Slashdot Mirror

For a trademark registration to remain valid, an Affidavit of Use ("Section 8 Affidavit") must be filed: (1) between the fifth and sixth year following registration, and (2) within the year before the end of every ten-year period after the date of registration. The registrant may file the affidavit within a grace period of six months after the end of the sixth or tenth year, with payment of an additional fee.

"Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606"

This is from USPTO Trademark Registration #2293011

Browsing the TESS database there is always amusing. For example, I see 10 live claims pending for the "iPhone" trademark, and one dead claim. It will be really amusing if the USPTO grants those other claims, as at least some look like they would infringe.

The real question is whether Cisco's claim is still valid though. IMHO (IANAL), this claim has been lost. In which case Apple would have yet another battle to fight, if any of those claims are granted.

Finally (hey, I said I found this stuff amusing), you can look up the registrations for "GNU". It's 2861936. And for "Linux", it's 1916230. Yes, GNU was registered after Linux.

A. FEDERAL REGISTRATION. There are significant advantages to having a trademark properly registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Registration is proof of the validity of the mark and the registrant's ownership of the mark. 2. These legal presumptions simplify the evidence needed in an enforcement action and may result in a considerable savings in legal fees.

After five years, the mark becomes "incontestible." The registration is then conclusive evidence of validity and ownership, and the mark may only be canceled on certain specified grounds. 3. This is the most important benefit of a federal registration.

A method of styling hair to cover partial baldness using only the hair on a person's head. The hair styling requires dividing a person's hair into three sections and carefully folding one section over another.

Commonly known as the "Comb Over"

Taking GHB has got to be, by far, one of the most enjoyable patents in the office.

I don't recall using a scheme like this for the OS, pre se, but haven't there been applications that were distributed on a CD which provided basic functionality but had additional functionality code of some sorts ("module"?) on the CD that could be activated after paying a fee to the publisher, who would then send a key to unlock the added functionality? Extrapolating this to a web enabled model doesn't seem to be an unobvious step.

Neither the specification, nor the Information Disclosure Document (That only references two MS co-pending patent applications) seem to even suggest any incremental functionality for pay type schemes. I would think that such prior art functionality unlocking schemes, would be relevant background information in considering the question of obviousness and, at a minimum, ought to have been cited by MS as related prior art in order to satisfy their duty to dislose relevant prior art.

I can't find the reference to any of these schemes since I have something else to do now; anyone recall something like this?

It seems more likely to me that they're both announcing this "new technology" around now for a different reason.

The first US patent to mention the use of a hafnium oxide as a dielectric expires later this year.

Sorry for the profanity, but *please, people!!

"Sure, an honest mistake. But what are they doing to fix their process so it doesn't happen again?"

It happens *daily or damn near it. Give us a break!

Here's their patent (filed Dec 28, 2006) for having the opacity of your windows change when you hit Alt-Tab.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=200602944 75&OS=20060294475&RS=20060294475

Anyone with a clue stopped giving MS the benefit of the doubt about 15 years ago. Ugh.

All inventors listed in a U.S. application must sign an oath stating that he believes himself to be the first and original inventor. I've signed several of these for my applications and they are typically part of a power of attorney or assignment (I'm sure your company made you assign the application to them). You probably don't remember what you signed because the oath isn't conspicuous (its typically a paragraph added into a document that includes dozens of other paragraphs).

The Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 115, expressly requires that every "applicant shall make an oath that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen." The Patent Office wont even review an application until you submit the oath.

You are correct. For any doubters/curious you can down load a pdf of the application documents (including the declaration signed by the inventors) here.

It is wonderful to hear that the PDF specification will be the subject of open standardization. Caution should be exercised when implementing products though. Almost 400 patents have been granted to Adobe. Adobe has another 50 patent applications in process. There may also be additional patents that have been assigned to Adobe or that Adobe has an exclusive license to practice. Adobe may also have intellectual property in foreign markets that are greater in scope than what Adobe has in the United States.

Caution should be exercised because ISO does not require that its standards be patent-free. Necessary patents merely must be available on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. Adobe (or anyone else really) may also seek patents on how PDFs are used, manipulated, etc.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Adobe is bad or that any Open Source Software projects will ever face any obstacles from Adobe. It simply means that some care should be taken to determine whether any of Adobe's patents cover features of the PDF standard or its uses, especially when developing software that mimics an existing proprietary product. If there is a question, then OSS developers should contact Adobe to try to get a license (perhaps for the consideration of a promise that the resulting product remain open source).

It is wonderful to hear that the PDF specification will be the subject of open standardization. Caution should be exercised when implementing products though. Almost 400 patents have been granted to Adobe. Adobe has another 50 patent applications in process. There may also be additional patents that have been assigned to Adobe or that Adobe has an exclusive license to practice. Adobe may also have intellectual property in foreign markets that are greater in scope than what Adobe has in the United States.

Caution should be exercised because ISO does not require that its standards be patent-free. Necessary patents merely must be available on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. Adobe (or anyone else really) may also seek patents on how PDFs are used, manipulated, etc.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Adobe is bad or that any Open Source Software projects will ever face any obstacles from Adobe. It simply means that some care should be taken to determine whether any of Adobe's patents cover features of the PDF standard or its uses, especially when developing software that mimics an existing proprietary product. If there is a question, then OSS developers should contact Adobe to try to get a license (perhaps for the consideration of a promise that the resulting product remain open source).

Why not link to the patent application itself? From the USPTO here.

(Posting AC = No karma whoring)

How-to submit the reference: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/appxr_1_99.htm

Traditionally, drawings in patents had to be created in a certain style in order to be reviewed. These days, with CAD, I guess this requirement is no longer necessary since anyone with a cheap CAD package is now a draftsman.

idemix which is the software in question appears to be covered by a number of patent applications submitted by the inventor, Jan Camenisch. What's the point in open-sourcing it if IBM has half a dozen or more patents covering the technology being used? Or will this process grant use of any IBM-owned patents necessary to run the code? And if so, what happens as people start modifying the code; how far can they go and still be indemnified against IBM patent infringement?

Patents and open source don't mix well. I don't see how this is going to work.

Mark's talents are his ability to lead, persuade, and make things happen. His first entrepreneurial adventure began during his teenage years as the sole-proprietor of a lawn care service. He partnered with Mays on an IT service based start-up while at Washington University, but pulled the plug in the late planning stage. His previous industry experience is not limited to business development at a top tier management consulting firm.

Yet it looks like there are plans for something like that: take a look at this patent. "I, for one, welcome our new apt-getting Microsoft overlords"...

The coherent detection version of this was patented 11 years ago.
Apparatus and method for heterodyne-generated, two-dimensional detector array using a single detector

You say ``Regarding "trademark": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."''

According to the USPTO: "A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others."

See also http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/tra de_defin.htm

So there are many aspects of the iPhone that could be Trademarked, as well as the artwork itself being Copyright, vs. Design Patent, and you could make a case for Process Patent on menu/item navigation, if you wanted to get sticky about it.

-- Terry

Oh, I'm sorry, did you actually think your "real knowledge and experience" with patents makes your opinion worth more than that of anyone else?

Sorry kid, you still get just one vote, like every other Joe Sixpack.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you actually think your "real knowledge and experience" with patents makes your opinion worth more than that of anyone else?

Sorry kid, you still get just one vote, like every other Joe Sixpack.

Just did a quick search on iPhone trademarks at the USPTO, and there appear to be at least two other live marks (not owned by cisco) for "iPhone" here, and here, IANATML, but perhaps Apple believes the term to be diluted already?

Just did a quick search on iPhone trademarks at the USPTO, and there appear to be at least two other live marks (not owned by cisco) for "iPhone" here, and here, IANATML, but perhaps Apple believes the term to be diluted already?

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/pre sentation/chicagoslidestext.html

If you want to actually help remedy the situation you could contact your representatives as they are the ones that control the rules that patent examination follows. The current rules change proposed http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/pre sentation/focuspp.html would go a long way toward speeding up the system and cutting down on the "bad" patents that make it through the system. The reduction in claims and limits to the number of appeals alone would free up examiners to spend more time looking at the actual merits of a case. Obviously, the rules changes will be fought by the lawyers and agents as they are paid by the hour and long examinations benefit them directly, so some voice in support of the changes outside of the USPTO would be beneficial.

It is possible to revoke patents. It happens regularly, along with re-examinations prompted by either patent holder or a third party.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1300_1308_01.htm#sect1308.01

The whole system is fairly transparent and the new proposed peer review system would be a great opportunity for you to provide all this prior art that you claim exsists so the the examiners can have access to it. They get a limited amount of time to try to find something and if they can't find anything there are limits as to the legal definition of obviousness that can be applied to reject an application.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=5 48igp.2.1 "Goods and Services: IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: full line of clothing, footwear, and headwear" huh?

IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606

Except, I don't see how the Apple iPhone is anything but a "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks"(from http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=75076573)
The technology changed, but the functionality is very similar, according to the registered trademark description

The only legal chance (assuming the Cisco registration is otherwise valid) Apple could have would be if Cisco didn't use the mark for some (five?) years.

Then the Cisco registration could be overturned for lack of use. And, as far as I know, Apple could then obtain the registration of the mark, by filing a trademark registration application.

But Cisco has filed a Declaration of Use of Mark in Commerce Under Section 8 with specimens.

Other documents regarding the Cisco registration can also be accessed at the USPTO site.

The only legal chance (assuming the Cisco registration is otherwise valid) Apple could have would be if Cisco didn't use the mark for some (five?) years.

Then the Cisco registration could be overturned for lack of use. And, as far as I know, Apple could then obtain the registration of the mark, by filing a trademark registration application.

But Cisco has filed a Declaration of Use of Mark in Commerce Under Section 8 with specimens.

Other documents regarding the Cisco registration can also be accessed at the USPTO site.

The only legal chance (assuming the Cisco registration is otherwise valid) Apple could have would be if Cisco didn't use the mark for some (five?) years.

Then the Cisco registration could be overturned for lack of use. And, as far as I know, Apple could then obtain the registration of the mark, by filing a trademark registration application.

But Cisco has filed a Declaration of Use of Mark in Commerce Under Section 8 with specimens.

Other documents regarding the Cisco registration can also be accessed at the USPTO site.

No banana for you!

Go here instead http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm. It doesn't make things clearer, but apparently apple has the trademark in other countries, and filing 77007808 is the one apparently under Apple. Is the description sufficiently different? Who knows IANAL. However there seem to be a lot of iphones around anyway, and maybe apple legal knows something we don't.

iFone is available according to the U.S. Trademark office; the previous owner ABANDONED it.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=9 h1ak1.2.1

BTW, why didn't the OP use the printer friendly link instead?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_hi_te/ci sco_apple_8&printer=1

The trademark information on the US Patent and Trademark Office's site

I've been curious about this one since yesterday. Apple doesn't seem to have any legal right to the name, but could they really call it anything else?

Can I point out to you that Cisco's trademark is from about 1998? First used in commerce 1997-06-06? http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=9 96pnk.2.6 So no, if anything Cisco could sue APPLE for creating a confusing similar mark (not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)

Y'know, a lot of the posts in this comment section seem to be of the type "well, there's this prior art out there so there's no way a patent should have issued!"

That being said, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the patent examiner to determine whether or not the claims of the patent are indeed patentable (useful, novel, nonobvious, etc.). However, don't blame the patent examiner. These poor souls are overworked and underpaid, and the backlog for many applications awaiting examination nowadays are in the 3-5 years range. For example, if you look at the public PAIR information for this particular patent here, you'll see that this particular application (App. No. 09/113,503) was initially assigned to group art unit 2635. In general, art unit 2600 is really swamped.

So, what can you do? Rather than bitchin' and moanin' that the patent system of the U.S. is "broken," become a patent examiner! Take a look at a partial list of employment opportunities here and apply! If you want a faster link, here's the actual Patent Examiner Employment Application.

So, do your civic and scientific duty today and join the ranks of the PTO!

Y'know, a lot of the posts in this comment section seem to be of the type "well, there's this prior art out there so there's no way a patent should have issued!"

That being said, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the patent examiner to determine whether or not the claims of the patent are indeed patentable (useful, novel, nonobvious, etc.). However, don't blame the patent examiner. These poor souls are overworked and underpaid, and the backlog for many applications awaiting examination nowadays are in the 3-5 years range. For example, if you look at the public PAIR information for this particular patent here, you'll see that this particular application (App. No. 09/113,503) was initially assigned to group art unit 2635. In general, art unit 2600 is really swamped.

So, what can you do? Rather than bitchin' and moanin' that the patent system of the U.S. is "broken," become a patent examiner! Take a look at a partial list of employment opportunities here and apply! If you want a faster link, here's the actual Patent Examiner Employment Application.

So, do your civic and scientific duty today and join the ranks of the PTO!

Y'know, a lot of the posts in this comment section seem to be of the type "well, there's this prior art out there so there's no way a patent should have issued!"

That being said, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the patent examiner to determine whether or not the claims of the patent are indeed patentable (useful, novel, nonobvious, etc.). However, don't blame the patent examiner. These poor souls are overworked and underpaid, and the backlog for many applications awaiting examination nowadays are in the 3-5 years range. For example, if you look at the public PAIR information for this particular patent here, you'll see that this particular application (App. No. 09/113,503) was initially assigned to group art unit 2635. In general, art unit 2600 is really swamped.

So, what can you do? Rather than bitchin' and moanin' that the patent system of the U.S. is "broken," become a patent examiner! Take a look at a partial list of employment opportunities here and apply! If you want a faster link, here's the actual Patent Examiner Employment Application.

So, do your civic and scientific duty today and join the ranks of the PTO!

The law is 35 USC 271, section f, which is designed to stop people making components of a patented invention and shipping them overseas in order to be assembled into something that would breach the patent, had the act occured in the US.

In this case, the software is apparently developed in the US and shipped overseas.

Yes, it's a disgusting overreach of US patent law into foreign jurisdictions. And yes, software patents are evil, and hopefully unlawful. Go Eben and Dan!

To show an example to illustrate this (picked purely at random, and may not be typical in the industry, but I suspect it is):
Revenue (ttm) : 52.21B
Gross Profit (ttm): 42.77B
Profit Margin (ttm): 24.17%

Pfizer is hardly a representative sample of the average drug company at an average time in recent history. They are probably the most successful drug companies right now because they have a few highly successful blockbuster drugs still on patent. This picture is likely to change for the worse over the next several years as their patents expire and the current pipeline is apt relatively dry.

...and this shows the industry enjoys about a 65% Gross Margin.

And this is a meaningless statistic in a heavily R&D driven business. All this means is that their COGS sold, i.e., the to actually manufacture the pills themselves, is about 35% on average. It says nothing of the cost of R&D, licensing, legal/lawsuits, management overhead, and, gasp, even sales (which are important to ANY business).

So to agree with what you're saying: Pfizer made some 42billion dollars in profits because they have protection on their product; and that profit comes directly from the consumer, and comes directly at the expense of sick people that can't afford the drugs they produce.

'Research' is an expense which decreases profit. Such large profits are simply monopoly protection income that has not been spent as promised: on research.
This clearly shows us that we need to at a minimum reduce the patent term, and more realisticly review the very concept of drug patents

The 42 billion dollar you cite is "gross profit" which ignores various important operating expenses like: R&D, SG&A/overhead, one time charges, and other important expenses. After these expenses are taken into account the "profit" is roughly 11 billion dollars. Furthermore, it also ignores interest ($471M) and taxes ($3.5B). The actual net income available to shareholders was roughly 8 billion dollars (about 80% less than what you suggest) and this is the most relevant number if you wish to discuss the attractiveness of the businesses and its cost structure. Numbers for the lazy.

Now you might argue that 42B over COGS is only possible in large part because of patents, but then you'd also have to acknowledge that without that 42B dollars a lot of other essential activities like R&D, IT, Legal, mgmt, etc would not be covered. In other words, even if we assume that the shareholders need no profits, and strip them of their 8B dollars, the notion that there are huge savings to be had over the long term by eviscerating the drug companies is not borne out by the numbers.

Contrast that with an industry that doesn't enjoy protection on it's product, say Toyota (also picked randomly but assumed to be more or less industry leader at this time)

Revenue (ttm): 189.92B
Gross Profit (ttm): 34.83B
Profit Margin (ttm): 7.00% ...and this industry has to make do with only about 19% Gross Margin.

Wrong. Toyota owns more than ten thousand patents.. What's more, each non-Toyota component in the car typically claims at least several patents, even if not owned by Toyota those patents still spur innovation.

By the way, Redhat (RHT) has profit margin of 18%.

Anyone who argues that the current patent system is necessary or healthy in the face of these abnormal profits is sick and twisted or stupid or corrupt or maybe all of the

I actually started a company doing much the same thing back in 2000, probably a bit ahead of its time. Even took out a patent . Unfortunately investors (actually almost everyone we talked to..) didn't have a clue what we were talking about, so we ran out of money.

Why do I live in such a small country, where nobody has a clue.... sigh...

Anybody got a job working with interesting people that can actually think ????

Sure, but patents on such devices have to be fairly specific, and it should be able to legally clone the Wii controller to a significant extent. In fact, Google turned up this patent from Sony.

All a monopoly has to do is claim that their technical design is so recognized by consumers that they claim a trademark on it. Then it doesn't matter if the patent expired. Sure, the USPTO claims to not allow trademarks on patentable ideas, but it happens. The USPTO is just too overworked. Companies know this and force trademarks through anyways. Then one day you find out that a particular idea or standard is completely inaccessible to you forever.

Trademarks don't expire nor can they be revoked after they pass the 5yr no-contest period. They are much stronger than a patent and a common form of abuse now with big companies.

Did you know for example that the cylinder shape is irrevocably trademarked for certain products?

This probably sounds incredible to most people. Search the http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&sta te=qdqb5u.1.1 for trademark #75501874 (I have not found a way to link directly to a record in their database).

And this is just one of many examples. This and other reasons is why people are calling for IP reform.

peter

Then what do you make of this?

Unfortunately, too often non-technical managers get to make technical decisions and supervise web development. They invariably go for eye candy, ignoring usability and performance issues. Publishing legacy formats on the web is not easy, but the result really doesn't got to be this bad.

Their RF product that most directly "competes" with the Wii Remote is this http://www.interlinkelectronics.com/index.php?id=M zk0 $200 remote.

This device must be a cash cow for them, I can see why they would want to protect it from competition with a time-limited, state-granted monopoly (if the Wii Remote even does compete -- and not that there's anything wrong with time-limited, state-granted monopolies when they incite progress in science and the useful arts).

Maybe Nintendo can return the favor with something from their massive portfolio, e.g. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Nintendo&FIELD1=ASNM&c o1=AND&TERM2=control&FIELD2=TI&d=PTXT