Slashdot Mirror

"Method to improve peri-anal hygiene after a bowel movement"

In Soviet Russia, bowels move you!
In Korea, only old people monitor peri-anal hygeine
I, for one, welcome our new peri-anal hygenic overlords
Yes, but can it run Linux?
But will it be released before DNF?
You insensitive clod, my peri-anal region is already clean!

Nah, I'll stick with this...

Wow, imagine a beowulf cluster of bowel movements!

United States Patent 5,877,765 ; Dickman , et al. March 2, 1999
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=5,877,765.WKU.&OS=PN/5,877,765&RS =PN/5,877,765

which has the catchy title Method and system for displaying internet shortcut icons on the desktop
and yes, from a quick look, it's every bit as obvious as it sounds.

Now, I assume Apple and Sun have taken out licences (or swapped some other IP) for the right to use this patent, but how about :

- KDE ?
- Gnome ?
- you ? - yes, YOU the /.'er right there running distro "X" with icons on your desktop pointing to URL's in VLAGRANT violation of :

2. The method of claim 1 wherein the display of the visual representation of the shortcut object on the virtual desktop includes a graphic for identifying the shortcut object as a shortcut to the resource.

Does anyone else despair of this patent madness, where this rather obvious extension i.e icons pointing to an INTERNET resource is considered patentable, as it's such a VAST improvement (yeah right) over the basic icon to LOCAL resource ?

eg, the Apple Mac in 1984, 1983 Lisa, even earlier Xerox Star etc etc...all had icons - right ?

Method to improve peri-anal hygiene after a bowel movement:

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=6520942.WKU.&OS=PN/6520942&RS=PN/ 6520942

I followed the links provided in the submission to this page containing a list of other reexaminations, where I found this gem:

6,520,942 Reexam. C.N. 90/006,758, Ordered Date: Sept. 24, 2003, Cl. 604/290,
Title: METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT

How fitting.

That's great news, but what about the other patents included in that same re-examination order? What's the status of "LABEL FOR SPOOLED WIRE PRODUCTS"? Will I finally be able to market my "METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT" without fear of legal reprisal? We need to know!

...that's "who tried to trademark". I fail it.

Really, someone should fire the guys at A9. Perhaps the guy who trademarked "You're fired" will do that, once he sees his blocked building.

Serial Number 76604206 at http://www.uspto.gov/ (direct links aren't so easy to get there)

um, guys, why should you care if *Apple Computer* is being sued for infringing a stupid software patent?

have we all forgotten Apple's stupid patent for the iTunes interface? (patent #20040055446)

I don't think they've wielded it against anyone, but there's nothing stopping them, especially since the interface has been so widely copied it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

sounds to me like a case of chickens coming home to roost...

Here's the extent of the patent.[patft.uspto.gov]

One skilled in the art will recognize that it is not essential to have the computer system separate from the media playing device. It is conceivable to have the computer system physically incorporated in part or in whole into the media playing device.

It is noted that the embodiment of the invention discusses the use of a standard known computer, where in fact all components of the computer can be replaced with any new advancing technologies, like holographics or voice activated systems and still not depart from the intent of the invention of allowing easier user access to the underlying media data base information.

The preferred embodiment of the invention discusses the control of only a single media playing device, like a player piano. However, one skilled in the art would easily understand how to simultaneously control several media playing devices with the same control system in view of this disclosure. For example, the coordination of the control of a player piano along with a music video is contemplated.

Although this embodiment focuses upon the application of the software to control a player piano or video player, one skilled in the art will realize that this software interface could be used on any media playing device where a user needs to select what media item is to be played from a vast media data base. For example, it is contemplated to operate an electric guitar, a computer controlled multimedia system, a pipe organ, a television, a movie video player, or a computer screen.

Wow. So the player doesn't even have to be outside of the computer. So, iTunes, Zinf (Freeamp), Winamp, Windows Media Player, XMMS, Amarok, RhythmBox, GStreamer, well, just about every media player infringes. Even the holographic, voice-activated system that controls 73 copies of Winamp over the net infringes. Heck, if I use an interface to control playback of something on my computer screen, it infringes (assuming a filesystem counts as a database, which it should). I'm sure several million software writers would be interested to know about this. After reading the whole patent, I'm not really sure what, exactly, if anything, they are patenting. I know it has to do with media, and playback, and maybe something about automatic, but beyond that, I'm lost. Is it on a computer? How about an iPod? Does a stereo count? Is it over the internet? Are the interface and the player seperate, or not? What is a player? Is it a screen, a TV, a Playstation, a pair of speakers, or none (or all) of those?

I though patents were for implementations, not abstract, all-encompassing ideas...

In other news, 5 year-old Sally Jones was sued by Steven Olson of St. Paul, MN, after being observed in her backyard swinging in a way such that she infringed on his patent. He is claiming damages of over $1 million.

Something that is "simple" is both "obvious" and not "novel".

If you choose to define simple as being obvious and not novel then that would be true. However, if you check the dictionary, simple is more traditionally defined as being easy or uncomplicated.

Of course you may disagree, but then the issue is what "is" an "obvious" invention ? At the moment professionals around the world think that what is "not obvious" for the patent office is instead quite "obvious" to them.

This would also be a common misunderstanding of patent law. The test is not whether something this is "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art" as is so often talked about here(assuming we are discussing US patent law, EU law is similar). The question is whether something is "obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art". While you can read most of the issued patents and say that they are obvious after reading them, the question is whether they were obvious at the time they were invented/filed. While it is easy to say that they would be, actually proving that they were obvious is an entirely different ball game. Thus far I have yet to get any slashdotter to take up that challenge and even come close to succeeding on any of the patent stories posted here.

The problem is: Give user graphic feedback on background tasks.

Solution: Something that grows over time and is visually representable. Can be anything, from a growing baloon to a growing bar. Is any of the peculiar implementation a "novelty" ?

I do get the point, however you are ignoring many other possible solutions which would solve the same problem. For example, a colored block could be presented which would transistion from black to white (or red to violet) as the taks completes, or a text box which displays a percentage of task completion, or a audible tone which increases in frequency as the task nears completion. How exactly is a progress bar which grows as the task nears completion the one and only solution that any person skilled in the art would think of when presented with the problem?

On the other hand, the courts have ruled that if something has provided a solution to a long-felt need in the art, that it actually lends credibility to the solution being non-obvious. See MPEP 716.04. Take this as you will, but to some extent it does make sense.

Why should you stop providing your "own" solution ? You didn't COPY it ! You didnt even know it existed !

Granted this is a problem, but it is also the reason why penalties are smaller in this situation than when someone knowningly infringes.

Here's the WebLoyalty online demo.. This is triggered after checkout from some other store. All the customer provides is an E-mail address, or at least a click on the big red button below the E-mail address form. Their credit card information is taken automatically from the previous transaction.

The key to WebLoyalty is that it's embedded in VirtualCart, a popular shopping cart program, and is on by default. It's quite possible for a merchant to be serving the WebLoyalty scam without even being aware of it. The merchant can't even turn it off directly. From the VirtualCart WebLoyalty FAQ:

• Q. How can webloyalty.com afford to offer Special Rewards and not get paid?
• A. webloyalty.com ultimately generates its revenue from the customer. Each customer who claims the Special Reward is offered the chance to join a discount shopping and protection service (Reservation Rewards), discount travel service (Travel Values Plus), shopping protection service (Buyer Assurance), or credit card and identity protection service (Wallet Shield). Although there is never an obligation for the customer to continue after the 30-day free trial, many customers choose to continue a service for its valuable benefits. This subset of consumers provides revenue to webloyalty.com.
• Q. Why allow the customer the opportunity to transfer his information as opposed to re-entering it?
• A. We believe the customer is always right. And after chatting with hundreds of customers, we heard one thing loud and clear... they want convenience. Most consumers believe allowing them to transfer their personal and financial information with their express permission is much more convenient than re-entering it. Just ask Amazon.com's customers!
• Q. How do I opt-out of this program?
• A. Send us an e-mail to support@vcart.com with your cart ID and we will be more than happy to review your account for removal from this program. virtualCART reserves the right to require all merchants to participate in the program.

And there you have it, the world's most successful phishing scam, run by a Harvard MBA.

If you need to sue those guys, look them up at the Secretary of State of Connecticut , web site, which has their real address and the names and addresses of the corporate officers. Their actual business name is "WebLoyalty.com, Inc."

Here's the WebLoyalty online demo.. This is triggered after checkout from some other store. All the customer provides is an E-mail address, or at least a click on the big red button below the E-mail address form. Their credit card information is taken automatically from the previous transaction.

The key to WebLoyalty is that it's embedded in VirtualCart, a popular shopping cart program, and is on by default. It's quite possible for a merchant to be serving the WebLoyalty scam without even being aware of it. The merchant can't even turn it off directly. From the VirtualCart WebLoyalty FAQ:

• Q. How can webloyalty.com afford to offer Special Rewards and not get paid?
• A. webloyalty.com ultimately generates its revenue from the customer. Each customer who claims the Special Reward is offered the chance to join a discount shopping and protection service (Reservation Rewards), discount travel service (Travel Values Plus), shopping protection service (Buyer Assurance), or credit card and identity protection service (Wallet Shield). Although there is never an obligation for the customer to continue after the 30-day free trial, many customers choose to continue a service for its valuable benefits. This subset of consumers provides revenue to webloyalty.com.
• Q. Why allow the customer the opportunity to transfer his information as opposed to re-entering it?
• A. We believe the customer is always right. And after chatting with hundreds of customers, we heard one thing loud and clear... they want convenience. Most consumers believe allowing them to transfer their personal and financial information with their express permission is much more convenient than re-entering it. Just ask Amazon.com's customers!
• Q. How do I opt-out of this program?
• A. Send us an e-mail to support@vcart.com with your cart ID and we will be more than happy to review your account for removal from this program. virtualCART reserves the right to require all merchants to participate in the program.

And there you have it, the world's most successful phishing scam, run by a Harvard MBA.

If you need to sue those guys, look them up at the Secretary of State of Connecticut , web site, which has their real address and the names and addresses of the corporate officers. Their actual business name is "WebLoyalty.com, Inc."

IIRC DPA is a subset of sideband analysis (or attack!). When I first came across this in a patent spec I thought "awesome" you can hack systems based solely on how much power is drawn??!!

That's what I call 1337!!1111

Did you notice the clue on a useful source of technical data ... try http://uspto.gov/ or http://ep.espacenet.com/

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=j h95lf.2.5

The Firefox trademark was allowed for registration on 2005-04-15. It's currently in the "publication and issue section", where they print up the nice certificate with the seal and ribbon and send it to the Mozilla Foundation, print the notice in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and send it to all Depositary Libraries, "enter the trademark upon the Principal Register", and do all that 19th century stuff.

But it's been a done deal since April.

However, you are correct in asserting that the legal protections they provide are completely different. Yes, the original poster did incorrectly use "patent" in the subject.

I believe Microsoft can't use "Windows" or "Word", as several other people have said in this story, they have a copyright on "Microsft Word", or "MS Word". I've noticed they have a tendenacy to always include "MS" or "Microsoft" any time they refer to Word or Windows (or they refer to a specific version of Windows, like Windows 95, or Windows XP).

Kirby

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

Well you can't trademark *a* number...

1 Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3)Level 3 Communications
4Swingline, Inc.
5 Chanel
31 Baskin Robbins
"33" Latrobe Brewing
57 H.J. Heinz Company
501 Levi Strauss & Co.
747 Boeing

For example, Apple(R) is a trademark. See Apple's list of trademarks.

This does not prevent others from using the word "apple" in common speech, nor does it prevent someone from creating "Apple Dry Cleaners." Trademarks are defined within "categories of use," and it appears this trademark is for the "computer software" category.

Also, a trademark must be actively used for the owner to defend it in court. Simply registering the trademark is not enough.

(Disclaimer: I'm not involved in patent law or particularly well-read on the subject, this knowledge comes from several sites across the Internet.)

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=200500717 41&OS=20050071741&RS=20050071741/ United States Patent Office - Patent 20050071741

and
US Patent Office Link http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=200500717 41&OS=20050071741&RS=20050071741/ United States Patent Office - Patent 20050071741

and
US Patent Office Link http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/

That patent number was filed two years ago, and you can view it online: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=200500717 41&OS=20050071741&RS=20050071741

Just look at the patent application yourself.

I haven't read the whole thing, but just having taken a quick look at it, I have to agree with the posters who said that Google purposefully tried to cover any conceivable technique to index and rank pages. The application discusses multiple implementations of the various techniques that could be used to rank a page. Therefore analysis of the patent application is probably of limited utility for those trying to game PageRank (which was certainly a factor that Google's very competent IP lawyers considered before prosecuting the patent).

For those who are worried that Google is doing evil with this patent application, given the breadth of the patent and the fact that it discusses a plethora of techniques which Google may or may not be using, I will be surprised to see Google try to use this patent (or be able to use this patent) to push another search engine out of the market. More likely, I think, is that this will constitute prior art to enable Google to withstand challenges from other patent applicants for infringement. Of course, if you know anything about PageRank, you know that it was getting published in Scientific American long before Google was the dominant search engine. So this patent application is probably more to prevent allegations that Google infringed by adding on all the other checks and balances to the original PageRank technology to discourage spam sites.

Moiche

The story is so old I can't believe it made it to slashdot.

Some more on info the subject:
1. U.S. Patent Application - it's best to read what's exactly been patented.
2. interesting discussion on webmasterworld

Personally I think that while some of the stuff is interesting, most of it is made up rather to confuse SEOs (google doesn't quite like them, you know that, right?). Before that, they had couple factors to think about and work on. Now, there's a shitload of stuff that just makes their work harder. Also, more factors influencing SERPS means it's much, much harder to make a trial-an-error research on what works well and what doesn't.

They should have issued Amazon U.S. Patent No. 6,293,874 instead.

Digital Video Express abandoned their trademark on DIVX after the format went dead.

What made me laugh out loud was the fact that the US Patent Office itself has an online ordering cart that seems (at least, from quickly reading the abstract) to fit the criteria of the patent they just granted to Amazon, and it's displayed on the very same page as the patent! (Indeed, you can use it to buy a paper copy of the patent.) So they may well owe Amazon some royalties. Oh, the irony! :)

Actually, this application is continuation (i. e. based strictly on the disclosure) of a previous application which issued as Patent No. 6,615,226 which was filed on 9/12/1997, wich in turn was filed as a Continuation in part of a third application which matured as Patent No. 5,715,399, filed 5/30/1995, which, yet in turn, was based on a fourth application, issued as 5,727,163, filed on 3/30/1995. A "continuation in part" is an application which adds additional disclosure to a previous application; any claim which relies on the newly added material will only get the benefit of the actual filing date of the CIP, but claims supported by the "parent" application get the benefit of the parent application's filing date.

Those wishing to look into the prosecution history for issued patents can get online information via the PAIR portal. The information includes a "Transaction History" from which one may surmise an outline of what happened (rejections, responses, interviews, etc.) More recent applications also provide images of the application contents, so you can actually read the examiner's action and the applicant's responses, including arguments and how the claims were amended.

This application had one rejection, an amendment, and then was allowed. I tried to view the rejection (via the "Image File Wrapper" tab) but got very sporadic results for the built in pdf viewer; maybe it would work better for someone else.

The parent application seems to deal with a totally different invention involving the display of a form document in sections, each section showing some description with a clickable element to then expand to input data fields, which, can, in turn, be collapsed back to the description (seems like the current patent should have been a division rather than a continuation, but what do I know; wouldn't make a difference in the analysis). This parent application was finally rejected to which Amazon appealed to the Board of Appeals (part of the PTO) which reversed the examiner. It doesn't seem to me to be relevant to this patent since the claims are directed to such disparate subject matter. Unfortunately, the parent patent file date is not available online, so one would have to order a copy of the application ($$$ + time) or go to the PTO (or whereever the case is stored these days) to look at it.

The CIP applications seem to deal with using truncated credit card numbers as a security measure, and probably don't have supporting disclosure for this patent, but I didn't check this, so, maybe they do.

As to the merits of this patent, seems like a bunch of crap to me. I'd be curious to see the full rejection by the examiner and applicant's amendment to the claims and arguments to pursuade the examiner to allow the application.

The USPTO has a system for letting the public view the file wrapper of a case (all the letters that went backwards and forwards):

http://portal.uspto.gov/

Select Patent Number form the drop down box and enter 6907315 press submit and you are presented with the basic information on the case. To see the letters just pick the "Image file wrapper" tab. You'll need Acrobat to view the scanned in documents. Useful ones to read include: "applicant arguments and remarks", "non-final rejection" and "amendment".

Enjoy!

The USPTO registration number is 1916230.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=registra tion&entry=1916230&action=Request+Status

(Note: the mentioned William Della Croce is someone who fraudulently attempted to register Linux as a trademark; he got sued and transferred the trademark to Linus as part of settling the lawsuit.)

Typed Drawing
Word Mark LINUX
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation. FIRST USE: 19940802. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19940802
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74560867
Filing Date August 15, 1994
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition June 13, 1995
Change In Registration CHANGE IN REGISTRATION HAS OCCURRED
Registration Number 1916230
Registration Date September 5, 1995
Owner (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr. INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 33 Snow Hill St. Boston MASSACHUSETTS 02113

(LAST LISTED OWNER) TORVALDS, LINUS INDIVIDUAL Assignee of FINLAND 5774 CANNES PLACE SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95138
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record ROBERT T. DAUNT
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Think patent, not copywrite. And I would bet so, 1:34,281 odds actually. Also, asking stupid rehashed hot-buton issues does not make you, or your post interesting.

Though it gets interesting if you need to go back past 1976, then you'll need the Manual of Patent Classification to find out class/subclass and it'll help a lot if you have a clue as to when... because 1975 and before is all images, and that gets f*ckin' ugly. (BTDT) But the need to do that is rare with a modern technology invention.

For more info, get a copy of "Patent it Yourself" by David Pressman (Nolo Press)

Personally, I think the peer review idea is a very good one. Too sensible for the Feds to implement, of course.

Go to the US Patent and Trademark Office site and poke around.

What I'm not happy about (other than any pro-Fortune 500 gimmes weighted against the individual inventer) is that I'm going to have to shitcan the copy of "How to Patent" I just spent $40 on in a few months.

Be careful. This is the same Microsoft that patented the tab key. Their innovation is boundless

No time for a quick google to find the patent number? No time to do a search on the U.S govt. Patent office site? Here's the patent.

No time to follow the link? Here's the text of the abstract:

A system and method for pushing information from a host system to a mobile data communication device upon sensing a triggering event is disclosed. A redirector program operating at the host system enables a user to continuously redirect certain user-selected data items from the host system to the user's mobile data communication device upon detecting that one or more user-defined triggering events has occurred. The redirector program operates in connection with event generating applications and repackaging systems at the host system to configure and detect a particular user-defined event, and then to repackage the user-selected data items in an electronic wrapper prior to pushing the data items to the mobile device. The mobile device and the host system share a common electronic address so that messages generated at either the host system or the mobile data communication device are configured using the common electronic address.

According to this court document, the infrigments concern:

• Claims 15, 32, 34 of #5,436,960
• Claim 8 of #5,625,670
• Claim 199 of #5,819,172
• Claims 28, 248, 309, 313, 317 of #6,067,451
• Claims 40, 150, 278, 653, 654 of #6,317,592

5,436,960
5,625,670
5,819,172
6,067,451
6,317,592

These patents look to me like they would cover just about every PDA and cell phone on the planet today. Is RIM a target because of their popularity?

According to this court document, the infrigments concern:

• Claims 15, 32, 34 of #5,436,960
• Claim 8 of #5,625,670
• Claim 199 of #5,819,172
• Claims 28, 248, 309, 313, 317 of #6,067,451
• Claims 40, 150, 278, 653, 654 of #6,317,592

5,436,960
5,625,670
5,819,172
6,067,451
6,317,592

These patents look to me like they would cover just about every PDA and cell phone on the planet today. Is RIM a target because of their popularity?

According to this court document, the infrigments concern:

• Claims 15, 32, 34 of #5,436,960
• Claim 8 of #5,625,670
• Claim 199 of #5,819,172
• Claims 28, 248, 309, 313, 317 of #6,067,451
• Claims 40, 150, 278, 653, 654 of #6,317,592

5,436,960
5,625,670
5,819,172
6,067,451
6,317,592

These patents look to me like they would cover just about every PDA and cell phone on the planet today. Is RIM a target because of their popularity?

According to this court document, the infrigments concern:

• Claims 15, 32, 34 of #5,436,960
• Claim 8 of #5,625,670
• Claim 199 of #5,819,172
• Claims 28, 248, 309, 313, 317 of #6,067,451
• Claims 40, 150, 278, 653, 654 of #6,317,592

5,436,960
5,625,670
5,819,172
6,067,451
6,317,592

These patents look to me like they would cover just about every PDA and cell phone on the planet today. Is RIM a target because of their popularity?

According to this court document, the infrigments concern:

• Claims 15, 32, 34 of #5,436,960
• Claim 8 of #5,625,670
• Claim 199 of #5,819,172
• Claims 28, 248, 309, 313, 317 of #6,067,451
• Claims 40, 150, 278, 653, 654 of #6,317,592

5,436,960
5,625,670
5,819,172
6,067,451
6,317,592

These patents look to me like they would cover just about every PDA and cell phone on the planet today. Is RIM a target because of their popularity?

You mean, like the patent how to swing with a swing by pulling at the ropes?