Slashdot Mirror

Here is the illustration featuring the Gnome and KDE logos.

Can I have my karma now? :D

The "task grouping" that XP's taskbar goes originated in Gnome. The "you have a message" pop-up in the lower-right of the screen that Outlook 2003 does originated with Mozilla Mail, as far as I know.

Setuid was already patented.

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=4135240.WKU.&OS=PN/4135240&RS=PN/ 4135240

It's an old news, but I wonder have slashdot crowd found out this patent:

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=200301895 97&OS=20030189597&RS=20030189597

The most interesting part is the images. There you can actually see the Gnome logo. (There is an extra karma bunus for the first who find the KDE logo;)


So Microsoft have already begun patenting Linux.
It is true that M$ cannot buy GPL code, but it can buy the coders.

Now, guess what will happen after the fiaSCO is over.

I can see missing prior work as prior art. But missing the famous setuid patent seems just silly.

The initial idea of a gaming console is a crippled computer, and thats why there is no patent for consoles. But the patent this article is about is enhancing the console to do other stuff, which is completly differnt.

Patent Info

First, I don't know what your argueeing about now, I was originally saying that the patent was filed in 1998, and was NOT to be used as a weapon against sony and MS. Then some bright guy (I think it was you) had the idea that it was prior art because his computer had internet capabilities (or something). I never said it was going to be used in court

As for the rest of your arguement, of course a driver will get charged with drving over the speed limit, I don't see how this ties in with your case though. I was not manipulating the definition AT ALL, and you can clearly tell what they meant by "console" by reading the actual patent. Patent's have to be clearly defined, to avoid court issues.

1. 
   While the invention has been described in connection with what is presently considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiment, it is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited to the disclosed embodiment, but on the contrary, is intended to cover various modifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.

It really isn't the USPTOs job to weed through prior art and do all that investigative legwork.

No. It is their job, and they're not doing it. The USPTO should be applying at least a tiny level of common sense to these patent applications. Their mandate is to "promote the progress of science", and there's no way a kitchen-sink patent like this could possibly fit that goal. Even IF there were valid "inventions" in there, they'd be separate ideas- not one monstrous conglomeration of "stuff we can converge".

Patents should be about HOW, not WHAT. Arthur C Clarke didn't deserve a patent on the TV relay satellite, because although he was the first to think of it, he couldn't plan it in specific technical detail. Nintendo has done no better. And need I point out that Nintendo filed their patent 5 years ago, but STILL haven't built a machine embodying it (or specific blueprints for that machine).

I understand that patent examiners follow restrictive rules, so that individually they can argue "Not my job". But those rules are made by the USPTO, which is truely shirking it's public responsibility by being too lazy/corporate-friendly.

Dang. The USPTO examiners would have to smoke something really good to grant this. Most of the claims of Sony's patent application look like any other triangle filler. The only difference between claim 1 and the prior art is "at least 16 pixels per clock cycle," which is no different from patenting a car that can move "at least 100 miles per hour."

Sony submit "Game system with graphics processor". Wow.

Buzz! Oh and you were so close. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

6,691,176 Method for managing client services across browser pages

6,658,600 Target control abstraction for debugging embedded systems

6,199,081 Automatic tagging of documents and exclusion by content

5,903,728 Plug-in control including an independent plug-in process

Available here

I was wondering about this, so I looked up the statutes, found them at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolid ated_laws.pdf
Starting on page 270 (page 54 of the pdf document), it says it is an infringement to make use, offer to sell, or sell a patented invention (35 U.S.C. 271 (a)). Section (b) says if you actively induce infringement you are liable as an infringer (which could cover making source code available in a ready-to-compile format, i.e., configure;make;make install.
There is also something in there that seems to cover prividing all the parts for a patented invention, i.e., providing a "kit" which contains only un-patented parts, but which when when built makes a patented invention, would make you guilty of contribuatory infringement.

I haven't found anything regarding non-commercial or personal use in here, but I'm not good at interpreting legal jargon.
If you can point me to a source that says it is ok to build and/or use a patented invention for personal / research purposes, then that would be very useful.

Actually, there is a patent class for the design of a device, this is used to patent faucet designs, doorknobs, vases, etc.

The blueprint for something may be copyrighted, but that just means I can't run off a copy of the blueprint without infringing. However, I can (or at least used to, it seems every year copyrights become stronger and stronger and cover things they were never intended to) fire up autocad and design something that looks like it without having to worry about copyright.

Now, this is way out of my league, as IANAQP, but this sounds psuedo-scientific to me. Am I wrong?

Also, check their R&D unknowns.

Now, this is way out of my league, as IANAQP, but this sounds psuedo-scientific to me. Am I wrong?

Also, check their R&D unknowns.

That is a much more common senario than the 374 claim PCT that you are suggesting.

True, but it's my understanding that a minority of patents pays for the majority of the operating costs. Keep in mind that while it's true that you can get an application through the office for $6000, you're not just paying for the examiner's time, but also the mail handlers, the file scanners, all the support staff, the utility bills, and rent for the office space. The $6000 applications are not the ones that pay the bills.

I'm not sure if you were refuting the specific fact that the USPTO is entirely fee funded or not, however that much is true. Just as with the tax system as a whole, there is a minority of patents that provide a majority of the money. While most cases will have in the neighborhood of 35 claims, it's nothing special for a case to have 100-200 claims, and 350ish is near the reasonable upper limit.

For the record I completely agree with that statement.

I'm glad we agree about that - you're quite right, Slashbots think they know what prior art is but they refuse to read the published definitions. I'll even admit to you that with excess claim fees added in a patent can cost over $1,000, but it does not have to if you keep the number of claims under 3 for independents and 20 total. How you manage to get maintenance fees over $100,000 is a complete mystery to me though. Perhaps you can clear that up.

The fact is that just as the USPTO has a backlog of patents, so too do large corporations. IBM files thousands of applications per year, and when the USPTO sends them paperwork, the liklihood of IBM's lawyers writing a response in 3 months is very slim. For these thousands of applications, you can pretty much count on one extension to respond to the FAOM, an extensino to respond to the final action, some fees to amend after final, some fees to reopen the case, and so on.

As for the $100,000 cases, this would be for a family of patents typically assigned to a large corporation. The examining work for the whole family is almost identical but the fees must be paid multiple times for what is essentially the same invention though carefully claimed distinctly in each case. There are a lot of these in certain technologies.

In any event, it was with the flamethrowers and without.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Filing a patent with the PTO will cost you either $385.00 or $770.00 depending if you a small entity or a large entity. Maintentance fees range between $455.00 and $3,200.00 depending on who you are and when in the patent term the fee is due. At the most, $6,220.00 will be paid over the lifetime of a patent in maintenance fees. See FY2004 Fee Schedule.

Please stop pulling numbers out of your ass and do some research on the subject before trying to sound like you know what you are talking about. Thanks.

In case the above link expires, try here.

The device patented is too small (if the "iPod connector" shown in the diagrams is to scale, it's about 10" corner to corner) to be one of the forthcoming iMacs, the smallest of which is likely to have a 17" screen. El Reg themselves discount the idea, in the linked to article, that the device is the iPod, it doesn't match.

It also would explain why Apple has bought a crap-load of 60G iPod ready disks and then turned around and said they have no intention of releasing a 60G iPod.

# Keyboard: with LOL, OMG, >_< and WTF keys

Most important feature, that.

Well, according to the information at USPTO for patent 4698672, the patent was issued on Oct. 6, 1987.

So, if 20 years is the relevant term (or 17?) does that mean JPEG will be unencumbered by this patent in 2007?

Reading the patent and its citation of prior art (e.g., patent 4302775, which I think is now expired), I'm not sure what is really left of it that is still relevant to JPEG compression.

Raising patent costs won't stop garage investors from getting a patent on something worth investing in. Say $1,000 to file for a patent.

Uh, if you actually want that patent granted, it'll take more than $1000, today. The time to get the filing done is worth more than $1000 of labor (and if you don't have and are not an IP lawyer, it'll take longer).

The fees themselves: currently $385 to start and $43 per claim, then $665 when the patent is accepted. Patents can easily have 10+ claims. So we're already a lot over $1000. (All those fees are doubled if you're a corporation and not an individual)

So the fees are already higher than you want... and yet, fees don't really effect how corporate patent-houses work. The biggest part of the cost is your own lawyer-time to prepare the filing, which with IBM-size economy of scale is something individuals can't compete with.

The only way to "fix" patent issuance is to realign the USPTO's motives so that they see themselves as serving the public as a whole, and not employees of patent-applicants.

Because you didn't try a patent search?

They have four patents (one design) dating back to 2001. The first was filed in 1998.

yo.

And I presume you know everything about anything in your field as well? People do make minor mistakes sometimes.

That said, I stand corrected. I guess my knowledge for Jeopardy has been improved. That story is likely not atypical for that era, with all the railroad trusts, etc- money talks. Also, today you have 1 year in the US to file a patent application from the first sale or public disclosure anywhere in the world. Meucci would be out of luck today, as it was a decade before he filed anything.

Not being an expert in 19th century patent law, I can make a few comments about if this happened today.

1- The US is a "first to invent" country, which awards patents to the person able to prove they invented it first. The rest of the world is "first to file."

2- The US now has the Disclosure Document Program, which will serve as evidence of the date of conception of an invention. You still need to file, and cannot sit on an invention for years. The filing fee is $10.

3- Provisional patent application, which has less statutory disclosure requirements, has a $85 filing fee. Often used for filing a journal article before publication.

So the question is, are you working in Machine Vision or Code Management systems?
If it's Machine Vision, I'd love to correspond with you. I did some work in the early 90's on hardware emulations of physical perception systems.

--

So the question is, are you working in Machine Vision or Code Management systems?
If it's Machine Vision, I'd love to correspond with you. I did some work in the early 90's on hardware emulations of physical perception systems.

--

Or in Alexandria, where the new headquarters were recently completed.

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Doing a little research I have indexed "round number" patents and gotten the following results.

Patent 10000 was issued in 1853 , 50000 was issued in 1865, 100000 was issued in 1870, 200000 was issued in 1878, 500000 was issued in 1893, 1000000 was issued in 1911, 2000000 was issued in 1935

Patent 3000000 was issued in 1955, 4000000 was issued in 1976, 5000000 was issued in 1991, 6000000 was issued in 1999, 6500000 was issued in 2002,

Minor quibble, but the usual patent term is 20 years, not 21*. However, this term may be extended in certain circumstances. Per the USPTO's own online information:

Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees ... Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.

* I seem to recall the patent term being 17 years in the not-too-distant past. Ah, yes, a quick Google search shows that the term of a patent seems to be 17 years from the date the patent is issued, but 20 years from the date of filing. I don't know about you all, but allotting three years for what has essentially become a rubber-stamping process seems a bit excessive...

Holy crap. How many times do I have to repeat the same post. You cannot copyright a company name or a product name. Please read this to understand the difference.

I am not sure what is worse. The fact that people don't know the distinction already or that I have to repeat it so many times.

You don't have to register trademarks.

Amazon has many trademarks I am sure. As with the poster above I refer you here to understand the difference between a trademark and copyright.

What's your point? I think you need to read this.

IANAL, but I can read dammit.

Is registration of my mark required?

Copyright and Trademark are basically the same thing, at least in the US. UPTO does not need to grant you a trademark for you to have your asset trademarked. You can even use the little superscript TM if you wish. What they do say on their webpages is that _REGISTERED_ trademarks grant you additional rights, and should your trademark come in dispute I imagine it's an easier case. It's an added insurance for just such cases, but by no means necessary.

OTOH, she lives in UK, so the point is moot.

from what i found at the USPTO search.. there is no trademark on katie.com. Katie needs to TM her domain (prior art back to 1996, remember), and then she will be the one with all the power. Of course, IANAL so what she really needs to do is consult a lawyer who knows about trademark law and this kind of stuff.

I'm personally willing to donate money to help her (this kind of crap angers me soooo much) and I would encourage other /.'ers to reply saying they will as well. Yesterday her friend replied here saying he would post a paypal "donate to" link on her site if there was enough interest.. even $2 or $5 from a small percentage of the /.'ers who seem to care about this issue would be enough to turn the tide for her, i'd imagine. A lawyer is a wonderful thing (you should see all the traffic citations that don't appear on my record ;)

Dude, what does the US Postal Service (USPS) have to do with patents? Your probably thinking of the US Patent and Trademark Office, (USPTO)

Trademarks do not need to be registered, but it helps. For quick reference, try this : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/reg ister.htm

IANAL, but it would seem that there's absolutely no protection against what Penguin did at all. They might as well have used her address or phone number.

Well, you could look that question up. Here's the answer straight from the horse's ass: the US Patent and Trademark Office FAQ:

"Use of the TM and SM symbols may be governed by local, state, or foreign laws and the laws of a pertinent jurisdiction to identify the marks that a party claims rights to. The federal registration symbol, the R enclosed within a circle, may be used once the mark is actually registered in the USPTO. Even though an application is pending, the registration symbol may not be used before the mark has actually become registered.

The federal registration symbol should only be used on goods or services that are the subject of the federal trademark registration. "

The FAQ clears up a lot of misconceptions the average slashdotter has about copyright and patents, and we'd have a better environment here if everybody would just RTFFAQ.