uspto.gov · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Compression to one bit by BlueWonder · 2002-01-08 03:15 · Score: 1 · on ZeoSync Makes Claim of Compression Breakthrough

There are various patents on this or similar compression techniques, for example US #5,533,051, US #5,488,364, US #5,486,826, or US #5,594,435.

Re:Compression to one bit by BlueWonder · 2002-01-08 03:15 · Score: 1 · on ZeoSync Makes Claim of Compression Breakthrough

There are various patents on this or similar compression techniques, for example US #5,533,051, US #5,488,364, US #5,486,826, or US #5,594,435.

Pi is Interesting by Kr3m3Puff · 2002-01-08 01:48 · Score: 1 · on ZeoSync Makes Claim of Compression Breakthrough

Here is one of the websites of one of the guys listed on the companies website: Steve Smale. Interesting site. Light on details, but there is contact information.

The press release is light on details. A quick search of the US Patent database for BinaryAccelerator and Zero Space Tuner turned up nothing. I thought even pending patents were there. The CEO seems to be a mortgage broker. Interesting line of research.

Anyways, I thought the breaktrough in data compression would be using a mathmatical algorithem to express Pi and in index to the digit that your random string begins and a count of the data. That truly would be random, if those guys can prove there is a mathmatical formula for Pi.

I find these claims doubtful by markj02 · 2002-01-06 12:12 · Score: 2 · on Cornell University Sues Hewlett Packard

You can find the patent here. I find both the patent and the claims that Torng invented OOE kind of dubious. The idea of out-of-order execution goes back to at least the 1960s and has cropped up in several different areas of computer science. It may not have been applied much to microprocessors because until the late 1980s, it wasn't all that practical, and EEs are often unfamiliar with ideas in CS anyway. Overall, at least at first glance, this patent looks to me like so many recent patents where people patent ideas that have been around for a long time but simply hadn't been used in practice for practical reasons. Note that Torng has no prior patents in processor design, so it doesn't look like he had been inventing in the field much before then.

I certainly wouldn't assume outright that HP wilfully infringed this patent--HP may well have legitimate reasons to believe that this idea is in the public domain by now. The courts will have to work that out.

(BTW, the guy's name is "Torng"; shouldn't you know the name of your professor?)

Re:this is gonna be fun by waveclaw · 2002-01-06 08:09 · Score: 1 · on Cornell University Sues Hewlett Packard

Assuming we are talking U.S.A. I.P. Law and by extension all Berne Treaty signature countries):

However, in an interesting twist of ethics and morals, there are registered secrets ((trade secrets ) that are essentially the same thing as patents without the benefit to the general public (the military is not so restricted), except you can get sued something ugly for going public and trying to patent or use someone else's *secret* process no matter how original you though you were. Trying to prove you didn't get it from the owners of the *secret* technology is not very easy.

Considering how *new discovery* dependant Computer Science and its derived engineering disciplines are at this time, the ethical nature of I.P. and patenting are still under debate. Just look at the whole Open Source initiative: it almost tries to return the original meaning of copyright (protection of attribution) to the current twisted definition (protection of money). In both cases, the majority is hurt by the expansion of rights to the individual (i.e. corporation) whereas the individual only gets a small conjectured advantage (majority of patents are never actually implemented, just registered and defended (yet another source of income not derived from meaningful work)). Not a surprise for a system whose major originating proponent created such patents as the patent covering his *long arm* - a device that consists of a long pole with a grasping device at the end to help get books off tall shelves (even though such devices had been used for centuries by his contemporary farmers for occasional chores.)

"The fact that it works is immaterial,"

L. Ogborn.

Here's the patent itself by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-06 00:47 · Score: 1, Informative · on Cornell University Sues Hewlett Packard

Instruction issuing mechanism for processors with multiple functional units

Abstract: An instruction issuing mechanism for boosting throughput of processors with multiple functional units. A Dispatch Stack (DS) and a Precedence Count Memory (PCM) are employed which allow multiple instructions to be issued per machine cycle. Additionally, instructions do no have to be issued according to their order in the instruction stream, so that non-sequential instruction issuance occurs. In this system, multiple instruction issuance and non-sequential instruction issuance policies enhance the throughput of processors with multiple functional units.

Link to Apple Quicktime view of Entire Patent by Konster · 2002-01-05 23:32 · Score: 0 · on Cornell University Sues Hewlett Packard

Or even this link to view the abstract. This requires Apple Quicktime.

The Patent Itself by Konster · 2002-01-05 23:17 · Score: 5, Informative · on Cornell University Sues Hewlett Packard

The patent number for this is: 4,807,115

Surf on over to US patent and Trademark Office and do a search with the patent number here:
Search uspto.gov by patent number

Or read it here if I don't bung up the the HTML.

The Patent Itself by Konster · 2002-01-05 23:17 · Score: 5, Informative · on Cornell University Sues Hewlett Packard

The patent number for this is: 4,807,115

Surf on over to US patent and Trademark Office and do a search with the patent number here:
Search uspto.gov by patent number

Or read it here if I don't bung up the the HTML.

The Patent Itself by Konster · 2002-01-05 23:17 · Score: 5, Informative · on Cornell University Sues Hewlett Packard

The patent number for this is: 4,807,115

Surf on over to US patent and Trademark Office and do a search with the patent number here:
Search uspto.gov by patent number

Or read it here if I don't bung up the the HTML.

Re:Common Idea? by RedWizzard · 2002-01-03 18:47 · Score: 2 · on Canadian Company Claims RDF Patent

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" At least thats what the constitution [usconstitution.net] says.

That section of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws for that purpose, it's not the law itself. Specifically, while the aim of patent law may be to "promote the progress ..." the patent law itself protects invention.

Still I never claimed to be an expert in US law. I'm just going by what the people who hand these damn things out claim.

Just the facts ma'am... by Thalia · 2002-01-03 18:30 · Score: 5, Informative · on Online Greeting Cards Patented

Let's try the intro to patent law again. The abstract is NOT the claim. The summary is also not the claim. In fact, there is a section, labelled "Claims" that are... well, the claims. The scope of the patent is defined solely by the language of the claims, as interpretted in light of any comments made during prosecution.

So, let's look at the broadest claim of the newest patent:

1. A document delivery system for delivering one or more documents between a sender and at least one recipient, said system comprising:

a server that temporarily stores said documents, wherein said server generates a URL for each intended recipient of said documents, the URL unique to each recipient, and sends each of the URLs to each respective intended recipient; and

a database which is associated with said server and which records log data describing which recipients accessed said documents;

wherein said server sends the log data to the sender of said documents.

What are the simple limitations in this claim that make it narrow enough to be uninteresting. Well, let's see:

1. The server must store "each of the documents" temporarily. So, dynamic URLs are pretty much out.

2. Log data must be "sent to the sender." This means that if you require the sender to log back on to your side (the traditional way of doing this) instead of sending them the log, you do not infringe this claim.

What do you want to bet that none of the prior art (from BlueMountain to standard email) meet all of these criteria? And this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that likely those limitations were discussed during the prosecution of the patent. If you really want to analyze the scope of the claims -- if for example you want to invalidate the patent -- order a copy of the file wrapper from the patent office, which includes every scrap of communication between the PTO and the company. Once you've reviewed that, we can get a real discussion going.

If you actually look at the patents, and in particular 6,192,407, you will find that they cited a huge number of references, including most of the references that you have discussed. This strongly implies that the patent office actually took a look at this patent, before allowing it. Now, whether patents should be permitted at all or not is a different discussion. But assuming that no prior art technology, articles, or patents were referenced is rather silly, when the patent is available for review.

I will agree that this claim is too broad in my (not-a-legal) opinion. However, it is not nearly as broad as /. seems to imply.

So... for future reference, read the bloody patent claims (not just the abstract) before starting to bitch.

Thank you,

Thalia