Slashdot Mirror

"Windows", since it has basically lost its trademark?

When did they lose their trademark? I did a search on USPTO and they still seem to have dozens of Windows trademarks including - Windows Mobile, several for Windows XP, and even just plain Windows. That's not to be confused with This Windows which relates to healthcare.

IBM filed a patent application on June 1, 1983 (that eventually became U.S. Pat. 4,814,746) on some stuff that included compression like LZW.

Unisys filed its application on June 20, 1983 (now U.S. Pat. 4,558,302) listing Welch as the inventor of what we all now know as LZW.

As the story goes, Welch described the LZW algorithm in IEEE Computer in June 1984.

Unisys's patent issued on December 10, 1985.

CompuServe didn't release the GIF specification until 1987.

What ticked everybody off was when Unisys figured out in 1994 that it had had a patent on LZW the whole time and started charging royalties on all GIF software developed thereafter.

Thanks are due to mcb, who documented his sources.

IBM filed a patent application on June 1, 1983 (that eventually became U.S. Pat. 4,814,746) on some stuff that included compression like LZW.

Unisys filed its application on June 20, 1983 (now U.S. Pat. 4,558,302) listing Welch as the inventor of what we all now know as LZW.

As the story goes, Welch described the LZW algorithm in IEEE Computer in June 1984.

Unisys's patent issued on December 10, 1985.

CompuServe didn't release the GIF specification until 1987.

What ticked everybody off was when Unisys figured out in 1994 that it had had a patent on LZW the whole time and started charging royalties on all GIF software developed thereafter.

Thanks are due to mcb, who documented his sources.

Ah, but what you don't realize it that I have a patent on the ADHD joke and I will now sue all your asses!

Here is the one-click patent. It's pretty broad:

1. A method of placing an order for an item comprising:
under control of a client system,
displaying information identifying the item; and
in response to only a single action being performed, sending a request to order the item along with an identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system;
under control of a single-action ordering component of the server system,
receiving the request;
retrieving additional information previously stored for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request; and
generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request using the retrieved additional information; and
fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the item
whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model.

> I wonder which and how many of the 30,000 patents IBM owns SCO will get accused of violating.

Probably this one.

I actually predicted RCU would be one of the things SCO would be claiming has been misappropriated as it always seemed like one of the nifty scalability techniques that SCO was alluding to. I then thought, "Don't IBM have a patent on RCU?"

Sequent was originally assigned the patent on RCU:

US Patent 5442758

IBM owns Sequent now. Going to www.sequent.com redirects you to http://www.ibm.com/us/

So what kind of ownership are SCO claiming over RCU?

Cheers
Stor

• System and method for documenting and displaying computer program code Apple
• Method in a structure editor IBM
• Token-based computer program editor with program comment management Sun

• System and method for documenting and displaying computer program code Apple
• Method in a structure editor IBM
• Token-based computer program editor with program comment management Sun

• System and method for documenting and displaying computer program code Apple
• Method in a structure editor IBM
• Token-based computer program editor with program comment management Sun

It's interesting to note that the trademark currently belongs to Fleury personally. The USPTO trademark database he registered it a couple years ago. Before that, it belonged to a California company called Telkel, which appears to be defunct.

Oh wait, Fleury registered the trademark in 2001, but cites "first use" a year earlier. This is perfectly legitimate (its use that establishes your ownership of a trademark, not registration) except that in 2000 Telkel was still in business. IANAL, but I'd guess that the Core people could challenge Fleury's ownership of the trademark if they wanted to. Probably not worth the hassle though.

It's also interesting to note that the jboss.org domain belongs to JBoss Group LLC, "a privately-held services company". Not, as the .org suggest, a voluntary alignment of open-source zealots.

wear your UNIX DIAPERS with pride while listening to music through your UNIX SOUND SYSTEM and rub on some of that GEL-UNIX to prepare for the xray.
Trademark Electronic Search System

I'm not so sure. I don't think the OpenGroup has been sloppy/lazy enough:

criteria for trademark loss

one that lists Unix

However, just to freak you out, find unix as a trademark for things other than operating systems

Send would translate into "give", if you really want to use a different word. Steal is the word for "take away".

If a government has granted a limited monopoly to the author of a vector of bits, then reproducing and "giving" the bits to another party may constitute "taking away" from the author.

ObTopic: Likewise, if a government has granted a limited monopoly to the inventor of a method of audio analysis and data reduction, then performing such a method may constitute "taking away" from the inventor. That's why binaries of free MP3 and AAC encoders cannot be distributed openly in the United States, Germany, Japan, and other countries where Fraunhofer holds such a monopoly.

3) You don't contact anyone, because you never even created a sample ("prototype") of the flavor. You just sit on your couch until an ad for a similar-sounding flavor comes on, then dig out the patent and start planning how to invest the new windfall.

That 3rd case is really what's going on in the situations mentioned in the article. These people aren't pursuing companies and offering them new ideas- they wait for someone else to really make the invention, and then attack them. Just look at patent 6,339,842, and see if there's any grain of an idea deserving protection. Calling Dennis Fernandez an "inventor" is an insult to the profession.

(However, calling him a "lawyer" is both accurate, and conventionally interpreted as insulting to him)

U.S. Patents do expire after given periods of time if the periodic maintenance fees aren't paid. For lone inventors with unmarketed/unmarketable inventions, these fees often go unpaid and the patent expires.

That, unfortunately, doesn't help in your situation, where your invention is previously described by another. The prior patent, whether enforceable or not, is likely still prior art against your invention. If the previous patent(s) really are that close to your invention and are adequately described in the written description (not the claims*), then you need to come up with a modification that is both novel and nonobvious over them.

*Many people are unaware that the claims of prior patents are not considered by the USPTO Examiner when considering whether an issued patent can be applied as prior art against a pending application.

It's more fun to patent the concept of patents themselves. Then you could force the USPTO out of business.

However, no one could block your patent because then you could sue them for infringement.

For a good example of a bad patent, try US Patent 6,314,574 which claims the method of storing HTML on CDROMs or other read-only media.

However, when searching for the mythical Novell Unix patent a the patent office I was really struck by how bad every software patent was.

For example, when searching for patents assigned to Novell (search criteria AN/Novell), the very first patent returned is number 6,567,873, which is a patent having to do with spinlocks in an SMP kernel. Basically, the patent covers the idea of exponential backoff for a contented resource. This is something which ethernet has done for 30 years, and I'm sure there's even further prior art.

Another Novell patent involves resizing FAT file partitions on the fly, and involves no real insight at all.

But it's not these two patents. Almost every single patent is either just this obvious, or just this derivative of prior work. Check it out yourself -- pretty much every computer program ever written must violate hundreds of patents.

Brand names are trademarks, not copyrights. Microsoft doesn't have a trademark for "Smartphone."

A quick search on the Trademark Electronic Search System shows that the only live "Smartphone" trademark is owned by ART Advanced Recognition Technologies, Inc... and it's for a logo only.
Microsoft has WINDOWS POWERED SMARTPHONE, but that's not the single word "Smartphone" with a capital S.

I'm afraid that the reviewer there was just wrong.

Brand names are trademarks, not copyrights. Microsoft doesn't have a trademark for "Smartphone."

A quick search on the Trademark Electronic Search System shows that the only live "Smartphone" trademark is owned by ART Advanced Recognition Technologies, Inc... and it's for a logo only.
Microsoft has WINDOWS POWERED SMARTPHONE, but that's not the single word "Smartphone" with a capital S.

I'm afraid that the reviewer there was just wrong.

Brand names are trademarks, not copyrights. Microsoft doesn't have a trademark for "Smartphone."

A quick search on the Trademark Electronic Search System shows that the only live "Smartphone" trademark is owned by ART Advanced Recognition Technologies, Inc... and it's for a logo only.
Microsoft has WINDOWS POWERED SMARTPHONE, but that's not the single word "Smartphone" with a capital S.

I'm afraid that the reviewer there was just wrong.

So how'd the Kyocera get ahold of the mystical capital-S?

Microsoft owns the trademark "WINDOWS POWERED SMARTPHONE", and no variation thereof.

"Smartphone" is fair game and not specific to Pocket PC. Try a search next time, troll.

Most of those I could at least see some iota of merit in if I was a baboon mashing a big, green "approved" button that is apparently being currently applied at the patent office (I call dibs on that patent LOLLERZ), but this one scares me:

Quicksort implemented using a linked list of pointers to the objects to be sorted.

So, they... patented an implementation of a second year CS sorting algorith? If I knew it was as simple as LINKED LIST + QUICKSORT = TEH PATENT I could have had made several by now. I mean, that somehow seems obvious to me...

Oh, that's before I read the one below it:

Generation of random numbers by feeding the output of one random number generator into the input of another random number generator.

Uhhhhh, I did this in Visual Basic in my eleventh grade "intro to programming" course, which was basically a BS course where they gave us the source code to all the programs they wanted us to implement. Just to make sure, I checked the patent office, and sure enough... huh, looks like I need to be hauled off! At least it's expired now... I hope.

Anyway, those are all pretty much stupid, so I'll stop right here and just say that anybody involved in approving those patents are at best a waste of tax dollars.

On reviewing the MS patent, I found this from IBM which apparently is a patent on the listbox control!

Yes

Disposable pant-type diaper having enhanced extensibility around leg opening

Actually, the patent in question is a continuation of patent 5,861,906, which was filed May 5, 1995.

Here are the claims to the patent:

1. A user interface unit for use in an individual home, the user interface unit being connected to an interactive entertainment network system having a content provider, the content provider providing video content programs to the user interface unit, the user interface unit comprising:

a processor;

a user interface which executes on the processor to display at least one list of entries pertaining to the video content programs;

the processor causing the list to visually scroll at a selected rate while being displayed whereby one entry is removed as another entry is added;

the user interface enabling a viewer to adjust the selected rate according to personal preference; and

the processor being programmable, in response to the viewer's inputs to adjust the selected rate at which the list is scrolled.

2. A method for operating a user interface used in interactive entertainment network system, the interactive entertainment network system having a content provider which is connected to provide video content programs to a plurality of user interface units in individual homes, the user interface being executed on a processor provided at each user interface unit, the method comprising the following steps:

generating a list of entries pertaining to the video content programs;

displaying a number of entries on the list;

scrolling through the list by continually updating the displayed entries, whereby one entry on the list is removed as another entry on the list is added; and

enabling a viewer to adjust a rate at which entries are removed and added to thereby modify a rate at which the list visually appears to be scrolling.

3. In an interactive entertainment network system having a content provider that is connected to provide video content programs to a plurality of user interface units in individual homes, a computer-readable medium having computer-readable instructions for performing the steps comprising:

generating a list of entries pertaining to the video content programs;

displaying a number of entries on the list;

scrolling through the list by continually updating the displayed entries, whereby one entry on the list is removed as another entry on the list is added; and

enabling a viewer to adjust a rate at which entries are removed and added to thereby modify a rate at which the list visually appears to be scrolling.

I'm not going to lie to you. That's art. Clear as day after wandering through Hazzard County.

In a smaller arena, it seems other struggling companies are trying this survival technique. Sapient is claiming a patent on Computer based system for monitoring and processing data collected at the point of sale of goods and services (filed 12/29/1995) infringes upon any company collecting data from a POS system and reporting and alerting on it in a Business Intelligence application. A number of companies serving the restaurant industry have been notified to pay up or face legal consequences.

Fact is, Ralph Kimball was doing this stuff in 1982 for Metaphor Systems. Seems like that's "Prior Art". Won't someone come up with prior art in the SCO case, or is it a contract, not a patent that everyone's worried about?

the Ipod design is patented, which probably explains why there's little in the way of clones....

Anyone can make an MP3 player, but for 14 years no one can make a white one with a big jog wheel.

Here are a couple of facts to check:

The patent being defended in this case was filed November 7, 1995. (see the patent application)

eBay went into business in September 1995. (see company overview)

Yet, somehow, the jury found no evidence of prior art, and that the company that was in business before the patent was filed violated the patent?

Moreover, eBay "does not allow an avenue to allow participants to speculate on the price of collectable[sic] or used goods in an electronic market place." This was one of the items that establishes the process being patented; thus, by not providing this avenue, the patent application itself states that eBay's system is covered by prior art. Where are the barcodes that the patent demands that eBay affix to each item being offered for sale?

Further, the patent describes the system as providing a "trusted network of consignment nodes that act as brokers." The system described is for a network of consignment stores. It does not describe nor provide for any use by individuals as sellers.

This is a perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit and lawyers run amok.

The company is looking to a new patent license for one new revenue source. It has acquired rights to a 1999 patent that Bermeister says covers the technique of identifying files on peer-to-peer networks using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file. The company will approach virtually all other peer-to-peer services to seek license rights, Bermeister said.

The company is looking to a new patent license for one new revenue source. It has acquired rights to a 1999 patent that Bermeister says covers the technique of identifying files on peer-to-peer networks using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file. The company will approach virtually all other peer-to-peer services to seek license rights, Bermeister said.

The website is pretty weak on details and the New Scientist article doesn't make sence.

Hey, Mr F Knowitall,

possibly auctions over the phone and now ones on the Internet.

Merely migrating a known process onto the internet does not make for patentable.

Looking at the verdict, independent claims 8, 15, and 26 were found infringed. Here are those claims:

8. A market apparatus for use with a posting terminal apparatus, said posting terminal apparatus having means for creating a digital image of a good for sale, means for creating a data record of said good for sale, a tracking number printer means, a tracking number scanner means and means for communicating to said market apparatus, said market apparatus comprising:

a communications means for communicating with the posting terminal apparatus;

a post/de-post communications handler operably connected to said communications means, said communications handler receiving a data record of a good for sale from the posting terminal apparatus, said communication handler detecting a predetermined posting terminal apparatus identification code from the posting terminal apparatus and verifying from said code that the posting terminal apparatus is an authorized user of said market apparatus;

a storage device operably connected to said post/de-post handler, said storage device adapted to receive and store said data record of a good for sale, said data record containing an image of said good for sale and a textual description of said good for sale;

a presentation mapping module operably connected to said storage device and a wide area communication network, said presentation mapping module providing via said wide area communication network an interface to said market apparatus for a participant, said presentation mapping module providing said participant with access to said data record textual description and said image of said good for sale;

a transaction processor operably connected to said wide area communication network and said storage device, said transaction processor adapted to receive a purchase request and payment means from said participant, clear said purchase request and payment means and if said payment means clears then transfer the ownership of said good for sale by modifying said data record of said good for sale to reflect the new ownership of said good for sale by said participant; and

a notification means operably connected to said transaction processor said notification means notifying the posting terminal apparatus in response to said transaction processor transferring ownership of said good for sale denoting with a finality of transaction said new ownership of said good.

15. A market apparatus for use with a posting terminal apparatus, said posting terminal apparatus having a digital camera for creating a digital image of a good for sale, a record maker module for creating a data record of said good for sale, a tracking code printer, a tracking code scanner and a posting terminal communication interface for communicating with said market apparatus, said market apparatus comprising:

a communication interface for communicating with the posting terminal apparatus;

a post/de-post communications handler operably connected to communication interface, said communications handler receiving a data record of a good for sale from the posting terminal apparatus, said communication handler detecting a predetermined posting terminal apparatus identification code from the posting terminal apparatus and verifying from said identification code that the posting terminal apparatus is an authorized user of said market apparatus;

a storage device operably connected to said post/de-post handler, said storage device adapted to receive and store said data record of a good for sale, said data record containing an image of said good for sale and a textual description of said good for sale;

a presentati

Instead of speculating, why not read the articles? There already is a verdict. A verdict cannot happen unless the patent has issued (you can't file a law suit without a patent.) That's clue #1. Clue #2 is the Patent 5,845,265. You can see that the patent was filed November 7, 1995 and issued on December 1, 1998.

It'd be like patenting giving stock quotes over the phone.

Looks like someone already did !

What is the world coming too ??

Actually, IBM holds the patent. They also hold the trademark on "Trackpoint".

And for those who don't remember, Microsoft has quit W3c recently and some time ago it was revealed that they had filed for a patent describing the the use of "style sheets in a publishing system - 5860073" (which is CSS). A patent which they acquired back in 1999, and I believe right under everybody's noses.

If their claims have any validity, then why keep the details secret?

This is like Bush claiming the USA knows that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, not showing anyone the evidence and then looking a bit sheepish after the war is over not beng able to find any (maybe time will prove otherwise, we will just have to see).

SCO is spreading FUD and is trying to blackmale everyone, unless they show evidence quickly the should retract their claims. Maybe SCO should be pressured into showing their evidence, or be issued a cease and decist, or whatever is appropriate in this case.

Doing a search for 'Caldera Systems' at the USPTO only shows one patent. I am having a little trouble finding patents held by SCO. If anyone can list the patents held by SCO and Caldera it would be very much appreciated.

If Novell is correct, SCO doesn't hold the copyrights. The Open Group owns the Unix trademark. A quick search of the US Patent office (my actual search query is here.) reveals that SCO doesn't have any Unix related patents before November of 1993 (after Linus had written the kernel)

So really, this whole lawsuit has lept headfirst from a giant joke into something well beyond offensive.

If Novell is correct, SCO doesn't hold the copyrights. The Open Group owns the Unix trademark. A quick search of the US Patent office (my actual search query is here.) reveals that SCO doesn't have any Unix related patents before November of 1993 (after Linus had written the kernel)

So really, this whole lawsuit has lept headfirst from a giant joke into something well beyond offensive.

There's the famous 4135240 setuid patent, which Bell labs granted to the public domain, and which has expired by now anyway.

Novell gave us a clue, by pointing out that some patents might be in their name. But searching for Novell and Unix on the USPTO web site yields 62 patents. Most of these seem like they came from work on NetWare, but it is hard to tell for sure. Looking through these patents shows how bogus the US patent system is -- I quickly persued several at random, and every one was either an obvious technique, or being violated all over the place, or both. (IANAL).

The first patent returned by the search (6,546,433) lists "PowerBuilder 5 Unleashed!", by Sams publishing as reference material. Frankly, if I were a patent examiner, this would be evidence alone to reject the application.

There's the famous 4135240 setuid patent, which Bell labs granted to the public domain, and which has expired by now anyway.

Novell gave us a clue, by pointing out that some patents might be in their name. But searching for Novell and Unix on the USPTO web site yields 62 patents. Most of these seem like they came from work on NetWare, but it is hard to tell for sure. Looking through these patents shows how bogus the US patent system is -- I quickly persued several at random, and every one was either an obvious technique, or being violated all over the place, or both. (IANAL).

The first patent returned by the search (6,546,433) lists "PowerBuilder 5 Unleashed!", by Sams publishing as reference material. Frankly, if I were a patent examiner, this would be evidence alone to reject the application.

here are novell's patents Link

That little bitty circle-R there seems to imply a copyright.

May seem that way to you, but in fact it indicates a registered trademark.

IANAE, but if the market cost of entrance is low enough, as it presumably would be with computation, then monopolies cannot form.

Unless somebody corners the market for twenty years, correct?

Here's Microsoft's patent application that covers disallowing participation in online services.