Slashdot Mirror

This Patent application for a system to analyze and compare of portfolios by citation submitted by Microsoft sounds like it might actually help a patent examiner find prior art for all these Microsoft software patents. It describes a system for classifying documents and finding and analyzing relations (citations) between two sets of documents. Although that does sound a lot like PageRank and anchor text analysis doesn't it?

I'm slowly working through the meat of these patents but the first one in the list Ranking results using multiple nested ranking appears to document the current state of the art in search. That is that ranking algorithms are applied in stages to progressively filter results. It doesn't appear to describe anything new.

This patent sounds like they've patented the idea of recording which search links are clicked on most often for a given query, thus providing feedback given a random session number of which links you clicked on, and if you came back and tried something else.

it would improve search results for future searchers, but I dunno if I like the idea of my search being tracked.

Not only do my searched probably already get tracked without my knowledge but I might be completely wrong about this patent as I only perused it.

They apply for a ton of expensive patents that the little players can't afford. Are patents necessarily that expensive? Look at the current fee schedule. A basic patent would cost about $1,200 in fees. The big costs are getting a patent agent or patent attorney in to draft up the claims properly and push the patent through the USPTO. And a lot of that cost can be reduced if the patent applicant is willing to take care of the dirty work of identifying the invention and producing an enabling disclosure.

The post (and article) mentions a claim that they hold a patent to PVR technology; specifically "Computer controlled video system allowing playback during recording" according to their patent filing. The patent does seem to cover the appropriate technology... but what's this I see? A September 2001 date? Hmm... a quick Wikipedia search turns up references to the initial release of Tivo and ReplayTV back in 1999. I think what we have here is a clear case of prior art, so sorry Forgent... I think it's time to pack up your tent.

To fairly grant a patent, the patent office must be able to understand a) what has already been done b) what is just plain obvious.

True. The legal fiction that a minor government bureacrat would be able to assess all of human knowledge and arbitrarily decide whether something is original is just mind blowing. Scientists spend their entire working lives in very narrow fields and even they sometimes make mistakes. Not to mention the idiocy of allowing a minor, empire building government department to act as gatekeeper on all of technology.

To achieve either you have to be skilled in the art of the subject at hand and that is just not something one could reasonably expect of a patent examiner who must be a generalist.

True.

A community skilled in the art must get involved and I really think this a good thing and could turn the patent system around.

Not a chance. Have you seen how many software patents are being issued? There is absolutely no chance of a comprehensive review of a significant fraction of them. Particularly since the ones who should do the review, the people who do the actual work, quite rightly regard it as legal fiction make work.

No matter how evil you think patents are, they are not going away anytime soon.

So the patent mafia like to claim. The US is only 5% of the world's population. The software patent situation in 95% of the world's population is in flux. With only a bit of luck the USPTO might find itself out in the cold, to the benefit of everybody. Including the US at large.

The best we can do is to better the current situation by supporting efforts such as this.

No, the best we can do is to get our congressional representatives to fix the law so that it actually implements the objectives laid out in the constitution, to also make sure this massive interference in the citizen's business has a scientific basis and maybe send some of the bribed examiners at the USPTO to jail (with the amount of anonymity, ambiguity and money involved it's a certainty there's a lot of corruption going on). These are all unlikely but not impossible.

---

Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.

Of course if you get tire of waiting (they've been announcing this for a while now) you can go look at published patent applications here.

If anyone wants to learn more about the technology, it can be helpful to look at the patents themselves. A quick search on Antek and Anil (the company and one of the inventors' names respectively) turned up these three patents, which likely cover the technology in question.

May be a useful thing to read. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center}

Not sure if anyone has noted this before, but in retrieving any entries from the PTO online database...

Every page has the SUN logo on it! Innocent accident you say? I think not!!!

Perhaps until the PTO can check for a single corporation's logo branding every single patent's online posting, we shouldn't hold them to such high standards for checking the actual patents they are issuing.

Your statements regarding patents are absolutely incorrect:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#patent

"The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO."

A patent is intended to be a device to protect non-obvious research and innovation from being stolen so that you can reap the rewards in your product line.

    A patent is intended to exclude others from making, selling, or importing the invention to the US.

In this case, the research was not stolen, as ATI thought of it too.

    Sure nothing was actually "stolen", but how is it that ATI "thought of it too"? Did ATI hear about the research that SGI was doing? Did ATI hire some staff from SGI? In this case, it really doesn't matter. The fact is that SGI filed for the patent and it was granted. This means that SGI has the right to prevent others from making, selling, or importing this technology.

They're not even protecting their own research, as ATI developed this independently

    Isn't this is technically what the patent is supposed to protect? As an indepent inventor with meager resources, if I filed for and was granted a patent, this would give me the right exclude others from creating the invention. Meaning ATI can do all the research they want, but cannot make or sell any product using the invention or technology. This protect me and my invention from being developed independently by ATI, as ATI has the resources to develop a product offering in 1/3 of the time.

still a patent troll

    Yes they are and at this point they need to be. They have nothing left right now. Optimistcally speaking though, perhaps a source of incoming revenue will spark the company to start doing some real research again. They did some interesting things in the past and maybe they can do so again in the future... but of course, this is VERY unlikely.

UniSys filed for the LZW compression patent June 20, 1983, and it was granted December 10, 1985 (source). LZW compression is used during GIF write-creation, hence UniSys had some merit in its royality claims, though it may be argued waiting until December 1994 to seek such royalties from a 1987/1989 image format to have been somewhat disingenious.

Submarine patents, on the other hand, are patents which request a 'blackout' for the entire time they are in the patent office's filing and approval queue; they are held in-secret regardless for the first 18-months (unless granted sooner), even without filing for such a 'blackout' request. The submarine reference, then, stems from the analogy of going under, running undetected, and only later surfacing at conclusion, though some also draw additional meaning with regards to a submarine's ability to sink a vessel (completing, but later-filing, patent or subsequent successful technology).

I'm just wondering if memcached (which I believe Slashdot uses to speed up page loading) violates US 5,442,771. Unfortunately, it's full of really dense patentese, and IANAPatentL - it certainly seems possible, though...

So does US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities. mean that Google might be infringing also?

That's a stronger argument, but still wrong. In order to be patentable an invention has to be useful. You're right, you don't patent outcomes; but your method has to produce an outcome. Regard: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#patent

Also note the phrasing of the typical patent: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week06/OG/h tml/1303-1/US06994072-20060207.html (A something something FOR doing something).

The UK patent office guide is much clearer: http://www.patent.gov.uk/whatis/whatis-patent.htm (it also excludes most of the things that cause so much fun on Slashdot)

I'm not saying a tax patent doesn't serve the inventor's purpose; I'm saying that if the law is changed it *cannot* serve the inventor's (or anybody's) purpose and therefore it is no longer an invention. If one step became illegal for example, it wouldn't matter if you could apply the steps elsewhere. Since the patent has to be useful in order to be valid, it loses its validity; and since the environment the patent is claimed for is inherently unstable tax patents (and indeed any patent which is based on law) should not be granted.

Obviously they do get granted, but hey, the US's IP regime is completely broken. That's not even news.

That's a stronger argument, but still wrong. In order to be patentable an invention has to be useful. You're right, you don't patent outcomes; but your method has to produce an outcome. Regard: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#patent

Also note the phrasing of the typical patent: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week06/OG/h tml/1303-1/US06994072-20060207.html (A something something FOR doing something).

The UK patent office guide is much clearer: http://www.patent.gov.uk/whatis/whatis-patent.htm (it also excludes most of the things that cause so much fun on Slashdot)

I'm not saying a tax patent doesn't serve the inventor's purpose; I'm saying that if the law is changed it *cannot* serve the inventor's (or anybody's) purpose and therefore it is no longer an invention. If one step became illegal for example, it wouldn't matter if you could apply the steps elsewhere. Since the patent has to be useful in order to be valid, it loses its validity; and since the environment the patent is claimed for is inherently unstable tax patents (and indeed any patent which is based on law) should not be granted.

Obviously they do get granted, but hey, the US's IP regime is completely broken. That's not even news.

Patent Infringement! I clearly have prior art to entertaining/excersizing these molecules!

A method for providing integrated voice, video, and data content in an integrated service offering to one or more customer premises includes receiving television programming from a programming source, receiving data from a data network, and receiving telephone communications from a telephone network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiles

Better get his permission first.

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=4133152.PN.&OS=PN/41331 52&RS=PN/4133152

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that's what the 5 minute at recharging stations are for. Probably running 440 or 480 directly off the power lines? At home I'm sure it will take longer. I also recall seeing something mentioned or implied about a "battery swap" at those stations, so perhaps the charging time is considerably longer, and the swap only takes 5m?

I also checked their patent, which seems like a reasonable decent use of a patent for a change provided it actually works. Think of the Tesla using this instead of 6381 exploding Sony batteries ;).

But more importantly, does this remind anyone else of the batacitors from Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld? If you could only charge them with lightning strikes - free power! ;)

It says that the devices stores 52.2kWh of energy. Seems like it packs a pretty big punch. Mike

The USPO examiner did his job and really made us work for it, narrowing the claims and causing us to better differentiate from prior patented software.

I've been through that too... it took six years to get it all approved. They are indeed very careful to check each patent against earlier patents.

What the USPTO doesn't do, is check each patent against prior art. In effect, a patent simply says "This method may already be in common use, but this is the first time anyone has thought to patent it."

To illustrate: US patent number 6,368,227 is a "method of swinging on a swing", in which the person pulls the chains alternately in order to swing side to side.

So, it's up to the courts to sort out the question of prior art. The common complaint here on slashdot (and in my own heart) is that the USPTO should check prior art... but now that I think about it, that seems inefficient. It's inefficient because most patents will never come to dispute, and hence are irrelevant. Why spend a gabillion dollars bringing in the necessary expertise, until you know that it actually matters (i.e. is actually challenged)?

So how did they get around Dallas/Maxim?

Unless they're inserting some kind of Ipod-esqe "cradle" as an electron-laundering scheme.

here it seems to be a patent about a similar concept.

A system and methods for implementing education online by providing institutions with the means for allowing the creation of courses to be taken by students online, the courses including assignments, announcements, course materials, chat and whiteboard facilities, and the like, all of which are available to the students over a network such as the Internet. Various levels of functionality are provided through a three-tiered licensing program that suits the needs of the institution offering the program. In addition, an open platform system is provided such that anyone with access to the Internet can create, manage, and offer a course to anyone else with access to the Internet without the need for an affiliation with an institution, thus enabling the virtual classroom to extend worldwide.

I found that out when I went to https://www.uesp.net/ the other day. There is a news article with a link to http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang =english&p_d=trmk where you can search for trademarks.

"Where will this end?"

Hopefully it ends in a world where people with physical disabilities have as much opportunity to contribute with their skills as the rest of us. Technology can go a LONG way to fulfilling that goal, but there is a bigger problem.

The thing that amazes me about many people with seemingly debilitating physical disabilities is how pathetically unimaginative, unmotivated, and unskilled I am by comparison. On the network I've communicated with people that are almost completely paralyzed and virtually bedridden -- physical conditions so debilitating that were I suddenly there, I'd have no clue what to do. Typing on a traditional computer may as well be like climbing Mt. Everest. But some of the people I've chatted with are using a mouth device to enter text. They don't perceive it as an obstacle, just a challenge. They are eloquent and lucid in their writing to the point I didn't even know some were operating with such challenges until they told me. This, and many other examples have shown me that the human ability to cope with physical challenges like these is darn near infinite when people are motivated, and, futhermore, people facing these challenges have valuable contributions to make to society.

As I alluded to above, technology helps alot -- really, the changes in the last few decades have been *revolutionary* -- but I've come to the conclusion the biggest challenge isn't physical condition at all, it's the *rest* of us "abled" people who are set in their traditional ways and take the ease of our everyday activities for granted. We're the ones that give up in an instant when things get a little tough to implement. These people don't have that luxury. They persist.

So, I say, let's get off our asses and help. Who are you to suggest that music can't be appreciated by people who are deaf? They still have a sense of touch, and other ways to appreciate it -- probably in ways I, as a hearing person, have no two clues about. What I've learned is not to *assume* what seems "obvious", because I'm often very wrong. I'm often pleasantly surprised about what is actually possible.

The law discussed in the article is a good law founded on a good principle, and is a small price to pay for enabling people as much as possible. It really isn't that hard to implement a web site that is accessible, and it is something that is a bit like building a house -- it's much easier and cheaper to add something at the design phase than to tack it on later. It isn't *that* hard to add plain text information in parallel (which is often most of what is required).

By the way, Braille monitors do exist, and there is already a patent application for one implementation of them, so you're probably too late, unless you have another idea for implementing one.

Imagine if McDonalds had patented drive through food.

Provided that no one else had done it before, I believe that it would be patentable. You could have apparatus claims for the menu display with speaker and mic for ordering and maybe for the drive up window itself and method claims for taking the order and delivering the food, etc. There may be a point where if everyone patented everything that was patentable that something bad might result, but I don't see that it would be an overall long term bad thing because people would be really motivated to come up with great ideas and patent them for all the world to see with the USPTO. After 20 years, then everyone can use the ideas for free. I think this is why the American system is best; inventors get rewarded and everyone can benefit.

In the US? At the most since March 9, 1993, if you consider the date that business method patent was issued.

In the US it seems that if something complies with the minimum prerequisites, almost anything made by man can be patented.

And here is a Netflix patent:

Patent number: 6584450

Abstract: According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A "Max Out" approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A "Max Turns" approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The "Max Out" and "Max Turns" approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.

For further reference, here are the patents:

6,966,484

Mailing and response envelope

Abstract
A mailing and response envelope for conveying an item from a sender to a recipient and back is disclosed. The envelope comprises a base panel, a sender address panel, and a recipient address panel. The sender address panel is affixed to the base panel by an adhesive region. The sender address panel and adhesive region define a pocket sized to accept an item. The adhesive region extends laterally on the base panel in an amount selected to ensure that a postal cancellation is not applied to an area overlying the item. The recipient address panel is joined to the base panel by a detachable joint. In this configuration, a fragile item may be conveyed from the sender to the recipient and from the recipient back to the sender without damage to the item.

7,024,381

Approach for renting items to customers

Abstract
According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A "Max Out" approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A "Max Turns" approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The "Max Out" and "Max Turns" approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.

For further reference, here are the patents:

6,966,484

Mailing and response envelope

Abstract
A mailing and response envelope for conveying an item from a sender to a recipient and back is disclosed. The envelope comprises a base panel, a sender address panel, and a recipient address panel. The sender address panel is affixed to the base panel by an adhesive region. The sender address panel and adhesive region define a pocket sized to accept an item. The adhesive region extends laterally on the base panel in an amount selected to ensure that a postal cancellation is not applied to an area overlying the item. The recipient address panel is joined to the base panel by a detachable joint. In this configuration, a fragile item may be conveyed from the sender to the recipient and from the recipient back to the sender without damage to the item.

7,024,381

Approach for renting items to customers

Abstract
According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A "Max Out" approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A "Max Turns" approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The "Max Out" and "Max Turns" approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.

In the US, patents last for 25 years.

Isn't it 20 years?

A menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played - its a music player! File>Open is a damned menu! Please for a second picture a music player that doesn't allow the user to select the music to be played via a menu. mpg123 is all that comes to mind.

The ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player - wait any OS can do this - its copying files for crissakes. Again trivially File>Save As ... heck your browser could then be a piece of software that can transfer tracks to a portable music player. Throw in the right plugin and it can open music files and save them to a portable music player.

You can't conclude stuff like that from reading the article. You have to look at the patent. I'll be the first one to say that there are a lot of dumb patents around, but dismissing all patents out of hand doesn't seem right either.

I guess I'm biased having 'got' a number of patents (although they are all assigned to my ex-employers, so of no use to me). Most of them were hardware, but a couple were software and I like to think they are not obvious. Certainly my employers spent quite a bit of money to get me and my coworkers to come up with those ideas.

1. A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer, comprising the steps of:

a) simultaneously displaying on a display device, at least two individual data fields selected from music categories, composers, artists, and songs;

b) selecting at least one item from at least one of the data fields;

c) in response to step b), redisplaying all data fields not having an item selected therefrom with data related only to the at least one item selected in step b), and simultaneously maintaining all items originally displayed in the data fields with at lest one item selected therefrom;

d) selecting an item in the songs data field in response to step c), and

e) playing the selected song item from step d) on the computer responsive music device.

None of the things you suggested are covered by that - it has to do all of those things to be covered. But yeah, it's still pertty dumb, just not totally dumb.

I'm not an expert but TFA uses the phrase "design patent" but the patent in question appears to be a utility patent. While I find many, if not all, software patents distasteful and often harmful, AFAIK it's perfectly legit to patent improvements or combinations to existing, even patented, ideas. This patent seems to describe coordinating a spreadsheet's capability with external music devices. (The patent specifically includes several parallel claims substituting player pianos for "music device".) One famous example is the intermittent windshield wiper patent, which described the combination of a timer and the windshield wiper (which itself, I suppose, was a combination of a motor and a squeegee). Drug companies are allowed to patent improvements for their rival's patented drugs but are often kept in check by the old patent's remaining claims, e.g. needing to use the rival's patented manufacturing processes. I'm not saying I agree with this patent, but the way US Patents work this one may not have been trivially absurd.

So what you're saying is if I FILED enough patents (whether I got them or not), I'll increase the funding of a government institution enough to maybe get some influence there (by paying the filing fees)?

• Goal 1 Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness
• Goal 2 Optimize Trademark Quality and Timeliness
• Goal 3 Improve Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Domestically and Abroad
• Management Goal Achieve Organizational Excellence

Strategically, USPTO's primary emphasis is quality. For patents and trademarks, quality means timely, consistent, accurate examination. How do we achieve timely, consistent, accurate examination? Via streamlined procedures, good inputs, and great people.

The formula for Certainty includes good communications so that we have consistency. It includes a capable workforce so that we have accuracy. It includes fully integrated supporting systems and uniform data to ensure reliability.

A capable workforce -- our employees -- is the single most critical component to achieving our goals.

Dear SUV,

We have been informed that you have used our registered trademark one by one(tm) in an unauthorized rendition of thereof. Our massive legal justice team(tm) has been ordered to shuriken attack(tm), quack attack(tm), grapnel attack(tm) and last but not least sack attack(tm) until there are visible signs of blood. Also noted is slashdot.

Dear SUV,

We have been informed that you have used our registered trademark one by one(tm) in an unauthorized rendition of thereof. Our massive legal justice team(tm) has been ordered to shuriken attack(tm), quack attack(tm), grapnel attack(tm) and last but not least sack attack(tm) until there are visible signs of blood. Also noted is slashdot.

Dear SUV,

We have been informed that you have used our registered trademark one by one(tm) in an unauthorized rendition of thereof. Our massive legal justice team(tm) has been ordered to shuriken attack(tm), quack attack(tm), grapnel attack(tm) and last but not least sack attack(tm) until there are visible signs of blood. Also noted is slashdot.

Dear SUV,

We have been informed that you have used our registered trademark one by one(tm) in an unauthorized rendition of thereof. Our massive legal justice team(tm) has been ordered to shuriken attack(tm), quack attack(tm), grapnel attack(tm) and last but not least sack attack(tm) until there are visible signs of blood. Also noted is slashdot.

Dear SUV,

We have been informed that you have used our registered trademark one by one(tm) in an unauthorized rendition of thereof. Our massive legal justice team(tm) has been ordered to shuriken attack(tm), quack attack(tm), grapnel attack(tm) and last but not least sack attack(tm) until there are visible signs of blood. Also noted is slashdot.

Dear SUV,

We have been informed that you have used our registered trademark one by one(tm) in an unauthorized rendition of thereof. Our massive legal justice team(tm) has been ordered to shuriken attack(tm), quack attack(tm), grapnel attack(tm) and last but not least sack attack(tm) until there are visible signs of blood. Also noted is slashdot.

Dear SUV,

We have been informed that you have used our registered trademark one by one(tm) in an unauthorized rendition of thereof. Our massive legal justice team(tm) has been ordered to shuriken attack(tm), quack attack(tm), grapnel attack(tm) and last but not least sack attack(tm) until there are visible signs of blood. Also noted is slashdot.

I'm sure someone at /. has already visited: http://www.uspto.gov/ following your suggestion to see if there is a patent to submit, or to formulate a joke. I was successful at neither :p

It doesn't need to be public domain, just free. The patent laws only prevent someone from offering for sale, selling, or importing an invention.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#whatpat

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

This says that if something is obvious, the patent can be rejected even if there is no real prior art or previous "suggestion" or anything. Does a judge have the right to change the USPTOs rules on it's behalf?

Here's why you're wrong.

The claim language defines the scope of patent protection. MPEP 608.01(i)

Regardless of whether you believe the claim text is "obtuse," it is the only part of the patent that governs whether or not something infringes. The criticality of each word cannot be overstated. For example, the difference between the words "comprising" and "consisting" is monumental. MPEP 2111.03

Can you figure out what I'm driving at? You cannot "strip down" the text of a claim and form a valid conclusion about anything. The claim describes a portable music player. Your argument does not. Apples and oranges.

Is there anyone out there who still thinks that patents foster more innovation than they stifle?

Basically everybody except the deliberately ignorant Slashdotters who incessantly stroke each other's egos by moderating absurdly inaccurate posts to +5. Are you one of the deliberately ignorant? Did you follow the links I posted? Did you read what you found? If so, congratulations - you have taken a few steps toward actually understanding the thing that you apparently hate.

I'm not a historian, but I think history tells us that it's better to understand the things you hate rather than to misrepresent them or hate them out of blind fear and ignorance.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a historian. I do know that if you choose to blindly hate something you don't understand, you won't be alone in the history of the world. There's definitely prior art for that, comrade.

Here's why you're wrong.

The claim language defines the scope of patent protection. MPEP 608.01(i)

Regardless of whether you believe the claim text is "obtuse," it is the only part of the patent that governs whether or not something infringes. The criticality of each word cannot be overstated. For example, the difference between the words "comprising" and "consisting" is monumental. MPEP 2111.03

Can you figure out what I'm driving at? You cannot "strip down" the text of a claim and form a valid conclusion about anything. The claim describes a portable music player. Your argument does not. Apples and oranges.

Is there anyone out there who still thinks that patents foster more innovation than they stifle?

Basically everybody except the deliberately ignorant Slashdotters who incessantly stroke each other's egos by moderating absurdly inaccurate posts to +5. Are you one of the deliberately ignorant? Did you follow the links I posted? Did you read what you found? If so, congratulations - you have taken a few steps toward actually understanding the thing that you apparently hate.

I'm not a historian, but I think history tells us that it's better to understand the things you hate rather than to misrepresent them or hate them out of blind fear and ignorance.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a historian. I do know that if you choose to blindly hate something you don't understand, you won't be alone in the history of the world. There's definitely prior art for that, comrade.

Yes.

If so, did you read the claims you linked to? It's basically two data structures: A tree consisting of 1)a virtual root node (supercontainer), that shows a 2)set of 3)containers, each containing 4)items. The other structure is a list.

Uh, thanks for your insight, I guess. In addition to being a programmer, I'm also up to my neck in the patent system on a daily basis. (That doesn't mean I read about it in the newspapers, that means I participate in patent prosecution with the patent office on a daily basis.)

As the claims progress, the patent makes it clearer and clearer that you can navigate down into the tree, and select items and collections to add to the playlist. Furthermore, it employs polymorphism to make clear that containers can also be playlists and whatnot.

"As the claims progress" they get narrower and narrower, i.e. smaller and smaller in scope. This is required by 35 USC 112 fourth paragraph. What I'm saying is that if the 1st claim is patentable over the prior art, the subsequent claims are also allowable over the prior art because they are MORE specific. So it could be polymorphism - who cares? Why don't we focus on the broader topic - the first claim - before celebrating the narrower topics?

How is this non-obvious? As for the prior art people keep jesting about to varying degrees of seriousness, that very prior art ought demonstrate that this is obvious. Hell, I'm no top-notch programmer, but even I could have pulled this off my junior year in college (which was before the filing date).

(I'm honestly trying to be helpful here.) Your argument is non sequitur, but it's not your fault. You begin with the issue of "non-obvious" in the patent system, and conclude with "simplicity". In Slashdot and the dictionary, these concepts are VERY close. However, in the patent system, "obviousness" has literally nothing to do with simplicity.

Here's a link: MPEP 2143. If you're really interested, read the next couple of sections as well.

You'll note that nothing about "obviousness" hinges on simplicity. In patents, "obvious" is requires a combination of things found in the prior art as well as other criteria.

So as you can see, your argument is non sequitur. Maybe this patent IS a simple idea, but that's completely irrelevant. Hell the patent office has an entire classification system for "bottles and jars". That's not exactly high technology to most people, but luckily for jar inventors, "being complicated" is not a requirement of patentability.

Calling Slashdot the Fox News of patent stories is a nice red herring - if you want to maintain that, please give us a point-by-point analysis on in which ways this is.

Right... How about you do your homework and I'll do mine. I'm not morally obliged to hold your hand through every accurate observation I toss out.

However, here's a start - read through my posting history. You'll find that I'm either 1) off the topic of patents, 2) flaming someone, or 3) illustrating that basically nobody on Slashdot has any clue about how the patent system works. If you want the point-by-point analysis, then you can spend the time collecting the evidence.

(I'll give you a hint as to how it may differ: Fox News is a TV broadcasting medium - the channel chooses what to send. Slashdot is a set of links to stories that a bunch of people throw in their two cents on including you and I.)

Ok, I'll bite at this one. Fox News regurgitates public opinion as purportedly correct or accurate which creates a closed-loop system that simply reinforces ignorant, emotional decision making and actively squashes critical analysis. This is precisely what Slashdot does about patents. The posts are wildly inaccurate and full of ignorance, they are moderated as "Insightful"

Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.

I'm not sure what you're talking about but it is not the claims from the patent. If you'd like to respond, I'm going to require that you read the claims of the patent because otherwise you are literally wasting my time. Here is the link. The Patent

The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work.

First, you are apparently unaware of a JMOL for clearly unreasonable patent infringement suits. Secondly, it's called "a defense". Technically it's optional.

Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented.

It's called "patent prosecution" and it's the only way to get a patent in the United States. Clever idea.

The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.

(I've already deleted 100 lines of flame but let me say) I don't believe for a second that you have the slightest idea what is or is not a valid patent. Secondly, I don't think you have put any thought whatsoever into how you would prove or disprove this at a trial from scratch. (I say my patent is valid. We're done. Oh no - suddenly someone has to prove it's INVALID - we're right back to the problem you claim to have solved.) I think that you are unaware that patent prosecution before the patent office takes anywhere from 2-6 years. You suggest we move that (or some variant) into the COURTROOM? Are you trolling? Thirdly, you have begun your paragraph with a groundless conclusion and end it the same way - how in God's name would this make trolling any more difficult? Under your system, I don't even need to WIN the infringement suit, I can simply tie up your exorbitantly expensive legal team for an additional 5 years. It's legal extortion at its best.

I know this post is not very nice but please bear in mind that what you've read is completely rewritten. I don't intend to flame, but I do think you're completely out of your element. The bottom line, for me, is that I really wish Slashdot would stop carrying stories about patents because misinformation and worse is consistently moderated to the top. Without a doubt, Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.

Patent 6928433

The key claim is the following, plus 15 variations on the theme.

What is claimed is:

1. A method of selecting at least one track from a plurality of tracks stored in a computer-readable medium of a portable media player configured to present sequentially a first, second, and third display screen on the display of the media player, the plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy, the hierarchy having a plurality of categories, subcategories, and items respectively in a first, second, and third level of the hierarchy, the method comprising: selecting a category in the first display screen of the portable media player; displaying the subcategories belonging to the selected category in a listing presented in the second display screen; selecting a subcategory in the second display screen; displaying the items belonging to the selected subcategory in a listing presented in the third display screen; and accessing at least one track based on a selection made in one of the display screens.

It really is as daft as it sounds.