Slashdot Mirror

By direct action:

• OpenDoc
• Network servers in general
• Web Services
• Applescript (tell Finder to empty trash)

• #! notation (e.g. #!/bin/sh)
• File type and creator
• File extensions

By direct action:

• OpenDoc
• Network servers in general
• Web Services
• Applescript (tell Finder to empty trash)

• #! notation (e.g. #!/bin/sh)
• File type and creator
• File extensions

I always prefer to get my info from primary sources rather than some newspaper's rendition, so here are the actual patents involved:

Patent 5,206,951: Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types

Patent 5,421,012: Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types

Patent 5,226,161: Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types

Thanks to Artur Biesiadowski, who orignally posted these at Java Lobby.

I haven't had a chance to read them in detail yet; they're slow reading. '012 seems to be the broadest, and it's very, very long. They seem actually to patent object-oriented programming, but they reference the Smalltalk documentation so presumably they're patenting some enhancement. I've been unable to determine what that enhancement is over Smalltalk, so I can't say if Java infringes on it or not.

A note on reading patents: the title is worthless, so please don't write about "I did X in 1967" based solely on the title. The abstract is hardly better, though my quick scan of these indicates that the abstract does actually do a good job of summarizing. The only thing with legal force is the claims, but they're written in a specialized patent language that takes a bit of practice to interpret.

You can usually learn the most from reading the description section, with background and summary, which has less legal force than the claims but is written in something closer to plain English (or at least computer-ese, which you probably speak if you're reading /.)

I always prefer to get my info from primary sources rather than some newspaper's rendition, so here are the actual patents involved:

Patent 5,206,951: Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types

Patent 5,421,012: Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types

Patent 5,226,161: Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types

Thanks to Artur Biesiadowski, who orignally posted these at Java Lobby.

I haven't had a chance to read them in detail yet; they're slow reading. '012 seems to be the broadest, and it's very, very long. They seem actually to patent object-oriented programming, but they reference the Smalltalk documentation so presumably they're patenting some enhancement. I've been unable to determine what that enhancement is over Smalltalk, so I can't say if Java infringes on it or not.

A note on reading patents: the title is worthless, so please don't write about "I did X in 1967" based solely on the title. The abstract is hardly better, though my quick scan of these indicates that the abstract does actually do a good job of summarizing. The only thing with legal force is the claims, but they're written in a specialized patent language that takes a bit of practice to interpret.

You can usually learn the most from reading the description section, with background and summary, which has less legal force than the claims but is written in something closer to plain English (or at least computer-ese, which you probably speak if you're reading /.)

I always prefer to get my info from primary sources rather than some newspaper's rendition, so here are the actual patents involved:

Patent 5,206,951: Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types

Patent 5,421,012: Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types

Patent 5,226,161: Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types

Thanks to Artur Biesiadowski, who orignally posted these at Java Lobby.

I haven't had a chance to read them in detail yet; they're slow reading. '012 seems to be the broadest, and it's very, very long. They seem actually to patent object-oriented programming, but they reference the Smalltalk documentation so presumably they're patenting some enhancement. I've been unable to determine what that enhancement is over Smalltalk, so I can't say if Java infringes on it or not.

A note on reading patents: the title is worthless, so please don't write about "I did X in 1967" based solely on the title. The abstract is hardly better, though my quick scan of these indicates that the abstract does actually do a good job of summarizing. The only thing with legal force is the claims, but they're written in a specialized patent language that takes a bit of practice to interpret.

You can usually learn the most from reading the description section, with background and summary, which has less legal force than the claims but is written in something closer to plain English (or at least computer-ese, which you probably speak if you're reading /.)

I don't see how Smalltalk isn't direct prior art for this, at least as it would apply to Java. These are, I believe, a good example of bad software patents that are becoming more and more common. You can't really figure out what exactly they're claiming, you have no idea what might infringe on it, it's so vague that you can't figure out what prior art might invalidate it, and once you do figure it out, you say "you can patent that?". It's like patenting "Ok, take an automobile, turn right and go around the block THREE times, not just TWO times like everyone has done in the past, THEN turn right on red without waiting for pedestrians." And then claiming that airplanes landing between 2AM and 3AM at airports without lights infringes on it, since they never wait for pedestrians, and they have a red light on the wing.

What hangs on a wall, is green, and whistles?
I give up. What hangs on a wall, is green, and whistles?
A HERRING!
A herring? It doesn't hang on a wall!
Well, you can put in a nail and hang it.
Ok, but it isn't green!
You can paint it green.
Ok, but whistles?
Oh, I just put that in to make it hard!

I don't see how Smalltalk isn't direct prior art for this, at least as it would apply to Java. These are, I believe, a good example of bad software patents that are becoming more and more common. You can't really figure out what exactly they're claiming, you have no idea what might infringe on it, it's so vague that you can't figure out what prior art might invalidate it, and once you do figure it out, you say "you can patent that?". It's like patenting "Ok, take an automobile, turn right and go around the block THREE times, not just TWO times like everyone has done in the past, THEN turn right on red without waiting for pedestrians." And then claiming that airplanes landing between 2AM and 3AM at airports without lights infringes on it, since they never wait for pedestrians, and they have a red light on the wing.

What hangs on a wall, is green, and whistles?
I give up. What hangs on a wall, is green, and whistles?
A HERRING!
A herring? It doesn't hang on a wall!
Well, you can put in a nail and hang it.
Ok, but it isn't green!
You can paint it green.
Ok, but whistles?
Oh, I just put that in to make it hard!

I don't see how Smalltalk isn't direct prior art for this, at least as it would apply to Java. These are, I believe, a good example of bad software patents that are becoming more and more common. You can't really figure out what exactly they're claiming, you have no idea what might infringe on it, it's so vague that you can't figure out what prior art might invalidate it, and once you do figure it out, you say "you can patent that?". It's like patenting "Ok, take an automobile, turn right and go around the block THREE times, not just TWO times like everyone has done in the past, THEN turn right on red without waiting for pedestrians." And then claiming that airplanes landing between 2AM and 3AM at airports without lights infringes on it, since they never wait for pedestrians, and they have a red light on the wing.

What hangs on a wall, is green, and whistles?
I give up. What hangs on a wall, is green, and whistles?
A HERRING!
A herring? It doesn't hang on a wall!
Well, you can put in a nail and hang it.
Ok, but it isn't green!
You can paint it green.
Ok, but whistles?
Oh, I just put that in to make it hard!

Just in case anyone is interested, the patents in question are 5,206,951, 5,421,012, and 5,226,161. The patents appear to be mostly related to object data technologies, so they don't seem to apply to things like BASIC or any Unix shells.

They DO seem to handle object oriented systems, like Java, .NET, etc.

Question now is, given the dates of the patents, how do they apply to Java, and is there prior art?

Just in case anyone is interested, the patents in question are 5,206,951, 5,421,012, and 5,226,161. The patents appear to be mostly related to object data technologies, so they don't seem to apply to things like BASIC or any Unix shells.

They DO seem to handle object oriented systems, like Java, .NET, etc.

Question now is, given the dates of the patents, how do they apply to Java, and is there prior art?

Just in case anyone is interested, the patents in question are 5,206,951, 5,421,012, and 5,226,161. The patents appear to be mostly related to object data technologies, so they don't seem to apply to things like BASIC or any Unix shells.

They DO seem to handle object oriented systems, like Java, .NET, etc.

Question now is, given the dates of the patents, how do they apply to Java, and is there prior art?

• 5,206,951
• 5,421,012
• 5,226,161

Also, this article seems to have more detail on how the case started.

• 5,206,951
• 5,421,012
• 5,226,161

Also, this article seems to have more detail on how the case started.

• 5,206,951
• 5,421,012
• 5,226,161

Also, this article seems to have more detail on how the case started.

At the same time, poor little me has no problems using Linux. That's with my crap hardware and free software and zero staff or commercial support. The default Mepis install has built in spam filtering for Kmail and Kmail is bright enough to not load binary crap sent through the internet. The biggets and bloatiest of crap, macromedia's non free garbage and real player 8, have yet to get me owned though they work seemlessly through Konqueror and Mozilla, which are both more feature filled than IE. You would think a set up like that would be raped regularly, but there have been no problems in more than a year of use like that. While apt-get upgrading is a chore with unstable, especially with all that customization, it's worked and continues to work. It never crashes and I only have to turn it off when the electricity to the house fails. If I had 1/100th of Bill Gate's money, I could hire someone to filter my spam folder and administrate the box after hours so that what little pain there is to using it would go away.

What he's admitted is that Windoze is a pain in the ass. Can you imagine trying to do tech support for big dogs?

"Mr. President, there are some things you can't click in your email. There's a list here to help you remember ...."

"Your honor, I'm afraid something from a web site you visited has infected your computer and I'll have to fix it today. It should only take an hour or so ...."

"Your patented hair cut looks good today, Mr. Trump, but I'm afraid that something is wrong with the LAN ..."

One thing I can't imagine telling them is that they will have to run anti-virus and anti-malware software or why their new fancy computer does not run as fast as the 468 they had ten years ago.

To answer your question, Patents:
5,206,951
5,226,161
5,421,012
Kodak bought the patents from Wang Laboratories.
My source

To answer your question, Patents:
5,206,951
5,226,161
5,421,012
Kodak bought the patents from Wang Laboratories.
My source

To answer your question, Patents:
5,206,951
5,226,161
5,421,012
Kodak bought the patents from Wang Laboratories.
My source

Try http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=kodak&s2=bytecode&OS =kodak+AND+bytecode&RS=kodak+AND+bytecode

The patents are 5,206,951, 5,421,012 and 5,226,161

The patents are 5,206,951, 5,421,012 and 5,226,161

The patents are 5,206,951, 5,421,012 and 5,226,161

You can find the patents here here and here

It's basically for various hacks related to looking up operations between different objects based on their types. They give examples like embedding objects in documents and making the communication work out. The patents are from the early 1990's and there is doubtlessly lots of prior art for it, but the language of the patent is so vague and confused that a good lawyer can probably argue anything based on it.

You can find the patents here here and here

It's basically for various hacks related to looking up operations between different objects based on their types. They give examples like embedding objects in documents and making the communication work out. The patents are from the early 1990's and there is doubtlessly lots of prior art for it, but the language of the patent is so vague and confused that a good lawyer can probably argue anything based on it.

You can find the patents here here and here

It's basically for various hacks related to looking up operations between different objects based on their types. They give examples like embedding objects in documents and making the communication work out. The patents are from the early 1990's and there is doubtlessly lots of prior art for it, but the language of the patent is so vague and confused that a good lawyer can probably argue anything based on it.

This looks like it could be it:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=kodak&s2=bytecode&OS =kodak+AND+bytecode&RS=kodak+AND+bytecode

With such an obviously invalid patent, the case is so ridiculously clean cut it will never ever stand up in court

and

I mean, the patent office is not perfect as the people inside are not perfect.

You seem to recognize that the ideology of a perfect patent system isn't realistic, but you claim this isn't a problem because of your ideological belief in the court system. There are several flaws with your claims.

First, civil courts rarely just "throw things out". Usually they'll hear the whole case before deciding on whether or not it has merit. In civil cases this often takes years and costs millions.

Second, even when courts throw things out it is usually after Discovery in which the parties exchange all of their evidence. Discovery is expensive and can take years as well. Just witness SCO vs IBM. SCO doesn't a lick of evidence against IBM for the claims they are making and yet they are still at it.

Third, courts generally only throw things out when they see them as frivalous, completely without merit. In a patent case, the plaintiff here (e.g., Sun or Microsoft) would have a valid patent (in the eyes of the law) and the defendant would have clearly violated that patent. Such a case would not be frivalous. The defense would challenge the validity of the patent which would probably require expert testimony, which would generally be entered into cout during the case, well after Discovery. (Expert analysis also comes at a cost.)

Fourth, even if the case would be thrown out, and I doubt it given the points above, if the defending company is small they will often cave to legal pressure of the larger plaintiff company simply because of the financial risk. For example, you should read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig where he provides explicit examples of the de facto removal of fair use rights because the "little guy" can't risk a copyright lawsuit when a large corporation threatens him. The same is true for patent lawsuits.

Fifth, if the offending (defending?) company is a corporation controlled by investors, it will often be forced to cave because the lawsuit and risk will often drop the share values, especially when investors see that the company is violating a legally valid patent.

In short, it is quite naive to think that an obviously invalid, yet granted, patent is nothing to worry about. It does have a chilling effect on innovation and implementation of the process.

I also disagree on several other points, such as that "software patents" should be abolished. (I know, heresy on Slashdot.) There really is not such thing as "software patents", they are patents on methods (algorithms) that can be implemented in software. Yes, there's an explosion of such patents that are invalid and harmful, but the same is true of patents in general. For example, someone patented "playing with a cat using a laser pointer and the combover. But that doesn't mean there are ingenious or innovative algorithms that wouldn't exist without the protection of patents. The double-click patent fails the obviousness test (and in the case of Microsoft, the prior art test). But what about some ingenious facial recognition algorithm, for example. There can easily be as much innovation and ingenuity in that as any mechani

Heck - what next, someone getting a patent on the combover ? Patenting of the combover

Not if you use it properly as shown in this training video. However, if you are worried, there is probably scope for building on the infamous patent and inventing some protective goggles or something to go with the cat laser.

This other hypothetical company doesn't even have SCO's excuses for not revealing code. SCO supposedly doesn't want to give out what is their's because then it would be open. Patents are already open, available to anyone that wants to search for them.

But when it asserted that all interactive fiction was operated by verb/direct-objects controls, I had to put it down. There are other metaphors for controlling a branching narrative. Midnight Stranger let you control the main character's emotions, allowing him or her to react based on the player choice of emotion. Another game to break the verb/target type of adventure game is The Witch's yarn. Instead of controlling the character, the player controls the environment.

Link to the actual patent referenced on nintendojo: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=805243.AP N.&OS=APN/805243&RS=APN/805243

United States Patent Application 20040176170. "A video game machine is provided with wireless functionality. The wireless functionality may be built-into the video game machine or may be provided by a device that is removably attachable to the video game machine. The wireless functionality enables, among other things, enhanced multi-player capabilities, the ability to receive video game updates, new game levels and new games." It also mentions GPS in the application.

Yes, but the USPTO did accept Bill's patent on the door hinge...

FWIW, I remembed this one from a few years back...

...such as the following:

U.S. Patent #5,579,517 - Common name space for long and short filenames

U.S. Patent #5,745,902 - Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats

U.S. Patent #5,758,352 - Common name space for long and short filenames

U.S. Patent #6,286,013 - Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system

...such as the following:

U.S. Patent #5,579,517 - Common name space for long and short filenames

U.S. Patent #5,745,902 - Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats

U.S. Patent #5,758,352 - Common name space for long and short filenames

U.S. Patent #6,286,013 - Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system

...such as the following:

U.S. Patent #5,579,517 - Common name space for long and short filenames

U.S. Patent #5,745,902 - Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats

U.S. Patent #5,758,352 - Common name space for long and short filenames

U.S. Patent #6,286,013 - Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system

...such as the following:

U.S. Patent #5,579,517 - Common name space for long and short filenames

U.S. Patent #5,745,902 - Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats

U.S. Patent #5,758,352 - Common name space for long and short filenames

U.S. Patent #6,286,013 - Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system

Please help encourage this company to stop wasting taxpayer's money and encourage innovation instead of preventing it.

It's getting old reading about how this or that patent is going to be the wrench in linux's works, or that such a feature was known long before it was patented, and the patent will never stand in up court. The real benefit, and also the real problem with free/open software, at least when it comes down to the issue of property rights, is that nobody owns them. That's why OSF, or some other similar organization should obtain patents, or at the very least file Statutory Invention Registrations with the USPTO on behalf of those working on the development of free/open products to ensure that the technology remains in the public domain. Ignoring the fact that property rights exist is simply inexcusable. To maintain the freedom of free software the players must learn to use the system just like everyone else.

It's getting old reading about how this or that patent is going to be the wrench in linux's works, or that such a feature was known long before it was patented, and the patent will never stand in up court. The real benefit, and also the real problem with free/open software, at least when it comes down to the issue of property rights, is that nobody owns them. That's why OSF, or some other similar organization should obtain patents, or at the very least file Statutory Invention Registrations with the USPTO on behalf of those working on the development of free/open products to ensure that the technology remains in the public domain. Ignoring the fact that property rights exist is simply inexcusable. To maintain the freedom of free software the players must learn to use the system just like everyone else.

Before you reply, please read the patent file.

You say that like America doesn't ignore international treaties all the time.

Promote harmonization in the framework of the World Intellectual Property Organization and its Standing Committee on the Law of Patents; resolve major issues in a broader context and pursue substantive harmonization goals that will strengthen the rights of American intellectual property holders by making it easier to obtain international protection for their invention and creations.

Perhaps the treaty should be amended as well. I'm sure any third world signatory who has had to sit and watch its citizens die waiting for medicine to become affordable would be more than happy to sign off any amendment weakening it.

The article by Fortunato explained that one reason for the failure and disbanding of the IETF MARID working group was that Microsoft's patent application was published last week and turned out to be much broader than expected. As written it would seem to cover SPF, which is odd since the patent was submitted four months after SPF got started.

The truth is that patent applications are written as broadly as possible and it is common for them to be whittled down by the patent office to only those claims which are truly novel and useful. But this still leaves us with considerable uncertainty about just how broad the Microsoft patent will turn out to be when it is finally issued. We won't know the answer for years, given the usual speed of the patent office.

Actually, I researched this last night trying to figure out why Sony didn't pull the Rumble Pak as prior art, or why Nintendo has not been sued by Immersion. What I found only left me more confused.

Patent 6,200,253 is Nintendo's Rumble Pak patent, which came out over a year before the Immersion patent. The thing is, it specifically talks about being a detachable device. The GameCube controller's rumble is built in, so it would seem to fall under the Immersion patent. However, maybe they have some sort of private agreement not to sue since Immersion would likely lose their patent.

Patent 6,743,104 is Nintendo's patent for rumble in Game Boy cartridges. This patent references both their Rumble Pak patent as well as the Immersion patent.

It's also interesting to note that something like a dozen Immersion patents specifically reference the Nintendo Rumble Pak, Sony Dual Shock, and sometimes the Sega Jump Pack. Clearly Immersion was well aware of force feedback devices and who was actually using them. I'm not sure what took them so long to try to make a claim on it.

All that said, by the manner in which the Immersion patent in question reads, they pretty much patented every possible alternate configuration of a force feedback/rumble device (different housing, different actuators, different shaped eccentric mass, etc). In being so general however, you'd think that vibrators would be prior art as the first sentence of the patent reads "A man-machine interface which provides tactile feedback to various sensing body parts is disclosed."

Actually, I researched this last night trying to figure out why Sony didn't pull the Rumble Pak as prior art, or why Nintendo has not been sued by Immersion. What I found only left me more confused.

Patent 6,200,253 is Nintendo's Rumble Pak patent, which came out over a year before the Immersion patent. The thing is, it specifically talks about being a detachable device. The GameCube controller's rumble is built in, so it would seem to fall under the Immersion patent. However, maybe they have some sort of private agreement not to sue since Immersion would likely lose their patent.

Patent 6,743,104 is Nintendo's patent for rumble in Game Boy cartridges. This patent references both their Rumble Pak patent as well as the Immersion patent.

It's also interesting to note that something like a dozen Immersion patents specifically reference the Nintendo Rumble Pak, Sony Dual Shock, and sometimes the Sega Jump Pack. Clearly Immersion was well aware of force feedback devices and who was actually using them. I'm not sure what took them so long to try to make a claim on it.

All that said, by the manner in which the Immersion patent in question reads, they pretty much patented every possible alternate configuration of a force feedback/rumble device (different housing, different actuators, different shaped eccentric mass, etc). In being so general however, you'd think that vibrators would be prior art as the first sentence of the patent reads "A man-machine interface which provides tactile feedback to various sensing body parts is disclosed."

Why didn't they sue Nintendo? Were they afraid they'd get sued for infringing an earlier patent by Nintendo that described the same thing?

The "Prior Art" section of the Rumble Pak patent states that "Furthermore, computer games have been known, in which a vibration generating source is provided in a joy-stick, and a vibration is generated at the time of an attack to an own fighter from a player's enemy fighter in a shooting game, for example."

Since Immersion's patent apparently only covers Joysticks it might not conflict with the Rumble Pak Patent, but the Rumble Pak patent clearly states that there has been prior art for joysticks (and that the Rumble Pak has no prior art since it isn't a joystick).

It lists Research disclosure 28373, "Joystick with Tactile Feedback", disclosed anonymously Nov. 1987., perhaps that's our prior art. Can anyone get that document?

Patents by Alvin Marks

The carbon nanotube guys didn't produce DC electricity because they don't have a super-fast rectifier. Alvin Marks has patented a design for one. Dunno if it's actually been tested, though.

Hmmm, it looks like the femto-diode patent has expired (search for 4,720,642).

Patents by Alvin Marks

The carbon nanotube guys didn't produce DC electricity because they don't have a super-fast rectifier. Alvin Marks has patented a design for one. Dunno if it's actually been tested, though.

Hmmm, it looks like the femto-diode patent has expired (search for 4,720,642).

Patents by Alvin Marks

The carbon nanotube guys didn't produce DC electricity because they don't have a super-fast rectifier. Alvin Marks has patented a design for one. Dunno if it's actually been tested, though.

Hmmm, it looks like the femto-diode patent has expired (search for 4,720,642).