Slashdot Mirror

How the hell is "plugin technology" patentable?

You'll find the answer here.

Could I say that I invented Model-View-Controller and patent that ?

Sure. Hire a patent attorney, spend the $10K and go ahead and file a patent on Model-View-Controller. In about two years, if you are granted the patent, then the answer to your question will be "yes."

This U.S. Patent describes puting a chemcal on a CD, letting things attach to (grow on?) the chemical, and then using a CD drive to analyze the result. There are actually several patents on this owned by the same company.

Optical drives actually make very good scanning confocal microscopes. A standard CD drive with appropriate software can be used to do all sorts of medical tests, such as blood counts, etc. The drive can detect a single red blood cell.

Considering that Linux is a form of body soap and FreeBSD is an operating system, I do not see how a body soap replaces an operating system.

Apple certainly is selling music, the iTunes Music Store is doing so on the Internet. This is an area where its business and that of Apple Corp's clearly overlaps.

Let's just hope Apple doesn't start selling outdoor clothing as well, as a certain manufacturer of rubberised garments might have good reason to get a little upset with them too.

Here is a patent application for a pepper shaker shaped like a dog where the pepper comes out of the dog's ass. That's what is being patented: the fact that the pepper comes out of the dog's ass and that it can be called a 'pooper shaker'.

PN/6618857

And guess who it was?

Somebody get my tinfoil hat, quick!

US Patent 5791294

The back of his previous book, 'Secrets and Lies', contained enthusiastic quotations from Mary Meeker, dotcom cheerleader at Morgan Stanley, and from Jay Walker, the founder of priceline.com. Now 'Beyond Fear' elicits yet another effusive remark from Jay Walker, now founder of U.S. HomeGuard. Is this because Schneier and Walker share the patent that invented buyer-driven e-commerce? Acknowledge the affiliation, Mr. Schneier...you aren't just slightly ashamed of this patent, are you?

Umm... it's already been done. US Pat. #5,707,114

How about Google?

Umm... Google owns software patents. Sergey is listed as an inventor. Other companies are now resuming the fight for web-search dominance, and this patent is part of Google's defense.

It means that no one else in the US can use their highly-successful ranking algorithm. Google stands to benefit greatly from software patents- I can't expect them to take such an expensive moral stand.

(Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos stood against software patents, even though his company benefits from them. But there's much more to Amazon.com than a piece of software. Google basically justs rents access to that algorithm and their webcrawled database- and other companies have equally extensive databases...)

Sorry about the dead links, the dynamic code wasn't as obvious to me as usual...

Anyhow if you go to USPTO and select a search collection of "trademarks" - and do a basic search for Rendezvous...

Apple's will be the 5th one down, Tibico's the 9th (Be amazed by how many people have registered or tried to register Rendezvous for all sorts of things - 137 records contain Rendezvous! and this has less records than a lot of stuff, probably because its too hard for most consumers to spell...)

However, neither Apple's nor Tibico's has a registration number.

I'm somewhat amused that Apple hasn't taken iChat.. (but someone else has!)

A quick glance at this web site indicates a filing fee of at least $760.

If patents are a necessary evil, and I'm not sure they are considering the long period of time they weren't around and the number of inventions developed independently at approximately the same time, I'd rather see a "successful filing" fee of $760.00, and an "unsuccessful filing" fee of, say $1600.00. This would considerably increase the likelihood of not being awarded a patent, but with some of the absurd ones out there, I doubt very much this would be a bad thing.

In fact, they only filed for it May 21, 2003.

Tibco filed for it on May 20, 2002. Apple filed for it May 6, 2002. Yet Tibco was granted the trademark on March 4, 2003. Apple has yet to be granted the trademark. However, it was filed for opposition on July 8. My understanding is that after it is filed for opposition, other companies (i.e. Tibco) have 30 days to oppose.

I'm not sure why Tibco's trademark was registered before Apple's, when Apple applied for it first.

Patent for the wheel. There are others. The USPTO has gone beyond farce and reached a point where it's become simply too sick to live.

You're right. But check out this one from TEKNEKRON. There's is from 1995 and it says:

br.
"Computer software and associated documentation to assist in data communication in networked computing systems using client-server and peer-to-peer communication techniques."

Tibco has owned the name since 1994. It seems that Apple doesn't want to pay what Tibco wants."

Actually, that should read Tibico claims to have been using the name since 1994. Not owns. It is not a registered trademark, they merely applied for it. The process is not complete. In fact, they only filed for it May 21, 2003.

Tibico's Rendezvous

Apple filed for the name Rendezvous on May 6, 2002.

Apple's Rendezvous

Do I think this will really be a problem for Apple? No more than OS-9 and Mac OS 9.... at least those were both Operating Systems, in some sense.

Tibco has owned the name since 1994. It seems that Apple doesn't want to pay what Tibco wants."

Actually, that should read Tibico claims to have been using the name since 1994. Not owns. It is not a registered trademark, they merely applied for it. The process is not complete. In fact, they only filed for it May 21, 2003.

Tibico's Rendezvous

Apple filed for the name Rendezvous on May 6, 2002.

Apple's Rendezvous

Do I think this will really be a problem for Apple? No more than OS-9 and Mac OS 9.... at least those were both Operating Systems, in some sense.

That's wrong. Microsoft lost the case because the phrase windows was already a common term in user interfaces BEFORE Microsoft received their trademark. It is similar to prior art with patents. You are very much allowed to trademark ordinary words. By it's very definition - "A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others (source: USPTO.

What is claimed is:

1. A method for running an application program in a computer network environment, comprising:

providing at least one client workstation and one network server coupled to said network environment, wherein said network environment is a distributed hypermedia environment;

executing, at said client workstation, a browser application, that parses a first distributed hypermedia document to identify text formats included in said distributed hypermedia document and for responding to predetermined text formats to initiate processing specified by said text formats;

utilizing said browser to display, on said client workstation, at least a portion of a first hypermedia document received over said network from said server,

wherein the portion of said first hypermedia document is displayed within a first browser-controlled window on said client workstation,

wherein said first distributed hypermedia document includes an embed text format, located at a first location in said first distributed hypermedia document, that specifies the location of at least a portion of an object external to the first distributed hypermedia document,

wherein said object has type information associated with it utilized by said browser to identify and locate an executable application external to the first distributed hypermedia document, and

wherein said embed text format is parsed by said browser to automatically invoke said executable application to execute on said client workstation in order to display said object and enable interactive processing of said object within a display area created at said first location within the portion of said first distributed hypermedia document being displayed in said first browser-controlled window.

You could always just read the darn thing.

My uninformed opinion (from reading only the abstract) is that the MIME type model is not at risk, because ... "After launching the program object, the user is able to interact with the object as the invention provides for ongoing interprocess communication between the application object (program) and the browser program." Simply launching external programs with a document to load wouldn't seem to fall under this. However, I could see problems if the browser itself embeds those external programs, like bonobo controls in Nautilus...

I doubt it since the patent states, "The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document ...". The hypermedia document piece is lacking in the definition you're thinking of.

Patent 4,838,906 (the patent in question)

If the patent is invalid due to prior art, Microsoft should of course appeal the ruling and it should be struck down.

If the patent is valid, the W3C members should raise some money and offer to pay a one-time lump-sum ransom for the patent to be freely licensed to anyone who wants to use it. (This is what has to happen in a system where inventions are patentable. You have to pay for innovations that would otherwise, once introduced, spread naturally to all producers in the course of ordinary market competition. Invention, not production, is rewarded in the near term.)

If the patent system is invalid... but that's another discussion.

Work forward until you find the place where the credit card number goes in. Obtain a disposable credit card number from a cooperative bank and use it. Obtain the transaction information from the bank. Follow the money. Use subpoenas when necessary. Find out where the money goes. Sue.

As for joe-jobs, first, trademark your domain name. (You can do this on line.) Then, a joe-job is a Lantham Act violation in the US and a violation of the TRIPS agreement worldwide. This gives you more legal leverage.

If the spammer has a domain through which they do business, but the contact information is fake, ask ICANN to have the data corrected. Some domain registrars will then freeze the domain info until the identity of the domain owner is cleared up. Then find out who's hosting their DNS, and get them to shut them down.

Get a lawyer to draft you some form letters. ISPs have some immunity for copyright violations, but are scared of being involved in "knowingly and willfully aiding and abetting a Lantham Act violation". Use this.

I've shut down several spammers, including one in Russia. It takes some time, but it's not all that hard.

Just in case anyone is interested, here's a link to the patent Linares received for their vapor process.

Publication of Patent Applications

Publication of patent applications is required by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 for most plant and utility patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000. On filing of a plant or utility application on or after November 29, 2000, an applicant may request that the application not be published, but only if the invention has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in a foreign country that requires publication 18 months after filing (or earlier claimed priority date) or under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Publication occurs after expiration of an 18-month period following the earliest effective filing date or priority date claimed by an application. Following publication, the application for patent is no longer held in confidence by the Office and any member of the public may request access to the entire file history of the application.

You mean like this?

The goatse.cx lawyer said we needed a warning! So.. if you are using a patent encubered operating system like linux or you find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you!

[ Stinger, using a patented image format ]

The giver | Feedback | Contrib

Goatse.cx is proudly sponsored by SCO, inc!

The present invention relates to providing light of a selectable color using LEDs. More particularly, the present invention is a method and apparatus for providing multicolored illumination. More particularly still, the present invention is an apparatus for providing a computer controlled multicolored illumination network capable of high performance and rapid color selection and change.

It is well known that combining the projected light of one color with the projected light of another color will result in the creation of a third color. It is also well known that the three most commonly used primary colors--red, blue and green--can be combined in different proportions to generate almost any color in the visible spectrum. The present invention takes advantage of these effects by combining the projected light from at least two light emitting diodes (LEDs) of different primary colors.

Computer lighting networks are not new. U.S. Pat. No. 5,420,482, issued to Phares, describes one such network that uses different colored LEDs to generate a selectable color. Phares is primarily for use as a display apparatus. However, the apparatus has several disadvantages and limitations. First, each of the three color LEDs in Phares is powered through a transistor biasing scheme in which the transistor base is coupled to a respective latch register through biasing resistors. The three latches are all simultaneously connected to the same data lines on the data bus. This means it is impossible in Phares to change all three LED transistor biases independently and simultaneously. Also, biasing of the transistors is inefficient because power delivered to the LEDs is smaller than that dissipated in the biasing network. This makes the device poorly suited for efficient illumination applications. The transistor biasing used by Phares also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to interchange groups of LEDs having different power ratings, and hence different intensity levels.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,845,481, issued to Havel, is directed to a multicolored display device. Havel addresses some, but not all of the switching problems associated with Phares. Havel uses a pulse width modulated signal to provide current to respective LEDs at a particular duty cycle. However, no provision is made for precise and rapid control over the colors emitted. As a stand alone unit, the apparatus in Havel suggests away from network lighting, and therefore lacks any teaching as to how to implement a pulse width modulated computer lighting network. Further, Havel does not appreciate the use of LEDs beyond mere displays, such as for illumination.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,184,114, issued to Brown, shows an LED display system. But Brown lacks any suggestion to use LEDs for illumination, or to use LEDs in a configurable computer network environment. U.S. Pat. No. 5,134,387, issued to Smith et al., directed to an LED matrix display, contains similar problems. Its rudimentary current control scheme severely limits the possible range of colors that can be displayed.

It is an object of the present invention to overcome the limitations of the prior art by providing a high performance computer controlled multicolored LED lighting network.

Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.

"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.

Telephone: (703)305-9300
Fax: (703)305-8885
e-mail: lois.boland@uspto.gov

now the worm is spreading from their machines and spoofing my email address as the source. I totally resent this and actually worry about my liability.

Do I now have to trademark my own email address or something and then include a disclaimer in my email saying "This email address is my trademark, you are not allowed to add me to your address book in any way"?

A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.

from an old link.

Putting aside the crazy chemical conspiracy bit, chemical weapons couldn't kill everyone in a city, even if dropped from a plane with ridiculously well trained pilots and in perfect weather. The main reason the US agreed to stop producing new chemical and biologicals is because they were largely useless as weapons, as you say. It was a trial run for negotiating a good nuke treaty.

Look, WWI used chemicals, but WWII didn't. Why is that? You think the Fuhrer was just so much nicer than the Kaiser? (Hitler did have bad experiences with chemicals, but I'm being retorical here, we know the blindness thing was irrelevant) WWI and early II just proved that the weapons weren't worth the effort. You'd kill more people shooting out of the cockpit with a rifle than you would with a gas. Without a focused area like a building or a tunnel, chemicals disperse too fast to do much of anything. Even trenches were dissapointingly bad at concentrating chlorine or whatever.

Nerve gas is more deadly, so you have a better chance at something, but still, look at Tokyo. Sarin in a subway, and only 12 dead. Even with a cargo jet full of the stuff, you're not going to kill a whole city. The famous "gassing his own people" thing wasn't even militarially worth much. Psychologically it was impressive, but tons and tons of gas were used on a spread of a few hundred thousand people, and the death toll is in the thousands.

I agree with the first guy. WMD is a stupid term. They're three completely different classses of weapons with orders of magnitude between their destructive capabilities. Biological weapons alone have ridiculous differences between them, especially if you classify Botox(TM) as a bioweapon.

I'm honestly not that worried about bioweapons though. The only useful kind is like anthrax, something in the league of chemicals. Everything else is either too deadly to spread beyond a small group, or too spreadable to either keep it away from your side or to take responsibility. Even if you don't care about your side like a terrorist, is there any satisfaction in knowing that you invented SARS if you know that telling anybody would either make it immediately much easier to cure or cause them to laugh you off?

Anyway, yes, the US signed a treaty not to invent new kinds of bioweapons and chemicals, but not to dismantle the stocks of VX and Ebolapox that they had laying around already. Still, the standard position is that that treaty was with the CCCP and as such null and void since the CCCP is gone. The Secretary of the Army patented a rifle-mounted delivery system a few months ago in violation of it, so I think it's dead.

1. Get a brush.

2. Brush Schrodinger's cat.

3. Count the hairs in the brush.

4. Patent stupid idea.

5. Profit!

BTW, how do you make the square brackets "[site]" after a web link go away in your post?

Does Linus have any control over the hundereds of other trademarks that have Linux in their name?

ie

Does Linus have any control over the hundereds of other trademarks that have Linux in their name?

ie

Someone had better clean up the FRICKING MESS at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before someone is awarded a patent on the wheel or fire.

This patent may be good... it may not. That is opinion. However, I don't see any evidence that they got this idea from Internet Explorer (as some folk are claiming).

Look at the history of IE here. Notice the date mentioned in the first paragraph? 1995 -- that's when MS was working on IE1.

Now, look at the Patent Application. Notice the Date Filed? October 17, 1994. So, I really doubt that they took a time machine out to examine the browsers that had not yet been invented.

...should "actually *look* at the material before they" issue that patent. Good heavens, that would be like the Boston Strangler to the multibillion dollar sideways swinging industry.

I Have to Toally Agree with your post this patent is utter crap If you read the patent here It basically states any Object viewed in a browser thats a very broad spectrum.
This is kin to Amazon.com and all there stupid patents. Next thing you know someone is going to sue for a patent of using English on a Computer.
I had a little more faith in Slashdot users this is a greater abuse then even what SCO is doing. Yet because its against Microsoft most of you are all happy. Blind Bias is crap I don't care who you are if you are wronged then your wronged. This is a bullshit lawsuit.
This company now has Leverage so now any company that makes a browser and does not pay them will then be liable. So Opera, Apple and any other company out there making a browser that has any kind of Money will be a target if they haven't bought a licsence to use there patent. Not to Mention they might Sue Sun for even making Applets.

Even if the Eolas Patent were not obvious to someone skilled in the art, there is prior art. For example, Pei Wei's Viola browser supported applets.

It is fact that 802.11 chipsets are now cheaper than Bluetooth chipsets (and this event is recent).

802.11 is targeted towards exactly the area which Bluetoth now occupies. All that was holding it back was the price of the chipset. Now that barrier is gone you will see 802.11 replacing Bluetooth in the next generation of products. I'm talking chipsets here, so it will take a short time to flow onto the consumer market.

I've had pretty extensive discussions with one of the guys that invented802 style WLANs. His vision as always been world domination for 802.11: LANs, headsets, remote controls, TVs, light switches, toasters, ... Everything Bluetooth does (and more) is in the sights of 802.11

The actual patent text is at uspto.gov.

It seems that IE is not the only browser that would be susceptible to a lawsuit.

From the abstract: ...(allowing a browser) to access and execute an embedded program object

Link to the actual patent.

I'm not much at reading patents but this looks like the usual silly IT patent that could apply to just about anything. Can't see this as a good thing at all.

Different company.
Santacruz Operation has since changed their name to tarantella:
http://www.tarantella.com/

The current SCO is actually Caldera systems
It didn't occur to me to look for it under that.

Here's two more:

first one
second one

Different company.
Santacruz Operation has since changed their name to tarantella:
http://www.tarantella.com/

The current SCO is actually Caldera systems
It didn't occur to me to look for it under that.

Here's two more:

first one
second one

Uh-oh. I found two. And they are by the Santa Cruz Organization

I tried to read it, but my eyes glazed over. If theres a patent lawyer on the forum right now, can they please read these and see if they are the ones SCO is using?

---- 6,362,836 - Shaw , et al. - Filed: March 31, 1999 - Granted: March 26, 2002

---- 6,104,392 - Shaw , et al. - Filed: November 12, 1998 - Granted: August 15, 2000

Uh-oh. I found two. And they are by the Santa Cruz Organization

I tried to read it, but my eyes glazed over. If theres a patent lawyer on the forum right now, can they please read these and see if they are the ones SCO is using?

---- 6,362,836 - Shaw , et al. - Filed: March 31, 1999 - Granted: March 26, 2002

---- 6,104,392 - Shaw , et al. - Filed: November 12, 1998 - Granted: August 15, 2000

You think it's simple to take a human process and automate it?

The innovation happened because the inventor was promised, by the patent system, a monopoly on the innovation. Without that promise, the innovation wouldn't have happened.

Furthermore, intellectual property rights aren't intended to do anything. They have no goal. We offer legal protection to intellectual property rights because it's the right thing to do. Period.

Indeed, that's why you have to make sure your wording can be interpreted as broad as possible.

How many patents have you written?

Seriously; I'm asking. Because, you see, you don't do this.

I guess you'll retard^H^H^Hort (look, it's infectious!) by throwing another bunch of petty insults in my general direction, so I'll leave it at this. If you really want to document yourself better, then stop worrying about job security for a moment and read a bit about it. Then maybe the next time you can reply with arguments instead of with insults.

I have no doubt about your knowledge of the patent system (and probably IP in general), but you sound like a mindless drone just repeating his mantra's over and over again, not listening to anyone else because he's convinced he's right and anyone who disagrees with him cannot possibly know what he's talking about, or is a "self-hating apologist" or some such (I'm honestly surprised you haven't called me a communist yet). I really do hope you have some happy moments from time to time as well.

They mention computers, a network, a bar code scanner and printer etc just to give it the air of not being only a business method

Uh-huh. So not only have you failed to read the patent (or, at the very least, failed to understand it), but you also suffer from the delusion that you can somehow read the minds of those who wrote it.

His addition to the state-of-the-art is that this auction is organized using a computer and website. That's all.

Yup. And it was bloody innovative. Sufficiently so that the inventor was granted a patent on the idea.

Remember the old quote? "It takes a special kind of genius to render the previously unheard of blindingly obvious. The cry of 'I could have thought of that!' is especially telling because the fact is, you didn't."

Behold your epic lack of understanding of how patents work. Patents are not broad.

They are specific. That's why they're very long, with lots of fiddly language. You can't read a patent and then generalize it. That's the opposite of the way patents work.

It's the same rhetoric and fake limits they're using in Europe to try to get software and business method patents into the system.

Again, your ability to read minds is shocking.

Grocklaw has an overview of the IBM countersuit. And for added fun, the whole 46 page filing is available in multipage TIFF or pdf.

The patents are at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,814,746.WKU.&OS=PN/4,814,746&RS =PN/4,814,746
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,821,211.WKU.&OS=PN/4,821,211&RS =PN/4,821,211
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,953,209.WKU.&OS=PN/4,953,209&RS =PN/4,953,209
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,805,785.WKU.&OS=PN/5,805,785&RS =PN/5,805,785

After reading the actual countersuit filing, it looks like an even bigger, more comprehensive smackdown than even was speculated yesterday. IBM is fully ready to press SCO's GPL transgressions, talks at length about the failure of SCO's business, makes clear in several locactions the difference between Old SCO (Tarantella) and Caldera/New SCO, they even mention that some of SCO's claims have exceeded the statute of limitations. IBM has clearly been tracking SCO FUD and mentions specific quotes from SCO execs that are damaging. They also reiterate that IBM's UNIX license is perpetual and irrevokable, but they also say that even if that wern't the case SCO still can't revoke IBM's license because SCO has not followed the agreement on the procedure to revoke the license. SMACK, SMACK, SMACK!