Slashdot Mirror

• 6,098,106 Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal

  A method for controlling a computer by inputting an analog signal into the computer to control a web browser software application. The analog signal contains a trigger signal which activates proprietary software, and a product identifier. The proprietary software launches the web browser application on the computer, extracts the product identifier, and creates an appended data string by appending server address (URL) routing information to the product identifier information. The appended data string is automatically inserted into the web browser as keystroke data and routed to an advertiser reference server. The appended routing information directs communication to the advertiser reference server which contains a cross-referenced database of advertiser product identifier information and associated advertiser server URLs. The advertiser server URL and a request for product information relevant to the product identifier is returned to the computer web browser where it is automatically redirected to the advertiser server containing the advertiser product information. The advertiser product information is then returned to the computer for display.

Yes, thanks, the SIR exists. But reading the form (sb0094.pdf), it appears that this is an add-on to a regular patent-filing, so the costs and difficulty are at least slightly higher with the SIR. i therefore don't quite understand the motivation for filing this (though maybe the patent issue fee is waived). After all, you are not req'd to enforce a patent if it's granted to you, it's just an option. I think that what Mr Malamud is proposing is a way to inexpensively file antipatents (the utility patent app filing is currently $345).

Oh, never mind... FlashVOS cancelled their 1988 VOS trademark. Oh.. and Stratus VOS also was cancelled, in 1991.

Oh, never mind... FlashVOS cancelled their 1988 VOS trademark. Oh.. and Stratus VOS also was cancelled, in 1991.

According to this posting at the USPTO website, a patent is only valid for 20 years after the date of application.

As a side note, is there a stupid patent archive somewhere? Where people could post a link to a moronic patent and have others take a look at it. Sort of the Oracle for patents.

Actually, there is. http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html. It's the US patent database. After all, aren't all patents stupid??

Lucas does (of course) have trademarks for everything else. Phantom Menace, Star Wars, etc etc. I did a search for trademarks owned by "Lucasfilm" or "Lucas Licensing" & didn't see much of interest.

Anyone know what "The Seventh Tower" is? That's one of the trademarks I didn't recognize. Also, how long before the movie comes out do you think they'll have to get a trademark?

Not true. A patent itself distributes the details of constructing the device. Plus one can get patent details on www.patents.ibm.com and www.uspto.gov. It is part of the tradeoff of a patent. Anyone can freely describe how to make it, making the actual invention is what is not allowed. Source code for doing so is a gray area - is it a description or a product or a means for making the product? I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say.

And I hate to point this part out, too, but not only are we not nearly as controversial; we got there first. I'm pretty certain there's actually even a trademark on the name.

[ looks ]

Yep. 1986.

And for the anal-retentives in the audience, yeah, I think a court would accept a dilution argument, given the close association of the problem spaces.

Cheers,
-- jra
-----

Silly dynamic whatchamacallit. Search for their trademarks here

Metallica have got trademarks for everything.

--

1) There's no such thing as a straightforward patent in days when the patent office pays people on the number they approve per month.

Excuse me? A quick check with the USPTO web site shows that patent examiners are paid on the GS scale (grades 5 to 11), just like the majority of the federal government. These are annual salaries -- their pay has nothing to do with "the number they approve per month." Where did you hear that piece of information? Or did you just make it up?

BTW, GS-5 is a ridiculously low salary for the work they do (starts at $21,370 a year) so it's no wonder they're understaffed..

-Orion, PS-5 government employee

Before you jump on the patent office, it's important to realize that they are understaffed & underfunded - Rambus (intel & sony) have more lawyers doing a single patent application than the USPTO's entire staff. Go to their web site and read their complaint - they aren't even getting to keep the money they make in fees! from their site:

"All of our revenues, projected to be 1.2 billion dollars in fiscal year 2001, are paid as fees by the knowledge-based high-tech leaders and individual entrepeneurs who rely on us to help them flourish in this economy. We are no burden to the American taxpayer. Moreover, we use activity-based cost management principles. Our fee revenues relate directly to the work we do. We do not "have a surplus" or "make profit".

The proposed mark would seriously impair our ability to effectively manage our operations and provide our customers with the quality products and services they expect and deserve.

well guys, you're not even doing that NOW.

Since the mark would fund us at 900 million dollars, or about 25% less than the the total fees paid by our customers, we would be forced to make significant modifications to our operations.

i don't blame the uspto one bit for the insanity that is our patent system. i blame the whores in washington who are giving in to lobbying pressure to underfund the patent system.

ESR can yell at them all he likes. maybe he can talk them into denying patents they don't have time to read, rather than granting them. of course, if they do that, they'll probably have to start having bake sales to buy lunch as of the next year's budget.

US Patents and Trademarks Office Trademark Electronic Application System

But trademarks are registered per class, so a big company could register your domainname as an trademark in another class in order to get your domain name and damages. And the biggest pockets win in court (just remember OJ)

And you actually have to use your name in commerce, which could be a bit problematic if you don't use your site as a business.

1. The first amendment always allows parody, even if someone has a trademark.
2. Diluted the value of the trademark?!? He just gave a ton of press to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He should be charging them for advertising.
3. Commercial benefit?!? How was this commercial at all? He put up a parody site.

1. The first amendment always allows parody, even if someone has a trademark.
2. Diluted the value of the trademark?!? He just gave a ton of press to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He should be charging them for advertising.
3. Commercial benefit?!? How was this commercial at all? He put up a parody site.

1. The first amendment always allows parody, even if someone has a trademark.
2. Diluted the value of the trademark?!? He just gave a ton of press to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He should be charging them for advertising.
3. Commercial benefit?!? How was this commercial at all? He put up a parody site.

1. The first amendment always allows parody, even if someone has a trademark.
2. Diluted the value of the trademark?!? He just gave a ton of press to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He should be charging them for advertising.
3. Commercial benefit?!? How was this commercial at all? He put up a parody site.

1. The first amendment always allows parody, even if someone has a trademark.
2. Diluted the value of the trademark?!? He just gave a ton of press to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He should be charging them for advertising.
3. Commercial benefit?!? How was this commercial at all? He put up a parody site.

Or write to them.

What this means is that the stalling "trick" you mention is no longer possible in the U.S.; holding up the issuance of a patent is no longer of any benefit to the patent holder.

The BT patent, though, was issued before the law changed, and thus is valid for 17 years from when it was issued in 1989.

See the USPTO website for details.

Try the patent office Web page:

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/

this patent looks relevent I haven't read it all though.

You do have to show a "use in commmerce", but the requirements for that are fairly minimal. Read the Nolo Press book on trademarks for the rules. A banner ad or an affiliate link to something probably qualifies, as long as there's potential income.

Even if your trademark application is rejected for the "principal register", which means you can keep others from using it, you can usually then file to put it on the "secondary register", which means nobody can keep you from using it. You still get to use "tm", and it's a trademark for ICANN domain dispute purposes.

Sorry to burst your bubble CmdrTaco, but the "Pinball Wizard" trademark is perfectly acceptable, even though there was an old song by the same name. Two companies may trademark the same word as long as their customers could not potentially confuse the two products. Here's a quote from the USPTO's Basic Facts About Trademarks:

To determine whether there is a conflict between two marks, the PTO determines whether there would be likelihood of confusion, that is, whether
relevant consumers would be likely to associate the goods or services of one party with those of the other party as a result of the use of the marks at
issue by both parties. The principal factors to be considered in reaching this decision are the similarity of the marks and the commercial relationship
between the goods and services identified by the marks. To find a conflict, the marks need not be identical, and the goods and services do not have
to be the same.

-jon (IANAL, YMMV, etc.)

Hormel, which holds the trademark on spam, might sue you for infringement. ;-)

I can't claim copyright on what a piece of software DOES, but on how it is implemented.

But you can buy a patent from the USPTO.

I can't own an object-oriented language; I can, however, own a compiler.

You can also claim copyright on an MP3 compi^H^H^H^H^Hencoder, but Fraunhofer has a patent on the MP3 language.

IDG's use of "phantom" trademarks may not be allowed. Phantom marks are those that contain elements unspecified at application time, like ".... for Dummies." Apparently trademark applicants are allowed only one trademark name per application.

I found this little tidbit in a USPTO newsletter here.

Trademark applicants may not register phantom marks: The Federal Circuit upheld the Board's refusal to register a phantom trademark in In re International Flavors, 51 USPQ2d 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A phantom trademark is "one in which an integral portion of the mark is generally represented by a blank or dashed line acting as a placeholder for a generic term or symbol that changes, depending on the use of the mark." International Flavors sought to register "LIVING XXXX FLAVORS," "LIVING XXXX FLAVOR," and "LIVING XXXX," where the "XXXX" serves to denote a specific herb, fruit, plant, or vegetable. The phantom marks would provide protection for such marks as "LIVING STRAWBERRY FLAVOR" and "LIVING CILANTRO FLAVOR." Thus, the applications sought to obtain registration of a potentially unlimited number of marks. The examining attorney refused registration of the marks, and the Board affirmed. International Flavors appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Commissioner that under the Lanham Act and the rules pertaining to it, a trademark application may seek to register only a single mark. The court therefore saw no reason to disturb the Board's finding that International Flavors sought to register multiple marks in violation of the one-mark-per-application requirement of the Lanham Act.

The Federal Circuit further explained that federal registration benefits the market by providing constructive notice to the public of the registrant's ownership of the mark, thus preventing innocent misappropriation of the mark as a defense to an infringement charge. Phantom marks with missing elements fail to provide meaningful constructive notice to the public because they encompass too many combinations to make a thorough and effective search possible. Finally, the court also rejected International Flavors' argument that the PTO's failure to register the phantom marks denied it due process or equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

There are still a few questions. If IDG already had their application approved by the USPTO, it may be harder for "infringers" to defend against it, even with the court ruling. Also, IDG may have legitimate claims to specific titles like "The Internet for Dummies" or even just "For Dummies," but anything "for Dummies" seems right out. As the federal court says, such phantom marks do not serve the public good, since there are too many potential infringing variations.

software that conforms to the Linux API generally conforms to the Unix API (sorry, I meant the UNIX® Operating System's Application Programming Interface).

"UNIX® system API" would be fine by the Open Group (they just want a noun after the trademark), but I think I realized (looking at it from an API perspective) that the UNIX system API is just the POSIX API. Checking the Patent Office's trademark search engine, I find that POSIX® is a registered trademark of IEEE. I didn't see any off-the-wall trademark guidelines on IEEE's web site.

software that conforms to the Linux API generally conforms to the Unix API (sorry, I meant the UNIX® Operating System's Application Programming Interface).

"UNIX® system API" would be fine by the Open Group (they just want a noun after the trademark), but I think I realized (looking at it from an API perspective) that the UNIX system API is just the POSIX API. Checking the Patent Office's trademark search engine, I find that POSIX® is a registered trademark of IEEE. I didn't see any off-the-wall trademark guidelines on IEEE's web site.

Like "UNIX" containers of metal for high-compressed gas, or like "UNIX" diapers, for example.

Like "UNIX" containers of metal for high-compressed gas, or like "UNIX" diapers, for example.

However, you could buy it and squat on it hoping to sell it to an ophthamologist :)

However, you could buy it and squat on it hoping to sell it to an ophthamologist :)

Exhibit A:
Trademark registration: Serial No. 74-560867

Exhibit B:
Definition number 4 from above post.

Put the two together and by definition, Linux is proprietary.

Not that it matters. The issue is Open Source vs. Closed Source. By using a license (GPL) Linus Torvalds is controlling distribution of his software. He chooses to let people modify Linux assuming they feed their mods back to him. This doesn't stop Linux from being proprietary.

Coke is a registered trade mark since 1944. Search for Coke and find out more.

Coke is a registered trade mark since 1944. Search for Coke and find out more.

• A TRADEMARK is either a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this booklet the terms "trademark" and "mark" are used to refer to both trademarks and service marks whether they are word marks or other types of marks. Normally, a mark for goods appears on the product or on its packaging, while a service mark appears in advertising for the services.

Note also that in the domain name dispute policy, section 8 indicates that a trademark holder has to present both evidence of ownership, and "the legal harm the trademark owner is incurring". I don't think the Coca-Cola (TM) Company is being harmed by an inactive domain, nor do I think they're likely to be harmed by anything short of a "Don't Drink Coke" site at coke.[whatever].

My personal (IANAL) recommendation would be to try to initiate dispute procedings yourself, providing background for your use of the word "coke" and claiming no harm to the Coca-Cola Company and try to get something from NSI to indicating you can continue to use the domain. If you do, send a copy to Coke(TM) to snort.

"Kleenex" is a product of the Kimberly-Clark company, and is still a trademark. So far as I know, "Band-Aid" is also still a registered trademark. Trademark protection is why (for those of you of a certain age, in the United States) you'll remember that the cutesy musical jingle went from "I am stuck on Band-Aids" to "I am stuck on Band-Aid Brand". Check out this Johnson & Johnson site and this filing from 1924 for trademark details. {Jonathan Ezor, author of "Clicking Through: A Survival Guide for Bringing Your Company Online" (Bloomberg Press 1999)}

--

here's one great tidbit: there's a special kind of cheap patent that's perfect for open-source projects!"

Wrong on both counts. SIRs are not patents and they are not cheap. A "Statutory Information Registration" permits an applicant who has no chance of getting a patent issued, to have the USPTO print out a pretty certificate with his disclosure, complete with an issue date, a number and everything. One doesn't need to file an application, you can ask for a SIR from the get-go. (But there is no real reason to do so.)

It is not a patent, does not give you the right to place a patent number (or patent pending) on a product and grants no right to exclude. While the SIR is not examined against prior art, it is examined for compliance with all the formalities and disclosure requirements of Section 112 of the Patent Act, and thus should be reviewed by someone experienced in preparing patent applications.

Ultimately, it has no legal effect at all, except that it serves as prior art to the extent of its disclosure. On the other hand, so does every other publication, whether issued by the PTO or not. We would be far better off publishing a "Journal of Open Source Invention," to provide a source of prior art than relying upon SIRs.

And they are certainly not cheap. The patent office fee for an SIR is $920.00. (As compared to $620.00 for a full U.S. Utility application filed by an individual).

For the open source community, I see no upside for SIR applications.

here's one great tidbit: there's a special kind of cheap patent that's perfect for open-source projects!"

Wrong on both counts. SIRs are not patents and they are not cheap. A "Statutory Information Registration" permits an applicant who has no chance of getting a patent issued, to have the USPTO print out a pretty certificate with his disclosure, complete with an issue date, a number and everything. One doesn't need to file an application, you can ask for a SIR from the get-go. (But there is no real reason to do so.)

It is not a patent, does not give you the right to place a patent number (or patent pending) on a product and grants no right to exclude. While the SIR is not examined against prior art, it is examined for compliance with all the formalities and disclosure requirements of Section 112 of the Patent Act, and thus should be reviewed by someone experienced in preparing patent applications.

Ultimately, it has no legal effect at all, except that it serves as prior art to the extent of its disclosure. On the other hand, so does every other publication, whether issued by the PTO or not. We would be far better off publishing a "Journal of Open Source Invention," to provide a source of prior art than relying upon SIRs.

And they are certainly not cheap. The patent office fee for an SIR is $920.00. (As compared to $620.00 for a full U.S. Utility application filed by an individual).

For the open source community, I see no upside for SIR applications.

If you want to know a little bit more about Todd Dickinson's background check out:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offi ces/com/admin/index.html.

Some of the more interesting tidbits that are there include the fact that he was the Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property and
Technology at Sun Company, as well as serving as counsel for Chevron.

Q. Todd Dickinson is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. He's only been on the job for 4 months, so we can't blame him personally for many past failings, but he's the one to address about making it stop. According to his biography, "Under Dickinson's leadership, the PTO is implementing the most sweeping reform in patent law in a half-century and its restructuring into a performance-based organization."

Since IANAL, I can't make much sense of Dickinson v. Zurko, but it might give some insight on Disckinson's attitudes. It vaguely makes it look like he tried pretty vigorously to strenghten the legal force of PTO decisions that something was prior art and couldn't be patented. It may or may not also strengthen decisions that something is patentable. He says he's trying to hire many more people familiar with software, and make more resources available for recognizing prior art.

There's several of his speeches available at the PTO site.

Dickinson did praise the late Judge Giles Sutherland Rich, who wrote the opinion in the State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc. case that explicitly made it acceptable to patent mathematical algorithms and business models.

It would be great if the slashdot masters could arrange an Ask Slashdot with this guy.

Q. Todd Dickinson is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. He's only been on the job for 4 months, so we can't blame him personally for many past failings, but he's the one to address about making it stop. According to his biography, "Under Dickinson's leadership, the PTO is implementing the most sweeping reform in patent law in a half-century and its restructuring into a performance-based organization."

Since IANAL, I can't make much sense of Dickinson v. Zurko, but it might give some insight on Disckinson's attitudes. It vaguely makes it look like he tried pretty vigorously to strenghten the legal force of PTO decisions that something was prior art and couldn't be patented. It may or may not also strengthen decisions that something is patentable. He says he's trying to hire many more people familiar with software, and make more resources available for recognizing prior art.

There's several of his speeches available at the PTO site.

Dickinson did praise the late Judge Giles Sutherland Rich, who wrote the opinion in the State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc. case that explicitly made it acceptable to patent mathematical algorithms and business models.

It would be great if the slashdot masters could arrange an Ask Slashdot with this guy.

at least not according to a lookup here altho I'd love to find a silly one like that in the database.

All I can add is, after grad. in '82 I went to the PTO and worked in the "info storage and retrival" section for a summer - it's a ruff job, slogging thru all the legalese and trying to shoot 'em down, but that's the examiners job. I had a few pat. applications, several actually, which were just 'burn a program into a 2716 ROM and patent the ROM' (REJECT!!). I actually was about to issue a Patent on a few but my supervisors said, "What's so new about this" and quickly produced a document that preceeded it if you interpret it broadly enough. They kept emphasizing 'broad' thinking - that is, if someone tries to patent a memory scheme that is implemented electrically in Si chips, you can reject it with a 'similar' memory scheme implemented mechanically in wooden disks and dowell rods.

The RLE compression patent to which Gailly refers is "4056828: Run length encoding and decoding methods and means", filed by - you guessed it - Xerox. The full patent can be found here at IBM's Patent Server, or here at the US Patent and Trademark Office. The good news is that, as far as I know, this patent has expired because it's over 23 years old.

Paul.