Slashdot Mirror

But, seems like that's a pretty common phrase in the industry and has been so for years....

Hell, it's even used to refer to [H]ard|OCP's own RatPadz.

A poster above suggested a new section on Slashdot for lawsuits... I think that's a great idea. SCO's newsworthy lawsuits may be dying out finally, but Phantom might keep the section viable for a year by itself. Especially if that "Pre-Order" link starts working and consumers get suckered as well as investors, or if they decide to defend their *cough* "Intellectual Property" *cough* by suing half the gaming industry for trademark infringement.

Wonder if that's where they hope to make a profit?

One of the big problems with fusion being energy-positive in a practical reactor is so much of the output energy is emitted on really high frequencies and exotic energy forms (x-rays, alpha/beta radiation, etc) because of the energy levels involved. These are difficult to turn back into useful energy to do work and keep the reactor running.

Exotic? Beta radiation (particles) are also called electrons. You know, the stuff that makes your Linux boxen run. Actually there are atomic batteries that harness beta particles to provide electricity.

Cornell's atomic battery

And this one I find fascinating:
direct conversion of radioactive energy to electricity; Patent 4835433

None of these patents cover the existence of nanotubes -- but the patents do cover various methods of creating nanotubes. I found 118 US patents which mention carbon nanotubes in the abstract to the patent at the US Patent and Trademark Office.

There are other patents which concern creation of carbon nanotubes which predate NEC's patents. For example: 5,482,601 Method and device for the production of carbon nanotubes.

Accordingly, I doubt that NEC has a patent on carbon nanotubes themselves. Instead, it appears that NEC has some patents on methods for manufacturing carbon nanotubes. If these methods are more efficient than other methods, I do not have any problem with NEC selling licenses to use their processes.

I think you're talking about what is now known as the SCE-RT. This is the patent.

Patent applications are searchable if they are published (many are, but not all), even if the patent has not been granted yet. I'm not sure about abandoned applications, though. In addition, the full text of every patent since the mid-1970's is available online at www.uspto.gov. Anyone, AFAIK, can use this website.

Ed

Sorry if this is redundant, but finding prior art took 5 minutes and looking for redundant findings of prior art posted in /. posts would take at least 5.1 minutes:

United States Patent 4,449,126;
Pekker; May 15, 1984; Electronic lock device and optical key therefor

Hmm. Prior art and, given its age, public domain.

Nice red herring arguement on the australian wheel patent. The fact is that the wheel "patent" that was issued was not a real patent and gave the filer no real rights other than to say, "look what I think I invented". The only examination that took place was to make sure that the all the papers where filed correctly. This is fairly close to the provisional patent system in the US. Neither type of patent grants any legal rights other than to refile as a real patent application later on while preserving the original filing date (This may not be true in AU, not sure) and neither type gets any real examination as to the merits of the invention and claims, only to formal matters.

See the following for more details: Austrailian Innovation Patent and US Provisoinal Patent Applications.

It could have sample screenshots ripped off of a competing product filed in the patent application.

Perhaps there are patent issues? There are 59 patents that relate to the terms "CMYK" and "Pantone". Some of them may actually apply.

I didn't read the entire application, I'll admit that. I did do a quick search a found that other patents put their references where they are easy to see and look up.

Did you bother even reading ANY of the patent application or did you just spout of typical /. drone rhetoric? They specifically mention prior art in several places, and they even include examples of it in the drawings. Give me a break, there is even an entire section of the patent application dedicated to references.

[0013] FIG. 1A is a pictorial diagram illustrating a desktop of a graphical user interface according to the prior art.

[0014] FIG. 1B is a pictorial diagram illustrating one implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.

[0015] FIG. 1C is a pictorial diagram illustrating another implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.

Patent Application

The link above points to a patent submission by Bret Anderson (aka MrJukes) on behalf of Microsoft for a Virtual Desktop Manager. Here's a relevent blurb from the patent application itself...

"...each pane containing a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop, each scaled virtual desktop being displayed with one or more scaled application windows if the corresponding full-size virtual desktop has one or more corresponding application windows that are active."

The patent application was file on April 5, 2002. MrJukes and I have both been writing and writing applications for replacement shells for many years. In 1997/1998, i wrote a shell called Dimension. One of its components that eventually was released by itself (in 1998) was DVWM. It was downloadable from my website between 1998-2002. Below is a link to lokai.net's download page from 2001 (the best i could get via archive.org). Bret Anderson had clear knowledge that this patent application contains prior art. I was definately not the first person to do something like this either.

VWM's and VDM's have been around for a very long time. Enlightement's Pager/VWM/VDM did this at the time as well, however at that point in time, while giving mini-views of the windows on a given desktop, it did not provide a 1-to-1 mini-view like DVWM did to my knowledge (please correct me if i'm wrong).

I believe this to be a pretty low point. A former shell developer lands a job at Microsoft and patents ideas obtained from the shell community and/or elsewhere in free software. I don't know if idea theft is illegal since i didn't patent it myself, but i'm just disgusted that this has happened.

Here's the archive.org view of lokai.net's downloads. You can download the version of DVWM that was hosted at the time which does all the things i describe.
Archive.org view of Lokai.net in 2002

Here is a screenshot of DVWM from 2001.
DVWM Gif

Here is the source to DVWM from 2001.
DVWM Source

Here is DVWM 1.02 in case archive.org fails to work for you.
DVWM Zip

Here is the skinnables.org orphanware page showing DVWM.
Skinnables Orphanware

I'm currently exploring my options to see what if anything i can do about this. I find it to be just flat out wrong. It should be noted that not all things that are wrong are necessarily illegal, but i'll see what i can do.

Here is the link to the Patent Protest Document.

You cannot protest a patent once the application has been published (look it up). What you are looking for is a Citation of Prior Art. Prior art citations can be sent to the USPTO by anybody, at any time during the validity of the patent. They simply enter the patent file, where they'll be looked at in case of a reexamination request.

Or just click here:
REALLY LONG URL

I'm not sure if that was irony or stupidity. Anyway, here's a clickable link to the patent.

Actually, large entities are charged the normal fee and companies with less than 500 employees (there are other criteria such as "did you license the tech to a large entity?"), you qualify for Small Entity Status in which all application, etc fees are literally half the normal fee.

PTO fees

How about people submit the prior art references to the USPTO? There is an explanation of the procedure at the USPTO site (PDF)here

This page has pdf's of patent office forms, including one about prior art. The USPTO website also seems to suggest that prior art is something that has been patented in this example.

If people really care about this and aren't just into recreational bitching, then write the patent office a letter with the appropriate details so that the clerks at least have the opportunity of being made aware of this stuff.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the submitter, who obviously had to find the patent for themselves, had provided a handy link in the story submission? Or maybe he just wanted us to have to go through the trouble of finding it like he did?

here.

If anyone is dedicated to going through with this thing,
we should be able to stop this patent from being granted.

#50 How does one file protest on patents that are pending?

Protests by a member of the public against pending applications will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved. A protest specifically identifying the application to which the protest is directed will be entered in the application file if: (1) The protest is submitted prior to the publication of the application or the mailing of a notice of allowance under rule 1.311, whichever occurs first; and (2) The protest is either served upon the applicant in accordance with rule 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible. For more detailed information on protesting a patent, you may visit our Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm for the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 1900.

> Of course, this is exactly the kind of trivial difference that disqualifies it from being 'new and non-obvious', so it still deserves to get laughed out of the Patent Office...

And, as we all know, obvious and stupid patents always get laughed out of the Patent Office.

> Of course, this is exactly the kind of trivial difference that disqualifies it from being 'new and non-obvious', so it still deserves to get laughed out of the Patent Office...

And, as we all know, obvious and stupid patents always get laughed out of the Patent Office.

many of them have probably never heard of Linux, or X, or Fvwm, or are even aware of the existence of Window Managers in general

And send it to the US Patent and Trademark Office. stating the fact that there are prior art out there and this patent 20030189597 should not be issued.

Here is the link to the Patent Protest Document.

yay for replying to myself!

from uspto's website:

A protest under 37 CFR 1.291(a) must be submitted in writing, must specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed by application number or serial number and filing date, and must include a listing of all patents, publications, or other information relied on; a concise explanation of the relevance of each listed item; an English language translation of all relevant parts of any non-English language document; and be accompanied by a copy of each patent, publication, or other document relied on. Protestors are encouraged to use form PTO-1449 "Information Disclosure Statement" (or an equivalent form) when preparing a protest under 37 CFR 1.291, especially the listing enumerated under 37 CFR 1.291(b)(1). See MPEP 609. In addition, the protest and any accompanying papers must either (1) reflect that a copy of the same has been served upon the applicant or upon the applicant's attorney or agent of record; or (2) be filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.

who wants to do it?!

here is some information on how to protest it. i mean here btw

i'm reading through it now to see how to tell the pto formally.

Another poorly-chosen article title. To most people, this is a "pager". And here is a link to the actual patent application, rather than a generic link to the patent office.

patent link

October 9, 2003
Virtual desktop manager
Abstract
A method for a user to preview multiple virtual desktops in a graphical user interface is described. The method comprises receiving an indication from a user to preview the multiple virtual desktops and displaying multiple panes on the display. Each pane contains a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop. Each scaled virtual desktop displays with one or more scaled application windows as shadows if the corresponding full-size virtual desktop has one or more corresponding application windows that are active.

And for those of you who don't want to have to filter out the spaces by hand:

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='20030189597'.PGNR.&OS=DN/2 0030189597&RS=DN/20030189597

You can even get the code from sourceforge, although now he seems more interested in his studies into what he calls "Comparametric Toolkit", which seems to mix Video Orbits with software based on the Wyckoff principle (how to get high dynamic range pictures from one underexposed pic and one overexposed pic, for those who don't RTFL).

I suppose the amount of processing power in those phonecams must be insane, or maybe the algorithm they use is more generic, but it is good to know all this Moore's Law horsepower applied towards useful stuff, not just Laracroftish games (ducks).

Finally, it is worth of note that, although Mann's software is now GPL (I don't recall it being Free, or even released, last time I checked three years ago), at least one of the algoritms is under US Patent5,706,416, which of course is not nice, unless he plans to license it free of charge for GPL software.

You ARE smelling something. But you have mis-identified the source of the smell.

Bits and bytes don't have a smell. You, however do. Please go use some soap and go clean up, m-kay?

I happen to run across another lawsuit that is about to break. It appears that Blizzard Entertainment is in a trademark dispute with a New York company called Blizzard Records. Here is the only link I've found on it in the public sector. Based on what I've heard this could really hurt Blizzard Entertainment.

Here's his patent for this invention:
Patent 6,298,011: Method for killing mosquito larvae

A short excerpt:

"Mosquito larvae have internal organs which contain various structures, including a small air bladder. All structures have acoustic resonance, especially underwater bubbles. Since larvae tissues are fragile, simply matching the acoustic resonance of the air bladder causes acute trauma and embolism resulting in death of the mosquito larvae.

Thus, referring to FIG. 1, an acoustic transducer is immersed in a body of water which is a habitat for mosquito larvae. A depth of immersion of only a few inches is required, as shown in FIG. 1. One or more transducer is preferably connected to an amplifier which in turn is connected to a signal generator for generating a resonant frequency within an octave range ranging from 16 kHz to 32 kHz. The transducer immersed in water is energized for a short period of time. The resultant acoustic resonance resonates with the air bladder of the mosquito larvae, causing it to traumatize surrounding tissue and causes the air bubble to migrate from the thorax of the mosquito through the abdomen, resulting in death to the larvae. An effective resonant frequency is from 16 kHz to 32 kHz, and less than one watt of energy is necessary to start the process. A larger signal generator would be necessary to cover a larger body of water with rapid coverage, or the unit could be effectively moved to various locations in the body of water."

I don't know why NASA just doesn't use this

"Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light."

I strongly suggest that you read up on the utility requirement of patent law (specifically 35 USC 101). Some other very helpful information can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, sections 2107 and 2107.01.

I strongly suggest that you read up on the utility requirement of patent law (specifically 35 USC 101). Some other very helpful information can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, sections 2107 and 2107.01.

I strongly suggest that you read up on the utility requirement of patent law (specifically 35 USC 101). Some other very helpful information can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, sections 2107 and 2107.01.

I strongly suggest that you read up on the utility requirement of patent law (specifically 35 USC 101). Some other very helpful information can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, sections 2107 and 2107.01.

Has anyone found the actual patent on the USPTO site yet? The only thing I found relating to a DVD copy protection scheme was this Intel patent, but the method described by the patent doesn't seem to resemble CSS at all...

I think that a patent can be "renewed" once

"Renewal" on patents is different from "renewal" on pre-1978 copyrights. In the United States, patents last 3.5 years after they are granted; patents whose owners pay periodic maintenance fees are renewed to 7.5 years after grant, then 11.5 years after grant, then a maximum of 20 years after filing. Foreign patents may last up to a year longer because a U.S. inventor has one year to file for a foreign patent after having filed in the United States, and other countries' 20-year terms are counted from that.

Well it would seem that good old Billy got himself a new little crusade: Patent everything. Ever.

Well, he's got plenty of companions on this crusade. IBM holds thousands of patents.

Your darling Apple does too. Apple has been granted hundreds of design patents (on things like the trash icon, the red/yellow/green stoplights, the menubar, and the dock). Apple even has a DRM Patent which deals with watermarking and very restrictive copy controls.

My Apple Lisa 2 (aka, Mac XL) dated 1984 had that feature.

You know, I was thinking just the same thing? I didn't have a Lisa, but I did have a 128k Mac, and it did auto-insertion-and-open very neatly. As you say, in '84. That's a mere thirteen years before this was filed.

5,795,156 is a 1995 filed patent claiming to have invented using a hardware based "output lead" on a peripheral in a computer to detect media. I a, confused here. Assuming they were not developing a computer from scratch(and had never seen a removable media before 1995). I am not sure how they can patent a feature of components they did not develop themselves.

6,249,863 is a claim modified from the above patent of checking for a specific file (ie. like reading a VCD or IO.SYS, COMMAND.COM as in old MSDOS) to make sure the correct or specific media is inserted.

6,418,532 filed in 2001, claims to have invented the play button.

The USPTO is not mandated to verify the novelty of patents. However, patent law must be changed so that the burden of prior art falls on plaintiff in these cases(ie. pay for third party patent researchers).

I would be ashamed to consider myself the inventor of these. They are obviously wanting a small payoff from MS. IANAL

5,795,156 is a 1995 filed patent claiming to have invented using a hardware based "output lead" on a peripheral in a computer to detect media. I a, confused here. Assuming they were not developing a computer from scratch(and had never seen a removable media before 1995). I am not sure how they can patent a feature of components they did not develop themselves.

6,249,863 is a claim modified from the above patent of checking for a specific file (ie. like reading a VCD or IO.SYS, COMMAND.COM as in old MSDOS) to make sure the correct or specific media is inserted.

6,418,532 filed in 2001, claims to have invented the play button.

The USPTO is not mandated to verify the novelty of patents. However, patent law must be changed so that the burden of prior art falls on plaintiff in these cases(ie. pay for third party patent researchers).

I would be ashamed to consider myself the inventor of these. They are obviously wanting a small payoff from MS. IANAL

5,795,156 is a 1995 filed patent claiming to have invented using a hardware based "output lead" on a peripheral in a computer to detect media. I a, confused here. Assuming they were not developing a computer from scratch(and had never seen a removable media before 1995). I am not sure how they can patent a feature of components they did not develop themselves.

6,249,863 is a claim modified from the above patent of checking for a specific file (ie. like reading a VCD or IO.SYS, COMMAND.COM as in old MSDOS) to make sure the correct or specific media is inserted.

6,418,532 filed in 2001, claims to have invented the play button.

The USPTO is not mandated to verify the novelty of patents. However, patent law must be changed so that the burden of prior art falls on plaintiff in these cases(ie. pay for third party patent researchers).

I would be ashamed to consider myself the inventor of these. They are obviously wanting a small payoff from MS. IANAL

5,795,156 is a 1995 filed patent claiming to have invented using a hardware based "output lead" on a peripheral in a computer to detect media. I a, confused here. Assuming they were not developing a computer from scratch(and had never seen a removable media before 1995). I am not sure how they can patent a feature of components they did not develop themselves.

6,249,863 is a claim modified from the above patent of checking for a specific file (ie. like reading a VCD or IO.SYS, COMMAND.COM as in old MSDOS) to make sure the correct or specific media is inserted.

6,418,532 filed in 2001, claims to have invented the play button.

The USPTO is not mandated to verify the novelty of patents. However, patent law must be changed so that the burden of prior art falls on plaintiff in these cases(ie. pay for third party patent researchers).

I would be ashamed to consider myself the inventor of these. They are obviously wanting a small payoff from MS. IANAL

5,597,307
6,418,532

Of course, it fails the obviousness test, but since the USPO has aparently interpereted this test to be `obvious to somoene who doesn't know what a computer is and has no problem solving ability at all'...