Slashdot Mirror

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152

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

Abstract

Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party. The methods sometime include attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim.

Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did.

Rambus was chastised for their actions (like the linked article states). And I propose Debian approach this the same way someone would approach the Rambus situation from the beginning had they an inkling of Rambus' true intent.

Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI and C# main components of .NET, MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent on the .NET infrastructure. So far, Microsoft has agred to offer these under a "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms of use" and they are currently royalty free. No one seems to be clear on how you get this into writing but it's allegedly the way things are.

Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with .NET. Should they fail to comply with this request in a timely manner, I would submit all communications with Microsoft to ECMA in a motion to dismiss the aforementioned "standards" and remove Mono--and unfortunately Tomboy--from the Debian default package. I'd beef up the Debian wiki with details on how to get these two packages to fix this bug and focus on the bug for a near future release after Squeeze.

At that point, sit back and let ECMA and the community at large hash it out with Microsoft. Better now than later when other things may depend on this package and Microsoft has you right where Rambus has every memory maker on the planet.

So only apple should be able to dim their LCD when the battery is low. So by your logic if I make an emergency call my phone should not be able to dim the screen if the battery is low?

That's not what the application claims. The applications claims "if the phone call is an emergency call, activating an emergency mode of the mobile phone to handle the phone call, wherein the emergency mode prolongs the length of the phone call." It does not claim taking battery saving measures in response to a low battery state, whether an emergency call is in progress or not. It is proactive rather than reactive.

found an upcoming USPTO meeting which perports to be publicly accessible.. does anyone know if it's possible to submit questions via the webcast? If so.. slashdot them, next tuesday? ;)

found an which perports to be publicly accessible.. does anyone know if it's possible to submit questions via the webcast? If so.. slashdot them, next tuesday? ;)

You can't copyright a name. But I found over 20 live trademark registrations at USPTO.gov for "CHUCK NORRIS", "CHUCK NORRIS FACTS", "CHUCK NORRIS IS THE FACT", and "CHUCK NORRIS APPROVED". Unfortunately, USPTO.gov's TESS search engine does not give out persistent links to search result pages, but individual results from TARR are persistent. These include CHUCK NORRIS APPROVED nutritional supplements, martial arts clothing, and action figures; CHUCK NORRIS T-shirts, and CHUCK NORRIS FACTS mousepads.

You can't copyright a name. But I found over 20 live trademark registrations at USPTO.gov for "CHUCK NORRIS", "CHUCK NORRIS FACTS", "CHUCK NORRIS IS THE FACT", and "CHUCK NORRIS APPROVED". Unfortunately, USPTO.gov's TESS search engine does not give out persistent links to search result pages, but individual results from TARR are persistent. These include CHUCK NORRIS APPROVED nutritional supplements, martial arts clothing, and action figures; CHUCK NORRIS T-shirts, and CHUCK NORRIS FACTS mousepads.

You can't copyright a name. But I found over 20 live trademark registrations at USPTO.gov for "CHUCK NORRIS", "CHUCK NORRIS FACTS", "CHUCK NORRIS IS THE FACT", and "CHUCK NORRIS APPROVED". Unfortunately, USPTO.gov's TESS search engine does not give out persistent links to search result pages, but individual results from TARR are persistent. These include CHUCK NORRIS APPROVED nutritional supplements, martial arts clothing, and action figures; CHUCK NORRIS T-shirts, and CHUCK NORRIS FACTS mousepads.

So iSCSI sharing from two simultaneously active nodes sharing the same mirrored image is certainly possible, you'd just have to switch to the other iSCSI target. How does LeftHand manage consistency? For example, if power gets lost on a node and writes get redirected, how does it ensure there were no in-transit io's going through the dead node? Or does it take the latency hit and not return IO complete until the write is committed on the other nodes?

Well, that is at least part of their special sauce I suppose. I assume they take the latency hit to a degree. Our testing showed spindle-level IOPS throughput overall at longer queue depths, but higher latency than other more traditional systems we demoed running IOmeter. We also yanked cords, power, and jiggled a known-bad network cable during heavy write tests and never observed missing or corrupt data. Some of that may have been covered up by retries on the client side though (haven't read the iSCSI specs to see what is requried of iSCSI clients in that area).

The purpose of copyright according to the US Constitution is: [emphasis mine]

to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries

-USPTO US Constitution Article 1, Section 8

So: if copyright is extended why is it extended in the past tense to the benefit of licensees who create nothing rather than creators? They have paid for the right to the work or creation as it was and they'll pay no more for the increase - what is the social benefit of increasing their monopoly on it? Why do the extra years of protection not by default fall to the creators? This does not increase the incentive of an author to create -- the creator of the work or invention since licensed profits not at all from the extension. This isn't about motivating the creative to create. It's simple theft of the common wealth of culture for the benefit of people who had nothing to do with creativity or invention.

If copyright is extended then assigns and licensees ought to be excluded as a matter of course. To increase the benefit of ownership of their non-created libraries adds absolutely no motivation to creation or invention. And perhaps that's the point -- they intend no invention, creation or innovation. They only mean to increase the value of their intellectual property holdings. They have stolen from us a hundred years of culture and intend to provide nothing in return. That's not the purpose of copyright or patent.

I'm all for divesting these criminals of their ill-gotten goods immediately, and apparently the Internet is with me here.

I have no hope that our publicly-funded-campaign politicians will achieve the goal of restoring reason to copyright and patent. What's left is the anarchy of an oppressed people: they will take what's theirs, regardless of an unfair law. So it is that the only effect of the ??AA is to push us further toward anarchy in their pursuit of profits.

Somebody is going to reply that I want to divest the creator of his creation immediately, but I don't. I want to restore the respect that innovation and authorship used to have -- where the common man paid for his book or movie to the benefit of the creator, rather than evading the dire requirements of his publisher and hence escaping his due fee.

As it turns out, nearly all of the claim language you wrote would be considered "intended use", which usually doesn't impose any actual limitations on the claim. In this case, prior art would include any "insulating ceramic material vessel" aside from those which are completely incapable of transporting liquids.

This would include anything from an actual ceramic coffee cup to, say, a ceramic capacitor with a surface on which you could put some amount of liquid and then be able to transport it. (The reference cited as prior art doesn't actually have to state that the disclosed item is usable for that purpose, as long as it could be used that way.)

But in terms of indefiniteness, which is, I think, what you're talking about, no, it's not indefinite. It may be complicated, but one can discern what it is you're claiming, with a bit of applied thought. I've seen a few patent apps where you can read the claims and still can't actually tell what the invention is, but that doesn't mean it's indefinite - it just means the claim is written really broadly. The specification will explain what the actual application is, and the claim is just a much more generalized description that is intended to be applicable to a lot of things rather than their specific application.

Indefiniteness instead means that you can't tell where the boundaries are of what's being claimed. Think of a patent claim as a property deed, except instead of indicating what land you own, it indicates what portion of the space of inventions you "own". A property deed (in the older states in the US, anyway) will indicate the property line by "metes and bounds", i.e., "starting at a marked birch tree on the bank of the Potomac River, thence 120 poles N 34 degrees E on a line with Adams['s adjacent property] to a boulder..." While a birch tree isn't the best indicator (especially now that we have GPS) of a corner on a property line, it's historically been considered permanent enough to be definite.

If it instead says, "Starting at Bob who is standing on the bank of the Potomac River..." that would be indefinite, because you don't know who Bob is or where he's standing, and it's unlikely that someone will go back there later and find Bob still standing in the same spot.

The same thing applies with patent claims, except there are other ways that a claim can be indefinite. It can refer to some limitation as if it's one we already know about from earlier in the claim, but that hasn't actually been mentioned yet (that's called lacking antecedent basis); it can use some relative term in a way that doesn't actually tell you anything (e.g., "having a large number of widgets attached"); it can use "for example" or similar terms which make it unclear whether a particular limitation is required to meet the claim; it can just state "A device for transporting coffee" without providing any actual limitations on the structure of the device; and there are various other ways of making a claim indefinite. If the claim is just pure non-understandable gobbledygook, that's indefinite, too.

Indefinite claims get rejected under the second paragraph of 35 USC 112, but the statute has been "clarified" by prolific case law on what is and isn't indefinite. You can look in the Manual on Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), section 2173, and the subsections following that for more details.

Keeping in mind that copyright is temporary

Keep in mind that copyright is supposed to be temporary:

For over 200 years, the basic role of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has remained the same: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries (Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution).

- USPTO

Note carefully that part about limited times, and the part about to promote the progress of science and the useful arts because by eliminating the former with ever extensible term length of copyright they've prevented the latter, which was its purpose. So it should be no surprise that people are ignoring the "exclusive rights" now that they serve to prevent "the progress of science and the useful arts", because the latter is what we must have and the former was just a tool, no longer effective, to achieve that necessary end.

Two minor points.

#1 The patent application is from 1994. The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura, a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by Xerox (and subsequently purchased by Corel). The general idea and much of the exact format was borrowed from expensive, proprietary computerized typesetting equipment that was popular in the 70's.

#2: The person who "examined" the patent, a Jankus; Almis R, is now a patent agent. I'm no longer amazed at how often bad patent applications are approved by law students, future patent attorneys and/or agents.

The reason the Internet protocols won out over AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, et al is because if you were signed up with AOL and I was signed up with Prodigy we couldn't send each other email. The Internet was a standard that everyone could sign up to without having to pay licensing fees to someone else.

Nope; I think the GP has it exactly right. AOL had Internet e-mail by 1991, as well as X.400 gateways (for MCI, I think?), SprintMail/Telemail, a fax gateway, a U.S. postal mail gateway, and some others. Licensing wasn't an issue at all; development time was the only bottleneck, since AOL's proprietary mail system didn't map well onto most of the interoperable standards.

AOL got USENET and FTP in 1994, but only through a server-side gateway. Native Web browsing (using the client-integrated BookLink browser) came along a year or two later, and it was anything but a sure win; browsing over slow dialup links was painful, especially as IMG tags became widespread. Our proprietary P3 protocol made things even worse, with overhead that duplicated functions in TCP, and an architecture that made lightweight back-and-forth roundtrips (as in HTTP/1.0) horribly slow. We ran the first large-scale caching proxies, and the infamous .JPG-to-.ART graphics recompression servers, and only then was dialup web browsing tolerable.

Meanwhile, the smartest minds at Johnson-Grace came up with a truly elegant solution: a format called ARTDOC. It contained all the information you'd see in a web page today - video, audio, graphics, text - and a "choreography" that would render each part at the desired timing. It was designed to let you pre-author media for specific modem speeds, and it was sent in a single stream so the client could progressively render it at any baud rate. Everything was compressed to within an inch of its life. It was gorgeous, and it offered capabilities that even today would require Flash or something similar, yet it ran on the slow PCs and servers of the day. HTML couldn't come close.

If the web's popularity had been delayed by a year or two, we'd probably all be running ARTDOC browsers.

His name is also on a patent for the earphones/iPod lanyard and that patent references 47 other patents.

You can find a complete list of Steve's patents here. For what it's worth, I find Jobs listed on 100 patents or patent applications and Bill Gates listed on two as the inventor.

Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands ... definitely marketing/business for Gates.

I'm not sure about that. I don't know a lot about Gates' role, but Jobs had absolutely nothing to do with almost all of those patents other than being CEO at the time they were submitted, and in most cases having the opportunity to torpedo the invention but choosing not to do so.

His name is also on a patent for the earphones/iPod lanyard and that patent references 47 other patents.

You can find a complete list of Steve's patents here. For what it's worth, I find Jobs listed on 100 patents or patent applications and Bill Gates listed on two as the inventor.

Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands ... definitely marketing/business for Gates.

I'm not sure about that. I don't know a lot about Gates' role, but Jobs had absolutely nothing to do with almost all of those patents other than being CEO at the time they were submitted, and in most cases having the opportunity to torpedo the invention but choosing not to do so.

His name is also on a patent for the earphones/iPod lanyard and that patent references 47 other patents.

You can find a complete list of Steve's patents here. For what it's worth, I find Jobs listed on 100 patents or patent applications and Bill Gates listed on two as the inventor.

Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands ... definitely marketing/business for Gates.

His name is also on a patent for the earphones/iPod lanyard and that patent references 47 other patents.

You can find a complete list of Steve's patents here. For what it's worth, I find Jobs listed on 100 patents or patent applications and Bill Gates listed on two as the inventor.

Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands ... definitely marketing/business for Gates.

(and for those who think this is a good thing, the result of this line is there's no such thing as an invention, because everybody builds on what's already there).

Your bias is showing. An "invention" is completely different thing from a "patent". People like you who assume they are the same are part of the problem.

In addition your claim that obvious software patents are not being awarded is nonsense. Do a patent search for the word "software". Look at the patent numbers. Almost all recently released patents have the word software in them (look at the patent numbers), most of them are software only patents, virtually all of them are obvious to somebody in the field and almost none of them required any significant research investment to be protected (the entire rational of the patent system).

---

The patent system. The whole edifice is based on handwaving.

Penn Jillette got a patent on masturbating in a hot tub in 1999. A patent lawyer's kid got a patent on swinging sideways on a swing in 2002. If neither of these made enough of a point to bring about any patent reform, how will this?

Penn Jillette got a patent on masturbating in a hot tub in 1999. A patent lawyer's kid got a patent on swinging sideways on a swing in 2002. If neither of these made enough of a point to bring about any patent reform, how will this?

Application Patent Date: November 20, 2007

Online Prior Art at the Regex Library from 2004:

^(?!000)([0-6]\d{2}|7([0-6]\d|7[012]))([ -]?)(?!00)\d\d\3(?!0000)\d{4}$

Put that into your favorite Javascript regular expression object and write a stupid onChange reference to it in your HTML and ... tada! Too complicated? Here's some more prior art. Or here. A little bit of Googling must be too much for the USPTO.

Are we suddenly shocked to discover one line of code can be patented when a whole mess of code can be patented?

You do realize that is just a patent application publication, and that nothing has actually been patented, right? Just because it's a silly application doesn't prohibit the USPTO from publishing it.

Depending on the backlog for that particular area, it probably hasn't even been picked up by an examiner yet.

^(?!000)([0-6]\d{2}|7([0-6]\d|7[012]))([ -]?)(?!00)\d\d\3(?!0000)\d{4}$

Put that into your favorite Javascript regular expression object and write a stupid onChange reference to it in your HTML and ... tada! Too complicated? Here's some more prior art. Or here. A little bit of Googling must be too much for the USPTO.

Are we suddenly shocked to discover one line of code can be patented when a whole mess of code can be patented?

BTW, the Petition To Make Special that IBM exploited to expedite the color-my-world patent's approval is also used to speed up patent apps for inventions that improve the quality of the environment, contribute to the development or conservation of energy resources, contribute to countering terrorism, or relate to recombinant DNA, superconductivity, HIV/AIDS, or cancer.

That's the phrase used by the rest of the English-speaking world and the TRIPS agreement. In the words of a USPTO patent attorney, "Industrial application is essentially the same as our utility standard set forth in 35 USC 101".

The utility standard in 35 USC 101 just means that it has to be useful for something... But, as I said, that can include use in entertainment. Simply put, the invention has to provide some benefit to the public.

As long as they didn't try to trademark it....

You mean like this?

As has been said many times, the gene itself is not patented, using it to diagnose diseases is.

False.

From the patent 5,747,282:

What is claimed is:

1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.

2. The isolated DNA of claim 1, wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1.

3. The isolated DNA of claim 1 which contains BRCA1 regulatory sequences.

4. The isolated DNA of claim 2 which contains BRCA1 regulatory sequences.

5. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 1.

6. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 2.

7. An isolated DNA selected from the group consisting of:

(a) a DNA having the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 having T at nucleotide position 4056;

(b) a DNA having the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 having an extra C at nucleotide position 5385;

(c) a DNA having the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 having G at nucleotide position 5443; and, (d) a DNA having the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 having 11 base pairs at nucleotide positions 189-199 deleted.

Remember, nothing but the claims tells you what is being patented. You can read the abstract and supporting matter in a patent until you're blue in the face, and they won't tell you what is being patented. ONLY the claims do that. So don't go citing me the abstract in reply to this post. It's irrelevant.

The USPTO has ruled that an "isolated and purified" piece of DNA may be patented. This is an idiotic ruling--as the claims in the lawsuit point out, removing a natural product from its location is does not make it any less a natural product, which cannot be patented--but it is currently the law of the land in the United States.

What is being claimed here is any DNA sequence whatsoever that codes for the BRAC1 protein (claim 1) and a specific DNA sequence that codes for the BRAC1 protein (claim 2). The thing that makes these "patentable" is the word isolated. The DNA sequences in your body are not "isolated", but if you take a blood sample, grind up the cells and do some biochemistry to pull out YOUR VERY OWN BRAC1 gene, you will be in violation of this patent. NOT because you've employed a patented METHOD to isolate this part of YOUR VERY OWN DNA, but because the holder of this patent "owns" something associated with that sequence.

WHAT they own is a very good question. Presumably any "use" of it. That means that if you isolated a few kg of BRAC1 this way and hit someone over the head with a lump of it that would be a violation of this patent. If you hung it on a wall and called it art, that would be a violation of this patent. If you "used" it to occupy space in a test tube that would be a violation of this patent. The very act of possession of isolated BRAC1 DNA would seem to be a violation of this patent.

Which is, obviously, insane. And quite plausibly in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as it far exceeds the patenting powers given to Congress in that document.

I doubt anyone at the patent office other than a classifier has read this. The backlog for cases is really long at about 2.5-3 years. It's calssified in class 705, the Business Method class, and that has an average backlog of 34-106 months. Maybe when this patent application actually gets looked at in a few years, an examiner can have a good laugh too and hopefully reject. Maybe by then "Business Methods" will become unpatentable, who knows (let's hope).

Would make it a bit hard to talk to each other huh?

Trademarks govern how entities can advertise and use marks in trade. It has 100% nothing to do with how you talk to people in regular conversation.

Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows. IIRC the judge said with a degree of incredulity "You are trying to claim ownership of the word windows - and anything that sounds similar?"

No. Microsoft likely settled because the word "window(s)" was already used before trademarking it to describe the entities in a GUI. Thus, had it gone to court, it's possible "Windows" would have been found to be a generic mark and thus the trademark protection would have been wiped out.

Any judge's incredulity would have sprung forth from that, not from some Microsoft attempt to "own" the word. For one thing, I'm fairly confident the trademark "Windows" is limited in scope to software. I can call my window company "Windows" all I want. Hell, I could call my shoe company "Windows" and not infringe upon Microsoft's trademark.

And as for your implied assertion that trademarking a single word is "silly," apple, apples, appleseed, bar, bear, etc. Need I go on?

Granted, those specific ones I've linked to tend to also require some sort of stylized text or logo requirement to find infringement, but my point still stands. One-word marks are given trademark exclusivity all the time.

Would make it a bit hard to talk to each other huh?

Trademarks govern how entities can advertise and use marks in trade. It has 100% nothing to do with how you talk to people in regular conversation.

Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows. IIRC the judge said with a degree of incredulity "You are trying to claim ownership of the word windows - and anything that sounds similar?"

No. Microsoft likely settled because the word "window(s)" was already used before trademarking it to describe the entities in a GUI. Thus, had it gone to court, it's possible "Windows" would have been found to be a generic mark and thus the trademark protection would have been wiped out.

Any judge's incredulity would have sprung forth from that, not from some Microsoft attempt to "own" the word. For one thing, I'm fairly confident the trademark "Windows" is limited in scope to software. I can call my window company "Windows" all I want. Hell, I could call my shoe company "Windows" and not infringe upon Microsoft's trademark.

And as for your implied assertion that trademarking a single word is "silly," apple, apples, appleseed, bar, bear, etc. Need I go on?

Granted, those specific ones I've linked to tend to also require some sort of stylized text or logo requirement to find infringement, but my point still stands. One-word marks are given trademark exclusivity all the time.

Would make it a bit hard to talk to each other huh?

Trademarks govern how entities can advertise and use marks in trade. It has 100% nothing to do with how you talk to people in regular conversation.

Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows. IIRC the judge said with a degree of incredulity "You are trying to claim ownership of the word windows - and anything that sounds similar?"

No. Microsoft likely settled because the word "window(s)" was already used before trademarking it to describe the entities in a GUI. Thus, had it gone to court, it's possible "Windows" would have been found to be a generic mark and thus the trademark protection would have been wiped out.

Any judge's incredulity would have sprung forth from that, not from some Microsoft attempt to "own" the word. For one thing, I'm fairly confident the trademark "Windows" is limited in scope to software. I can call my window company "Windows" all I want. Hell, I could call my shoe company "Windows" and not infringe upon Microsoft's trademark.

And as for your implied assertion that trademarking a single word is "silly," apple, apples, appleseed, bar, bear, etc. Need I go on?

Granted, those specific ones I've linked to tend to also require some sort of stylized text or logo requirement to find infringement, but my point still stands. One-word marks are given trademark exclusivity all the time.

Would make it a bit hard to talk to each other huh?

Trademarks govern how entities can advertise and use marks in trade. It has 100% nothing to do with how you talk to people in regular conversation.

Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows. IIRC the judge said with a degree of incredulity "You are trying to claim ownership of the word windows - and anything that sounds similar?"

No. Microsoft likely settled because the word "window(s)" was already used before trademarking it to describe the entities in a GUI. Thus, had it gone to court, it's possible "Windows" would have been found to be a generic mark and thus the trademark protection would have been wiped out.

Any judge's incredulity would have sprung forth from that, not from some Microsoft attempt to "own" the word. For one thing, I'm fairly confident the trademark "Windows" is limited in scope to software. I can call my window company "Windows" all I want. Hell, I could call my shoe company "Windows" and not infringe upon Microsoft's trademark.

And as for your implied assertion that trademarking a single word is "silly," apple, apples, appleseed, bar, bear, etc. Need I go on?

Granted, those specific ones I've linked to tend to also require some sort of stylized text or logo requirement to find infringement, but my point still stands. One-word marks are given trademark exclusivity all the time.

Would make it a bit hard to talk to each other huh?

Trademarks govern how entities can advertise and use marks in trade. It has 100% nothing to do with how you talk to people in regular conversation.

Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows. IIRC the judge said with a degree of incredulity "You are trying to claim ownership of the word windows - and anything that sounds similar?"

No. Microsoft likely settled because the word "window(s)" was already used before trademarking it to describe the entities in a GUI. Thus, had it gone to court, it's possible "Windows" would have been found to be a generic mark and thus the trademark protection would have been wiped out.

Any judge's incredulity would have sprung forth from that, not from some Microsoft attempt to "own" the word. For one thing, I'm fairly confident the trademark "Windows" is limited in scope to software. I can call my window company "Windows" all I want. Hell, I could call my shoe company "Windows" and not infringe upon Microsoft's trademark.

And as for your implied assertion that trademarking a single word is "silly," apple, apples, appleseed, bar, bear, etc. Need I go on?

Granted, those specific ones I've linked to tend to also require some sort of stylized text or logo requirement to find infringement, but my point still stands. One-word marks are given trademark exclusivity all the time.

Not quite. From TFA, "Android Data, for which he was granted a trademark in October of 2002 by the US Patent and Trademark Office". It looks like Android Data have been trademarked for a number of years. It is strange that Google didn't buy the trademark in October 2007 after their application ran out, or that they didn't change it to Android OS to differentiate their product from Android Data.

OTOH, "Google countered in August, claiming that the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years, and that there couldn't be any confusion between the two names." which does seem pretty reasonable. According to the Chilling Effects website though, the time limit for a trademark is 10 years. Although in the first ten year period you need to lodge an "Affidavit of Use" between the fifth and sixth years. Looks like Eric Spech may be receiving some money. Unless a bean counter at Google works out it will cost less to change the name.

Woah, woah, woah. Slow down there, killer lest you want to be sued into oblivion - I already patented that.

The USPTO requires that you use Acrobat reader to fill out forms for patent filing. Those forms all require javascript. No javascript, and you cannot file. They are typically 1-2 months behind allowing updated "secure" versions of Acrobat to file, compounding the issue. Patent IP firms can find themselves vulnerable for 2 tiems the nessesary amount of time. uspto link

Tom Tom did indeed blink first - they had been discussing licensing with Microsoft of several Tom Tom patents which they felt Microsoft had been infringing upon, and had threatened MS with litigation. When the licensing deal fell through, Microsoft simply pulled the gun first.

So why is no one trying very hard to invalidate Tom Toms patents in this case? From the sound of it they seem rather trivial -

Generating a maneuver at the intersection through a turn lane
Quick selection of destinations in an automobile navigation system

There is a third one which is not currently within the USPTO search engine.

Or is this just the usual 'hey its Microsoft, lets see if we can kick them' ferver?

And besides, three out of eight patents does not mean the case against Tom Tom goes away...

Tom Tom did indeed blink first - they had been discussing licensing with Microsoft of several Tom Tom patents which they felt Microsoft had been infringing upon, and had threatened MS with litigation. When the licensing deal fell through, Microsoft simply pulled the gun first.

So why is no one trying very hard to invalidate Tom Toms patents in this case? From the sound of it they seem rather trivial -

Generating a maneuver at the intersection through a turn lane
Quick selection of destinations in an automobile navigation system

There is a third one which is not currently within the USPTO search engine.

Or is this just the usual 'hey its Microsoft, lets see if we can kick them' ferver?

And besides, three out of eight patents does not mean the case against Tom Tom goes away...

It could easily turn around with a new successful operating system by MS

They could however, there are some key things against them. An example would be the cost advantages of linux, with it being good enough for most uses. You may say so what but there are some ARM based computers in the works (see below) that can be sold for $200 dollars at profitable margins (whether they will be is another matter). Keep in mind that netbooks if cheap enough sell with Linux on them, as 2008 showed (with more windows share for higher priced netbooks, for various reasons). Others will follow if ARM based computers succeed.
Apple is also not stagnant, as can be seen here from their patent applications for a 3D GUI, the register and appleinsider also carry more details. How flat would MS party for windows 7 be if jobs announces this interface as the new interface for snow leopard, just as Linux takes a even bigger chunk of their market share.
Skytone
OLPC
Pegatron

Youtube uses Audible Magic's audio fingerprinting technology, which is based on this patent by MuscleFish: 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=5918223.PN.&OS=PN/5918223&RS=PN/5918223

Why are we rehashing the news from 2005?

WO2005/015989 and WO2005/017204

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?adjacent=true&KC=A1&date=20060503&NR=1651030A1&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_V3&CC=EP&FT=D

Let's get up to date.

Check out some US file history at

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

with application number 10/565548 .

Or some EP file history from

http://www.epoline.org/portal/public/registerplus

with Application number EP20040757318 .

Or stick with old news:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2240

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GUP20060520&articleId=2480

Frankly, I am tired of the amateur approach to patents so prevalent at Slashdot.

Look at patient #5,222,138

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=5222138.PN.&OS=PN/5222138&RS=PN/5222138

It was called the Telesignature and used dual key RSA for authentication and encryption. The system used a combined scanner (chinnon planetary configuration scanner) attached to a flat bed plotter inside a security enclosure. A pen computer was used at the remote end to review and sign the document. I am listed as co-inventor as I was responsible for most of the systems design. My wife and best friend did all of the programming. We first showed the operating prototypes at Fall Comdex in 1992. My wife used a bezzier curve to smoooth the signature and many people marveled at how good the signature was.

We later did a spinoff product for mass signature reproduction called Autosignature (no patent).

Later I'll dig up some of the old brochures and scan them and put some of the picts at the link below.

http://explorer/cyberstreet.com/telesignature

while at the same time licensing that idea to other companies.

Since no form of intellectual property covers ideas, it's impossible and/or nonesensical to license them.

*sigh* Patent 5155847, referenced in Apple's patent, covers everything Apple's does. The only differences are obvious minor adaptions based on the different communications channels in use, things any network programmer does automatically every day.

You fail patent law 101.

The reasons those references are there are to point out that yes, the filer knew about those inventions and yes, the filer believes that the new invention is sufficiently different to be patentable, and yes, Mr. Trammel, examiner of record, and Mr. Corcoran, assistant examiner, please do look over these other patents, because we are damned sure that our invention is sufficiently different from them that it is patentable, and we are not afraid to tell you about them.

*sigh* Patent 5155847, referenced in Apple's patent, covers everything Apple's does. The only differences are obvious minor adaptions based on the different communications channels in use, things any network programmer does automatically every day.

The problem is, the process is LONG (multi-year in my experience) and very expensive (the one my son got was done pro bono but it would have been about $20KUS about 10 years ago).

The vast majority of that sum would be patent attorney fees, wouldn't it? If you've got time on your hands more than money I believe you'd be best off conducting your own research and not hiring a lawyer.

A 'garage inventor' fee structure that give limited coverage for say 7 years, extendable to 14 for minimal fees, and extendable after that to the current 'protection' limits by 'paying up' to the current level of fees would be pretty equitable.

The current fee schedule has a "Small Entity Fee" column that looks like half the price of the normal fee:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009january01_2009jan12.htm

This is the first step, as it could have already been done.

http://www.google.com/patents

http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm

If it hasn't already been patented and you are confident of the acceptance of the invention in the the targeted area then by god man find an investor to fund the patent for a percentage of the potential licensing fees.

Patents were originally created specifically for people like you, to encourage and reward people who provide useful inventions by allowing them a limited monopoly on the sales of the invention in return for making the knowledge public.

Heck, if you are that sure, and you can sell me on the idea, I will fund your patent.

Would that be http://uspto.gov/?

Another way to go about this is to forward the piece of prior art to the attorney and/or the applicant. They are required by law to disclose things they know about that are material to patentability (see 37 CFR 1.56). Failure to fulfill the duty to disclose can be grounds for invalidation of a patent. If you send it through some form of return-receipt mail (in the US, this would be Certified Mail) to prove that the item was sent, then if the patent issues anyway and gets litigated, you could contact the defendant and tell them about what you did.

Filing a Statutory Invention registration costs $920, with no discount for small entity. It's much cheaper to file an application and abandon it. Filing costs $330 or $165 for small entity (you are almost certainly a small entity). The filing fee can be higher if your application has a rather large number of claims or a complicated claim dependency structure. Here is the current fee schedule at the US PTO: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009january01_2009jan12.htm

Either way, you must conform to the required format for the filing. Special attention must be given to drawings, so that labels and textual descriptions in drawings match the associated descriptions in the text specification (and all drawings must have descriptions). Drawings may NOT be in colour, or employ shading to distinguish areas - only cross-hatching or other fill patterns are allowed. The application must be accompanied by copies of any references or prior art cited. This is to ensure that your disclosure will be interpreted in the correct way later, even if you abandon it. Before it is printed, there may be requests for formal changes.

I recommend you become familiar with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.htm