Slashdot Mirror

I'm surprised that they haven't patented DNS.


Apple probably has already patented it - you can search here

But it gets worse, because a final part of google's indexing process is to compare pages for identical text, and throw out all but one of the URLs. Apparently this stage has nothing to go on other than the text and the recorded URLs, and so your URL stands a fifty-fifty chance of being thrown out.

Not exactly. If you want to learn how to get rid of a 302 hijack, read Google's patents on removing duplicate content:

• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google

In a nutshell, Google says that when duplicate content is detected, the site with the highest PageRank wins. Also note that Google now implements LocalRank in addition to their PageRank equation:

• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =11&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/ google&RS=AN/google

The reason a spammer can overtake a site with a 302 is because the spammer is better at building PageRank, LocalRank and keyword relevancy via links to that virtual URL than the legitimate site owner (even if the site has been around for years). A search engine bot cannot determine the age of a link (yet) neither can it determine the legitimacy of a page beyond link popularity and the "revelancy" and "authority" of those links.

The main problem here is that many sites use 302 redirects as a tracking mechanism (which Google tries to parse and follow as links). This makes it undesireable to "penalize" all 302 redirects. These are often good links. Even Froogle uses 302 redirects with its review content, which allowed it to hijack competitor content in MSN Search until a spam report was filed. (Thanks MSN for fixing it so quickly!)

Some solutions needed here:

• A tracking parameter that the search engines agree upon to eliminate the need to track with a 302. (So I can link to http://www.url.com/??sitename and do my tracking while the search engine can parse away the ??sitename to index the legitmate URL). This needs to be an agreed upon parameter much link rel="nofollow". Properly advertised and integrated into shopping carts and affiliate programs, this should help reduce the number of 302s netwide m

But it gets worse, because a final part of google's indexing process is to compare pages for identical text, and throw out all but one of the URLs. Apparently this stage has nothing to go on other than the text and the recorded URLs, and so your URL stands a fifty-fifty chance of being thrown out.

Not exactly. If you want to learn how to get rid of a 302 hijack, read Google's patents on removing duplicate content:

• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google

In a nutshell, Google says that when duplicate content is detected, the site with the highest PageRank wins. Also note that Google now implements LocalRank in addition to their PageRank equation:

• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =11&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/ google&RS=AN/google

The reason a spammer can overtake a site with a 302 is because the spammer is better at building PageRank, LocalRank and keyword relevancy via links to that virtual URL than the legitimate site owner (even if the site has been around for years). A search engine bot cannot determine the age of a link (yet) neither can it determine the legitimacy of a page beyond link popularity and the "revelancy" and "authority" of those links.

The main problem here is that many sites use 302 redirects as a tracking mechanism (which Google tries to parse and follow as links). This makes it undesireable to "penalize" all 302 redirects. These are often good links. Even Froogle uses 302 redirects with its review content, which allowed it to hijack competitor content in MSN Search until a spam report was filed. (Thanks MSN for fixing it so quickly!)

Some solutions needed here:

• A tracking parameter that the search engines agree upon to eliminate the need to track with a 302. (So I can link to http://www.url.com/??sitename and do my tracking while the search engine can parse away the ??sitename to index the legitmate URL). This needs to be an agreed upon parameter much link rel="nofollow". Properly advertised and integrated into shopping carts and affiliate programs, this should help reduce the number of 302s netwide m

But it gets worse, because a final part of google's indexing process is to compare pages for identical text, and throw out all but one of the URLs. Apparently this stage has nothing to go on other than the text and the recorded URLs, and so your URL stands a fifty-fifty chance of being thrown out.

Not exactly. If you want to learn how to get rid of a 302 hijack, read Google's patents on removing duplicate content:

• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google

In a nutshell, Google says that when duplicate content is detected, the site with the highest PageRank wins. Also note that Google now implements LocalRank in addition to their PageRank equation:

• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =11&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/ google&RS=AN/google

The reason a spammer can overtake a site with a 302 is because the spammer is better at building PageRank, LocalRank and keyword relevancy via links to that virtual URL than the legitimate site owner (even if the site has been around for years). A search engine bot cannot determine the age of a link (yet) neither can it determine the legitimacy of a page beyond link popularity and the "revelancy" and "authority" of those links.

The main problem here is that many sites use 302 redirects as a tracking mechanism (which Google tries to parse and follow as links). This makes it undesireable to "penalize" all 302 redirects. These are often good links. Even Froogle uses 302 redirects with its review content, which allowed it to hijack competitor content in MSN Search until a spam report was filed. (Thanks MSN for fixing it so quickly!)

Some solutions needed here:

• A tracking parameter that the search engines agree upon to eliminate the need to track with a 302. (So I can link to http://www.url.com/??sitename and do my tracking while the search engine can parse away the ??sitename to index the legitmate URL). This needs to be an agreed upon parameter much link rel="nofollow". Properly advertised and integrated into shopping carts and affiliate programs, this should help reduce the number of 302s netwide m

But it gets worse, because a final part of google's indexing process is to compare pages for identical text, and throw out all but one of the URLs. Apparently this stage has nothing to go on other than the text and the recorded URLs, and so your URL stands a fifty-fifty chance of being thrown out.

Not exactly. If you want to learn how to get rid of a 302 hijack, read Google's patents on removing duplicate content:

• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google

In a nutshell, Google says that when duplicate content is detected, the site with the highest PageRank wins. Also note that Google now implements LocalRank in addition to their PageRank equation:

• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/g oogle&RS=AN/google
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =11&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=google.ASNM.&OS=AN/ google&RS=AN/google

The reason a spammer can overtake a site with a 302 is because the spammer is better at building PageRank, LocalRank and keyword relevancy via links to that virtual URL than the legitimate site owner (even if the site has been around for years). A search engine bot cannot determine the age of a link (yet) neither can it determine the legitimacy of a page beyond link popularity and the "revelancy" and "authority" of those links.

The main problem here is that many sites use 302 redirects as a tracking mechanism (which Google tries to parse and follow as links). This makes it undesireable to "penalize" all 302 redirects. These are often good links. Even Froogle uses 302 redirects with its review content, which allowed it to hijack competitor content in MSN Search until a spam report was filed. (Thanks MSN for fixing it so quickly!)

Some solutions needed here:

• A tracking parameter that the search engines agree upon to eliminate the need to track with a 302. (So I can link to http://www.url.com/??sitename and do my tracking while the search engine can parse away the ??sitename to index the legitmate URL). This needs to be an agreed upon parameter much link rel="nofollow". Properly advertised and integrated into shopping carts and affiliate programs, this should help reduce the number of 302s netwide m

USPTO: 06-21-2004 Rescind Nonpublication Request for Pre Grant Publication

Still, somehow Wizards of the Coast managed to patent the game of Magic. If they can do that, then I imagine something like "Letter-tile Game Method of Play" could be patented--which is basically like patenting the idea of the rules of the game, isn't it?

They should have patented the process of playing. That's what Wizards of the Coast did with Magic.

Additionally, I think you would enjoy reading about "constructive reduction to practice" compared to "actual reduction to practice". The former is quickly defined as documentation that complies with 35 USC 112 (ie contains enough information that a person in that technology could make and use the invention) while the latter is a demonstration of a working example, such as a prototype, model, or in many cases, source code. A rather broad consensus holds that requiring actual reduction to practice for a patent application obscenely favors corporations with mountains of disposable capital at the expense of the little guy, so it's a pretty good requirement if you're trying to support the huge corporations and shaft the independent innovators.

The flip side of that is that a patent application can't be so vague or filled with middle-management jargon that you can't figure out what it is. Unfortunately for software-related inventions, this isn't a hard requirement to fill. The stereotypical condescending intellectualism that surrounds computer science bites itself in the ass here - part of proving that an application is not sufficient reduction to practice would involve getting an expert in software engineering to swear in an affidavit that he cannot make the invention as it is described. If his ego-inflated head doesn't explode, you might be getting somewhere, but the chances of this happening and working in court are really slim.

Unfortunately for that argument, I can pretty well figure out what a "plog" is and how it works just by reading the jokes made here on Slashdot. I don't need to see source code nor do I need to read a specification to build and use a plog of my own. This is in line with your observation - they aren't describing a specific implementation of anything; they're talking about a really broad, very basic idea. But God love'em, if they came up with it, then they can claim patent protection for the whole idea. Unfortunately for them, describing and patenting a broad concept isn't very easy to litigate. It often prevents infringement of -exactly- what is claimed, but basically -anything- could be construed as an improvement.

Here's some recommended reading:
MPEP 2138.05
MPEP 2164.08

Additionally, I think you would enjoy reading about "constructive reduction to practice" compared to "actual reduction to practice". The former is quickly defined as documentation that complies with 35 USC 112 (ie contains enough information that a person in that technology could make and use the invention) while the latter is a demonstration of a working example, such as a prototype, model, or in many cases, source code. A rather broad consensus holds that requiring actual reduction to practice for a patent application obscenely favors corporations with mountains of disposable capital at the expense of the little guy, so it's a pretty good requirement if you're trying to support the huge corporations and shaft the independent innovators.

The flip side of that is that a patent application can't be so vague or filled with middle-management jargon that you can't figure out what it is. Unfortunately for software-related inventions, this isn't a hard requirement to fill. The stereotypical condescending intellectualism that surrounds computer science bites itself in the ass here - part of proving that an application is not sufficient reduction to practice would involve getting an expert in software engineering to swear in an affidavit that he cannot make the invention as it is described. If his ego-inflated head doesn't explode, you might be getting somewhere, but the chances of this happening and working in court are really slim.

Unfortunately for that argument, I can pretty well figure out what a "plog" is and how it works just by reading the jokes made here on Slashdot. I don't need to see source code nor do I need to read a specification to build and use a plog of my own. This is in line with your observation - they aren't describing a specific implementation of anything; they're talking about a really broad, very basic idea. But God love'em, if they came up with it, then they can claim patent protection for the whole idea. Unfortunately for them, describing and patenting a broad concept isn't very easy to litigate. It often prevents infringement of -exactly- what is claimed, but basically -anything- could be construed as an improvement.

Here's some recommended reading:
MPEP 2138.05
MPEP 2164.08

Comb Over!

Patenting linking to peoples blogs is like patenting the comb-over.

"he only reason Microsoft doesn't support CSS properly is that they don't OWN it."

Considering Microsoft has sucessfully patented CSS, I don't see how they don't "own" it. Even if they have given W3C a license to it.

Actually, Apple already did that over 3 years ago: Mouse having a rotary dial patent application. Date: February 7, 2002.

Next, the product is a derived work from IBM's GPL'd code. Your agreement may well give them copyright ownership of your additions, though at least in some states (CA I'm pretty sure) such agreements are illegal to whatever extent that they apply to anything not a direct result of working for them. However, as a company they only have use of the portion released under IBM's GPL. As a copyright owner, IBM might want to take some action on this point.

Finally, patents can only be applied for by the true inventor. Patents cannot be applied for by companies and an application by someone other than the inventor is (presumably) easy to invalidate. If they cannot dispute that you were the inventor, I don't see how they'd have a legal leg to stand on.

It seems to me therefore that the company cannot acquire a patent on your invention without going through you. I would expect their agreement to require you to assign them any patents resulting from inventions made while working for them. I don't know if it is likely to require you to file a patent or what recourse they might have with you if you don't.

You reminded me of an old apple rumor I saw almost 2 years ago. It sounds insanely uncomfortable to me...but you are not that far off from what might have been:

Patent: Mouse having a rotary dial

Mac Observer article with images

"Apparatus for lighting dwellings and other structures" us patent 247229

The same application has been filed at the USPTO as publication number 20040210818.

The name Shuffle is clearly protected under Trademark law, since Apple has it trademarked.

Links from tess2.uspto.gov expire after a few minutes. Here's a fixed link (the Check Status button).

Anyway, how valid is Apple's trademark on SHUFFLE given that "shuffle" is a descriptive name for the random sequence playback feature in several MP3 players? It's not nearly as strong as IPOD, an arbitrary/fanciful name.

The name Shuffle is clearly protected under Trademark law, since Apple has it trademarked.

LuxPro is screwed.

Only in the case that it is in fact a trademark. As Apple does not display a (R) logo for a registered mark or even a (T) logo for a trademark then I assumed that they did not assert one.

It appears that they've applied for a registered mark on their logo (but not the word itself, from what I grok), but haven't yet been granted a registered trademark on the SHUFFLE logo as of now.

and Eolas is just part of it. Last year, one of Microsoft's File Allocation Table (FAT) patents was called into question by the USPTO and is currently under review.

Now, there's more. Last week additional challenges to Microsoft patents were filed with the USPTO. One of the challenges concerns the same FAT patent brought under scrutiny last year (US#5,579,517). Basically, another expert is contesting the validity of this patent on entirely new grounds.

The second request is a challenge to another Microsoft FAT patent (US#5,758,352). That's three challenges to the Microsoft FAT patent family in the US in less than one year.

What kind of leverage can Microsoft have to drive reform if the basics are questionable to begin with?

Check out this report from the USPTO's Official Gazette from March 1 for details on the new patent challenges.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2005/w eek09/patrequ.htm/

IMHO, this isn't big news. Sony have pretty much confirmed that the PS3 will have WiFi (and so it should, as a next gen console) and that the PSP will act as a PS3 controller.

This US Patent shows some interesting ideas from Sony: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv. html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20040266529.PGNR.& OS=DN/20040266529&RS=DN/20040266529

If this is a big deal for Nintendo then I fear for their 'Revolution'.

I've been tracking Audible.com for years. They have the first portable digital audio device in the Smithsonian. One of their first patents, filed in 1996, seems to cover the authentication/authorization of digital devices connected to computers. I realize that the patent doesn't prevent infringement on this inane patent, but can it be used as prior art if Apple wants to follow the Audible method to the letter? Apple already has the Audible DRM built into all its iPod, I think, but all of its music uses the Apple DRM.

Seems like the only thing this company adds is the credit card transaction, but patent claims, if they are to survive litigation, must be non-obvious. If prior art had every step except the customer setting up an account on the server-side, it would appear to be obvious to ask for payment. This patent is also a continuation, so I wonder if that early file date is good.

Except you have to worry about not qualifying for the patent bar. Notice that little asterisk next to the CS major in the latest bulletin? If your school isn't listed, you have to qualify under Category B. Good luck if your school wasn't strong on lab classes in things other than CS.

is working at the US Patent Office. I swear I think it is a bunch of freakin chimps and it just takes 4 or 5, or 6 years for them to get through the stacks that they are rubber stamping with approved(Assuming they see big colorfull logos on the paperwork for corporations). This is getting outrageous(sp), the patent system was designed for individuals to use to protect the innovative ideas, not for corporations to use to beat people over the head with. Now I am not defending apple, as they have used patents in the past to beat people over the head with, however, using a Credit Card for verification without charging it has been around long before the patent was filled. And as far as the other patent it describes any jukebox which stores it's music in data format, and specifically points to CD Jukebox's and players. Patent Number 6587403 The worst part of all of this is that now Europe will be under the same obnoxious, idiotic, corporations that want to patent everything. At the rate patents are being allowed on previously existing items, and or ideas, pretty soon someone will patent the biological system of exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide.

5. A method for protecting software from unauthorised use, as claimed in claim 4, wherein further comprising the steps of: storing an encrypted identity of a user in said processing apparatus; and if all of said protected programs stored in said processing apparatus has a valid user identity which being consistent with the decryption result of said stored encrypted identity, permitting use of said protected programs and not permitting if otherwise.

- Originally filed on 7/14/1998 as a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 08/587,448, which was filed on Dec. 1, 1995 (This is the most likely date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The application was rejected 3 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 0 disclose statements citing known prior art.

- Originally filed on 8/17/2000 as a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/111,989, filed Jul. 8, 1998, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/051,999, filed Jul. 9, 1997 (This is the date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The applicant was rejected 2 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 2 disclose statements citing prior art.

- Originally filed on 7/14/1998 as a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 08/587,448, which was filed on Dec. 1, 1995 (This is the most likely date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The application was rejected 3 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 0 disclose statements citing known prior art.

- Originally filed on 8/17/2000 as a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/111,989, filed Jul. 8, 1998, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/051,999, filed Jul. 9, 1997 (This is the date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The applicant was rejected 2 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 2 disclose statements citing prior art.

- Originally filed on 7/14/1998 as a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 08/587,448, which was filed on Dec. 1, 1995 (This is the most likely date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The application was rejected 3 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 0 disclose statements citing known prior art.

- Originally filed on 8/17/2000 as a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/111,989, filed Jul. 8, 1998, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/051,999, filed Jul. 9, 1997 (This is the date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The applicant was rejected 2 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 2 disclose statements citing prior art.

- Originally filed on 7/14/1998 as a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 08/587,448, which was filed on Dec. 1, 1995 (This is the most likely date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The application was rejected 3 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 0 disclose statements citing known prior art.

- Originally filed on 8/17/2000 as a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/111,989, filed Jul. 8, 1998, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/051,999, filed Jul. 9, 1997 (This is the date you will have to beat for prior art).
- The applicant was rejected 2 times prior to allowance (see here).
- The applicant filed 2 disclose statements citing prior art.

: A music jukebox configured for storing a music library therein, said music jukebox comprising: a housing; an audio data receiver arranged to receive audio data from outside the housing; audio output structure located at least partially within the housing for outputting audio signals; data storage memory in the housing for storing audio data received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox including a user interface comprising a display device located at least partially within the housing, said display device providing a display which is viewable from outside the housing, and a plurality of manually operable function controllers on the housing, said music jukebox configured such that a music library of sound tracks is storable in digital form in the data storage memory as a result of audio data being received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox configured such that said music library is organizable into a master song list and at least one group of sound tracks wherein each group comprises at least one sound track selected from the master song list, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that indicia of said master song list and indicia of at least one group of sound tracks are displayable on said display, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that said plurality of manually operable function controllers is useable to select a group of sound tracks stored in the data storage memory and operate the music jukebox such that said music jukebox outputs audio signals through said audio output structure.

Now, the thing to remember is that winamp has been around since sometime before 1999, ie more than a year before this patent was filed.

The only SLIGHTLY new thing here would be the "select a group of soundtracks" which sounds like "album shuffle" to me. The rest? Not a single thing MiniDisc didn't do in 1991. It's pretty clear that its not itunes thats infringing, because the only thing it does that napster and/or winamp didn't was download tracks from a main server and take your money.

Lets look at the other claims here:
2) plays a CD (how many years have we had cd players?)
3) edit an audio track
4) seems to mean that even if you have a cd in the drive you can play tracks from memory. Just like winamp.
5) edit an audio track using a "manually operable function controller"... are they calling volume adjustment "editing"?
6) "at least one sound track in the data storage memory is organizable into at least one group of sound tracks." Wow, a playlist editor?
7) "one manually operable function controller" for organizing sound tracks. When I use a mouse to rearrange songs in my winamp playlist using a "manually operable function controller"?
8) Peak level indicator (like winamp).
9) "such that names are assignable to at least one sound track in the data storage memory." OH MY GOD! THEY INVENTED THE ALBUM FIELD OF THE ID3 TAG! BOW TO THEIR INTELLIGENCE! Or you could just mean saving your playlist to a file and giving it a name. Winamp, and this claim is so oldschool its playschool.
10) "manually operable function controller" for assigning names to your winamp playlists. Like a keyboard!
11) Names assignable to at least one group of soundtracks. Could be the directory I store all my playlists in.
12) the obligatory device for naming groups of soundtracks
13) Uses a harddrive@!!%@2!@ wow, thats original!
14) Uses a line-in jack. Just like MD players right after Sony discovered that nobody cared about the optical inputs
15) Line Out Jack. Doesn't de

This is a continuation-in-part of patent application Ser. No. 08/587,448, filed on Dec. 1, 1995, which is still pending.

So is this thing actually granted or what?

Now IANAL, but I believe the US patent law give benefit to the first to file, or the first to invent, which is not always known until litigation.

This 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=6,587,403.WKU.&OS=PN/6,587,403&RS =PN/6,587,403
patent has benefits reaching back to July of 1997.
Read the Related Application info.

Also, the only things enforceable in a patent are the CLAIMS.

Furthermore, patent publications are of no consequence. I've seen some slashdotters get all riled up about crazily written broad applications, but almost never does a patent make it through the process of becoming a patent without some moddification.

Anyway here's the first independent claim of the jukebox patent

We Claim:
1. A music jukebox configured for storing a music library therein, said music jukebox comprising: a housing; an audio data receiver arranged to receive audio data from outside the housing; audio output structure located at least partially within the housing for outputting audio signals; data storage memory in the housing for storing audio data received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox including a user interface comprising a display device located at least partially within the housing, said display device providing a display which is viewable from outside the housing, and a plurality of manually operable function controllers on the housing, said music jukebox configured such that a music library of sound tracks is storable in digital form in the data storage memory as a result of audio data being received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox configured such that said music library is organizable into a master song list and at least one group of sound tracks wherein each group comprises at least one sound track selected from the master song list, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that indicia of said master song list and indicia of at least one group of sound tracks are displayable on said display, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that said plurality of manually operable function controllers is useable to select a group of sound tracks stored in the data storage memory and operate the music jukebox such that said music jukebox outputs audio signals through said audio output structure.

Was this done before July of 97?

I don't know, but I just wanted to help give some understanding of the US patent system... I hope it helps.

A music jukebox configured for storing a music library therein, said music jukebox comprising: a housing; an audio data receiver arranged to receive audio data from outside the housing; [...]

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=6665797.WKU.&OS=PN/6665797&RS=PN/ 6665797
There's definately some prior art for this one. Amazon is a likely one, they came to exist in 1996, while the patent was filed in 1998. Hmm...

which refers to this patent: Patent 6,665,797

The actual patent is interesting to read. Click here to read it

No, the USPTO allows CS people to sit for the Patent Bar now. It is a Category A degree now. Of course, previously you could petition your way in under Category B.

I certainly wouldn't waste my time in law school unless I could sit for the USPTO exam (or your land's equivalent).

This is the F'ing toughest exam I have ever taken. Makes the state bar look like a cake walk. Also no law school classes help you with this. Not even the Patent Law class. I suggest (and YMMV) you take the exam after you clerk and have some experience with the procedures of the PTO.

Typical question:
Using the non-searchable PDF of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (a Yellow Pages telephone book sized document). Below are 5 sentences from the MPEP. We have added the word "not" to four of these sentences. Which sentence did we not alter?

Also, while it doesn't matter for CS & EEs, if you are going into the BioMed area, many inventors don't want to talk to you unless you have a PhD or Med degree.

Actually Apple had been working on Spotlight for a lot longer than the last year or so, they just haven't been advertising it to the world like MS has. Check out this patent for spotlight search technologies filed in May of 2000:

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=6,847,959.WKU.&OS=PN/6,847,959&RS =PN/6,847,959

Do this. Go to Sun Research and then go to the US Patent Office and search for patents issued to Sun researchers. You'll find that all of a sudden about 2 years ago researchers who got little or no patents are suddenly getting patents. It seems like they were told to stop just doing research and writing papers and start getting patents and stuff so Sun could license the stuff and make money. While research papers go through a peer review process by people who are considered experts in their fields, I don't think you can say the same about the patent review process. Sun researchers are being measured by how many patents they get. It doesn't look good.

Microsoft getting away with a fine because of prior art?!?!?!! Does that mean we'll get away with our patent infringments on things like Virtual Desktops???.

Patents may list tons of prior art, material or not, but that is due to the Duty of Disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56. It is better to disclose anything that might be considered even remotely material to the patentability of the invention than to have a document surface at some later date that could invalidate the patent.

about the claimed violation of U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 may be read from the PDF at this address. I'm kind of curious why, since Microsoft, in Washington State, and the University of California, whose location is left as an exercise to the reader, are both located in the 9th Circuit, that the case was originally tried in Illinois, the 7th Circuit. Probably that's where Eolas is located.

Quite right, and MPEP 2106 reinforces that. A patent application should be rejected as nonstatutory if it fails to produce a useful, concrete and tangible result (MPEP 2106 II A). The catch is that you must figure out what that means.

Software that fiddles with bits in memory does not meet this criteria. Software that "transmits computation results via a communications relay for permanent expression" could print results on a printer, save results on your hard drive, or control a grinding machine to produce a three-dimensional prototype. To date, there exists no judicially created guideline that draws a line in the sand, separating what Slashdot calls "software" and what lawyers call "software". In fact, I highly doubt that Slashdot could come to a consensus.

A certain 100 digit number may certainly never have existed before (novel). That 100 digit number may certainly be non-obvious. That 100 digit number may certainly be useful. However a number is not an invention. A number is not patentable. Math is not an invention and is not patentable. An equation is not an invention and is not patentable. An algorithm is not an invention and is not patentable. Logic is not an invention and is not patentable. A series of mental steps is not an invention and is not patentable. These things are synonymous with software.

While I know that is academically true (I'm a BSCS and BSMathematics who concentrated in computability and algorithms) it would be trivial to show this is absurd in court.

"Ok, 432,215,732,253,144. What does that software do?"
"Uh.."

Nobody is claiming a particular number for a patent. Hell, a particular organization of steel molecules is synonymous with every all-steel machine, but nobody would use that argument to overthrow patents on Vise-Grips(TM), would they?

I am a programmer. Running software mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging software. Any software can in principal eventually be "run" in pure though in a human brain (though obviously some software would take millions of years to run that way).

The fact that it would take millions of years is precisely why it would be considered impossible for a human. The F-117A Nighthawk is too unstable to fly without computer control, although Superman could do it ;) There is a line on what is reasonable for a human to perform, and most software is beyond that line. Any software that electronically communicates via computer components is automatically beyond that line.

(1) Is it possible for the law to restrict thought itself? If a person sits motionless and does in fact carry out some patented software mentally, has he infringed the patent? Has he violated the law by thinking a legally prohibited sequence of thoughts??? Hopefully you find this not merely absurd, but find it to be a horrifying legal concept. Thought crime.

Check out the very last paragraph of MPEP 2105.

2105

Is there anything novel, anything non-obvious, anything inventive, about taking the blatantly obvious step of using a computer simply to speed up those calculations and mental steps?

Check out MPEP 2144.04 III.

2144.04

Of course, sending email is NOT "automating previously mental steps", nor is the system to do so "merely a number". Sending email is not possible without using computer system, therefore it couldn't be a manual process. The fact that the system's software could be represented as a number is irrelevant - it could also be considered a work of literary art, or printed as a tile mosaic and appreciated in a museum. It would be patentable because of what it DOES, unlike a number, poem, or pretty picture.

Of course, I'm not arguing that software patents are valid. A quick glance at MPEP 2106 reveals that software per se is indeed nonstatutory. I am trying to be as informative as possible and expose how complex this issue really is.

And I thoroughly enjoyed your post.

Quite right, and MPEP 2106 reinforces that. A patent application should be rejected as nonstatutory if it fails to produce a useful, concrete and tangible result (MPEP 2106 II A). The catch is that you must figure out what that means.

Software that fiddles with bits in memory does not meet this criteria. Software that "transmits computation results via a communications relay for permanent expression" could print results on a printer, save results on your hard drive, or control a grinding machine to produce a three-dimensional prototype. To date, there exists no judicially created guideline that draws a line in the sand, separating what Slashdot calls "software" and what lawyers call "software". In fact, I highly doubt that Slashdot could come to a consensus.

A certain 100 digit number may certainly never have existed before (novel). That 100 digit number may certainly be non-obvious. That 100 digit number may certainly be useful. However a number is not an invention. A number is not patentable. Math is not an invention and is not patentable. An equation is not an invention and is not patentable. An algorithm is not an invention and is not patentable. Logic is not an invention and is not patentable. A series of mental steps is not an invention and is not patentable. These things are synonymous with software.

While I know that is academically true (I'm a BSCS and BSMathematics who concentrated in computability and algorithms) it would be trivial to show this is absurd in court.

"Ok, 432,215,732,253,144. What does that software do?"
"Uh.."

Nobody is claiming a particular number for a patent. Hell, a particular organization of steel molecules is synonymous with every all-steel machine, but nobody would use that argument to overthrow patents on Vise-Grips(TM), would they?

I am a programmer. Running software mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging software. Any software can in principal eventually be "run" in pure though in a human brain (though obviously some software would take millions of years to run that way).

The fact that it would take millions of years is precisely why it would be considered impossible for a human. The F-117A Nighthawk is too unstable to fly without computer control, although Superman could do it ;) There is a line on what is reasonable for a human to perform, and most software is beyond that line. Any software that electronically communicates via computer components is automatically beyond that line.

(1) Is it possible for the law to restrict thought itself? If a person sits motionless and does in fact carry out some patented software mentally, has he infringed the patent? Has he violated the law by thinking a legally prohibited sequence of thoughts??? Hopefully you find this not merely absurd, but find it to be a horrifying legal concept. Thought crime.

Check out the very last paragraph of MPEP 2105.

2105

Is there anything novel, anything non-obvious, anything inventive, about taking the blatantly obvious step of using a computer simply to speed up those calculations and mental steps?

Check out MPEP 2144.04 III.

2144.04

Of course, sending email is NOT "automating previously mental steps", nor is the system to do so "merely a number". Sending email is not possible without using computer system, therefore it couldn't be a manual process. The fact that the system's software could be represented as a number is irrelevant - it could also be considered a work of literary art, or printed as a tile mosaic and appreciated in a museum. It would be patentable because of what it DOES, unlike a number, poem, or pretty picture.

Of course, I'm not arguing that software patents are valid. A quick glance at MPEP 2106 reveals that software per se is indeed nonstatutory. I am trying to be as informative as possible and expose how complex this issue really is.

And I thoroughly enjoyed your post.

Has this been removed from their library? If not, doesn't it conflict with the whole concept of opensource?

The music industry is less than 100 years old. Their need is gone, yet believe it or not music will survive without them.

Or will it? As long as the incumbent music publishers hold copyrights on almost every possible melody, this will still create a chilling effect against production of music outside of the license-pooling in-group called the "music industry".

Just like diamonds are a new facet of love, love predated the need to pay "2 months salary" for a love rock, and love will keep going after the diamond industry.

Damn right. The diamond mining industry has about until the 2020s, when Apollo Diamond's patents on chemical vapor deposition will begin to expire, and competition will drive down the price of diamond to compete with cubic zirconia. However, unlike patents on diamond production, copyrights on popular music don't expire.

First, by "manufactured by printing", they don't mean a roll to roll process like a printing press. They propose to deposit materials with an inkjet-like mechanism.

Second, what they call "nanotechnology" is surface chemistry. There are ways to make semi-regular structures by bulk chemical means, and that's what they're doing. They did throw a reference to "bioengineered self-assembly" in, but that's not how they do it. The processing looks much more like processes you'd do in a wafer fab. There are common fab processes like electrodeposition, chemical removal of support substrates, and heating in an inert atmosphere.

The basic idea is to address the reasons that solar cells are inefficient. In bulk materials like silicon, only a small fraction of the photons do anything useful. Most of the photons are at the wrong wavelength. And many of the photon interactions that do occur don't result in an electron being delivered to the output. They're trying to fix both of those problems.

Their policy seems to be to shut up until it works. It might work, or it might not. They're not selling stock, and they're not issuing press releases. They have VC funding and some money from DARPA.

I work on electronic trading systems for one of the big investment banks and I take care of the GUIs used by our fixed income traders for trading both cash and derivative instruments on all the exchanges mentioned here - Eurex, LIFFE, CME, CBoT - as well as many, many others.

I've been following this issue and I hope that TT's patents will be challenged and overturned. Here's why (note that you should read this and then read the two patents.

Futures exchanges are generally order-drive - i.e. you submit an order to buy/sell a certain amount of a particular instrument at a certain price. There are hundreds of market participants, and they all want to do different things. For a given instrument - Al might want to buy 100 contracts at 100.00, Bob might want to sell 50 contracts at 100.01, Charles wants to buy 1200 contracts at 99.99, Dave also wants to at 99.99, but he only wants 77 contracts, and Egon wants to sell 492 contracts at 100.02.

Now, a typical way of showing this in a graphical manner is as follows:

|..BQ.|...Bid..|..Offer.|..OQ.|
|.100.|.100.00.|. 100.01.|..50.|
|1277.|..99.99.|.100.02.|.492.|

NB: Apologies for the crap formatting. The extra spaces are Slash's fault - if you're confused, pipe it through 'tr -d` `' - or, if you're a lamer, cut'n'paste it into an editor and delete the spaces.

'Bid' means 'Buy' and 'Offer' means sell. 'BQ' and 'OQ' stand for 'Bid Quantity' and 'Offer Quantity' respectively. Note how Charles and Dave's orders are added together.

Now, the term for this sort of representation, is the "depth". If I'm a trader looking at this, I know that, if I want to (and assuming the depth doesn't change before I submit my order), I can sell 100 contracts at 100.00 and/or sell 1277 contracts at 99.99.

So, how obvious is it to represent the depth as a horizontal bar chart?

Now, let's say I decide to sell 50 contracts at 100.00 - i.e. I want to 'hit' that 'bid' (the opposite is to 'lift' someone's offer). Do I want to click on a 'Place Order' button, then select which instrument it is from a list, tick a 'Buy'/'Sell' radio button and type in the quantity and price before hitting select?

Do I hell! I want to click on the '100' and have a "Submit Order" pop-up appear straight away with the 'Instrument', 'Quantity' and 'Price' fields pre-filled, with a big fat 'Submit' button that I hit to send the order to the market. The order goes in, the exchange's order matching system matches it against Al's order and executed the trade. I then get a pop-up that says "You've just sold 50 contracts at 100.00" and Al gets a pop-up saying "You've just bought 50 contracts at 100.00".

The depth will then change to look like this:

|..BQ.|...Bid..|..Offer.|..OQ.|
|..50.|.100.00.|. 100.01.|..50.|
|1277.|..99.99.|.100.02.|.492.|

Now, let's say that by some amazing coincidence, I have 1377 contracts that I want to sell. I can get out my calculator and figure out that if I offload my position by hitting those two bids (I neither know nor care that the 1277 bid is actually two orders), I'll get an average price of approx. 99.99073.

Or, how about instead of having to pull out my calculator, my GUI calculates and displays this automatically, as follows:

|TotBQ|..AvgBid..|..BQ.|...Bid..|..Offer.|..OQ.|..

I work on electronic trading systems for one of the big investment banks and I take care of the GUIs used by our fixed income traders for trading both cash and derivative instruments on all the exchanges mentioned here - Eurex, LIFFE, CME, CBoT - as well as many, many others.

I've been following this issue and I hope that TT's patents will be challenged and overturned. Here's why (note that you should read this and then read the two patents.

Futures exchanges are generally order-drive - i.e. you submit an order to buy/sell a certain amount of a particular instrument at a certain price. There are hundreds of market participants, and they all want to do different things. For a given instrument - Al might want to buy 100 contracts at 100.00, Bob might want to sell 50 contracts at 100.01, Charles wants to buy 1200 contracts at 99.99, Dave also wants to at 99.99, but he only wants 77 contracts, and Egon wants to sell 492 contracts at 100.02.

Now, a typical way of showing this in a graphical manner is as follows:

|..BQ.|...Bid..|..Offer.|..OQ.|
|.100.|.100.00.|. 100.01.|..50.|
|1277.|..99.99.|.100.02.|.492.|

NB: Apologies for the crap formatting. The extra spaces are Slash's fault - if you're confused, pipe it through 'tr -d` `' - or, if you're a lamer, cut'n'paste it into an editor and delete the spaces.

'Bid' means 'Buy' and 'Offer' means sell. 'BQ' and 'OQ' stand for 'Bid Quantity' and 'Offer Quantity' respectively. Note how Charles and Dave's orders are added together.

Now, the term for this sort of representation, is the "depth". If I'm a trader looking at this, I know that, if I want to (and assuming the depth doesn't change before I submit my order), I can sell 100 contracts at 100.00 and/or sell 1277 contracts at 99.99.

So, how obvious is it to represent the depth as a horizontal bar chart?

Now, let's say I decide to sell 50 contracts at 100.00 - i.e. I want to 'hit' that 'bid' (the opposite is to 'lift' someone's offer). Do I want to click on a 'Place Order' button, then select which instrument it is from a list, tick a 'Buy'/'Sell' radio button and type in the quantity and price before hitting select?

Do I hell! I want to click on the '100' and have a "Submit Order" pop-up appear straight away with the 'Instrument', 'Quantity' and 'Price' fields pre-filled, with a big fat 'Submit' button that I hit to send the order to the market. The order goes in, the exchange's order matching system matches it against Al's order and executed the trade. I then get a pop-up that says "You've just sold 50 contracts at 100.00" and Al gets a pop-up saying "You've just bought 50 contracts at 100.00".

The depth will then change to look like this:

|..BQ.|...Bid..|..Offer.|..OQ.|
|..50.|.100.00.|. 100.01.|..50.|
|1277.|..99.99.|.100.02.|.492.|

Now, let's say that by some amazing coincidence, I have 1377 contracts that I want to sell. I can get out my calculator and figure out that if I offload my position by hitting those two bids (I neither know nor care that the 1277 bid is actually two orders), I'll get an average price of approx. 99.99073.

Or, how about instead of having to pull out my calculator, my GUI calculates and displays this automatically, as follows:

|TotBQ|..AvgBid..|..BQ.|...Bid..|..Offer.|..OQ.|..