Slashdot Mirror

Of course he has a patent application: (A http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20070171825.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070171825&RS=DN/20070171825

IBM already did

No need to dream up examples from wikipedia ... just check out the url to the patent!

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,287,042

But if the patent examiners don't even look _that_ far... *rolleyes*...

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=7,287,042.PN.&OS=PN/7,287,042&RS=PN/7,287,042

That's quite a URL. If only they'd licensed a search string at the end of a URL without any special formatting.

Filed: August 23, 2004 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=7,287,042.PN.&OS=PN/7,287,042&RS=PN/7,287,042

The system of claim 45, wherein the assets in the dynamic pool of assets are intellectual property assets comprising one or more of patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, wherein the privilege is governed by a floating privilege agreement, and wherein when the privilege is executed rights in the at least one asset in the selected set of assets are transferred from the first party to the second party. United States Patent Application 20070244837

6,487,200 The full Complaint (pdf)

This seems to coincide directly with some recent patents filed by Microsoft. It seems what they're truly after is an al-la-carte style OS where DRM is used to control the subscription of such "base OS" additions. Read more on the patent here, 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=%2220060282899%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060282899&RS=DN/20060282899

Basically, you purchase the base-system and tack-on additional subscription based modules. My concerns are how the subscription model will function, the subscription pricing, and the potential for removal of prior features such as 3D acceleration on the 'base' system.

It also appears that DRM will be used extensively in this model and will not be solely limited to music/video as previously thought.

Honesty, and I'm not trolling here, but this looks pretty scary. This reminds me of driver-signing gone awry. I don't see the potential for open-source/free modules due to item #3. Arbitrary application, memory, CPU, and process limits are also concerning.

The whole "add-on" 3D support as well as "don't limit my desktop to 5 open applications/processes" seems incredible. I imagine the base system will be usable to about 3% of the population and the subscription-based add-on modules may be pricey. I can't imagine a DRM style approach for 3D gaming/enthusiasts being acceptable. Imagine having to pay $20/mo for 3D + multiple core CPU + 2G RAM and the minute you stop paying all those modules expire and are no longer active until you resume payment; like Napster and other DRM based music models work.

-evilghost

They have it. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1300_1308_03.htm#sect1308.03

success

"Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility, and utility is success."

Thomas Edison

Lightbulb

"The thing about inventing is that it is a continual and continuos process, and it is fluid. Inventions generate further inventions. In fact, that is where most inventions come from. They very rarely come out of nothinig."

James Dyson

Dyson Hoover

"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said: 'you can't do this'."

Spence Silver

3M Post-It Notes

Finally, Proven Strategies to Get

Your Idea or Invention Into the Market Now!

The excitement of conceiving a new invention can often blind good reason. New inventors are easily consumed by visions of super yachts and exotic sports cars all resulting from
their "eureka" moment.

The facts, however, paint a different picture. Over 98% of all inventors fail to earn more than they have spent on their idea. With such odds, it would behoove a new inventor to diligently assess their invention, and their strategy before committing significant amounts of time or money to their concept.

Do your homework

A good starting point for any new idea is to simply confirm that it is in fact a new idea. Years ago this was a mammoth task which either required the services of a skilled patent searcher, or spending numerous hours at a designated patent repository sifting through thousands of patent abstracts.

Though it is difficult to match the skills of one who is well trained in searching for relevant patents, with today's technology there are a number of resources available free to enable an inventor to independently make a preliminary search oftheir idea.

The United States Patent Office offers a free online search tool.
Some, however, may find it easier to use the patent search tool now available through Google. Whatever tool used, it is an easy and essential step that should not be overlooked.

Should you be unable to locate any patents that reflect the elements of your invention, do not assume someone else has not already conceived of the idea. In some cases new products are brought to the market with no patent p

The system already rewards examiners for denying an application. (They get a count regardless how they dispose of the application.) Come Nov. 1st the rules for patenting are going to change dramatically. A lot of the complaints out there are getting addressed (for better or worse) by the rule changes. Everyone wants to see "obvious" patents rejected, unless you are the guy who came up with them. This is the *clarification* of the rule changes: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/clmcontclarification.pdf If only I had patented the spreadsheet....

To view information on this request, please go to the USPTO PAIR access site, choose "Control Number" in the drop-down box, enter: 90/007,946 and press the "Submit" button.

Sorry, that didn't work. I know I should have checked it but hey, it was my first post. Here it is again:
patent

This is the patent [uspto.gov] you're probably thinking of, filed on June 21, 2004.

Abstract
An integrated sensing display is disclosed. The sensing display includes display elements integrated with image sensing elements. As a result, the integrated sensing device can not only output images (e.g., as a display) but also input images (e.g., as a camera).

Yes, they did.

Everyone is quick to call IP Innovations the troll here and no one seems to notice that Xerox is the one who sold this patent in 2005 to them. It was definitely obvious to Xerox at that time that IP Innovations was going to start trolling it around. IMO, Xerox is the troll here. I doubt they needed the money.

If you want to see the patent assignment activity, you can do so at www.uspto.gov. This is a link to it but it might not work:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=pat&reel=&frame=&pat=5072412&pub=&asnr=&asnri=&asne=&asnei=&asns=

So why the hell is this 3rd party suing over a patent it wasn't granted?

So why the hell is this 3rd party suing over a patent it wasn't granted?

So why the hell is this 3rd party suing over a patent it wasn't granted?

It's good to see that the original inventors and holders of this patent will finally be compensated for their innovation.

You know for a fact that they weren't compensated for their invention when they assigned their patent rights to Xerox?

Oh wait... the company that holds the patent now (IP Innovation) has nothing to do with the original inventors? Well, I hope any damages they are awarded will encourage them to innovate.

If we accept your premise, "Viacom" has nothing to do with the SpongeBob SquarePants cartoons, they merely bought the rights from a production company that either bought or was was given those rights by the creators, in particular Steven Hillenbrand. Obviously SpongeBob should be in the public domain, since the money that potential infringers would have to pay Viacom won't encourage Mr. Hillenbrand to create any more SpongeBob cartoons.

Patents are alienable assets just like copyrights, trademarks, your home, and your stuff. Please explain how your argument is evidence of "brokenness," and provide evidence to support your apparent contention that patents should somehow be different from all other forms of property.

a patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, usually 20 years from the filing date.

Under current US law, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date.

Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.

There's no mystery to finding out which patents Microsoft holds. Just go here You'll need some spare time to do this, though, as there are over 7,000 patents on the list.

• "As a two-sided touch screen, the LucidTouch is a direct extension of our two-sided touch table, published previously as Under the Table Interaction (reference below).
  ...[snip]...
  Publications:
  Wigdor, D.; Leigh, D.; Forlines, C.; Shipman, S.; Barnwell, J.; Balakrishnan, R.; Shen, C., "Under the Table Interaction", ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), ISBN: 1-59593-313-1, pp. 259-268, October 2006 (ACM Press, TR2006-076)"

So is Apple copying Microsoft? Of course not. A table is not an iPod/phone is not a see-through tablet. As another replier mentioned, there's an obviousness about this "behind the screen" interaction. However, Apple fanboys (I'm not calling you one) like to think everybody's copying Apple.

just not waiting as long

http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/10/patent-multisided-and-touch-screen-ipod/

and the actual patent

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=20070103454&OS=20070103454&RS=20070103454

Based on the link at 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=7,278,273.PN.&OS=PN/7,278,273&RS=PN/7,278,273 supplied in the summary, the culprit is the patent examiner, Chen Wen Jiang.

Wonder what that examiner's background is?

...but not enough broad and trivial software and business method patents:

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=Yahoo&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXThttp://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=Yahoo&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/E/D/yahoo_144_70kb.pdf

Sometime in the past decade if I recall. I came across it while browsing the 7,000+ patents Microsoft has received. I skimmed the first couple hundred again but didn't see it. If you're really interested, you can start here.

Worth checking old /. topics sometimes. The company that thought up this one and applied for a patent is not in a position to even comment on any issue related to privacy.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/14/043200

The patent is real: 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=%2220070157227%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070157227&RS=DN/20070157227

People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Aren't windows usually made of glass?

Not including the amount of personal user information and activity that is part of the Volume Shadow Copy and System Restore functions in Vista. Less so in XP.

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/07/14/071237.shtml

Perhaps Steve Ballmer forgot that Windows users are the customers not the damned product

So if someone attempted to patent the process of going to the store, adding items to your shopping cart, taking it to the counter, and paying the requested amount and the patent was rejected for this simple process then based on that ruling and the "routine addition of modern electronics" ruling "One Click Shopping" patent would have to be declared invalid on challenge in court?

Honestly, the one-click patent debate has me a bit confused. Admittedly, I am not terribly well-read on the subject, but I really don't see what is so complicated about it. Seems to me that a system for implementing one-click ordering should be patentable--much in the way a design for a cash register might be--but that the purchase process itself (as viewed from the user perspective) should not be patentable--that would be like patenting face-to-face cash transactions.

I do understand that the patent in question confounds this distinction, and I suppose that fuels the fire for this debate. And I also understand that some people question the technical obviousness of the patented implementation. But I really don't understand why the process vs. implementation distinction gets so lost here. There isn't one patent that covers all internal combustion engines, so why would there be one patent covering all one-click purchase systems? Am I missing some fundamental element of the debate?

Is this the one? In which case all they were patenting was an application that worked out which bits of the company you could outsource. It seems very vague to say the least.

How do you get information on patent that has been published or is still pending:

Go to this site: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

Type in the application number of the patent .. Looks like XX/XXX,XXX - X being an integer (10/406,654 for the IBM patent).

Then you get all the information about this patent, pulled up on on government served page.

Only matters if it's someone else's prior art.

The "On Sale" statutory bar of 102(b) applies. If the invention is placed on sale in the US by anyone, more than a year before the filing of the patent application, the application will not be granted.

Therefore your own prior art can invalidate your attempt to obtain a patent on something you've already brought to market.

• selecting and deselecting checkboxes in a GUI according to a mode of operation the GUI having displayed upon it a set of checkboxes comprising a multiplicity of checkboxes, wherein each checkbox comprises a selection status indicating whether each checkbox is selected;

• detecting a mode selection event;

• changing the mode of operation in dependence upon the detected mode selection event.

Here's how you look up a patent application. Have a look at the first image. Find the application number. Here, it's 09/318,447. Then, go to the USPTO website and access Public PAIR here. Under "Search for Application" select "Application Number" and enter the number. Now you have access to all the documents in the case, probably way more than you're interested in. You get:

• The title of the invention
• The filing date
• The examiner's name
• The attorney's docket number
• The first named inventor
• The case status
• Lots more stuff

• Information Disclosure Statements (telling the examiner what other patents and printed publications might prevent the applicant from getting a patent)
• The full text of the application, including the claims and the drawings
• Amendments to the application
• Rejections (where the examiner gives the applicant arguments why they shouldn't get a patent using prior references)
• Notices of appeal and the full appeal decision
• Fee worksheets (find out how much they paid!)
• Requests by the applicant for more time
• etc ad infinitum.

I use this tool all the time at work. Everyone here should know about it and use it.

"First sale doctrine already does apply to patents."

True, but the article summary and your response both gloss over the interesting issue in favor of something that's irrelevant. Patent exhaustion exists. Caselaw preventing double dipping for infringement damages already exists. This situation is different.

The decision in the Federal Circuit holds that a patent is exhausted by an unconditional sale, p. 7, in line with Supreme Court precedent, but also holds that a patent rights are not exhausted by a conditional sale, pp. 7-8, in line with about 20 years of Federal Circuit precedent.

The interesting problem here is that the LGE patents do not cover the products sold by Intel. They only cover those products when combined with additional components. It appears that in the absence of a license, LGE could only have sued Intel for "contributory infringement" because Intel would be making products specially adapted to implement LGE's invention when combined with other components, see 35 U.S.C. 271(f), but not the patented combination itself. In essence, LGE and Intel negotiated a license that makes Intel a component source/supplier. Now those who purchased the specialized components and combined them in a manner that would infringe the patents are arguing that a license to manufacture a non-infringing but specialized component without fear of a patent lawsuit also conveys to the supplier's customers the right to practice the entire invention. That's not a clear cut question.

One of the axioms of property law is that you can only sell that which you yourself possess. If Intel has a license that merely permits it to manufacture and sell a specialized component, then arguably the purchasors have the right to resell the specialized component (that fraction of the patent right is exhausted), but do not have the right to manufacture or sell the patented invention because not even Intel has the right to manufacture and sell the patented invention. If Intel has a license to manufacture and sell the patented invention using its own components, with LGE getting a percentage of the revenues for the Intel components, then arguably neither Intel nor its purchasors have the right to manufacture or sell the patented invention when manufactured using non-Intel components -- LGE would be deprived it its rightful revenues, and Intel would infringe the patent for those combinations made with non-Intel parts.

The decision is unclear on the license structure, and I don't have time to dredge up the District Court decision, but there are potentially valid reasons for dividing up patent rights and royalty rates in this manner that cannot be reasonably described as double-dipping. For example, the Intel chips may still have value when combined with non-Intel chips in ways that do not produce the patented invention, but it may not make economic sense to manufacture two types of chips, one with the specialized aspect and one without. A licence with a modest royalty that is less than the entire royalty, whatever that is, benefits Intel by simplifying its product line and securing it from the potential of being sued as a result of the actions of its customers.

From the parent post pdf:

From the parent post pdf:

From the parent post pdf:

From the parent post pdf:

From the parent post pdf:

From the parent post pdf:

From the parent post pdf:

From the parent post pdf:

Here's an ars technica analysis of the three disputed Verizon patents.

This blog references 2 Sprint patents 6,373,930 and 6,731,735 but I can't seem to find any references listing the patents in the Sprint lawsuit.

Here's an ars technica analysis of the three disputed Verizon patents.

This blog references 2 Sprint patents 6,373,930 and 6,731,735 but I can't seem to find any references listing the patents in the Sprint lawsuit.

A ZDNet analysis of the disputed Verizon patents 6,104,711, 6,282,574 and 6,359,880.

I haven't been able to find a list of the Sprint patents yet.

A ZDNet analysis of the disputed Verizon patents 6,104,711, 6,282,574 and 6,359,880.

I haven't been able to find a list of the Sprint patents yet.

A ZDNet analysis of the disputed Verizon patents 6,104,711, 6,282,574 and 6,359,880.

I haven't been able to find a list of the Sprint patents yet.

OK, let's see if this is for real.

First, the "story" is a regurgitated press release. For an more critical story by a local reporter, see "AVA Solar enters crowded field", by Tom Hacker.

The AVA Solar web site has almost no useful information. But they have a patent on the manufacturing process, which discloses what they're trying to do. Among other things, the patent tells us that "AVA" stands for "Air-Vacuum-Air". The process is mostly conducted in a low grade vacuum, with some preprocessing in air before the vacuum chamber and some final steps after vacuum processing. The big deal is supposed to be that there's only one trip in and out of vacuum, which simplifies the production process. This patent was filed in 2000, so they've been working on this for a while now.

They're trying to make cadmium-telluride solar cells, which aren't new. The new thing is making them with a continuous process, instead of in batches.

AVA Solar has some job ads on Dice. They're looking for a plant manager, and on Dice they say "200+" employees, rather than the "500+" mentioned in the press release. AVA Solar doesn't seem to actually make anything yet, so they have to build and run a new kind of manufacturing plant of their own design without an organization experienced in doing that. That's hard.

They're supposedly building a pilot plant, to be running by the end of 2007. So wait a few months. If that works, it's worth looking at them again.