Slashdot Mirror

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!

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!

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!

4,814,746 - Data compression method
Communications between a Host Computing System and a number of remote terminals is enhanced by a data compression method which modifies the data compression method of Lempel and Ziv by addition of new character and new string extensions to improve the compression ratio, and deletion of a least recently used routine to limit the encoding tables to a fixed size to significantly improve data transmission efficiency.

4,821,211 - Method of navigating among program menus using a graphical menu tree
The menu hierarchy of one or more computer programs on one or more computer systems is visually displayed in a graphical tree structure to facilitate the navigation by a user from one menu in a hierarchical structure of menus to another. Navigation from one menu to another is accomplished by selecting a menu in the graphical menu tree using a pointing device. The navigation may be from one menu to another in the hierarchy of one application program in a computer system or from one menu in the program to a specific menu in the hierarchy of another application program in the computer system or in another computer system. The benefits of the technique are expanded function for intra and interwindow navigation, enhanced learning of the computer system by visual presentation of capabilities and structure, and reduced learning requirements for the user to achieve navigation.

4,953,209 - Self-verifying receipt and acceptance system for electronically delivered data objects
A system for electronically transmitting data objects such as computer programs with a means for verifying that the computer program was actually received and the terms and conditions of its use accepted by the receiver is presented. In this system, the computer program itself controls the verification for its receipt and acceptance. The sender first modifies the program to be delivered, rendering it non-executable in the form in which it will be received by the user initially. The sender inserts into the program an enabling routine and a verification indicia. The enabling routine is capable of rendering the non-executable program into an executable state if certain prerequisite conditions, contained in the verification and enabling routine, are met. The recipient or receiver inserts or loads the modified, non-executable program into the workstation or computer having a CRT screen display, a printer or the like that allows human observation of certain information that will be presented by the enabling program. The enabling program then displays messages or prompts to the user for entering the user's responses such as acceptance of the terms and conditions of the use of the program. In response to desired indications of acceptance by the user, the enabling program decides whether the prerequisite conditions for enabling the program into an executable form have been met and if they have been met, remodifies the program into a usable, executable form. If the prerequisite conditions are not met or agreed to, the verification and enabling program terminates without rendering the actual program itself into an executable form.

5,805,785 -

4,814,746 - Data compression method
Communications between a Host Computing System and a number of remote terminals is enhanced by a data compression method which modifies the data compression method of Lempel and Ziv by addition of new character and new string extensions to improve the compression ratio, and deletion of a least recently used routine to limit the encoding tables to a fixed size to significantly improve data transmission efficiency.

4,821,211 - Method of navigating among program menus using a graphical menu tree
The menu hierarchy of one or more computer programs on one or more computer systems is visually displayed in a graphical tree structure to facilitate the navigation by a user from one menu in a hierarchical structure of menus to another. Navigation from one menu to another is accomplished by selecting a menu in the graphical menu tree using a pointing device. The navigation may be from one menu to another in the hierarchy of one application program in a computer system or from one menu in the program to a specific menu in the hierarchy of another application program in the computer system or in another computer system. The benefits of the technique are expanded function for intra and interwindow navigation, enhanced learning of the computer system by visual presentation of capabilities and structure, and reduced learning requirements for the user to achieve navigation.

4,953,209 - Self-verifying receipt and acceptance system for electronically delivered data objects
A system for electronically transmitting data objects such as computer programs with a means for verifying that the computer program was actually received and the terms and conditions of its use accepted by the receiver is presented. In this system, the computer program itself controls the verification for its receipt and acceptance. The sender first modifies the program to be delivered, rendering it non-executable in the form in which it will be received by the user initially. The sender inserts into the program an enabling routine and a verification indicia. The enabling routine is capable of rendering the non-executable program into an executable state if certain prerequisite conditions, contained in the verification and enabling routine, are met. The recipient or receiver inserts or loads the modified, non-executable program into the workstation or computer having a CRT screen display, a printer or the like that allows human observation of certain information that will be presented by the enabling program. The enabling program then displays messages or prompts to the user for entering the user's responses such as acceptance of the terms and conditions of the use of the program. In response to desired indications of acceptance by the user, the enabling program decides whether the prerequisite conditions for enabling the program into an executable form have been met and if they have been met, remodifies the program into a usable, executable form. If the prerequisite conditions are not met or agreed to, the verification and enabling program terminates without rendering the actual program itself into an executable form.

5,805,785 -

4,814,746 - Data compression method
Communications between a Host Computing System and a number of remote terminals is enhanced by a data compression method which modifies the data compression method of Lempel and Ziv by addition of new character and new string extensions to improve the compression ratio, and deletion of a least recently used routine to limit the encoding tables to a fixed size to significantly improve data transmission efficiency.

4,821,211 - Method of navigating among program menus using a graphical menu tree
The menu hierarchy of one or more computer programs on one or more computer systems is visually displayed in a graphical tree structure to facilitate the navigation by a user from one menu in a hierarchical structure of menus to another. Navigation from one menu to another is accomplished by selecting a menu in the graphical menu tree using a pointing device. The navigation may be from one menu to another in the hierarchy of one application program in a computer system or from one menu in the program to a specific menu in the hierarchy of another application program in the computer system or in another computer system. The benefits of the technique are expanded function for intra and interwindow navigation, enhanced learning of the computer system by visual presentation of capabilities and structure, and reduced learning requirements for the user to achieve navigation.

4,953,209 - Self-verifying receipt and acceptance system for electronically delivered data objects
A system for electronically transmitting data objects such as computer programs with a means for verifying that the computer program was actually received and the terms and conditions of its use accepted by the receiver is presented. In this system, the computer program itself controls the verification for its receipt and acceptance. The sender first modifies the program to be delivered, rendering it non-executable in the form in which it will be received by the user initially. The sender inserts into the program an enabling routine and a verification indicia. The enabling routine is capable of rendering the non-executable program into an executable state if certain prerequisite conditions, contained in the verification and enabling routine, are met. The recipient or receiver inserts or loads the modified, non-executable program into the workstation or computer having a CRT screen display, a printer or the like that allows human observation of certain information that will be presented by the enabling program. The enabling program then displays messages or prompts to the user for entering the user's responses such as acceptance of the terms and conditions of the use of the program. In response to desired indications of acceptance by the user, the enabling program decides whether the prerequisite conditions for enabling the program into an executable form have been met and if they have been met, remodifies the program into a usable, executable form. If the prerequisite conditions are not met or agreed to, the verification and enabling program terminates without rendering the actual program itself into an executable form.

5,805,785 -

"Their next idea is to use the fog as a touch-screen, making it even more accessible."

Patent numbers that IBM claims SCO infringes are 4814746, 4821211, 4953209, and 5805785.

Patent numbers that IBM claims SCO infringes are 4814746, 4821211, 4953209, and 5805785.

Patent numbers that IBM claims SCO infringes are 4814746, 4821211, 4953209, and 5805785.

Patent numbers that IBM claims SCO infringes are 4814746, 4821211, 4953209, and 5805785.

Not that this is really news, but the plaintiff, Thomas Woolston, who brought the suit, is a patent attorney..

• The jury's verdict.
• U.S. Patent 5,845,265.

The jury said that eBay's "Buy It Now" option, which allows auction surfers to do the same thing, infringed on Woolston's patent.

From: Another patent of his (February 1999)...
Auctioning an uniquely identified item (e.g., used goods or collectibles) with a computerized electronic database of data records on the Internet includes creating a data record containing a description of an item, generating an identification code to uniquely identify the item, and scheduling an auction for the item at the computerized database of records. The item is presented for auction to an audience of participants through a worldwide web mapping module executing in conjunction with the computerized database. The data record connotes an ownership interest in the item to a seller participant on the computerized electronic database of data records. The worldwide web mapping module translates information from the data record on the computerized database of records to a hypertext markup language (HTML) format for presentation through the Internet. Bids are received on the item from participants on the Internet through an auction process that executes in conjunction with the computerized database of data records. Auctioning of the item is terminated when the auction process reaches predetermined criteria. The auction participant is notified of the high bid in the auction process. The unique identification code is provided to the auction participant with the high bid to uniquely identify the item.

Seems like this fool was trying to go after EBay by filing patents that were VERY similar to what EBay had already been doing. Nevermind "Buy it Now", he wanted it all.

Here's the patent
Prior art mentions graphical menus in MS Windows, so it seems the distinction here is allowing seamless navigation from one program's menus to another's, but I can't wade through all the legalese.

Method of navigating among program menus using a graphical menu tree

I think Mr. Torvalds should tell SCO to pay him $699 for every mention of the word 'Linux' on thier web site and press releases or else STFU.

• U.S. Patent 6,317,592
• U.S. Patent 6,067,451
• U.S. Patent 5,819,172
• U.S. Patent 5,631,946
• U.S. Patent 5,625,670

• U.S. Patent 6,317,592
• U.S. Patent 6,067,451
• U.S. Patent 5,819,172
• U.S. Patent 5,631,946
• U.S. Patent 5,625,670

• U.S. Patent 6,317,592
• U.S. Patent 6,067,451
• U.S. Patent 5,819,172
• U.S. Patent 5,631,946
• U.S. Patent 5,625,670

• U.S. Patent 6,317,592
• U.S. Patent 6,067,451
• U.S. Patent 5,819,172
• U.S. Patent 5,631,946
• U.S. Patent 5,625,670

• U.S. Patent 6,317,592
• U.S. Patent 6,067,451
• U.S. Patent 5,819,172
• U.S. Patent 5,631,946
• U.S. Patent 5,625,670

Its usual in cases like this for the weakest member of the herd to be singled out - as long as its worth suing.

With a high-profile case like this NTP now have leverage against larger companies, who rather than litigate will end up settling for a fee ($53mill + lawyers fees is a lot of licenses).

In practise of course this is just another example of the US Patent system gone barmy.

As one of the next posters has said 'logical steps' should not be patentable.

In fact this is one of the tenets of acquiring patents "The patent should not be obvious to those familiar with the domain".

Of course using an alternate transport for emails should not be patentable (otherwise there'd be patents for Copper, Fibre, Horse and Cart etc). I suspect that the actual patent would be a little more specific than that.

e.g. Patent 6,452,588 (RIM patent on Handheld Email Device) isn't really a patent on a Handheld Email Device - its a patent on a portable device whose keyboard has been optimised for thumb usage. (I'm surprised Psion never challenged that one)

Patent Nos. 5,625,670; 5,631,946; 5,819,172; 6,067,451 and 6,317,592

All of these are basically the same patent, with subtle enhancements (so subtle is difficult to see what the differences are!)

5,625,670 - looks to be the original transport 'patent' and should be overturnable. 5,625,670

63127592 - a quick look at this suggests that the originality of the patent is that the message will contain a tag indicating origination or destination on a wireless device.

Has anybody else actually read (well, browsed) this thing? It describes any PalmPilot or Handspring (they come with email software) that has a cellular modem! Or any pager that can receive text.

Don't forget that RIM is the same company that received a U.S. patent for "A hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs"

Just ask Adobe and Macromedia for a real world view of how ludicrous software patents have become.

Not just the U.S. and Canada, but virtually the whole wide world is governed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty . I know there are other treaties also, but I forgot their names.

I have to reiterate that IANAL, but SCO is trying to profit on the backs of the thousands of people that have made Linux what it is today because someone might have copied (no proof given yet) some code from one of their products into the Linux kernel. This seems to be exactly what copyright law is trying to prevent from happening. So far SCO has been seeking civil penalties from IBM and that's it. That's all fine and dandy, we'll let the courts figure that out. But now they are trying to license Linux for use for a fee, something in direct violation of the copyright of all the other Linux authors that released their code intentionally under the GPL. Not only that, they are charging licensing fees for single processor systems, ones that don't even take advantage of the enhanced functionality that their code purportedly helps Linux out with.

Before they were just warning companies not to use Linux. If their claims are true (I'm not 100% sure they aren't), this would be an acceptable course of action. In good faith of course they should make it known exactly what parts of the code are copyrighted by them so they could be removed. Of course the same would have to apply to their own customers as they are in violation of the GNU license. I believe that's reprehensible, but I could accept that as plausibly legal. However, they are now actively seeking licensing fees for a product they don't have the right to license. This is out and out copyright infringement. Even if they say "we are only licensing any code that belongs to us", the only feasible way it could be used is in an illegal system where it is compiled with code only released under the GPL. If nothing else they are aiding and abetting copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is not limited to being litigated in civil courts. Copyright infringement is a federal crime with punishment of up to $250,000 AND five years in prison. SCO is knowingly violating the copyright of all other contributors to Linux by attempting to license it for profit.

Can someone point out the fault in this logic:

1. Copyright infringement is a Federal Crime with penalties up to $250,000 and 5 years in jail
2. The only way anyone can distribute code or binaries derived from code licensed only under the GPL is if the entire product and all modifications are licensed under the GPL.
3. SCO is still selling Linux with their source code linked in that is NOT licensed under the GPL (in violation of 2 above)
4. SCO is in violation of copyright law and the company and individuals who came up with this pirating scheme can be held accountable in civil and criminal courts.

IANALBIWLAO (i am not a lawyer but I watch law and order) - There was a case on Law and order where the family of the victim got a lawyer and filed to force the DA to prosecute the person they thought was guilty. Are there any lawyers out there reading Slashdot? Couldn't anyone that has contributed to the Linux kernel sue SCO? Could someone force the DA in Lindon, Utah to bring criminal copyright infringement charges against SCO? What is the jurisdiction, could suit be brought somewhere else? Is anyone interested in starting a fund to do this?

Patents filed after November 29, 2000 are already being published on the PTO web site.

If you continue to read the patent, and actually select images, you can see what seems to be the scan of the actual patent you can see the schematics and such. Not that this necessarily means anything, but it suggests that their idea is legitimate, rather than a get-rich-in-the-future-scheme.

Let's see, according to the patent, it was filed on June 6, 1995, and awarded April 23, 2002. Almost seven years is not "some measure of difficulty?"

I see nothing on their website (other than very obviously mocked up fake pictures) or in the patent that says they really know how to do this.

Huh? Their patent appears to explain exactly how to do this (hint: see the "DETAILED DESCRIPTION" section).

So this provides evidence of prior art to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 of the Bezos patent. It may also provide prior art to claims 7, 9, 14 and 15 - does anyone know whether there is a web interface to this system and if so whether it existed before September 12, 1997?

It looks like the only thing Bezos has patented is the act of purchasing an item over the 'net by the '...speaking of a sound...' (claim 4, claim 18), and that's technology he hasn't implemented.

Check out this patent. Sounds to me like a lot of these DVRs are covered by this one.

No mention of the patent number(s) by anyone. Not the article, not the submitter, not the comments.

NCR has 2584 U.S. patents, 82 about managing something. Some of the 10 patents involved in the case might be these to Siefert, but it's hard to tell. Your guess is as good as mine.

How can anyone make an intelligent comment about what is covered or whether they're invalid if we don't know which patents we're talking about?

No mention of the patent number(s) by anyone. Not the article, not the submitter, not the comments.

NCR has 2584 U.S. patents, 82 about managing something. Some of the 10 patents involved in the case might be these to Siefert, but it's hard to tell. Your guess is as good as mine.

How can anyone make an intelligent comment about what is covered or whether they're invalid if we don't know which patents we're talking about?

No mention of the patent number(s) by anyone. Not the article, not the submitter, not the comments.

NCR has 2584 U.S. patents, 82 about managing something. Some of the 10 patents involved in the case might be these to Siefert, but it's hard to tell. Your guess is as good as mine.

How can anyone make an intelligent comment about what is covered or whether they're invalid if we don't know which patents we're talking about?

heres a link to the patent for yr interest. Read the patent

A better idea would be to make an automated program to grab records out of the existing patent database, append " using a computer" or " on the internet" to the title, and sprinkle vague, technical sounding terms throughout the body of the patent.

You've also got a sure chance of it being accepted. For example, everyone (or at least the patent office) understands that "Method of swinging on a swing" is different from "Method of swinging on a swing using a computer " or "Method of swinging on a swing on the internet ".

Personally, I think the USPTO should:

1. Require patents to be submitted in layman's terms that anyone knowledgeable in the subject can read, rather than in the legalese crap that's commonly used that only serves to obfuscate the issue. Patents should be rejected if they are unreadable - that would ease the burden on the patent office I'm sure.
2. Not let people patent math.
3. Take patents seriously.

Those would help a lot. Public comment would most likely be heavily abused pre-patent, but I think letting people call patents into question and produce prior art in order to contest and invalidate an existing patent should be free - I'd say spend the money on the people to take those requests and investigate them.

Personally, I think the USPTO should:

1. Require patents to be submitted in layman's terms that anyone knowledgeable in the subject can read, rather than in the legalese crap that's commonly used that only serves to obfuscate the issue. Patents should be rejected if they are unreadable - that would ease the burden on the patent office I'm sure.
2. Not let people patent math.
3. Take patents seriously.

Those would help a lot. Public comment would most likely be heavily abused pre-patent, but I think letting people call patents into question and produce prior art in order to contest and invalidate an existing patent should be free - I'd say spend the money on the people to take those requests and investigate them.

Personally, I think the USPTO should:

1. Require patents to be submitted in layman's terms that anyone knowledgeable in the subject can read, rather than in the legalese crap that's commonly used that only serves to obfuscate the issue. Patents should be rejected if they are unreadable - that would ease the burden on the patent office I'm sure.
2. Not let people patent math.
3. Take patents seriously.

Those would help a lot. Public comment would most likely be heavily abused pre-patent, but I think letting people call patents into question and produce prior art in order to contest and invalidate an existing patent should be free - I'd say spend the money on the people to take those requests and investigate them.

Personally, I think the USPTO should:

1. Require patents to be submitted in layman's terms that anyone knowledgeable in the subject can read, rather than in the legalese crap that's commonly used that only serves to obfuscate the issue. Patents should be rejected if they are unreadable - that would ease the burden on the patent office I'm sure.
2. Not let people patent math.
3. Take patents seriously.

Those would help a lot. Public comment would most likely be heavily abused pre-patent, but I think letting people call patents into question and produce prior art in order to contest and invalidate an existing patent should be free - I'd say spend the money on the people to take those requests and investigate them.

Personally, I think the USPTO should:

1. Require patents to be submitted in layman's terms that anyone knowledgeable in the subject can read, rather than in the legalese crap that's commonly used that only serves to obfuscate the issue. Patents should be rejected if they are unreadable - that would ease the burden on the patent office I'm sure.
2. Not let people patent math.
3. Take patents seriously.

Those would help a lot. Public comment would most likely be heavily abused pre-patent, but I think letting people call patents into question and produce prior art in order to contest and invalidate an existing patent should be free - I'd say spend the money on the people to take those requests and investigate them.

Hire some qualified practicioners in each field (under strict NDAs). Give them a statement of the problem being solved. If they come up with the same solution within a few days, it's so blatantly obvious that the "inventor" is really trying to patent the problem instead of a solution. While you're at it, start enforcing this:

It is required that the description be sufficient so that any person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, science, or area could make and use the invention without extensive experimentation.-- USPTO

instead of the mountain of gibberish they've accepted to date, and drop the USD 2500.00 "request for ex parte reexamination" fee they demand for pointing out their own mistakes.

Remember, a patent only promotes progress if the cost of licensing it (plus their share of the USPTO overhead) is less than the cost of every licensee having to independently discover it. Granting monopolies on "inventions" that anyone competent would immediately produce in the ordinary course of their work doesn't benefit anyone productive.

The TM can be for the logo, symbol, wording etc.

In this case I would assume that they could not claim rights to the word (as posted above it's the Japanese word for Green), but to the presentation/logo of the word/mark.

For example, if you check out one of Australia's largest banks, The Commonwealth Bank you will see that the 'mm' characters are glued together in the word. The word commonwealth can't be copyrighted, but the logo when the 'mm' is glued together like that can.

No, they don't need to open their source code, they just need to point you to the relevant patents. Did you know the Win32 TransmitFile() API is patented? Have you ever compared this with the Unix/Linux sendfile() API?

Here are the gory details from the USPTO website.

What is patentable about that?

I haven't read the entire patent (like most software patents, it's very verbose), but you can look it up here.

There's a link on their web site to that patent (bottom of the About page).

the heathkit cantenna wasn't really an antenna ... it was a dummy load for testing transmitters. The signal was safely disapated into the oil, not the air. Same name, but different purposes.

Besides, it was never registered as a trademark by Heathkit (ah, the simpler days!), or any other company.

I like to see Microsoft cut down to size in court just as much as most Slashdot geeks, but this is not good. Microsoft is right: InterTrust's patents are vague. One might also add that they are pretty obvious, like InterTrust's patent Systems and methods using cryptography to protect secure computing environments, for example.

It's absolutely amazing how many "nerds" can't figure out how to use a search engine.

Search results from USPTO, or go to the USPTO homepage and do it yourself.