Slashdot Mirror

No, you can't. Companies have at most one year from release to market. The prior art status could even predate the actual release to market as described here regarding the term "on-sale".

Looka t what the trademark is:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.50
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.51
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.52

This one is interesting not t's for software AND manuals sold together:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.106

It is NOT for a GUI window.

Looka t what the trademark is:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.50
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.51
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.52

This one is interesting not t's for software AND manuals sold together:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.106

It is NOT for a GUI window.

Looka t what the trademark is:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.50
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.51
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.52

This one is interesting not t's for software AND manuals sold together:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.106

It is NOT for a GUI window.

Looka t what the trademark is:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.50
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.51
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.52

This one is interesting not t's for software AND manuals sold together:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4006:vnegti.7.106

It is NOT for a GUI window.

Alternately, if you wish your invention to be in the public domain, you can file for Statutory Invention Registration. This will cause the filing to be in the USPTO database and thus more likely to be found during a prior art search for future patent applications than if it was just published in a journal.

(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

Not finding it. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3A83kmit.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=no&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Hamburger&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=ADJ&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

The name "Hamburger" is trademark to McDonalds too, and corresponds to the simplest hamburger sandwich.

Thanks for spreading some FUD. Not that I'm a fan of McDonalds, but they actually have a trademark on the phrase "McDonalds Hamburgers". Note the disclaimer: Applicant disclaims the right to the exclusive use of the word "Hamburgers" apart from the mark as shown..

I just checked, it's actually in the US Patent & Trademark Office's trademark database:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85353491

By the looks of it, it will be three months before it is assigned to an attourney for review.

I wonder if there is a fine for fraudulently claiming a trademark?

The ones listed in the B&N response:

5,778,372: Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images

A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

6,339,780: Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area

Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

5,889,522: System provided child window controls

New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

6,891,551: Selection handles in editing electronic documents

A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

6,957,233: Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content

A s

The ones listed in the B&N response:

5,778,372: Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images

A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

6,339,780: Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area

Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

5,889,522: System provided child window controls

New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

6,891,551: Selection handles in editing electronic documents

A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

6,957,233: Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content

A s

The ones listed in the B&N response:

5,778,372: Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images

A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

6,339,780: Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area

Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

5,889,522: System provided child window controls

New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

6,891,551: Selection handles in editing electronic documents

A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

6,957,233: Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content

A s

The ones listed in the B&N response:

5,778,372: Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images

A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

6,339,780: Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area

Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

5,889,522: System provided child window controls

New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

6,891,551: Selection handles in editing electronic documents

A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

6,957,233: Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content

A s

The ones listed in the B&N response:

5,778,372: Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images

A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

6,339,780: Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area

Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

5,889,522: System provided child window controls

New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

6,891,551: Selection handles in editing electronic documents

A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

6,957,233: Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content

A s

"I doubt Sun would have ever filed any of these lawsuits."

Bullshit. MS paid big bucks to use "Java patents", such as Just In Time compilation in .net.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-5188012.html
http://news.cnet.com/Sun-gets-second-Microsoft-patent-payment/2100-1016_3-5671576.html
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6910205.PN.&OS=PN/6910205&RS=PN/6910205

Patents on anything but actual hardware are fundamentally broken.

I disagree. There *are* some algorithms out there which are truly creative and non-obvious. They have as much right to be patented as any hardware.

When the USPTO needs is a bunch of in-house hackers and when somebody applies for a patent the test should be whether they can come up with a flowchart for the process in less than a couple of hours (using google is necessary).

At the moment they're accepting stuff which any decent programmer could have coded up and fully debugged in less than twenty minutes, eg. this. How these patents pass the 'non-obvious' test is a complete mystery. The people involved should be sacked.

Quick google search for patent applications

Quick google search for world population

Now cut and paste the data for years 1963-2010. I've used the 5th column (total utility patent applications) as this seems like it might be relevant. Clean up the data a bit:

cat patents.txt | awk '{print $5}' | sed s/,// | grep -v '*' | tac > pat.txt

cat population.txt | egrep '(^19|^20|^21)' | sed s/,//g > pop.txt

Now if you load this in octave, you can make a quick graph:

plot(pop(:,1), pat ./ pop(:,2))

As you can see from the graph, the proportion of patent applications from around the world is roughly constant until about 1990, then it suddenly jumps up.

Obviously, this only represents US patents for a rather short time period compared to human existence, it would be interesting to find data to extend back two centuries if possible.

Does anyone know what happened in 1990 in the US to change the patent application rate?

I'm thinking we'll all be SOL if someone decides to apply for a patent on "breathing". Apparently the "non-obvious subject matter" test (USPTO 35 U.S.C. 103 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm) does not apply anymore, or maybe the "greasing of the skids" is just more blatant now.

Breaking patents every day without knowing it huh? I noticed you used the word NOT there. Well, try that in code and see how long m$'s protection racket goons take to come knocking.

The patent's abstract (a bit long to quote here) sounds like Akamai's business plan.

The patent was filed in October 1997. According to the company's history Akamai's founders were finalists in a 1998 MIT competition. Given that these things don't take shape instantaneously, there's a fighting chance they've got some documentation of prior art that would shoot down this claim forthwith.

I often bring up the progress bar patent [blogspot.com] (which expired just a few months ago.) Start with "You know when your computer boots up, or you're loading a web page on your browser? Notice that progress bar at the bottom of the screen? That's patented, and technically someone would have had to pay a license for that."

That is not the impression I get from reading the patent, which is much more specific (and the patent claims the methods to accomplish this task. In fact, the patent doesn't even mention a bar, it mentions a rectangle of twenty characters, and the characters disappear in an unspecified order (but not necessarily linearly):

The icon does not require a graphics display to be used and therefore can be used on both graphics and non-graphics displays. The icon of the prepared embodiment has five rows consisting of four percent (%) symbols surrounded by a border. At the beginning of a task, a task monitor quantifies the task into substantially equivalent task work units. All twenty "%" symbols are present and displayed to the user. When the task monitor determines that one task work unit has completed, one "%" symbol is replaced in the icon by a replacement character, such as a blank or null character. The replacement of one "%" symbol each time a task work unit completes continues until all of the "%" symbols are replaced, indicating 100% completion of the task. The order in which symbols inside the icon are replaced is determined by a pattern array and can be modified if desired. The symbols used inside the icon and for the border are selected to be available in virtually all languages, and can also be modified to meet the needs of a particular user.

Granted, it still seems pretty trivial, though it was filed in 1989. The main problem is that it makes no sense for software patents to last 20 years from filing... that's an eternity and then some in the software world.

He even has the patent to prove it. Go Woz!
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,136,359.PN.&OS=PN/4,136,359&RS=PN/4,136,359

How could you have not included the IBM's "ultimate" invention of all time which was posted recently by ./ ?

"How to Patent the Patent" http://slashdot.org/story/11/01/02/1534223/IBM-Files-the-Patent-Troll-Patent

USPTO link: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20100332285.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100332285RS=DN/20100332285

Doing a search for an iCloud trademark turns up 13 hits, 11 of which are from Apple, none of which are from iCloud Communications. It's a bit harder to claim trademark infringement when you don't have a registered trademark (harder, not impossible). What makes it even harder is Apple bought the icloud.com domain, which existed and did business prior to the announcement and iCloud Communications didn't sue the previous owners for trademark infringement. Failing to defend your trademarks weakens your ownership of it (*), which is a big difference between trademarks and copyrights (a difference many people aren't aware of).

Sorry, but not having a registered trademark and failing to defend the mark as it was previously used for a near-identical business endeavour dramatically weakens their case.

* This is why, regardless of what you may think of the validity of the claim, companies sometimes sue for trademark infringement - they either have to defend their trademark or risk losing it entirely.

You can search trademarks here. For the keyword "Icould" I can find a bunch of Apple trademarks, but no iCloud Communications trademark. Interestingly, there is an identical trademark to Apple's iCloud service with USPTO serial number #79056140 (does anyone know how to link USPTO trademarks directly? The TESS system is braindead!), owned by a Swedish company Xcerion AB CORPORATION, Drottninggatan 23, Linköping. From the description of their service:

Computer programs for information management, for creating spreadsheets, tables, graphs and charts ... ... ... for viewing and organizing audio-visual content such as music, video and photos, ... ... ...

Providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software for information management, for creating spreadsheets, tables, graphs and charts and for organizing and analyzing data, ... for viewing and organizing audio-visual content such as music, video and photos, for creating and administrating online communities and groups, for creating and maintaining personal blogs, for online sharing of any digital content, ... , and for integrating and aggregating existing online services.

This trademark was filed in 2008, prior to any of the Apple's 2011 trademarks. I think they might truly have a chance of beating Apple in court, but maybe they are just not bastards, or have an agreement with Apple?

The only currently registered trademark is this one. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4007:67i706.2.13

It seems that iCloud Communications did not register the trademark.

Apple has 100 applications in to the USPTO right now for iCloud

protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation

So Microsoft IsNot filing frivolous patents?

I am frequently baffled by some of the stuff that Apple gets away with patenting. In this case, the patent described would(to my layman's inspection) appear to be a mere subset of Microsoft's (equally odious and sinister) 2008 "Digital Manners" patent, except that that patent covered a much broader range of possible prohibition/settings propagation media, and a much more generic set of possible commands.

Excuse me, but doesn't TFS say Patent Application? First, Apple applies for a lot of things it has no intention of actually doing. Second, a Patent Application is not a Patent.

Third, there are the increasing numbers of places, such as Federal Court Buildings, Juvenile settings, and even some companies, where you can't have any device with a camera anywhere in the building. That makes it a PITA for the owner of the device. Either they have to send the thing to a third-party service that can disable the camera, or remove it, an provide an official report documenting same (and then the user loses some of the functionality they paid for in the device); or, they simply can't take their laptop/tablet/smartphone into those buildings at all, which is a royal pain if you're a salesman, attorney, IT consultant, or even just an employee.

Look, I hate the whole idea, too; but I can see a small justification for it.

When cameras are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Cameras... Or IR filters!

I am frequently baffled by some of the stuff that Apple gets away with patenting. In this case, the patent described would(to my layman's inspection) appear to be a mere subset of Microsoft's (equally odious and sinister) 2008 "Digital Manners" patent, except that that patent covered a much broader range of possible prohibition/settings propagation media, and a much more generic set of possible commands.

Excuse me, but doesn't TFS say Patent Application? First, Apple applies for a lot of things it has no intention of actually doing. Second, a Patent Application is not a Patent. Also, there are the increasing numbers of places, such as Federal Court Buildings, Juvenile settings, and even some companies, where you can't have any device with a camera anywhere in the building. That makes it a PITA for the owner of the device. Either they have to send the thing to a third-party service that can disable the camera, or remove it, an provide an official report documenting same (and then the user loses some of the functionality they paid for in the device); or, they simply can't take their laptop/tablet/smartphone into those buildings at all, which is a royal pain if you're a salesman, attorney, IT consultant, or even just an employee.

Look, I hate the whole idea, too; but I can see a small justification for it.

When cameras are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Cameras... Or IR filters!

TFA has the wrong link too. It's called "journalism".

Probable real patent. The claims describe a relatively simple control system for aligning mirrors, not exactly requiring incredible R&D investment to come up with. Considering its content is practically irrelevant to the article's hype, no-one gave two shits about fact checking it.

Google's Solar Patent

I am frequently baffled by some of the stuff that Apple gets away with patenting. In this case, the patent described would(to my layman's inspection) appear to be a mere subset of Microsoft's (equally odious and sinister) 2008 "Digital Manners" patent, except that that patent covered a much broader range of possible prohibition/settings propagation media, and a much more generic set of possible commands.

"The '078 is the modern day version of a submarine patent, the claims morphing over more than a decade through a CIP and multiple continuations, most of which were abandoned along the way" link

"This Customer-Based Product Design Module (CB-PD Module) invention is designed to embed a new type of product feature within a range of products and services, helping them evolve into Customer Directed Products (CDP) by means of Development Interactions (DI). The result is a continuous source of Aggregate Customer Desires (ACD) and Defined Customer Desires (DCD) from customers and users while they are using these products and services. This serves vendors as a continuous way to listen to Customers and understand their performance, their needs and their expectations." link

Perhaps sue the bank for Trademark infringement through the use of unauthorised use of the name iPad in their marketing material? I'm sure their pesky lawyers will find some form of legal complication that they can use to apply pressure.

Sometimes I take pride in the /. community. The people who post here show clear and decisive understanding of the issues.

Sometimes I see this thread, which as of 201105290137z shows two sets of comments: 1. A lack of understanding of USPTO patent re-examination process 2. Trolls about groklaw being done

With all due respect, and whether or not groklaw is done (it's not), the USPTO re-examination is the beginning of the end for ex-MS-troll Paul Allen's world domination. Whether you agree with software patents or not (I don't), the patents on the face of it will not survive due mostly to prior art. After prior art there are issues of non-patentable material, and methods, but I doubt it will get that far.

Consider this one man saying "BOO" to those of you who instead of addressing the issue from a seat of knowledge are either taking potshots at groklaw or have no understanding of the USPTO process. If you're from another country... I'm sorry the US system is different than yours.

So, you qualify under comment type 1, huh?

First, from a proces perspective, the USPTO would not even begin to address prior art if there were serious issues of non-patentable material and methods. The Office looks first for patent-eligible subject matter - why bother exhaustively searching the prior art to determine that your mathematical equation is, in fact, new and non-obvious when the equation isn't patentable in the first place? So, "after prior art there are issues of non-patentable material" and not getting that far is simply incorrect.

Second, the majority of patents survive re-examination. The USPTO helpfully provides data here. Only 11% of patents lose with all claims canceled. 23% get reissued with no changes, and 66% get some narrowing amendments, but still get reissued. So, it's unlikely that the USPTO reexam means "game over".

Consider this one patent practitioner saying "BOO" to you for shouting "BOO" at people who have no understanding of the USPTO process.

I wouldn't get too excited yet. Of the three that have had re-exam ordered only one has had the next step, a non-final rejection. After the non-final rejection the patent owner then gets to respond with arguments, evidence showing non-obviousness (inventor affidavits), or amending claims. The reexam examiner can then if unconvinced Finally reject the claims. Even this is pretty meaningless because the examiners decision will be appealed to The Board of patent Appeals.

Of the 190 appeals revived from re-exam about 20%of Final rejections are overturned in full and another 20% are overturned in part.

http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/stats/receipts/fy2011_apr_e.jsp

If the patent is still rejected after this the patantee can appeal to the CAFC. Then to CAFC en banc and then finally to the Supreme Court (en banc and Supreme Court are obviously (no patent pun intended) not guaranteed).

So basically a Non-final action meas Jack and shit and Jack quit the patent office last week.

And as a final response to show you are totally full of shit. this is the actual registered trademark of the NYSE. The picture used in the article is not the same as the registered trademark thus the NYSE is even more full of shit. Once again, a trademark is a "distinctive sign or indicator of a business" and the picture in the article is not of their trademark.

Here's the actual trademark image. from the USPTO. "The mark consists of a representation of an actual building interior, namely, a securities exchange trading floor."

Here's the image from the article. It's not an overview of the NYSE trading floor. It''s a single trading post on some exchange. (Of course, at this point, the NYSE is about the only exchange that still has a trading floor. Most of the trading actually happens in the racks of a colocation facility in New Jersey anyway.) If anybody has a right to complain, it's Barclays Capital, because their trading post is being shown in conjunction with a story about fraud, and the story doesn't mention Barclays Capital.

App Store, according to Apple's trademark list, is a 'service mark' (meaning it's note even a registered trademark as of yet) . The generic term, according to their list of trademarks is 'online store'.
You can view their application here.

6,073,150

No kidding, I stirred the hornets’ nest. Well I can play that smart guy game. So 'pirating' isn't stealing because it's really 'copying' and idea which doesn't exist. Well the chemicals in my brain I real, and the ideas they create are used to create real things.

So how about all these smart guys show what they’ve created. I'll start. As you can see, this 'not real' idea is used in the very real automotive industry, and generates very real millions for my former employer. It's kind of nice to own a car that doesn't rust quite as fast as it might have otherwise... but what the heck, it's just an idea. Nobody should have paid me anything.

You mean like if Microsoft decided they had trademarked the entire TLD?

As far as I can tell, the patent in question is US 4,028,724, which was filed in 1975.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,028,724.PN.&OS=PN/4,028,724&RS=PN/4,028,724

Abstract:
A binary quantized TV video signal of any single one of a plurality of different symbols is generated and then successively sampled at respective dot positions thereof, with the binary value of each sample being stored at a corresponding dot position of an individual one of a plurality of dot matrices of the memory, that dot matrix being located at a preselected address location of the memory. The whole process is under the control of a programmed sequence control generator which is capable of automatically controlling the loading of each of the plurality of different symbols, in turn, into its own preselected address location dot matrix of the memory.

You should really not be such a jerk. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the trademark is here, and mentions quite clearly that SQL Server is a trademark applicable to a distributed and RDBMS and a manual sold in a box. That implies MS tried to get the directly relevant mark (on just the software) but could not. That's not a leap of logic.

All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)

Not that anyone would ever actually care, but your sig is a violation of Federal Law, and you've racked a potential of over $120,000 in fines do to the number of comments you've made using it.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_292.htm

I don't know what you consider to be an invention but if you consider This is not that to be one of those thoughts so far above mortal men that Microsoft should be granted exclusive rights to it's use then I have a whole bunch of other ideas that I'd like to sell you.

The fact is that when you start patenting basic concepts and then throwing them around as the legal right to deny competitors entry to market. Then maybe you've gone to far and maybe it's about time someone said as much.

Just my 2 cents..

You cite Microsoft as having patented "virtual desktops" but that is not actually what the patent application covers. The patent claim begins "A method for a user to preview multiple virtual desktops in a graphical user interface..."

an actual citation instead of a forum thread full of crap (only one guy in that forum thread seems to know anything about patents)

In short and quite specifically, your claim that Microsoft patented or tried to patent virtual desktops is bullshit. In general, you do not seem to have any real grasp about what patents can actually cover.

Also, there is no patent! Its a patent application, and in said application there is plenty of prior art being cited by Microsoft itself. If you had read the patent application, you would know that its for methods of improvement over the prior art.

Finally, that is a design patent not a utility patent. Do you know the difference?

No. The law, as it currently stands, is that issued patents are presumed to be valid. Applications are not presumed to be valid, but issued patents are. The accused infringer may try to disprove patent validity; the burden is on them to disprove validity because the patent is presumed to be valid. The rule that there is a presumption cannot be overturned by a court, because it is written into the patent act. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_282.htm

The question is whether that presumption can be disproven by a mere preponderance of the evidence, or whether it requires clear and convincing evidence. Either way, the patent retains a presumption of validity.

A preponderance of the evidence standard does not mean no presumption--it just means a weaker one.

In fact we should enact a substantial annual fee to maintain patent protection.

It's every 3.5 years (with a 6 month grace period) instead of annual, but the US already has patent maintenance fees. For regular patentees the maintenance fee schedule is $980 / $2480 / $4110. So over the life of a patent that's $7570, on top of the $330 filing fee, $540 search fee, $220 examination fee, and $1510 issue fee for a total of $10,170. For small entities (i.e. non-profits, individuals, and companies with = 500 employees) it's basically half that. Then there are more fees for long applications, complicated applications, appeals, time extensions, surcharges, and late fees.

Maybe that doesn't seem like much, but bear in mind that most any patent worth having will also be filed in other countries. If you file everywhere with a patent system it's roughly $200,000 in fees. Over the life of the patents it'll be something like $2 million in maintenance fees and annuities. Even if you stick to major markets like the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Japan the costs get very high, very quickly.

And that's all before you start paying lawyers and translators (a lot of countries want your applications translated into one of their official languages, and those translations can be very expensive because a patent application is both a legal and scientific document). A very rough guide is that the attorneys and translators will cost you 2-3 times what the government will, at a minimum. Oh, and this process will take about 3-5 years, so a lot of these fees (including what your attorneys charge) will go up during that time.

So, bearing all that in mind, I think that for large entities at least there's still room for growth in fees, but the international context has to be considered. If everybody starts raising fees substantially then the costs will quickly become unduly burdensome. Any increases have to be judged very carefully, which is why the PTO is currently favoring a "pay more, get more" approach (e.g. for another $4000 you can get prioritized examination) rather than raising costs across the board.