Slashdot Mirror
Domain: uspto.gov
Stories and comments across the archive that link to uspto.gov.
Comments · 5,413
-
Many people own trademarks for "Tiger"
Check here:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchstr&st ate=ec8td3.1.1
(sorry for the botched URL)
type in Tiger and look at all of the people who own "Tiger" for different products. The fact that they're both in the same industry has only mild significance. If TigerDirect sold software CALLED Tiger, then I would see the problem. -
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitFirst of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years
TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:
Furthmore, you're stretching the meaning of the phrase "many years". The above trademarks were all registered between November, 2001 and April 2004. They've also abandoned two other trademarks which are now dead. To be fair, they claim to have used some of their trademarks without registering them since January 31, 1993.Lastly, Tiger Direct, Inc. is a reseller. Apple, Inc. is a manufacturer. Tiger Direct's trademarks are in the Goods and Services catagory "Mail order services featuring computer hardware and software." On the other hand, Apple, Inc. registered a trademark on the word Tiger which was registered on July 2, 2003 and in the Goods and Services catagory "computer operating system software".
While Apple may settle, this is not a case with merits. Instead, Tiger Direct, Inc. appears to be gaming the legal system to get free advertising.
(The links to the USPTO site in this post may expire without warning, though they should not be difficult to reproduce.)
-
I found this little trademark document
-
Not quite out of left field
Don't think it's been pointed out yet, but, if I'm reading the USPTO page correctly someone (I would presume TigerDirect) filed opposition to Apple's trademark on December 15th. If it was them, this lawsuit, while still baseless in my opinion, is not quite as out of left field as it seems at first blush.
-
Re:What A Cheap Shot
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/200
4 mar23.htm
To make matters worse, the global criminal nature of IP piracy is all too real. During a House International Relations Committee hearing last summer, the Secretary General of Interpol noted what we believe is a potential, though yet not significantly realized trend, when he testified that IP crime "is becoming the preferred method of funding for a number of terrorist groups. -
Re:pre-emptive lawsuitLast time I checked, it was illegal to trademark generic terms and numbers.
No it's not and never has been. Numbers by themselves are not trademarkable, yes. As the USPTO FAQ states, a trademark is "any word used or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others."
A company cannot own a generic word
Yes, yes they can. Trademarks are owned in a particular context. The most famous example is probably Apple. The Beatles' label Apple Corps owns the trademark on "Apple" as it applies to music and Apple Computer owns "Apple" as it applies to computers. This has led to a great deal of legal action with Apple's move into the music world.
Try searching TESS for common words and you'll have lots and lots of hits.
-
Re:Money grab
Apple applied for a trademark on Tiger in the Computer Operating System context in 2003 ( http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
e ntry=78269988 ). So it's not like they just slapped the name on the box without due diligence. It's just that both Apple and the USPTO decided that an on-line retailer (of x86 machines and parts) was unlikely to be confused with a new version of Mac OS.
The bulk of TigerDirect's suit seems to be more about their ranking on Google dropping than losing their trademark, however. -
Re:Why did they wait so long?
Everyone has known it was going to be called Tiger for the last YEAR. Why do they wait until release day to file a lawsuit?
I'm not sure that I agree. I can't speak for everyone, but personally I wasn't aware of it until recently. I don't spend a lot of time following popular media, nor do I follow Mac-related news in any great detail.
Whatever Tiger Direct's motivation for waiting until the day before, I personally still think that at least part of the responsibility should be attributed to Apple... assuming Tiger Direct can demonstrate that it has a case. Apple knew they were going to be releasing a very high profile product, and they obviously have the legal resources to check this stuff out in advance.
It's also not exactly difficult to perform a search on existing trademarks. Despite their reputation for managing patents, the USPTO does actually provide quite a straightforward interface for checking on trademarks. Searching for Tiger and Software -- surely something that should be checked in association with an Operating System, I found several that looked suspiciously similar within a few seconds.
Maybe Apple management simply thought they'd deal with it later if and when it became a problem, but Apple's corporate influence shouldn't deny another company the right to protect what it's already established within the bounds of the law.
-
Apple Trademark
Apple has a trademark on the name "Tiger" in the category "computer operating system software." More information here.
-
They do????
According to a search on USPTO.gov using Tiger Direct on the owner name as my search parameters I don't see them having a trade mark on Tiger.
They have 11 entries almost al with the word Tiger in them but not the word Tiger alone. In fact all of their trademarks with tiger in them are one word entries.
XCONNECT
TIGERPC.COM
TIGERTV.COM
TIGE RSYSTEMS
TIGERDIRECT
TIGERDIRECT
TIGERDIRECT.CO M
there are all the live trademarks.
See for your self. -
Re:Are they kidding?Certainly Apple has some version of Mac OS Tiger trademarked, isn't it past the time to complain already?
Apple does have a trademark registered for Tiger as it relates to computer operating system software. However, this trademark was challenged several months ago, so who knows.
It does seem to be case of Google Rage, but something tells me it goes a little deeper. Regardless, I don't see Tiger Direct having any more success than Microware had in their "OS 9" suit five or six years ago.
-
Already proven false
Burgess's article has since been debunked. The patent he bases his speculation on is for an in-game camera system. There is absolutely no mention of 3D projection technology.
The other support for his speculation was that Nintendo demo'd a new peripheral for the Gamecube behind closed doors at E3 2004, but this ended up being the microphone that shipped with Mario Party 6.
This is the most halfassed "next generation console" rumor ever perpetrated. Burgess was too lazy to do thirty seconds worth of reading and now he's being rewarded with lots of hits from curious fanboys.
*sigh* -
Re:The Ping of NO CARRIER
That problem existed well before WinModems. When Hayes created the AT command set, the patented the technique of a modem responding to "{three seconds of silence}+++{three seconds of silence}" for returning to command mode. (the patent number is 4,549,302)
Some MODEM manufactures licensed Hayes' patent. Some avoided it by not requiring the three second waits.
-
TrustRank link broken, session expired
To see Google's TrustRank Trademark info on the USPTO site, click here , click "New User Form Search (Basic)", and search for "TrustRank".
-
Re:K*****You might find it worth your time to consult your company's lawyer and direct them to 37 CFR 1.99
Patent examiners are generally given about 10 hours to conduct a prior art search. If they find it, they find it. If they don't, they go home to their families and private lives at the end of the day like anyone else. If you have a financial interest in the prior art, make a simple submission under 37 CFR 1.99. If you have non-secret information, like publicly available product manuals, blue prints, or other extremely detailed documentation, you can probably skip the legal fees and submit the references yourself.
Either way, spending $10-$500 now to make sure that the examiner definitely sees your references is money well spent if the application reads directly on your business interests.
-
Re:Editors Edited out key item in the post
The text of patent 4,698,672 by W. Chen et al. (Compression Labs) makes reference to an earlier patent 4,302,775 by R. Widergren, W. Chen et. al. (Compression Labs). Patent 775 covers a method involving the application of the discrete cosine transform to blocks of an image or video frame. It was first filed in 1978 and apparently revised in 1981. I don't know whether that was the original DCT patent, but in any case it has expired. That's why Forgent hasn't claimed ownership of the basic DCT algorithm itself (which is fortunate, because that it the basis of practically all videoconferencing and streaming video systems in use today).
-
They lost the patent!!!
I just been digging through the USPTO records about this patent (its intruiging in a sadistic way), and I discovered that the physical patent file itself went missing!
05-22-2002 File Marked Found
02-25-2002 File Marked Lost
09-21-2001 Set Application Status
10-06-1987 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
07-13-1987 Issue Fee Payment Verified
Heres the link to the info block for the patent.
I was originally looking for expiry information for this patent, but couldn't seem to find it.
-
Re:And what exactly has apple ever really invented
Please enlighten me: what peer-to-peer, hot-pluggable, high-speed peripheral bus preceeded FireWire? And please don't tell me that it's just a re-engineered, polished version of USB, because you'd be wrong.
The first time I heard the name "FireWire" was in an article in an issue of MacWEEK in '93 or '94. According to this, they started working on it even earlier than that. They just took their time and got it right, (and waited for the world to need that kind of throughput and versatility) before they put it into a computer in early 1999.
And yeah, ZeroConf is polished, existing technology. Polished, existing *Apple* technology. It's the grandson of AppleTalk networking, circa 1985.
~Philly -
Re:And what exactly has apple ever really invented
Please enlighten me: what peer-to-peer, hot-pluggable, high-speed peripheral bus preceeded FireWire? And please don't tell me that it's just a re-engineered, polished version of USB, because you'd be wrong.
The first time I heard the name "FireWire" was in an article in an issue of MacWEEK in '93 or '94. According to this, they started working on it even earlier than that. They just took their time and got it right, (and waited for the world to need that kind of throughput and versatility) before they put it into a computer in early 1999.
And yeah, ZeroConf is polished, existing technology. Polished, existing *Apple* technology. It's the grandson of AppleTalk networking, circa 1985.
~Philly -
Here's how it works:
Microsoft announces, then develops.
Apple develops, then announces.
Just because Microsoft issues a press release or throws a press conference and says that the next version of Windows is going to have [feature], that doesn't mean that Apple hasn't already had [feature] under development/running in a lab somewhere for a year.
For example, the search capability in Tiger known as "Spotlight." Apple applied for a patent on the technology behind Spotlight (a patent that was granted in January of this year, BTW) when OS X 10.0* was still a year and two months away from public release. Which means they started working on it in 1999 if not sooner. Years before the name "Longhorn" was ever uttered by anyone at Microsoft.
~Philly
*OS X 10.0 release date: 3/24/2001 -
Re:Debut Date vs Development Date
Many of these 'copied' features have been promised by Microsoft since Windows XP (2001), however Tiger has only been worked on since Panther (late 2003).
That's the lamest argument I've ever heard. On Friday, Apple will have shipped THREE major OS upgrades since Windows XP appeared: 10.2 Jaguar, 10.3 Panther, and 10.4 Tiger. All Microsoft has been able to manage is two Service Packs to XP, all the while pruning the features list of Longhorn.
But if you want to play the 'development time' game, then let's: here's an example: Apple filed for a patent on the technology Spotlight uses on January 5, 2000. -
If you want a good laughCheck out
Flight attendant activated warning
Wireless remote control of systems for countering hostile activity aboard an airplane.For the second one especially, check out the illustrations! I've been looking into patenting something, and the amount of bogus safety patents after 11/9 is amazing.
-
If you want a good laughCheck out
Flight attendant activated warning
Wireless remote control of systems for countering hostile activity aboard an airplane.For the second one especially, check out the illustrations! I've been looking into patenting something, and the amount of bogus safety patents after 11/9 is amazing.
-
Re:As it applies to Software and other things...
Many of the claims do imply, albeit only under certain interpretations, the meaning of "message" is limited to a communication that is based on physical processes, but several of the claims are sufficiently general as not to imply any such limitation and each such abstract claim can hold independently of the other non-abstract claims. In particular, see abstract claims 1, 3, 8 in USPTO 4,405,829.
-
Already have that for patents
They already have it, for patents at least: scroll down to Patent Maintence Fees
I had a patent which I was making no income off of, nor did ever expect to, so I stopped paying the maintence fees a couple of years ago. It's now in the public domain.
Copyrights, on the other hand, are free to create (although not to register and enforce) and last effectively forever. Copyright reform is a real necessity. -
Patent issues"Unfortunately we cannot implement Steensgaard [pointer] analysis due to patent issues."
They mean this patent owned by this company. What a surprise.
-
Re:Uh-Oh
That's the way to maintain the status quo and protect only American interests.
Which incidentally is exactly what the USPTO admits to be the goal of its Pursuit of Substantive Patent Law Harmonization action plan. Of course,The details of this action paper are by their nature sensitive and confidential, and therefore not appropriate for publication.
"Hey look, we have a secret plan to pursue harmonisation in order to protect our own interests! So don't worry, just sign those "free trade" agreements and introduce the same patent system as we have..." -
Re:Why Standarize when you can improve
I agree with your point. You can ask someone for a Kleenex or a tissue. However, Kimberly-Clark would have your head the second you tried to use their trademarks to sell tissue as Kleenex.
-
Re:test before granting patents!
you are not qualified to debate the topic of obviousness in the US patent system.
There is a fundamental disconnect here.
We know the patent office is using a self-serving, legal definition of obviousness. We are saying that definition is garbage, as even a cursory examination of recent software patents will show.
Patent lawyers claiming that software creators are not qualified to talk about it are missing the point. We are a helluva lot more qualified to talk about true obviousness in software than any lawyer. The fact that the typical patent lawyer is happy to ignore that says a lot.
you're addressing an issue that is completely beyond the USPTO's legal authority.
Typical bureaucratic finger pointing. God knows why, but congress takes the patent office's advice on patent law (the foxes watching the hen house!) and the patent office could easily be a leader in bringing in new, more just law. As it is, they're just bureaucratic empire building. It's a real shame their pettiness is causing so much harm.
---
Patents by definition restrict distribution and are incompatible with standards which by definition are supposed to promote distribution. Say no to patents in standards!
-
Re:test before granting patents!No patent should be granted for any computer algorithm if the same or similar idea can "discovered" by an industry-selected board of programmers and architects.
WTF does that have to do with patentability? Before you reply using the word "obvious", read MPEP 2143-2144. Here's a start:
MPEP 2143
Continue with the links at the bottom to read through the MPEP 2144. If you have not read and at least attempted to understand this text, you are not qualified to debate the topic of obviousness in the US patent system.Get the IEEE or ACM to appoint 50 computer engineers. One, two, or three engineers are assigned to each (non-obvious) software patent candidate that comes in. They receive only a desciption of the problem the invention addresses, but no details of the invention itself. They have 24 hours to propose as many solutions to the problem as they can. If one is identical or "reasonably" close to the patent candidate, the patent fails.
That's not a bad idea. So you're giving 50 people roughly 3 work days to come up with the solution. Fuck government inefficiency, the USPTO gives 1 person 1 work day to get that amount of work done, and your solution doesn't even begin to address the legal question of "obviousness".
I'm not saying that you propose a bad idea, but rather you're proposing a solution to a radical misunderstanding of the problem. The USPTO has literally no legal jurisdiction over whether or not an idea was hard to come up with. It only has legal jurisdiction over whether the idea was legally obvious, a concept that is briefly described in MPEP 2143-2144.
I agree that your suggestion (and other like it) could benefit the US patent system, but you're addressing an issue that is completely beyond the USPTO's legal authority.
-
Seems to be tagging, presentation, and alertingI have read the actual "patent" here.
The patent does not actually focus so much on the user interface, which seems to have the most comments, but rather on the idea that some "data" can be "tagged" in some manner as "emergency data", and pooled, presented, and then sent when a "emergency event" is invoked.
My favorate quote from the patent While the invention is susceptible to various modifications and alternative constructions, certain illustrated embodiments thereof are shown in the drawings and have been described above in detail. It should be understood, however, that there is no intention to limit the invention to the specific forms disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, alternative constructions, and equivalents falling within the spirit and scope of the invention.
Since the "emergency data" seems to reside on the device, it is arguably different than "911" services, which use a seperate external (carrier hosted) database. But that suggests all kinds of dangerous and interesting possibilities for mischief and misuse.
While I generally believe software and business method patenting are morally indefensible, this particular patent I find particularly offensive. Imagine, in a similar vein, a patent on a "method of collecting volunteers to to be on alert for fire alarms, and distributing them with appropriate equipment to the site of a fire".
Public services, especially those that can be mandated, and must be universal by their very nature, should never be subject to patents or other such restrictions, and if they ever accidently are, then it is the primary responsibility of government to directly intervene, either through emminent domain, or perhaps through an action such as "misuse of patent", which really should become a new class of federal crime. There is already some existing federal case law related to "misuse of copyright" which involves forfiture of copyrights.
Maybe it is time for another tatoo...
-
Invention?It must be a slow news day.
Needless to say, this is yet another patent that does not cover an invention (which is supposed to be the point of patents), but (arguably) a discovery--although it is more like common knowledge than something only Microsoft have discovered.
Once again like most U.S. patents:
- there is no physical object
- it did not take time, money or effort to hone and eventually produce this pathetic `plan' of an `invention'--it is just an idea
- this actually impedes the "progress of science and the arts" [U.S. constitution] (and, in this case, the emergency services) and in no way gives anything back (e.g.: by actually including useful plans to help someone make such a system after the patent has expired)
- it would be trivial for someone to come up with this independently (without realising they were breaking the law)
The reason why patents were invented was to stop people keeping the workings of their inventions trade secrets which would never be released to the public (whereas--the then new-fangled--patents actually run out) thereby impeding the "progress of the science and the arts", therefore patents are only supposed to cover something that a company might be able to keep a secret. In this case, the idea (which is what they are trying to patent; as opposed to the specific invention that Microsoft has or has not yet--as the case may be--produced) would not be coverable by a trade secret as once they produced such a product it would be common knowledge (and thefore no longer a secret) that such a product could be produced. Whereas, if Microsoft were patenting the specific workings of their invention, these would be harder for someone with one of their products to hand to work out--thereby potentially patentable as they are potentionally able to be kept secret (while Microsoft sell the product).
Making a (possibly poor) analogy with the field of consumer law, this is a bit like Microsoft trying to trademark the generic term for the class of their product as opposed to a name for a particular brand (e.g.: hypothetically, if Microsoft were in the automobile maunfacturing industry, trademarking the word, "car"; or, again hypothetically, if Microsoft were in the operating-system engineering industry trademarking the word "windows" for a windows system...o, nevermind...).
The patent is entitled "a method and system of providing emergency data"; however reading it one realises that (in common with most patents using those magic `method' and `system' words in their titles) it is not actually a patent on "a [particular] method and system of providing emergency data" but actually a patent that stops anyone else from producing any "method and system of providing emergency data".
This is backed up by the way that, throughout the patent, it says that "this invention [sic.] covers [foo], [bar] and [baz]" or similar language (where foo, bar and baz are sorts of inventions that might be made in the future by others) instead of describing the actual invention that Microsoft have produced (or, I suspect, have not actually produced) so that others can gain from this knowledge after the patent expires.
There are many other ways in which this, once again, goes against the basic principles of the patent system. However, as I suspect (hopefully) everyone will laugh at any (unlikely) attempts by Microsoft to enforce this patent, I will not spend more time analysing this drivel (that Microsoft and other large corporations produced by the dead-tree load on a daily basis).
-
Re:Copyright and fonts
Microsoft has dozens of fonts patented. I assume it's the same for Adobe, etc.
-
Re:But it's warmer..
-
The proof is in the patent!When making a tinfoil hat, does the shiny side go on the inside or outside?
When making an ad-hominem attack, does the.. ehh, nevermind.
Either you haven't read the patent application or you're ignoring what's there. Here, I'll dig up some choice bits:46. The method of claim 45, wherein the user maintained or generated data relates to at least one of favorites lists, bookmarks, temp files, and cache files associated with one or a plurality of users.
47. The method of claim 45, wherein the scoring the document includes: analyzing the user maintained or generated data [defined above] over time to identify at least one of trends to add or remove the document, a rate at which the document is added to or removed from the user maintained or generated data, and whether the document is added to, deleted from, or accessed through the user maintained or generated data, and scoring the document based, at least in part, on a result of the analyzing.
[0114] According to an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention, user maintained or generated data may be used to generate (or alter) a score associated with a document. For example, search engine 125 may monitor data maintained or generated by a user, such as "bookmarks," "favorites," or other types of data that may provide some indication of documents favored by, or of interest to, the user. Search engine 125 may obtain this data either directly (e.g., via a browser assistant) or indirectly (e.g., via a browser). Search engine 125 may then analyze over time a number of bookmarks/favorites to which a document is associated to determine the importance of the document.
[0116] In an alternative implementation, other types of user data that may indicate an increase or decrease in user interest in a particular document over time may be used by search engine 125 to score the document. For example, the "temp" or cache files associated with users could be monitored by search engine 125 to identify whether there is an increase or decrease in a document being added over time. Similarly, cookies associated with a particular document might be monitored by search engine 125 to determine whether there is an upward or downward trend in interest in the document. -
No worries, Google is taking over
this might be the Suite's last major release from the Mozilla Foundation
Don't despair, it seems like Google is going to be taking over the Firefox project. Check this out, then have a look at Google's patent referenced in that article.
Google has repeatedly denied rumors that it's going to make its own "Gbrowser" - it makes perfect sense that Google is going to take over the Firefox project instead, and incorporate some of the user-side pagerank plans they have. -
Re:StinkBSD
If you are having problems with stink, use some Linux.
-
Re:Wiped out by a virulent disease from unsanitaryThose membranes are capacitors. (Membrane keyboards are terrible because they have no post-contact travel. Yes, I'm sure membrane keyboards could be designed with post-contact travel. No one cares. People buy shit.)
Electronics are generally washable.
The strangest keyboard I have uses transformers. Pressing a key moves ferrite into the core. (I'm not making this up.)
-
Smoosh 'officially' invented by Glenn Skinner
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =5&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1='Sun+Microsystems'.A SNM.&s2=skinner.INZZ.&OS=AN/%22Sun+Microsystems%22 +AND+IN/skinner&RS=AN/%22Sun+Microsystems%22+AND+I N/skinner I believe Larry thinks he should be listed as co-inventor (and he probably should), but that isn't what the patent says. I don't really care for the purposes of this dicussion, but just wanted to verify that my memory isn't completely gone. Note that there was a fair amount of prior art leading up to this. -
Patents turn Google Evil?The Google filing on the 31st of March for a Patent on Information retrieval based on historical data reminds me of a lot that is wrong with BP and software patents.
The filing looks like they had an on-line brainstorming session about all of the historical data that could be discovered about a Web document. Someone then wrote this up with some waffly tech language and came up with a few formula and then filed as a huge patent that appears more to be staking out a massive claim on the search engine algorithm space. I guess that this patent is about having bargaining chips with MSN Search and Yahoo! when the great search engine shakeout comes. I don't blaim Google for using the system as it stands; now they have shareholders they have fidicual duty to be evil
There are some interesting ideas in the Google Patent and a much narrower filing with some specifics might merit a patent but talk like: a link has a creation and eventual destruction date, the rate of link creation to a document may be an indicator of the document's freshness, doesn't strike me as an invention more handwaving.
Given that the patent office is not up to the task at least restrict the lifetime of software patents to around 4 years. -
No answers to Questions to USPTO On-Line
On February 24, 2005 I tried to pose some questions to USPTO On-Line chat for Independent Inventors today, however the digichat java applet does not appear work with any combination of Linux Galeon/Mozilla/Firefox jdk1.5.0/j2re1.4.2_07 or MacOSX Firefox/Safari. Here is what I tried to ask:
I understand that the discovery of prior art and the evaluation of the obviousness of an invention are difficult tasks for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent application examiners to perform. The percentage of patents being overturned under the scrutiny of the courts leads me to believe that the process is not quite as accurate as could be desired. In a few recent cases the existence of publicly accessible digital content has played a part in disclosing prior art. The public, technical and scientific communities use of Internet has to a large extent replaced printed media such as journals for the public disclosure of new ideas. To what extent does the current USPTO patent application examination process take into account public accessible website content? Do the patent examiners currently use Internet search engines such as Google ( http://www.google.com ) to locate instances of prior art? Is the changeable and unverifiable nature of some digital content a barrier to its being cited as prior art in the patent application examination process?
The USPTO patent application examiners task could be made more reliable if the examiners could consult one or more public online registries that document cases of prior art and public discoveries. The online registries could provide a means for the public to retroactively point to cases of preexisting prior art for pending patent applications and a means to proactively document publicly known ideas and concepts. Although websites and digitally stored content in general is changeable, individual entries and changes in an online registry could be legally authenticated by means of digital timestamping ( http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=23
4 7 ). An online registry could be hosted by the USPTO as an adjunct to the existing online public patent and patent pending databases. The USPTO could also publicly recognize other individual registries hosted by third parties such as a commercial entity or a non-profit community similar to Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org/ ). An individual adding an entry to such a publicly online registry does not involve granting that individual any form of monopoly, therefore the action need not have any artificial barrier involving fees or payments. Would the existence of digitally timestamped public content overcome any objections by the USPTO to its citing as prior art? Has the USPTO any plans to add some form of publicly accessible feedback mechanism to the patent application process?It has been nine years since the USPTO updated the Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions ( http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/sof
t ware/analysis/computer.html ). Since that time has the USPTO undertaken, commissioned or evaluated any studies on the effects that granting software related patents has had on the progress of science, useful arts and the software industry in general? If no such study has been performed or evaluated, why not? Can the USPTO point to any instances where the granting of software related patents has been an actual benefit to the progress of science, useful arts and the software industry in general? In a similar vein, can the USPTO point to any instances where the granting of business method related patents has been an actual benefit to the progress of science, useful arts and industry in general? -
No answers to Questions to USPTO On-Line
On February 24, 2005 I tried to pose some questions to USPTO On-Line chat for Independent Inventors today, however the digichat java applet does not appear work with any combination of Linux Galeon/Mozilla/Firefox jdk1.5.0/j2re1.4.2_07 or MacOSX Firefox/Safari. Here is what I tried to ask:
I understand that the discovery of prior art and the evaluation of the obviousness of an invention are difficult tasks for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent application examiners to perform. The percentage of patents being overturned under the scrutiny of the courts leads me to believe that the process is not quite as accurate as could be desired. In a few recent cases the existence of publicly accessible digital content has played a part in disclosing prior art. The public, technical and scientific communities use of Internet has to a large extent replaced printed media such as journals for the public disclosure of new ideas. To what extent does the current USPTO patent application examination process take into account public accessible website content? Do the patent examiners currently use Internet search engines such as Google ( http://www.google.com ) to locate instances of prior art? Is the changeable and unverifiable nature of some digital content a barrier to its being cited as prior art in the patent application examination process?
The USPTO patent application examiners task could be made more reliable if the examiners could consult one or more public online registries that document cases of prior art and public discoveries. The online registries could provide a means for the public to retroactively point to cases of preexisting prior art for pending patent applications and a means to proactively document publicly known ideas and concepts. Although websites and digitally stored content in general is changeable, individual entries and changes in an online registry could be legally authenticated by means of digital timestamping ( http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=23
4 7 ). An online registry could be hosted by the USPTO as an adjunct to the existing online public patent and patent pending databases. The USPTO could also publicly recognize other individual registries hosted by third parties such as a commercial entity or a non-profit community similar to Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org/ ). An individual adding an entry to such a publicly online registry does not involve granting that individual any form of monopoly, therefore the action need not have any artificial barrier involving fees or payments. Would the existence of digitally timestamped public content overcome any objections by the USPTO to its citing as prior art? Has the USPTO any plans to add some form of publicly accessible feedback mechanism to the patent application process?It has been nine years since the USPTO updated the Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions ( http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/sof
t ware/analysis/computer.html ). Since that time has the USPTO undertaken, commissioned or evaluated any studies on the effects that granting software related patents has had on the progress of science, useful arts and the software industry in general? If no such study has been performed or evaluated, why not? Can the USPTO point to any instances where the granting of software related patents has been an actual benefit to the progress of science, useful arts and the software industry in general? In a similar vein, can the USPTO point to any instances where the granting of business method related patents has been an actual benefit to the progress of science, useful arts and industry in general?