Slashdot Mirror

A method and apparatus for securing software .. requiring .. a .. password obtained from the.. authorized representative of the software after exchanging registration information.

IBM is the 1000 lb Gorilla

Microsoft Patents 5418
IBM Patents 43891

IBM is the 1000 lb Gorilla

Microsoft Patents 5418
IBM Patents 43891

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6960975.PN.&OS=PN/6960975&RS= PN/6960975

Personaly I think the patent office can be completely circumvented if you just make your application long enough and with enough sufficiently technical terms, sort of like a high school teacher that gives the dry 12 page report an A after glossing over the first page and deeming it of sufficiently impressive bulk.

Not funny at all. I've posted on this tivo stuff before, and just chose not to get in to it all again. One of the big points of the Tivo technology argued during the case was the 'time warp' function. Tivo's page about the lawsuit - http://investor.tivo.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?Release ID=207787 - mentions the 'time warp' patent: "The Time Warp patent discloses systems and methods for the simultaneous storage and playback of programs, supporting advanced capabilities such as pausing live television, fast-forwarding, rewinding, instant replays, and slow motion."

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6233389.html has a quick summary, and IIRC, DISH's main defense was that they weren't converting to/from MPEG, so the patent wasn't valid. Also IIRC, that didn't prove to be enough to sway the verdict in their favor in April.

Any 'watching' in TV mode is still buffering to allow for pausing/rewinding/etc, so no matter whether you've got dual tuners or not, the buffering is what is violating the 'time warp' patent. My recollection from the trial notes I'd read was that DISH engineers had testified that their original pre-seeing-using-tivo versions of their DVRs wouldn't allow for pausing/rewinding/fastfwding during 'live' TV, only during playback of previously recorded shows.

This was stuff that was all being developed during the same time period by different companies, at least if we are to believe the Tivo bashers. If so, why were they the only company to be able to figure this out? Other companies had DVRs out even before Tivo which did not have this functionality. If it was simply a hardware limitation issue, the other companies surely still could have patented the idea with working prototypes which would simply be too costly to market (at that time) then bring the tech to market later when costs came down. I don't think that was the case. The materials I've read seem to point to Tivo having come up with a technique which was unique/novel/nonobvious *at that time*, and was able to implement it in a commercial play as well. Believing this to be the case (in absence of evidence to the contrary) I say good on them, and I hope echostar pays through the nose for the violations.

Link to the full patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6233389.PN.&OS=PN/62333 89&RS=PN/6233389

I could get behind a reformed patent system:

1) Shorten the length of time to 5 years.
2) Eliminate "business method" patents.
3) Eliminate software patents.
4) Require a working prototype of any patented invention.
5) Hire experts in the field as patent examiners. PHBs shouldn't be issuing patents.

They never actually cited a specific patent.

Wikipedia:ASF cites United States Patent 6,041,345.

And they never sent a C&D letter to anyone else, so maybe they've given up.

So where is this product from "anyone else"? Perhaps the VirtualDub issue deterred everyone else from trying to develop a WMV to AVI direct stream copy.

I can understand if they want to go after musicplayer companies that want to use the Pod. It would be uncool to name your new MP3 player Eye-Pod to confuse people. Trademarks are usually very specific as to the SIC code of the product, i.e. you can trademark "XXX" jeans but someone else can usually still trademark "XXX" rocking chairs... USPTO
I can see how apple may be damaged if people sell products with the name Pod in them that imply a relationship or endorsement from Apple. Like if you call your product PodCovers and they are designed to fit exactly on iPods without a license from Apple. I don't see how they could go after P.O.D.S (Portable on demand storage)however.

Bullshit.

Already today the USPTO publishes pending patent applications, usually years before they are either approved or denied.

You can see for yourself here: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.h tml

Publication is a very fundamental part of the patenting process, if you do not want your competition to know about your invention then you cannot patent it either. The idea is that if your invention really is novel then you will get protection sooner or later and can go after anyone thats infringing on your patent.

If your application does not get approved, then you are correct that you will have lost any edge on your competition by way of secrecy. But then again, if your application is rejected then its most likely not very valuable anyway.

BTW: This is the reason a lot of millitary research or technology deemed important for national security is never patented. Patent applications implies publishing.

They never actually cited a specific patent.

Wikipedia:ASF cites United States Patent 6,041,345.

And they never sent a C&D letter to anyone else, so maybe they've given up.

So where is this product from "anyone else"? Perhaps the VirtualDub issue deterred everyone else from trying to develop a WMV to AVI direct stream copy.

What about people who read both? Seriously, why is there this assumption that owning and reading a book somehow means you believe and accept the ideas presented therein? Some people actually like to read around and get a deep understanding of a lot of different ideas. Even if you disagree with something, you should at least understand it well instead of relying on propaganda.

Which brings me to my next point...

We might have a 20 year pause before the patent expires.

It's not a patent, it is only an application, so there is nothing that has to expire. This rather obvious concept has been explained a bazillion times on Slashdot, but almost no one posting under this article seems to understand it. You can apply for any stupid damn thing you want. Even, say, a resurrection burial tomb .

What I think would make for a great Backslash section is revisitting these old applications that give Slashdotters apoplectic fits. See if a patent is granted or if it is ultimately is abandoned. If it is granted, see how narrow or how broad the actual patent protection is. Then, there would be more informed bitching and complaining than the usual infantile "P@+3n+s are teh suxx0rs! W00+! W00+!"

That's a nice system. There are some annoying limitations, though. It's tough to change the orientation of the robot, although you can handle that if you have a rotational joint further up so you can rotate the torso. Small diameter balls have the same problems as small diameter wheels - it's easy to get stuck in small depressions. That's why the Segway has such big wheels. And driving a sphere is always a tough problem mechanically. Most of the solutions have trouble with dirt accumulating on the drive wheels, which is why optical mice have replaced ball mice. It's possible to build a spherical electric motor, and that might be the way to go if this concept turns out to be useful.

It's good to see all this activity in self-balancing systems again, having worked on this around 1994-1995, and seen others working on it in the 1980s. Today, you can buy so much of what you need off the shelf, like good INS units. We used to waste too much time building custom stuff.

A remote controller for controlling a host device, the controller including a housing, an electrical power source within the housing, electronic circuitry within the housing connected to the power source and including a radiation emitter to emit signals from the housing, a plurality of finger depressible buttons exposed on the housing and interfacing with sensors electrically associated with the circuitry. The buttons are for user selection of signals emitted for controlling a host device. At least some of the sensors are utilized only as momentary-On only On/Off sensors. At least one sensor(s) is a pressure-sensitive analog sensor structured for varying electrical conductance through at least three readable states or values. The readable states are dependant upon depressive pressure applied to the sensor(s) through finger depressible button(s). The circuitry is structured to read the readable states of the pressure-sensitive analog sensor(s) and to emit signals representing the state or value of the sensor(s). In one embodiment, the analog sensor(s) is/are elastomeric dome-cap sensor(s) including pressure-sensitive variable-conductance material positioned over proximal circuit elements of the circuitry. The analog sensors are preferably associated with selectable functions such as tuner channel changing as for televisions and supportive tuner devices, and video speed controls as for VCRs, DVDs and like recorded video players, and computers and audio and other like devices. Additionally disclosed are methods of use and manufacture.

But if you chase down the references the patents make to earlier applications (claiming an earlier invention date), you get to patent 5,589,828, with a filing date of March 1992. So Nintendo would have to show that the relevant portions of the asserted patents weren't in that original filing (or other filings earlier than 1995).

Shouldn't be so hard. Microsoft has already determined that it is not is not. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959 At this point, we're just waiting for Google to snatch "is too" and for Yahoo! to take "sure is!"

And let us not forget the faster-than-light antenna...

each role providing a level of access to a plurality of data files associated with a particular course and a level of control over the data files associated with the course

b) a server computer in communication with each of the user computers over a network, the server computer comprising: means for storing a plurality of data files associated with a course, means for assigning a level of access to and control of each data file based on a user of the system's predetermined role in a course;

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.h tm&r=6&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=anything&p=1&OS=anything &RS=anything

Oracle has patented the technology for "Finding what group a user is in". This is absolutely pathetic.

You are right the "Determining a user's groups" 7,085,834 will undermine any non-trivial operating system!

• Frames
• Exercising your cat
• Swinging on a swing
• Interacting with your computer
• unique innovations in astrological tarot and in alpha-numerology

• Frames
• Exercising your cat
• Swinging on a swing
• Interacting with your computer
• unique innovations in astrological tarot and in alpha-numerology

• Frames
• Exercising your cat
• Swinging on a swing
• Interacting with your computer
• unique innovations in astrological tarot and in alpha-numerology

• Frames
• Exercising your cat
• Swinging on a swing
• Interacting with your computer
• unique innovations in astrological tarot and in alpha-numerology

• Frames
• Exercising your cat
• Swinging on a swing
• Interacting with your computer
• unique innovations in astrological tarot and in alpha-numerology

Already been done: 6,993,573

P.S. It is important to note that Mr. Herron holds the trademark for "Skywalker Jets". If you're interested in finding out more about trademarks, or searching the database, go here

http://www.uspto.gov/ ;)

-Rick

11.6 Registration of attorneys and agents.

...(b) Agents. Any citizen of the United States who is not an attorney, and who fulfills the requirements of this Part may be registered as a patent agent to practice before the Office.

(*) at the time of writing.

FTFA: "The hard part is building the ecosystem. You have to get your readers and writers, and I don't know how long it will take me to convince the cell phone companies to do this. How long has RFID been around and it's still not completely built out?"

Understatement of the week, for sure. I'm struggling to think of more than half a dozen consumer-exposed implementations of RFID. There are a few gas-station speedpass[tm] gimmicks, some high end automobiles use them in their keys, and various department stores use them to keep inventory from walking out the front door. And a few casinos are now using RFID chips to prevent various gaming schemes and track user play. I think that "not completely" built out is more than an understatement. For instance, the uspto currently lists 2114 patents including the keyword "RFID" versus 519515 including the keyword "OPTICAL" (if you think optical technologies are not a fair comparison, do your own search with your own chosen technology.. my point is simply that RFID has barely been explored by many industries)

Not that I claim to be much of an expert on RFID, but at least it appears technologies such as this will be less vulernable to the encryption problems that RFID currently experience. (previous link is just some random example i googled for.. /. as well as Bruce Schneier have both covered the RFID encryption [and other inherent weakness] topics extensively in the past)

You're linking to the published application, which is much different than the amended application. None of the claims in the published application have been allowed.

Go here and do a search for Publication Number 20050022023 to find the prosecution history of the application. You can click on each individual document listed to trace the communication between the PTO and the applicant's attorney. Specifically, you can look at the 04-21-2006 Notice of Allowance (the 4-page version) to see that claims 21, 23, and 24 were allowed. You can look at the 03-07-2006 document "claims" to see what these claims recite. Those are the claims that were allowed.

Also, you might note that MPEP 1901.04 indicates that you can't file a protest after a Notice of Allowance has been issued.

- littlebluedog

You're linking to the published application, which is much different than the amended application. None of the claims in the published application have been allowed.

Go here and do a search for Publication Number 20050022023 to find the prosecution history of the application. You can click on each individual document listed to trace the communication between the PTO and the applicant's attorney. Specifically, you can look at the 04-21-2006 Notice of Allowance (the 4-page version) to see that claims 21, 23, and 24 were allowed. You can look at the 03-07-2006 document "claims" to see what these claims recite. Those are the claims that were allowed.

Also, you might note that MPEP 1901.04 indicates that you can't file a protest after a Notice of Allowance has been issued.

- littlebluedog

I have a design for a device that is inevitable, and could be made with today's technology. The problem is that I have no idea how to get a patent, it just seems to complex for me to figure out.

Assuming you're filing in the US, you can do it all online. I've not done it personally, so I have no idea how easy or difficult it actually is, but you should be able to find enough information to get it done if you really wanted to.

I have a design for a device that is inevitable, and could be made with today's technology. The problem is that I have no idea how to get a patent, it just seems to complex for me to figure out.

Assuming you're filing in the US, you can do it all online. I've not done it personally, so I have no idea how easy or difficult it actually is, but you should be able to find enough information to get it done if you really wanted to.

20 years, actually. Sony could license the patent, but I doubt Nintendo and MS would like the idea of paying license money to their competitor for every console sold.

Info is below, and besides, doesn't this recent US patent, kind of fit MySpace?
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,069,308. PN.&OS=PN/7,069,308&RS=PN/7,069,308

It sure sounds alot like it's describing much of what myspace is, and myspace is a "deleware company" in the US and subject to US laws.

As for their kind fondness of spyware, see the citations below for more info.
Birds of a feather they say.

http://www.intermixedup.com/

"Intermix Management and other Insiders sold approximately $25 million of Intermix stock in full knowledge that the New York State Attorney General (NY-AG), Eliot Spitzer, would soon file a lawsuit against the company for
certain adware promotion activity. Management and Insiders sold vast quantities of stock before disclosing this critical information appropriately to the rest of the marketplace. "

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bloggers_investigate_s ocial_networking_websites

"Actually, MySpace had simply shut down and become ResponseBase-- as evidenced by the "Freebies" newsletter above. ResponseBase also used a list of 8 million e-mail addresses purchased from Xdrive for their newsletters. In 2002, ResponseBase was booted from their ISP as an illicit spam organization-- with Tom Anderson himself listed as their billing contact. And later still, ResponseBase would be renamed to MySpace."

"Intermix Media itself has a tangled history. In 2004, Intermix (then operating as eUniverse) was named as a spammer organization on USENET. It purchased ResponseBase, shut down its operations, and reformed it as MySpace. On April 28, 2005, Intermix was sued by the State of New York for installing malicious spyware over the Internet. According to their press release:"

I found the patent that EpicRealm holds. It was filed in 1999.
EpicRealm patent

Basically, the patent is about the web server receiving a request, and handing the request off to a page server. The page server finishes the request and responds to the client while the web server continues to handle other requests.

This sounds very similar to many web applications in use today (J2EE, ASP.net, etc.). There are usually a few processes running with J2EE (the one I'm most familiar with). One handles the HTTP requests and then hands it off to another process to dynamically create the web page. The second processes send the generated page back to the HTTP processes, which sends it to the client. In the meantime, the HTTP process could have been handling other HTTP requests.

For the parent poster: nice rant, but totally off the mark. Read the patent next time -- TFA's description (which the summary copied) is wrong. If the editors aren't going to do the research, that means you have to.

For the rest of the /. crowd, here is the first claim:

1. A computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server, said computer-implemented method comprising the steps of:<br>
..routing a request from a Web server to a page server, said page server receiving said request and releasing said Web server to process other requests wherein said routing step further includes the steps of:
....intercepting said request at said Web server and routing said request to said page server;
....processing said request, said processing being performed by said page server while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests; and
....dynamically generating a Web page in response to said request, said Web page including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources.

The reporter is at least partially right, this isn't DHTML. It looks to me like they are letting the 'web server' handle static requests while forwarding dynamic requests to a 'page server'. How this wasn't anticipated by load balancing is beyond me, but hey, I'm not being paid to figure it out.

US5894554

US6415335

Though in truth they are pretty vague.

US5894554

US6415335

Though in truth they are pretty vague.

The "Six Degrees Patent," #6,175,831, was sold for $700,000 to LinkedIn and Tribe.net in 2003. It was supposed to be the social networking patent. Can anyone that understands these things compare the two and explain the differences?

This patent is idiotic.

I think we all agree on that here...

Even a basic message forum is a social network.

...but a basic message forum doesn't track people by relationships, which is what the patent describes:

A method and apparatus for calculating, displaying and acting upon relationships in a social network is described. A computer system collects descriptive data about various individuals and allows those individuals to indicate other individuals with whom they have a personal relationship. The descriptive data and the relationship data are integrated and processed to reveal the series of social relationships connecting any two individuals within a social network. The pathways connecting any two individuals can be displayed. Further, the social network itself can be displayed to any number of degrees of separation. A user of the system can determine the optimal relationship path (i.e., contact pathway) to reach desired individuals. A communications tool allows individuals in the system to be introduced (or introduce themselves) and initiate direct communication. [emphasis added]

That's well beyond the scope of IRC or message boards. Slashdot's friends/foes system goes a little bit in that direction, but only handles one degree at a time from what I can tell. Same with, say, LiveJournal's friends system. The abstract does, however, describe exactly the model I remember Six Degrees promoting back in the late 1990s.

That's not true. Once a patent is granted you have the rights for 20 years, after applying you are protected because your application is on file.

That's what the term "patent pending" is used for.
If you infringe someone while they have a patent pending and the patent is granted you can still be sued.

here is a small quote from this government FAQ

"1. What do the terms "patent pending" and "patent applied for" mean?

A. They are used by a manufacturer or seller of an article to inform the public that an application for patent on that article is on file in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The law imposes a fine on those who use these terms falsely to deceive the public. "

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/f aq.htm

The USPTO's toll-free number is 800 786-9199 (free call anywhere in the US). They're really friendly people, and you'll get a human waaaay faster than you can, even in person, at the USPS.

The patent examiner for this application is Syed Zia, and their phone number is 571-272-3798.

This patent is about to be issued, ACT QUICKLY, DAMMIT!. You need to file a protest as outlined in Chapter 1,900 of the Manual for Patent Exam Procedure with the USPTO. When you do, it is vital that you also send a copy to the NRL's council at the following address as well:

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL (PATENTS)
CODE 1008.2
4555 OVERLOOK AVENUE, S.W.
WASHINGTON DC
20375-5320
US

This patent could be issued without protest if you don't act now! Move all Slashdot for great justice ! Take off every protest ! You know what you doing ! Move Zig ! Or all your patent will belong to us !

I don't think one should be able to get a patent on the idea of an intermittent wiper. A particular implementation, sure.

I tend to agree (although general concepts that are obvious are sometimes only so in retrospect). In any case, I glanced at the actual patent in question and based on a cursory skim, it appears that it does pertain to a specific implementation -- for instance, the application talks about how many capacitors, zener diodes, etc the apparatus requires.

I had the idea of a wiper that would automatically do one wipe based on a sensor that would determine how fast the rain was falling.

Yes, rain-sensing wipers are nice (and have been around for years). In some countries they seem to be standard equipment on all cars (e.g., the econobox I rented in Scotland once had 'em).

Doing it manually is actually a step BACKWARD from what I "invented".

Not sure what your point is considering that Kearns' patent application was filed in 1969. I suspect the sensors required to build an economically feasible rain-sensing wiper didn't exist then.

"A normal innovator cannot afford a patent, .."
BS
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2006 may15.htm#patapp

A utility patents for a small entitity is 150.00

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,101,502.PN.&OS=PN/6, 101,502&RS=PN/6,101,502

and

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7 _0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_ 0_1ET/.p/5_0_18L/.d/1?selectedTab=fileHistorytab&i sSubmitted=isSubmitted&dosnum=09161028#7_0_1ET

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,101,502.PN.&OS=PN/6, 101,502&RS=PN/6,101,502

and

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7 _0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_ 0_1ET/.p/5_0_18L/.d/1?selectedTab=fileHistorytab&i sSubmitted=isSubmitted&dosnum=09161028#7_0_1ET

Someone should get the patents that apply to the US Patent and Trademark Office site and database system and sue them!

Patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5032989.PN.&OS=PN/50329 89&RS=PN/5032989 Summary http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_i d=2031