Slashdot Mirror

The words "malvertise", "malvertisement", "malvertising", and similar variants are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.

No. I looked it up just cause your post hadn't been modded Funny yet. But I did find that "MalwareBytes" is a registered trademark of the MalwareBytes Corp. of Bensenville, Illinois 60106.

As usual, Slashdot's summaries are the "OMG, here's a broad mis-representation of the patent, so we can whine about it" trolling. I swear if someone invented a new clock mechanism, it would come out on Slashdot as "OMG, they're patenting the cog." Because apparently some people just try that hard to belong to a big family of clueless whiners.

Actually searching for HearMe's patents (since TFA mentions that the patent was bought from HearMe) actually shows that they're a bit more speciffic than "showing the same world on two PCs". Not by much, mind you, but still. So the actual debate would be whether it's a multiplayer game, but whether it implements the exact synchronization algorithm described there.

And if you want to help those companies, knowing what they need help with, might help more. And just "it was a multiplayer" game ain't it.

The actual patents that seem even remotely relevant are these:

1. Method and apparatus for loosely synchronizing closed free running raster displays

The problem is that I can't see how it even remotely applies to multiplayer games, except via an equivocation fallacy. It's about "seeing the same thing" in a much more literal way: literally seeing not just the same scene, but the exact same image and synchronizing the frames. As in, the VSync signal comes at the same moment.

I don't think any game does that at all.

It includes such tidbits as temporarily changing the video mode to interlaced (which should look the same, according to them -- except to anyone who isn't blind, it isn't), to change the timings on one monitor, then switch back to non-interlaced when the sync signals synchronized with each other.

Again, I don't think any actual game does that. I don't think interlaced modes are even used at all nowadays.

The second problem with it, is that it's been filed on 23 December 1997, i.e., a good 3 months after the launch of Ultima Online. So if they actually want to push the "it's about seeing the same thing" equivocation, it seems to me the defense doesn't even have to go as far back in time as your Xanadu. UO already showed the same thing.

2. Server-group messaging system for interactive applications

Basically this one is about this: you have a server and X clients, and all clients are sending packets to all other clients. Think, an IRC channel, basically. So they propose that instead of dumbly routing between clients, the server aggregates the packets and sends the aggregates periodically.

The first problem is that a MMO only does that in a very loose sense. It sends the resulting status, rather than the bundled messages from all other players.

The second problem is that even if they want to push the equivocation that that status processing is a form of aggregation, MUDs already did that. Whenever you entered a room and god a "PrincessLayMe and MrMacho are standing here", it was effectively an aggregate result of the previous movements of the two players.

Of course, this has the caveat that their patent actually mentions aggregating over an interval, and sending the status periodicially, which MUDs did not.

However here comes the third problem: the patent was applied in 1999, a solid two years after UO which _did_ do just that.

As usual, Slashdot's summaries are the "OMG, here's a broad mis-representation of the patent, so we can whine about it" trolling. I swear if someone invented a new clock mechanism, it would come out on Slashdot as "OMG, they're patenting the cog." Because apparently some people just try that hard to belong to a big family of clueless whiners.

Actually searching for HearMe's patents (since TFA mentions that the patent was bought from HearMe) actually shows that they're a bit more speciffic than "showing the same world on two PCs". Not by much, mind you, but still. So the actual debate would be whether it's a multiplayer game, but whether it implements the exact synchronization algorithm described there.

And if you want to help those companies, knowing what they need help with, might help more. And just "it was a multiplayer" game ain't it.

The actual patents that seem even remotely relevant are these:

1. Method and apparatus for loosely synchronizing closed free running raster displays

The problem is that I can't see how it even remotely applies to multiplayer games, except via an equivocation fallacy. It's about "seeing the same thing" in a much more literal way: literally seeing not just the same scene, but the exact same image and synchronizing the frames. As in, the VSync signal comes at the same moment.

I don't think any game does that at all.

It includes such tidbits as temporarily changing the video mode to interlaced (which should look the same, according to them -- except to anyone who isn't blind, it isn't), to change the timings on one monitor, then switch back to non-interlaced when the sync signals synchronized with each other.

Again, I don't think any actual game does that. I don't think interlaced modes are even used at all nowadays.

The second problem with it, is that it's been filed on 23 December 1997, i.e., a good 3 months after the launch of Ultima Online. So if they actually want to push the "it's about seeing the same thing" equivocation, it seems to me the defense doesn't even have to go as far back in time as your Xanadu. UO already showed the same thing.

2. Server-group messaging system for interactive applications

Basically this one is about this: you have a server and X clients, and all clients are sending packets to all other clients. Think, an IRC channel, basically. So they propose that instead of dumbly routing between clients, the server aggregates the packets and sends the aggregates periodically.

The first problem is that a MMO only does that in a very loose sense. It sends the resulting status, rather than the bundled messages from all other players.

The second problem is that even if they want to push the equivocation that that status processing is a form of aggregation, MUDs already did that. Whenever you entered a room and god a "PrincessLayMe and MrMacho are standing here", it was effectively an aggregate result of the previous movements of the two players.

Of course, this has the caveat that their patent actually mentions aggregating over an interval, and sending the status periodicially, which MUDs did not.

However here comes the third problem: the patent was applied in 1999, a solid two years after UO which _did_ do just that.

fix the problem.

Unfortunately, somebody has patented it, so I can't discuss it here without fear of getting sued. So sorry...

If this kind of crap is allowed to continue, then sadly I hope that the world does come to an end in 2012. There will be nothing left for humanity to do but twiddle our thumbs if the patenting thoughts and ideas is allowed to continue like this (oops too late...).

Patent Pending Can you please explain what the term âoepatent pendingâ means and what rights the inventor has to the product if the status is pending: The marking of an article as patented when it is not in fact patented is against the law and subjects the offender to a penalty. Some persons mark articles sold with the terms "Patent Applied For" or "Patent Pending." These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the USPTO. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/transcriptsn_s.htm

It would never work.

The patent system is broken. Patents are only supposed to be given to truly innovative work, not simple "evolutionary" changes (e.g. "the logical next step.") Thanks to "patent-slamming" (the practice of companies like IBM, Micro$oft, and others sending in thousands on thousands of patent filings per year on the theory that if even 1% gets through they can patent-troll those and block competition), the patent office is overworked. The overworked patent office, in turn, has been granting patents to all sorts of things that never, ever should have qualified.

A great example of this was Wizards of the Coast's "patent" on card game mechanics, to wit "The method of claim 3, wherein said step of designating one or more of the cards comprises rotating the one or more cards on the playing surface from an original orientation to a second orientation", which under a proper analysis done by any COMPETENT and non-overworked patent attorney should have been invalidated by prior art by the collected works of one Edmund Hoyle over two hundred years ago.

The patent playing field is broken and needs a re-set, with strong rules preventing things like patent-slamming from happening and getting back to the point where only true innovation is rewarded with a patent. Until that time, we're fucked.

Mod the parent down because it'll totally count. See here for instance. The key phrase here is "on sale."
 
  so far have only deployed it as a 'consulting' project with two other small companies (who love it).
 
And don't get carried away in thinking it only applies to goods- elsewhere the MPEP will enlighten you that "The application of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) would also be triggered by actually performing the claimed process itself for consideration."
 
If there's been no sale or public disclosure, how could the other companies be thrilled?

Also be sure to hire a registered patent attorney (he or she should have a USPTO registration number). Even if your attorney does other IP work, or is a successful patent litigator, if he's not registered, it's illegal for him to file your patent application, or even help you prepare an application to file for yourself. I'm not surprised that Joe Public doesn't always know this, but I am surprised at how many general practice attorneys don't. A good place to start is the USPTO's Attorney/Agent Search Page, where you can find a patent attorney in your area. Or you can just hire me, of course :-)

Another point: The poster seems to have confused patentability and infringement. Basically, if your idea is new, non-obvious and useful, it's patentable, whether or not it infringes another patent. For example, if you came up with a brilliant improvement to Google's search algorithm, you could get a patent on it, even though you would infringe Google's patent if you implemented it.

[I] so far have only deployed it as a 'consulting' project with two other small companies (who love it).

If you don't bring this to a patent attorney within a year of your first deployment (assuming that you haven't made major changes to what you think are the patentable aspects), your question may soon be moot.

"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless... the invention was... in public use or on sale in this country[] more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States." 35 USC 102(b)

I'm not against *all* patents. Some algorithms have a serious amount of R&D and ingenuity behind them.

The problem is the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS and TRIVIAL things that are being awarded patents.

Examples:

A special comparison operator for pointers: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

Encoding of floating point numbers as non-negative integers: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050023524%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050023524&RS=DN/20050023524

Policy change notification: 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=7,269,853.PN.&OS=PN/7,269,853&RS=PN/7,269,853

There's zillions of them and I'm pretty sure that every line of code being written today violates at least one. It's the equivalent of allowing copyright of individual English words.

I'm not against *all* patents. Some algorithms have a serious amount of R&D and ingenuity behind them.

The problem is the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS and TRIVIAL things that are being awarded patents.

Examples:

A special comparison operator for pointers: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

Encoding of floating point numbers as non-negative integers: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050023524%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050023524&RS=DN/20050023524

Policy change notification: 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=7,269,853.PN.&OS=PN/7,269,853&RS=PN/7,269,853

There's zillions of them and I'm pretty sure that every line of code being written today violates at least one. It's the equivalent of allowing copyright of individual English words.

I'm not against *all* patents. Some algorithms have a serious amount of R&D and ingenuity behind them.

The problem is the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS and TRIVIAL things that are being awarded patents.

Examples:

A special comparison operator for pointers: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

Encoding of floating point numbers as non-negative integers: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050023524%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050023524&RS=DN/20050023524

Policy change notification: 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=7,269,853.PN.&OS=PN/7,269,853&RS=PN/7,269,853

There's zillions of them and I'm pretty sure that every line of code being written today violates at least one. It's the equivalent of allowing copyright of individual English words.

Patents only last 20 years. Copyrights should last no longer, but at least patents are of a reasonable length. TFA says Google owns the design, but that's incorrect; it only has a 20 year lease on the design.

Design patents are only valid for 14 years as compared to the 20 years that utility patents are valid.

This is a design patent, not an utility one.
It's normal for software companies to patent the design of user interfaces.
Example: Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft.

This is a design patent, not an utility one.
It's normal for software companies to patent the design of user interfaces.
Example: Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft.

This is a design patent, not an utility one.
It's normal for software companies to patent the design of user interfaces.
Example: Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft.

...level loading. Give me a stupid orbitz game to play why it loads.

Sorry, that idea's already been patented.

Communications ("information") technology has been the biggest change in the last twenty years. Internet, cell phones, gps, wireless...none of this existed (to any significant degree) in the 1980s. Also, this list of patents by calendar year indicates that inventiveness, at least as measured by pursuit of IP protection, has a trend of increasing annually.

I think I'm going to have to keep that link sitting around for when numbnuts start going off about the 9th Circuit getting overturned all the time.

In this case their decision was quite clearly based on the letter of the law (15 U.S.C. ss 1127, defines trademarks as including "any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof", color being none of the above) and the overturn was apparently based on random whim, keeping in mind that even now trademarks are rendered by the USPTO in black and white.

It's also handy to keep around for idiots who think the supreme court exists solely to hear Constitutional challenges to laws.

The description is pretty specific actually for NBC:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=72349496

It's in all caps, something tells me if I paste it /.'s lameness filter will flag something...

Take a look at some of the other sound marks:

http://www.uspto.gov/go/kids/kidsound.html

You'll see plenty that are as you describe, the same way every time. Things like NBC, Intel, MGM, AT&T (even though they obviously recorded their 'official' version through a phone system, then compressed it down to 8kbps, then cut off the last half second), THX, Fox fanfare etc are always the same.

But look at some of the others on there - Fox got a mark for Homer's "D'oh" sound, that's not always the same thing. Same with the AFLAC duck, he's on there too. There are several generic commercials on there of people just saying tag lines over music (is it really necessary to mark "At Beneficial TOOT TOOT You're Good for More"?)

And if you're feeling nostalgic, ELORG's second clip is the way to go. Also, Certus' Shakuhachi sound is pretty sweet (if only a generic instrument sound), and the THX tone always gives me chills. And apparently you can mark Hanson's Symphony 2, op. 30 even if you're not Hanson.

They are when implemented using a computer algorithm. There is no inherent difference between, e.g., a computer program that implements one-click shopping and a computer program that compresses data. You can also turn both into dedicated circuit designs, should you want to.

This is incorrect. A compression algorithm has a strict definition for all use cases, a set of input bits mapped via specified transformations to a particular set of output bits. This is no different than a chemical process patent, which specifies the inputs and transformations to generate the output; it says nothing about the specific plant implementation or similar transformations that work on different inputs or generate identical outputs.

A compression algorithm is an abstract mathematical entity, limited only by mathematical truths. A chemical process is a physical process that operates under the limits of the physical world. Neither the nature of both things nor the economics and dynamics of both innovation environments are even remotely comparable.

Again: playing a piece of music on a piano is also a particular input, a set of transformations (by the piano) and a certain output. This is not an argument to declare something patentable.

Patents are economic tools. You should only apply them where strictly necessary, since they introduce waste/overhead in the system (every dollar spent on acquiring patents, litigation, ... cannot be spent on useful stuff). Theoretical thought experiments likening the nature of abstract algorithms to physical transformations are not really relevant (and sound really strange to me as a doctor in computer science).

What are the logical transforms and the input and output bit set pattern for one-click shopping?

The one-click shopping patent basically claims the concept of storing customer data on the server and using (e.g.) a cookie to keep track of the customer, so that when he comes on the website you can immediately look up their data so that they do not have to explicitly log in before they can buy anything (or add things first to a shopping cart).

Of course, this can be implemented in many ways, but so can any software claimed in broader terms than exact source code (including compression algorithms). And even the above succinct description would be enough for any programmer worth their salt to implement one-click shopping. The patent description obviously goes into much greater detail.

What is a universal boolean logic for selling pet food on the Internet?

That's akin to asking what the universal chemical process is for "producing hydrogen". A claim phrased like that is a wish list patent, and you can give examples of those in any patent category.

The very reason business method patents are being questioned is because no such specification exists or can exist for a useful implementation; any specification strict enough to be reducible to a machine would also be too narrow to have any value.

I think it is wrong to state that in general no such specifications can exist. That statement also suggests to me that the claims and description are combined, while the claims are a lot broader than the description (which describes a "preferred embodiment" of the invention, rather than the only possible way). So while the claims may not be specification enough by themselves, the description may very well be (once you translate the barely readable legalese to something that's usable by a software designer).

Creators and inventors see a hostile environment for profiting off their works, so they stop investing in creating and inventing. Film at 11.

Following your logic it seems they didn't, look at the patent statistics since 1790: http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/h_counts.htm

Because its a minor feature in a ten year old product. Patenting every UI trick and every little feature defeats the purpose of patents. Now everyone is patented to the hilt with patents that are almost all non-novel and non-original. Companies promise to not go crazy with lawsuits, but once their profits are dropping, like we are seeing with Tivo, then the kid gloves are off.

If it is such a minor feature, then you would think competitors could wait another ten years (when the patent appears set to expire) to incorporate the feature into their own products. Or, if there is the value of the feature is low, that any royalties that TiVo could extract from competitors would be low because of short demand for licenses.

Arguing that "everyone" has non-novel and "non-original" (do you mean obvious?) does not address whether this particular feature was novel and nonobvious. Look at the history of the application in PAIR. The application was rejected three times. Arguments and claim amendments were made. If you can find some better art than what the examiner found, then perhaps you could file for reexamination (or tell TiVo's competitors about the art so that they can do so). Saying an invention is not new does not prove that the invention is not new; showing evidence of what existed before the invention is key.

Ten years is a long time. Patents shouldnt even be 4 years imho, let alone the 14-20 they are now.

Perhaps (and its 20 years from the date of filing, ignoring term extensions that can occur under certain circumstances and assuming that the patent holder pays all maintenance fees). Although arguments that patents last too long (or in some industries, not long enough) really go more to tweaking the patent system, not abolishing it for any set of technologies.

Actually, the patent does no such thing. The i4i patent describes an algorithm to separate the tags and plaintext of a markup-language document into two separate files, where the locations of the tags are defined by the character position at which they would have appeared in the original, embedded-tag document.

i4i claims to have patented the concept of storing a document's raw data and formatting data separately, rather than inline. Given that Microsoft Word's Custom XML stores its markup inline, I hardly see how i4i's patent applies here.

Also, on a *totally* unrelated topic, guess who, in 2000, won a multimillion dollar contract to provide XML authoring software to the US Patent office? i4i. http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/473021

If you actually look over the patent being sued over, US Patent 5,787,449, you'll notice a major similarity to Microsoft's patent on LFNs. Specifically, US Patent 5,787,449 patents the idea of keeping document formating and content separate--ie, to have two separate streams of information instead of one. A simple idea for an implimentation, then, would be to have a plain .txt file and a separate tag+index file and a program that loads the two together, patches the .txt file in memory, and treats the result as an XML file.

In a similar vein, up until Windows 95, there were various schemes to overcome the 8.3 limitation of DOS filenames. Most used the idea of keeping a separate file (descript.ion for example) containing a short and long filename and merging them in memory with the directory listing for long filename supporting programs. Microsoft decided to do something similar, except they stored the long file names directly within the directory listing--ie, the took two separate streams of information and made them one.

What was my point? Merely that the idea of spliting or joining streams of related information is not at all a novel idea, inherently, although people may come up with more or less clever implementations to accomplish the goal. To that end, I'd be more than happy to support Microsoft in its efforts to stop i4i's patent, presuming of course that they too would stop suing companies like TomTom over similar patents they hold.

I find it ironic that product is designed to work with Word. I can see why they would want to sue though, seeing as how MS just bundled in software that removes the need for their add on.

The problem isn't that Microsoft bundled technology into Word. The problem is that i4i had a patent on said technology, and that Microsoft knew about the patent before deciding to "make it obsolete."

From what I've read, the patent is on something which strips the raw text from the surrounding tags -- meaning I can call "open" on a file stream in C++, read in the data as a string, all without worrying about the tags (because the tags are logically separated already in a different location.)

I suggest reading the entire patent before trying to summarize. It's significantly more complex than what you described.

Eitherway, I'm not a fan of copyright, no matter who's getting f'd'n'the'a.

We're talking about patents, not copyrights. There's a big difference.

This injunction (as I understand from TFA) does not concern saving to XML. If saving to an XML format were patent-protected like this Microsoft wouldn't be the only ones up to their neck in lawsuits.

The actual technology to which this injunction pertains is "Custom XML", which "allows people to create forms or templates such that words in certain fields are tagged and then can be managed in a database." This is what supposedly infringes on i4i's patent (the actual patent which was infringed upon is 5,787,449). I imagine that very few people will notice the missing functionality - it's not a very common task for your day-to-day Office user.

And as much as it amuses me that Microsoft has been hoist by their own petard, it seems to me that this is a flagrant abuse of the patent system and should not be happening.

Based on the section title, I would say that 35 USC 273 has nothing to do with patents being *allowed*:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_273.htm
"35 U.S.C. 273 Defense to infringement based on earlier inventor."

This section is defined by the words "defense to infringement", an act that has nothing to do with getting a patent granted. Since proof of this defense shows that prior-art existed for the patent in question, it should actually invalidate any patent that this defense is successfully used against. It looks like it was written to a rare edge-case where the prior-art was put in practice yet not publicly documented, but I would still argue that such a prior implementation would also show the patent's obviousness (if this defense is validated, that means the patent claims in question were obvious to someone other than the patent filer, at least one year before filing). This whole section is written specifically to get businesses out of court who are determined to have "infringed a patent" at least one year BEFORE it was filed, without ever having contacted the filer. I don't see any way any court (or even a prejudiced but reasoned lawyer) could ever construe anything under a title like this to determine what kinds of patents the USPTO should *accept*. Being able to avoid infringement claims is the opposite of being able to have a patent granted.

Extending the use of it is what it was designed to do in the fist place.

Yes. But this doesn't stop any _particular_ extension from being innovative and therefore patentable. As much as I disagree with software patents, I don't actually see an awful lot wrong with this one.

You disagree with software patents, but this one's a-ok? That doesn't sound right.

The format described in the patent has some interesting and non-obvious features, and a format would have to combine all of them to be infringing.

Or maybe, just maybe it's about control of the applications that manipulates said documents, rather than MS wanting to protect their amazingly genius document format?

The 'hints' element particularly is something I don't suspect other applications have used before.

Apparently, the patent examiner didn't think the hints element was anything new. She higlighted instead the bookmark element, the text element, the text run element and, perhaps the most surprising, the document properties element. The information about the reasons for approval is available at the Patent Application Information Retrieval System (unfortunately, it seems to be a hack system delivered by IBM, so YMMV).

Also unusual and unlikely to have been used in other applications are bookmarking sections using a start bookmark marker and an end bookmark marker that are not the same tag (i.e. <startbookmark />text<endbookmark />) [...]

Oh...! You mean kind of like <a name="chapter-1">text</a>? Yeah, that's definitely novel and non-obvious... To anyone who has never seen HTML.

As a matter of fact it is a submarine. It was filed Nov 2003 but not completed until Nov 2008 when Apple entered the stage.
However there is prior art dating back to circa 2000. So it is also a bad USPTO decision. But there are others

If you can get a US Patent for this....

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=6,368,227.PN.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227

I am not so very impressed....

The studio couldn't stop Rogers and Hammerstein from producing their own musical version of Cinderella.

But Disney did sue GoodTimes Entertainment over the "trade dress" of family-friendly animated adaptations of fairy tales on VHS tapes in clamshell cases. And the company appears to own a registered trademark on "PINOCCHIO" for dolls; what does that imply for other companies' dolls based on adaptations of Carlo Collodi's novel?

1. The BPAI affirms rejections more often than not. See this study on the topic.

2. In the long run, continuing to reject a case, and getting counts for RCEs, will provide slightly more advantage to an examiner than an allowance. Allowances are also, generally speaking, harder to come by for junior examiners, since a primary examiner or supervisory examiner has to sign their cases, and a rejection is "trusted" more than an allowance since rejections can always be fixed in the next action.

3. KSR and Bilski have both had a tremendous impact in decreasing the rate of allowance, combined with recent quality policies in the USPTO which put allowances under more scrutiny and the training of many new examiners in a training academy where allowances are very uncommon.

On a side note, I would point out that the presumption of validity of issued patents is mandated by statute. In the courts, this has the effect of requiring a defendant to prove invalidity at the threshold of "clear and convincing evidence" (compare this to rejections in the USPTO on patent applications, which require only "prima facie evidence").

Consider Shareaza which was first released in 2002. Now a company claims the trademark of Shareaza and the USPTO is about to grant it. It would be enough to Google for it, but even several protest letters failed to change their mind.

PS: (Previous story on /. covering Shareaza: P2P Scammers Lawyers Attack Open Source Team).

Then why do they pay patent examiners at all? Why not lower the cost and time to patent to near zero and let everyone have a go at it?

Actually, they're trying just that.

You can already do this. it's called a "Protest"

And while there's no finder's fee, it's one of the few things you can do at the USPTO without incurring a fee. So that's something.

The duty to disclose prior art extends to everyone substantively involved in the prosecution of the patent, including those associated with the inventor or assignee. Seems to me that unless Ozzie was actively involved with the patent prosecution, he doesn't fall into this category. You're right that somebody who was should have known, though.

Be aware that when you file a provisional patent, you have one year to file a full patent application in order to get the earlier filing date of the provisional patent. Moreover, if the invention is in use or one sale during the one-year period after the provisional filing but before the non-provisional filing, you may lose the right to ever patent that subject matter.

Not true for patenting in the US. Here is the USPTO statement:

Provisional Application for Patent Filing Date Requirements

    The provisional application must be made in the name(s) of all of
    the inventor(s). It can be filed up to 12 months following the date
    of first sale, offer for sale, public use, or publication of the
    invention. (These pre-filing disclosures, although protected in the
    United States, may preclude patenting in foreign countries.)

  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.htm

The question of patenting outside the US depends on the type of invention and the market area. If someone outside the US copies your patent, you can prevent them from shipping it into the US. And if your product and marketing are good enough, you could gain the lion's share of the market in other countries.

But if your interest is only for US sales, you can definitely sell or offer to sell before filing the provisional patent.

Initially at least send yourself an email with a detailed description of the idea include drawings etc.
This gives at least some minimal protection by date & time stamping the email and the idea's conception by you.
One of the first things you might want to do is go to the US Patent and Trademark Office web site and use their search tools:

http://patft.uspto.gov/

and do a search to see if someone actually has come up with the same or very similar idea.
If you can't find anything then perhaps talk to friends to see if anyone has a reference for a Patent Lawyer you could consult with.

There is a ton of information available here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm

In any case, the PVA in an LCD panel is not as an ingredient in glue. It's used to build polarizers.

Pretty close...

Chicken soup mix composition and a process for preparing the same

Abstract
Preparation of dehydrated chicken soup mix involves pressure cooking of chicken meat along with ginger, garlic and onion, separation of liquid extract from cooked meat, separation of meat from the bone, blending of cooked meat and extract with starch and spices into a mix, addition of liquid extract to the mix to make it a slurry, drying of slurry into powder form, and mixing of this powder with milk powder, salt, monosodium glutamate (MSG), ascorbic acid, pepper powder and sugar and packed. The product is sensorily highly acceptable and is microbiologically safe.

Tried to find it here http://patft.uspto.gov/, but couldn't locate it. Anyone got the patent number?

You mean, like an enablement requirement?

Maybe you're just not a person of ordinary skill in the art, eh?

A trademark indicates the origin of goods or services.

If the name or appearance of a character in a Disney film is identical (or nearly so) to the name or appearance of the same character in the no-longer-copyrighted source material, why should this name or appearance indicate that Disney is the origin? Case in point: mark is PINOCCHIO; owner is Disney. But see Dastar v. Fox .

More than THAT, this appears to me that ms is just hopping mad and grousing that the Obama administration is tapping an IBM Open Source advocate for USPTO...

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1941241/Obama-Taps-IBM-Open-Source-Advocate-For-USPTO

http://www.uspto.gov/main/homepagenews/2009jun19.htm

Eat your HEART OUT, microsoft. Instead of BITCHING behind proxies (read: paid-for-shills, sychophants, and suck-ups attorneys and advertisers (*computer manufacturer* recommends MICROSOFT *product* for ALL YOUR COMPUTING/SURFING/ENTERTAINMENT needs. See if keep bying products from pricks that lie to me in the name of getting marketing dollars from you....)), go and try to make an iPhone killer and get it right. Stop trying to commit subterfuge against Open Source and people's RIGHT to not be sewn in or sewn up by you and companies LIKE yours. And, stop hiding behind "there are no morals in business". If a company can be accorded the rights and privileges of a person, then maybe if ms is smacked, prodded, and skewered LIKE a person, then you might GROW UP.

Sheesh...

(JUSt TRY it... just TRY to send the suits after me....)

As of 5-19-2009 Haliburton filed a request for reconsideration of their patent application being rejected on 2-19-2009. http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FUWRR4H6PPOPPY4&lang=DINO The NON-Final rejection of all claims, 53 page pdf http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FRDIGQCZPPOPPY5&lang=DINO I would think for this nonsense they could have just skipped straight to the FINAL rejection.

As of 5-19-2009 Haliburton filed a request for reconsideration of their patent application being rejected on 2-19-2009. http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FUWRR4H6PPOPPY4&lang=DINO The NON-Final rejection of all claims, 53 page pdf http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FRDIGQCZPPOPPY5&lang=DINO I would think for this nonsense they could have just skipped straight to the FINAL rejection.

Yes I know, this is /. and no one read the article, let alone the actual patent - however the article (and the /. excerpt) are very misleading about what was patented. Reading the actual patent, it appears that the patent was granted on a method for the user to create an account with the patent-holder and then use the patent-holders software to access any number of various for-pay and other wifi hotspots without having to manage the individual credentialing, network configuration and associated billing. I am not a lawyer, or a patent attorney -- and I'm not a big fan of software patents in general -- but this doesn't sound anything like: "patenting wifi hotspot access". More like: "patenting an integrated, account-managed, token passing, billing system for accessing multiple diverse wifi-hotspot vendor systems". I.e. Much narrower and a based on a product built on basic wifi access. In short: Boingo was granted a patent on their software that makes it easier to manage all those wifi accounts you have to set up if you travel a lot and use a bunch of different carriers. Not wifi access in general. The editors should consider amending the front page summary because its very misleading.