Slashdot Mirror

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

In any case, there does seem to be a protest procedure. It appears to happen before the patent is granted, and the patent office can ignore it.

It also appears that there is a procedure to cite prior art, as well as a request for reexamination, but that costs like $2500 to $8000.

Anyway, it looks like people can at least send prior art claims that will be included it a reexamination every happens

In any case, there does seem to be a protest procedure. It appears to happen before the patent is granted, and the patent office can ignore it.

It also appears that there is a procedure to cite prior art, as well as a request for reexamination, but that costs like $2500 to $8000.

Anyway, it looks like people can at least send prior art claims that will be included it a reexamination every happens

In any case, there does seem to be a protest procedure. It appears to happen before the patent is granted, and the patent office can ignore it.

It also appears that there is a procedure to cite prior art, as well as a request for reexamination, but that costs like $2500 to $8000.

Anyway, it looks like people can at least send prior art claims that will be included it a reexamination every happens

In any case, there does seem to be a protest procedure. It appears to happen before the patent is granted, and the patent office can ignore it.

It also appears that there is a procedure to cite prior art, as well as a request for reexamination, but that costs like $2500 to $8000.

Anyway, it looks like people can at least send prior art claims that will be included it a reexamination every happens

If you feel that the US Patent Office should stop honoring bogus patents like these, do something about it!

Write to:

usptoinfo@uspto.gov?subject=Patents Patent Number 6,631,412

You may also want to refer to this slashdot article in your post:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/08/ 13 5237&mode=thread&tid=109&tid=155&tid=187&tid=189&t id=99

Thank you.

an excerpt from here

A request for reexamination is commenced by filing a reexamination request along with a modest filing fee. In the request, the requestor cites the patents and other printed publications which purport to establish that the patented inven- tion is not new or unobvious as of the date of its invention. The Patent Office will then decide if the requestor has made out a prima facie case of invalidity. If so, the patent will be subjected to reexamination. Reexamination is between the patentee and the Patent Office. The requestor has no involvement after filing the request for reexamination.

if you have any interest at all on the workings of the us patent system, go here, read up.

The fee for "requesting an reexamination was 2520.00 in 1999.

Perhaps we should start a fund to have this patent reexamined?

It should be noted that UNIX talk is specifically talked about in the patent and the advantages of this system over it are mentioned. This does not get around the apparant prior art of POWWOW. Remember that it is the claims of a patent that are important, not the abstract. It appears from quickly looking at the claims, that the broadest requirements are for client A to send a message to client B that client A is typing. Then client B must indicate that client A is typing. Finally, that message is turned off when client A sends another message that it is done typing. The initial typing message must be based upon typing within a predefined period of time.

Any prior art asserted against this patent would need to have been in use on or before July 21, 1998.

A link to the actual patent might have been nice.

Would they believe that their PC uses Apple patents?

The patent being... "Method and apparatus for detecting free fall"

It shows is how lax the US patent office is in granting patents for something so trivial. :)

I've been thinking of this for some while. The problem with Apple's method is that while you can detect free-fall using sensors, it does not take care of rides on boats or airplanes, where force may exceed 1 G momentarily. Aircraft turbulence can cause enough "false positive" events to exhaust the gas canister.

A better heuristic is the appliance determining whether enough of its surface area is in contact with another entity (say, using a touch or pressure sensitive skin on the appliance). If it is in contact, it won't inflate, even if acceleration > 1 G. If it senses not enough contact, it inflates.

So, your laptop would allow you to say, bang it to it's destruction (as long as it felt your contact). However, if you threw or otherwise let go of it, it would inflate the airbag.

Looks like the EFF will have to update their Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA document.

Will GM prohibit unauthorized repairs of its patented car components?

I certainly hope not. Take a look at some of their patents here. Whole transmissions and other subsystems would have to be completely replaced!!

81. IBM is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title and interest in United States Patent No. 4,814,746 ("the '746 Patent"), duly and legally issued on March 21, 1989 to Miller et al., entitled "Data Compression Method".

Fucking idiot.

A quick search for 'jet' and 'surfboard' at the USPTO reveals 78 patents.

The earliest patent is to a guy from St. Paul, Minnesota (Land of 1000 lakes and all). FYI, the patent's expired if you want to build your own.

Here's a design patent for a jet power surfboard circa 1984. It too is expired.

How about a patent for surfboard or jet ski brakes?

A quick search for 'jet' and 'surfboard' at the USPTO reveals 78 patents.

The earliest patent is to a guy from St. Paul, Minnesota (Land of 1000 lakes and all). FYI, the patent's expired if you want to build your own.

Here's a design patent for a jet power surfboard circa 1984. It too is expired.

How about a patent for surfboard or jet ski brakes?

A quick search for 'jet' and 'surfboard' at the USPTO reveals 78 patents.

The earliest patent is to a guy from St. Paul, Minnesota (Land of 1000 lakes and all). FYI, the patent's expired if you want to build your own.

Here's a design patent for a jet power surfboard circa 1984. It too is expired.

How about a patent for surfboard or jet ski brakes?

A quick search for 'jet' and 'surfboard' at the USPTO reveals 78 patents.

The earliest patent is to a guy from St. Paul, Minnesota (Land of 1000 lakes and all). FYI, the patent's expired if you want to build your own.

Here's a design patent for a jet power surfboard circa 1984. It too is expired.

How about a patent for surfboard or jet ski brakes?

Here are the USPTO links, for ease of consumption:

US Patent 4,814746

US Patent 4,821,211

US Patent 4,953,209

US Patent 5,805,785

Here are the USPTO links, for ease of consumption:

US Patent 4,814746

US Patent 4,821,211

US Patent 4,953,209

US Patent 5,805,785

Here are the USPTO links, for ease of consumption:

US Patent 4,814746

US Patent 4,821,211

US Patent 4,953,209

US Patent 5,805,785

Here are the USPTO links, for ease of consumption:

US Patent 4,814746

US Patent 4,821,211

US Patent 4,953,209

US Patent 5,805,785

Job Listing

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10012003/business/9 7397.asp:

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."

From http://lwn.net/Articles/43592/ the patent numbers are:
4,814,746
4,821,211
4,953,209
5,805,785

Go here http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm [uspto.gov]

Type in the patent numbers into uspto.gov form

You will find them all. Immediately. In fact they load up immediately after typing in the number.

Actually there were, although they were couched as a software plus a hardware device. Example of a patent issued in 1984.

Well, doing a search for patents owned by 'amazon' in the uspto.gov database brings up two entries: System and method for selecting rows from dimensional databases and System and method for exposing popular nodes within a browse tree.

The latter clearly patents the method by which amazon.com suggests items for you to buy based on your prior buying habits and the popularity of the suggested items (e.g. 'Customers who purchased Microsoft Windows also purchased Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access.').

The former I couldn't really decifer, but it doesn't seem like one-click shopping to me.

Well, doing a search for patents owned by 'amazon' in the uspto.gov database brings up two entries: System and method for selecting rows from dimensional databases and System and method for exposing popular nodes within a browse tree.

The latter clearly patents the method by which amazon.com suggests items for you to buy based on your prior buying habits and the popularity of the suggested items (e.g. 'Customers who purchased Microsoft Windows also purchased Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access.').

The former I couldn't really decifer, but it doesn't seem like one-click shopping to me.

Here is the list of all withdrawn patents since 1790: withdrwn.txt

Shouldn't the Amazon one-click shopping patent (# 5960411) be on this list if it had been thrown out?

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10012003/business/9 7397.asp:

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."

From http://lwn.net/Articles/43592/ the patent numbers are:
4,814,746
4,821,211
4,953,209
5,805,785

Go here http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm

Type in the patent numbers into uspto.gov form

You will find them all. Immediately. In fact they load up immediately after typing in the number.

...then tell TV producers how to advertise? Like, grant ridiculous trademarks, fight wars in the name of peace and use your money doing it?

Seriously, if you don't like what they're doing THEN STOP WATCHING TELEVISION! It boggles my mind that they're so upset over such an insignificant thing as how products are being advertised on television that they're trying to sic government bloodhounds on the people that make the shows that they're needlessly addicted to. I imagine that the people behind this are TV junkies that get fired up over any changes that threaten their little microcosm-of-the-mind. It kinda reminds me of a line from a movie that came out recently:

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around and what do you see? Businessmen, Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters...the very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so innerred, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will that they will fight to protect it.

Just imagine how much in royalties this guy could have made if he had developed that nowadays with our patent frenzy attitude!

I'm pretty sure the implementation executed by Ctrl-Alt-Del is covered in IBM patent #4,768,149, filed in August 1985. This patent describes the basic intentions and implementation of the original Ctrl-Alt-Del keystroke.

He does have some patents. Like this one about interrupt sharing.

He does have some patents. Like this one about interrupt sharing.

That is why this trademark exists.

Mark (words only): LINUX
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
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

POSIX. That was his baby too.

I was under the impression that POSIX was created by some U.S. government IT department in order to specify that "we want UNIX". See, UNIX is a trademark of UNIX System Labs (then part of AT&T, now part of The Open Group), and this agency's charter prohibited asking for a product by trademark so as not to favor one private company over another; to circumvent this restriction, it produced a requirements sheet that stated everything the UNIX system at the time had, and the result was IEEE 1003. Wikipedia says RMS came up with only the name.

a glimpse at Hyperphase's patent looks like it was to narrowly defined to begin with. Me thinks their lawyer's should have known better.

There most definitely is pressure from the US: see this letter written by the USPTO in name of "the US" and this page on the USPTO's website.

Amazon was granted a patent today for Alternative Browse Graphs, after showing the USPTO how they can be used to find a Marvin the Martian Pez candy dispenser.

As any EE will tell you, time varying signals can be transferred across a capacitor. This U.S. patent describes an isolation circuit using capacitive coupling to couple signals between two IC chips within the same IC package. Sun seems to be using this type of technology to communicate between IC chips in separate packages.

Unlike patents, there is NO equivalent to prior art when it comes to trademark. Anyone can, at anytime, register a trademark on the most mundane thing or obvious thing. Trademarks -- unlike copyright and patents -- do not expire. It's the one thing that "creators" can be said to continuously own. An interesting application of this concept is the case of Tarzan. Created by Edgar Rice Burroughs in 1912, the work itself is now in the public domain. HOWEVER, Burroughs also had the forethought to register Tarzan as a trademark. That means a couple of things: 1) anyone can make a film adaptation of Tarzan of the Apes without having to pay money to the Burroughs estate; 2) no one can create *new* stories featuring the trademark protected character of Tarzan without they are licensed by same said Burroughs estate. The heirs of Conan Doyle were exceptionally displeased with things like Without a Clue and the Sherlock Holmes related stories on Star Trek: TNG, but since they had no legal protection, there wasn't a whole lot they could do about it. Now, this begs an interesting question -- how is it, exactly, that the Doyle estate (or anyone else) could not (or cannot) register Holmes and Watson as a trademark, but Forest Press could register "Dewey Decimal Classification" some 31 years after the death of Melvil Dewey, and almost 100 years after its creation? I haven't a clue...

check out the DDCS trademark filing.

For example, when you think of Slashdot, you don't immediately think of BlockStackers Inc, the registered owner of the typed word "Slashdot", for use in news and public commentary. (Registered US trademark # 2359584)

frob

Its now been over a month.

Havn't you used some Linux and gotten cleaned up?

Oh well, goodbye Internet anonymity!!!

Serves me right for bragging in an open forum.

They already are:
US Patent number 5818891

Do ~NOT~ try to build one unless you know what you are doing! High voltage electrocution, neutron irradiation, and likely bankruptcy all await you if you venture down that path. Trust me, I know, I am alive only through sheer luck and the help of my friends. Also, like most patents, the important stuff is left out, and I don't feel like posting it. And for those who criticize the design - yes, I know. I spent years working on that @#$%ing thing, I know.

You can clearly see the mist curtain on the edges of these videos linked from Google cache (esp. on the rotating planet video). You can also make out some distortion that hints at the nature of the oblique projection system. In this prototype, it seems as though the projection might come from the left of the screen. Also see US patent #6478432.

Likely the patent in question

Guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

I'm beginning to wonder..... perhaps a community "Prior Art" effort, somewhat comparable to the open source community, is needed.

Identify, research and debunk such absurd/greedy patents (and perhaps eventually much or all of the software patents nonsense) so as to get the patents withdrawn/cancelled.... and/or reassigned to some "open source" holder.

I agree, except that the research for prior art should be done before the patent is issued, not after. This it the job of the US PTO, which IMO, they are doing poorly, as far as software is concerned. (If you want to help, go here and apply for a job.) The patent is supposed to be rejected unless it is "nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention". Every software patent I've read has been pretty obvious.

US patent law clearly states, once the patent is issued, it is considered valid, unless prior art can be demonstrated in court. Patent lawsuits are one of the few trials where you are not considered "innocent until proven guilty". You are guilty unless proven innocent.

<soapbox> Which is why software patents should be outlawed in the US. Write your congressman, if you haven't already. The worst part of a software patent, is that it can be granted based on a description of the software, even in cases where the "inventor" didn't implement anything. Writing software is like writing a book. Copyright should apply, not Patent -- see this page. (At one time, I had plans to start my own software company, but now it appears too risky. There is no way that I could possibly know what patents I was infringing. <rant> Unless something changes, open source will cease to exist, and the only software developers left will be Microsoft and IBM, who will cross-license all of their patents to each other. </rant> ) </soapbox>

I'm beginning to wonder..... perhaps a community "Prior Art" effort, somewhat comparable to the open source community, is needed.

Identify, research and debunk such absurd/greedy patents (and perhaps eventually much or all of the software patents nonsense) so as to get the patents withdrawn/cancelled.... and/or reassigned to some "open source" holder.

I agree, except that the research for prior art should be done before the patent is issued, not after. This it the job of the US PTO, which IMO, they are doing poorly, as far as software is concerned. (If you want to help, go here and apply for a job.) The patent is supposed to be rejected unless it is "nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention". Every software patent I've read has been pretty obvious.

US patent law clearly states, once the patent is issued, it is considered valid, unless prior art can be demonstrated in court. Patent lawsuits are one of the few trials where you are not considered "innocent until proven guilty". You are guilty unless proven innocent.

<soapbox> Which is why software patents should be outlawed in the US. Write your congressman, if you haven't already. The worst part of a software patent, is that it can be granted based on a description of the software, even in cases where the "inventor" didn't implement anything. Writing software is like writing a book. Copyright should apply, not Patent -- see this page. (At one time, I had plans to start my own software company, but now it appears too risky. There is no way that I could possibly know what patents I was infringing. <rant> Unless something changes, open source will cease to exist, and the only software developers left will be Microsoft and IBM, who will cross-license all of their patents to each other. </rant> ) </soapbox>

I'm beginning to wonder..... perhaps a community "Prior Art" effort, somewhat comparable to the open source community, is needed.

Identify, research and debunk such absurd/greedy patents (and perhaps eventually much or all of the software patents nonsense) so as to get the patents withdrawn/cancelled.... and/or reassigned to some "open source" holder.

I agree, except that the research for prior art should be done before the patent is issued, not after. This it the job of the US PTO, which IMO, they are doing poorly, as far as software is concerned. (If you want to help, go here and apply for a job.) The patent is supposed to be rejected unless it is "nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention". Every software patent I've read has been pretty obvious.

US patent law clearly states, once the patent is issued, it is considered valid, unless prior art can be demonstrated in court. Patent lawsuits are one of the few trials where you are not considered "innocent until proven guilty". You are guilty unless proven innocent.

<soapbox> Which is why software patents should be outlawed in the US. Write your congressman, if you haven't already. The worst part of a software patent, is that it can be granted based on a description of the software, even in cases where the "inventor" didn't implement anything. Writing software is like writing a book. Copyright should apply, not Patent -- see this page. (At one time, I had plans to start my own software company, but now it appears too risky. There is no way that I could possibly know what patents I was infringing. <rant> Unless something changes, open source will cease to exist, and the only software developers left will be Microsoft and IBM, who will cross-license all of their patents to each other. </rant> ) </soapbox>

This particular patent was filed on 10/17/94, before the change in the U.S. patent law to the 20 year term. It will be enforceable for 17 years from the date it was granted (11/17/98). So instead of dying on 10/17/2014 (20 years from the filing date), it has an extended life to 11/17/2005 (17 years from the issue date).

The URL for the US Patent Office is http://www.uspto.gov/. A ".gov" TLD would imply that it is a government agency. Go to their site and the main page reads, "An agency of the United States Department of Commerce".

Sounds like a government agency to me.

The patent was NOT "one click shopping"

If you'd read the patent, you'd see it actually covers "placing an order over a with one press of a button". Using the word "click" as a shorthand for "button press" was a convenience for headline writers, but the patent is equally absurd either way.

and I walked out of that room with half my butt chewed off, and a greater understanding of the patent process.

Surprise surprise, a lawyer who argues that his entire professional field isn't ridculous! And he convinced you of it, too. Well, he'd have to be able to do that to stay in business.

Patent attorneys dislike the USPTO every bit as much as geeks do.

Just because a man complains about his job doesn't mean he'll be happy to be obseleted.