Slashdot Mirror

I did a trademark search for PAC-MAN at http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe and I'm unable to find a non-word mark match. Does that mean I'm incompetent in searching or does the "namco bandai"-company really only have word marks?

The actual patent references Westmeister, who is referred to at buypowershelf.com, the company behind the product at Amazon.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=gunderman&OS=gunderman&RS=gunderman
http://buypowershelf.com/Photos/Times%20At%20Home%20With%20Lynn%20Fetzer%20Westmeister.pdf

Searching for Westmeister in the patent database brings up the Gunderman patent.

MS certainly doesn't deserve a patent any more than I do

Actually if you read the patent Microsoft has come up with the "specific implementation" for a (hopefully) working system, where all you have said is "I want an electrically activated memory plastic display".

This is what patents are supposed to be, complete theoretically working designs. You can't (or at least you're not supposed to be able to) just patent the idea of a "shape shifting display" you have to come up with how to make one, and anyone coming up with a different method of creating one gets their own patent. (This is also the problem with software patents, you can get a patent on some vague idea that covers about 100 different potential implementations).

The idea behind patents is that the inventing company doesn't have to build anything, as the patent is public any interested manufacturer can come up with a use for the technology and licence it. If not for patents any novel idea a company comes up it that it doesn't end up using would just get filed away and lost.

The first option is to simply contact IBM and ask them how their patent is novel or different or disjoint from your work.

Actually it's in the Patent.

The shortcomings of the prior art are overcome and additional advantages are provided ...

It then provides the details (which I can't be bothered listing here because I'm lazy).

http://patft.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=7552305.PN.&OS=PN/7552305&RS=PN/7552305

What's that you say? The PTO is not a private company, but rather a branch of our omnipotent benevolent government, . . . Well, in that case they can't possibly be concerned with revenue...

I believe that the USPTO is set up to pay for itself. budget
They certainly are concerned with revenue.
The USPTO’s earned revenue is derived from the fees collected for patent and trademark products and services. Fee collections are recognized as earned revenue when the activities to complete the work associated with the fee are completed.

What's that you say? The PTO is not a private company, but rather a branch of our omnipotent benevolent government, . . . Well, in that case they can't possibly be concerned with revenue...

I believe that the USPTO is set up to pay for itself. budget
They certainly are concerned with revenue.
The USPTO’s earned revenue is derived from the fees collected for patent and trademark products and services. Fee collections are recognized as earned revenue when the activities to complete the work associated with the fee are completed.

The first option is to simply contact IBM and ask them how their patent is novel or different or disjoint from your work.

A similar option is to look at the patent prosecution history in Public PAIR. Get through the CAPTCHA, click on the Image File Wrapper tab, and look at the rejections, amendments, responses, etc.

It looks like the Tsiodras reference was used by the Examiner to reject the patent application. What happened is that the applicants amended their claims so that they would not cover what was taught by HeapCheck 1.2. For example, the applicants state that in the HeapCheck 1.2 documentation "it clearly states that all source files that want to make use of the alternative heap memory allocation mode must be compiled to include specific header files and then linked to a specific library that will satisfy those requests (see, e.g., Section 4 'Usage')." After this argument was first made, it wasn't enough for the Examiner, who ended up rejecting the application two more times before satisfactory claim language was submitted.

The point is that IBM has already said why it thinks that they have something that is novel and nonobvious, so it is a good idea to look at what they've said before demanding that they say it all over again. More importantly, HeapCheck (version 1.2 at least) does not infringe on the patent claims. According to the documentation on the HeapCheck v1.2 web page, you have to compile support for it into the software you are creating. But the IBM patent requires that "setting the allocation mode for the process . . . is performed in real-time, and wherein the seting sets the allocation mode . . . without requiring recompiling, linking or loading of the applicaiton to set, in real-time, the allocation mode for the application."

Tsiodras could have trouble if future versions of HeapCheck included features that fall within the scope of the claimed invention, but even version 1.34 appears to require re-compilation to enable and disable the heap checking features.

File a "Citation of Prior Art." It's very easy to do, and anyone can do it. Next, file a Request for Reexamination. There are two kinds of reexaminations: Ex Parte (which means you submit the request and the fee, and then your personality responsibilities are terminated), and Inter Partes (which means you have a say throughout the entire re-examination). The latter is more expensive. Here is a link that may help you get started: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2210.htm#sect2210 Since your work was listed as prior art, you are going to have a very tough time ahead of you. That designation means that before the patent was granted the examiner looked at your work and said "IBM's invention was not obvious from the prior art." If you are unable to cite your own work due to it already being cited in the patent, you could try citing the work that predates yours by twelve years (and also mentioning your previous work as well). [Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I am not a patent agent. I'm not giving you any legal/non-legal advice, just some ideas that you might want to talk to a patent attorney/agent about.]

Step 1: Go to http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
Step 2: Pass CAPTCHA
Step 3: Select "Patent Number" among the radio buttons, enter "7552305" as the number, click search
Step 4: Click "Image File Wrapper"
Step 5: Tick the box next to each line saying "(Non-)Final Rejection" and "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment"
Step 6: Click the "PDF" icon towards the top right of the page
Step 7: Read the arguments between the attorney and the USPTO
Step 8: Discuss on Slashdot

FWIW, your site wasn't cited by IBM's application, but by the USPTO examiner.

http://patft.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=7552305.PN.&OS=PN/7552305&RS=PN/7552305

The PTO is funded by user fees. The problem is that if they take in more fees than they budgeted for, the rest goes to general revenue to be spent on other things. When the economy turns downward, the PTO ends up taking in less in fees than its fixed costs (building maintenance, salaries, etc). The 'budget expansion' you're referring to is a plan to essentially refund some of the almost $1 billion in excess fees that have been taken from the PTO over the years. Part of it would make up for the current budget shortfall and part of it would be used for infrastructure improvements like IT upgrades.

You can find out all you want to know (and more!) about the PTO budget in its 2011 budget report. On page 2 you'll find "USPTO is a fully fee funded agency (with fee collections appropriated by the Congress), and does not rely on regular funding from the General Treasury."

For those of you wondering how the PTO can have budget problems when the number of patent applications is at or near record highs: the cost of examination is not fully paid for on the front end. Much of the cost is made up on the back end through maintenance fees. The problem right now has more to do with patent holders letting patents go abandoned (and thus not paying maintenance fees) than it does application rates dropping off. This is discussed in page 7 of the budget report I linked.

In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,”
Microsoft just patented patent lawsuit process, so that will stop all these pesky lawsuits.

IANAL either, but I do have some experience with trademark registration and the processes involved. Here's the thing to keep in mind: a trademark is about use in commerce - not about use in casual conversation. If I go around saying "it's on like donkey kong" all day I am not in any sort of violation of trademark law even if Nintendo has registered it. However, I can't roll out a new brand of video game systems and use the same phrase to market my product. Being a competitor (or someone in the same general area) and using someone elses trademark can be harmful to the holder. But, being joe nobody and saying a trademarked phrase is not harmful. Nintendo doesn't need to stop everyone from saying it. They don't have to defend it from being used in casual conversation... hell they want other people to say it... and they want anyone within earshot to think "Nintendo" when they hear it. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/tmlaw.pdf The above link has information regarding applying for and the "opposition process" wherein one can oppose someone's trademark registration attempt. Trademarks are weak in that the same phrase can be registered to many different classes of commerce...

Append "with a computer" and you get a software patent.

Append "with a computer" to what? How many brick and mortar stores offer bad gift automatic exchange as a service? Where is the printed publication that describes this, but without a computer? Did you read the claims, or review the prosecution history through public PAIR? Or does it even matter to you what the facts are in this situation?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6368227.PN.&OS=PN/6368227&RS=PN/6368227

that is my personal favorite.

"Method of swinging on a swing"

patent #7,720,794

patent # 6,925,605

Patent #7,215,445
Of those the last one is my favorite. Here is the abstract
Method and apparatus to correct distortion of document copies

Abstract
Pages of books are copied without distortion due to curvature of the page near the book binding or the distortion in a copied page is corrected using the spacing of equidistant bars on tape strips applied to the top and bottom edges of a page before copying. The tape is preferably transparent and rather narrow and easily attached to a page to be copied. The first step in the distortion correction procedure is to locate the bars at the top and bottom of the page. The distortion of the spacing between the imaged bars is computed based on the known distance between the equidistant bars. The computed distortion of the spacing is then input to a distortion correction algorithm. The output of the distortion correction algorithm generates a corrected image. This image may also optionally delete the bars so that they are not printed in the copy. The corrected image is then copied.

patent #7,720,794

patent # 6,925,605

Patent #7,215,445
Of those the last one is my favorite. Here is the abstract
Method and apparatus to correct distortion of document copies

Abstract
Pages of books are copied without distortion due to curvature of the page near the book binding or the distortion in a copied page is corrected using the spacing of equidistant bars on tape strips applied to the top and bottom edges of a page before copying. The tape is preferably transparent and rather narrow and easily attached to a page to be copied. The first step in the distortion correction procedure is to locate the bars at the top and bottom of the page. The distortion of the spacing between the imaged bars is computed based on the known distance between the equidistant bars. The computed distortion of the spacing is then input to a distortion correction algorithm. The output of the distortion correction algorithm generates a corrected image. This image may also optionally delete the bars so that they are not printed in the copy. The corrected image is then copied.

patent #7,720,794

patent # 6,925,605

Patent #7,215,445
Of those the last one is my favorite. Here is the abstract
Method and apparatus to correct distortion of document copies

Abstract
Pages of books are copied without distortion due to curvature of the page near the book binding or the distortion in a copied page is corrected using the spacing of equidistant bars on tape strips applied to the top and bottom edges of a page before copying. The tape is preferably transparent and rather narrow and easily attached to a page to be copied. The first step in the distortion correction procedure is to locate the bars at the top and bottom of the page. The distortion of the spacing between the imaged bars is computed based on the known distance between the equidistant bars. The computed distortion of the spacing is then input to a distortion correction algorithm. The output of the distortion correction algorithm generates a corrected image. This image may also optionally delete the bars so that they are not printed in the copy. The corrected image is then copied.

Okay, the first IPEG quote is simply in error. As I mentioned above, the reason why not all of the obviousness rationales were discussed in the FR notice is because not all of the rationales have been invoked by the CAFC since KSR. Not only do all the rationales survive - they were indicated as valid by the Supreme Court, after all - but the FR notice expands upon that by calling attention to the fact that SCOTUS intended those rationales as exemplary rather than all-encompassing, meaning that other rationales may exist that SCOTUS didn't mention.

The second IPEG quote misinterprets the point behind the FR notice. Kappos was interested in providing more information about these rationales to examiners and attorneys, and the FR notice does this by compiling the various CAFC decisions that have since addressed these rationales. The hope for increased analysis isn't by changing the threshold for obviousness, but rather by helping examiners and attorneys to have a meeting of the minds as to what's proper and what's not. This helps reduce wasted time all around.

Third, concerning the Patently-O quote, I didn't say that these guidelines wouldn't affect rejections. That's kind of the whole point - to ensure that proper rejections are being made by further clarifying how and under what circumstances the rejections are supposed to be made, in view of the relevant case law, which has its roots in the Supreme Court's KSR decision. I'm not sure how you think that's supposed to translate into the USPTO getting rid of rationales for obviousness, especially since that would contravene the Supreme Court's fairly explicit ruling in KSR.

Finally, I don't get why you consider these third-party sources to be authoritative. The FR notice is right there for everyone to read. I know it's long, but it's not especially confusing for people who have some background in patent law. I hope you'll take the time to read through it and decide based on the primary source. Relying solely on third-party opinion is like writing a term paper and citing Wikipedia as your only source.

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

• System and method for interfacing and separating formatted content and program code
• Method and system for constructing personalized result sets
• Method and system for load balancing and management
• Electronic message distribution
• Internet server session backup apparatus
• Electronic message routing
• Flexible order structure
• Remote media control for voice over internet telephony and related applications
• Caller identification and voice/data synchronization for internet telephony and related applications
• Universal internet based telephony system that provides ubiquitous access for subscribers from any terminal device
• Internet telephony for ecommerce
• Voice-controlled data/information display for internet telephony and integrated voice and data communications using telephones and computing devices
• Method and apparatus for the prevention of unwanted calls in a callback system

I found the patent for it. The background section has a pretty good looking writeup, and is not a PDF.

It seemed weird that the US government should be in the patent game, so I did a little homework.

This document shows the number of patents held by US government agencies. The total is over 30,000 -- as usual, Slashdot is posting old news! The majority are held by the armed forces; DOE and NASA hold several thousand each.

At first, this seems appalling: why should the US gubmint, which we're paying taxes to support, make patents to keep us from using the products of its research? But think about it from a different perspective: if US agencies' inventions went into the public domain, than anyone who wanted could pick them up for free and potentially make billions off them, without doing a bit of R&D on their own. Isn't it more fair to ask the people who want to use government inventions for profit to pony up some cash? It's not like that money's going to pay for the NASA chief's next yacht: it's going right back into more research at NASA Goddard. Net result: more inventions!

It's really the same idea as patents held by universities. Patentable inventions are not their primary focus, but they do naturally arise from the universities' activities. If they *don't* patent them, the ideas get snapped for free by some undeserving entrepreneur who's spawn camping the university. If they do patent them, the license profits go to improving teaching and research at the university.

They would have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to follow it through court.

And probably years of litigation, which would be especially dumb considering the patent in question is due to expire in three years.

What's more troubling is this is a BROAD patent covering much more than just mouse rollovers.

An interactive information environment for accessing, controlling, and using information. Using a computer, available sources of information are accessed, and components are extracted, labeled, and formed into discrete units called contexts. A user selects and rearranges context labels and their associated contents. Contexts are selected and combined into new information structures called alternates, which are combinable with contexts into preferred situations. The preferred situations in turn are combinable with the foregoing components into meta-situations. All components have labels; labels and their associated contents are interchangeably movable and copyable at the levels of these information structures, whether they are located locally or remotely, and the information structures are combinable. While a label is invoked and manipulated, its contents or description is simultaneously displayed. Each information structure can be rearranged into one or more models which can be displayed by user selection, and models can be displayed at varying levels of detail. With built-in copyright accounting, commercial control remains with information owners, while operational use is centralized in each user.

By the way, a common way to get a patent invalidated is to find someone who should have been on the patent but was not (which invalidates the patent).

This is not true. Inventorship can often be corrected after issuance through reissue or a certificate of correction. MPEP 1412.04.

I think they should sue everyone who is in violation. To help them identify people who are causing them harm by violating their patents, I have compiled this short list:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/
http://www.uspto.gov/

Or what about the patent office themselves?

http://www.uspto.gov/

..., but that would be really sweet.

Or what about the patent office themselves?

http://www.uspto.gov/

First, the application was filed in 1990, so prior art is going to be harder to come by than you might think.

Second, the patent was already thrown into reexamination a month ago. Check reexam 90/011,229 on PAIR for the details. The law firm that filed the reexam request is Townsend, Townsend & Crew, which is a major IP firm. The request cites multiple pieces of prior art and looks pretty well put together. One of the first things the examiner did was try to call the patent owner for an interview. The examiner couldn't get ahold of them. That's a bad sign for the patent owner.

Some of the prior art citations include HyperCard and HyperText.

Third, courts have tended to temporarily halt litigation (a procedure called a stay) while they wait for the results of a reexamination. It's quite possible that this patent is about to die in the Patent Office without the lawsuits moving forward.

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

The first patent listed: U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"), entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," is expiring in 2013. It's basically what others have coined the FAT patent, since it could technically be used against anything and everything that uses the FAT file system.

In any case, that patent is probably not even going to last until 2013. Since Microsoft attacked Tom Tom with it, plenty of prior art examples have already been found and submitted to the USPTO for review. I don't have the time to look up the rest of them, perhaps someone else could do it. Here is the list (extracted from Microsoft's complaint in PDF format).

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"),
and U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),