Slashdot Mirror

Most of these patents could be done in three minutes by any competent coder.

eg. this or this ...and that's only scratching the surface. There's hundreds of thousands of them which just took an existing idea and added the words "on the internet".

Look at pictures "on the Internet"
Watch a movie "on the Internet"
Listen to music "on the Internet"
Read a book "on the Internet"
Talk to people "on the Internet"

etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Small developers are already 100% screwed by the system. Saying that this reform is bad for small developers is like saying that adding a thimble of water would make the ocean wetter.

What counts is that it makes things worse for the trolls.

Most of these patents could be done in three minutes by any competent coder.

eg. this or this ...and that's only scratching the surface. There's hundreds of thousands of them which just took an existing idea and added the words "on the internet".

Look at pictures "on the Internet"
Watch a movie "on the Internet"
Listen to music "on the Internet"
Read a book "on the Internet"
Talk to people "on the Internet"

etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Small developers are already 100% screwed by the system. Saying that this reform is bad for small developers is like saying that adding a thimble of water would make the ocean wetter.

What counts is that it makes things worse for the trolls.

US Patents last for 20 years from the date they are filed, not 17 years. (Source: USPTO General Information Concerning Patents)

Huh? Patent #6,920,461 is about the ADO.NET namespace and parts of ASP.NET. Where did you get that it was about WinForms? Try reading the patent.
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=6920461.PN.&OS=PN/6920461%3Cbr%20/%3E&RS=PN/6920461
By the way, ADO.NET and ASP.NET are not part of the ECMA standard for C# and the CLI. They are proprietary patented extensions (from MS) that Mono includes for "compatibility" reasons (i.e. no Windows developers would even think of using Mono without them). Sorry, but Mono is indeed a patent minefield.

Someone has the patent on the concept of managing 'something' with 'something'? In this case files with a filesystem?

No. Go read NetApp's complaint, which enumerates the patents Sun claims NetApp is infringing and NetApp claims Sun is infringing, then look up the patents at the US Patent and Trademark Office patent search-by-number page.

The patent:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060007222%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20060007222&RS=DN/20060007222

It definitely seems like a similar concept.

You file a (simple) provisional patent application. That starts the clock for you to patent it and sets the date right in the patent office so nobody else should be able to. Then, before a year is up, you can file a utility patent application or you can abandon it. Costs around $150.

File a provisional patent application using the USPTO provided form as a cover sheet online. This preserves your patent filing date for one year. You can do it yourself. But, if its worth anything to you, you should get the help of a registered patent attorney or agent.

File a provisional patent application using the USPTO provided form as a cover sheet online. This preserves your patent filing date for one year. You can do it yourself. But, if its worth anything to you, you should get the help of a registered patent attorney or agent.

Fado, fado , ... When ATT patented the SETUID Bit in the early mists of the middle ages of computer development they explicitly put the invention into the public domain. You can also publish (or get published) an article that details in enough clarity that a person skilled at the state of the art in the field could replicate the invention from your article. And in the article explicitly put the invention into the public domain. If you want to be a little less that free about the use of your invention, then include specific public licensing terms for the use of your invention without fee in the patent / article.

Patent route is safest as some officious staffer of the USPTO has given it a stamp of uniqueness attributed to you. Then never bother to pay additional fees after it grants... Unless you want the invention licensing restrictions you might place on it to remain in force.

Of course you could publish the idea to /. with appropriate detail in a long article and hope it gets published ... ;)

yeah it's probably explained better in the filing http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6411947.PN.&OS=PN/64119 47&RS=PN/6411947 Everyone is entitled to an opinion, some are based on fact, others are based on warm fuzzy feelings. Congrats on first post though.

1. A method of processing text entered into a personal computing device with a pointing device, the method comprising:
   1. receiving a partial text entry;
   2. obtaining a dynamically generated list of completion candidates based on the partial text entry;
   3. displaying the list of candidates in a search list within a graphical user interface;
   4. receiving a user input signal associated with the pointing device;
   5. if the user input signal corresponds to a first type of user selection with the pointing device, deactivating the search list; and
   6. if the user input signal corresponds to a second type of user selection with the pointing device, replacing the partial text entry with a completion candidate from the search list.

The correct patent is serial no. 09/631,101. http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/kcxm l/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4gPMATJgFieAfqR qCLGpugijnABX4_83FT9IKBEpDlQxNDCRz8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz 9AvyA3NDSi3NsRAHxEBJg!/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWl DU1lKSi9vQXd3QUFNWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZb ktKMEZSb1hmckNIZGgvN18wXzE4TC8xNS9zYS5nZXRCaWI!#7_ 0_18L

I'm not sure if this really is the patent in question... but it might be it:
USPTO application 20040021691

It's from a later year than the application mentioned in the story, but I think it might be the same one with an updated date or something. Here's how I got to the application:

WordLogic's 10-K filing mentions some patent applications. In particular, it mentions some titled "Method, system and media for entering data in a personal computing device". I found an application matching this, but it's date is in 2004. However, it references the european patent application CA2323856 with a date of Oct 18, 2000 (this just about matches the date mentioned in TFA... different from the date mentioned in the original post). This european patent says that it is also filed as US patent application US2004021691. If you look at that number, it's the same as the USPTO application that I linked to above.

It appears to be application 20070061753.

Seems pretty broad, but very specific. Oh, and it only has 42 claims. (109 paragraphs)

Tegic, the owners of t9 started filing patents in 1996, http://www.tegic.com/about/patent-leadership.asp

I didn't read through all the patents but I'm pretty sure worldlogic doesn't have anything on tegic when it comes to the cell phone industry.
just one obvious example of why these patents shouldn't have been granted in the first place..

here's the original t9 patent for reference: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5187480.PN.&OS=PN/5187480&RS= PN/5187480

I think the USPTO begs to differ from you:

What Can Be Patented

The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained.

In the language of the statute, any person who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent," subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word "process" is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term "machine" used in the statute needs no explanation. The term "manufacture" refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term "composition of matter" relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon 42 U.S.C. 2181 (a).

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.

Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.

From USPTO

The problem isn't with the government, it's with the anonymous reader who posted the item. If you drill down through the references to the actual patent application (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1= PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2 Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220070162405%22.PG NR.&OS=DN/20070162405&RS=DN/20070162405), you'll see that the patent was filed by the researcher, not by DARPA. NewScientist simply says that DARPA funded the research on which the patent is based, which happens all the time.

BS. While that might make since in the physical world, it's completely inappropriate for software. For example, Tim Berners-Lee published a working description of the Web in March 1989. From my (admittedly amateur) interpretation of patent law, had he patented the concept on the same date he published that proposal, we'd still have two years to wait before it was possible to write an unencumbered web browser.

In what way could that be rationally justified? Although he made a leap to tie the pre-existing pieces together, how why would he deserve a 20 year monopoly on it? And since patents were meant for the betterment of society, how would you and I have benefitted from not having the web for the last 18 years (reasonably assuming that a proprietary version wouldn't have caught on long-term)? Other than not being able to waste time reading Slashdot at work, that is.

Abstract. A method of predicting the behavior of software agents in a simulated environment involves modeling a plurality of software agents representing entities to be analyzed, which may be human beings. Using a set of parameters that governs the behavior of the agents, the internal state of at least one of the agents is estimated by its behavior in the simulation, including its movement within the environment. This facilitates a prediction of the likely future behavior of the agent based solely upon its internal state; that is, without recourse to any intentional agent communications. In the preferred embodiment the simulated environment is based upon a digital pheromone infrastructure. The simulation integrates knowledge of threat regions, a cognitive analysis of the agent's beliefs, desires, and intentions, a model of the agent's emotional disposition and state, and the dynamics of interactions with the environment. By evolving agents in this rich environment, we can fit their internal state to their observed behavior. In realistic wargame scenarios, the system successfully detects deliberately played emotions and makes reasonable predictions about the entities' future behavior.

This should come in handy ... Advertising that is relevant to a person

From The Patent application..
a profile of the person, which may include, for example, the person's interests and hobbies, the person's sex, age, locale, profession, subscriptions and memberships, ethnicity, marital status, personal characteristics such as parent, pet owner, very tall or short, and the like; b) a personal information management system 334 for the person, which may include, for example, the person's address book (list of contacts), calendar, mail and/or message store, a task list, notes and the like; c) a purchasing history of the person; d) the person's advertising preferences , which may include, for example, a record of which advertisements the person has interacted with in the past, and/or a record of which advertisements the person has immediately dismissed, if such a capability to dismiss exists, search terms the person has used, media consumption (viewing and listening) history, a preferred look and feel for advertisements, and the like; and e) general system filters configured by or on behalf of the person.

This identification may be done in any number of ways. For example, a biometric sensor in device or a remote control or other accessory of device may identify the person. In another example, the person may log onto device and/or device , thus providing identification. In yet another example, cameras or other sensors may detect and identify the person. In yet another example, the device having the display may be used solely by the person, so any use of the device may imply that the person is viewing the display.

No, each Transputer had its own separate memory, and functioned like a standard CPU.

Quoting from the patent : http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5056000.PN.&OS=PN/5056000&RS= PN/5056000

A system built from Transputers could indeed be configured to have

a plurality of processors, any one of said processors operative as a master processor

said master processor including means for generating interconnection switch configuration control signals

a communication bus for interconnecting each of said processors, for exchange of at least control and synchronization information among each of said processors;

an interconnection switch coupled to each of said processors and each of said multi-access memory modules, and responsive to said interconnection switch control signals from said master processor, for selectively interconnecting any one or more of said processors with one or more of said multi-access memory modules, and whereby any one of said multi-access memory modules is exclusively interconnected to only one of said processors during any given phase of processing;

You could build one of these using Transputers by adding some custom hardware, but I don't know of any Transputer systems available at the time that implemented shared memory.

Yes, the wrong patent was linked, both on /. and on the original post. A link to the correct patent was listed above, but I will repost it here.

This technique sounds like a subset of serial composition. In serial composition, a set (sometimes called a "row") is used to determine melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics, or other elements of the music.

Compare the language of the patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7247782.PN.&OS=PN/72477 82&RS=PN/7247782

In the simplest method, each of the DNA nucleotides A, C, T, and G can be assigned a specific musical note. The data stream of nucleotides can then be transcribed into a data stream of musical notes. Alternatively, the nucleotide sequence can first be decoded to an amino acid sequence, whereby the twenty amino acids can be each assigned to a specific musical note. Variations can be used to produce chords, to specify rhythms, tone, volume, to generate melodic music and harmonic music, and the like.

...with serial composition (aka serialism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialism

is a technique for composition that uses sets to describe musical elements, and allows the manipulation of those sets. Serialism is often, though not universally, held to begin with twelve-tone technique, which uses a set of the 12 notes of the chromatic scale to form a row (a nonrepeating arrangement of the 12 tones of the chromatic scale) as the unifying basis for a composition's melody, harmony, structural progressions, and variations. When not used synonymously, serialism differs from twelve-tone technique in that any number of elements from any musical dimension (called "parameters") may be ordered, such as duration, register, dynamics, or timbre.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5056000.PN.&OS=PN/5056000&RS= PN/5056000

Patent link. Should be in the summary, IMO.

I think the intended patent is 7247782, "Genetic music".
The link in the story takes me to patent 7250557, which appears to be unrelated ("Plastidic phosphoglucomutase genes").

Here's a link to the actual patent of interest.

Hey, the Flux Capacitor is a real gizmo:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6084285.PN.&OS=PN/60842 85&RS=PN/6084285

I wonder if the patent holder got the name from the movie.

The trouble we have is that the USPTO only considers it "prior art" if it has been previously patented.

MercExchange's patent was found non-obvious by the trial court during the law suit. You are 100% wrong regarding what evidence can be presented to show that an invention is obvious. Both a federal court and the USPTO can consider any evidence available to one skilled in the art, which includes any publicly-accessible information. If you do some searching, you'll discover that its common for patent examiners to use archive.org to reject patent applications.

I'll even provide a link from the MPEP (the manual used by the patent office) for you.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to enact laws relating to patents, in Article I, section 8, which reads "Congress shall have power . . . 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 Constitution _only_ grants power to congress to establish patents for the promotion of the progress of science and useful arts. As far as I'm concerned, it is outside constitutional allowances for the government to enforce patents for other purposes, like protecting financial interests of companies that do not promote the progress of science and useful arts.

The inventor describes the device in technical detail here:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=Rubtsov.IN.&OS=in/ Rubtsov&RS=IN/Rubtsov

If you have a TIFF plugin, you can see the images showing a cool looking ray gun:

http://aiw2.uspto.gov/.aiw?Docid=20060119483&homeu rl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft1.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-P arser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1% 2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv .html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPG01% 2526S1%3DRubtsov.IN.%2526OS%3Din%2FRubtsov%2526RS% 3DIN%2FRubtsov&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=7 688A41C1A69

The inventor describes the device in technical detail here:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=Rubtsov.IN.&OS=in/ Rubtsov&RS=IN/Rubtsov

If you have a TIFF plugin, you can see the images showing a cool looking ray gun:

http://aiw2.uspto.gov/.aiw?Docid=20060119483&homeu rl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft1.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-P arser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1% 2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv .html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPG01% 2526S1%3DRubtsov.IN.%2526OS%3Din%2FRubtsov%2526RS% 3DIN%2FRubtsov&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=7 688A41C1A69

Actually, they do

5164316: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription

5196525: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription

5322938: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription

5352605: Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters

Yes, the first three have the same title. I haven't read any of them yet. You can find the full text on the USPTO web site. Search by patent number here.

I think she is very, er, qualified

Possibly, I was thinking of making a post along similar lines, (A defensive or offensive patent to be used against adware companies, preventing anyone from producing such adware without ANOTHER reason to get sued), but I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to abuse this technology in some of the worst ways imaginable.

Or it could be just something done to inflate the "My patent stack is bigger than yours" even if the company may never turn it into a product or expect anyone else to ever do so - see
one of AT&T/Lucent's gems

Wasn't msft recently sued for $1.5B for violating (probably accidently) some submarine patent for some media format?

Also, ripped from investorsvillage.com post:

As has been noted on Slashdot and elsewhere Microsoft has been sued for patent infringement by Vertical Computer Systems. According to the April press release "Microsoft's .NET system violates a patent Vertical Systems filed in 1999, and awarded in 2004, covering "a system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework."

Patent is here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F
srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,826,744.PN.&OS=PN/6, 826,744&RS=PN/6,826,744

Dockets here for those with PACER access:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txedce/case _no-2:2007cv00144/case_id-102638/
( If someone with PACER access could make the complaint and MSFT response available...)

The suit was filed on April 18,2007.
The KSR v Teleflex decision affecting the determination of obviousness was on April 30, 2007.

Microsoft is in an interesting position when defending itself against software patents. What may now prove to be their best defense could set precedents that would seriously undermine their own patent portfolio. Settling rather than invalidating a patent that could be invalidated would just encourage more suits.

Recently shills for VCS (from th Y! VCSY.OB board) have popped up on the Y! MSFT board screaming that a settlement is almost a done deal with "a few details to work out". VCSY.ob stock is in the the two cent range. There have been a number of posts mocking MSFT's response to the complaint, including claiming the response has no defense of obviousness.

There seems to be no media coverage of the suit. I don't recall seeing anything about it on Groklaw. It could be an interesting case, not for the merits, but for how Microsoft deals with it.

Whoever made the movies would still need to license the character, because Spider-Man is a trademark of Marvel's. Copyright expiration just means people can make reprints of the old comics.

Hmmm, so it acts sort of the same but seems to be completely rewritten. Wanna bet it was a patent issue? Maybe Yahoo actually had to buy MusicMatch just to code the features it wanted.

Prior art is actually patent 5,578,877. It's just bigger.

II. UTILITY

A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion.

A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.

II. UTILITY

A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion.

A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.

II. UTILITY

A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion.

A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.

Getting past the ad-heavy blogodreck, the company's actual web site is Steorn. There is a critical Wikipedia article on Steorn. The company has been making noises about this since last year.

Steorn says they can't patent the thing, and that's why they're so secretive, but the USPTO takes the position that perpetual motion machines are patentable. All they ask is a working model. Their official position is: "With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device."

There have been some good fake perpetual motion machines. David Jones, who wrote as "Daedalus", for New Scientist, had a bicycle wheel on a stand which rotated endlessly with no visible source of power back in the 1990s. This was a really good demo. It was stolen from its display by some students, who returned it embarrassed that they couldn't figure out how it worked. It continued to rotate while they had it. One of his machines is at the Vienna Science Museum, still turning.

Actually, you could patent a perpetual motion machine. You just have to present the actual device to the patent office:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0600_608_03.htm

The OSI doesn't own the term "Open Source". Technically, anyone can use it. Relevant trademark search: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=o oaet0.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=& p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&e xpr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=open+source&p_tagrep l~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a _search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query. They can prohibit use of "Open Source Initiative Approved License(r)" but they can't say what "Open Source" is because they own no trademark on it.