Slashdot Mirror

I agree. I have always had a problem with Paul Graham because he is somebody who holds to situational morality - that is, his principles are negotiable depending on the situation he is in. The limits of what he considers acceptable go precisely to the limits of what he has already determined to do. In this essay he talks about how you have to patent because everybody else will - that it is acceptable because it is necessary, in his view. Things are only ever unacceptable to him if he has not found those things necessary in the course of his own activities.

Principles are only meaningful when you hold to them even when it is inconvenient to do so.

Let's take a look at Paul Graham's patents:

• Search engine using sales and revenue to weight search results;
• Remote web site authoring system and method (2);
• Remote web site authoring system and method (1); and
• Method for client-server communications through a minimal interface.

I see nothing there that is genuinely so innovative it deserves monopoly protection against others who might independently invent the same thing. At least one is blindingly obvious on its face, and the others seem to be nothing more than using natural combinations of existing uses ("next step in the road" type patents).

I agree. I have always had a problem with Paul Graham because he is somebody who holds to situational morality - that is, his principles are negotiable depending on the situation he is in. The limits of what he considers acceptable go precisely to the limits of what he has already determined to do. In this essay he talks about how you have to patent because everybody else will - that it is acceptable because it is necessary, in his view. Things are only ever unacceptable to him if he has not found those things necessary in the course of his own activities.

Principles are only meaningful when you hold to them even when it is inconvenient to do so.

Let's take a look at Paul Graham's patents:

• Search engine using sales and revenue to weight search results;
• Remote web site authoring system and method (2);
• Remote web site authoring system and method (1); and
• Method for client-server communications through a minimal interface.

I see nothing there that is genuinely so innovative it deserves monopoly protection against others who might independently invent the same thing. At least one is blindingly obvious on its face, and the others seem to be nothing more than using natural combinations of existing uses ("next step in the road" type patents).

I agree. I have always had a problem with Paul Graham because he is somebody who holds to situational morality - that is, his principles are negotiable depending on the situation he is in. The limits of what he considers acceptable go precisely to the limits of what he has already determined to do. In this essay he talks about how you have to patent because everybody else will - that it is acceptable because it is necessary, in his view. Things are only ever unacceptable to him if he has not found those things necessary in the course of his own activities.

Principles are only meaningful when you hold to them even when it is inconvenient to do so.

Let's take a look at Paul Graham's patents:

• Search engine using sales and revenue to weight search results;
• Remote web site authoring system and method (2);
• Remote web site authoring system and method (1); and
• Method for client-server communications through a minimal interface.

I see nothing there that is genuinely so innovative it deserves monopoly protection against others who might independently invent the same thing. At least one is blindingly obvious on its face, and the others seem to be nothing more than using natural combinations of existing uses ("next step in the road" type patents).

What most likely happened is one of his applications was claiming multiple inventions,

What most likely happened is one of his applications was claiming multiple inventions,

Couple thoughts as a previous big co. acquirer and with some experience in the patent arena.

As a big company... I've worked for a few Fortune 500 companies that have done extensive acquisitions and as a 'big company' guy, the concept that patents are solely used as a chip for negotiations is a naive statement. When buying the assets of a business, the patents and trademarks are typically the ones that last. Many entrepreneurs (I should know as I am one now) are interested in cashing in and as a result, an acquiring business cannot solely look to relationships or know-how for value, so IP is what's left. If you really have a truly unique idea/product/service, then protecting it should be stupid-easy (and with luck, people will say it was obvious 10 years later because of its streamlined solution :P).

Patent novelty is an issue in need of resolve... I don't believe in quantity over quality as Paul Graham might suggest, but I do believe in quantity to be successful. The process is age old - find needs, solve problems, research for current solutions and protect the best ideas. Getting quality patents should be easier now since more data is available. The USPTO and the market really do have a new set of options to consider (e.g. peer reviews, more collaboration amongst reviewers). Slashdot members can find novelty, or lack thereof, in a topic in less than 30 minutes - why can't the USPTO? With a production-line environment at the PTO, it is hard for patent agents to get a fair chance to research technology and be rewarded for deep tenure in a field. We should avoid thinking of this as 'patent reform', but rather as funding the system approapriately given the systems explosive growth.

In the end, patent ownership, like land ownership, has rights and benefits that shouldn't be reduced to a simplistic version of cold war analogies of large companies determining our fates. The patent system should level the playing field and give small guys and individuals a chance to have rights. BTW, if we should ever be worried about the small guy, now is the time. Individual inventors' patent issuance has decreased every year since 1999 - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/i nv_utl.htm

CSorice

That is certainly not the case.
UPS probably has a "composite trademark" on the logo on a brown background for their particular class

...it's patented. (and Turing is spinning in his grave...)

the United Parcel Service has a trademark on the color brown,but only in the context of being a worldwide delivery service

17. The apparatus of claim 13, in which the decoding means comprises:

a means for receiving a compressed digital video signal comprising at least one DC coefficient representation related to the video signal;

a means for producing an estimated DC coefficient in response to a coding type signal; and

a means for producing a decoded DC coefficient signal in response to the DC coefficient representation and the estimated DC coefficient.

From an earlier poster :
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=5,227,878.WKU.&OS=PN /5,227,878&RS=PN/5,227,878

The patent covers ( at least in part ) ideas concerning ways to encode/decode video frames.

As far as I can tell the patent does not specify whether the invention is implemented as an apparatus composed of genuine circuits, or an apparatus composed of a certain program loaded into a general purpose processor.

IANAL: The patent seems to cover the `ideas' of MPEG-2, not just a mere implementation. That an implementation is created in the logic of a general purpose computer instead of a more specific hardware device seems irrelevant.

The odds of anyone creating the device as a purely analog system seems low to me, though I will not doubt it is possible. More likely than not, the MPEG-2 ideas have always, including by inventor, been implemented in a device which internally ran them loaded from memory ( including the possibility of static write once memory ) on a general purpose processor.

It seems that any `software v. hardware' is not relevant to the topic, as the patent would cover either.

You point out the hardware vendors had previously been sued, but I counter that it was due to components in their products provided by Microsoft. As far as I am aware, Microsoft only provides software to Dell and Gateway. Hence this filing has always been against software, making it very relevant to both mplayer and the like.

Hahaha. You made my day. That patent has 33 claims total. That's chickenfeed. Here's one with 341 claims. Yeah, more than 10 times as many as in that other patent. BTW, this is one of the infamous NTP patents. Welcome to patent litigation hell.

"MPEG2 and all MPEG related standards are "owned" by MPEG LA, who licenses the technology. It would be one thing if Microsoft deployed a product with MPEG2 playback capabilities without paying the license, but then where is Lucent in all this? Is this some crappy dredge up of a vague compression scheme like Unisys pulled?"

The patent covers one implemntation of encoding/decoding MPEG2 video, not the actual formating of the data in the file like the UNISYS case. The lawsuit is definately real and it looks like Microsoft is going to be handing a wad-o-cash to Lucent for this.

Think what would have happened if Jack Bresenham had patented all of his work...

Yep, the linked article is unfortunately pretty light on both detail and factual accuracy. A much better source of information, with a reference to Lucent's patent is available here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30743.

The patent being disputed is available here

Still, the original GamerNode link for this story is an amusing read, with gems such as, "Lucent claims that Microsoft has violated copyright patent laws". Uh.. What is a 'copyright patent law'? Are they trying to say that Lucent has the copyright on the patent laws? Or are they just confused about the difference between these two relatively unrelated concepts?

It's 20 years I do believe.

For those who like to read such things, the patent is right here.

It is long. Very, very long.

What is the duration in other countries?

Twenty years. (btw, that's twenty years from the filing of the patent application, not from issuance of the patent.)

That's the minimum patent term required under the WTO TRIPs agreement.

look here:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/wipo 26mar2002.htm

and search for TRIPs.

I think it's colloquially called "reinventing the wheel" in these boroughs.

No, I think you missed the point. You can easily get around a patent by using a little creativity. For example, Barnes & Noble was able to get around Amazon's (stupid) one-click patent by adding a confirm page. If you are creative, then there is going to be a way around the patent.

With that said, I agree that there are a lot of absurd patents. And I think business method patents aren't even worth the paper they are printed on. There is a large backlash against these types of patents that is currently ongoing though (thank god).

This is a good patent. It tells how to grow a layer of gallium nitride crystals on silicon substrates (disclaimer: I am a former employee). While it may not seem like a lot, silicon power transistors for wireless applications only work to about 2.5 GHz. Gallium Nitride power transistors work at higher voltages, higher temperatures, and higher frequencies. And the company has spent over $50M developing this technology.

Now before you ask where its implemented, realize that high power RF transistors technology take a long time to even get designed into a system. And thats a long time before there is even actual implementation. And a long time before you most likely even consider buying into the implementation.

Look, there needs to be patent reform. But dismissing patents outright achieves no results. I only hope that one day people will realize that all patents aren't all created equally.

But society appreciates ingenuity and creativity. There is going to be a design-around for the patent, you just have to use your wits to figure it out.

I think it's colloquially called "reinventing the wheel" in these boroughs.

[...]the whole anti-patent attitude lacks any true discussion on the merits of the patent system.

Then show me. I have never seen intelligent or sane of mind patents in my life. Maybe because I see the extreme examples like the combover patent, but also in my field of work I still have not seen a patent worth taking seriously. For example, this one and this one, other than demonstrating how poorly patents are screened, since they are about the same thing really, are fatally flawed and describe an apparatus that cannot work: you cannot control the power output of a fuel cell by changing the air flow into it any more than you can control the speed of your car by changing the gasoline level in your tank. Quite tellingly, no actual prototype has been presented.

I am not excluding that there is a legitimate use of patents (likely the one originally envisioned by Jefferson & Co.), but it seems to me there is more abuse than use. The baby's drowned in the bath water.

But society appreciates ingenuity and creativity. There is going to be a design-around for the patent, you just have to use your wits to figure it out.

I think it's colloquially called "reinventing the wheel" in these boroughs.

[...]the whole anti-patent attitude lacks any true discussion on the merits of the patent system.

Then show me. I have never seen intelligent or sane of mind patents in my life. Maybe because I see the extreme examples like the combover patent, but also in my field of work I still have not seen a patent worth taking seriously. For example, this one and this one, other than demonstrating how poorly patents are screened, since they are about the same thing really, are fatally flawed and describe an apparatus that cannot work: you cannot control the power output of a fuel cell by changing the air flow into it any more than you can control the speed of your car by changing the gasoline level in your tank. Quite tellingly, no actual prototype has been presented.

I am not excluding that there is a legitimate use of patents (likely the one originally envisioned by Jefferson & Co.), but it seems to me there is more abuse than use. The baby's drowned in the bath water.

But society appreciates ingenuity and creativity. There is going to be a design-around for the patent, you just have to use your wits to figure it out.

I think it's colloquially called "reinventing the wheel" in these boroughs.

[...]the whole anti-patent attitude lacks any true discussion on the merits of the patent system.

Then show me. I have never seen intelligent or sane of mind patents in my life. Maybe because I see the extreme examples like the combover patent, but also in my field of work I still have not seen a patent worth taking seriously. For example, this one and this one, other than demonstrating how poorly patents are screened, since they are about the same thing really, are fatally flawed and describe an apparatus that cannot work: you cannot control the power output of a fuel cell by changing the air flow into it any more than you can control the speed of your car by changing the gasoline level in your tank. Quite tellingly, no actual prototype has been presented.

I am not excluding that there is a legitimate use of patents (likely the one originally envisioned by Jefferson & Co.), but it seems to me there is more abuse than use. The baby's drowned in the bath water.

Now, with a more desireable mouth melt! mmmmm :-)

Yeah, 1987 is old, but I wanted a cookie example unrelated to "non-obvious inventions" about persisting web-browser session state.

United States Patent: 4,664,921
Seiden, May 12, 1987

"Dual-textured cookie products containing narrow melting range shortenings"

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION "Traditionally, fresh homebaked cookes have exhibited a slightly crisp outer surface texture and a chewy, more ductile interior, while commercially prepared cookies have exhibited only a single texture, in most cases relatively hard and crisp. A recent development in the cookie industry is a storage-stable, crumb continuous dual texture cookie which closely approximates homemade yet does not deteriorate when stored in a warehouse or on a store shelf for reasonable periods of time.

Abstract "This invention comprises crumb-continuous cookie products having distributed therein discrete regions of storage-stable crisp texture and discrete regions of storage-stable chewy texture in which the crisp regions contain a shortening having an SCl at 21.degree. C. of from about 14.0 to about 20.0 and an SCl at 33.degree. C. of from about 0.0 to about 8.0 and the chewy regions contain a shortening having an SCl at 21.degree. C. of from about 12.0 to about 18.0 and an SCl at 33.degree. C. of below about 2.0. The shortening system having these melting characteristics provides a more tender crumb texture, more desirable mouthmelt and dissipation and better flavor display in the cookie."

Recipe Excerpt "The use of beta prime stable shortening for cookies, while not essential to the production of an acceptable cookie, is greatly preferred. If a shortening which is unstable in the beta prime form, for example, partially hydrogenated Canola oil, is used, the initially small beta prime crystals will gradually transform into large and higher melting agglomerates of beta crystals. The high melting large and grainy beta crystals detrimentally affect the taste and mouthmelt of the cookie. To produce cookies with good mouthmelt and dissipation and flavor display that will retain these characteristics under adverse storage conditions, it is greatly preferred that the solid glycerides present remain predominantly in the beta-prime form."

"diligent technologies": 0 patents.

Its easy to suggest solutions to problems you don't understand. Patents are for the general public because they are vested to the public after a term of years. Otherwise, the idea might have never been released. This is the tradeoff, you disclose your novel idea to the public, and you get a limited monopoly on the idea. Its not unreasonable at all, especially if you spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing the idea.

Unlike some of those that have commented in this thread, I am not categorically against patents. I do however think that the public's part of the bargain has become too small for some categories of patents - especially with regards to business processes and pure software. 17 years of monopoly on commercial exploitation of an idea seems a bit absurd when the idea in question should be rather obvious to a practitioner in that particular field. The number of examples of 'patently silly' patents out there suggests that the obviousness test is way too low in too many cases, and I also think certain types of patents should have a shorter term of protection.

Not to mention that patents are written for lawyers and not for practitioners - the LZW patent is of little use to a programmer that wants to understand how the LZW compression algorithm works. One usable reform would be to require the patent to contain a description of the invention that is actually usable for a practitioner in that field.

It is patented, in fact its part of the same patent.

From the patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1 &f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=7,024,381&OS=+7,024,381&RS=7,0 24,381
5. "Max Turns"
According to one embodiment, a "Max Turns" approach is used to rent items to customers. According to the "Max Turns" approach, up to a specified number of item exchanges may be performed during a specified period of time. For example, referring to FIG. 1, suppose that provider 104 agrees to rent items to customer 102 with a "Max Turns" limit of three items per month. This means that customer 102 may make up to three item exchanges per month. This approach may be implemented independent of the number of items that a customer may have rented at any given time under the "Max Out" approach. The approach is also independent of the particular item delivery criteria used.
According to one embodiment, the "Max Turns" approach is implemented in combination with the "Max Out" approach to rent items to customers. In this situation, up to a specified number of total items are simultaneously rented to customer 102 and up to a specified number of item exchanges may be made during a specified period of time. Thus, using the "Max Out" and the "Max Turns" approaches together essentially establishes a personal item inventory for customer 102 based upon the "Max Out" limit that may be periodically refreshed based upon the "Max Turns" limit selected.

Which brings up a point, since its obviously part of there business model, isn't it false advertising that they dont inform you of this.

Those examples (queueing, subscription payments) wouldn't / shouldn't be patentable, as there is clear prior art.

Well, you'd think that, but while I'm sure that people have been playing with cats with flashlights since flashlights were invented, the USPTO issued a famous patent for Method of Exercising a Cat.

How about a side-to-side Method of swinging on a swing? I don't know about you, but I claim prior art from my childhood.

Personally, if I were Blockbuster, I'd take advantage of the way the patent office considers an invention thats just slightly different from an original claim as a new invention and patent a few variants on Netflix's original patent that try to anticipate where Netflix might take their business model and then countersue them to insist on patent cross-licensing.

Those examples (queueing, subscription payments) wouldn't / shouldn't be patentable, as there is clear prior art.

Well, you'd think that, but while I'm sure that people have been playing with cats with flashlights since flashlights were invented, the USPTO issued a famous patent for Method of Exercising a Cat.

How about a side-to-side Method of swinging on a swing? I don't know about you, but I claim prior art from my childhood.

Personally, if I were Blockbuster, I'd take advantage of the way the patent office considers an invention thats just slightly different from an original claim as a new invention and patent a few variants on Netflix's original patent that try to anticipate where Netflix might take their business model and then countersue them to insist on patent cross-licensing.

Oh, and before everyone goes all apeshit on people who patent things in order to protect their business interests, please go here here and run the following search:

in/torvalds

Here's claim 1:

1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
tuning said TV signals to a specific program;
providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components;
storing said video and audio components on a storage device;
providing at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device;
wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream;
wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder;
wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals;
wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and
accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream.

why not read the patent before posting?
it is U.S. Patent 6,233,389

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,233,389.WKU.&OS=PN/6,233,389&RS =PN/6,233,389

People do NOT pay for development of shareware games that contain any reasonable amount of work compared to the commercial releases. Cutting off commercial games would effectively kill games-as-we-know-them. As you note, due to the possibility of actually hindering copying of online access, that genre would probably live on.

Fashion designs use a special kind of patent known as a "design patent": http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/design/defini tion.html#difference

Recipies are *cheap* to create. I create about two per day, on average. While doing other things. Comparing them to other forms of "Intellectual property" need careful compensation for this factor.

My conclusion is that copyright is a business case in many cases; it also block a lot of other business cases. Attempting to totally land on one side of that fence is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest. The real question is: Which tradeoff gives us the best society?

Eivind.

It's bad news because it isn't innovation. Remember, the inventor does not have to be the person who submits the patent. Take this patent for example; a patent on comb-overs for bald people! That's not innovation. That's a guy who wants to make money from sueing the crap out of others. Or how about this?(a patent on swinging side to side on a swingset). Or this? (well, ok, a paddle-wheel plane is innovative, but I wouldn't want to fly it). Or this? (a device for moistening stamps: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue")

It's bad news because it isn't innovation. Remember, the inventor does not have to be the person who submits the patent. Take this patent for example; a patent on comb-overs for bald people! That's not innovation. That's a guy who wants to make money from sueing the crap out of others. Or how about this?(a patent on swinging side to side on a swingset). Or this? (well, ok, a paddle-wheel plane is innovative, but I wouldn't want to fly it). Or this? (a device for moistening stamps: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue")

It's bad news because it isn't innovation. Remember, the inventor does not have to be the person who submits the patent. Take this patent for example; a patent on comb-overs for bald people! That's not innovation. That's a guy who wants to make money from sueing the crap out of others. Or how about this?(a patent on swinging side to side on a swingset). Or this? (well, ok, a paddle-wheel plane is innovative, but I wouldn't want to fly it). Or this? (a device for moistening stamps: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue")

It's bad news because it isn't innovation. Remember, the inventor does not have to be the person who submits the patent. Take this patent for example; a patent on comb-overs for bald people! That's not innovation. That's a guy who wants to make money from sueing the crap out of others. Or how about this?(a patent on swinging side to side on a swingset). Or this? (well, ok, a paddle-wheel plane is innovative, but I wouldn't want to fly it). Or this? (a device for moistening stamps: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue")

As noted elsewhere, ALL browser plug-in architectures are vulnerable (the reason TBL got involved in the first place). IE was just the first target because 1) they didn't license it (actually thumbed their noses at it), and 2) they have the largest market share. Mozilla could be hit at any point Eolas feels like it.

I have to confess that I find patent-ese virtually unreadable, but from reading the patent document, I get the impression that every embedded Web-based technology is subject to it. The possible exceptions seem to be that the patent specifically describes (I think) compiled applications (computer readable program code) and ongoing interprocess communication between the browser, the plugin, and the server.

Then again, it could be a patent for "process by which to make money using lawsuits".

Microsoft is trying to patent the double click. Duh!

I think there is significant merit in the fact that this patent focuses on wireless access where previous incarnations were wired. The USPTO seems to agree. Read the Background section on application. This is most definitely about wireless access. Indeed, it seems to me that the entire raison d'etre for this one particular patent is that wireless access is too expensive, and therefore roll-out and adoption has been slow. Looks like they aim to address that with ad-based wireless. They obviously want to protect themselves by securing a patent.

Whether more people with WiFi access and broader wireless roll-out are intrisincally "good" or not, I don't really know. Seems like a nice thing to me, even if it does have the evil stigma of patents surrounding it (disclaimer: I've got 19 applications currently pending). But if Google brought unpatented, ad-based, free WiFi to a couple hundred thousand people in San Diego (for example) and another company patented that service out from under them and aimed to charge a fee, would that be "better" than Google never having had filed a patent at all? Seems to me there's some folks wouldn't mind having that guarantee that their free WiFi wouldn't be going away. I guess it boils down to trust. I trust the ads or whatever will be fairly unobtrusive.

Your statements about demographic databases and spending habits are non sequitur, and I'm unsure how they're on-topic or how they relate the patents discussed in the story.

-B

Google does own the patents, as the filing employees assigned them to Google. Evil.

You could infer that, but it would be a faulty inference. You could also infer, if you RTFA, from TFA's statement "Google, however, noted its patent applications ". Or you could have actually looked up the patents, and seen that Google is assigned the patents by its filers, its ex/employees.

Try to Read The Friendly Article before presuming so much in public.

By the number assigned to them they have 15.

Let see patent 20060058019 if for changing your browser display to show the vendor or ad, Cisco has been providing this for years. The only thing that may make it different is that it requires that it is for free access.
Then 20060059044 in there words "the appearance of a screen presented on the client device is modified to reflect the bran associated with a provider of the access point. " This is what was seen in free dial-up services a long time ago, only difference now it is wireless.
Finally 20060059043 is one to provide free access by displaying ads. Again this was done at various times through dial-up and cable organizations.
It should not rate a patent to get something that was done under dial-up and cable and change it to wireless.

Let see patent 20060058019 if for changing your browser display to show the vendor or ad, Cisco has been providing this for years. The only thing that may make it different is that it requires that it is for free access.
Then 20060059044 in there words "the appearance of a screen presented on the client device is modified to reflect the bran associated with a provider of the access point. " This is what was seen in free dial-up services a long time ago, only difference now it is wireless.
Finally 20060059043 is one to provide free access by displaying ads. Again this was done at various times through dial-up and cable organizations.
It should not rate a patent to get something that was done under dial-up and cable and change it to wireless.

Let see patent 20060058019 if for changing your browser display to show the vendor or ad, Cisco has been providing this for years. The only thing that may make it different is that it requires that it is for free access.
Then 20060059044 in there words "the appearance of a screen presented on the client device is modified to reflect the bran associated with a provider of the access point. " This is what was seen in free dial-up services a long time ago, only difference now it is wireless.
Finally 20060059043 is one to provide free access by displaying ads. Again this was done at various times through dial-up and cable organizations.
It should not rate a patent to get something that was done under dial-up and cable and change it to wireless.

35 USC 271 enables a patent holder to sue people who "use" a patented product, in addition to people to make and sell it. So, MS could sue both the makers and distributors of Linux (who have no money), or big companies who use linux (who have lots of money). As stated in other comments, this is a FUD attack by MS to scare big companies from using linux and being subjected to patent infringement suits.

...including many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies, like double clicks.

...including many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies, like double clicks.

Microsoft's double-click patent only applies to buttons on handhelds (or, as they word it : "limited resource computing device", and later "Small, mobile computing devices, such as personal desktop assistants including hand-held and palm-type computers and the like").
And if I interprete the patent correctly, even then, only to physical buttons.

And I still think that the patent is bogus.
(You know, it's an innovation because ... well ... everybody did this, but never on ... well, you know ... small, portable computers. Yeah, there, it's a complet novelty.)

Because there's a little thing called trademark law, which allows people to build brands within particular industry segments and (more to the point) allows consumers to know that if they bought Brand X photocopiers last week and had a good experience, Brand X photocopiers this week probably come from the same company and may result in the same experience. As I tell my law students, "trademark law is about identifying the source of goods or services in commerce." You can also see the information on the USPTO Web site.

Trademark law is about consumer confusion, and in fact, trademark cases often hinge on surveys of actual consumers.

One little hook about trademark law--the industry segments thing is crucial. A few years ago, a restaurant in New York City opened, calling itself Godzilla Sushi. Unfortunately, Toho, the Japanese company that made the Godzilla movies and owns the trademark, had a registration (now expired) for the mark in the same international category of goods that included restaurants. Today, Godzilla Sushi is Monster Sushi.

Because there's a little thing called trademark law, which allows people to build brands within particular industry segments and (more to the point) allows consumers to know that if they bought Brand X photocopiers last week and had a good experience, Brand X photocopiers this week probably come from the same company and may result in the same experience. As I tell my law students, "trademark law is about identifying the source of goods or services in commerce." You can also see the information on the USPTO Web site.

Trademark law is about consumer confusion, and in fact, trademark cases often hinge on surveys of actual consumers.

One little hook about trademark law--the industry segments thing is crucial. A few years ago, a restaurant in New York City opened, calling itself Godzilla Sushi. Unfortunately, Toho, the Japanese company that made the Godzilla movies and owns the trademark, had a registration (now expired) for the mark in the same international category of goods that included restaurants. Today, Godzilla Sushi is Monster Sushi.