Slashdot Mirror

Unless you're playing Lumines, Rez, DDR, Guitar Hero, or some other game whose gameplay revolves around music, the music in your game is going to be "choppy" to the extent that it stops playing one background music track and starts another. Smooth transitions won't be possible for several more years, at least until US Patent 5315057 expires at the end of 2014.

How about Amazons gift purchasing patent? Claims 1 to 34 were thrown out and the first claim that stands is:

35. A method in a computer system for coordinating delivery of a gift from a gift giver to a recipient, the gift and recipient being specified in a gift order, the method comprising: determining whether the gift order includes sufficient information so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient; when sufficient information is not provided in the gift order, obtaining delivery information from one or more information sources other than the gift giver; and when sufficient delivery information can be obtained from the additional information sources so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient, directing the gift to be delivered to the recipient as indicated by the delivery information.

What could possible be novel besides the "in a computer system" part?

Actually, it's pretty odd to get delivery information from sources other than the gift giver. Normally, you get a gift order and it's missing something like a destination address, you go back to the gift giver and say "where the hell do you want this thing to go?" Going to a third person seems like a good way to get answers like "uh, you should put it in the back of my car. That's totally it."

How about Amazons gift purchasing patent? Claims 1 to 34 were thrown out and the first claim that stands is:

35. A method in a computer system for coordinating delivery of a gift from a gift giver to a recipient, the gift and recipient being specified in a gift order, the method comprising: determining whether the gift order includes sufficient information so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient; when sufficient information is not provided in the gift order, obtaining delivery information from one or more information sources other than the gift giver; and when sufficient delivery information can be obtained from the additional information sources so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient, directing the gift to be delivered to the recipient as indicated by the delivery information.

What could possible be novel besides the "in a computer system" part?

Maybe not piracy since without downloading the giant ISO files to play PS1 games, the emulator is just a nice file explorer shell for OI File Manger. Trademark infringement is more likely.

See here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:a7trs0.2.13

Sony has a registered trademark for PSX that pretty much includes anything dealing with electronics.

Interestingly though, Nintendo owns the patent for emulation of games on mobile devices: Patent #6,672,963

Based on Nintendo's patent, it will be 2024 before we can emulate on mobile devices freely, so ALL emulators could be removed from the market for patent infringement. But then again, there is no criminal charges for violating a patent, just civil penalties if the patent holder decides to file suit. I believe most of the emulator developers don't reside in the US, so I can see why their out of Nintendo's reach.

Maybe not piracy since without downloading the giant ISO files to play PS1 games, the emulator is just a nice file explorer shell for OI File Manger. Trademark infringement is more likely.

See here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:a7trs0.2.13

Sony has a registered trademark for PSX that pretty much includes anything dealing with electronics.

Interestingly though, Nintendo owns the patent for emulation of games on mobile devices: Patent #6,672,963

Based on Nintendo's patent, it will be 2024 before we can emulate on mobile devices freely, so ALL emulators could be removed from the market for patent infringement. But then again, there is no criminal charges for violating a patent, just civil penalties if the patent holder decides to file suit. I believe most of the emulator developers don't reside in the US, so I can see why their out of Nintendo's reach.

The present disclosure is directed generally to a method of and system for virtual mentoring including in one embodiment, an internet based software and computer implemented system to assess, analyze, and provide individualized recommendations to a user to identify a specific attribute or skill to improve and recommend particularized actions and resources that are designed to help the user improve the identified skill.

Not only are there a number of systems that do this, but any patent attorney in their right mind would have found all this simply by searching for "corporate mentoring software". Oh and maybe try a search for "cognitive behavioral therapy software", psychologists have been doing the same thing for years.

Just not under the name of God.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:1s4tir.3.1

Owner (APPLICANT) salesforce.com, inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE The Landmark @ One Market Street #300 San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94105

Filing Date June 14, 2006
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date December 5, 2008

Sorry, your example did not enforce their mark and lost it.

While Apple can not sue salesforce for their use of AppStore, salesforce no longer counts as prior usage in the eyes of the trademark office.

Apple suing Amazon right now is a requirement if Apple does not want their current existing active mark to do the same.

There was even an older mark on the term back in 1998, abandoned in 2000.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:1s4tir.3.2

But bad news, that doesn't count either :P

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:1s4tir.3.1

Owner (APPLICANT) salesforce.com, inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE The Landmark @ One Market Street #300 San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94105

Filing Date June 14, 2006
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date December 5, 2008

Sorry, your example did not enforce their mark and lost it.

While Apple can not sue salesforce for their use of AppStore, salesforce no longer counts as prior usage in the eyes of the trademark office.

Apple suing Amazon right now is a requirement if Apple does not want their current existing active mark to do the same.

There was even an older mark on the term back in 1998, abandoned in 2000.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:1s4tir.3.2

But bad news, that doesn't count either :P

Well, they can't just swear behind a 102(a)/(e) reference with no evidence to back it up. There are two ways to prove up their claim:

One, they can show reduction to practice before the date of the reference. That is, they show you that they had an actual working prototype of their invention before that date, and it has to have all of the features in the claim.

Or two, they can show conception of the invention before the date of the reference, combined with a showing that they undertook due diligence to develop the invention toward reduction to practice from the day before the reference date up until the reduction to practice. (A frequently used example is that the applicant can't take a month-long tropical vacation when they should be working on getting their invention ready to file.) This second method is more common, and in this case, reduction to practice usually involves what's called "constructive reduction to practice", which means they filed their patent application. (See MPEP 715.)

Also, if the applicant actually derived their invention from someone else, there is a statutory bar under 35 USC 102(f). This is exceedingly rare in USPTO proceedings, because examiners usually don't have evidence available to show derivation, but a rejection could still conceivably be made under that subsection. (See MPEP 2137.)

Well, they can't just swear behind a 102(a)/(e) reference with no evidence to back it up. There are two ways to prove up their claim:

One, they can show reduction to practice before the date of the reference. That is, they show you that they had an actual working prototype of their invention before that date, and it has to have all of the features in the claim.

Or two, they can show conception of the invention before the date of the reference, combined with a showing that they undertook due diligence to develop the invention toward reduction to practice from the day before the reference date up until the reduction to practice. (A frequently used example is that the applicant can't take a month-long tropical vacation when they should be working on getting their invention ready to file.) This second method is more common, and in this case, reduction to practice usually involves what's called "constructive reduction to practice", which means they filed their patent application. (See MPEP 715.)

Also, if the applicant actually derived their invention from someone else, there is a statutory bar under 35 USC 102(f). This is exceedingly rare in USPTO proceedings, because examiners usually don't have evidence available to show derivation, but a rejection could still conceivably be made under that subsection. (See MPEP 2137.)

What you suggested is already part of the US Patent System.

Third parties are allowed to cite prior art to the USPTO for a patent application where the prior art is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the application. Similarly, for already issued patents, third parties may also request an ex parte reexamination of issued patents on the basis of prior art references that is believed to have a bearing on the validity of the patent.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200.htm

Then the patent is invalid on the basis of 35 USC 102(f):

"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2137.htm#sect2137

Who spreads these lies? Windows is a live trademark owned by MS since 1987.

look it up:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4004:3u1oas.1.1

Or not:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4004:k5dab5.7.104&jumpto=104

Unfortunately, US trademark law does allow this absurdity.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:7a8v43.2.3

Odd that Intel would use "Thunderbolt" when it is also the name of the latest Android phone coming out for Verizon (was supposed to be out today), and although Intel claims to have a trademark, Verizon actually has one: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:ncmpfb.6.1

Butanol isn't a replacement for Ethanol, it's a replacement for gasoline!

Butanol may be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine. Because its longer hydrocarbon chain causes it to be fairly non-polar, it is more similar to gasoline than it is to ethanol. Butanol has been demonstrated to work in vehicles designed for use with gasoline without modification.[1] It can be produced from biomass (as "biobutanol")[2] as well as fossil fuels (as "petrobutanol"); but biobutanol and petrobutanol have the same chemical properties.

Historically Butanol and acetone has been produced by fermentation of starches and sugars by Clostridium acetobutylicum what the Butamax patent claims is a method of spicing the genes from C. acetobutylicum that make butanol into other organisms. The patent is very specific about which gene sequences do what and are inserted into the host cell, rather than the typical overly broad patent from typical patent trolls.

There is certainly an argument to be made that the fact that the current patent system allows them to do this is contrary to the public interest.

The government would appear to disagree with that argument, because environmentally-beneficial inventions are one of the few kinds of inventions where patent applicants can request for free that their application be made "special" and therefore get examined sooner.

The government may disagree, but Congress and the United States Patent Office do not, and they're the ones that count. The problems with the patent system in the United States are very real.

There is certainly an argument to be made that the fact that the current patent system allows them to do this is contrary to the public interest.

The government would appear to disagree with that argument, because environmentally-beneficial inventions are one of the few kinds of inventions where patent applicants can request for free that their application be made "special" and therefore get examined sooner.

But that's not valid evidence that patents benefit anything. Look, just because the US has great software companies and none of the countries of the EU do, it doesn't mean that it's because patents were in place. When Silicon Valley bloomed and nothing of the like happened in Europe, software patents were a long way away, so they don't really enter into it.

By the way, you have cited IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, Google, Apple, Facebook. Mind you that, except for Google and Facebook, those are all companies that predate software patents. And Facebook isn't and never was a software company. Google develops a bunch of stuff, but their work in the field of software is havily derivative, since they repurpose Linux left and right. Now I ask you: where are the new big US software companies? Most of the big ones are pretty old, and you might wonder why.

The thing is patents don't really benefit innovation, they benefit the first few innovators in detriment of all the rest. And as sufficient time has passed since the introduction of the system, it becomes overcrowded. To the point that the cost to develop software has risen ridiculously because you have to pay buttloads of money to defend yourself against patent trolls. And unless you have patents of your own to countersue and settle, you're pretty much doomed financially, as the litigation drags for ages. Also worthy of note is how you can't feasibly investigate if your software actually breaks any patents. Even if you're Microsoft and you employ all your staff at that task, if in the unlikely scenario that there wasn't already a patent covering your product by the time you started looking, there'll be one - or several - by the time you finish.

But you asked for evidence that they hinder innovation. I'm afraid that isn't any, really, for any of the sides of the debate, because in economics there rarely is, especially when dealing with relatively new phenomena. I find this to be proof enough that the patent system is completely dysfunctional, though: 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=5443036.PN.&OS=PN/5443036&RS=PN/5443036

people are constantly stealing their content and then slamming them for protecting it.

The movie studios are notorious for taking from the commons without giving back. Walt Disney Pictures especially is known for adapting films, often right after they go out of copyright (such as Pinocchio and The Jungle Book), and then closing the barn door behind it by not only successfully lobbying for successive legislative extensions of the term of copyright in all works published during the existence of the company but also acting like it owns the original work and harassing smaller studios that make their own adaptations. Case in point: Disney owns a trademark on "Pinocchio" for dolls, so good luck selling toys based on your own film adaptation of Collodi's novel. Disney has also sued GoodTimes Entertainment over "trade dress" rights in the packaging of its direct-to-video adaptations of the same stories that Disney had adapted.

Publishers of proprietary computer programs such as Apple also own copyrights. But some Slashdot users have a better view of Apple and tolerate its action to defend its copyright in Mac OS X (Apple v. Psystar) in part because Apple does charitable work by contributing to Darwin, WebKit, and select other free software projects. If the major record labels and major motion picture studios were to do some analogous pro bono work* by releasing some of their back catalog under a license for free cultural works, Slashdot users might have a better opinion of them.

* That's pro bono, not pro-Bono.

Leopards, spots. Kettle, black. m$, evil. You want real silliness, check out their patent for the not operator they invented. How on earth the world of software got by without this stunning breakthrough is a real mystery.

There needs to be some kind of filing that will block other patents but not grant exclusivity, which is much less expensive to file.

There is. It's called a statutory invention registration. Here's the Wikipedia article.

The other route is simply to publish your invention prominently enough that a patent examiner is likely to find it. This was the purpose of IBM's Technical Disclosure Bulletin.

I disagree, this also helps the little people. If you file a patent for a cool idea, and IBM files for the same idea two days later (Keep in mind that the important date here is the postmark), you win. There's no expensive and lengthy court case (where you can lose by running out of money) to determine who invented it first. The debate will be over the day that they look at the postmarks. Keep in mind that prior art applies here also: if you publish a patent in another country, that is prior art, and you can use it to invalidate patents that are filed at a later date in the USA.

Now, if you want to stick with a system where a court case is necessary to determine who gets the patent, I guarantee that will primarily benefit the side with the most cash available for lawyers.

Food for thought, the rest of the world uses a first-to-file system, and it does not appear to have destroyed society yet.

Oh, one more thing: if you, as a "small entity", are willing to do the legwork and write up the patent application yourself, you can have a patent of reasonable length for less than $1000. The current fee schedule is available here:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm

Actually I'm surprised that it was Sony rather than Apple that came up with this idea.

Well, Apple certainly has come up with the idea even though they haven't yet realized it.

"Back-Side Interface for Hand-Held Devices"

Abstract:
An electronic device uses separate surfaces for input and output. One of the surfaces (e.g., the bottom) includes a force-sensitive touch-surface through which a user provides input (e.g., cursor manipulation and control element selection). On a second surface (e.g., the top), a display element is used to present information appropriate to the device's function (e.g., video information), one or more control elements and a cursor. The cursor is controlled through manipulation of the back-side touch-surface. The cursor identifies where on the back-side touch-surface the user's finger has made contact. When the cursor is positioned over the desired control element, the user selects or activates the function associated with the control element by applying pressure to the force-sensitive touch-surface with their finger. Accordingly, the electronic device may be operated with a single hand, wherein cursor movement and control element selection may be accomplished without lifting one's finger.

The patents are 5,585,838, 5,731,844, 6,028,604, and 5,758,258.

Urg...

Ok, so 5,585,838, "Program time guide" should be revoked, the patent officer that reviewed it fired and the lawyer who submitted it fined. Seriously, this patent is, in essence "TV Guide via software menus". Novel is not a word that can be used to describe that, period.

5,731,844, "Television scheduling system for displaying a grid representing scheduled layout and selecting a programming parameter for display or recording," is a patent on the TiVo, pure and simple. It was granted about a year before the first TiVo shipped, but I'd be curious to see if there isn't a publication that pre-dates it. I'm pretty certain it's going to be shown to be invalid based on prior art (I think MIT had a system in use on their Athena cluster of workstations that did something like this in the late 1980s).

6,028,604, "User friendly remote system interface providing previews of applications" appears to be a patent on cascading menus. See above for appropriate punitive actions.

5,758,258, "Selective delivery of programming for interactive televideo system" has a lot of claims, some of which overlap TiVo, and some of which don't. All of the claims that do are clearly covered by prior-art and would easily be shot down in court, IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, PDSM (Please Don't Sue Me).

Just my $0.02, but the only patent that seems to matter, here, is "5,731,844". That one needs to be shot down via prior-art, or the entire concept of a TiVo belongs to Microsoft.

The patents are 5,585,838, 5,731,844, 6,028,604, and 5,758,258.

Urg...

Ok, so 5,585,838, "Program time guide" should be revoked, the patent officer that reviewed it fired and the lawyer who submitted it fined. Seriously, this patent is, in essence "TV Guide via software menus". Novel is not a word that can be used to describe that, period.

5,731,844, "Television scheduling system for displaying a grid representing scheduled layout and selecting a programming parameter for display or recording," is a patent on the TiVo, pure and simple. It was granted about a year before the first TiVo shipped, but I'd be curious to see if there isn't a publication that pre-dates it. I'm pretty certain it's going to be shown to be invalid based on prior art (I think MIT had a system in use on their Athena cluster of workstations that did something like this in the late 1980s).

6,028,604, "User friendly remote system interface providing previews of applications" appears to be a patent on cascading menus. See above for appropriate punitive actions.

5,758,258, "Selective delivery of programming for interactive televideo system" has a lot of claims, some of which overlap TiVo, and some of which don't. All of the claims that do are clearly covered by prior-art and would easily be shot down in court, IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, PDSM (Please Don't Sue Me).

Just my $0.02, but the only patent that seems to matter, here, is "5,731,844". That one needs to be shot down via prior-art, or the entire concept of a TiVo belongs to Microsoft.

The patents are 5,585,838, 5,731,844, 6,028,604, and 5,758,258.

Urg...

Ok, so 5,585,838, "Program time guide" should be revoked, the patent officer that reviewed it fired and the lawyer who submitted it fined. Seriously, this patent is, in essence "TV Guide via software menus". Novel is not a word that can be used to describe that, period.

5,731,844, "Television scheduling system for displaying a grid representing scheduled layout and selecting a programming parameter for display or recording," is a patent on the TiVo, pure and simple. It was granted about a year before the first TiVo shipped, but I'd be curious to see if there isn't a publication that pre-dates it. I'm pretty certain it's going to be shown to be invalid based on prior art (I think MIT had a system in use on their Athena cluster of workstations that did something like this in the late 1980s).

6,028,604, "User friendly remote system interface providing previews of applications" appears to be a patent on cascading menus. See above for appropriate punitive actions.

5,758,258, "Selective delivery of programming for interactive televideo system" has a lot of claims, some of which overlap TiVo, and some of which don't. All of the claims that do are clearly covered by prior-art and would easily be shot down in court, IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, PDSM (Please Don't Sue Me).

Just my $0.02, but the only patent that seems to matter, here, is "5,731,844". That one needs to be shot down via prior-art, or the entire concept of a TiVo belongs to Microsoft.

The patents are 5,585,838, 5,731,844, 6,028,604, and 5,758,258.

Urg...

Ok, so 5,585,838, "Program time guide" should be revoked, the patent officer that reviewed it fired and the lawyer who submitted it fined. Seriously, this patent is, in essence "TV Guide via software menus". Novel is not a word that can be used to describe that, period.

5,731,844, "Television scheduling system for displaying a grid representing scheduled layout and selecting a programming parameter for display or recording," is a patent on the TiVo, pure and simple. It was granted about a year before the first TiVo shipped, but I'd be curious to see if there isn't a publication that pre-dates it. I'm pretty certain it's going to be shown to be invalid based on prior art (I think MIT had a system in use on their Athena cluster of workstations that did something like this in the late 1980s).

6,028,604, "User friendly remote system interface providing previews of applications" appears to be a patent on cascading menus. See above for appropriate punitive actions.

5,758,258, "Selective delivery of programming for interactive televideo system" has a lot of claims, some of which overlap TiVo, and some of which don't. All of the claims that do are clearly covered by prior-art and would easily be shot down in court, IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, PDSM (Please Don't Sue Me).

Just my $0.02, but the only patent that seems to matter, here, is "5,731,844". That one needs to be shot down via prior-art, or the entire concept of a TiVo belongs to Microsoft.

"Sue" isn't the best choice of words here. It was an ITC Complaint that Microsoft hopes will result in the banning of TiVo imports from Mexico that allegedly infringe on Microsoft's patents. The patents are 5,585,838, 5,731,844, 6,028,604, and 5,758,258. You can find confirmation from Microsoft's mouth here.

"Sue" isn't the best choice of words here. It was an ITC Complaint that Microsoft hopes will result in the banning of TiVo imports from Mexico that allegedly infringe on Microsoft's patents. The patents are 5,585,838, 5,731,844, 6,028,604, and 5,758,258. You can find confirmation from Microsoft's mouth here.

"Sue" isn't the best choice of words here. It was an ITC Complaint that Microsoft hopes will result in the banning of TiVo imports from Mexico that allegedly infringe on Microsoft's patents. The patents are 5,585,838, 5,731,844, 6,028,604, and 5,758,258. You can find confirmation from Microsoft's mouth here.

"Sue" isn't the best choice of words here. It was an ITC Complaint that Microsoft hopes will result in the banning of TiVo imports from Mexico that allegedly infringe on Microsoft's patents. The patents are 5,585,838, 5,731,844, 6,028,604, and 5,758,258. You can find confirmation from Microsoft's mouth here.

Here you go:

Methods and compositions for the recombinant biosynthesis of n-alkanes

Because 5 minutes of Googling is apparently too much to ask of the average journalist...

If the claims are true, I REALLY hope we never get a spill of the bacteria that makes the oil :)

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp Nope.

Those stats are misleading. USPTO also processed 24% more applications in 2010 than 2009, so more allowances are expected. The allowance rate has remained around 45% since 2008, which is actually a drop from being over 50% for 2006-7. This compares favorably with the 49% and 48% allowance rates for the Europe and Japan, respectively. Allowance rate is allowed patents divided by total disposals.

The USPTO has many problems but the allowance rate is not one of them. Quality and scrutiny of granted patents are likewise a focus of the office, with much improvement over the situation from several years ago. Read about it in the USPTO PAR.

Source: USPTO Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) FY 2010. Look particularly at the chart on page 125.

USPTO makes all sorts of patent data available. Patentlyo.com for one does a good job analyzing this stuff. Techdirt is more interested in making headlines than objective analysis.

Microsoft actually asked over half a year ago - why is it in the news now? http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pno=&propno=&qs=App+Store&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=

Here are some Trademarks (some "live," some "dead) courtesy of http://tess2.uspto.gov/:
A APP PLACE (cue Grammar Nazi)
APPS FOR LIFE
AUTO APP MART
APPS LIB
SMARTAPP
THE LAST KILLER APP
SEX APP SHOP ("Yeah, Baby!")
PREMIER APP SHOP
AT&T APPCENTER
THERE'S AN APP FOR THAT
APP MASTERS
DOTAPP
APP WORLD
.APP etc.

"iAppStore" is available. However two separate entries appear for "APPSTORE" -- both have status of "DEAD"
US Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

The last thing we need is more patent FUD. The patent is quite clear on what it's intended for:

2. Description of the Related Art

Most organizations currently employ local area networks (LANs) of thick clients, e.g., personal computers. While this represents an improvement over the disconnected computing environments of a decade earlier, many limitations still exist. In current LAN environments, each client computer has its own local copy of operating system software, application programs, and user customizations to the desktop environment. Typically there is no centralized mechanism for maintaining a consistent system configuration in such a computing environment. Consequently, individual user workstations often get out-of-sync with each other as one or more users upgrade to newer versions of the operating system, upgrade their application programs, or install application programs that were not part of the original system configuration. Additionally, in this type of uncontrolled, decentralized environment, the operating system of a client computer can easily become corrupted. This is especially true with the Microsoft.RTM. Windows.RTM. 95, 98 and NT operating systems where user modification of a single system file can have undesirable consequences and require significant downtime. For example, editing the Windows Registry file could render a client computer unusable thereby requiring reinstallation of the computer's operating system software and all the application programs.

In view of the foregoing, it should be apparent that administration and maintenance of current computing environments is complex and time consuming. Therefore, what is needed is a reliable computing environment that can be maintained more easily and at a lower cost.

This has nothing to do with cloud computing. This has everything to do with managing a large net-booted environment, like a large corporation with a few thousand workstations. From reading the patent's claims, it's a design for a net-boot server that maintains separate boot volumes for each client class. Those volumes can be modified on the fly, without the need for carefully creating images.

TFA implies that this may be a technology for Apple to have more control over iPods and other devices, by keeping the OS internal and possibly charging a subscription fee to keep the device booting. With today's systems, that's ridiculous. Downloading a whole working OS is impractical over current residential networks, and it kills one of the best features of handheld devices: they're ready at a moment's notice. It simply doesn't make sense for Apple to expect users to wait for a half an hour every time they turn on an iPod.

The more reasonable in TFA speculation is that this is a push to have a bigger corporate Apple presence, but that's glossed over in favor of more outlandish claims.

This led to my revised idea:
1. File a business method patent on patent trolling.

I thought I was joking. The thing is, if I blogged about it (and I may have), I wonder if it's prior art?

Was that before April 2007? If not, Halliburton beat you to it:

Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party

After reading TFA and finding effectively nothing about the patent itself, other than typical "oh-no-patents-are-bad" scaremongering, I finally found one single link to the patent in question. The title (conveniently not mentioned in TFA) is "Intellectual Property Component Business Model for Client Services". From that alone, it appears the patent covers only a particular method for managing IP. It doesn't directly relate to actually filing patents at all.

Looking at the abstract and claims, it describes a "computer system" (probably implemented as an application like any other) with a large number of modular parts that manages each step of IP creation, organization, administration, and enforcement.

It includes a module to keep track of what is or is not a current patent, and where.

It includes a module to keep track of who's licensing what, and with what conditions.

It includes a module to take a business plan and figure out what IP will be necessary to enact that plan.

Skimming through the other claims, it appears to be pretty benign: It's an application to sort out the mess of IP every big company has. Heck, as a final product, it might even cut down the number of patent trolls, because companies can more easily show all the IP that a particular product uses, and know that what the troll is claiming is not in the product.

Direct Link to Patent Application
Enjoy

I think that's what the patents are for. They don't use BPL. The light fixtures are located in dropped ceilings. Above the ceiling each light fixture has another light sensor. The data comes from yet another lightbulb even higher above the dropped ceiling. Those really high up lightbulbs use WiFi.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(%22building+illumination+apparatus%22.TTL.)&OS=ttl/%22building+illumination+apparatus%22&RS=TTL/%22building+illumination+apparatus%22 Go there and search for "BPL" and "BOPL"

[0088]The lights shown in FIG. 5, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, will have AC wiring with data carriers such as S-BPL, and static locations encoded into the system. Thus a person 190 entering a hallway 192 with a communications badge 170 could use only those lights needed for his travel. As the person progresses toward a destination, the lights behind may be no longer needed and so may be programmed to turn off.

Power, which may be either AC or DC current is coupled through a power line bridge 150 with data from a network cable input, for example. The source of the data is not critical to the operation of the present invention, but may include various computer outputs such as might, for exemplary purposes, include control processor output or network connections such as commonly found on Local Area Networks (LAN), Wide Area Networks (WAN) or through the Internet. In accord with one embodiment, the wiring between power line bridge 150 and LED light source 161 is shielded by passing through a conduit or the like, defining a Shielded Broadband-over-Power-Line (S-BPL) connection that is both resistant to interfering communications and also produces almost no radiant energy.

And:

[0085]As seen in FIG. 4, the electrical wiring in the hallways and/or rooms may include BOPL.

At least they are considering using shielded power cabling, aka "S-BPL", but I would think using WiFi would be a wiser choice, one lousy installation of S-BPL can wipe out half a building with radio interference, and what happens to the radio signal once it reaches the end of the line? aka the light socket? are they going to be installing shielded light sockets too? I Hardly think so.

In 2007, Bloomberg notes, IBM was bullish on online immersive environments like Second Life. Big Blue certainly put its patent efforts where its predictions were - 250+ published IBM patent applications mention 'avatar' or 'avatars'.

What I want to know is, how is this different than highlighting searched words in word processors and other types of editors? This is something that has been around since computers were the size of deep freezers.

Having read the linked summary, I think the summary here is a bit off. It sounds more about getting the things to be highlighted to the server that's going to generate the html to be sent to the user.

My understanding is that patents cover the method, and not the result... Although a quick skim over wikpedia hasn't cleared this up...?

That's how patent claims are supposed to be - in the form of a sentence.

See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_608_01_m.htm

Stating "the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent)"

Claims don't necessarily start off as a mind-numbingly long description. A long and mind-numbing description usually are very very narrow and not as valuable as a simpler claim, which is usually much broader. What happens is that the Examiner will cite prior art against the Applicant and the Applicant will narrow and add more and more details into the claim to overcome the prior art that is cited against him. Remember, this thing was literally in prosecution for 6 years (its priority date is 1999, but it was filed as a continuation in 2004), so the Examiner had 6 years to cite art at the Applicant until the Applicant narrowed it enough to be granted. At that point, of course, the claim ballooned to the hard to parse language there.

You can submit your prior art within 2 months of the application's publication date to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.99. There is a fee of $180 associated with doing so (covering up to 10 references submitted), and you have to make sure you jump through all the hoops that the regulation requires (e.g., you're not allowed to explain the relevance of your prior art, and you have to serve the applicant with a copy of your submission).

Wow, that's expensive for indivduals to do. How about emailing (and snail mailing) it to Microsoft's legal department and cc: the USPTO and a few other government officials? It's not official but could really shoot down the "we weren't aware of that prior art" excuse

You can submit your prior art within 2 months of the application's publication date to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.99. There is a fee of $180 associated with doing so (covering up to 10 references submitted), and you have to make sure you jump through all the hoops that the regulation requires (e.g., you're not allowed to explain the relevance of your prior art, and you have to serve the applicant with a copy of your submission).

They only license their patent portfolio.

Oh, how I wish that was all that they did. As you can see from their site:

Intellectual Ventures has been actively inventing since August 2003. The company has filed thousands of patent applications in more than 50 technology areas and has thousands of ideas under consideration.

Since 2003 they have been gumming up the USPTO as well. Note that they've filed thousands of patent applications. No mention of how many were issued. It's entirely possible that they were issued to the actual people working at IV and not to IV but a search shows nine patents issued to IV on the USPTO.

So remember the TED Laser Mosquito/Malaria technology? That's just a patent waiting to be issued then licensed but until then I wouldn't recommend building any.