Slashdot Mirror

Well, yes. Yes, copyright does revert to the public domain after a period of time. Says so in the Constitution, and with good reason. If culture can't build on what came before, it's going to be a mightily controlled, impoverished culture. (Lawrence Lessig explains here.)

You're equating intellectual property with actual property, which is a common but unfortunate mistake, encouraged by the dishonest lobbyists we're talking about. See, there's nothing inherently property-ish about knowledge. If I teach you a song, I don't stop knowing it. If I give you my fire, I can still keep my own. Intellectual property is a virtual sort of property, invented specifically to encourage people to create by giving them a government-created monopoly for a limited period of time. There is no natural right to intellectual property; the government is not taking anything away. It is giving the artist a limited-time monopoly, not for the benefit of the artist, but for the benefit of the culture at large. (Really, it's in the Constitution.)

In fact, it's much like patents, which don't last nearly as long as copyrights. In exchange for publicizing the details of your invention, you get a short-term, government-sponsored monopoly on it. Are you saying that the light bulb, the bra, the syringe, the hammer, the bikini, the internal combustion engine, long underwear and a method of making potash would not be part of common cultural knowledge, and we should have to pay the descendants of the inventors who would have every right to not let us manufacture light bulbs, bras, etc.? What, exactly, is the benefit of having our culture's know-how locked up and controlled in that manner?

Dang it...I hate coming up with info late into a thread. I hope somebody ends up seeing this.

If you want prior art, please pre-date 1995.

OK, here you go. Patent 5724106 (issued to Gateway 2000). This may not be as early of an example as the all the other things people post, but so far I have to believe it is the most relevant, because

1) It has a patent with an original filing date that predates the one in question (continuation of a patent filed Jul. 17, 1995)

2) It is literally a remote control with a trigger

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5724106.html

Also, check out the images on the
USPTO website (or get them off that site...you can log in with bug-me-not or create a free account)

The NES gun was wired and had only one button. The patent actually covers a wireless device where there are two buttons: one on the underside, a "trigger", and a second on the top surface, near a natural position of the thumb while the hand is in position for the index finger to use the trigger. Each claim of the patent includes a button or trackpad-like surface on the top side, opposite of the trigger.

This has been the most obvious choice for Nintendo to launch into online with anyways. They already had some experience with Pokemon Crystal back on the GBC using a cell phone connector to communicate with other players for battles. It just makes a whole lot of sense. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there's a Pokemon MMO in the works for the future. Aside from the fact that Pokemon is almost a psuedo alternate reality game anyways (the only thing an MMO could provide is not needing to seek out your friends in real life for trading). Mega Man Battle Network would've made an interesting MMO concept, if Capcom hadn't already beaten the dead horse in to the ground by the 4th installment....

I'm also wondering if MP3: Corruption is going to get any sort of online capabilities. I don't see how exactly they'd go about doing multiplayer with the wiimote (methinks the smaller real estate for everyone would be really hard to use with the wiimote, since you'd need much more precise aim) while people are physically present. It almost seems like online is the only way to go.

I'm just crossing my fingers that they come through with WiiConnect24 content for Twilight Princess, and they had better do it for Smash Bros (new stages, new characters anyone?), Mario Galaxy, and Animal Crossing. The inevitable Mario Kart Wii and F-Zero Wii must get the WiiConnect24 treatment as well (I think the old PC arcade racer Pod spoiled me with downloadable tracks and cars). Actually, I think most of Nintendo's franchises could very easily get Connect24 features without a whole lot of thought on Nintendo's part.

I can live with the friend codes, but I really do wish they'd consider doing a global friend code that maps to all your other friend codes. Hell, they have a patent on a software messaging system which provides you a buddy list and what that person is doing. Why they haven't put it to use yet is completely beyond me. Or sued XFire for that matter.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=30&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Nintendo. ASNM.&OS=AN/Nintendo&RS=AN/Nintendo

since we're all pretty sure that there isn't any infringement there it is again. Bruce! we need you again.

Actually, his statement is not entirely wrong here. In the legal since, they may not be violating a copyright because they can be invalidated in court. It is not like copyright where it is relatively cut and dry, until fair-use comes into play. Patents are currently an icky mess, and I think a big reason you do not see these lawsuits against Linux with all these patents is because they know their house of cards will come tumbling down. OH, and because IBM could put Microsoft into patent litigation until we are all dead with their patent portfolio. They received an estimated 5,000 patents in two years alone. Note who isn't on this list.

Now, why shouldn't we want to run proprietary drivers? The grandparent's point is valid: if you want to use proprietary software in a "free" environment, then why can't you? He is arguing that he doesn't care about proprietary or free; he like many people truly believe that Unix-based and Unix-like systems are superior to Windows. One of the system's he uses is proprietary to some level, Mac, the other is free. If the X group can make drives that actually run 3D well, particularly OpenGL apps, then let me know. I have never been able to get games working in Linux without those drivers. I do not mind spending a bit of time to get them working in Linux, and I do not want to waste the time on rebooting for a dual boot. Also, there are plenty of native games that need that extra support: UT2004 and NWN being the big two I own.

Like the other child post stated, you have to accept we do not all agree with you all the time. There are plenty of problems with both proprietary software and open-source or free software, whichever phrase you tend to lean towards. Your "friend", Bruce, and the OSI tend to prefer open-source to the RMS/FSF definition of free software. Anyone who claims there is nothing wrong with their method is trying to sell something. I have seen this from both sides, and it is truly pathetic to watch some zealots push Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, or some other free alternative...if Microsoft made a truly superior product, which I would love to see them try, with no bugs and excellent performance, while using perfectly open document standards...people would still complain because it is proprietary and they cannot see the code...we will use our buggy, broke system instead. Zealotry is not very becoming.

"Don't have good ideas if you aren't willing to be responsible for them."

Let's go over that carefully. The four freedoms long definition for Freedom 0 includes:

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity.

By the way, RMS said that specific language of the GPL did not come into play, not that the spirit of the GPL wasn't violated. It certainly was. There is no chance that the spirit of the GPL was to enforce a prohibition on discriminatory licenses but not on covenants that had the same effect.

By the way, would you believe that this method of brewing beer wasn't invented until 1993? I wouldn't either.

Bruce

You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that that is demonstrably not true. The historical precedent I cite (Wright Bros. and Glenn Curtiss) is the specific example about which I know the most, but other examples from recent history are even more obvious (see RIM vs. NTP, RIM vs. Palm, Amazon's one-click, etc.)

None of those other examples demonstrate your point at all. Look at the one-click patent here. It consists of a series of steps that must be followed in order for this patent to apply. The client provides the server with personal information. The server provides the client with a unique identifier. The system associates the identifier with the information the client provides. When the client places an order, it also transmits the identifier, and an order is made using stored client details.

If any of those steps doesn't match, the patent doesn't apply. For instance, if instead of the system generating a unique ID, I had a system that used a username picked by the client to implement a one-click purchase, the patent wouldn't apply. The concept of a "one-click purchase" wasn't patented, a particular way of doing it was. You can still make a one-click system, as long as you do it differently. (This patent is still stupid, because it's an obvious method, but that's neither here nor there).

The same is true of the RIM/NTP patent case - their patent wasn't for "wireless email" it was for a method of providing wireless email. Email to wireless devices was around long before either patent - it was the method of pushing email to a mobile device (rather than periodic polling) that was patented.

In my limited understanding of the Wright/Curtiss case, this is also true - the patent covered a means of implementing roll control, not the concept of roll control. It may have been that their method is the only known way to implement roll control (I don't know), and it may have been that their claim (changing the shape of the wing) was too broad and should have been narrowed (to indicate changing shape of the wing by wing-warping, rather than a blanket-covering of all methods of changing the shape of the wing). It may be a stupid patent in light of its application to aerodynamics, but it still only covered an implementation and not a concept, even if that implementation is the only known way to implement that concept.

Fine. Go here, enter these numbers:

7,143,340 - a patent on the MVC pattern applied to tables in GUI. I know both the Qt and gtk+ toolkits do that.
7,139,894 - that patent covers just about any interprocess communication that transmits "configuration information".
7,131,112 - and here's a patent which covers basically every revision control software ever written (cvs, svn, git, etc)

That's 3 of 5873. Go to this page, enter "Microsoft" into Term 1 and select "Assignee Name" for Field 1 if you wanna see the list.

Enjoy.

Fine. Go here, enter these numbers:

7,143,340 - a patent on the MVC pattern applied to tables in GUI. I know both the Qt and gtk+ toolkits do that.
7,139,894 - that patent covers just about any interprocess communication that transmits "configuration information".
7,131,112 - and here's a patent which covers basically every revision control software ever written (cvs, svn, git, etc)

That's 3 of 5873. Go to this page, enter "Microsoft" into Term 1 and select "Assignee Name" for Field 1 if you wanna see the list.

Enjoy.

In fact the US will allow imports of such goods.

In fact, the US will not.

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

35 U.S.C. 271(a)

Software and business-method patents have a long delay to first examination. An application in one of these fields, filed today, may not be examined for four years, maybe longer.

Because the patent has issued, the U.S. Patent Office's file for the corresponding patent application is available to the public and can be seen online. I took a look and, as a practicing patent lawyer, I was stunned. The PTO rejected the application only once, and allowed the claims after a trivial amendment and argument.

The patent examiner's search strategy is part of the file. The examiner appears to have looked only in databases of patent documents and only for a couple of combinations of buzzwords. The search would have missed the substance entirely because the examiner used only the terms chosen by the applicant.

If someone started waving this patent at one of my clients, I would go right to the ACM and IEEE digital libraries, and possibly drop dead of a heart attack if I didn't find anticipating prior art in less than an hour.

Patents that were filed by Microsoft itself should be able to be found on the USPTO Web site by searching for their name. You might even find some patents by searching for the names of well-known Microsoft employees (e.g., Bill Gates), if they were filed under their names and not Microsoft. However, patents that were assigned to Microsoft -- by employees under Microsoft's direction, by purchasing patents, or by acquisitions of firms holding patents -- will be much more difficult to unearth. Microsoft's done quite a few deals and has had tens of thousands of employees in its history. A dedicated research team might be able to put together a close-to-definitive database of Microsoft patents, but might never get them all.

For most of its life, Microsoft has had virtually no patents. Only recently has Microsoft started beefing up its patent portfolio at an astounding rate. Some are absurdly trivial, such as the notorious IsNot patent.

If Microsoft attempts to enforce any of its patents, it will need to overcome obviousness and prior art.

Oh yeah, and IBM.

Since there seems to be continued hand-wringing over this issue, I was wondering if anyone out there has taken the opportunity to look over what patents Microsoft actually has and get a more informed opinion of matters.

I'm not an lawyer, and I'm sure that 99% of Slashdotters aren't either, but it seems that a lot of these patents are pretty broad... But then, the vast body of prior art has a fair chance of shooting them down - right?

And that's exactly the point that the author of the article misses. With statements like this:

Microsoft does hold a lot of patents and while Linux is open source and we can all take a look at the source code, only Microsoft has access to most of its source code so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove - to itself at any rate - that there are IP infringements contained in Linux.

...the author proves that he really doesn't understand patents anyway.

Patent infringement is not determined by comparing the infringer's product against the patentee's product. Rather, the infringer's product is compared against the invention claimed in the patent. The patentee's product is irrelevant to this process.

But let's get down to brass tacks. The problem is that Linux is fighting FUD with FUD. Microsoft is kinda-sorta playing the SCO Card by using veiled threats over its IP. Since Linux (as a whole) hasn't done any kind of research, it has to fall back on its own wholly conclusory claims that everything's A-OK, and stupid veiled threats over GPL v3. (The latter tactic strikes me as the equivalent of "bringing a knife to a gunfight," only it's more like a toothpick.)

This sucks, folks. At the end of the day, FUD is worthless - Linux's as much as Microsoft's. And since that's all anyone has at the moment, we're deadlocked.

But let's look at this another way. Patents are open documents. The Linux community has a ton of free manpower. And the open-source community loudly touts its decentralized-group-organization powers.

The solution write itself, people: The Linux community needs to conduct a comprehensive review of Microsoft's patents.

At this moment, Microsoft owns 5,844 patents. It wouldn't be all that impossible for the Linux community to divvy up the work, and have three people look at each patent to see how it impacts Linux. A coherent review of every such document would have pretty strong power - some power for legal purposes, and much more power for business and social purposes.

- David Stein

Did you know that the XOR function was patented and earned the Patent Holder countless millions until it recently expired? are also patented!? This patent was actually enforced in 1994 to stop the sale of the Amiga Computer in the USA after Commodore stopped paying royalties on the patent. The XOR function was used to move the cursor around the screen.

Patents on algorithms and software should be disallowed.. as these types of patents are ripe for abuse!

According to the transaction history of the patent (Sorry for the long url – http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7 _0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.ps/N/.c/6_0_69/ .ce/7_0_3AB/.p/5_0_341/.d/5?selectedTab=fileHistor ytab&isSubmitted=isSubmitted&dosnum=10260471#7_0_3 AB), the patent was rejected only once. The main cause was (not surprisingly) that "a method of traversing a list... is an abstract idea or the mere manipulation of an abstract idea." However, some other claims were rejected as prior art according to US Patent 5,950,191 (See http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl?number=59501 91).
Saying that, the mentioned patent may not be so obvious as seems at first sight. The idea is not a simple linked-list or doubly-linked-list, but somewhat more sophisticated linked-list with auxiliary pointers.

..holy sh*t, this is incredible (Well, sadly not). For convenience, here's the PTO's version of the patent, better to use because it has links to some of the cited prior art patents. Additionally, consider looking at the prosecution of the application. You can download a pdf of the "image file wrapper" which includes the examiner's action and applicant's response.

There was a nominal rejection under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter, which applicant easily overcame by typical claim redrafting used in software patents. There was also a rejection under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by the patent to Schwartz. The latter patent discloses a singly linked list and an separate array of pointers to individual items (kind of like an index?). Clearly, this is not the same as the doubly linked list of the application, and the applicant responded by pointing this out. The application was then allowed and issued.

What was clearly missed here was the patent to Porter which discloses a "...doubly-linked list search and management method ..." Now Porter goes on to add an auxiliary array of pointers (but for a more refined use than just an index) but the basic concept of a doubly linked list is here. Even the examiner very briefly acknowledged in passing that Porter showed a doubly linked list, but obviously failed to recognize that this fully meets claim 1 (including the redrafted version); she obviously did not understand what the applicant was showing. If there are any doubts about what arrangement of data are being disclosed and claimed here then just look a Figure one in the drawings (You have to use the "Images" link at the top which will take you to a clumsy page that displays the sheets of the actual patent specification using some specific tiff format, so your browser must be capable of displaying these images).

I'm sure there are lots of other prior art showing this plus the use of more than two lists (like Fig. 3). In any event I can't see claim 1 surviving even a cursory challenge. Anyone have $ 2,520.00 free to file a reexamination request?

..holy sh*t, this is incredible (Well, sadly not). For convenience, here's the PTO's version of the patent, better to use because it has links to some of the cited prior art patents. Additionally, consider looking at the prosecution of the application. You can download a pdf of the "image file wrapper" which includes the examiner's action and applicant's response.

There was a nominal rejection under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter, which applicant easily overcame by typical claim redrafting used in software patents. There was also a rejection under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by the patent to Schwartz. The latter patent discloses a singly linked list and an separate array of pointers to individual items (kind of like an index?). Clearly, this is not the same as the doubly linked list of the application, and the applicant responded by pointing this out. The application was then allowed and issued.

What was clearly missed here was the patent to Porter which discloses a "...doubly-linked list search and management method ..." Now Porter goes on to add an auxiliary array of pointers (but for a more refined use than just an index) but the basic concept of a doubly linked list is here. Even the examiner very briefly acknowledged in passing that Porter showed a doubly linked list, but obviously failed to recognize that this fully meets claim 1 (including the redrafted version); she obviously did not understand what the applicant was showing. If there are any doubts about what arrangement of data are being disclosed and claimed here then just look a Figure one in the drawings (You have to use the "Images" link at the top which will take you to a clumsy page that displays the sheets of the actual patent specification using some specific tiff format, so your browser must be capable of displaying these images).

I'm sure there are lots of other prior art showing this plus the use of more than two lists (like Fig. 3). In any event I can't see claim 1 surviving even a cursory challenge. Anyone have $ 2,520.00 free to file a reexamination request?

..holy sh*t, this is incredible (Well, sadly not). For convenience, here's the PTO's version of the patent, better to use because it has links to some of the cited prior art patents. Additionally, consider looking at the prosecution of the application. You can download a pdf of the "image file wrapper" which includes the examiner's action and applicant's response.

There was a nominal rejection under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter, which applicant easily overcame by typical claim redrafting used in software patents. There was also a rejection under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by the patent to Schwartz. The latter patent discloses a singly linked list and an separate array of pointers to individual items (kind of like an index?). Clearly, this is not the same as the doubly linked list of the application, and the applicant responded by pointing this out. The application was then allowed and issued.

What was clearly missed here was the patent to Porter which discloses a "...doubly-linked list search and management method ..." Now Porter goes on to add an auxiliary array of pointers (but for a more refined use than just an index) but the basic concept of a doubly linked list is here. Even the examiner very briefly acknowledged in passing that Porter showed a doubly linked list, but obviously failed to recognize that this fully meets claim 1 (including the redrafted version); she obviously did not understand what the applicant was showing. If there are any doubts about what arrangement of data are being disclosed and claimed here then just look a Figure one in the drawings (You have to use the "Images" link at the top which will take you to a clumsy page that displays the sheets of the actual patent specification using some specific tiff format, so your browser must be capable of displaying these images).

I'm sure there are lots of other prior art showing this plus the use of more than two lists (like Fig. 3). In any event I can't see claim 1 surviving even a cursory challenge. Anyone have $ 2,520.00 free to file a reexamination request?

..holy sh*t, this is incredible (Well, sadly not). For convenience, here's the PTO's version of the patent, better to use because it has links to some of the cited prior art patents. Additionally, consider looking at the prosecution of the application. You can download a pdf of the "image file wrapper" which includes the examiner's action and applicant's response.

There was a nominal rejection under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter, which applicant easily overcame by typical claim redrafting used in software patents. There was also a rejection under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by the patent to Schwartz. The latter patent discloses a singly linked list and an separate array of pointers to individual items (kind of like an index?). Clearly, this is not the same as the doubly linked list of the application, and the applicant responded by pointing this out. The application was then allowed and issued.

What was clearly missed here was the patent to Porter which discloses a "...doubly-linked list search and management method ..." Now Porter goes on to add an auxiliary array of pointers (but for a more refined use than just an index) but the basic concept of a doubly linked list is here. Even the examiner very briefly acknowledged in passing that Porter showed a doubly linked list, but obviously failed to recognize that this fully meets claim 1 (including the redrafted version); she obviously did not understand what the applicant was showing. If there are any doubts about what arrangement of data are being disclosed and claimed here then just look a Figure one in the drawings (You have to use the "Images" link at the top which will take you to a clumsy page that displays the sheets of the actual patent specification using some specific tiff format, so your browser must be capable of displaying these images).

I'm sure there are lots of other prior art showing this plus the use of more than two lists (like Fig. 3). In any event I can't see claim 1 surviving even a cursory challenge. Anyone have $ 2,520.00 free to file a reexamination request?

I report, you decide:

http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=07117447&homeu rl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft1.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-P arser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1% 2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-boo l.html%2526r%3D35%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DO R%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3D%252522colorado%252Bspring s%252522.INCI.%2526s2%3D%252522colorado%252Bspring s%252522.ASCI.%2526OS%3DIC%2F%2526RS%3D&PageNum=&R type=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page

Here's a picture of the process that Yuefeng Xie set up at PSU.

Note that on his homepage under news he has "A patent "Method of Using Waste Tires As A Filter Media" was issued to me on November 29, 2005. With 40% of royalties to the inventor (other 60% goes to Penn State), I am going to be a rich professor very soon."

Which reveals he applied for this patent on Aug. 26, 1999.

A lot of the material I can find online makes it look as though he's been working on this for six years, he was just waiting for the patent to to be granted. It seems now they just have to verify tha the water that is processed doesn't leach out any harmful toxins or heavy metals (as the article states). A side note is that he only has one other patent aside from this one.

Despite his plans to become rich over this, I hope he is very successful as a lot of countries (both 3rd and 1st world) could stand to benefit from this greatly.

Here's a picture of the process that Yuefeng Xie set up at PSU.

Note that on his homepage under news he has "A patent "Method of Using Waste Tires As A Filter Media" was issued to me on November 29, 2005. With 40% of royalties to the inventor (other 60% goes to Penn State), I am going to be a rich professor very soon."

Which reveals he applied for this patent on Aug. 26, 1999.

A lot of the material I can find online makes it look as though he's been working on this for six years, he was just waiting for the patent to to be granted. It seems now they just have to verify tha the water that is processed doesn't leach out any harmful toxins or heavy metals (as the article states). A side note is that he only has one other patent aside from this one.

Despite his plans to become rich over this, I hope he is very successful as a lot of countries (both 3rd and 1st world) could stand to benefit from this greatly.

Here's a picture of the process that Yuefeng Xie set up at PSU.

Note that on his homepage under news he has "A patent "Method of Using Waste Tires As A Filter Media" was issued to me on November 29, 2005. With 40% of royalties to the inventor (other 60% goes to Penn State), I am going to be a rich professor very soon."

Which reveals he applied for this patent on Aug. 26, 1999.

A lot of the material I can find online makes it look as though he's been working on this for six years, he was just waiting for the patent to to be granted. It seems now they just have to verify tha the water that is processed doesn't leach out any harmful toxins or heavy metals (as the article states). A side note is that he only has one other patent aside from this one.

Despite his plans to become rich over this, I hope he is very successful as a lot of countries (both 3rd and 1st world) could stand to benefit from this greatly.

The same query on the published application database returns 8093 hits from 2001 to today.

Searching AN/ibm OR AN/"international business machines" returns 45414 patents and 18454 published applications.

The same query on the published application database returns 8093 hits from 2001 to today.

Searching AN/ibm OR AN/"international business machines" returns 45414 patents and 18454 published applications.

The same query on the published application database returns 8093 hits from 2001 to today.

Searching AN/ibm OR AN/"international business machines" returns 45414 patents and 18454 published applications.

The same query on the published application database returns 8093 hits from 2001 to today.

Searching AN/ibm OR AN/"international business machines" returns 45414 patents and 18454 published applications.

The same query on the published application database returns 8093 hits from 2001 to today.

Searching AN/ibm OR AN/"international business machines" returns 45414 patents and 18454 published applications.

The same query on the published application database returns 8093 hits from 2001 to today.

Searching AN/ibm OR AN/"international business machines" returns 45414 patents and 18454 published applications.

I don't claim to know how to search the patent office site, but here's what their search turned up:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week07/OG/h tml/1303-2/US06999083-20060214.html
"System and method to provide a spectator experience for networked gaming"

Any thoughts if ID Software pays them?

Better still:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week11/OG/h tml/1304-2/US07013251-20060314.html
"Server recording and client playback of computer network characteristics

And even more exciting than a bran muffin is:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week08/OG/h tml/1303-3/US07003035-20060221.html
"Video coding methods and apparatuses"

I'm sure the list goes on and is even more exciting, but I don't have time right now. Anyone? Bueller?

I don't claim to know how to search the patent office site, but here's what their search turned up:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week07/OG/h tml/1303-2/US06999083-20060214.html
"System and method to provide a spectator experience for networked gaming"

Any thoughts if ID Software pays them?

Better still:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week11/OG/h tml/1304-2/US07013251-20060314.html
"Server recording and client playback of computer network characteristics

And even more exciting than a bran muffin is:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week08/OG/h tml/1303-3/US07003035-20060221.html
"Video coding methods and apparatuses"

I'm sure the list goes on and is even more exciting, but I don't have time right now. Anyone? Bueller?

I don't claim to know how to search the patent office site, but here's what their search turned up:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week07/OG/h tml/1303-2/US06999083-20060214.html
"System and method to provide a spectator experience for networked gaming"

Any thoughts if ID Software pays them?

Better still:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week11/OG/h tml/1304-2/US07013251-20060314.html
"Server recording and client playback of computer network characteristics

And even more exciting than a bran muffin is:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week08/OG/h tml/1303-3/US07003035-20060221.html
"Video coding methods and apparatuses"

I'm sure the list goes on and is even more exciting, but I don't have time right now. Anyone? Bueller?

Yeah. Great idea. Blot out the sun to stop global warming... and crop production. How retarded do global warming fanatics get? What is it about the global warming religion that makes people so freaking crazy? Here's an idea... rather than pollute, why not remove teh evil CO2s from teh atmoresfear! Well fark, it's already patented. That does it! We're DOOOOOOMED! Call me The Day After Tomorrow when ginormous global warming... um, ...freezes(?) New York city.

You are right that it is the claims that matter. In the case, the claims appear to cover a case where the softphone sends key presses and hook-state to a PBX. It seems like a pretty narrow claim since SIP softphones and IP PBXs don't do that. It would be a rather oddball system that was implemented in a way that infringed.

That said, the oddball nature of the claims is also pretty retro. PBX phones worked this way when 8 bit CPUs were hot stuff, and you wanted to minimize what was going on in the phone. It is difficult to believe there is no prior art for something this old-school.

So what is going on here? I bet most of the original claims were rejected, leaving the description badly out of sync with the claims.

Contrast this with another patent filed in 2000 and issued in 2006 (one that I am very familiar with):
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=7012997.PN.&OS=PN/70129 97&RS=PN/7012997

In this patent, all the claims went through, so the claims match up much better with the description.

Here are two of Bussards posts, and the two patents he mentions:
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?s=e665 007961e36e93001813d66ec9a4ea&p=1722023
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn= fusor_announce&key=1143684406
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=5160695.PN.&OS=PN/51606 95&RS=PN/5160695
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=4826646.PN.&OS=PN/48266 46&RS=PN/4826646

Everything he says is consistent with what he has said elsewhere. Furthermore, all the details are correct to the extent of my knowledge (though this isn't the same branch of physics I specialised in).

The only thing I notice to be a little offsetting is: his disdain for government funding, oil companies, and his exaggeration of how great this will be for the world. But some folks are like that; this is perhaps the sort of thinking you should keep to yourself when trying to convince others of the veracity of your claims! All the same, it has no bearing on the rigour or ration of his work. (He even recognises that this sounds like "sour grapes", but that this isn't his intention.)

So I expect this to be on the up-and-up, though an insurmountable obstacle may well still pop up. That isn't the sort of thing I would expect to be mentioned to potential funders!

Here are two of Bussards posts, and the two patents he mentions:
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?s=e665 007961e36e93001813d66ec9a4ea&p=1722023
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn= fusor_announce&key=1143684406
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=5160695.PN.&OS=PN/51606 95&RS=PN/5160695
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=4826646.PN.&OS=PN/48266 46&RS=PN/4826646

Everything he says is consistent with what he has said elsewhere. Furthermore, all the details are correct to the extent of my knowledge (though this isn't the same branch of physics I specialised in).

The only thing I notice to be a little offsetting is: his disdain for government funding, oil companies, and his exaggeration of how great this will be for the world. But some folks are like that; this is perhaps the sort of thinking you should keep to yourself when trying to convince others of the veracity of your claims! All the same, it has no bearing on the rigour or ration of his work. (He even recognises that this sounds like "sour grapes", but that this isn't his intention.)

So I expect this to be on the up-and-up, though an insurmountable obstacle may well still pop up. That isn't the sort of thing I would expect to be mentioned to potential funders!

Gracenote filed for patents on techniques that had already been published as open source

The patents were developed by a different company, before CDDB published them as open source. That company was also acquired by CDDB's parent before the patents issued. If they hadn't acquired the company that filed the patents, even CDDB would have been in violation. See one of the patents in question here. Note the filing date of 1997. Considering that the CDDB developers said they didn't have any money and patents require lots of that, and considering that it takes time to develop an idea before patenting it, it's a safe bet that CDDB had no hand in filing the patent and it predates anything that came out of CDDB when they were on their own. Also note the third author of the patent; his name appears in other patents owned by "CDDB Inc.", all filed around the same 1997 time frame. Now read this BIO - see, he's from different company that developed music technology from 1993 onward, way before CDDB.

There's your answer. You don't think the USPTO would issue a patent that had obvious prior art? They take joy in denying such. Any patent examiner who allowed a patent to issue when there was known prior art would be incompetent. The USPTO has its (major) faults, but errors so fundamental are rare indeed. Practically all patent examiners do is look for prior art so they can smack down patent applications. That is their purpose in life.

"You can steal IP, I think."

Yes, you can although yours may not be the best example.

Here is what the US PTO says IP is: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/muse um/1intell.htm

As you can see, a trade secret is an example of IP and trade secrets can definitely be stolen. Of course, there will be some idiots who argue that taking a trade secret doesn't amount to theft but that's ridiculous. Any company is free to patent any trade secret and be granted exclusivity to that technology. It should be clear to anyone that the patenting of a trade secret taken from someone else would clearly be theft as the original owner of the trade secret has been denied the patent.

"But no, copying copyrighted works without permission is not theft in the legal sense."

Yes it is. It was declared to be in the Supreme Court ruling being discussed.

What actual patents does Microsoft allege Mono infringes?

I violated a few months ago after a late-night bicycle ride. Come sue me!

The USPTO is ridiculous and honestly I would not worry about Microsoft's patents in the slightest; they have the sword of antitrust dangling over their heads.

Can someone please tell me, which patents is Microsoft alleging that Mono infriges? Patent numbers please, not general assertions or FUD.

1. An apparatus for associating metadata with at least one image, the apparatus comprising: logic for providing the at least one image for display to at least one user; and logic for accepting input from a plurality of users concerning the at least one image, wherein the input comprises at least two different types of metadata.

28. An apparatus for providing information for use by an ad server, the ad server for associating an advertisement with a media object, the apparatus comprising: logic for providing the media object for presentation to at least one user; logic for accepting metadata from a plurality of users concerning the media object; and statistics logic for determining a metric based at least in part upon the frequency with which at least one metadatum is assigned to the media object, wherein the at least one metadatum is available to the ad server.

Flickr files a patent for "interestingness"
Link to USPTO filing dated October 26.

Pretty sure they can. I mean, I don't see why not. Have you ever even read the requirements for a patent?
I refer you to the US Patent and Trademark Office. THEN read T.F. patent application. Skimming through 77 claims, it appears that they are patenting their own, very specific, somewhat novel approach to ranking 'media objects' on a wide and varied array of data, including things like who is doing the ranking and who is doing the searching. Its the combination of a whole bunch of good ideas (which most patents are), and the closest thing I've seen to it is netflix.

think they had to keep it that way because of the pressure sensative nature of the Dualshock 2 (did any games actually use that besides MGS2?).

It looks like Google has 31 issued patents, and another 23 published patent applications.

Google filed 31 patents in their lifetime. Granted they are younger and smaller than MS but does this represent a different thinking about IP?