Slashdot Mirror

Methods and apparatus for transporting digital audio-related signals over point-to-point, non-circuit-switched, non-packet-based, local area connections. In one example, multiple digital audio-related signals are combined as a time division multiplexed (TDM) serial bit stream. In addition to the one or more multiplexed digital audio-related signals, the TDM serial bit stream also may be encoded with other information that pertains to one or more of the digital audio-related signals being multiplexed (e.g., data rates of the signals, various data type or status information, timing or other synchronization information, etc.). In one aspect, the TDM serial bit stream is transmitted and received via conventional packet-based network physical layer transceivers (e.g., Ethernet transceivers) that are particularly configured and controlled to transmit and receive essentially continuous bit streams rather than data packets.

"With their patent-pending method of writing to the hard drive HD24 and HD24XR are the first hard disk recorders built from the ground up"

So, go look up the patent (not need to do any reverse engineering and send it off to someone who lives in a country that doesn't have software patents. They will then be free to write a driver, but you won't be able to because you live in the US and have silly patent laws.

They may try and sue your arse if you send them a linux driver and ask them distribute it because you've already infringed upon their patent.

Note, it looks like the patent is still pending as none of the patents listed seem to be for a file system.

"With their patent-pending method of writing to the hard drive HD24 and HD24XR are the first hard disk recorders built from the ground up"

So, go look up the patent (not need to do any reverse engineering and send it off to someone who lives in a country that doesn't have software patents. They will then be free to write a driver, but you won't be able to because you live in the US and have silly patent laws.

They may try and sue your arse if you send them a linux driver and ask them distribute it because you've already infringed upon their patent.

Note, it looks like the patent is still pending as none of the patents listed seem to be for a file system.

"With their patent-pending method of writing to the hard drive HD24 and HD24XR are the first hard disk recorders built from the ground up"

So, go look up the patent (not need to do any reverse engineering and send it off to someone who lives in a country that doesn't have software patents. They will then be free to write a driver, but you won't be able to because you live in the US and have silly patent laws.

They may try and sue your arse if you send them a linux driver and ask them distribute it because you've already infringed upon their patent.

Note, it looks like the patent is still pending as none of the patents listed seem to be for a file system.

Or maybe it'll have VoIP like Metroid Prime Hunters or maybe something better http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=nintendo. AS.&OS=AN/nintendo&RS=AN/nintendo/

But you can patent it! (at least in the US)

They didn't patent such a broad idea. They did however patent stuff related to how RIM chose to deliver email (a push method instead of a poll) to its wireless device.

Patent 5,625,670.

Go down to Claim 1. I don't see where this claim says that the information is specifically transmitted without receiving a request from the wireless device.

Besides...let's even assume that you're right.

This is basically the same thing that any system with a mail server on it with a wireless connection running to that server would do.

Fidonet, UCCP, etc were all push. It's a pretty safe bet that running it over a wireless connection was both not that groundbreaking of an idea and actually done by people (particularly UUCP).

What the predecessor to NTP did was demonstrate a workable system in the late 80s/early 90s, before all that infrastructure was in place.

Let's take a look at this, because I think that I have a very different take on software patents than you do.

The earliest patent number I see here is 5,438,611.

That patent was granted August 1, 1995, and the application filed May 23, 1994.

Ricochet was already a commercial product in 1994. So, even ignoring the fact that I don't think that there's any benefit in granting patents on this stuff, the "infrastructure" certainly *was* in place. This was not an idea that nobody could or was coming up with.

He tried to bring it to market. He had a deal almost done with IBM, even demonstrated it at trade shows. His company was liquidated after the IBM deal fell threw, but was left with the patent portfolio.

"Almost done", huh?

He didn't sell it to them. IBM decided that they didn't want it. Unless you were involved in the negotiations *on IBM's side*, I don't see how you can have any idea how close they were. As it turns out, given how well Ricochet did, IBM probably was making a reasonable choice.

Several years later, RIM came on the scene and developed a workable system based on his technology.

And this is relevant to IBM how? How do you claim it is "based on his technology"? Are you claiming that RIM would not have had the 'revolutionary' idea of a wireless email device sans this guy, and that they proceeded to steal his idea?

What this guy did, if it had value (since I sure didn't see it) would have been in the device's design itself. The idea was neither groundbreaking nor unexpected.

He offered a license for $4 million.

Suppose you design, build, market, and make successful a cool gadget. Why should you hand $4M to every guy that walks up and demands money? Maybe he wanted to make a similar product in the same timeframe, okay, but he didn't.

Furthermore, at $100K a year (which, I think, is a darn good salary), and even ignoring inflation, what is being demanded is 40 years -- an entire working lifetime -- of salary. Even had RIM directly run out of one of his demos, said "Let's steal this idea" (and I don't have evidence that they didn't, but I doubt that you have evidence that they did), you're talking about nothing other than making a wireless computer access email. Does that take *forty years* of work to come up with this design?

RIM didn't even bother to respond, because they were too busy driving competitors out of the market using their own patents.

That may be true. I'm not familiar with RIM's IP background, and I'd be more than happy to see RIM not able to go after people with their patents either.

After RIM repeatedly blew him off, he got pissed and sued.

He demanded $4M, and RIM didn't bite. Okay.

RIM's lawyers were caught falsifying evidence. They still wouldn't pay the licensing. He started raising his price.

RIM's lawyers apparently put some sort of newer software on an '87 device. I have no further information on it. It may be that the outdated software was no longer available, and they just used the current version -- even though the original client could have performed the same tasks. It may have been that email couldn't be sent at *all* with that version. I don't have any knowledge about the specifics, and I doubt that you do either.

However, this is still breaking away from my point, which is that I don't think that there should be patents on this kind of thing at all. It is quite possible that RIM's lawyers conduct

Here's the patent. Go down to the middle of the document and you'll see some specific mathematical algorithms. What I'm getting at is that it doesn't seem so broad. Then again, I'm not a Patent Lawyer or one of the defendents.

Check my post history, I consistently point out the ignorant bullshit on slashdot about patents, but you're a certifiable fucktard.

Write your congressmen and ask them to drag these patent examiners in for questioning:

And now I demonstrate that you don't know shit about what you're babbling about.

It is the policy of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that its employees, including patent examiners, will not appear as witnesses or give testimony in legal proceedings, except under the conditions specified in 37 CFR Part 104, Subpart C

You're not interesting, you're ignorant.

Slashdot is qualified to cover patent news like it's qualified to cover romance novels.

Looks like this isn't Sanjiv D. Shah's only blunder:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/24/05 6255

Poking around on the USPTO website this guy is a lawyer's goldmine. Here is a choice selection of his work:
7,000,184 Remote web site editing in a standard web browser without external software
6,996,775 Hypervideo: information retrieval using time-related multimedia
6,993,711 Style-sheet output apparatus and method, and style-sheet output system
6,990,629 Publishing system for intranet
6,988,242 Transforming a portion of a database into a custom spreadsheet

More can be found a uspto.gov by doing the advanced query for exp/(Sanjiv and Shah).
direct link

No, I agree with the GrandParent post.

"IANAL but I don't think you can go around selling Mozilla-branded items without permission from the Mozilla folks."

This seems to be an accurate view of the law.

Mozilla is a registered trademark in the United States. http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=74698316 .I will assume it is in the UK as well for the purposes of this problem. This being the case, Mozilla has both a trademark interest and a copyright interest in their works.

Turning to the Lanham Act, section 32(b) (again, USA law, I assume UK law is similar):

"Any person who shall ... reproduce ... a registered mark and apply such reproduction ... to ... packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable...."

While there is no likelihood of confusion as to the actual product (the software), there is likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product. A person seeing a CD labeled "Mozilla Firefox" could be confused into believing that the CD itself was produced by Mozilla and that the source of the physical CD itself is from Mozilla.

There may be a fair use defense under the Lanham Act, section 33(b), particularly 33(b)(9), but even still, Mozilla has a trademark interest and we have to work through the analysis.

Of course, there is also a copyright interest in the software on the CD. But I do believe that the GP post was correct that there is both trademark and copyright interests at stake.

I am not a lawyer. None of this is not legal advice.

As a practicing patent lawyer, I assure you that the U.S. Patent Office does not get most of its revenue from allowing patents. It gets most of its revenue from the late fees it charges if you file documents after their due dates.

Seriously, though, you can look up the PTO's fee schedule yourself. The schedule shows that the issue and maintenance fees can total about $8,400 over the life of a patent. On the other hand, at current rates, the application that led to the patent we're now discussing would cost almost $10,000 just to file, long before you even got to that point. (Plus the $450 late fee for filing the declaration two months late.)

Some of them clearly do, they have a pretty nice website.

I'm not sure if it's the responsibility of the patent office to bring up prior art. I think the entity filing the patent may be responsible for doing so, but obviously there's no strong disincentive. If it were a criminal offense to file a patent in the existence of obvious prior art, maybe we could stop this nonsense.

Hey Slashdotters,
If you actually go to the patent and get passed the extremely lawyered up claims section and read the description of the invention you'll realize that things aren't as bad as they seem. The patent is for a method for allowing lay users to create rich media applications through a web interface. It doesn't cover the rich media applications themselves, so the l337 AJAX or Flex jockeys out there can go on coding in bbedit with no worries at all, their sites won't be in violation of this patent.
You can read the patent yourself here

1. This is a continuation in part of an earlier, abandoned application
2. Both the earlier and the current application had a restriction requirement, the current application being a five way restriction which was maintained
3. Both of the above applications were passed around like a hot potato; nobody wanted the case; no wonder; the current application was filed with 166 claims
4. Due to the length of time the current application was pending, its patent term was extended 379 days (i. e. it expires 20 years + 379 days from the filing date

1. This is a continuation in part of an earlier, abandoned application
2. Both the earlier and the current application had a restriction requirement, the current application being a five way restriction which was maintained
3. Both of the above applications were passed around like a hot potato; nobody wanted the case; no wonder; the current application was filed with 166 claims
4. Due to the length of time the current application was pending, its patent term was extended 379 days (i. e. it expires 20 years + 379 days from the filing date

Forgot the patent search link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0 &p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=IN%2FWillard+and+Boyle&d=ptxt

(I know it's long, not my fault.)

And I noticed that someone replied to the parent's post confirming the fact that Bell labs holds the patent.

Like many here, I read the article and got the idea that they were talking about a perpetual motion machine (could be the "The technology claims to be able to increase magnet motor efficiency substantially, even over the 100% barrier." at the beginning of the article that gave everyone that impression...), but the only place that I can find such a claim is from the author of the article...From the way it's written, it just doesn't appear that he knows what he is talking about.

I glanced through the patent at USPTO and it appears to me that what this is is a more efficient electric motor, not something that outputs more energy than is put into it.

Bullshit detector overload!

This is Slashdot, for crying out loud. We're nerds, we don't fall for this idiotic screed even a high school freshman could debunk.

Ooooh, big words are scary! Stator, rotor, magnetic flux. Dammit, both the editor and article submitter should hand in their geek cards.

letter to politicians?

What about this

        * http://ac.european-patent-office.org/pct_consultat ion_process/index.en.php
        * http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/7 0fr75451.pdf
        * http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/inven tive/

....to how this space drive patent application was treated. When this earlier patent was discussed on Slashdot I made a comment discussing how the patent just sailed through without a single question being raised about operability.

The difference? I can't really determine the exact reasons, not being privy to the cirumstances surrounding the prosecution of each application, but one fact is that each was examined by a different examiner. I can speculate on the disparity of treatment, however. It is another fallout from PTO management's 30+ years of emphasis on meeting production and timeliness goals over substantive quality aspects of examination, quality meaning finding and applying relevant prior art and passing judgement on issues such as operability (I don't include aspects such as including software and business methods as patentable subject matter or creating a high standard of proof to support obviousness rejections, since these have been imposed externally by the courts).

The PTO's response to issues of quality has been to establish an entire subbeaurocrocy dedicated to "Quality Review", which has all the pitfalls of centralizing such essential values outside of the main operation. The main failure is how one expects a small core of people, no matter how expert they are in the examination process, to possess the same depth of knowledge as even a mediocre examiner in a give art. PTO management then compounds this with a punitive aspect; if QR "kicks back" an application the examiner will get charged with an error, yet the QR reviewer doesn't have the same kind of production pressure as the working examiner to grind out cases; telling someone "you should have spent more time searching this case" isn't particularly helpful if it doesn't explain how one chooses the other applications from which this time should have been taken.

The negative publicity concerning examination quality has, finally, reached the attention of PTO's upper level management, but, it is an open question if they will recognize that just heaping more "review" on the process will not actually result in an improvment, but that a fundamental return to the ethic of a genuine quality examination is the way to go.

One way to avoid bad engineering is to stay away from energy sinks into which bunches of time and money have previously been dumped with no visible effect. I like to call these engineering ratholes. Let's look at a few of the more popular examples coming over my voice helpline...

Stirling engines- Every few years somebody rediscovers the Stirling engine. They build a few prototypes which just barely fail to work, and then just barely go bankrupt. The promise here sure is enticing. A low delta-T engine which accepts anything from oily rags to sunlight. But there's two fundamental gotchas here. First, any engine designed for a low DT temperature differential is inherently inefficient. Carnot and all. More crucially, there is a key component to a Stirling engine that nobody - but nobody - has figured out how to build yet. It is called a regenerator. Any regenerator has to be long and thin and short and fat. Not to mention being an excellent insulator and a superb conductor.

[Also see Hardware Hacker May, 1993 http://www.tinaja.com/glib/hack64.pdf for everything you ever forgot about heat engines and thermodynamics.]

Wikipedia - Problems with Stirling Engines:

Stirling engines require both input and output heat exchangers which must contain the pressure of the working fluid, and which must resist any corrosive effects due to the heat source. These increase the cost of the engine especially when they are designed to the high level of "effectiveness" (heat exchanger efficiency) needed for optimizing fuel economy.
Stirling engines, especially the type that run on small temperature differentials, are quite large for the amount of power that they produce, due to the heat exchangers. ...
Power output of a Stirling is constant and hard to change rapidly from one level to another. Typically, changes in output are achieved by varying the displacement of the engine (often through use of a swashplate crankshaft arrangement) or by changing the mass of entrained working fluid (generally helium or hydrogen). This property is less of a drawback in hybrid electric propulsion or base load utility generation.
Hydrogen's lowest molecular weight makes it the best working gas to use in a Stirling engine, but as a tiny molecule, it is very hard to keep it inside the engine and auxiliary systems need to be typically added to maintain the proper quantity of working fluid. These systems can be as simple as a gas storage bottle or more complicated such as a gas generator. In any event, they add weight, increase cost, and introduce some undesirable complications.

U.S. Patents:

6,862,883 Kamen, et al. Regenerator for a Stirling engine

A regenerator for a thermal cycle engine and methods for its manufacture. The regenerator has a random network of fibers formed to fill a specified volume and a material for cross-linking the fibers at points of close contact between fibers of the network. A method for manufacturing a regenerator has steps of providing a length

lilo was around far before that film.

The fact that Collodi's novel The Adventures of Pinocchio was out half a century before Disney adapted it to film didn't stop Disney from getting, say, a trademark on PINOCCHIO for dolls.

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=6,028,835.WKU.&OS=PN/6,028,835&RS =PN/6,028,835 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=6,046,973.WKU.&OS=PN/6,046,973&RS =PN/6,046,973 Inventions by Michael E. Thomas under U.S. Patents, # 6,028,835 2/22/00 and # 6,046,973 4/4/00 concepts in this home page are for laboratory discussion and possible licensing and sale only. I call BS.

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=6,028,835.WKU.&OS=PN/6,028,835&RS =PN/6,028,835 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=6,046,973.WKU.&OS=PN/6,046,973&RS =PN/6,046,973 Inventions by Michael E. Thomas under U.S. Patents, # 6,028,835 2/22/00 and # 6,046,973 4/4/00 concepts in this home page are for laboratory discussion and possible licensing and sale only. I call BS.

It's never been illegal to make something for yourself, even if it has technology from 10,000 patents.

Can you back up this assertion? I seem to remember 35 USC 271 not having a broad personal use exemption. Or are you speaking of the patent law of a specific jurisdiction outside the United States?

The MPEG LA January 1, 2006 MPEG-4 Visual Patent List lists patent
6,134,269: Fixed or adaptive deinterleaved transform coding for image coding and intra coding of video.

The inventors are from AT&T and Lehigh University (Competitive Technologies acted as Lehigh's agent and submitted the patent to the pool). So it looks like AT&T might have at least one patent in the MPEG LA pool (just through a related entity).

some other potential AT&T patents:

4,999,705 Three dimensional motion compensated video coding
5,227,878 Adaptive coding and decoding of frames and fields of video
5,253,056 Spatial/frequency hybrid video coding facilitating the derivatives of variable-resolution images
5,270,813 Spatially scalable video coding facilitating the derivation of variable-resolution images
5,500,678 Optimized scanning of transform coefficients in video coding

Some of these are prior to MPEG-4, but you can follow the "Referenced By" link on the individual uspto patent pages to see other later patents.

I have seen AT&T patents assigned to:

AT&T Corp
AT & T Corp
AT&T Bell Laboratories (old, but still valid patents)
Bell Telephone Laboratories (patents mostly? expired)

The MPEG LA January 1, 2006 MPEG-4 Visual Patent List lists patent
6,134,269: Fixed or adaptive deinterleaved transform coding for image coding and intra coding of video.

The inventors are from AT&T and Lehigh University (Competitive Technologies acted as Lehigh's agent and submitted the patent to the pool). So it looks like AT&T might have at least one patent in the MPEG LA pool (just through a related entity).

some other potential AT&T patents:

4,999,705 Three dimensional motion compensated video coding
5,227,878 Adaptive coding and decoding of frames and fields of video
5,253,056 Spatial/frequency hybrid video coding facilitating the derivatives of variable-resolution images
5,270,813 Spatially scalable video coding facilitating the derivation of variable-resolution images
5,500,678 Optimized scanning of transform coefficients in video coding

Some of these are prior to MPEG-4, but you can follow the "Referenced By" link on the individual uspto patent pages to see other later patents.

I have seen AT&T patents assigned to:

AT&T Corp
AT & T Corp
AT&T Bell Laboratories (old, but still valid patents)
Bell Telephone Laboratories (patents mostly? expired)

The MPEG LA January 1, 2006 MPEG-4 Visual Patent List lists patent
6,134,269: Fixed or adaptive deinterleaved transform coding for image coding and intra coding of video.

The inventors are from AT&T and Lehigh University (Competitive Technologies acted as Lehigh's agent and submitted the patent to the pool). So it looks like AT&T might have at least one patent in the MPEG LA pool (just through a related entity).

some other potential AT&T patents:

4,999,705 Three dimensional motion compensated video coding
5,227,878 Adaptive coding and decoding of frames and fields of video
5,253,056 Spatial/frequency hybrid video coding facilitating the derivatives of variable-resolution images
5,270,813 Spatially scalable video coding facilitating the derivation of variable-resolution images
5,500,678 Optimized scanning of transform coefficients in video coding

Some of these are prior to MPEG-4, but you can follow the "Referenced By" link on the individual uspto patent pages to see other later patents.

I have seen AT&T patents assigned to:

AT&T Corp
AT & T Corp
AT&T Bell Laboratories (old, but still valid patents)
Bell Telephone Laboratories (patents mostly? expired)

The MPEG LA January 1, 2006 MPEG-4 Visual Patent List lists patent
6,134,269: Fixed or adaptive deinterleaved transform coding for image coding and intra coding of video.

The inventors are from AT&T and Lehigh University (Competitive Technologies acted as Lehigh's agent and submitted the patent to the pool). So it looks like AT&T might have at least one patent in the MPEG LA pool (just through a related entity).

some other potential AT&T patents:

4,999,705 Three dimensional motion compensated video coding
5,227,878 Adaptive coding and decoding of frames and fields of video
5,253,056 Spatial/frequency hybrid video coding facilitating the derivatives of variable-resolution images
5,270,813 Spatially scalable video coding facilitating the derivation of variable-resolution images
5,500,678 Optimized scanning of transform coefficients in video coding

Some of these are prior to MPEG-4, but you can follow the "Referenced By" link on the individual uspto patent pages to see other later patents.

I have seen AT&T patents assigned to:

AT&T Corp
AT & T Corp
AT&T Bell Laboratories (old, but still valid patents)
Bell Telephone Laboratories (patents mostly? expired)

The MPEG LA January 1, 2006 MPEG-4 Visual Patent List lists patent
6,134,269: Fixed or adaptive deinterleaved transform coding for image coding and intra coding of video.

The inventors are from AT&T and Lehigh University (Competitive Technologies acted as Lehigh's agent and submitted the patent to the pool). So it looks like AT&T might have at least one patent in the MPEG LA pool (just through a related entity).

some other potential AT&T patents:

4,999,705 Three dimensional motion compensated video coding
5,227,878 Adaptive coding and decoding of frames and fields of video
5,253,056 Spatial/frequency hybrid video coding facilitating the derivatives of variable-resolution images
5,270,813 Spatially scalable video coding facilitating the derivation of variable-resolution images
5,500,678 Optimized scanning of transform coefficients in video coding

Some of these are prior to MPEG-4, but you can follow the "Referenced By" link on the individual uspto patent pages to see other later patents.

I have seen AT&T patents assigned to:

AT&T Corp
AT & T Corp
AT&T Bell Laboratories (old, but still valid patents)
Bell Telephone Laboratories (patents mostly? expired)

The MPEG LA January 1, 2006 MPEG-4 Visual Patent List lists patent
6,134,269: Fixed or adaptive deinterleaved transform coding for image coding and intra coding of video.

The inventors are from AT&T and Lehigh University (Competitive Technologies acted as Lehigh's agent and submitted the patent to the pool). So it looks like AT&T might have at least one patent in the MPEG LA pool (just through a related entity).

some other potential AT&T patents:

4,999,705 Three dimensional motion compensated video coding
5,227,878 Adaptive coding and decoding of frames and fields of video
5,253,056 Spatial/frequency hybrid video coding facilitating the derivatives of variable-resolution images
5,270,813 Spatially scalable video coding facilitating the derivation of variable-resolution images
5,500,678 Optimized scanning of transform coefficients in video coding

Some of these are prior to MPEG-4, but you can follow the "Referenced By" link on the individual uspto patent pages to see other later patents.

I have seen AT&T patents assigned to:

AT&T Corp
AT & T Corp
AT&T Bell Laboratories (old, but still valid patents)
Bell Telephone Laboratories (patents mostly? expired)

Then there's this brilliant invention. An MP3 player. That's right, an MP3 player. But not just any MP3 player. Of course, we know that people listen to MP3s on their computers all the time. This player is special and deserves a patent because - get this - It's portable! You can take it with you!

Yes the patent office issued a patent for this "novel" idea. Recently SigmaTel bought this patent and has been harassing people with it.

You must have a dumbass lawyer if this patent can get through and you had issues. Not to be rude, but that patent PROVES there is an issue.

If so, can you go into some detail as to why Verisign applied for a patent on doing several whois searches in parallel? Is it meant to be a defensive patent? Did you (as principal scientist at Verisign) have any influence in the process which led to Verisign applying and getting this patent?

Also I notice you have applied for patents yourself, eg. 20040205135 (application number for "Control and management of electronic messaging"). What are your reasons for doing so?

If so, can you go into some detail as to why Verisign applied for a patent on doing several whois searches in parallel? Is it meant to be a defensive patent? Did you (as principal scientist at Verisign) have any influence in the process which led to Verisign applying and getting this patent?

Also I notice you have applied for patents yourself, eg. 20040205135 (application number for "Control and management of electronic messaging"). What are your reasons for doing so?

Might be one of these?

Previous slashdot stories covered rumours about a possible upcoming Apple tablet (see here and here). However, perhaps what was really going on was that Apple was putting in place patents related to this device.

Look at the patents in question. US Design Patent No. D504,899, filed on May 10, 2005, looks like a patent for the design of an Apple tablet. Yet, perhaps they refrained from calling it a tablet in the patent (they call it "an electronic device") because they actually want it to cover the (much smaller) design of the video iPod. US Patent Application No. 20060026536, filed Jan 30, 2005, is called "Gestures for touch sensitive input devices," and the images very clearly show a device that looks like a full-screen ipod with overlayed "touchwheel" (check out this news item for commentary and images.

What I'm getting at is this: ThinkSecret may very well be right (again!). The fact that these patents were filed shows that they are working on this kind of device. I think these patent applications strongly support the notion that Apple is going to try to release a next-gen device with touch-screen based input. Sounds like a cool device.

Previous slashdot stories covered rumours about a possible upcoming Apple tablet (see here and here). However, perhaps what was really going on was that Apple was putting in place patents related to this device.

Look at the patents in question. US Design Patent No. D504,899, filed on May 10, 2005, looks like a patent for the design of an Apple tablet. Yet, perhaps they refrained from calling it a tablet in the patent (they call it "an electronic device") because they actually want it to cover the (much smaller) design of the video iPod. US Patent Application No. 20060026536, filed Jan 30, 2005, is called "Gestures for touch sensitive input devices," and the images very clearly show a device that looks like a full-screen ipod with overlayed "touchwheel" (check out this news item for commentary and images.

What I'm getting at is this: ThinkSecret may very well be right (again!). The fact that these patents were filed shows that they are working on this kind of device. I think these patent applications strongly support the notion that Apple is going to try to release a next-gen device with touch-screen based input. Sounds like a cool device.

Well, I hope Novell is ready for a legal fight with Apple.

Apple has a patent on the Exposé behavior.

That's hardly the only problem with this Slashdot posting. It swallows wholesale one of the core problems with the original article: that NTP v. Blackberry is somehow a "software patent" case. On the contrary, the patents at issue in this case involve both software and hardware claims. Consider, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 5,734,961, which contains 12 method claims and 17 apparatus claims.

If the patent had been exclusively hardware-based, the dispute would not change one whit. In fact, the only noticeable difference would be that Slashdot submitters would stop using it as a sloppy segue into the software patent issue.

- David Stein

Would that this were so. Unfortunately, a graphics company I worked for got hit by Cadtrak's patent on the XOR operation back in the day. This is a hardware patent based on the obvious fact that negating a value twice returns the original value. The inventor applied this to drawing and erasing lines on a screen and then sold the patent to Cadtrak who vigorously licensed it.

Its a good example of applying an obvious concept to a new application. Every TV set ever made uses an XOR to add and erase the HSync signal in the VSync, but that isn't drawing a line, so it doesn't count as prior art. Thank you, USPTO.

Agreed. I wondered why a physics professor would take the time to make an obvious and meaningless point such as this (I'm not trying to be mean here, just honest). But a Google and Stanford directory search reveals that he is NOT A PROFESSOR (which he never claimed, Slashdotters just assumed). He is an "Affiliate", which probably means that he's an employee. In fact, it appears that he is a patent examiner from Oakland, CA.

I was pointing out his employement as a patent examiner as an explanation of why he might not know all that much about general relativity, but I just now realized how ironic that is.

Yeah, look at Google, and the possible reasons why nobody is copying their PageRank algorithm.

Yeah, look at Google, and the possible reasons why nobody is copying their PageRank algorithm.

Yeah, look at Google, and the possible reasons why nobody is copying their PageRank algorithm.

Here's the application: http://ebiz1.uspto.gov:81/jars/

The date on the patent document says October 6, 1987. But I'm sure it's 20 years after filing, not processing.

It seems like a last ditch effort to scrounge for money. Because in 9 months in won't matter anymore.

If you get someone pregnant tonight, you could celebrate the birth of your child on the same day as JPEG becomes free (as in no-threats-of-lawsuits).

but patents (like guns) are not a priori evil. if they really do bother you so much, why don't you do something about it by becoming a patent examiner with a clue?