Slashdot Mirror

Well, for a long time, a computer's user interface was wires and blinking lights. For awhile, it was push button. For awhile, it was punch cards. The command line interface still persists to this day and it doesn't come close to any real world metaphor that I'm aware of. I am a linux geek, but I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for a honest-to-God document metaphor before 1990 or 1985. I guess I'd try to figure out what software used to run on X and what it looked like, or figure out how old the Amiga was. I grew up with a Commodore VIC-20 and it definitely did not have anything like a document metaphor in any of the of the software I saw.

In 1990 this concept had been around for at the very least some 20 years..

Yeah maybe, but a patent examiner in the US usually has about 10 hours to find all the prior art to make his case. Like I said earlier, the IBM highlighting patent was probably examined by someone whose expertise was graphics hardware, which would reasonably limit his familiarity with all the different types of user interfaces that were used over the years. Even if he was familiar with a lot of them, monochrome, hercules, and other low color displays were pretty much what you were dealing with. (I wonder when EGA and CGA were introduced, but I don't wonder enough to look it up.)

Combining those to allows you to switch something on and off as per the claim by MS.

Eh, we have a long discussion here. Which MS patent were we talking about?

It again is a logical consequence of 2 known things..
How computers work seems to fail explaining this, but both are inherent to binary logic.

You are right, but it takes more than the mere possibility that two facts could be combined to make something obvious. Here's the most specific link I can provide.

MPEP 2143

That and the next three sections explain the three basic components necessary to defeat a patent claim as obvious. As soon as you stray from what the references teach and into "the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art" you're pretty much bluffing (because the attorney can find an expert who will swear in an affidavit that he wouldn't know how to do it, and unless you (the patent examiner) likes working free overtime at the office, there really isn't anything you can do about that argument (this is one of the situations where you pretty much have to issue the patent and let it get straightened out in court - you're simply not paid to deal with that situation.)) The attorney's goal is get a patent at whatever the cost - the inventor rarely has any idea how screwed up the patent really is. If the attorney can get an expert to swear that he doesn't know left from right and thereby get a patent, believe me, it'll happen.

In your example, you have combined two facts that indeed produced the desired result, however neither of these facts even suggests a reason for combining them. The attorney would attack this as "impermissible hindsight" - you combined them simply because the inventor combined them and for no other reason. This part is discussed in MPEP 2143.01. (Bear in mind that I don't know what MS claim you're referring to. It would be permissible for an examiner to combine the two facts you cited without a reference, but only because, if challenged, we both know you could find an example of somebody doing exactly what you described. I am presuming that the claim involved an actual application of the result, and XORing a bit suggests exactly no applications, except maybe an oscillator.)

Thanks for thanking for the explanation. As corny as it sounds, it really fills me with good feelings when Slashdot readers are genuinely interested in knowing more about the patent system we all love to hate. ;)

I got the claims off of the USPTO website. It's an already-granted patent, 6,004,596 issued in 1999, which Smuckers obtained by buying out the "inventors" company. The denial story is about their attempts to expand it even further.

How can you patent a mathematical expression?

The patent on the PageRank algorithm (U.S. Patent 6,285,999) is not a patent on computing eigenvectors of an adjacency matrix. Rather, it's a patent on the specific use of properties of an adjacency matrix for ranking results of a database query where the database forms a graph.

This is the real news here -- that the patent office rejected a patent application.

My question is this: if they accepted swinging on a swing as worthy of a US patent, why did the USPTO decide to deny Smuckers this one?

I don't see what the big interest with this case is. I think the only reason it is getting as much publicity as it is, is because the general public actually understands the patent. The prior art is clear: ravioli, pierogies, pirags, etc.

There are software patents being passed that are 100 times more ridiculous than this, yet you don't hear much about it outside of Slashdot or some short blurb in the tech section of the NYT.

Most of these software patents are just as absurd as patenting a method of making a PB&J sandwich, often worse. A "System and method for creating, processing and managing educational content within and between schools," I mean come on, or a "method and system for processing input from a command line interface."

I wish the general public would realize the ramifications of software patents like these. It is essentially re-patenting the wheel.

I don't see what the big interest with this case is. I think the only reason it is getting as much publicity as it is, is because the general public actually understands the patent. The prior art is clear: ravioli, pierogies, pirags, etc.

There are software patents being passed that are 100 times more ridiculous than this, yet you don't hear much about it outside of Slashdot or some short blurb in the tech section of the NYT.

Most of these software patents are just as absurd as patenting a method of making a PB&J sandwich, often worse. A "System and method for creating, processing and managing educational content within and between schools," I mean come on, or a "method and system for processing input from a command line interface."

I wish the general public would realize the ramifications of software patents like these. It is essentially re-patenting the wheel.

Don't worry Microsoft have already patented su

Then comply with 35 USC 103 and prove it is obvious.

35 USC 103

Here's some guidance.

MPEP 2141

Also see MPEP 2141.01 through 2144.09.

If you cannot achieve this, you fail to prove that the patent is obvious. "Obvious", as defined by the dictionary, is meaningless in the context of prior art.

He said it recently expired, so it would have had a 17 year term from the date it issued. Let's be generous and figure that it was filed in 1990. All you have to do is provide the necessary references that predate June 1989 and comply with the MPEP sections I've cited. (June 1989 because the it's trivial to file an affidavit and move your priority date back by 6 months.)

Of course, "Wow, that's a lot more complicated than I thought," is a perfectly acceptable response.

Algorithms are not patentable in the US.

MPEP 2106 specifically states:

In practical terms, claims define nonstatutory processes if they:

- consist solely of mathematical operations without some claimed practical application (i.e., executing a "mathematical algorithm"); or

- simply manipulate abstract ideas, e.g., a bid (Schrader, 22 F.3d at 293-94, 30 USPQ2d at 1458-59) or a bubble hierarchy (Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759), without some claimed practical application.

There is far, far more discussion of this in MPEP 2106. Please see the link and at least skim the material before responding (I'll understand if you don't read the whole thing - it's long and boring.)

What you are talking about is the difference between "constructive reduction to practice" and "actual reduction to practice". There are a number of extremely valid reasons why the US patent system requires constructive, not actual reduction to practice. Between this story and the one about Sony's patents for projecting sensory data, I believe I have written 4 posts today on this topic. Forgive me for referring to my recent posts rather than rehashing it.

If you're curious, here is the relevant part of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure:
MPEP 2138.05

If you have any suggestions on how to adequately explain this topic in an approachable way to the Slashdot audience, I'm all ears. This concept is fundamental to the structure of the US patent system yet widely misunderstood.

I hope that helps.

Why don't we, for example, have modular batteries for electric cars which could be changed by robotic equipment at service stations where they would be recharged underground? That kind of thing would allow us to cut over from oil to renewable (eg., wind, hydro) power without any innovations in actual battery technology.

I like the icon on this story!

Here you go!

Prior art (much like patents) inherently involves a description of how to do something, not just the idea of doing it.

Which makes it a great shame that Sony don't actually seem to have had much more than an 'inspiration' on which to base the patent.

Here's the patent, by the way: USPTO. At least, I think it's the right one: Scanning method for applying ultrasonic acoustic data to the human neural cortex .

It looks to me like it's about on the level of plausible scifi, in that it's clearly written by someone who knew what they were talking about well enough to make the right noises, but you couldn't actually go out and make one based on that description alone. OTOH, I'm not a brain surgeon :)

I was hoping this would mean they would be implementing their patent relatively soon (PS4 anyone?) but it looks like that won't be the case. Sony has held a patent to display images on the retina since 1992! And it still doesn't look like we'll be getting anything like that in the near future. Maybe Sony PSP2 or PSE (Playstation Eye?)
--
Fairfax Underground: Fairfax County message boards, forums, and public arrest/ticket records

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website.

Of course you do.
However THIS IS NOT THEIR WEBSITE.

Just because you make a guess that you'll find Microsoft headquarters at the physical street address 1 Microsoft Way does not mean you have a right to find Microsoft headquarters when you go to that street address, and it does not make someone else a criminal if they live there.

Just because you guess that Pizza Pi's phone number is 1-800-314-1592 does not mean you have a right to find them at that phone number. It does not make someone else a criminal for having that number.

If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me

Of course.
However HIS WEBSITE IS NOT DECEPTIVE. There is zero chance any sane person looking at that site would be confused who he was.

If he was trying to deceive people into thinking he was this medical company then that would be trademark infringment. Trademark law protects against fraud and deception and confusion. It does *NOT* protect wild guesses, and it does not protect you from learning that your wild guess was wrong.

Buy heay, lets assume you're right. Lets assume you SHOULD be able to type in a trademark and slap a dot-com on the end and actually find the company you wanted to find at that address. Ok, without looking at the website... how about you tell me who you will find at Stax.com? Who you should find at Stax.com?

Let me give you some help. Is it supposed to be:
Stax the freight transportation company?
Stax the computer game company?
Stax the action skill game company?
Stax the military/police body armor company?
Stax the cosmetics company?
Stax the magic marker company?
Lay's potato chip company's website for their Stax chips?
Stax electrical connectors?
Candy Stax?
Stax plastic lid supports for inside pizza boxes?
Stax mugs?
Stax records and CDs?
Stax storage shelf files?
Stax inventory control services?
By the way, the US Government patent and trademark office has FOURTY THREE live trademark listings for "Stax". Oh, and by the way the US does not have some monopoly on trademarks. There are god-knows-how-many VALID Stax trademarks in other countries.

Anyone who types in X.com hoping to find some specific company is GUESSING at the address. There can be a HUNDRED companies with the trademark "X". There are a HUNDRED AND THRITY SIX trademark listings for ACME. The website ACME.com is not ANY of those companies, it is a free software website.

-

Not sure about other countries, but the USPTO has patent depository libraries scattered throughout the US. See here for details.

However the patent in Japan that seems to cover this device was granted in Oct 1995, I am having trouble getting the filing date, as the USPTO has only partial information.

Read this link for the US version of the 1995 patent. There is one other patent that is a continuation of this one.

Patent Pending since 2001

Is that an invitation to adopt your style of creatively spelling "implementation" at whim? I noticed you got it right at least once, bravo!

With the apparent partial exception in biotechnology, patents at least notionally must be on implementations of devices, not on general ideas.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What I believe you are referring to as "the idea of a vibrating controller" is known as "constructive reduction to practice" and is preferably achieved by a patent application disclosure which complies with the written description and enablement requirement of 35 USC 112. It is and has always been possible to come up with the idea for "a vibrating controller", so long as the patent application includes disclosure of an embodiment of such a device that can be made and used by a person of ordinary skill in the art. When it comes to claiming the invention, there are exactly 0 statutes that preclude the inventor from claiming to have invented "a user-input device that vibrates". The ONLY thing that would prevent such a patent claim would be the prior art. I reiterate that you do not understand the meaning of "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103 and the surrounding case law. It has nothing to do with "how hard it was" to think something up.

I agree with you that the means by which the controller is made to vibrate is very obvious, but I don't trust that you understand why. "Making something vibrate with a rotating mass" is a documented technique that is known to MEs. That, and only that, is why it is obvious.

I've never seen a vibrating desk lamp, I presume that there is no prior art for a vibrating desk lamp, and if I were to create a vibrating desk lamp, I would use a spinning mass to make it vibrate. The entire idea of vibrating desk lamps is up for grabs in terms of patent protection. Think up a good reason why you would want one, describe a way to make and use it, and the patent is yours.

On a related note, none of the few patents that I've looked at have had non-patent references.

I encourage you to look at these two patents:
6,424,333
6,275,213
You may recognize these patents as "The patents owned by Immersion that Sony allegedly infringed, prompting this entire discussion on Slashdot". Careful inspection of these patents reveals something on the order of 100 non-patent literature citations.

This speaks of a myopia on the part of the patent office.

It would speak to a myopia on the part of the patent office if it were remotely true rather than a laughably unsubstantiated allegation put forth by someone who admits to having glanced at only a few patents. Indeed, it announces with the authority of Moses delivering the Commandments to the tribe of Israel the breadth of your knowledge and experience with the patent system, to say nothing of your efforts to "not be trollish".

I hope that clears some things up for you regarding both the patent office as well as the caliber of your clever wit.

Is that an invitation to adopt your style of creatively spelling "implementation" at whim? I noticed you got it right at least once, bravo!

With the apparent partial exception in biotechnology, patents at least notionally must be on implementations of devices, not on general ideas.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What I believe you are referring to as "the idea of a vibrating controller" is known as "constructive reduction to practice" and is preferably achieved by a patent application disclosure which complies with the written description and enablement requirement of 35 USC 112. It is and has always been possible to come up with the idea for "a vibrating controller", so long as the patent application includes disclosure of an embodiment of such a device that can be made and used by a person of ordinary skill in the art. When it comes to claiming the invention, there are exactly 0 statutes that preclude the inventor from claiming to have invented "a user-input device that vibrates". The ONLY thing that would prevent such a patent claim would be the prior art. I reiterate that you do not understand the meaning of "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103 and the surrounding case law. It has nothing to do with "how hard it was" to think something up.

I agree with you that the means by which the controller is made to vibrate is very obvious, but I don't trust that you understand why. "Making something vibrate with a rotating mass" is a documented technique that is known to MEs. That, and only that, is why it is obvious.

I've never seen a vibrating desk lamp, I presume that there is no prior art for a vibrating desk lamp, and if I were to create a vibrating desk lamp, I would use a spinning mass to make it vibrate. The entire idea of vibrating desk lamps is up for grabs in terms of patent protection. Think up a good reason why you would want one, describe a way to make and use it, and the patent is yours.

On a related note, none of the few patents that I've looked at have had non-patent references.

I encourage you to look at these two patents:
6,424,333
6,275,213
You may recognize these patents as "The patents owned by Immersion that Sony allegedly infringed, prompting this entire discussion on Slashdot". Careful inspection of these patents reveals something on the order of 100 non-patent literature citations.

This speaks of a myopia on the part of the patent office.

It would speak to a myopia on the part of the patent office if it were remotely true rather than a laughably unsubstantiated allegation put forth by someone who admits to having glanced at only a few patents. Indeed, it announces with the authority of Moses delivering the Commandments to the tribe of Israel the breadth of your knowledge and experience with the patent system, to say nothing of your efforts to "not be trollish".

I hope that clears some things up for you regarding both the patent office as well as the caliber of your clever wit.

With the apparent partial exception in biotechnology, patents at least notionally must be on implementations of devices, not on general ideas.

The cotton gin was a clever (for it's time) implimentation of a device with an obvious product requirements sheet. Even if you say to yourself "I need a way to clean cotton mechanically", the cotton gin is not a particularly obvious design. I mean, it might be the first one that you think up, but it will likely take more than 10 minutes. Especially if you only have past attempts at cotton cleaners to work from.

On the other hand, if you say "I need a way to make a controller vibrate", or even "I way to make a joystick provide feedback" then the 2 bit spinning eccentric mass is likely to come to mind in such a timeframe. Especially if you count other small vibrating things as prior art. And yes, the patent does seem to include the case of multiple spinning eccentric masses, and this is aproximatly the second thing on the list I'd make of cheap ways to vibrate a controller.

In the case of the cotton gin, the non-obviousness is in the implementation - not the thumbnail sketch of the product specification. We require patents to be on implimentations, and the very best reason I see for this is to avoid the patenting of product specifications. My guess is that Sony used the aformentined vibration "technology" because when starting with the specification, the design was so obvious that they couldn't imagine the design would be patented.

Attempting to remove thought from the definition of "obvious" is, I think, doomed to failure. But that clearly hasn't kept somebody from trying.

On a related note, none of the few patents that I've looked at have had non-patent references. This speaks of a myopia on the part of the patent office. Budgetary considerations may be a reason for this, but that is no justification when they are removing our rights to design and build things. I remember a comment made, I believe, by a USPTO head in a Slashdot interview. Something along the lines of "The patent office doesn't have much prior art on file for software patents, but this is self correct as more are filed." That is Hubris, not hubris, and these are our rights to invent being eroded.

It isn't possible to patent the idea of a vibrating controller. This is explicitly forbidden, and IMNSHO, for good reason.

Hm, care to elaborate? Is there a particular statute or case law you're referring to? If so, I think you're mistaken. If you are the first person to come up with the idea of a cotton gin (vibrating controller) and file a patent that's broad enough to cover "cotton gin" ("vibrating controller"), then you get the patent for it. I'm aware of no statute that forbids such a patent, and indeed this is precisely what the system was designed to protect.

What you are not entitled to are every improvement upon that cotton gin (vibrating controller). In your disclosure, which covers how to make and use a cotton gin (vibrating controller), you can toss in some other embodiments (It might be pink, it might be made of plastic, it might have flashing LED lights) but you do not have patent protection for the non-obvious improvements that were not disclosed by your patent (a fundamentally better vibrating mechanisim, those little fans that cool your sweaty hands while you play, or a vibrating controller with a more "pleasing" form factor.)

Such methods are esoteric because they are more expensive and/or less inheriently reliable.

Not necessarily - they would simply need to argue and prove that their method is a non-obvious improvement or otherwise not disclosed by your patent. I'm not an ME, but it could be as simple as a different design for the weight that allows greater control over the vibration output. Perhaps a motor with two driveshafts and two weights could produce irregular vibration patterns. Heck just about anything so long as it is not something disclosed by your patent.

Apparently, you can attach an idea too general to be patented to an implimentation too obvious to be patented, and get a patent. I find this absurd, and believe it demonstrates a certain lack of thought on the part of the patent office.

Uh, really? The Patent Office is not part of the legislative branch of government; the Patent Office does not create the laws that define what can and cannot be patented. The Patent Office doesn't even get to decide HOW patents should be examined - the Patent Office is subjected to the rulings of the judicial branch of govnernment whenever these infringement suits are produced by judges or when a patent application reaches the board of appeals, federal circuit, or Supreme Court. In the meantime, the Patent Office just follows the laws and previous court rulings to try to be consistent and legal.

Additionally, I still don't think you fully appreciate that "obvious" as regards to patents has almost nothing to do with "obvious" in the dictionary. I've provided the following links as a highly condensed taste of the beginning of what "obvious" means regarding patents. This is like learning Computability Theory (my expertise) in 10 minutes.

MPEP 2141 See especially "Basic considerations which apply to obviousness rejections". I stress basic.

MPEP 2143 Also read through 2143.03

My thoughts on this Immersion v. Sony thing? Woah. I can't believe Sony was found infringing. I have no idea what went on during the prosecution of Immersion's patents - attorney arguments could have gutted or amplified the weight of the patent claims, but you and I have no idea until we read the prosecution history. The USPTO can only afford to do a $1000 prior art search, and both of these patents have roughly 50 references cited. The examiner doesn't appear to be asleep at the wheel, but we really have no idea what rejections were made during pros

Slicon?

The interesting thing here is that the fastest growing solar cell market is not silicon: it's organic solar cells. They're incredibly cheap, but currently inefficient. However, their efficiency has been growing dramatically. One company, nanosolar, claims to have achieved almost the efficiency of amorphous silicon cells. Their patent is rather interesting, and well worth a read.

Someone else mentioned that Nintendo uses a different approach to rumble (the unbalanced weight is inside the motor, not attached to it).

Additionally, Nintendo patented the GC controller as a continuation of the RumblePak patent.

This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/250,160, filed Feb. 16, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,200,253 which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/727,239, filed Oct. 8, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,897,437. The contents of the prior applications are incorporated by reference herein.

They can't. Patent Here. As you can see, Operation isn't prior art because it is not a human interface device. The other mentioned devices do not fit because they do not vibrate the entire unit.

To sum up your quote, they didn't patent force feedback, they've patented having a sensor to make sure that your force feedback doesn't push too hard. And this is not a logical extension of force feedback because...? Just because it uses intentionally complicated language doesn't mean that the concept isn't simple.

That's probably not what they're fighting over, though. It's probably one of the volumes of other patents that Immersion has recieved. Let's look at a random one, shall we? 6,563,487 describes using force feedback on the D-pad of a controller. It doesn't describe how this is any different than using force feedback on a button, but there it is. There is also force feedback for a knob (6,636,197) and the terrible idea of the vibrating touchpad (6,429,846). I guess that compliments their vibrating Laptop (6,822,635).

Hey, here is one... (6,693,622) a patent for a vibrating mass inside of a controller, granted on February 17, 2004. 2004? Was the patent examiner in a cave? Every console shipped with vibrating controllers years before this, in exactly the manner they describe.

There is mounds of prior art for a lot of this. The kickback in the guns in POW. Battletech centers. The wheel feedbacks in arcade and home games such as Hard Drivin', etc, etc.

The patent system is broken. This is not just /. rhetoric. Some of the things they've patented are obvious extensions of the existing idea, and some have just mountains of prior art. Most are of the "with X" kind of patent, where they patent pretty much daily activities "with force feedback."

We need to stop allowing patents of ideas, not implementations. A battery would be the perfect example of a classic patent, as one would have listed out the copper and various other ingredients that went into it, the chemical reactions that take place, and so on. These days, it would just be listed as "a device that stores electrical charge," and left at that to sue everyone who makes batteries, capacitors, carpets, combs, and anything else that happens to eventually fall under that umbrella.

Heck, they patented force feedback over a computer network (6,859,819), last month, 2005. Isn't this what cybersex was supposed to be all about? Wasn't there already teledildontics at that point?

Though maybe I'm just bitter because I work at a company which made on one of the games on the list. But these patents ring bogus to me, and I applaud Sony's efforts to fight on everybody's behalf.

I'd also like to point out that just because someone has bought a license from SCO doesn't mean SCO has the right to sell a license. Just because Nintendo didn't fight against this doesn't mean that it is valid. And quite frankly, even if it is valid and holds up in court, it's still downright questionable. I'm guessing Immersion just set the cost of licensing the patents at a number smaller than the cost of fighting the patents in court.

The patents named actually have priority claims back to November of 1995, so the Rumble Pack came out after (assuming 1996, as you say).

6,424,333 & 6,275,213

They both have claims to the abandoned (not patented) application from November 1995. The parent information is found by scrolling past the references cited and other references and right before the claims.

The patents named actually have priority claims back to November of 1995, so the Rumble Pack came out after (assuming 1996, as you say).

6,424,333 & 6,275,213

They both have claims to the abandoned (not patented) application from November 1995. The parent information is found by scrolling past the references cited and other references and right before the claims.

The patents were filed in 2000, but they have priority claims of continuations upon continuations. This means that the abandoned (it's not a patent) application has everything that's claimed in the new patents '333 and '213. So prior art needs to be found before Nov. 30, 1995, preferably 1 year prior to that to have anything over these. Also the '333 patent, specifically talks about a graphical/force feedback relationship. Links to patents: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,424,333.WKU.&OS=PN/6,424,333&RS =PN/6,424,333 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,275,213.WKU.&OS=PN/6,275,213&RS =PN/6,275,213 There probably is something out there, I don't remember arcade timelines.

The patents were filed in 2000, but they have priority claims of continuations upon continuations. This means that the abandoned (it's not a patent) application has everything that's claimed in the new patents '333 and '213. So prior art needs to be found before Nov. 30, 1995, preferably 1 year prior to that to have anything over these. Also the '333 patent, specifically talks about a graphical/force feedback relationship. Links to patents: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,424,333.WKU.&OS=PN/6,424,333&RS =PN/6,424,333 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,275,213.WKU.&OS=PN/6,275,213&RS =PN/6,275,213 There probably is something out there, I don't remember arcade timelines.

Links to the patents: 6,424,333, 6,275,213.

Links to the patents: 6,424,333, 6,275,213.

• Apple patented stacks, years ago, thus creating intellectual property.
• Apple purchased intellectual property from Xerox: "However, a significant change occurred in 1979 when Xerox bought a large chunk of Apple stock. In return for being allowed this stock purchase, Xerox allowed some of their research ideas to be used in designing an office computer."
• Apple complies with the BSD license agreement, by freely distributing its improvements to the source, and including the license in the source it distributes. I'm no expert, but I imagine they'd face legal action if they were not complying with the license. Thus they use and improve the property therein in good faith, which, I thought was the whole point of open source, right?

The point is, it is only stealing if you take it from someone against their will. Apple, as far as I can tell, does things the proper way, whereas Microsoft often does not.

1. Indeed, you are right that the patent is NOT AT ALL IPv6 related. So both PUBPAT, ZDNet and Slashdot are wrong here.
2. It is related to IPv4 link-local addresses. Indeed, the 169.254/16. address you mention. You're correct there. Now, please read RFC 3927 for all details.
3. As you can see in Appendix A of RFC 3927, these "IPv4 link-local addresses" where implement in Windows 98 and Mac OS 8. You missed the boat completely here.
4. This technology is NOT "owned" by MS as you claim.
5. However, both Microsoft AND Apple too(!) do claim IPR over this technology.
6. It is VERY interesting to note that both Apple's patents were submitted March 21, 1985, and have thus expired last week (!).
7. Microsofts patent is so new (filed 1998) it's laughable. There is VERY, VERY mucht prior art. Take Mac OS 8 (released 1997).

• RFC 3927, Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses.

• Microsoft's claims, U.S. Patent No. 6,101,499
• Apple's claims, U.S. Patent Numbers 4,661,902 and 4,689,786
• Patent 6,101,499, filed April 8, 1998
• Patent 4,661,902, filed March 21, 1985
• Patent 6,101,499, filed March 21, 1985

1. Indeed, you are right that the patent is NOT AT ALL IPv6 related. So both PUBPAT, ZDNet and Slashdot are wrong here.
2. It is related to IPv4 link-local addresses. Indeed, the 169.254/16. address you mention. You're correct there. Now, please read RFC 3927 for all details.
3. As you can see in Appendix A of RFC 3927, these "IPv4 link-local addresses" where implement in Windows 98 and Mac OS 8. You missed the boat completely here.
4. This technology is NOT "owned" by MS as you claim.
5. However, both Microsoft AND Apple too(!) do claim IPR over this technology.
6. It is VERY interesting to note that both Apple's patents were submitted March 21, 1985, and have thus expired last week (!).
7. Microsofts patent is so new (filed 1998) it's laughable. There is VERY, VERY mucht prior art. Take Mac OS 8 (released 1997).

• RFC 3927, Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses.

• Microsoft's claims, U.S. Patent No. 6,101,499
• Apple's claims, U.S. Patent Numbers 4,661,902 and 4,689,786
• Patent 6,101,499, filed April 8, 1998
• Patent 4,661,902, filed March 21, 1985
• Patent 6,101,499, filed March 21, 1985

1. Indeed, you are right that the patent is NOT AT ALL IPv6 related. So both PUBPAT, ZDNet and Slashdot are wrong here.
2. It is related to IPv4 link-local addresses. Indeed, the 169.254/16. address you mention. You're correct there. Now, please read RFC 3927 for all details.
3. As you can see in Appendix A of RFC 3927, these "IPv4 link-local addresses" where implement in Windows 98 and Mac OS 8. You missed the boat completely here.
4. This technology is NOT "owned" by MS as you claim.
5. However, both Microsoft AND Apple too(!) do claim IPR over this technology.
6. It is VERY interesting to note that both Apple's patents were submitted March 21, 1985, and have thus expired last week (!).
7. Microsofts patent is so new (filed 1998) it's laughable. There is VERY, VERY mucht prior art. Take Mac OS 8 (released 1997).

• RFC 3927, Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses.

• Microsoft's claims, U.S. Patent No. 6,101,499
• Apple's claims, U.S. Patent Numbers 4,661,902 and 4,689,786
• Patent 6,101,499, filed April 8, 1998
• Patent 4,661,902, filed March 21, 1985
• Patent 6,101,499, filed March 21, 1985