Slashdot Mirror

The MS patent actually references several other patents, including:

5796827 which is IBM's for the hand-shake data transfer.

6104913 IBM's PAN

and
6211799 MIT's on power/data transmission over the body.

Obviously they are building on previous patents, and have come up with an enhancement.

Or the patent office just rubber stamped it :-)

The MS patent actually references several other patents, including:

5796827 which is IBM's for the hand-shake data transfer.

6104913 IBM's PAN

and
6211799 MIT's on power/data transmission over the body.

Obviously they are building on previous patents, and have come up with an enhancement.

Or the patent office just rubber stamped it :-)

This patent from Sony gives some detail. To view the images, you need a tiff-viewer plugin.

This patent from Sony gives some detail. To view the images, you need a tiff-viewer plugin.

It's also described in one of their research papers.

Link to patent.

-jim

Microsoft says Web site violates copyright

Time based hardware button for application launch i.e. Double click

Didn't they publish their search algorithms in Patent 6,285,999 "Method for node ranking in a linked database"? That's the PageRank algorithm; since it's patented it's publicly documented and available for public use 21 years later.

It's really too bad no one thought to use David Criswell's (now expired) patent #4,836,470 as the basis for an X-Prize vehicle.

An oblique all wing SST can continuously vary from a high-lift configuration to a ballistic configuration by simply changing the cant of the engine as the wing gains speed and altitude while losing fuel mass. (There need be only one engine -- a rocket engine.) Fitting three guys inside the wing would be rather awkward but it could be done.

Reentry wouldn't necessarily be any easier than with the Scaled Composite design, but I'm not against lifting-bodies per se.

The real draw-back of lifting bodies, and almost any horizontal launch, is the fact that during takeoff you have a horizontal orientation to the tankage which requires you to place more mass and engineering there.

I don't know -- I've heard about ways of reentering the atmosphere with a series of skips that bleed off energy without putting the skin under too much thermal stress -- maybe Rutan has figured that out. Seems like a potentially big development budget problem to me.

The problem is with a higher-pressure system is that it will probably burn through any vanes faster. This means you have to think about other means such as gimbling (steering the motor itself).

Systems like the MX missile use the payload guidance authority to provide main thrust vectoring. You don't need much authority if you have that much leverage (small jets at the top of the rocket changing its heading).

The big deal about the 100k altitude goal of the Ansari X-Prize is the space tourism potential. Space tourism is a great business to pursue for advancing the state of the art of rocketry because there are an increasing number of wealthy people who can afford this sort of luxury. The problem is that the real ultimate value of increasing the state of the art of rocketry is access to space, and while SC's and XCor's aerodynamic vehicle approach is a tremendous accomplishment -- it doesn't really give "access" to space without substantial redesign.

Carmack's vehicle does.

That's one reason I chose 200km rather than 100km for my amateur rocketry prize . I'm pretty sure SC's and XCor's aerodynamically-limited approach would both lose in a race to 200km because they aren't really "space" vehicles.

Carmack's vehicle is.

I'm tempted to change my prize award to be private rather than amateur so that I can give it to Carmack's team. The problem is that my goal was, and is, to make space accessible to much lower levels of capital than even Carmack's group has expended -- which is already phenomenally low by aerospace standards.

Carmack's accomplishment, with his simplified fuel and system, is more profound than anything that has come along from the aerospace business since the hybrid rocket motor back in the 60s. Sadly -- compared to the golden age of aviation -- that's still not saying much. Carmack is, howeer, bound to inspire teams capable of running a modern day "Wright's bike shop" -- and that is saying much.

Does this patent 6,611,862 cover trojans?

A software product for use at a user station, the user station including a processor and a storage device, the software product comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor: enable a user at the user station to select content from each of a plurality of independent publishers; effect transport of the selected content from each of the plurality of publishers to the user station over a communications network in accordance with an object manifest, the object manifest including an identification of the selected content, and a source address for each of the respective publishers; and effect presentation of the selected content to the user at the user station with a user interface that is customized to the respective publishers.

Filed on April 20, 2000; 71 more egregiously broad claims to follow. This is sick.

I've been looking over the Bigelow patents on USPTO site. Check out "inflatable satelite", "...thermal management" and "spacecraft sleeping berth" for some of the things they have been working on. The most revolutionary item so far seems to be building an inflatable Transhab-type module, but putting the solid core to the edge of the inflated cylinder. The core has two sets of fold-out floor panels that form two floors, plus the core has a vac-safe section. If there is a puncture, the crew can seal it up and evacuate into another section of their station.

Bigelow on USPTO.gov

start saving those frequent-flyer miles,
Josh

Day trading?! Day trading?!!!

This isn't the eighties you know. The banks have computers as well now. Day trading was a fancy get rich quick scheme that reduced the real value of a lot of shares. If you want to make money patent online day trading or something. You can do it regardless of any prior art here

Perhaps they got it confused with a different patent, and that one should say "applying for a credit card online." It's also possible that they meant this claim: "2. The system of claim 1, wherein said terminal further comprises means for generating a personal qualification report including means for determining the type and amount of goods or services which can be provided to an entity wherein said means for determining comprises means for mathematically processing said information entered through said means for entering." As I read it, that could be construed as representing the authorization process.

Somehow I doubt anything horse or steam powered is gonna get MS's double click patent revoked.

It is perfectly possible to obtain an absurd patent outside of the field of computers. Okay, linked example uses child power instead of horse or steam but I suspect they had it in the 19th century.

"It might even help people find prior art for some of the goofey patents we get these days."

Hmmm . . . insigthful? I somehow doubt one-click checkout was an issue then.

Yes, and there's no way they would have thought up a sideways "method for swinging on a swing".

This is just stupid.

Then you'll probably get a patent on it.

Thats a very general definition which doesn't real say how obviousness is determined. From the MPEP 2143:

To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations.

The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art, not in applicant's disclosure. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Obviousness is determined from the prior art, it is not a subjective determination as to whether one would think that it would be obvious to make the claimed system. As far as the "ordinary skill in the art" requirement, it is a rather complicated issue. Generally, the courts view it as a way to insure objectivity in the determination of obviousness rather than a requirement for employement. See for example MPEP 2141:

The "hypothetical 'person having ordinary skill in the art' to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) (The Board disagreed with the examiner's definition of one of ordinary skill in the art (a doctorate level engineer or scientist working at least 40 hours per week in semiconductor research or development), finding that the hypothetical person is not definable by way of credentials, and that the evidence in the application did not support the conclusion that such a person would require a doctorate or equivalent knowledge in science or engineering.).

Thats a very general definition which doesn't real say how obviousness is determined. From the MPEP 2143:

To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations.

The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art, not in applicant's disclosure. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Obviousness is determined from the prior art, it is not a subjective determination as to whether one would think that it would be obvious to make the claimed system. As far as the "ordinary skill in the art" requirement, it is a rather complicated issue. Generally, the courts view it as a way to insure objectivity in the determination of obviousness rather than a requirement for employement. See for example MPEP 2141:

The "hypothetical 'person having ordinary skill in the art' to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) (The Board disagreed with the examiner's definition of one of ordinary skill in the art (a doctorate level engineer or scientist working at least 40 hours per week in semiconductor research or development), finding that the hypothetical person is not definable by way of credentials, and that the evidence in the application did not support the conclusion that such a person would require a doctorate or equivalent knowledge in science or engineering.).

It's patent 5,924,098. It's owned by Sun and it's basically on using the Boehm style GC to do well known lock-free programming techniques, one of which RCU is based on. I even commented on the obviousness of the technique before Sun was issued the patent here. It's not prior art but it does show obviousness to someone (me) versed in the art of lock-free programming. It's a standard technique that depends on some mechanism to delay deallocation of data nodes until they are no longer referenced. Which is by definition Garbage Collection. Specifying a known form of GC in conjunction with this technique is not an invention. Coming up with a new form of GC or proxy GC is an invention.

IBM got a patent on CAPS LOCK status indicator: Here's the link

Be careful with your terms. In the legal sense novel (see MPEP 2131 Anticipation) means that the exact system as claimed does not exist in the prior art. Most of the time this is true, the real question becomes whether or not the claims are obvious. The condition for obviousness in the legal sense is that references exist which teach all parts of the claims, and that there exists motivation in the prior art to combine the references to obtain the claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143 Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness). This is very different from teh common dictionary definition of the term.

Be careful with your terms. In the legal sense novel (see MPEP 2131 Anticipation) means that the exact system as claimed does not exist in the prior art. Most of the time this is true, the real question becomes whether or not the claims are obvious. The condition for obviousness in the legal sense is that references exist which teach all parts of the claims, and that there exists motivation in the prior art to combine the references to obtain the claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143 Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness). This is very different from teh common dictionary definition of the term.

On June 30, the Patent Busting Project's team of tough lawyers and brainy geeks will announce the contest winners - or losers, depending on how you look at it. And that's when the real fight for great justice begins. We'll be needing your help to research prior art for each patent and offer your technical expertise or historical knowledge. Using a legal process called "reexamination," the Patent Busting Project will ultimately go to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and attempt to take those bad patents off the books.

Which brings up an interesting question: if one can patent swinging could one try an patent a clearly illegal idea? Could one patent the act of killing someing using a 1998 Ford Escort as a weapon?

No, not another patent flamefest. Just that I wanted more details than the articles provide, but I can't seem to find the application. Anyone else wanna try?

Your idea would work even better than you think. Because Bluetooth devices manually get paired before they do anything with each other, your phone/keychain would only cause your own keychain/phone to beep. I for one love this idea. You better get on it.

1) Do you think Borland did not have the idea 5 months before it was announced to the world. At the time, Borland was shipping new version about every 2 years. Note: I'm not accusing MS of patenting idea they saw from Borland, just remarking that Borland most likely had the idea first. Since I don't have access to internal Borland docs, I can't prove legally.

And therein lies the problem, if it can't be proven legally then it doens't affect the patentability of an application. Even assuming that Borland had the idea prior to the priority date of this patent, that doesn't mean that Microsoft didn't have it prior to them. Since the US is bases patent rights on first to invent, the true date to beat might be even eariler than the March, 1999 date.

2) Since the patent app was basically secret, isn't this sufficient proof that the patent was not novel (in the legal sense)? Borland did not even think this worthy of a patent.

No. The problem is that the claims must have been legally obvious before the priority date. Basically this means that any information that was first publicly disclosed after the filing date is not considered in determining the patentability of an application. Also Borlands thoughts on the worthiness of the invention are irrelevant in determining legal obviousness. How do we know that Borland did not think this worthy of a patent? It is entirely possible that Microsoft and Borland have a mutual cross-licensing agreement between them and Borland didn't bother filing an application because they would get rights to Microsoft's.

3) I don't believe that the race to the patent office is the best way to determine winners, esp. since such rules favor deep pockets. Novel should not mean who can beat feet to the patent office fastest. PTO prior art search for software patents is pitiful.

Who gets to the patent office first is irrelevant under the US system which grants rights to the first to invent (assuming that both parties can prove a date of invention, see MPEP 2300 Interference Proceedings for more information about how this works). As far as the patent office's prior art searches how much do you actually know about them and how much are you assuming about them?

4)... Patent laws were never designed to cover mathmatic discoveries, or discovering natural laws -- only the novel application of such natural discoveries.

Quite true, however the laws as written are up for interpretation by the courts. The courts apparently don't consider software a mathematic discovery or a natural law.

5)... Software is not like hardware. I don't need to build a $100 million manufacting plant to produce software economically.

I fail to see how software production costs factor into this. Writing software is not free. There are labor costs and various other support costs (offices, electricity, computers, etc..) which must be recoped if any money is to be made by a piece of software. Physical production costs are just piece of producing any product.

6)... E) If however, MS had done a clean-room reverse engineering project, this should be legal (excepting anti-trust considerations). Reverse engineering software does not violate copyright. F) Stac had a better product (though more expensive due to MS bundling), so Stac had grounds for recovery under anti-trust law.

No, it probably wouldn't violate copyright law (copyright really isn't my specialty by any means), but that is irrelevant. Under patent law a reimplementation of the same system using the same components for the same purpose is considered an obvious variant, which is protected. If Microsoft did exactly this, then they would be liable under patent law and could be taken to court (which they apparently were). The anti-trust law is also irrelevant to this discussion since Microsoft probably wouldn't have been considered a monopoly back in those days, a

I personally wouldn't mind software patents if they were truly fundamental breakthroughs or such (RSA cryptography comes to mind)

Chuckle. Take a look at the original RSA patent. They don't even get to the RSA encryptin until the SEVENTH claim. Claim one (the root of the patent) is on the very idea of public key cryptography.

Even once you do get down to claim 7, it's still a patent on the "invention" of doing math. Groan.

-

Weird, for some reason my attempt to link to patent 4,218,582 seems to be returning patent 4,351,982. Try this link instead.

Worst case if that fails too, use the search page and put 4,218,582 in term 1 and set feild 1 to Patent Number then click search.

-

Weird, for some reason my attempt to link to patent 4,218,582 seems to be returning patent 4,351,982. Try this link instead.

Worst case if that fails too, use the search page and put 4,218,582 in term 1 and set feild 1 to Patent Number then click search.

-

The problem is that the concept of Software Patents seems broken in any context other than software being exclusively paid-for. Yes, some are genuinely innovative, as apposed to patently obvious (pun fully intended.
Certainly at the current lengths of exclusivity offered by Patents. Especially as Patents seem to class the iplementation of the idea as being the actual invention. So even if someone re-codes from scratch, it's considered infringing.

So they patent this, and it's genuinely an innovative idea. They have the right to restrict it's use for a set period of time.
OK, so in physical invention context this isn't a problem. But I genuinely don't like the idea of any company being able to tell any other "We came up with that idea first, you can't use it". At least, certainly not for the current timescales.
(I don't care whether it's Big Fish Corp. trying to stifle Small Fry Inc's software, or vice-versa. If someone else can do it better, or cheaper, or integrated with something else, then why not let them.

Now "That's using our Source Code, you can't use it" is a different matter. But I believe that, especially in software, anyone should have the right to try and come up with a better implementation of an idea. Certainly they shouldn't have to be forced to wait 20 years to do so. (I'm assuming the same term applies to software patents, as a search of uspto.gov doesn't imply otherwise)

To get back to the example at hand:
Interactive TODO lists seem like a great idea. But patenting them seems much less so. 'Cos either the idea will take off, and one one company can use them (or at least, decide who can use them). Otehrwise the idea will fail, as no-one else can use them and the idea fails to gain mindshare and an otherwise great idea dies an early death.
It doesn't matter how innovative an idea is, surely it needs a chance at mass implementation to really gain ground and come to maturity.

And especially in this case, it's a function that F/OSS coders would probably benefit from. Yet it looks like they'd be effectively blocked from submitting an implementation of it to any project.

The problem is that the concept of Software Patents seems broken in any context other than software being exclusively paid-for. Yes, some are genuinely innovative, as apposed to patently obvious (pun fully intended.
Certainly at the current lengths of exclusivity offered by Patents. Especially as Patents seem to class the iplementation of the idea as being the actual invention. So even if someone re-codes from scratch, it's considered infringing.

So they patent this, and it's genuinely an innovative idea. They have the right to restrict it's use for a set period of time.
OK, so in physical invention context this isn't a problem. But I genuinely don't like the idea of any company being able to tell any other "We came up with that idea first, you can't use it". At least, certainly not for the current timescales.
(I don't care whether it's Big Fish Corp. trying to stifle Small Fry Inc's software, or vice-versa. If someone else can do it better, or cheaper, or integrated with something else, then why not let them.

Now "That's using our Source Code, you can't use it" is a different matter. But I believe that, especially in software, anyone should have the right to try and come up with a better implementation of an idea. Certainly they shouldn't have to be forced to wait 20 years to do so. (I'm assuming the same term applies to software patents, as a search of uspto.gov doesn't imply otherwise)

To get back to the example at hand:
Interactive TODO lists seem like a great idea. But patenting them seems much less so. 'Cos either the idea will take off, and one one company can use them (or at least, decide who can use them). Otehrwise the idea will fail, as no-one else can use them and the idea fails to gain mindshare and an otherwise great idea dies an early death.
It doesn't matter how innovative an idea is, surely it needs a chance at mass implementation to really gain ground and come to maturity.

And especially in this case, it's a function that F/OSS coders would probably benefit from. Yet it looks like they'd be effectively blocked from submitting an implementation of it to any project.

Standard disclaimer: Don't take this or anything else you read on Slashdot as legal advice.

The patent was filed in March 6, 2000, based on a provisional application filed Mar. 5, 1999. It has 75 claims; I'll do my best to translate the first few from legalese into colloquial English. Here's claim 1, the key claim on which claims 2-23 depend:

A computer-implemented method for managing development-related tasks, the method comprising:

• during an interactive code development session, evaluating source code to determine whether a comment token is present;
• in response to determining that the source code contains a comment token, inserting a task into a task list; and
• in response to completion of a task, modifying the task list during the interactive code development session to indicate that the task has been completed.

Prior art for this claim is many IDEs' handling of the C preprocessor #warning directive, which the patent calls a "comment token." Claims 2-5 seem to cover filtering the warnings with tokens such as #warning PORTABILITY and #warning TODO.

Claim 6 covers scrolling to a warning generated by a #warning directive. IDEs have let the user click on a warning and scroll to it since I tried CodeWarrior for Mac in 1996 or so.

Claim 7 covers inserting the source code around a #warning into the view of a task list. This may in fact be novel. Now we're getting somewhere.

Claim 8 covers IDEs that categorize a #warning list by developer name, which may be novel as well. Claim 9 is claim 8 plus putting the #warning just before the appropriate location in the source code; claim 10 is claim 8 with the #warning containing text other than the name of the developer.

Claim 11 covers IDEs that give each #warning a priority value, which I personally haven't seen. Claim 12 covers putting syntax errors above prioritized warnings as in claim 10. Claims 13 and 14 add prioritizing warnings by keyword and sorting syntax errors by priority, respectively.

Claim 15 covers putting linker errors in the same list as #warning lines. Seems we're back to 1996 here.

Claim 16 covers generation of files containing #warning lines by another program. Could be novel.

Claim 17 covers IDEs that parse the #warning lines, filter them, and display a subset. Prior art. Claim 18 adds hiding completed tasks (possibly novel), showing only tasks in a given category (possibly novel), showing only tasks in a given file (prior art: recompiling only one file), and showing only tasks in a given location (prior art; many compilers stop entirely at the first #error). Claim 19 adds subcategories to claim 18's categories.

Claim 20 covers sorting the #warning lines, and claims 21 and 22 cover sorting on the same criteria of claims 18 and 19. However, one could sort warnings by category by sorting them alphabetically, and many IDEs likely did, making these three claims a bit more likely to have prior art.

Claim 23 merely covers removal of #warning lines after a build in which they no longer exist. IDEs do this for all warnings. Prior art.

There is the ".NET Patent" that has already been mentioned on Slashdot. Although it's still an application, not a patent yet...

To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations. The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art, and not based on applicant"s disclosure. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See MPEP 2143 - 2143.03 for decisions pertinent to each of these criteria.

Sorry, pal, but I have a patent on using a labotomy to avoid being a criminal under the current patent regime...

Expect a letter from my lawyers later this week.

Inventions that are obvious are equally patentable as inventions that are genius.

with the USPTO

Invention must also be:

Novel
Nonobvious
Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention)
Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms

Bullshit. I've just scanned the patents. (numbers 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592). They're trash and completely uninnovative. Whether you like it or not the use of the radio spectrum to transmit email with addressing is obvious and should never have been monopolised in this way.

Also, like many patent office boosters you appear to be confusing the creation of intellectual property with the granting of a patent. Without getting into the semantics (I don't care whether it's called IP or something else) the former is a good thing. The later is usually parasites in action, particularly for software patents.

Software patents should be protecting true innovation and hard research/development work. Unfortunately, that is so rarely the case in software that software patents are doing far more harm than good and should never have been allowed.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Bullshit. I've just scanned the patents. (numbers 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592). They're trash and completely uninnovative. Whether you like it or not the use of the radio spectrum to transmit email with addressing is obvious and should never have been monopolised in this way.

Also, like many patent office boosters you appear to be confusing the creation of intellectual property with the granting of a patent. Without getting into the semantics (I don't care whether it's called IP or something else) the former is a good thing. The later is usually parasites in action, particularly for software patents.

Software patents should be protecting true innovation and hard research/development work. Unfortunately, that is so rarely the case in software that software patents are doing far more harm than good and should never have been allowed.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Bullshit. I've just scanned the patents. (numbers 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592). They're trash and completely uninnovative. Whether you like it or not the use of the radio spectrum to transmit email with addressing is obvious and should never have been monopolised in this way.

Also, like many patent office boosters you appear to be confusing the creation of intellectual property with the granting of a patent. Without getting into the semantics (I don't care whether it's called IP or something else) the former is a good thing. The later is usually parasites in action, particularly for software patents.

Software patents should be protecting true innovation and hard research/development work. Unfortunately, that is so rarely the case in software that software patents are doing far more harm than good and should never have been allowed.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Bullshit. I've just scanned the patents. (numbers 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592). They're trash and completely uninnovative. Whether you like it or not the use of the radio spectrum to transmit email with addressing is obvious and should never have been monopolised in this way.

Also, like many patent office boosters you appear to be confusing the creation of intellectual property with the granting of a patent. Without getting into the semantics (I don't care whether it's called IP or something else) the former is a good thing. The later is usually parasites in action, particularly for software patents.

Software patents should be protecting true innovation and hard research/development work. Unfortunately, that is so rarely the case in software that software patents are doing far more harm than good and should never have been allowed.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Bullshit. I've just scanned the patents. (numbers 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592). They're trash and completely uninnovative. Whether you like it or not the use of the radio spectrum to transmit email with addressing is obvious and should never have been monopolised in this way.

Also, like many patent office boosters you appear to be confusing the creation of intellectual property with the granting of a patent. Without getting into the semantics (I don't care whether it's called IP or something else) the former is a good thing. The later is usually parasites in action, particularly for software patents.

Software patents should be protecting true innovation and hard research/development work. Unfortunately, that is so rarely the case in software that software patents are doing far more harm than good and should never have been allowed.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Bullshit. I've just scanned the patents. (numbers 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592). They're trash and completely uninnovative. Whether you like it or not the use of the radio spectrum to transmit email with addressing is obvious and should never have been monopolised in this way.

Also, like many patent office boosters you appear to be confusing the creation of intellectual property with the granting of a patent. Without getting into the semantics (I don't care whether it's called IP or something else) the former is a good thing. The later is usually parasites in action, particularly for software patents.

Software patents should be protecting true innovation and hard research/development work. Unfortunately, that is so rarely the case in software that software patents are doing far more harm than good and should never have been allowed.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

the EU's growing inclination to allow software patents

It appears the growth is in the opposite direction. At first Parliment was all set to pass the Council's software patent directive. Once the issue actually faced debate the Parliment passed amendments reversing the text of the directive to state that software is not and cannot be an invention.

This is a very common myth. Notice that the claims (which, as you know, completely define the scope of the patent) read:

Yes, I am aware that it's all about the claims. I have (unfortunately) been reading a number of US software patents in the last few years.

Perhaps I'm an ignorant programmer. Perhaps I do not know how to read patent claims. Perhaps I am confused. If so then please explain my error to me:

We are talking about patent 4,218,582, claim 1. Explain how claim 1 is NOT a patent on two people (the transmitter and receiver) sitting in their offices off a common hallway (an insecure communication channel), thinking certain steps and shouting back and forth.

Either I am a moron or the US patent office is granting patents on MENTAL PROCESSES.

Perhaps it qualifies as a "novel" and "non-obvious" by patent standards, but even so it is still nothing more than a novel and non-obvious sequence of thoughts.

Could you reason through a 128-bit encryption scheme?

I don't think you realize that programmers routinely run software purely mentally! Practically ALL software gets run purely mentally at one point or another! It's a normal part of the coding and debugging processes. I could easily run 128 bit encryption, though I'd need pencil and paper to artificially enhance my short-term memory capacity.

Due to the DMCA situation I have seriously been thinking about training to do DeCSS (40 bit decryption) purely mentally, without even using pencil and paper. I checked the code, the math is trivial and the memory requirements are not excessive. It would make an awesome live demonstration in court to stare at an encrypted E-book and slowly circumvent the DRM and illegally read the book. You can violate the DMCA and commit circumvention crime and illegally access content through pure thought. Go ahead, imprison me for thinking prohibited thoughts.

It is absurd for any law to create thought crime, whether it's the DMCA or patent law.

It's disgusting the way the US is going around and (economicaly) threatening/extorting other countries into reversing their rules that expliticly prohibit patents on math. For example "Jordan shall take all steps necessary to clarify that the exclusion from patent protection of 'mathematical methods' in Article 4(B) of Jordan's Patent Law does not include such 'methods' as business methods or computer-related inventions." Such a demand is unnecessary except where you are actually trying to patent a mathematical method.

Do you honestly envision this scenario ever arising?

The very fact that it is POSSIBLE for thinking to be a patent infringment shows that allowing patents on math is fundamentally broken. However I really would love to intentially provoke exactly that sort of test case to get software patents thrown out.

Your rationale applies more broadly to all "process" patents.

False.

Can you violate a process patent for extracting purified metal from raw ore by THINKING? Can you violate a process patent for synthesizing a drug by THINKING?

No, you can't.

I am not objecting to physical process patents. I am objecting to mental process patents.

You invent physical objects and physical processes. EXPANDING patents to cover a sequence of thoughts is absurd and broken. The fact that you can make the obvious step of using a computer t

Try these: 5,625,670 5,631,946 5,819,172 6,067,451 6,317,592

Or you can just keep frothing about things that you have no clue about.

Try these: 5,625,670 5,631,946 5,819,172 6,067,451 6,317,592

Or you can just keep frothing about things that you have no clue about.

Try these: 5,625,670 5,631,946 5,819,172 6,067,451 6,317,592

Or you can just keep frothing about things that you have no clue about.

Try these: 5,625,670 5,631,946 5,819,172 6,067,451 6,317,592

Or you can just keep frothing about things that you have no clue about.

The definition is at MPEP section 509.02. It includes, individuals, non-profits, and small businesses. And I believe the definition is dependent on the number of employees rather than revenue.