Slashdot Mirror

So if Sun ever does "go SCO", they will have something to take to court.

Why not just use the USPTO's database?

around $1000, possibly less if you do some of the paperwork yourself

But the orignal post is quite right- in this case it must have cost a comparative fortune. Looking at the prosecution history, you can see two office actions and an appeal. I'm not sure "DIY" is even in the ballpark for non-lawyer IP professionals (let alone the average guy) in such circumstances.

There's some additional prosecution history here if you're curious. Gotta say, the approach to get around the objections based on registrations for BSD and FREEBSD (see the 11/26/02 doc) is pretty interesting, and certainly emphasizes that getting a NETBSD registration required a fair amount of work/resources.

In any event, it can't be done with GNU/Linux has Linus already holds the rights to the word 'Linux' itself. GNU/Linux would be an infringement.

The 171 trademarks containing the word "Linux" beg to differ. Especially the one that is for the word "Linux" when used in connection with "laundry detergents and laundry bleaches for home use; all purpose cleaning preparations for home use; general purpose scouring powders; skin soap for personal use; perfume; essential oils for personal use; preparations for personal hygiene and cosmetic purposes, namely, hair shampoo, skin toners, shower gel, skin lotions; hair tonic and toothpaste."

I kid you not. There is even a trademark on file for something called "Z/Linux". Look for yourself (suggested search "linux").

None of this is to say that there isn't some licensing agreement between most of these folks and Mr. Torvalds. The point is, you can have a trademark on something that incorporates another word, especially if that trademark is in a different trade.

U.S. Patent 5,934,607 - Shock suppression supersonic aircraft

Link to patent: Coding system for reducing redundancy

It is sort of similar to the parent of `storing and manipulating binary numbers in an electronic device' pattent. Everything sorta falls under it in some way or another.

take a look at the patent

I was working for Palisade when they developed the first version of PacketHound.

Actually, I should say when they stole PacketHound, since it was actually created by a coworker in his off hours, outside of Palisade. The CEO at the time fired this guy and sued the developer to gain the rights to PacketHound. Kind of ironic that they stole something that is supposed to prevent stealing!

Like Palisade's original product, called ScreenDoor, PacketHound is just a packet sniffer that sends out TCP RST packets to disrupt connections. Palisade (and Iowa State University) actually have a patent on this, even though there have been firewalls and other programs (like Snort) which do the same thing, and predate the patent.

Palisade itself is a tiny company that is milking this one patent/idea for most of its products. But they are somehow good at getting press...

Patent 6678697, storing data in the lower bits of a pointer. It was filed in 2002, BDDs (Binary Decision Diagrams) having been doing this since the 1970s.

Indeed. Strange that these ludicrous patents are not discussed more. I'm especially 'fond' of this one (taken from here):

Method and system for internationalizing domain names

Abstract

A method and system for internationalizing domain names is provided which allows domain names to be entered in any language without having to modify the existing Internet domain name servers. When an [sic] user enters a domain name including non-English characters into an internet program, a domain name transformer intercepts the domain name prior to reaching the resolver. The domain name is converted to a standard format which can represent all language character sets, such as UNICODE. The UNICODE string is then transformed to be in RFC1035 compliant format. Redirector information is then appended to the compliant string which identifies the delegation of authoritative root servers and/or domain name servers responsible for the domain name. The compliant domain string is then resolved by the authoritative domain name server just as any English domain name.

If I understand this correctly (but hey - who can be sure), this is basically a patent for, um, a method for converting strings between different formats and then doing a DNS lookup or some such thing. Excuse me, but isn't that usually called a 'standard', not a 'patent' ?? This boggles the mind.

Oh, and by the way, the spelling and grammar generally sucks in these patent desciptions. Check it out for yourselves if you don't believe me ...

See for yourself here. They didn't strike me as particularly bad.

Although others have pointed out that the fight isn't over the FAT system - I have noted that no one has even mentioned the mainframes and minis which came long before micros ever appeared.

I've worked on Univac 1108's, 1106's, NAS 9000s, IBM System 3's, Honeywell systems, and the original Vax's as well as some PDP systems. These all used the 8.3 filename convention and is where (I believe) the usage of 8.3 filenames under DOS came about. (Remember original DOS used EBCDIC which is an IBM standard and the PC was to originally be a "very small" mainframe.) All of these mainframes had a FAT system in place for the usage of the disk drives. So there are decades of prior FAT usage and setup. So FAT and the 8.3 filenaming convention is a done deal.

The usage of long/short names and the mapping of long/short names one to the other was done under Unix years before Microsoft even came along. This was called linking. Further, Digital Equipment Corporation, under VMS, came out with a method to do the same thing prior to Microsoft ever having done this. It is such an obvious misuse of the patent system that, as another poster put it, this is just another example of how broken our government is in this respect.

The truth, as I see it, is that we are in a war over whether or not our original systems of Patenting and Copyrighting things, as created by the people who put pen to paper, will survive. When the rules were written; it was another time. A time when it took months or years to do even one thing. (Like filing for a patent.) In today's world things are vastly different and, with the push of a button, you can submit a patent on anything to the PTO. This reduction of time means that, at some point, it becomes an exercise in logic programming to generate new patents. The basic idea behind the Patent system was to guarantee time to an individual - because it took so long to recoup your investment - so they could make a profit. Today, some inventions are overnight successes. Granted - not all, but even the creation-to-market time span is shortening. Especially when there are devices out there that can create 3D objects. So the question becomes - is the Patent and Copyright system broken because of misuse - or because they are an outmoded methodology? I think the latter.

Maybe it's time we re-invented the Patent and Copyright systems so they work in the modern world. For instance, centralize where all payments on Patents and Copyrights go. Standardize on how much has to be paid per P&C. (Like 1% of a company's gross has to be set aside to pay P&Cs. Or maybe a default amount per unit sold could be come up with. <Whatever is come up with - it should be fair - as in "Atom smashers are a lot more rare than bubble gum."> This would eliminate some P&Cs being sold at some high amount versus others which are paid only minimal amounts. And yes - there are some really stupid P&Cs out there. This is just a general methodology that I am writing.) Standardize how much is to be paid on Patents and Copyrights. Standardize how often payments are to be made to the holders of Patents and Copyrights. Standardize on how long Patents and Copyrights can exist. (I personally am in favor of the life of the author plus twenty years and no more. I am also in favor of making it illegal to change this in any way, shape, or form because of what we just went through via the DMCA. Or at least make it illegal to change it without the consent of the people. Not Congress and/or the Senate as both have been shown to be untrustworthy in this area.) Standardize top level categories. Create a standardized entry number system. Entry numbers into the system could be assigned based upon the importance/weight of an entry. (In other words - truly unique ideas are at the top. Those t

A method of augmenting the length of the name of a file in a computer system which allows the use of file names longer than otherwise allowed by the system. A file name table is searched for a table entry corresponding to a long provisional name. An actual file name contained in the corresponding table entry is used to access the file.

Of cousre, this is just a proposal and still needs the approval of Congress, and according to this article, the FY 1998 budget proposal also did away with fee diversion but apparently didn't passed.

Why aren't patents exposed to peer review, like academic articles are?

The USPTO has tried to make some serious changes geared towards cutting down on unreasonable examination times (see also section 1.705 of the MPEP). So besides the "qualified examiners" issue, the bigger issue is time. One would not want the system to fall apart due to backlog and overworked examiners, especially when you have patent factories like IBM et. al. that churn out 3000+ patents a year.

Personally, I don't believe that the qualifications of the examiners are questionable, but definately the environment they are required to work in is. People joke that they use google? Of course they would, if the engine they have to use is a piece of crap!

Since patents are kept secret from the time filed to the time issued, no one really knows if there is a filed patent or not.

Patent applications filed on or after November 2000 are published within 18 months of filing.
See the USPTO notice

Of course there are exceptions but a part of proving infringement is proving your competitors knew about the contents of the patent application. IANAL but if you delay the publication and didn't notify your competitors that they are possibly infringing, the judge will not be smiling with you and you would have made some lawyer quite happy.

Here are all of the patents that he issued...

past the first few paragraphs. The article is actually pretty interesting and shows more about the patent examining process.

Did anyone also notice at the bottom of the web page that Volpe Koenig had a design patent for thier website, and they have a pending utility patent for the site?

Also here is an example of overworked examiners... the poor examiner who has to examine these applications? [uspto.gov]

Now that the Patent Office has kindly placed a lot of patents into their database; they should begin the process of writing programs which help them to eliminate patents based upon (if nothing else) their documentation.

I would think the rejection of Patents would fall into a few categories: 1)Bad Spelling, 2)Bad Grammar, 3)Bad Idea. Once these are past - THEN - the object could be compared against pre-existing documents.

I know there are probably millions of documents which might match a new document but, like Google, they could be pared down based upon how closely they look like another invention. Google has how many servers and how many pages to look at and decide upon? Yet you get feedback in only a few seconds. Why not base how the PTO works on Google's model? The PTO could even sell priority for first consideration to companies. ;-)

Truly though, since every invention has to be written up, and since we already know that millions of pages can (and are) rejected by a good search engine - this is what the PTO really needs.

Which brings up the question: How many patents are filed for items which are not really in that category? Like an idea for a game which might overlap how something is done in the real world. Would that patent be enforceable because it was already given out? Or does the fact that the patent is filed in different categories mean that you can patent something which has already been patented - but in a different category? So a toothbrush used by a robotic servant (and is a part of the robot itself) can be patented separately from a regular, toothbrush which is held in the hand?

If the former - then that cuts down on the number of patents which has to be searched. Otherwise, all of the patents have to be searched. Which is why it becomes so hard to determine the merits of a given patent. A good search engine though - could shave a lot of time off of how long it would take to determine the merits of any given patent.

This does not, however, eliminate the need for people who are smart enough to know that a flashlight is still a flashlight. No matter if it is called a flashlight or an object which emits a beam of light. This too (the phrase "an object which emits light") should become a part of the search engine. Or, in other words, you create a relational database which relates single words to phrases so the search engine can make better judgement calls. :-)

Just a few thoughts.

His patent number is 5,594,289. It's not he's keeping this a huge secret.. why not get one of the 40,000 fans he's selling and test it??? Are we not geeks?

Here

...the US patent office recognized his invention and gave him the first of two patents.

Patent #5,594,289 and Patent #4,751,486 Both for Magnetic Rotating Apparatus.

Patent #5,594,289 and Patent #4,751,486 Both for Magnetic Rotating Apparatus.

US Patent 4,751,486

US Patent 5,594,289

Note that I'm not speaking for or against his claims, but if you want to see how it works, there you go.

US Patent 4,751,486

US Patent 5,594,289

Note that I'm not speaking for or against his claims, but if you want to see how it works, there you go.

From www.uspto.gov (the United States Patent Office)

Patent 1

Patent 2

I just scanned them, but it looks like the same guy. So the patents do exist...

On another note, imagine the energy savings if these things were really installed in computers everywhere? It's a small savings for one fan, but multiplied by the number of computers in the whole US/world, that's a big savings!

From www.uspto.gov (the United States Patent Office)

Patent 1

Patent 2

I just scanned them, but it looks like the same guy. So the patents do exist...

On another note, imagine the energy savings if these things were really installed in computers everywhere? It's a small savings for one fan, but multiplied by the number of computers in the whole US/world, that's a big savings!

Here are the patents this one from 1988 and this one from 1997. Only time will tell if they work

Here are the patents this one from 1988 and this one from 1997. Only time will tell if they work

- Humorless lawyers suing attrition.org (includes reply to their letter)
- Humorless lawyers suing Ralph Nader... and losing

Should you laugh or cry at this?
TESS Info for trademark #2370508

the InterTrust patents are here (25 issued patents)

If you register a trademark and it's rejected for the "principal register" as not being unique enough, you may be able to get registration on the "supplemental register". If your trademark is on the supplemental register, you can't enforce it against others, but you're protected against claims by others. So it's worth doing in cases like the one here.

Ask for proof that in addition to "HardRadio" they registered "hardradio".

Easy. Registrations for word marks at the USPTO are case insensitive. At least they all seem to be stored in databases upcased. Thus, the mark would be listed as HARDRADIO. You can verify this by going to TESS and doing a search for word mark linux; the results will contain LINUX.

Except food recipes are patentable.

Monsanto is... genetically engineering... a monopoly

Roundup is a trade name used by Monsanto for "glyphosphate", which is available from any number of companies under different names. The original patent on Roundup was filed in 1982, and has thus expired. A quick web search turned up the trade names: Accord, Aquamaster, Aquaneat, AquaPro, ClearIt, Erase, Rodeo, Roundup, Sting, Laso, Polado, Glistar, GlyphMax, GlyPro, Ron-Do, Rondo Logico, Laredo, WeatherMax, Wrangler, Cornerstone, Mirage, Sidekick, Touchdown, and Vision. There's no monopoly there, apparently.

The patent on their particular sequence of introns for introducing a glyphosphate gene was filed in 1994, so it's 60% of the way through its life. And there are of course other ways of introducing the same glyphosphate-resistance gene into a plant.

all the pests that Roundup is supposed to control

Roundup doesn't control "pests". It kills plants by blocking an enzyme needed for growth -- an enzyme not found in animals, including "pests" like insects or the RIAA. Roundup is supposed to control "weeds".

Monsanto is... genetically engineering... a monopoly

Roundup is a trade name used by Monsanto for "glyphosphate", which is available from any number of companies under different names. The original patent on Roundup was filed in 1982, and has thus expired. A quick web search turned up the trade names: Accord, Aquamaster, Aquaneat, AquaPro, ClearIt, Erase, Rodeo, Roundup, Sting, Laso, Polado, Glistar, GlyphMax, GlyPro, Ron-Do, Rondo Logico, Laredo, WeatherMax, Wrangler, Cornerstone, Mirage, Sidekick, Touchdown, and Vision. There's no monopoly there, apparently.

The patent on their particular sequence of introns for introducing a glyphosphate gene was filed in 1994, so it's 60% of the way through its life. And there are of course other ways of introducing the same glyphosphate-resistance gene into a plant.

all the pests that Roundup is supposed to control

Roundup doesn't control "pests". It kills plants by blocking an enzyme needed for growth -- an enzyme not found in animals, including "pests" like insects or the RIAA. Roundup is supposed to control "weeds".

Unlike copyrights, patents expire.

"... Jobs is quoted as saying the his PHds said you can't make a DRM that stops piracy completely.

Which is presumably why Apple employs Phds to 1) devise new forms of DRM

and 2) head the Copy Protection Technology Working Group with Sony and Warner Brothers.

They look as snug as three bugs in a rug.

• G & S: production of audio programming and distribution to listeners via cable, satellite or global computer network
  
• G & S: computerized on-line ordering services in the field of music
  

• G & S: Computer services, namely broadcasting music and music information via an electronic computer network
  

You might be able to defend "Hard Radio", but that is where a real Trademark Attorney would come into play.

You never really know how far things like this can go. For example, this recent Supreme Court case was decided in favor of the little guy, but three courts ruled against the little guy before the Supreme Court overturned them all. And the Supreme Court even said that they had to prove that there was confusion and dilution - if they really do have customers who complained to them that they found your site while searching for theirs ...

Either change it, or see an attorney.

• G & S: production of audio programming and distribution to listeners via cable, satellite or global computer network
  
• G & S: computerized on-line ordering services in the field of music
  

• G & S: Computer services, namely broadcasting music and music information via an electronic computer network
  

You might be able to defend "Hard Radio", but that is where a real Trademark Attorney would come into play.

You never really know how far things like this can go. For example, this recent Supreme Court case was decided in favor of the little guy, but three courts ruled against the little guy before the Supreme Court overturned them all. And the Supreme Court even said that they had to prove that there was confusion and dilution - if they really do have customers who complained to them that they found your site while searching for theirs ...

Either change it, or see an attorney.

IANAL, but does this count?

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnu m.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030009698'.PGNR.&OS=DN/2 0030009698&RS=DN/20030009698

Better stop innovating, it could get costly.

I think Allan Cox has been using a very similar method for a long, long time.

1. I send you an email
2. You autorespond "blah, put xx in the password to send me an email. You only need to do this one time to be added to my whitelist". (this verifies my reply-to address was real and that a human is answering)
3. I respond "hey I said 'xx'!"
4. You get the email and all is good in the world.

My mail is so bad now, I'm probably going to set up such a method. I just can't deal with it anymore. My email is utterly useless now.

A few years back I ran across patent #5,159,703, which claims a method for subliminal audio. The jist of the method is to frequency- or amplitude-modulate the "message" with a carrier wave sufficiently higher than the range of hearing (for me, about 16KHz, YMMV). You then mix this with the music track.

CDDA supports up to 22KHz, and most speakers/headphones claim a frequency response up to 20KHz, so this gives about 4KHz of bandwidth for the message, which is roughly the same bandwidth as voice telephony.

I never got around to actually seeing if it actually worked (just because it's patented, doesn't mean it's valid), but you're welcome to try ...

I was going to take a patent on sex, but after reading the US patent web site, info on what can be patented, especially patenting existing processes I have had second thoughts and now will be patenting: Sex in the Bahamas...It better in the Bahamas (Patent Pending).

You know, the US Patent Office's website uses cookies that would violate this patent.

Gnome does not violate any patents (for starters, I've never seen a patent that broad).

Then I guess you haven't seen many patents. Spend an hour browsing uspto.gov for software patents, and I trust you'll see enough to disgust you. It looks as if nearly every nontrivial program falls under 4-6 patents from random large corporations.

There's one patent, for example, which covers the GTK toolkit essential to all GNOME programs. GTK uses object orientation in a non-object-oriented language, therefore they are violating US Patent 5,446,902.

As somone else stated, if these application were provided to the public for inspection, they'd have more than enough 'resources' to deal with the applications.

You mean they're not?

Conducting DNS (nameservers and domain hosting)

Traffic Shaping (limiting packet speed and file sizes transferred)

NIS, IMAP, Active Directory

CVS, group collaboration, etc

Conducting DNS (nameservers and domain hosting)

Traffic Shaping (limiting packet speed and file sizes transferred)

NIS, IMAP, Active Directory

CVS, group collaboration, etc