saw something on 'This Old House' when they had to do it in old sewer line.

The one I liked is where they inserted this tube of epoxy like material; once they get the tube in there they insert the gel it expands the old sewer line and once finished the epoxy that has expanded to make the line even wider will harden to provide a perfectly sealed tube. So now you have a brand new sewer line inside of an old brick one that is perfectly sealed for another 60-100 years, I will take that story over pulling copper through sewer lines.

A quick search for 'laying fiber in sewer lines' in Google turns up dozens of better articles than this one paragraph wonder and pretty drawn pic. No video of this thing in action or field results? Sounds like snake oil to me and some wasted man hours trying to use this thing in real world situations.

This pic can never go wrong once you mention the sewer system and IT.
http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1306297~fde4d620918f10bdf0c9bc3069b26be1/New%20Fiber.jpg

US Patent 6584252 - Method and system for providing fiber optic cable to end users
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6584252/description.html

Here is a listing for contractors who do this stuff with all different types of toys in America.
http://www.magicyellow.com/category/Utility_Contractors/Cities.html

The British are the ones who apparently everyone has been watching for awhile.

Wheres the Journalisim around here, a pretty picture and one paragraph article is pretty weak. Speaking as a contractor who works with Civil Engineer I cannot see this little sub being very practical in the going through some of the obstacles in a sewer and them spending more time unclogging it. The first thing I do when surveying a job is to estimate the costs of it and decide what tools I will need to accomplish this task.

Hell some of the machies I have seen some contractors and Verizon service guys bring out are atleast 150+ pounds to do the job and have the strength to pull it.
  I liked the ones where the boring guys have a little rfid signal at the end of a drill and he stands in the street with this probe that detects the depth of the probe and can guide the operators drill bit in the right direction/depth. No digging up the streets and just have to make sure you don't run right into water pipes or electrical.

If Apple came out and guaranteed royalty free licensing for all then it would be a positive move for society.

Are you serious? Why would apple invest time and money in developing a technology only to give it away for free? The entire submission is a troll. There are literally thousands of patents on 911 technologies. Just because 911 is a public service doesn't mean that it exists in a vacuum of altruism; people still spend money and make money deploying and developing these technologies, so naturally there are patents. And like any other market, if it is useful and desired by the consumer, it should be profitable, and then the company that made it makes money. I know it's trendy to demonize contemporary corporations --especially when it comes to patents-- but this is how capitalism works ... this is the USA.

Hahahaha their ideas!? Are you serious!? Patenting is not about whos idea it is, it's about who claims it first. You think this is fair? Not to mention all the obvious, general patents that stretch from right click menus to any other ridiculous patents. How the hell can you defend this? Is this nurturing business to you? What happens in a year in development took ages when patenting was created. Do you understand the difference? It's not about protecting your business, it's about grabbing the allowance to do even to most basic functions, leaving anybody that want to build on that idea, not even necessarily yours to fucking begin with, to improve development, forced to pay you royalties. This renders only the wealthy, such as corporations, to be able to continue such development. I don't think you quite understand what patenting has become. You're just standing there clapping your hands to this ridiculous circus.

"Specifically, the present invention relates to methods and materials used to isolate and detect a human breast and ovarian cancer predisposing gene (BRCA1), some mutant alleles of which cause susceptibility to cancer, in particular breast and ovarian cancer."

Then we do this http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5487069/fulltext.html

3 Profit!

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4655276/description.html

might be of interest but other than that I'm saying nothing

Too late: (and these are just a few examples)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5598143.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6879254.html
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6404349/description.html

Interestingly, prior art to all 3 of those patents exists as many TVs and VCRs from Phillips/Magnavox had this feature built in as far back as 1993: http://www.magnavox.com/index.cfm?event=about

Sony also included it in a few TV models back in 2001.

I suspect it has not seen more widespread adoption because of battery life and penny-pinching in a cutthroat market.

"exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and a relational system."

This sounds familiar... hmmm.... ah.

Business Objects' United States patent number 5,555,403 entitled "Relational Database Access System Using Semantically Dynamic Objects."

Fight fire with fire...

From the shorter PDF:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6175789.html — Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7054745.html — Method and system for generating driving directions

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6704032.html — Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7117286.html — Portable computing device-integrated appliance

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6202008.html — Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5579517.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5758352.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

http://www.google.com/patents?id=02YIAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,256,642 — Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory.

Some other text seems necessary in order to type stuff and get links in.

From the shorter PDF:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6175789.html — Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7054745.html — Method and system for generating driving directions

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6704032.html — Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7117286.html — Portable computing device-integrated appliance

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6202008.html — Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5579517.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5758352.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

http://www.google.com/patents?id=02YIAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,256,642 — Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory.

Some other text seems necessary in order to type stuff and get links in.

From the shorter PDF:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6175789.html — Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7054745.html — Method and system for generating driving directions

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6704032.html — Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7117286.html — Portable computing device-integrated appliance

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6202008.html — Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5579517.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5758352.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

http://www.google.com/patents?id=02YIAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,256,642 — Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory.

Some other text seems necessary in order to type stuff and get links in.

From the shorter PDF:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6175789.html — Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7054745.html — Method and system for generating driving directions

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6704032.html — Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7117286.html — Portable computing device-integrated appliance

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6202008.html — Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5579517.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5758352.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

http://www.google.com/patents?id=02YIAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,256,642 — Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory.

Some other text seems necessary in order to type stuff and get links in.