Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps it's more the case that this shit is freakin obvious.

Most patented material is at least somewhat obvious to a specialist in the field, particularly after the fact. That's why people patent things in the first place. The criterion according to the USPTO is that it cannot be obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the field--and it cannot have been reduced to practice, published and sold. Personally I think that the KA9Q guys sending email to each other over amateur wireless radio links means that wireless email had been reduced to practice years before the original patent was filed, and might make a more competent case to the judge than "this shit is freakin obvious".

Perhaps a more effective approach would be to summarize your evidence in the context of 35USC and 37CFR and provide it to opposing counsel, along with your oh-so-well-reasoned suggestions.

Good Luck!

Neither yet have any articles been cited that mention the circumstances under which NPT acquired these patents (the inventor died of liver cancer in 2004) or the name of the inventor himself -- Tom Campana whose own business making wireless email devices was driven into the ground by the fact that he invented it in the late 80's and early 90's, before email had caught on.

I think we've got a case of crackberrys spamming the media and skewing the terms of the debate into "Evil Patent Trolls vs. The Good Tech Blackberry." Perhaps its more the case that a couple of dot com kiddies are trying ride the actual technological advances made half a decade earlier.

Of course I also know that the KA9Q crowd was doing all of this in the mid-80's which is pry the prior art the NPT patents will be thrown out on -- and you'd think the /. community would know about this, you guys being such big swinging technical dorks and all. But...guess not.

Neither yet have any articles been cited that mention the circumstances under which NPT acquired these patents (the inventor died of liver cancer in 2004) or the name of the inventor himself -- Tom Campana whose own business making wireless email devices was driven into the ground by the fact that he invented it in the late 80's and early 90's, before email had caught on.

I think we've got a case of crackberrys spamming the media and skewing the terms of the debate into "Evil Patent Trolls vs. The Good Tech Blackberry." Perhaps its more the case that a couple of dot com kiddies are trying ride the actual technological advances made half a decade earlier.

Of course I also know that the KA9Q crowd was doing all of this in the mid-80's which is pry the prior art the NPT patents will be thrown out on -- and you'd think the /. community would know about this, you guys being such big swinging technical dorks and all. But...guess not.

I think patents are too expensive for the average individual and too cheap for the average corporation.

Hmmm. What to do? What to do? If only there were some way to charge big corporations a much higher fee that they charge individuals.

(The real money, of course, not in the PTO fees, but in the lawyers' fees to write up the patent and get it allowed. Raising the large entity fees by 10x would improve on half this issue, but the individuals still would have trouble affording a lawyer/agent.)

I can't concieve how Disney could claim ownership of Snow White without being laughed out of court.

Disney owns the U.S. trademark on PINOCCHIO for dolls, and trademarks can be renewed indefinitely.

" Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state "
  That patent sounds suspiciously like this :(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory), and based on the above, this:(http://proceedings.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge tabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS00074600000100143 0000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes)

As far as the swining on a swing (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.ht m&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,368,227.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&R S=PN/6,368,227), I would hope prior art would invalidate this one- if not, then [insert diety here] help us...it's over- too late.

No cost to read a patent, they are completely public documents, otherwise, how would people be able to do research to know if a patent already exists?

Want to search for yourself? http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

By their statement, if you read and don't find an error, the next one will almost definitely have an error.

Happy hunting

The sole issue in this appeal is the meaning of the following language in a patent claim: "heating the resulting batter-coated dough to a temperature in the range of about 400 F. to 850 F." The question is whether the dough itself is to be heated to that temperature (as the district court held), or whether the claim only specifies the temperature at which the dough is to be heated, i.e., the temperature of the oven (as the appellant contends). We agree with the district court that the claim means what it says (the dough is to be heated "to" the designated temperature range) and therefore affirm [the trial court's finding of non-infringement].

As most people know, dough heated to 850 degrees F. is no longer dough - it is charcoal. Not the most effective result for a process that is intended to result in the production of an edible substance.

BTW - the two law firms who tried this case are two of the top firms in the US. I am confident that the parties each spent hundreds of thousands of dollars arguing over a single word. And a very short word at that.

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=6,960,975.WKU.&OS=PN/6,960,975&RS =PN/6,960,975

For it's defyance of the laws of physics?

or...

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=6,368,227.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS =PN/6,368,227

This one; recanted because of a technicallity in its wording, even though it's trying to patent swinging on a swing. (Both links were off wikipedia)

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=6,960,975.WKU.&OS=PN/6,960,975&RS =PN/6,960,975

For it's defyance of the laws of physics?

or...

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=6,368,227.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS =PN/6,368,227

This one; recanted because of a technicallity in its wording, even though it's trying to patent swinging on a swing. (Both links were off wikipedia)

In other words, for a regular applicant to file and receive a basic patent application and own a patent for the full term, he/she/it must pay the USPTO at minimum $9,700. (A "small entity," including a sole inventor, receives a 50% break on these fees - for a paltry minimum fee of $4,850.) This minimum fee does not include:

• The cost of having the patent prepared and prosecuted by a patent agent or attorney - which typically costs over $10,000. (The alternative is to skimp on the prosecution costs: spend inordinate amounts of time learning about claim drafting, filing deadlines, and prior art, and spend a long time drafting and prosecuting the patent application - only to run a very large risk of having an invalid or unenforceable patent.)
• Additional application fees depending on its length and claim style.
• Fees for other USPTO filings: continued prosecution refilings, certificates of correction, reissue, fees for extensions of time to respond to complicated office actions, etc.
• Fees for having incorrect examiner decisions resolved by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, or to the court system.
• Fees for shoring up the patent from outside attack, e.g., reexamination and interference proceedings.
• Fees for detecting and enforcing the patent, including (worst of all) litigation.
• Fees for obtaining patents for the same invention in other countries.

Patenting is already a grossly expensive exercise. And you want to raise the rates? You must be taking a page from the conservative playbook: if we can't kill the system, let's make it completely unusable!

Your comments about Arizona's licensing agencies are right on point: administrative fees for government-issued rights (licenses, patents, IDs, whatever) should be almost exclusively used for the costs of issuing those rights. Drainage is simply an insidious mechanism for overcharging applicants and draining away the quality of service of the agency in order to fund unpopular projects. It's antithetical to democracy.

- David Stein

That is the greatest thing in the world, and I must agree with it. Those that don't know much about web technology are freakishly willing to put money into it just because of catchy phrasing.

For example, here's an amazon patent:

A web site system implements a process for storing selected data structures within browser cookies. The data structures may contain a variety of different types of data elements, including N-bit integers and other non-character elements. A version tracking scheme provides forward and backward compatibility between client and server software. The process is implemented without the need for any browser extensions, and without the need for users to download any special code to their computers.

To some normal person that sounds pretty cool... however to everyone here it's nothing more than what cookies were made to do.

What is AJAX? AJAX is nothing more than submitting forms without refreshing pages and getting back content in a nice format (It's more than that I know). However while that above website seems to be bitching about the fact that VCs are stupid and will buy into anything that looks new, these are the same kind of things that keep us computer programmers, designers, technicians, etc in business. That's something I don't see written a lot. You're damn right I'm going to write that I know the AJAX process on my CV and I know a lot of other junk which will make me look like a good candiate to hire.

...there is nothing that says Parrot has less patent problems than Mono.

Mono is reproducing patented .Net APIs. The Mono folks are allowing themselves to be led into a maze of patents and IP where Microsoft defines the start and end points at will.

In fact, this duty goes much further: applicants are required (1) to have conducted at least a minimal search, (2) to disclose all known prior art that might be relevant, and (3) to assert their reasonable belief that the invention is still patentable in light of this prior art.

You certainly have to disclose any known prior art, and assert that you belive your invention should be patentable.

The minimal search is an entirely different story though. I've never heard such a statement before, and I don't see any such requirement in the applicable law or PTO rules. If this was required by a rule of the US PTO, I'd expect to see it somewhere in section 1.56. While this certainly requires that the applicant disclose any related art of which he is aware, it does not seem to contain any requirement that the applicant make any attempt (at all) make any attempt whatsoever at searching for art of which he is not aware.

This is one of the best suggestions for fixing the USPTO's examination system: start enforcing Rule 56 sanctions,

Rule 56? I'm guessing you mean 1.56? As noted above, only really attempts to prevent fraud. If somebody lives his entire life under a rock, and thinks he just invented fire, it's perfectly legal for him to file for an patent on it, as long as he remains truly ignorant (throughout the entire prosecution) that it's already known. Of course, if a patent agent or attorney was involved, they'd probably be in trouble for filing such a thing -- they're expected to at least have a little bit of a notion of what's going on. Likewise, we'd certainly hope that the PTO would notice the prior art on such a thing.

Even so, filing a patent for something reasonably well known is perfectly legitimate as long as everybody involved was ignorant of its prior invention/discovery -- and they're not required to do anything to cure themselves of their ignorance either.

So? FYI, Sony did not demo a playable PS2 until about a month before it launched in Japan.

This isn't very acceptable, but Sony can do what it wants and people will still buy.

Absolutely false. Neither MS nor ATI have some magical shader patents (no idea where you came up with this). MS simply specifies what will go into the next version of DirectX and the hardware manufacturers add this capability, although they are of course free to add features above and beyond this. For example, nVidia 7800 series offers Vertex Fetch. Anyway, since PS3 utilizes OpenGL (not DX) the DirectX specifications mean nothing anyway.

You mean these Microsoft patents relating to vertex shaders:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0 &f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=%22vertex+shader%22+AND+AN%2Fn Vidia&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=%22vertex+shader% 22+AND+AN%2FMicrosoft

Or these ATI patents:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0 &f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=(%22vertex+shader%22+AND+AN%2F Microsoft)&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=%22vertex+sh ader%22+AND+AN%2FATI

Sony has all of one vertex shader patent here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm &r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&Query=%22vertex+shader%22+AND +Sony

While I am no expert, the Sony patent does not mean much to me and is newer than many of the Microsoft and ATI patents. Yes even nVidia has some patents and I an sure that there are many more patents for pixel shaders.

I don't know how all of the licensing agreements are all set up, but its hard for me to believe that two companies like Microsoft and Sony would ever share patents.

Are you seriously trying to say that the PS3 GPU will not have shaders? Can I have what you're smoking?

Yes, I am. I am speculating that the PS3 will not have shaders because Sony does not have access to the required patents.

So? FYI, Sony did not demo a playable PS2 until about a month before it launched in Japan.

This isn't very acceptable, but Sony can do what it wants and people will still buy.

Absolutely false. Neither MS nor ATI have some magical shader patents (no idea where you came up with this). MS simply specifies what will go into the next version of DirectX and the hardware manufacturers add this capability, although they are of course free to add features above and beyond this. For example, nVidia 7800 series offers Vertex Fetch. Anyway, since PS3 utilizes OpenGL (not DX) the DirectX specifications mean nothing anyway.

You mean these Microsoft patents relating to vertex shaders:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0 &f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=%22vertex+shader%22+AND+AN%2Fn Vidia&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=%22vertex+shader% 22+AND+AN%2FMicrosoft

Or these ATI patents:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0 &f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=(%22vertex+shader%22+AND+AN%2F Microsoft)&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=%22vertex+sh ader%22+AND+AN%2FATI

Sony has all of one vertex shader patent here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm &r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&Query=%22vertex+shader%22+AND +Sony

While I am no expert, the Sony patent does not mean much to me and is newer than many of the Microsoft and ATI patents. Yes even nVidia has some patents and I an sure that there are many more patents for pixel shaders.

I don't know how all of the licensing agreements are all set up, but its hard for me to believe that two companies like Microsoft and Sony would ever share patents.

Are you seriously trying to say that the PS3 GPU will not have shaders? Can I have what you're smoking?

Yes, I am. I am speculating that the PS3 will not have shaders because Sony does not have access to the required patents.

So? FYI, Sony did not demo a playable PS2 until about a month before it launched in Japan.

This isn't very acceptable, but Sony can do what it wants and people will still buy.

Absolutely false. Neither MS nor ATI have some magical shader patents (no idea where you came up with this). MS simply specifies what will go into the next version of DirectX and the hardware manufacturers add this capability, although they are of course free to add features above and beyond this. For example, nVidia 7800 series offers Vertex Fetch. Anyway, since PS3 utilizes OpenGL (not DX) the DirectX specifications mean nothing anyway.

You mean these Microsoft patents relating to vertex shaders:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0 &f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=%22vertex+shader%22+AND+AN%2Fn Vidia&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=%22vertex+shader% 22+AND+AN%2FMicrosoft

Or these ATI patents:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0 &f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=(%22vertex+shader%22+AND+AN%2F Microsoft)&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=%22vertex+sh ader%22+AND+AN%2FATI

Sony has all of one vertex shader patent here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm &r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&Query=%22vertex+shader%22+AND +Sony

While I am no expert, the Sony patent does not mean much to me and is newer than many of the Microsoft and ATI patents. Yes even nVidia has some patents and I an sure that there are many more patents for pixel shaders.

I don't know how all of the licensing agreements are all set up, but its hard for me to believe that two companies like Microsoft and Sony would ever share patents.

Are you seriously trying to say that the PS3 GPU will not have shaders? Can I have what you're smoking?

Yes, I am. I am speculating that the PS3 will not have shaders because Sony does not have access to the required patents.

There are sure enough examples of crap utility patents

Typical links:

Method of swinging on a swing

Method of exercising a cat

There are sure enough examples of crap utility patents

Typical links:

Method of swinging on a swing

Method of exercising a cat

just so you can see how retarded the US patent system is, see this santa hat patent

it seems to me that the purpose of the USPTO is not to grant patents but to make money from applications etc

i could probably patent my ass if i tried to

He's psychic!

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/p atdesc.htm

Although, the length of utility and plant patent protection (patent term) was previously seventeen years from the date of patent grant, utility and plant patents filed after June 8, 1995 now have a patent term of up to twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application. Utility and plant patents which were applied for prior to June 8, 1995, and which were or will be in force after June 8, 1995, now have a patent term of seventeen years from the date of patent grant or twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application, whichever is longer. Utility patents are subject to the payment of periodic maintenance fees to keep the patent in force. Patent terms can be extended under some specific circumstances. See the U.S. Code Title 35 - Patents for a full description of patent laws.

You need a different TIFF viewer, as described at

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/help/images.htm

Depending on the browser, you will need to download the right one.

Sigh. Another patent article without the patent numbers (5,579,517 and 5,758,352). Of course, the old patent numbers are only half-useful, since the claims could have been amended during reexamination.

Does anyone know what the claims say now? I mean, half the posters here seem to think these patents cover all of FAT, not just VFAT.

Sigh. Another patent article without the patent numbers (5,579,517 and 5,758,352). Of course, the old patent numbers are only half-useful, since the claims could have been amended during reexamination.

Does anyone know what the claims say now? I mean, half the posters here seem to think these patents cover all of FAT, not just VFAT.

"I mean, since when has there been an "Open submission" for prior art in any of the USPTOs area of authority"

Since 1790. The current "proposal" is nothing new, its just a more effective way of submitting third party prior art. The current and long standing USPTO rules for public submissions of prior art can be found here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1100_1134_01.htm

Also, the current proposal does not allow third parties (the public) to submit comments after an application publishes (which of course would be most helpful) due to the confidentiality required by federal law (35 USC 122: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1100_1120.htm).
So if you see an application publish that you know is anticipated by prior art there isn't anything you can do about it until the application issues into a patent (in which case you can pay 10k-100k for a reexamination).

"I mean, since when has there been an "Open submission" for prior art in any of the USPTOs area of authority"

Since 1790. The current "proposal" is nothing new, its just a more effective way of submitting third party prior art. The current and long standing USPTO rules for public submissions of prior art can be found here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1100_1134_01.htm

Also, the current proposal does not allow third parties (the public) to submit comments after an application publishes (which of course would be most helpful) due to the confidentiality required by federal law (35 USC 122: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1100_1120.htm).
So if you see an application publish that you know is anticipated by prior art there isn't anything you can do about it until the application issues into a patent (in which case you can pay 10k-100k for a reexamination).

Patenting Deja Vu

Basically.

Burst.com claimed to have a revolutionary way of delivering streaming content. Lossless. Faster than realtime.

Well, golly. You can deliver content losslessly and faster than real time via HTTP and FTP, too. Only Burst.com did this with a magical, proprietary protocol that required a magical, proprietary server that they would be happy to sell to you. The secret of the "secret sauce" that Burst.com CEO Richard Lang mentions in the feature is that there is no secret sauce. ...

If you have a really fast conneciton and there are no bottlenecks along the way, it lets you see/hear media almost instantly. It works by putting a huge buffer at the client, and then filling that buffer as fast as possible so that buffering time is minimized.

QuickTime's "Fast Start" provided much of this functionality with QuickTime 3's progressive streaming (1998), and QuickTime 6 added the final missing piece (random access) with its Instant-On feature earlier this year. RealNetworks uses a similar method to optimize the viewing experience in RealSystem 9.

Burst has 10 U.S. patents, according to their own page here. It's hard to tell which ones are really at issue (I haven't seen a list of the ones Apple is trying to have invalidated) but it almost certainly includes 5,262,875 which in my reading is the most general one.

This is their main claim:

We claim:

1. An audio/video file server for decompressing and distributing selected audio/video program information stored in a compressed digital format within the file server to one or more external playback stations for real-time viewing by users at those playback stations, the audio/video file server comprising:

storage means for storing compressed digital audio/video program information;

transceiver means, connected to the storage means, for receiving compressed digital audio/video program information from an external source over a time period that is less than a real time period required to view the audio/video program information to thereby update the compressed digital audio/video program information stored in the storage means;

a plurality of playback units, each associated with an external playback line and an external playback station and each including decompression means, for receiving selected compressed digital audio/video program information stored in the storage means, for decompressing the selected compressed digital audio/video program information received from the storage means, and for playing the decompressed selected audio/video program information in real time over the associated playback line to the associated playback station;

network interface means, connected to the storage means, transceiver means, playback units, and plurality of playback stations, for receiving playback requests from the plurality of playback stations; and

processing means, connected to the storage means, transceiver means, playback units, and network interface means, the processing means being responsive to the network interface means, following receipt of a playback request, for controlling the associated playback unit to play the decompressed selected audio/video program information in real time.

To me, that's pre

link to patent 5,440,334

However, although I've RTFA, I'm unclear what type the "used in iTunes and iPod" phrase means. I thought iTunes just embedded QuickTime and used progressive caching, which means Apple was there first, patent or not. I'm just thinking out loud. I equate true streaming with DRM - it restricts my use of the content.

I wasn't positive about this, but I think what happened is that during negotiations between Apple and Burst, Apple was willing to pay fees associated with QT, but then Burst said it wanted a piece of ITMS and/or iPod sales. I'm not positive if Burst patents apply here. Well, maybe ITMS's video store uses the technology. It seems like iPod doesn't since the data is just sitting there on the disc. The lawsuit seems to be Apple's way of saying, "You can't have a piece of iPod."

By the way, I was wrong about the U2 concert in 1997. It was later, but the Burst patents were still filed way before QT supported this technology (1993).

Am I the only one to find the article less than interesting, BTW? Basically, "Patent dispute case allowed to continue" is redundant. Patent litigation per se will continue until the patent system is fixed, unless we all run out of money first.

#6,960,975

This patent was pointed to in a previous /. post. Seems to "operate" similarly.

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=6,960,975.WKU.&OS=PN/6,960,975&RS =PN/6,960,975 This patent was pointed to in a previous /. post.

Of course, this patent was only filed to sue the real inventor of the warp drive, Zephram Chocrane, when he actually gets around to inventing it.

Yep. The ClearContext start-up owners have a nice wee nestegg. Wonder if they have good lawyers? With a quick browse of their product though it looks like they should keep all their money on actually hiring engineers (or UI designers, sheesh, a layout *more* complex than Outlook!) rather than setting up a landmine infringement payday.

#20050204009 - System, method and computer program product for prioritizing messages

..plus some other nice vague ones in there too. Sigh.

Doubt if it will help them, which is nice, as carpetbagging software patents is gonna all end in tears for us all...

Realtor has been a plain ol' word for many years. Do you have a reference?

That's what these people want you to think in order to get people to use their services preferentially! It's most certainly not a plain ol' word!

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=s 15t3v.4.115

The patent 5,425,085 appears to be for the device that implements least cost routing using a database, not the concept and patent 5,519,769 appears to be the method to update the database. A conversation with the CEO of RTI indicates that Sharp Electronics, Cisco, Nortel, and Lucent have already paid for the permission to use this patent or a Covenant Not Sue (CNS).

I'm willing to bet that you are using Cisco, Nortel, or Lucent gear at your shop to perform least cost routing which why you would not have to pay RTI a CNS since you are covered by your gear's manufacturer. In addition, the patents only refer to devices that use databses to determine routing, if your configuration is manually updated the patent would not apply to you. The problem with Google talk is that the "device" is the clients' computers (and I doubt seriously that Dell, HP, Apple, etc have paid for the permission to use this patent) and the database is Google's server.

Now I am not sure how his patent can apply towards Google Talk since telephone lines are not used by Google Talk and the patent '085 explicitly specifies telephone lines. I also read references that the patent has been revised over the last few years, but I lost the links to support this statement.

The patent 5,425,085 appears to be for the device that implements least cost routing using a database, not the concept and patent 5,519,769 appears to be the method to update the database. A conversation with the CEO of RTI indicates that Sharp Electronics, Cisco, Nortel, and Lucent have already paid for the permission to use this patent or a Covenant Not Sue (CNS).

I'm willing to bet that you are using Cisco, Nortel, or Lucent gear at your shop to perform least cost routing which why you would not have to pay RTI a CNS since you are covered by your gear's manufacturer. In addition, the patents only refer to devices that use databses to determine routing, if your configuration is manually updated the patent would not apply to you. The problem with Google talk is that the "device" is the clients' computers (and I doubt seriously that Dell, HP, Apple, etc have paid for the permission to use this patent) and the database is Google's server.

Now I am not sure how his patent can apply towards Google Talk since telephone lines are not used by Google Talk and the patent '085 explicitly specifies telephone lines. I also read references that the patent has been revised over the last few years, but I lost the links to support this statement.

It is my humble belief that the patent (5,425,085) dispute will not hold it's own in court. As noted above, the only 'winners' are the lawyers in their quest to sap productivity and line their own pockets.

The '085 patent attempts to teach about routing phone calls via a computer database and hardware. It was filed March of 1994, the standards for Least Cost IP routing where established well before that, example OSPF (Open Shortest Path First).

OSPF was derived from several research efforts, including Bolt, Beranek, and Newman's (BBN's) SPF algorithm developed in 1978 for the ARPANET (a landmark packet-switching network developed in the early 1970s by BBN), Dr. Radia Perlman's research on fault-tolerant broadcasting of routing information (1988), BBN's work on area routing (1986), and an early version of OSI's Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing protocol.*

It will be quite fascinating to read the documents and observe how the idiots in the general media butcher the points the patent holders and the supposed wrong do-ers (google in this case) make.

It should also be noted that cell phone carious would also be implicated in this for they preform 'least cost routing' with in their networks (and as a defense Google might consider this). One could further argue that because the concept, questionable in its obviousness outside an in line hardware prefixer to operate over POTS lines, worked in routing POTS calls back in the early nineties does not mean it holds water in new medium. A medium which the patent neither foresees or claims hence does not teach in any respect.

Lastly the way the patent reads it sounds very similar and obvious to anyone skilled in the art. My example would be that of a PBX. e.g. Office A is connected through a switch and can contact Office B's extension without having to traverse the phone companies lines do do so. I believe that some high-end PBX's back in the eighties had the ability to 'filter' calls based on the number dialed hence some routing functionality.

* http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/i to_doc/ospf.htm

Their idealogical allegiances aside, Googles still have a patent on highlighting.

See US Patent 6,839,702 on the following server which clearly doesn't use mod_alias.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm l&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,839,702.WKU.

A system highlights search terms in documents distributed over a network. The system generates a search query that includes a search term and, in response to the search query, receives a list of one or more references to documents in the network. The system receives selection of one of the references and retrieves a document that corresponds to the selected reference. The system then highlights the search term in the retrieved document.

Possibly:

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=6,960,975.WKU.&OS=PN/6,960,975&RS =PN/6,960,975

They've taken an industry standard form factor motherboard, and put it in an industry standard form factor rackmount case... and that's worthy of a patent?

A system and method for automatically creating a racked computer that is useable to access the functionality of an industry standard computer system coupled to a rack. The method may operate to connect to the rack system and obtain information specifying functionality of the rack system. The information obtained may be analyzed programmatically, and new information may be programmatically created based on the analysis, wherein the programmatically created information is useable for accessing the functionality of the rack system. For example, where the functionality of a computer comprises a programmatically callable function, the information created may include information specifying the function name, names of input and output parameters, data types of the parameters, etc. The programmatically created information may be stored in a repository for use in accessing the functionality of the racked computer system from the industry standard computer. For example, the information may be retrieved from the computer and used to programmatically construct appropriate data structures and/or execute appropriate code for interfacing with the racked system to access the desired functionality.

Shamelessly satired from US Patent 6,978,457 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=method&OS=method&RS= method

The sight might be too slow to even take a single viewing, let alone a good slashdotting.

Before you hit that preview button, you may want to license Patent 6,708,221. It's already too late for me.

[P]atent clerks screw up (possibly even more than most people since I hear being a patent clerk is a crappy job).

Instead it is the economic incentives built into the system that ensure that the patent office will continue to grant more and more obvious patents.

Nowadays most patent offices around the world are already "self funded", so the fees go back to the patent office. This means that the patent office has an incetive to grant as many patents as it possibly can.

A look at the USPTO fee list [uspto.gov]USPTO Fee Schedule explains the underlying math.

The basic application fee for a patent is $300, but you also have to pay a "search fee" of $500 and an "examination fee" of $200, making it a total of $1000 for making an application. But in order to collect that money, the patent office has to do quite a lot of work: set up a file, do an initial formal examination, perform a novelty search, and quite often engage in correspondence with the applicant to sort out various issues. It seems reasonable to assume that initial applications "as such" do not cover their own costs for the patent office.

But once a patent has been granted, nice things start to happen to the patent office's profitability calculations.

At the moment the patent is granted, the proprietor has to pay $1400 in "issuance fee". Then, in order to keep his patent valid, he has to pay maintenance fees at regular intervals. $900 is due at 3.5 years after it was granted, $2,300 due at 7.5 years, and $3,800 due at 11.5 years.

For a patent that is renewed throughout its full term, the post-allowance and maintenance fees add up to $8,400, compared to the $1000 for the initial application.

And the renewal fees are the good part of the patent office business, since the PTO doesn't actually have to do anything for the money, except make a note in the file that the fee has been paid. So for those patent offices around the world that are funded in whole or in part by the fees they collect, there is a direct incentive to let the standards slip to the lowest level they can possibly get away with.

The result can be seen at a patent office near you.

This i believe is the patent.

A quick whois on the domain "newstandardkeyboards.com" shows it's registered to the same person that filed for that patent. Searched, but couldn't find any other patents for it.

Some times it's the guy, 30 years after the first broad patent is filed, that figures out the critical specification to make the whole thing work.

I have not read Pavel's patent but from your description it seems to be of the "claim staking" variety.

When the idea of geostationary communications satellites was first proposed it was non-obvious (if only because very few people were thinking about such things). This perhaps could have been patented.

Hear here!

Hear here!

if you allow anyone to use a trademark for any reason you risk loosing the trademark because it can become a generic term

Not true. There has to be a likelihood of confusion or deception. But your reason number 2 may be valid. It's a grey area though -- whether just because it's a gene associated with cancer is enough to turn the case in Nintendo's favor is questionable. The added "fame" of the Pokemon trademark might be enough to throw the case into their favor though.