Slashdot Mirror

Scroll down a bit on this page to the NVIORAM pictures. Not only does it give you TB's of storage, but it also lets you plug your headphones into your record player.

And also, proof the US Patent office will give a patent to anything from anybody

This appears to be their patent:
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=5,841,689&OS=5,841,6 89&RS=5,841,689

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

This invention concerns a new non-volatile memory cell where, during the reading of information, a magnetic quantum-optical method is used. This method is based on the recently discovered magnetic quantum-optical effect, named after its discoverer, "Gendlin Effect". This invention also deals with a new composition of materials for non-volatile carrier that could be used as an environment of accumulation with high-density recording of discrete information; it also concerns a non-volatile storing device with random access, built with the use of a new composition of materials and new memory cell.

Thin metal magnetic films with high specific resistance to electric current with various crystal structures are used as the record carrier.

More definitely, this concerns the new magnetic record carrier on thin films with high specific resistance to electricity, deposited from both sides in a thin film-base conductive electrode made from non-magnetic metal with low specific resistance to electric current, which is the source of an electromagnetic field when electric current passes through it, and are packed in porous silicon, whose caverns are filled with the magnetic material of the carrier.

When electric current is sent through the electrode, a magnetic field is generated around it, directed through all layers of thin magnetic films and adjoining areas of porous silicon, whose caverns are filled with the magnetic material of the carrier from the layer next to the porous silicon and thus magnetizes or changes the direction of the magnetic field inside the magnetic carrier. Meanwhile, the magnetic domains of the carrier located between small-sized "hairs" (less than 2.5 nm) in porous silicon, generate resilient mechanical pressure on them (compression and expansion). As a result, the "hairs" are deformed and, according to the principles of quantum mechanics, the energy state changes as the position of electrons is localized, and a quantum of light is generated in the bordering zone of this interaction. (Gendlin Effect, described in detail in the discovery application entitled "Magnetic quantum-optical effect in polycrystalline silicon"). This quantum of light is used to define the characteristics of the carrier concerning its magnetic reversal (signal of reading), that has found its implementation in the real device. ....

Patents are the nuclear weapons of the software world. Many companies have them in case they get attacked, and everyone knows that should there be a patent war, there will be no winners.

The goal of disarmament is noble, but in a world where these weapons already exist, it's very difficult. I have a software patent, and would give it up in a heartbeat if everyone else would do the same. The following solution is one with perhaps even more teeth, and one that I would embrace:

I propose a modification to the rumored GPL 3.0: "The fee for this software is (huge number), due upon initiation of a software patent attack against any entity." A provision specifically allowing retaliatory lawsuits might make it even easier for patent holders to accept.

So, take for example what Unisys did with their LZW ("Gif") patent. The moment they initiated the first lawsuit, huge bills would come due, one for each piece of GPL 3.0 software they had ever used. Mutual Assured Destruction in it's purest form.

One bright point is that most software packages will probably offer you a level of choice as to what restrictions get placed on GPL code. Recall this paragraph from GPL v2:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

So, for instance, jzIntv, my Intellivision emulator, is offered under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Unless GPL v3 offers my users something that GPL v2 doesn't, my users can decide not to subject themselves to GPL v3.

Now what isn't clear by that wording is if someone could fork this "GPL v2 or later" code and make it GPL v3 only without the copyright holder(s) (me, for most of it) giving permission. I think the answer's "yes." But that won't remove the GPL v2 code from the planet. And so just as you see some projects pick the proprietary-friendly BSD license over the GPL (since each has a different notion of freedom), I think you'll see GPL'd projects split along v2 / v3 lines as well. In my case, I may not even be able to publish code under GPL v3. My hands are "unclean." Looky here, my name is on 1, 2, 3, 4 software-related patents! I promise they are not as asinine as "one-click," and much narrower in scope.

Also, I'm one of the co-architects of several device security features that my employer will include on multiple upcoming chips. These features will be used by our customers to implement DRM! I didn't implement DRM myself. Rather, like the TPM chip, we provide an infrastructure that could be used for good or evil. But I did my best to make the infrastructure watertight. Sorry folks.

One bright point is that most software packages will probably offer you a level of choice as to what restrictions get placed on GPL code. Recall this paragraph from GPL v2:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

So, for instance, jzIntv, my Intellivision emulator, is offered under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Unless GPL v3 offers my users something that GPL v2 doesn't, my users can decide not to subject themselves to GPL v3.

Now what isn't clear by that wording is if someone could fork this "GPL v2 or later" code and make it GPL v3 only without the copyright holder(s) (me, for most of it) giving permission. I think the answer's "yes." But that won't remove the GPL v2 code from the planet. And so just as you see some projects pick the proprietary-friendly BSD license over the GPL (since each has a different notion of freedom), I think you'll see GPL'd projects split along v2 / v3 lines as well. In my case, I may not even be able to publish code under GPL v3. My hands are "unclean." Looky here, my name is on 1, 2, 3, 4 software-related patents! I promise they are not as asinine as "one-click," and much narrower in scope.

Also, I'm one of the co-architects of several device security features that my employer will include on multiple upcoming chips. These features will be used by our customers to implement DRM! I didn't implement DRM myself. Rather, like the TPM chip, we provide an infrastructure that could be used for good or evil. But I did my best to make the infrastructure watertight. Sorry folks.

One bright point is that most software packages will probably offer you a level of choice as to what restrictions get placed on GPL code. Recall this paragraph from GPL v2:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

So, for instance, jzIntv, my Intellivision emulator, is offered under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Unless GPL v3 offers my users something that GPL v2 doesn't, my users can decide not to subject themselves to GPL v3.

Now what isn't clear by that wording is if someone could fork this "GPL v2 or later" code and make it GPL v3 only without the copyright holder(s) (me, for most of it) giving permission. I think the answer's "yes." But that won't remove the GPL v2 code from the planet. And so just as you see some projects pick the proprietary-friendly BSD license over the GPL (since each has a different notion of freedom), I think you'll see GPL'd projects split along v2 / v3 lines as well. In my case, I may not even be able to publish code under GPL v3. My hands are "unclean." Looky here, my name is on 1, 2, 3, 4 software-related patents! I promise they are not as asinine as "one-click," and much narrower in scope.

Also, I'm one of the co-architects of several device security features that my employer will include on multiple upcoming chips. These features will be used by our customers to implement DRM! I didn't implement DRM myself. Rather, like the TPM chip, we provide an infrastructure that could be used for good or evil. But I did my best to make the infrastructure watertight. Sorry folks.

One bright point is that most software packages will probably offer you a level of choice as to what restrictions get placed on GPL code. Recall this paragraph from GPL v2:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

So, for instance, jzIntv, my Intellivision emulator, is offered under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Unless GPL v3 offers my users something that GPL v2 doesn't, my users can decide not to subject themselves to GPL v3.

Now what isn't clear by that wording is if someone could fork this "GPL v2 or later" code and make it GPL v3 only without the copyright holder(s) (me, for most of it) giving permission. I think the answer's "yes." But that won't remove the GPL v2 code from the planet. And so just as you see some projects pick the proprietary-friendly BSD license over the GPL (since each has a different notion of freedom), I think you'll see GPL'd projects split along v2 / v3 lines as well. In my case, I may not even be able to publish code under GPL v3. My hands are "unclean." Looky here, my name is on 1, 2, 3, 4 software-related patents! I promise they are not as asinine as "one-click," and much narrower in scope.

Also, I'm one of the co-architects of several device security features that my employer will include on multiple upcoming chips. These features will be used by our customers to implement DRM! I didn't implement DRM myself. Rather, like the TPM chip, we provide an infrastructure that could be used for good or evil. But I did my best to make the infrastructure watertight. Sorry folks.

when we got Tom Bearden and his 10:1 producing Motionless Electromagnetic Generator!

With this patent pending peer-proven cheap gadget everyone gets cheap unlimited energy from active vacuum! ;)

Thanks for a well-written, highly informed discussion :)

Apologies for the redneck comment, I was using it as synonymous with the somewhat parochial mindset present in large areas of the US (and most other countries) - the sort of people who, for example, call you a traitor when you claim you're not too keen on any wars your country may be engaged in... What's a better word for that? Does the phrase good ol' boy fit or is that overkill?

Maybe I am somewhat paranoid about the damage that commercial interests can do to the technical minority. I'm from Europe, where an alliance of pretty much every techie on the entire continent only just managed to prevent software patents being passed into law by a bunch of undemocratic bureaucrats. I understand that software patents are all over the place in the US so, to rehash my earlier comments:

Don't like operating systems with DRM in? Use one like Linux, that doesn't have DRM. Whoops, you've just been sued for infringement of some ridiculously obvious software patent. Game over, insert coin.

Yahoo! has the patent on using punctuation in trademarks as a business method to create simulated excitement in otherwise independent reviews wherever they mention the name of the product being reviewd.

"Apple lost that lawsuit when the Judge held that GUIs and their look and feel could not be patented or copyrighted, so it seems like that could be used as a precedent in their favor on this lawsuit."

As somebody else has pointed out, that's not the background behind the ruling, but keep in mind that Apple holds lots of GUI-related patents. A few examples:

• dragging and dropping
• A dialog box featuring sliders, radio buttons, pull-downs and check boxes
• Representing your hard drive as a photo of a hard drive

"Apple lost that lawsuit when the Judge held that GUIs and their look and feel could not be patented or copyrighted, so it seems like that could be used as a precedent in their favor on this lawsuit."

As somebody else has pointed out, that's not the background behind the ruling, but keep in mind that Apple holds lots of GUI-related patents. A few examples:

• dragging and dropping
• A dialog box featuring sliders, radio buttons, pull-downs and check boxes
• Representing your hard drive as a photo of a hard drive

"Apple lost that lawsuit when the Judge held that GUIs and their look and feel could not be patented or copyrighted, so it seems like that could be used as a precedent in their favor on this lawsuit."

As somebody else has pointed out, that's not the background behind the ruling, but keep in mind that Apple holds lots of GUI-related patents. A few examples:

• dragging and dropping
• A dialog box featuring sliders, radio buttons, pull-downs and check boxes
• Representing your hard drive as a photo of a hard drive

So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO? Perhaps ask them to increase your taxes to help out?

Any tax increase would (at most) almost certainly be indirect. At least the last time I checked, the PTO was profitable -- i.e. its budget was less than the amount in collected in application and maintainence fees.

I didn't think so. ;-) Also, I'd point out that raising the application fees doesn't stop big companies from filing as many patents as they do today. It just hurts small inventors.

It doesn't have to. Most patent office fees are exactly twice as much for a large business as for a small business or individual. It would be relatively trivial to increase that ratio if they wanted to.

I suspect congress sees patents a bit differently than most of us though. First of all, as pointed out above, I'm reasonably certain the PTO turns a profit, and increasing that profit would be seen as a good thing by most of congress.

Second, I'd guess congress sees patents partly in terms of balance of trade -- intellectual property is currently a huge export from the United States. We invent a great deal, but build relatively little. The US companies that invent/design most of what we use make their money primarily by licensing their technology to the foreign companies that build the devices that use the technology. Without patents, the US would almost certainly have a substantially larger trade deficit.

These might help to explain why congress has done exactly the opposite of what you suggest. As of December 8, 2004, the US congress cut the fees for filing a patent application by quite a wide margin -- from $790 to $300 (or half that for a small entity). That's the price for a utility patent -- design patents, plant patents, etc., each have their own fees.

Anybody who cares to can go to the US PTO web site for full details.

--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

...and got rejected. by the way, check out Apple's just-as-lame "Cup Holder" patent that was applied in Feb. 2005.

You can pull all of the patent information from the last time we discussed this issue

No, no you can't, at least not easily. It's not in the Slashdot story, it's not in the referenced BBC story...Ah, here it is. It was hiding in the C-Net story and they had encrusted it in a link tracker.

Why does everyone rush to the defense of Apple? Just like other big companies, they are always trying to get ridiculous patents too: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050147951%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20050147951&RS=DN/20050147951

So they have patented "navigating a succession of menus". No prior art there. I think the Zen patent should be for including a virus on an MP3 player.

Read the Patent

I've seen a number of posts similar to this in this discussion already, but Creative didn't patent menu heirarchy. They patented the automatic creation and filing of the heirarchy based on reading the meta-data of the music.

I see no clause in the Consolidated Patent Laws document or in the Consolidated Patent Rules document which would suggests something that seems intuitively obvious; A file for Patent which attempts to lay claim to a process which is so trivial as to be the natural and likely inclination of most people, or is so simple as to be unavoidable, are ineligible. It appears to me that the difference between "rules" and "laws" is that rules are determined by the USPTO, whereas laws are legislated by congress. Is this correct? Perhaps there is some other document [uspto.gov] that I am not seeing which specify such an obvious guideline?

.... perhaps; Patents which "induce spontaneous laughter by members of the USPTO office and/or members of the general public because of the stupidity and/or ludicrousness of the request" should be legally ineligible.

... I was able to find the following guideline which, to me, clearly suggests that the patent (#6,928,433 btw) should be ineligible:

** 1.43 In case an inventor is insane or otherwise legally incapacitated, the legal representative (guardian, conservator, etc.) of such inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent. [48 FR 2709, Jan. 20, 1983, effective Feb. 27, 1983]

... It seems clear to me that each person attempting to file this patent would trigger this clause, recursively, indefinitely. I can only think of one other reason a person would file this patent; intent to stifle a competitor by subversively manipulating our public legal system with merit-less accusations for purposes of instigating a punishment or restriction which has no legal or ethical basis.

If we cannot do anything legally, then we can vote with our dollars. Creative Technology's patent is un-ethical and, if so many Americans weren't in such a state of philosophical confusion, un-American. This patent may be the straw that broke the camel's back; I'm strongly considering the creation of a grass-roots web resource to round-up those of us left who still have some shred of common-sense so that we can use our collective power to identify and "fiscally balance" those that chose to profiteer from unethical business practices. Anybody interested?

I see no clause in the Consolidated Patent Laws document or in the Consolidated Patent Rules document which would suggests something that seems intuitively obvious; A file for Patent which attempts to lay claim to a process which is so trivial as to be the natural and likely inclination of most people, or is so simple as to be unavoidable, are ineligible. It appears to me that the difference between "rules" and "laws" is that rules are determined by the USPTO, whereas laws are legislated by congress. Is this correct? Perhaps there is some other document [uspto.gov] that I am not seeing which specify such an obvious guideline?

.... perhaps; Patents which "induce spontaneous laughter by members of the USPTO office and/or members of the general public because of the stupidity and/or ludicrousness of the request" should be legally ineligible.

... I was able to find the following guideline which, to me, clearly suggests that the patent (#6,928,433 btw) should be ineligible:

** 1.43 In case an inventor is insane or otherwise legally incapacitated, the legal representative (guardian, conservator, etc.) of such inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent. [48 FR 2709, Jan. 20, 1983, effective Feb. 27, 1983]

... It seems clear to me that each person attempting to file this patent would trigger this clause, recursively, indefinitely. I can only think of one other reason a person would file this patent; intent to stifle a competitor by subversively manipulating our public legal system with merit-less accusations for purposes of instigating a punishment or restriction which has no legal or ethical basis.

If we cannot do anything legally, then we can vote with our dollars. Creative Technology's patent is un-ethical and, if so many Americans weren't in such a state of philosophical confusion, un-American. This patent may be the straw that broke the camel's back; I'm strongly considering the creation of a grass-roots web resource to round-up those of us left who still have some shred of common-sense so that we can use our collective power to identify and "fiscally balance" those that chose to profiteer from unethical business practices. Anybody interested?

I see no clause in the Consolidated Patent Laws document or in the Consolidated Patent Rules document which would suggests something that seems intuitively obvious; A file for Patent which attempts to lay claim to a process which is so trivial as to be the natural and likely inclination of most people, or is so simple as to be unavoidable, are ineligible. It appears to me that the difference between "rules" and "laws" is that rules are determined by the USPTO, whereas laws are legislated by congress. Is this correct? Perhaps there is some other document [uspto.gov] that I am not seeing which specify such an obvious guideline?

.... perhaps; Patents which "induce spontaneous laughter by members of the USPTO office and/or members of the general public because of the stupidity and/or ludicrousness of the request" should be legally ineligible.

... I was able to find the following guideline which, to me, clearly suggests that the patent (#6,928,433 btw) should be ineligible:

** 1.43 In case an inventor is insane or otherwise legally incapacitated, the legal representative (guardian, conservator, etc.) of such inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent. [48 FR 2709, Jan. 20, 1983, effective Feb. 27, 1983]

... It seems clear to me that each person attempting to file this patent would trigger this clause, recursively, indefinitely. I can only think of one other reason a person would file this patent; intent to stifle a competitor by subversively manipulating our public legal system with merit-less accusations for purposes of instigating a punishment or restriction which has no legal or ethical basis.

If we cannot do anything legally, then we can vote with our dollars. Creative Technology's patent is un-ethical and, if so many Americans weren't in such a state of philosophical confusion, un-American. This patent may be the straw that broke the camel's back; I'm strongly considering the creation of a grass-roots web resource to round-up those of us left who still have some shred of common-sense so that we can use our collective power to identify and "fiscally balance" those that chose to profiteer from unethical business practices. Anybody interested?

No. The intent of IP law is the publication and dissemination of innovations, not the protection of them. From the USPTO's own words: "Through the preservation, classification, and dissemination of patent information, the Office promotes the industrial and technological progress of the nation and strengthens the economy." Notice there's no mention of protection or helping the creators, it's about helping everyone else learn how things work and advance the ideas. The limited time protection is merely the means by which creators are given incentive to disseminate the information; it is not the intended purpose.

A world without IP laws is a world of secrets, which stiffles innovation. It is unfortunate that poor application and understanding of the principles behind IP -- both at the legislative and approval levels, and abuse by the industry for unintended purposes -- has lead us to the mess we have today that also stiffles innovation. Clearly reform is necessary.

I see no clause in the Consolidated Patent Laws document or in the Consolidated Patent Rules document which would suggests something that seems intuitively obvious; A file for Patent which attempts to lay claim to a process which is so trivial as to be the natural and likely inclination of most people, or is so simple as to be unavoidable, are ineligible. It appears to me that the difference between "rules" and "laws" is that rules are determined by the USPTO, whereas laws are legislated by congress. Is this correct? Perhaps there is some other document that I am not seeing which specify such an obvious guideline?

.... perhaps; Patents which "induce spontaneous laughter by members of the USPTO office and/or members of the general public because of the stupidity and/or ludicrousness of the request" should be legally ineligible.

... I was able to find the following guideline which, to me, clearly suggests that the patent (#6,928,433 btw) should be ineligible:

** 1.43 In case an inventor is insane or otherwise legally incapacitated, the legal representative (guardian, conservator, etc.) of such inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent. [48 FR 2709, Jan. 20, 1983, effective Feb. 27, 1983]

... It seems clear to me that each person attempting to file this patent would trigger this clause, recursively, indefinitely. I can only think of one other reason a person would file this patent; intent to stifle a competitor by subversively manipulating our public legal system with merit-less accusations for purposes of instigating a punishment or restriction which has no legal or ethical basis.

If we cannot do anything legally, then we can vote with our dollars. Creative Technology's patent is un-ethical and, if so many Americans weren't in such a state of philosophical confusion, un-American. This patent may be the straw that broke the camel's back; I'm strongly considering the creation of a grass-roots web resource to round-up those of us left who still have some shred of common-sense so that we can use our collective power to identify and "fiscally balance" those that chose to profiteer from unethical business practices. Anybody interested?

I see no clause in the Consolidated Patent Laws document or in the Consolidated Patent Rules document which would suggests something that seems intuitively obvious; A file for Patent which attempts to lay claim to a process which is so trivial as to be the natural and likely inclination of most people, or is so simple as to be unavoidable, are ineligible. It appears to me that the difference between "rules" and "laws" is that rules are determined by the USPTO, whereas laws are legislated by congress. Is this correct? Perhaps there is some other document that I am not seeing which specify such an obvious guideline?

.... perhaps; Patents which "induce spontaneous laughter by members of the USPTO office and/or members of the general public because of the stupidity and/or ludicrousness of the request" should be legally ineligible.

... I was able to find the following guideline which, to me, clearly suggests that the patent (#6,928,433 btw) should be ineligible:

** 1.43 In case an inventor is insane or otherwise legally incapacitated, the legal representative (guardian, conservator, etc.) of such inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent. [48 FR 2709, Jan. 20, 1983, effective Feb. 27, 1983]

... It seems clear to me that each person attempting to file this patent would trigger this clause, recursively, indefinitely. I can only think of one other reason a person would file this patent; intent to stifle a competitor by subversively manipulating our public legal system with merit-less accusations for purposes of instigating a punishment or restriction which has no legal or ethical basis.

If we cannot do anything legally, then we can vote with our dollars. Creative Technology's patent is un-ethical and, if so many Americans weren't in such a state of philosophical confusion, un-American. This patent may be the straw that broke the camel's back; I'm strongly considering the creation of a grass-roots web resource to round-up those of us left who still have some shred of common-sense so that we can use our collective power to identify and "fiscally balance" those that chose to profiteer from unethical business practices. Anybody interested?

I see no clause in the Consolidated Patent Laws document or in the Consolidated Patent Rules document which would suggests something that seems intuitively obvious; A file for Patent which attempts to lay claim to a process which is so trivial as to be the natural and likely inclination of most people, or is so simple as to be unavoidable, are ineligible. It appears to me that the difference between "rules" and "laws" is that rules are determined by the USPTO, whereas laws are legislated by congress. Is this correct? Perhaps there is some other document that I am not seeing which specify such an obvious guideline?

.... perhaps; Patents which "induce spontaneous laughter by members of the USPTO office and/or members of the general public because of the stupidity and/or ludicrousness of the request" should be legally ineligible.

... I was able to find the following guideline which, to me, clearly suggests that the patent (#6,928,433 btw) should be ineligible:

** 1.43 In case an inventor is insane or otherwise legally incapacitated, the legal representative (guardian, conservator, etc.) of such inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent. [48 FR 2709, Jan. 20, 1983, effective Feb. 27, 1983]

... It seems clear to me that each person attempting to file this patent would trigger this clause, recursively, indefinitely. I can only think of one other reason a person would file this patent; intent to stifle a competitor by subversively manipulating our public legal system with merit-less accusations for purposes of instigating a punishment or restriction which has no legal or ethical basis.

If we cannot do anything legally, then we can vote with our dollars. Creative Technology's patent is un-ethical and, if so many Americans weren't in such a state of philosophical confusion, un-American. This patent may be the straw that broke the camel's back; I'm strongly considering the creation of a grass-roots web resource to round-up those of us left who still have some shred of common-sense so that we can use our collective power to identify and "fiscally balance" those that chose to profiteer from unethical business practices. Anybody interested?

If you as an outsider know about prior art for a patent you can request a rexamination for a patent and submit the prior art to be considered. This process is conducted by patent examiners not a court : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/05-3 8.htm

a number produced by the formula floor((n mod 3)/(n+1))+1.

It seems we have a problem...as you can clearly see on my patent, I have prior claim to 'n mod 3'.

My attorneys will be in touch.

It isn't a patent on hierarchical menus, it's a patent on "automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata."

In November, Creative boss Sim Wong Hoo said he aimed to out market his competitors, saying the MP3 war had started.

Creative Technology, which is based in Singapore and has United States operations in Milpitas, Calif., said it would consider every option available to defend the patent, including possible legal action.

Considering Apple holds the lion's share of the MP3 player market, though a late comer, it's not surprising to see the legal threat, but perhaps Creative Technologies should be looking at their own failure to capitalise on the market which left the door open for Apple.

Patent 6,928,433

Creative Labs already had MP3 players out in the market way back in early 2002. A search for patents "assigned to" creative labs results in the following. Those who have read the links on the article can see that creative (including the Nomad) has been selling MP3 players since 2000.

I don't see the absence of creativity here for being the first to move from CD-ROM MP3 players to Solid State and Hard drive based MP3 players and therefore the very early browsing interfaces. Some of my friends who have used the player have commented that the UI itself was clumsy and difficult to get through. The iPod, has achieved better looking design (Apple always does that!) and a neat easily usable User Interface.

The article by BBC is at best vague, what "Patent #" has been awarded, and where is it applicable? are questions that are not answered by an article addressing these issues.

While the basic issue of patents on User Interfaces and File systems may be questioned (and even considered invalid), Creative has been a pioneer in Audio, later in MP3 handheld players who lost out to competitors later after their innovation spark fizzled out. Just because everyone sees iPods playing Music today (which have a better business model) is no reason to ignore Apple's patents nor criticise Creative Labs for filing for patents (and being awarded them) while they introduced their products first.

"Apple didn't blunder, but in all likelihood took the correct position that a displayed representation of a heirarchical filesystem was unpatentable."

That doesn't sound like typical Apple behavior -- they can and will use the legal system to their advantage.

Apple owns hundreds of patents for ideas and processes which would seem intuitive to the average Slashdotter. To wit:

• adding a dynamic display to a remote control
• dragging and dropping
• using a computer to perform scan line conversion
• using sliders, pull-downs, radio buttons and check boxes
• using a temperature sensor to see if it's okay to overclock
• Representing your hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo of a hard drive

Perhaps I am over-simplifying some of these, but this is par for the course whenever Slashdotters discuss particular patents.

"Apple didn't blunder, but in all likelihood took the correct position that a displayed representation of a heirarchical filesystem was unpatentable."

That doesn't sound like typical Apple behavior -- they can and will use the legal system to their advantage.

Apple owns hundreds of patents for ideas and processes which would seem intuitive to the average Slashdotter. To wit:

• adding a dynamic display to a remote control
• dragging and dropping
• using a computer to perform scan line conversion
• using sliders, pull-downs, radio buttons and check boxes
• using a temperature sensor to see if it's okay to overclock
• Representing your hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo of a hard drive

Perhaps I am over-simplifying some of these, but this is par for the course whenever Slashdotters discuss particular patents.

"Apple didn't blunder, but in all likelihood took the correct position that a displayed representation of a heirarchical filesystem was unpatentable."

That doesn't sound like typical Apple behavior -- they can and will use the legal system to their advantage.

Apple owns hundreds of patents for ideas and processes which would seem intuitive to the average Slashdotter. To wit:

• adding a dynamic display to a remote control
• dragging and dropping
• using a computer to perform scan line conversion
• using sliders, pull-downs, radio buttons and check boxes
• using a temperature sensor to see if it's okay to overclock
• Representing your hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo of a hard drive

Perhaps I am over-simplifying some of these, but this is par for the course whenever Slashdotters discuss particular patents.

"Apple didn't blunder, but in all likelihood took the correct position that a displayed representation of a heirarchical filesystem was unpatentable."

That doesn't sound like typical Apple behavior -- they can and will use the legal system to their advantage.

Apple owns hundreds of patents for ideas and processes which would seem intuitive to the average Slashdotter. To wit:

• adding a dynamic display to a remote control
• dragging and dropping
• using a computer to perform scan line conversion
• using sliders, pull-downs, radio buttons and check boxes
• using a temperature sensor to see if it's okay to overclock
• Representing your hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo of a hard drive

Perhaps I am over-simplifying some of these, but this is par for the course whenever Slashdotters discuss particular patents.

"Apple didn't blunder, but in all likelihood took the correct position that a displayed representation of a heirarchical filesystem was unpatentable."

That doesn't sound like typical Apple behavior -- they can and will use the legal system to their advantage.

Apple owns hundreds of patents for ideas and processes which would seem intuitive to the average Slashdotter. To wit:

• adding a dynamic display to a remote control
• dragging and dropping
• using a computer to perform scan line conversion
• using sliders, pull-downs, radio buttons and check boxes
• using a temperature sensor to see if it's okay to overclock
• Representing your hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo of a hard drive

Perhaps I am over-simplifying some of these, but this is par for the course whenever Slashdotters discuss particular patents.

"Apple didn't blunder, but in all likelihood took the correct position that a displayed representation of a heirarchical filesystem was unpatentable."

That doesn't sound like typical Apple behavior -- they can and will use the legal system to their advantage.

Apple owns hundreds of patents for ideas and processes which would seem intuitive to the average Slashdotter. To wit:

• adding a dynamic display to a remote control
• dragging and dropping
• using a computer to perform scan line conversion
• using sliders, pull-downs, radio buttons and check boxes
• using a temperature sensor to see if it's okay to overclock
• Representing your hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo of a hard drive

Perhaps I am over-simplifying some of these, but this is par for the course whenever Slashdotters discuss particular patents.

I read the f______ patent. It involves making a folder structure three levels deep (e.g. C:\a\b) and putting music files into subsubdirectories (e.g. C:\a\b\song.mp3). I could do that with Windows 95 and the included version of Media Player. It gets even more obvious with Winamp 2.x, which was available at least when I started college in July 1999, which was well over a year before the filing date of this patent. The following use cases corresponding to the relate to Windows 4.x and Winamp 2.x:

Claim 1: a portable digital media player whose interface is open folder, open folder, open audio file. Nothing in this claim defines "portable media player" to exclude a common laptop computer such as the Acer Travelmate 721TX distributed to all Rose-Hulman Class of 2003 students in 1999. All other claims build on this claim.

Claim 2: open folder, open folder, select all, open file. Winamp takes "a plurality of tracks" opened at the same time and constructs a playlist for them.

Claim 3: open folder, open folder, right click file, Add to Playlist.

Claims 4-6: similar to claim 1-3, involving symbolic links (called "shortcuts" by Windows 4.x and 5.x).

Claim 7: the "Up a folder" button.

Claim 8: storing files an additional folder deep.

Claim 9: root directory contains "by artist", "by album", and "by genre"; folders within "by genre" are named "rock", "classical", etc, and within e.g. the "rock" folder are items (such as symbolic links) that activate songs.

Claim 10: like Claim 9 except the "rock" folder contains symbolic links to rock albums.

Claim 11: root directory contains "by artist", "by album", and "by genre"; allowing navigation to "C:\by Artist\Beatles\White Album\Revolution 1.mp3".

Claim 12: filenames are song titles, and the default action of Winamp is "play this song".

Claim 13: the default action of Windows Explorer is "open this folder".

Claim 14: the root directory is displayed first.

Claim 15: inner directories are displayed after root directories.

Claim 16: root directory contains artist names; allowing navigation to "C:\Beatles\White Album\Revolution 1.mp3".

Here's the patent 6,928,433

here's the actual patent

The image on the front of the patent seems to be Zelda 64... Maybe they were planning this for Zelda 64 or the upcoming one? It does seem more like Doom 3, though...

Well, the guy with the tesla-coil-in-a-suitcase and blinding laser pointer is nowhere near having these high-intensity pulsed UV lasers. The technique is only briefly mentioned at the end of the article.

The "laser lightning rod" was patented in 1992.

lets have patents for food recipes!

Here we go: 6,863,908 -- Universal sauce base.

Because it was only recently that someone else tried to trademark "Linux" for themselves.

Looking through the US Patent and Trademark office, searching for `Linux', I find lots of registrations that involve the name Linux, some going back as far as 1999. For example, LINUXWORLD CONFERENCE & EXPO.

I wouldn't call 1999 recently ...

Ultimately, trademarking anything that might be associated with your business is a common business method of operation. For example, McDonald's I'm Loving it was almost certainly registered even before the onslaught of commercials started.

Because it was only recently that someone else tried to trademark "Linux" for themselves.

Looking through the US Patent and Trademark office, searching for `Linux', I find lots of registrations that involve the name Linux, some going back as far as 1999. For example, LINUXWORLD CONFERENCE & EXPO.

I wouldn't call 1999 recently ...

Ultimately, trademarking anything that might be associated with your business is a common business method of operation. For example, McDonald's I'm Loving it was almost certainly registered even before the onslaught of commercials started.

Because it was only recently that someone else tried to trademark "Linux" for themselves.

Looking through the US Patent and Trademark office, searching for `Linux', I find lots of registrations that involve the name Linux, some going back as far as 1999. For example, LINUXWORLD CONFERENCE & EXPO.

I wouldn't call 1999 recently ...

Ultimately, trademarking anything that might be associated with your business is a common business method of operation. For example, McDonald's I'm Loving it was almost certainly registered even before the onslaught of commercials started.

I think this article overlooks the fact that many 'free as in speech' third party security libraries and frameworks are available for java.

1) ACEGI - Aspect-orientaded-programming using a dependency injection model to replace or complement JAAS for authentication and authorization in an Application server independant way. A subproject of the Spring framework:

I didn't see that one, but you'll LOVE this, M$ applied for a patent on "property" pages...

US Patent Application 20030007011

Captchas are a necessary evil.

Is it "necessary" to violate the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and foreign counterparts by shutting out blind people? Is it "necessary" to pay HP big bucks to license U.S. Patent 6,195,698 and foreign counterparts?

Now as I said, IANAL, so I don't know if the term "trademark search" has the specific meaning you imply. Trademark search means searching through national trademark databases, such as this one for the united states. It wouldn't hurt to take 10 seconds to google a phrase before talking out your ass.

He did. http://lwn.net/Articles/148590/

I don't tend to bother about slashdot, because quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not.

Umm, I resent that, I'm in it for the +5 Funny.

But I was really hoping this particular wanking session wouldn't overflow into Linux-kernel.

How could it not? Oh, I don't know, maybe by answering on the wanking session board instead of LKML.

I do appreciate his position. However, the whole thing makes me feel icky.

Cease and Desist from a Linux® Organization. Kinda Like getting a disease from immunization (no offeense RFK jr.)

In the interest of FUD-Stomping I offer this : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/
Don't miss this part. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2005 jul18.htm
That's just in th U.S.A. It is expensive and Requires all of this licensing.

My advice, Choose another name for you Distro/Service Company. Attribute Linux® trademark to Linus. Hmm, Time to change sigs.