Slashdot Mirror

It's true that they're not inconsistent or subjective. They consistently patent idiotic, obvious and redundant things. No subjectiveness or inconsistency there.

Well, it was pretty obvious then, at least to people in the business, especially considering that at least one earlier CDN patent (e.g., US Pat. 5,991,809, originally filed as provisional pat. 60/022,598, filed on July 25, 1996 , by me) had already been granted and therefore made completely public in 1997. Clearway Technologies (my company) was already selling a commercial off-the-shelf CDN implementation system starting in September of 1996. Akamai's success has been substantial, and I feel it is truly well-deserved, but they were not the first to invent a CDN, nor the first to patent it, nor the first to bring it to commercialize it.

-Mark Kriegsman
Founder, Clearway Technologies

Let's start first with the definition of "obviousness." Patent law doesn't go by the common English or Webster's definitions of the term - it has a very technical meaning, refined by probably a thousand patent law cases. Many nuances. And unhelpfully, the definitive section on the topic is circularly defined.

At least two reasons for the technicalities. First, virtually anything is "obvious" in hindsight. Second, what is "obvious" to one (unbiased) person may be completely non-obvious to another (unbiased) person, and the patent office would produce radically inconsistent results if examiners were permitted such subjectivity.

- David Stein

in retrospect.

The sex and violence of a patent is in the claims. go read em and now look at the date the patent was filed: May 19, 1999.. which means it was being written for 6 to 8 months before that. You're saying that rewriting urls in a web page to fetch objects from geographically different servers was obvious in late 1998?

Not defending the patent system in the US or anything, but claiming that something is "obvious" now when the patent was filed in '99 is pretty freakin', well, obvious!

I have no intentions of doing it just to publish a paper. (...) I would only do it for financial gain. Without software patents no financial gain can be made from solving an outstanding problem of this magnitude.... that is none for the person who would solve the problem. All the leprecons who'd "implement" the solution would stand to earn [by extension: and have to pay superwiz] large amounts of money. To summarize: no patents=no solution to an outstanding problem.

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

The USPTO already imposes maintenance fees. However, they are fixed fees that are not tied to the revenue generation of the patent.

Due at 3.5 years 930.00
Due at 7.5 years 2,360.00
Due at 11.5 years 3,910.00

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2007september30_2007dec17.htm

• An arbitrary number of years (2, 5, or 17) would be able to be "fair" across the spectrum of patentable ideas
• How a system like this could actually be implemented such that it prevents corporations from usurping power over individuals

US patents have "maintenance fees" every few years, and they're not cheap. Over the life of the patent, you pay about $8000 in maintenance fees. (There's a discount if you're an individual or a "small entity").

If we had that for copyright, even at a much lower price point, the public domain would be much larger. Unfortunately, the copyright lobby got a "no formalities" rule into the TRIPS agreement, so no country in the WTO can do that.

What a great idea! We could have a schedule of taxes or fees due every few years to maintain IP or it would become dedicated to the public. We do that with patents.

Or, if that's too complicated, we could just ask copyright holders to identify which copyrights they care about and submit a simple application to maintain them or let them flow into the public domain. We did that for nearly two centuries until 1976.

It's just amazing how little we demand that the holders of incredibly valuable copyrights do to obtain those rights and to keep them.

There are maintenance fees. From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/mainten.htm :

"All utility patents which issue from applications filed on and after December 12, 1980 are subject to the payment of maintenance fees which must be paid to maintain the patent in force. These fees are due at 3 ½, 7 ½ and 11 ½ years from the date the patent is granted and can be paid without a surcharge during the "window-period" which is the six month period preceding each due date, e.g., 3 years to 3 years and six months. (See fee schedule for a list of maintenance fees.)

Failure to pay the current maintenance fee on time may result in expiration of the patent. A 6-month grace period is provided when the maintenance fee may be paid with a surcharge. The grace period is the 6-month period immediately following the due date. The Patent and Trademark Office does not mail notices to patent owners that maintenance fees are due. If, however, the maintenance fee is not paid on time, efforts are made to remind the responsible party that the maintenance fee may be paid during the grace period with a surcharge."

IANAL, but I do believe there is some level of prior art to trademarks, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark:

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

That's right - these same laws that are obstructing innovation and progress are intended to have the opposite purpose.

And if you're going to say that it matches voice pitch and stuff instead of just the word, duh, press record on your laptop when they say it and play it back through the phone.

That's not how voice verification technology works. If it did, it would be totally useless.

Typically, voice sample are requested at random (out of a defined set - like the number 0 through 9) and sane engines look at how the phonemes are strung together when you say something, for example, in the middle of the phrase as opposed to at the end of the phrase. The engine knows about this because the enrollment process has you speak the phrase components in different orders several times.

But what do I know.

I actually looked up the actual patent and did a very brief skimming over it

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=DataTreasury&OS=DataTreasury&RS=DataTreasury

Now IANAL but it seems like the patent is either incredibly overarching or limited solely to their products. Im more leaning their specific products because a lot of the systems described sound alot like things already done with atms. From what i read he basically patented an atm'esque check processing. Banks probably could already do that kind of thing long before his patent but weren't legally allowed and thusly probably figured whats the point of patenting something illegal.

If you only protect specific implementations of ideas, then people actually have to implement them. It rewards creating a product and selling it - what a concept!

Are you familiar with the fact that patent litigation takes YEARS, and millions of dollars? Sometimes a legitimate company may only be able to afford a single lawsuit at one time. The patent office can already reject your application on the ground of prosecution laches, and the court can rule an issued patent unenforceable due to laches for unreasonable delay. Actively suing someone else isn't unreasonable delay, so it can take many years before a patent holder gets around to suing you. I don't have a cite for that exact proposition, but I recall reading it while doing legitimate legal research. Also, read Symbol II and Symbol IV.

Yeah, though I did follow up with a correction. Granted, the masks I remembered seeing © on were prior to the 1984 law that made explicit that masks are not covered under copyright, and established separate protection for them. (And here I thought it was just because newer masks had such small features that the copyright designation becomes harder to see.) Of course, in those early days of computing, nobody was sure what copyright actually covered. Modern masks, such as this one do have the circle-M on them.

The main thing, though, is that it's not covered solely by patent law, which was my main objection.

FWIW, mask work is defined under the Copyright Act and is administered by the Copyright Office (as opposed to the USPTO), so you can understand how one might get confused. :-)

As I said in my other followup, mea culpa. I learn something new every day!

Well, I've noticed that when it's an educational institution, then it's not a troll. Filed by a lawyer in Marshall, Texas means troll for sure though. These rules are weird. I guess it all depends on your point of view.

Although, you should note that a couple decades ago, universities were not well funded so some senators passed a bill that would allow them to keep patents. Why not, they do the research? Today, universities are still building those portfolios. So the joke is kind of on the companies. If they were smart, they should have been dumping millions into universities in the form of donations to keep patents in the corporate sector.

You can bet that as you start to see what was once cutting edge theory be implemented the universities will have the last laugh and hopefully the most cash. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it any other way but I'm still paying off my college loans. It would make me a happy man to see an HD DVD/Blu Ray player cost $100 more while poor people can go to college for virtually free. But I think a lot of people would call me some sort of communist for that and that I'd be stagnating the economy or some such theory that I can't comprehend. Regardless, I'd be willing to buy shares in certain universities if I could. Imagine what those portfolios are going to start to bring in in revenue!

Do you think this system is also prone to that attack?

• after training, LSA performed at 64.4% correct on a multiple choice test of synonymity taken from TOEFL (in contrast, humans score around 64.5% on average on this test, which is frequently used as a college entrance examination of English proficiency in non-native speakers. By this metric, LSA would be admitted to many major universities!)
• calculations of the rate of word learning by 7th graders suggests that they acquire .15 words per 70-word text sample; analogous calculations of LSA's rate of acquisition show that LSA acquires .1500 words per text sample read
• the comprehension by college students of several versions of a text sample about heart function is precisely replicated by LSA, when comprehension is measured as the degree of semantic overlap between subsequent sentences;
• Humans initially show facilitated processing of all meanings of a previously-presented word, but after 300 ms show priming only of context-appropriate meanings; LSA shows similar effects insofar as similarity is higher between a homograph and two words related to different meanings of the homograph than between a homograph and unrelated words, and in that LSA considers words related to the context-appropriate definition of a homograph as more related than words related to the context-inappropriate definition of the homograph;
• Human reaction times in judgments of numerical magnitude suggest that the single digit numerals are represented along a "logarithmic mental number line;" LSA was able to replicate this effect in its ratings of similarity among the single digit numerals, which also conform to a logarithmic function

http://www.uspto.gov/sdfsd ...

I agree that, that would be interesting:
From the 1997 Patent - 6278884:
Abstract: A conventional portable cellular phone modified such that the phone housing incorporates a digital cameras security alarm system and other functions. In another embodiment, the portable cellular phone is modified such that the phone housing incorporates a security alarm system, radio receiver and other functions.

&
From 2000 Patent - 6681120:
Abstract: A mobile entertainment and communication device in a palm-held size housing has a cellular or satellite telephone capable of wireless communication with the internet and one or more replaceable memory card sockets for receiving a blank memory card for recording data directly from the internet and, in particular, musical performances that then can be selectively reproduced by the device for the enjoyment of the user, including both audio and visual recordings and reproductions. The device also includes a camera and microphone for recording images and sound within the range of the device that can be wirelessly transmitted, either selectively or automatically to a remote telephone. Further, the device includes sensors for sensing unusual conditions that may also be transmitted to a remote telephone, together with the location of the device as determined by a GPS section of the device.

The 2000 Patent references the 1997 one Full text:
Patent 6278884
Patent 6681120

Here's a page with list of all the patents that reference this inventor by name:
USPTO Ki Il Kim

I agree that, that would be interesting:
From the 1997 Patent - 6278884:
Abstract: A conventional portable cellular phone modified such that the phone housing incorporates a digital cameras security alarm system and other functions. In another embodiment, the portable cellular phone is modified such that the phone housing incorporates a security alarm system, radio receiver and other functions.

&
From 2000 Patent - 6681120:
Abstract: A mobile entertainment and communication device in a palm-held size housing has a cellular or satellite telephone capable of wireless communication with the internet and one or more replaceable memory card sockets for receiving a blank memory card for recording data directly from the internet and, in particular, musical performances that then can be selectively reproduced by the device for the enjoyment of the user, including both audio and visual recordings and reproductions. The device also includes a camera and microphone for recording images and sound within the range of the device that can be wirelessly transmitted, either selectively or automatically to a remote telephone. Further, the device includes sensors for sensing unusual conditions that may also be transmitted to a remote telephone, together with the location of the device as determined by a GPS section of the device.

The 2000 Patent references the 1997 one Full text:
Patent 6278884
Patent 6681120

Here's a page with list of all the patents that reference this inventor by name:
USPTO Ki Il Kim

I agree that, that would be interesting:
From the 1997 Patent - 6278884:
Abstract: A conventional portable cellular phone modified such that the phone housing incorporates a digital cameras security alarm system and other functions. In another embodiment, the portable cellular phone is modified such that the phone housing incorporates a security alarm system, radio receiver and other functions.

&
From 2000 Patent - 6681120:
Abstract: A mobile entertainment and communication device in a palm-held size housing has a cellular or satellite telephone capable of wireless communication with the internet and one or more replaceable memory card sockets for receiving a blank memory card for recording data directly from the internet and, in particular, musical performances that then can be selectively reproduced by the device for the enjoyment of the user, including both audio and visual recordings and reproductions. The device also includes a camera and microphone for recording images and sound within the range of the device that can be wirelessly transmitted, either selectively or automatically to a remote telephone. Further, the device includes sensors for sensing unusual conditions that may also be transmitted to a remote telephone, together with the location of the device as determined by a GPS section of the device.

The 2000 Patent references the 1997 one Full text:
Patent 6278884
Patent 6681120

Here's a page with list of all the patents that reference this inventor by name:
USPTO Ki Il Kim

I think God may have some other IP battles to fight at the moment, like the fact that someone patented his powers out from under him: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=godly&s2=powers&OS=godly+AND+powers&RS=godly+AND+powers

One filed in 1997 was pretty much just for a cameraphone, and the combined editors of wikipedia suggest a good few examples in 1997 and previously:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=31&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6278884&OS=6278884&RS=6278884
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_phone

The GPS one from 1999 is a bit more interesting - they're actually patenting the mechanism whereby a GPS device gets data over the air (in road navigation, Telmap Navigator is an example of that right now) rather than from local storage such as a CD (e.g. TomTom).

Anyone think of a GPS with radio communication capability back in 1999? Military systems with GPS capabilities are the first that come to mind to me. If you change the word "GPS" to "location" there's certainly plenty of prior art - I was working on radio data networks that provided positional information in the early to mid 90s.

While IANAL, that does it, IMO! This knocks out claim #1. Yahoo made an honest mistake, and they have to protect themselves against patents worse than this from their competitors. I don't blame Yahoo, just the system that requires Yahoo to try and get these kinds of patents.

Not all patent errors are honest. This patent, for example, was submitted by an author who knew it was invalid. Check out the link to patent 5,068,063 cited by the patent. This semiconductor patent is citing a patent about carbon paper. Why? Because the author wanted to be able to say he made an honest mistake in case the patent examiner found this patent, number 5,068,603. He swapped two digits! This prior art completely invalidates 90% of his claims. The author simply lied to the USPTO.

While IANAL, that does it, IMO! This knocks out claim #1. Yahoo made an honest mistake, and they have to protect themselves against patents worse than this from their competitors. I don't blame Yahoo, just the system that requires Yahoo to try and get these kinds of patents.

Not all patent errors are honest. This patent, for example, was submitted by an author who knew it was invalid. Check out the link to patent 5,068,063 cited by the patent. This semiconductor patent is citing a patent about carbon paper. Why? Because the author wanted to be able to say he made an honest mistake in case the patent examiner found this patent, number 5,068,603. He swapped two digits! This prior art completely invalidates 90% of his claims. The author simply lied to the USPTO.

Word Mark WINDOWS

computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; namely, graphical operating environment programs for microcomputers. FIRST USE: 19831018. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19831018

Registration Number 1872264

Owner (REGISTRANT) Microsoft Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE One Microsoft Way Redmond WASHINGTON 980526399

The USPTO is trying to develope a new system wherein the public can take a look at applications and submit prior art for them to use in rejecting the patents. Check it out here:

http://www1.uspto.gov/go/og/2007/week26/patsuba.htm

The only problem I can see with this is the dumping of massive amounts of references onto an already burdened patent examiner. Hopefully, the public will think before posting, and help more than hinder.
Keep in mind - to those bashing the office, we are talking about engineers like you and me, who are given a certain number of hours with which to search all the patents, applications, and documents in the US and around the world for that matter... so take it easy on them.

If Yahoo gets this patent, they'll have a mighty big stick to shake at competitors."

No they bloody well won't.

I have the patent for shaking a stick at competitors.

Spoken like someone without much math experience. Until you get *past* diff-Eq, virtually all useful continuous math is wrote memorization (except perhaps proofs...that's mostly covered in geometry). Further, it's pretty much all memorization of algorithms. If you're not teaching algorithms, you're not teaching kids to understand math.

Search the USPTO for DRM patents sometime:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=drm&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

Just start reading some of the claims. Every variation and every nuance of just about any DRM scheme has been patented up the whazoo. Any company that even starts to think about implementing or using a DRM solution, open source or not, is just begging to get sued into oblivion.

I don't like his chances of succeeding in trademarking the term . . .

Especially since he applied for the trademark with a "first use in commerce" date of February, 22 of 2007 !

Is he completely nuts? Or, more likely, is he just looking for attention?

The actual patent in question is posted here, I think. This looks like the system they're describing in the article.

I have to admit, this strikes me as more of a "help" or "usability testing" type of system. The computer thinks you're trying to do X, detects what it believes to be frustration, and checks to see if you need help performing activity X. I don't see much in the patent application saying anything about the users being monitored by managers to see if they're meeting performance goals. I will admit I haven't read the entire patent application, I'm not a lawyer and probably wouldn't understand it fully even if I did read the whole thing... but cursory examination seems to indicate that this patent application is nowhere near the alarming privacy violation that TFS or TFA seem to indicate.

I know that, here on /., Microsoft is judged guilty of any accusation levelled against them by virtue of their name, but you *might* (just might) want to read the patent in question for yourself before you jump to conclusions.

The application itself.

I think this is being blown out of proportion. There is nothing in it to indicate that they are planning on "spying on employees".

Claim? They are registered trademarks. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.1 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.2 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.4

Interestingly, the Black Mustang Club has a dead trademark. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.4

Claim? They are registered trademarks. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.1 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.2 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.4

Interestingly, the Black Mustang Club has a dead trademark. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.4

Claim? They are registered trademarks. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.1 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.2 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.4

Interestingly, the Black Mustang Club has a dead trademark. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.4

Claim? They are registered trademarks. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.1 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.2 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.4

Interestingly, the Black Mustang Club has a dead trademark. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=i15246.6.4

To control the display only a clock and data line (synchronous data transfer) as well as Vcc and GND are required.

10. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the application specific integrated circuit has only two electrical connections to the peripheral.
11. The computer peripheral of claim 10, wherein a first electrical connection provides a power and a data signal and wherein a second electrical connection provides a ground signal.

Claims

1. A computer peripheral including one or more keys, each key having a plurality of light emitting diodes disposed on a face of the key, each of the light emitting diodes being operable to switch on or off in response to a data signal received from an application specific integrated circuit dedicated to the key.

2. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the computer peripheral is a computer keyboard.

3. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are organic light emitting diodes.

4. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are placed in a dot matrix pattern on each key and operable to display symbols indicating an action that will be performed by a computer connected to the peripheral when the key is depressed by a user.

5. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are switched on and off with a predetermined frequency to create animation effects on the key face.

[And so on - you get the picture.]

Each claim is a separate invention, which Apple claims the exclusive right to produce. In other words, Apple claims the exclusive rights to produce computer peripherals with keys, where those keys have more than one LED on, and those LEDs are on/off controlled, and that control is performed by a per-key ASIC.

For example, claim 1 of Apple's patent would cover the two-LED backlit power button on my monitor only if it is controlled by an ASIC dedicated to the button.

So, what's the point of claim 2, saying "The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the computer peripheral is a computer keyboard." - in other words claiming a subset of what is already claimed? That's a dependent claim, due to "Clarification of the independent claim language" and "Possible invalidity of base claim".

So, for example, if Art Lebedev has prior art/a patent which invalidates claim 1, Apple would still have (e.g.) claim 5, animated keys, claim 7, images displayed across multiple keys, etc. Of course, claims 5 and 7 could be also invalidated if someone has prior art on them.

So, what have Art Levedev done anyway? I can't find any patent numbers for their product, but I can find this patent, (I'll call it 'IBM's patent') which contains the claim:

1. Apparatus comprising: a plurality of key buttons, wherein each of the key buttons includes a transparent central portion; a support structure mounting each of the key buttons to move vertically; a plurality of resilient members, wherein each of the resilient members holds one of the key buttons upward within the support structure; a plurality of traducers, each producing an electrical signal in response to downward movement of a key button in the plurality of key buttons; a display screen extending under each of the key buttons and under the support structure to provide changeable display patterns visible through the central portion of each of the key buttons.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display screen includes a liquid crystal display.

3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the liquid crystal display is transilluminated.

4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display screen includes a plasma display.

Claims

1. A computer peripheral including one or more keys, each key having a plurality of light emitting diodes disposed on a face of the key, each of the light emitting diodes being operable to switch on or off in response to a data signal received from an application specific integrated circuit dedicated to the key.

2. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the computer peripheral is a computer keyboard.

3. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are organic light emitting diodes.

4. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are placed in a dot matrix pattern on each key and operable to display symbols indicating an action that will be performed by a computer connected to the peripheral when the key is depressed by a user.

5. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are switched on and off with a predetermined frequency to create animation effects on the key face.

[And so on - you get the picture.]

Each claim is a separate invention, which Apple claims the exclusive right to produce. In other words, Apple claims the exclusive rights to produce computer peripherals with keys, where those keys have more than one LED on, and those LEDs are on/off controlled, and that control is performed by a per-key ASIC.

For example, claim 1 of Apple's patent would cover the two-LED backlit power button on my monitor only if it is controlled by an ASIC dedicated to the button.

So, what's the point of claim 2, saying "The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the computer peripheral is a computer keyboard." - in other words claiming a subset of what is already claimed? That's a dependent claim, due to "Clarification of the independent claim language" and "Possible invalidity of base claim".

So, for example, if Art Lebedev has prior art/a patent which invalidates claim 1, Apple would still have (e.g.) claim 5, animated keys, claim 7, images displayed across multiple keys, etc. Of course, claims 5 and 7 could be also invalidated if someone has prior art on them.

So, what have Art Levedev done anyway? I can't find any patent numbers for their product, but I can find this patent, (I'll call it 'IBM's patent') which contains the claim:

1. Apparatus comprising: a plurality of key buttons, wherein each of the key buttons includes a transparent central portion; a support structure mounting each of the key buttons to move vertically; a plurality of resilient members, wherein each of the resilient members holds one of the key buttons upward within the support structure; a plurality of traducers, each producing an electrical signal in response to downward movement of a key button in the plurality of key buttons; a display screen extending under each of the key buttons and under the support structure to provide changeable display patterns visible through the central portion of each of the key buttons.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display screen includes a liquid crystal display.

3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the liquid crystal display is transilluminated.

4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display screen includes a plasma display.

But maybe you are right - cites or it didn't happen.

The Patent Office Has not updated anything yet either.

Good point. But check out this Apple Patent.

It looks to me like Apple is coming out with the ultimate: a super-portable laptop that you slide into the side of a monitor and it becomes your main computer with your optical drive, full keyboard, mouse, and hard drive storing your large data (like most of your tunes and videos and stuff). And you access this data wirelessly when you remove it (to read web pages on the couch or whatever). You can probably even slide it into anybody's 'mac display' and get your files over the internet.