Slashdot Mirror

Other patents by the same person

They seem to include such revolutionary ideas as scroll bars and window resizing

Other patents by the same person

They seem to include such revolutionary ideas as scroll bars and window resizing

Other patents by the same person

They seem to include such revolutionary ideas as scroll bars and window resizing

I like how the USPTO mixes aliased and anti-aliased fonts for their header. You'd think if the intern could figure out how to anti-alias for the subheader, she could apply the same technique to the header as well. Oh well...

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220030159071%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20030159071&RS=DN/20030159071

The supplied link goes to an error page. What's up with that? Anybody have a link to the correct page?

It is, however, very similar to a registered trademark of theirs.

psxndc

This isn't obvious to someone ordinarily skilled in the 'art'?

They say will say will enter all proper citations into the patent file.

There's several more, and at least one of them is not under Google, Inc's name since they date from when Google was still a Stanford research project. I am not skilled enough at the patent databases to go hunt down the others.

I could only find this patent belonging to Google. It does not describe PageRank specifically, maybe I was looking in the wrong place.

Read the actual text

It repeatedly refers to using the "world wide web" to do its magic.

As most slashdot geeks know, the internet is far, far more than the world wide web. The web is a small subset of the internet.

So do everything outlined in the patent, just use ftp, ssh, NFS or samba.

I think the lawyer/patent agent who wrote this thing needs a cluestick.

Too bad for the company.

Please go use some Linux and clean up so you stop smelling your own funk, M-kay

You think that's bad? Look at all the patents that reference that one!

...oh, I'd say somewhere from ZERO to 25 hours to read a patent.

It's an oldie but a goodie.

Did they pay the re-exmination fee (item 1813)?

Did they fill in the form?

Did they get someone who knew what they were doing to make the request?

Did they pay the re-exmination fee (item 1813)?

Did they fill in the form?

Did they get someone who knew what they were doing to make the request?

at any time during the enforceability of the patent, any person may request reexamination by the Office of any claim of a patent on the basis of prior patents or printed publications cited under 37 CFR 1.501. In order for the request for reexamination to be granted, a substantial new question of patentability must be present with regard to at least one patent claim. The request must be in writing and must be accompanied by payment of a reexamination request filing fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(c). -- see 37 U.S.C. 302, MPEP 2209, et seq., for more

You're right -- that notion is absurd -- but if you'd actually bother to read the patent, you'd notice that your gross oversimplification isn't anywhere close to what Eolas actually claims.

I've read it. I stand by my characterisation. I encourage anyone that's wondering to read it themselves, and preserved the link in the quoted text above to encourage just that. It covers what I said, along with a few extremely general and obvious ideas such as letting the client and the server talk to each other as the content is displayed. If you think there is something more there please feel free to quote the part in question.

According to the USPTO website:

James E. Rogan was sworn in as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on December 7, 2001. Secretary Don Evans presided over the ceremony. Judge Rogan becomes the 55th head of the agency. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 25, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on November 30, 2001.
...
Judge Rogan served two terms in the House of Representatives. He served as a House Manager in the United States Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton, after which he was defeated for reelection in his Democrat-majority district.

Political appointee running the show. Any questions?

Some of you black helicopter chasers might want to look for any relationship between the Undersecretary & the "former University of California researcher" ;-)

The patent in question is on the US Patent Office website.

The very idea that you can patent the idea of putting something that used to appear in a new window embedded in the original window instead is just absurd beyond belief.

You're right -- that notion is absurd -- but if you'd actually bother to read the patent, you'd notice that your gross oversimplification isn't anywhere close to what Eolas actually claims.

Valid roof of prior art is the only way to defeat this patent.

Has anyone actually RTFPA?

It's also informative to go to the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) and look up the current status of the application. Search for: "US 2003-0200156 A1".

Keep in mind they're paying the fees associated with the filing and maintanence of the patent.

If you find this "patent" confusing, perhaps you could read it and then ask more specific questions based on the actual document in question? I think this will save us both some time. :)

The scope is clearly presented in the patent, it's about online marketplaces-- but the claims of the patent are many and some are very specific, so consult your lawyer, not Random J. Monkey on Slashdot if you really need to know this. Other portals and retailers would not necessarily "be forced to shut down"-- first there is the possibility of prior art, in which case it's possible that the patent is not even valid; second there is the possibility of licensing the patent. Your last question is really the most astounding: what would patenting an idea do? Well, it gives you a patent on that idea. For more information on patents, please see www.uspto.gov.

The traffic light control system itself is called Opticom . It is patented and manufactured by 3M.

It operates using very short pulses of light (< 10uS) occuring at a precise frequency (usually crystal controlled). The normal pulse rate is about 10Hz. An optional rate of around 12.5Hz can be used to give priority to other vehicles (ex. ambulance vs firetruck).

The system is configurable and normally set to give a green light to the emergency vehicle (helping to clear traffic) but it can also be set to go red in all directions.

The system is called Opticom, patented and manufactured by 3M.

BTW, there is no encoding or carrier. The traffic lights respond to light pulses occuring at a precise frequency (crystal control is generally required). The normal frequency is around 10Hz. An optional frequency around 12.5Hz can also be enabled for giving priority to certain vehicles (ex. police car vs fire truck).

I laugh when I see people trying to flash their headlights to change the light. Won't work because the light pusles have to be fast (< 10uS). A strobe light was the only way to generate it, at least until high-power LEDs and laser diodes became available.

The system is configurable to give a green light to the emergency vehicle (which helps clear traffic) or it can be set to go red in all directions.

Offtopic, but there are some really stupid patents out there. Comparatively, the "Computer Noise Insulation Case" is a masterpiece of ingenuity. For example:

US5,443,036 - Method of exercising a cat

"A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of
invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor
or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then
moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in
an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a
chase instinct."

The rest of this is funnier, or more depressing, depending on your outlook.

My take on copyrights is:

1. That I believed that Congress was mandated not to establish kingdoms, monarchies, or any other set up where one person, group, or organization could control things for long periods of time unless it was a government run entity. 275 years is a long time. I know I will be dead, my sons dead, their sons dead, and so on for up to fifteen generations.

2. That each generation (ie: 20 years) is supposed to be given the chance to build upon the work of the previous generation without having to worry about owing the previous generation anything (like royalties). See the rules about The Patent Office for more information. Current copyright rules have destroyed this balance.

3. I am in favor of:
3a. Copyrights.
3b. Of the author being paid for their works.
3c. Of extending copyrights to the life of the author so long as the author is being paid for his/her work.
3d. Of the author being able to lease his copyrights.

4. I am not in favor of copyrights being bought or sold but that is just because I believe it muddies the water over how long a copyright should last. The person or entity who buys the copyright wants to make as much money as they can on what they paid out money for. As such, they have a vested interest in extending the copyright.

5. I am also in favor of having a group of small businesses get together,reviewing, and rewriting the copyright laws from the standpoint of those who are most affected by the changes in the DMCA. It would be interesting to have non-multibillion dollar companies present their views on what Congress did.

As as side note: I have heard (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that one of the reasons for the extension was because people were living longer. My rebuttal to this is that whomever said this was not lying but they were not speaking the truth either. That is because the length of time people are living to be is still the same but the number of people living to that age is increasing. So the number is only increasing because there are more people living in the world and not because they are living a greater number of years.

To back the above up I refer people to Plato's "The Republic". In the section on when should men and women be allowed to procreate, Socrates replies that men between the ages of 25 and 55 may have children and women between 20 and 40. Now, ask yourself - if men lived to be 55 (and older) centuries before Christ came along, how can someone say we are living longer in terms of years?

Erm, no. The art of overlaying a signal over your home AC line in sync with the zero crossings of an AC signal actually is patented by X10. While you may see other devices out there, they are all either made by X10 and rebranded, or licensed.

X10 the company has a special AC interface box you can by that just sends and receives raw data; the purpose of purchasing this box (as it says) is so you legally license the patents.

For more information, check out the USPTO and at least patents 4200862 and 4638299.

...because the word "Euro" is trademarked in the US.

But even if you own the trademark, do you own its acronym too?

But even if you own the trademark, do you own its acronym too?

I believe completely in the ideas of patents, but - things have gotten out of hand and very absurd. I mean patenting methods of swinging? (#6,368,227)
See also Method for exercising a cat using a laser.
Pathetic patents.

Claims are the only thing with meaning in a patent. The rest is provided for reference, clarification, and simple defence. So the only thing of true importance in this document are the claims, near the top.

Sort of true, but not complete. The claims are what can be enforced in Court and define the invention. But the claims need to be supported by the specification. If a claim isn't supported by the specification, it may be found invalid.

Secondly, wildly broad claims normally start, and increasingly narrow claims are made as one works down the ordered list. Therefore, the first thing you claim is going to be ridiculously broad. Generally speaking, the first few claims in a patent are not serious attempts to patent something.

Incredibly wrong. Each claim is important and try to define the invention. The reason for additional, or dependent, claims, is in case the first claim is too broad, then the other claims can be found valid. For example, in claim 1, you may claim a chair including 3 legs. In claim 2, you may add a back to the chair. In theory, someone may have invented the chair with three legs before, invalidating the first claim. But claim 2, depending from the first claim, may still be valid. But it is not your goal to have an invalid claim.

And, what do you know, the title of the patent is...the first claim.

Huh? What are you talking about? If you are talking about the MS patent, the title of the patent is Customization of network documents by accessing customization information on a server computer using uniquie user identifiers. The first claim is:

A method of providing a network document over a network to each of multiple users of corresponding client computers, the network document for each user being customized according to predetermined user selections of the user, comprising: during first accessing of a server computer on the network by each user client computer, obtaining customization information from the corresponding user, assigning to the customization information a unique user identifier corresponding to the user, storing the customization information in association with the unique user identifier on the server computer, and returning the unique user identifier to the client computer; and during subsequent accessing of a selected address on the network by each user client computer, retrieving the customization information stored on the server computer by using the unique user identifier and returning to the corresponding client computer over the network a document customized according to the customization information.

have you read claims 11-20?

Again, huh? Claim 1 is an independent claim and claims 2-10 depend from claim 1. Thus, claims 1-10 are directly related to each other. Claim 11 is an independent claim and claims 12-16 depend from claim 11. Each of claims 17-20 are independent claims. In other words, each of claims 11-20 are completely separate and independent from claims 1-10. Despite what you say, the claims don't get narrower and narrower. Dependent claims narrow the claims from which they depend, but independent claims are, well, independent.

Perhaps you need to read a tutorial on patent claims

I hope it is not that you believe we are all too stupid to learn that you did not point to the method of protest or Prior art and Ex Parte Reexamination. One would at least a link to the fees.

I hope it is not that you believe we are all too stupid to learn that you did not point to the method of protest or Prior art and Ex Parte Reexamination. One would at least a link to the fees.

I hope it is not that you believe we are all too stupid to learn that you did not point to the method of protest or Prior art and Ex Parte Reexamination. One would at least a link to the fees.

We all complain about stupid patents, but has anyone tried to do something about it? Looking at the Petition Practices webpage there doesn't seem to be any non-litigation way to revoke a patent. :( It seems like there should be a way to let the USPTO know about any prior art.

Any IP lawyers care to comment?

Can someone explain the major differences between:

microsoft patent

and this

weather central patent?

Can someone explain the major differences between:

microsoft patent

and this

weather central patent?

it looks like the same patent examiner also granted them a patent on web services yesterday.

patent 6,632,249

who is stephen s. hong?

photo here

using Linux detergent box for Boxen

Another boxen photo

Trademark S/N 75735641

Status page for MS-Linux trademark, [hint, someone pick it up quick!]

photo here

using Linux detergent box for Boxen

Another boxen photo

Trademark S/N 75735641

Status page for MS-Linux trademark, [hint, someone pick it up quick!]

According to this link, Damadian intended to use MRI for tissue characterization, not imaging. It was Laterbur that first used MRI to make a 2-dimensional image. If you look at Damadian's patent, there is no mention made of imaging. Rather, it covers two methods specifically designed to detect the presence of cancerous tissue (either in a sample or in the body). No imaging is implied. So, while he may have been important in magnetic resonance research, it doesn't look (to me, and I'm not a biomedical researcher) like he invented magnetic resonance imaging, which is what the Nobel was awarded for.

There are many good reasons to use lasers to power airplanes and/or satellites, such as night time operations, or when a satellite is in the earth's shadow.

Also, it is possible to generate more light at the airplane/satellite than 'one solar equivalent'. This may be used to compensate for the degradation of the solar cell arrays in older satellites. Or new satellites may use smaller solar arrays, thereby lowering launch weight and launch costs.

The efficiency of solar cells is a function of the wavelength of light shining on the cell. So solar cells may be optimised for light of a specific frequency/wavelength.

See this patent application for additonal details.

And most of us have used this , and still do. Patented in 1977, too.

Maybe he has even grander ambitions: change the landscape of the whole patent situation. That would be a greater victory than bringing down IE or even Microsoft.

Poeple have already tried to show how ludicrous the PTO is by patenting swinging on a swing and exercising a cat, but that doesn't change anything. Suing Microsoft might just persuade the rich and powerful that software patents are a bad idea.

Maybe he has even grander ambitions: change the landscape of the whole patent situation. That would be a greater victory than bringing down IE or even Microsoft.

Poeple have already tried to show how ludicrous the PTO is by patenting swinging on a swing and exercising a cat, but that doesn't change anything. Suing Microsoft might just persuade the rich and powerful that software patents are a bad idea.

e-mail
Telephone: 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)
snail mail:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
USPTO Contact Center (UCC)
Crystal Plaza 3, Room 2C02
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450