Slashdot Mirror

Now, they then charge full price and have items that they overstocked pull up higher in searches with edited customer reviews to make them appear better than they are. True fact. They started editing reviews back when I was there.

This can't be true, they don't mention anything about editting in their patent on discussing an item.

;-)

Software patents are granted for the most stupid things, for tthe simple reason that if you take something already existing that is completely obvious, but do it in software, it is considered new (e.g. selling stuff in a store -> selling stuff via the Internet, keeping client records in a store -> keeping client records in an internet store


If RMS was as omnicient as everyone seems to portray him, then he would have known that the PTO has evolved their obviousness requirements to preclude the patenting of automations of known manual processes in business method processes.

Maybe you should apprise him of this the next time you see him.

I thought that the Disney corporate logo was a stylized Disney signature?

That seems to be their current favorite logo, but I'm sure in the past some Disney products (like their cable TV channel) were identified by 3 circles forming a mouse head, with no text.

Characters are really a special case in trademarks.

Do you have any source on this? I sure don't.

Characters aren't copyrightable, they're trademarked.

Sure, characters are copyrightable. Everything is copyrightable, since 1987. Well, any visual or audible work is copyrighted, and that includes all the characters it contains. It was only recently that characters started becoming trademarks. The first big example I can recall is George Lucas), and that seems to have been more due to the fact that each character also represented a product (an "action-figure"). Their names represented a commericial product, and thus is an identifier for "trade".

Lets check with the USPTO to see if a movie character (who wasn't made into an action figure) is trademarked: Marty McFly. Nope, although his film was. The legal reason I can't publish a comic-book adventure with Marty and Doc Brown is not that they're trademarked, but because the film I saw them in is still copyrighted.

It'd be like trying to trademark 'Car' with regards to automobiles. That dog don't hunt.

What's that supposed to mean? Disney uses an image of Mickey Mouse (in a monochrome silloette) to identify themselves in some business dealings. This is a trademark, regarding many things beyond "cartoons with Mickey Mouse" (which is hardly a product they care about, anymore). If the character became PD, I could use it in original drawings and animations- just so long as I did not attempt to cause consumers to mistake me for the Walt Disney corporation.

I'm also allowed to make pictures of Apples or Windows- and I can even use them in a computer context. Just as long as I don't name my company that, or try to confuse the public, I'm safe. And the trademark-holders aren't threatened.

(Well, mega-corps can feel threatened at anything, and may fire off lawsuits at a whim, but by legal theory, it shouldn't bother them)

I thought that the Disney corporate logo was a stylized Disney signature?

That seems to be their current favorite logo, but I'm sure in the past some Disney products (like their cable TV channel) were identified by 3 circles forming a mouse head, with no text.

Characters are really a special case in trademarks.

Do you have any source on this? I sure don't.

Characters aren't copyrightable, they're trademarked.

Sure, characters are copyrightable. Everything is copyrightable, since 1987. Well, any visual or audible work is copyrighted, and that includes all the characters it contains. It was only recently that characters started becoming trademarks. The first big example I can recall is George Lucas), and that seems to have been more due to the fact that each character also represented a product (an "action-figure"). Their names represented a commericial product, and thus is an identifier for "trade".

Lets check with the USPTO to see if a movie character (who wasn't made into an action figure) is trademarked: Marty McFly. Nope, although his film was. The legal reason I can't publish a comic-book adventure with Marty and Doc Brown is not that they're trademarked, but because the film I saw them in is still copyrighted.

It'd be like trying to trademark 'Car' with regards to automobiles. That dog don't hunt.

What's that supposed to mean? Disney uses an image of Mickey Mouse (in a monochrome silloette) to identify themselves in some business dealings. This is a trademark, regarding many things beyond "cartoons with Mickey Mouse" (which is hardly a product they care about, anymore). If the character became PD, I could use it in original drawings and animations- just so long as I did not attempt to cause consumers to mistake me for the Walt Disney corporation.

I'm also allowed to make pictures of Apples or Windows- and I can even use them in a computer context. Just as long as I don't name my company that, or try to confuse the public, I'm safe. And the trademark-holders aren't threatened.

(Well, mega-corps can feel threatened at anything, and may fire off lawsuits at a whim, but by legal theory, it shouldn't bother them)

I thought that the Disney corporate logo was a stylized Disney signature?

That seems to be their current favorite logo, but I'm sure in the past some Disney products (like their cable TV channel) were identified by 3 circles forming a mouse head, with no text.

Characters are really a special case in trademarks.

Do you have any source on this? I sure don't.

Characters aren't copyrightable, they're trademarked.

Sure, characters are copyrightable. Everything is copyrightable, since 1987. Well, any visual or audible work is copyrighted, and that includes all the characters it contains. It was only recently that characters started becoming trademarks. The first big example I can recall is George Lucas), and that seems to have been more due to the fact that each character also represented a product (an "action-figure"). Their names represented a commericial product, and thus is an identifier for "trade".

Lets check with the USPTO to see if a movie character (who wasn't made into an action figure) is trademarked: Marty McFly. Nope, although his film was. The legal reason I can't publish a comic-book adventure with Marty and Doc Brown is not that they're trademarked, but because the film I saw them in is still copyrighted.

It'd be like trying to trademark 'Car' with regards to automobiles. That dog don't hunt.

What's that supposed to mean? Disney uses an image of Mickey Mouse (in a monochrome silloette) to identify themselves in some business dealings. This is a trademark, regarding many things beyond "cartoons with Mickey Mouse" (which is hardly a product they care about, anymore). If the character became PD, I could use it in original drawings and animations- just so long as I did not attempt to cause consumers to mistake me for the Walt Disney corporation.

I'm also allowed to make pictures of Apples or Windows- and I can even use them in a computer context. Just as long as I don't name my company that, or try to confuse the public, I'm safe. And the trademark-holders aren't threatened.

(Well, mega-corps can feel threatened at anything, and may fire off lawsuits at a whim, but by legal theory, it shouldn't bother them)

I thought that the Disney corporate logo was a stylized Disney signature?

That seems to be their current favorite logo, but I'm sure in the past some Disney products (like their cable TV channel) were identified by 3 circles forming a mouse head, with no text.

Characters are really a special case in trademarks.

Do you have any source on this? I sure don't.

Characters aren't copyrightable, they're trademarked.

Sure, characters are copyrightable. Everything is copyrightable, since 1987. Well, any visual or audible work is copyrighted, and that includes all the characters it contains. It was only recently that characters started becoming trademarks. The first big example I can recall is George Lucas), and that seems to have been more due to the fact that each character also represented a product (an "action-figure"). Their names represented a commericial product, and thus is an identifier for "trade".

Lets check with the USPTO to see if a movie character (who wasn't made into an action figure) is trademarked: Marty McFly. Nope, although his film was. The legal reason I can't publish a comic-book adventure with Marty and Doc Brown is not that they're trademarked, but because the film I saw them in is still copyrighted.

It'd be like trying to trademark 'Car' with regards to automobiles. That dog don't hunt.

What's that supposed to mean? Disney uses an image of Mickey Mouse (in a monochrome silloette) to identify themselves in some business dealings. This is a trademark, regarding many things beyond "cartoons with Mickey Mouse" (which is hardly a product they care about, anymore). If the character became PD, I could use it in original drawings and animations- just so long as I did not attempt to cause consumers to mistake me for the Walt Disney corporation.

I'm also allowed to make pictures of Apples or Windows- and I can even use them in a computer context. Just as long as I don't name my company that, or try to confuse the public, I'm safe. And the trademark-holders aren't threatened.

(Well, mega-corps can feel threatened at anything, and may fire off lawsuits at a whim, but by legal theory, it shouldn't bother them)

This may be a design patent; however according to this, "a design which simulates a well known, or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute."

I think a trash can might be a well known object.

The US Patent Office has a page on "What can be Patented"

Some interesting excerpts for those to lazy to click through:

"...any person who 'invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,' subject to the conditions and requirements of the law."

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful."

"... patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc..."

I dont think a trashcan icon fits that.

The US Patent Office has a page on "What can be Patented"

Some interesting excerpts for those to lazy to click through:

"...any person who 'invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,' subject to the conditions and requirements of the law."

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful."

"... patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc..."

I dont think a trashcan icon fits that.

They already have...5,757,371 Taskbar with start menu

The USPTO defines "design patents" here.

For ADHD slashdotters:
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture...

In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171)...

Clearly a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute. Furthermore, subject matter that could be considered offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality is not proper subject matter for a design patent application (35 U.S.C. 171 and 37 CFR 1.3).

According to the PTO web site:

• In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works, while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks...A design for an article of manufacture that is dictated primarily by the function of the article lacks ornamentality and is not proper statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. Specifically, if at the time the design was created, there was no unique or distinctive shape or appearance to the article not dictated by the function that it performs, the design lacks ornamentality and is not proper subject matter. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a design to be patentable must be "original." Clearly a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute.

So, it doesn't cover any functionality. In fact, if the design relates closely to functionaly, then that weakens the patent. In this case, I'd say the design of the garbage can icon pretty precisely relates to the functionalty of throwing away files.

With this in mind, it seems that it's probably a pretty toothless patent. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Furthermore, if you really want to piss & moan about how everyone would jump on MS for doing something this underhanded then you may want to check this one out: Utility (not Design) patent 5,757,371 Taskbar with start menu from (you guessed it) MS.

A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.

n general terms, a ?utility patent? protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a ?design patent? protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.

Keep this in mind before flaming anyone.

First off, this is a trademark issue, so notwithstanding the misuse of petard in the headline, a trademark is not a copyright... they are under completely separate Acts with different issues and rules of law.

There are three issues people are mixing up here. Likelihood of Confusion is a separate issue from descriptiveness which is a separate (but related) issue to genericness.

There may well be likelihood of confusion issues between Windows and Lindows. Part of confusion is "riding the coattails" of a competitors mark, which it certainly sounds like Lindows is trying to do. But Xerox, nor Apple, bothered to trademark the term WINDOWS as it relates to computer software, so MS won the race to first to register (the Trademark Act is a "race statute").

A defense to confusion is if the prior registered mark is generic. Generic terms are incapable of function as a trademark. See Trademark Act Sec. 23(c). That means if you want a registered trademark, you won't get it, and if you have a registered trademark, you are going to lose it.

Everytime there is a trademark story on slashdot, people think it is like patents, where the rest of the world is precluded from using the word in any context. Not at all! Others are precluded from using a trademarked word or slogan in connection with particular goods and services and related goods and services. So you are precluded from using the word Windows (for now) in connection with software (and a lot of other things because Windows it is a famous trademark), but you would not be precluded from using Windows as a trademark on chairs or fruit or cars. Those goods are not even remotely related to operating systems.

Trademarks are about consumer protection, not about monopolies. Frankly, everybody on Slashdot wants to know if they are buying a Windows product, because then they likely wouldn't buy it! Trademark Law (and Trademark Registration) protects consumers (i.e. Slasdot readers) from confusion by ensuring that consumers know the source of the goods and know the quality (or lack thereof) of the goods.

Descriptive trademarks are when the words describe a purpose, function, feature, use or user, quality or ingredient of the goods or services. Remember, descriptiveness is in relation to the goods and services offered. However, descriptive terms may receive a registration IF they can show secondary meaning. That is, the trademark has been around long enough for people to equate it to the source of goods or services, EVEN THOUGH it describes them. Check the USPTO status page. Punch in Registration No 1872264. Windows is registered under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act (i.e., the secondary meaning (also called acquired distinctiveness) section of the Act).

At the time the WINDOWS application was pending, it was descriptive (it described a Windowing feature of computer operating software), but it was not at the level of generic (which requires a significant showing by the government). By 1990, Windows had long been in use (5 year) the required time to claim secondary meaning.

Trademarks can become generic over time (the reason for Google's insistance on taking it out of the dictionary). Windows wasn't very strong to begin with and they never really did a great job (IMHO) in "policing their mark". No surprise they are fighting a defense of their mark being generic.

-A

First off, this is a trademark issue, so notwithstanding the misuse of petard in the headline, a trademark is not a copyright... they are under completely separate Acts with different issues and rules of law.

There are three issues people are mixing up here. Likelihood of Confusion is a separate issue from descriptiveness which is a separate (but related) issue to genericness.

There may well be likelihood of confusion issues between Windows and Lindows. Part of confusion is "riding the coattails" of a competitors mark, which it certainly sounds like Lindows is trying to do. But Xerox, nor Apple, bothered to trademark the term WINDOWS as it relates to computer software, so MS won the race to first to register (the Trademark Act is a "race statute").

A defense to confusion is if the prior registered mark is generic. Generic terms are incapable of function as a trademark. See Trademark Act Sec. 23(c). That means if you want a registered trademark, you won't get it, and if you have a registered trademark, you are going to lose it.

Everytime there is a trademark story on slashdot, people think it is like patents, where the rest of the world is precluded from using the word in any context. Not at all! Others are precluded from using a trademarked word or slogan in connection with particular goods and services and related goods and services. So you are precluded from using the word Windows (for now) in connection with software (and a lot of other things because Windows it is a famous trademark), but you would not be precluded from using Windows as a trademark on chairs or fruit or cars. Those goods are not even remotely related to operating systems.

Trademarks are about consumer protection, not about monopolies. Frankly, everybody on Slashdot wants to know if they are buying a Windows product, because then they likely wouldn't buy it! Trademark Law (and Trademark Registration) protects consumers (i.e. Slasdot readers) from confusion by ensuring that consumers know the source of the goods and know the quality (or lack thereof) of the goods.

Descriptive trademarks are when the words describe a purpose, function, feature, use or user, quality or ingredient of the goods or services. Remember, descriptiveness is in relation to the goods and services offered. However, descriptive terms may receive a registration IF they can show secondary meaning. That is, the trademark has been around long enough for people to equate it to the source of goods or services, EVEN THOUGH it describes them. Check the USPTO status page. Punch in Registration No 1872264. Windows is registered under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act (i.e., the secondary meaning (also called acquired distinctiveness) section of the Act).

At the time the WINDOWS application was pending, it was descriptive (it described a Windowing feature of computer operating software), but it was not at the level of generic (which requires a significant showing by the government). By 1990, Windows had long been in use (5 year) the required time to claim secondary meaning.

Trademarks can become generic over time (the reason for Google's insistance on taking it out of the dictionary). Windows wasn't very strong to begin with and they never really did a great job (IMHO) in "policing their mark". No surprise they are fighting a defense of their mark being generic.

-A

Microsoft doesn't have some exclusive trademark on the work "Windows" in all contexts, as this link shows. In fact, do a "Singular" search on the USPTO site for the word "Windows" and you'll turn up almost 700 uses of the word in trademarks across all industries.

Looking through those results does reveal quite a few "Windows" trademarks for Microsoft (both alone and with other words), so it will be interesting to see if their trademarks get invalidated. Personally, I think the suit will focus more on the issue of Lindows creating a similar product with a similar name in direct competition with an established business and less about the validity of Microsoft's Windows trademarks. Sort of like me creating a fast food burger restaurant in America called "Lendy's" and trying to pass it off as just another name when it's obvious I'm trying to take advantage of an established brand. My opinion, though, nothing more.

Hopefully Lindows can simply say they combined "Linux" and Linux's use of a windowing system into a name that customers would embrace, but I still think that's treading on a thin line.

Microsoft doesn't have some exclusive trademark on the work "Windows" in all contexts, as this link shows. In fact, do a "Singular" search on the USPTO site for the word "Windows" and you'll turn up almost 700 uses of the word in trademarks across all industries.

Looking through those results does reveal quite a few "Windows" trademarks for Microsoft (both alone and with other words), so it will be interesting to see if their trademarks get invalidated. Personally, I think the suit will focus more on the issue of Lindows creating a similar product with a similar name in direct competition with an established business and less about the validity of Microsoft's Windows trademarks. Sort of like me creating a fast food burger restaurant in America called "Lendy's" and trying to pass it off as just another name when it's obvious I'm trying to take advantage of an established brand. My opinion, though, nothing more.

Hopefully Lindows can simply say they combined "Linux" and Linux's use of a windowing system into a name that customers would embrace, but I still think that's treading on a thin line.

They didn't. They had trademarks on MS-DOS. (See this page).

Are there other reasons the examining attorney might refuse my mark? Yes. In addition to likelihood of confusion (discussed above), an examining attorney will refuse registration if the mark is:
* primarily merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of the goods/services;
* primarily geographically descriptive or primarily geographically deceptively; misdescriptive of the goods/services;
* primarily merely a surname; or
* ornamental.

The U.S. Copyright Office should not be used as an substitute yet uber-patent office. By adding any sort trivial addition to a mechanical device to lay a DMCA claim, one can create in effect a de facto patent protection of a commercial device, but with a much longer or unlimited term, and with a free ride of enforcement by the U.S. Government. This is clearly not what Copyrights are intended to protect.

Imagine an automotive company wishes to force people to purchase only tires manufactured by themselves. They first attempt to force consumer choice by patenting the idea of round tires, but the US Patent Office rules (correctly) that their design has not unique and denies the application. All the MBA's in upper management are crushed.

"Fear not," their lawyers cry, "we'll get something better...we'll get you protection -- and not for a patent's measly 20 years. No we'll give you 120 years of protection...AND the U.S. Government will investigate violations and enforce this 'uber-patent' for you."

"But How?" cry the hopeful executives grateful disbelief.

"But won't our better priced competitors just put the same dime's worth magic in their tires and we'll be back where we started?" wails a VP from under the table of the conference room where they've all gathered.

"...Patents?..." offers a hopeful senior manager.

"But the car's owner...isn't he already the, um, owner of the car and can do what he wants with his property?" worries the CEO aloud. "Isn't he allowed to buy from the competition? Won't we have to forced him to signed a service contract or something that say he must make all future purchases from us."

--

For those concerned that 120 years isn't long enough, a company needs only every 119 years just to change the "Quality Verification Tag" and get a whole new Copyright to fend off any and all competition -- for literally until the end of time (or at least the end of the DMCA)." Disney's aspirations ain't go nothin' on Lexmark.

Those who help create the U.S. Constitution wrote in Article I, section 8,

"Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..." [Note: though already clear, emphasis added]

Bayesian filtering is a great technology, but the OSS movement really needs to tread-lightly or get some legal beagles to help us analyze the implications of inherently using it, because MSFT has a patent on it. We (the OSS community) need to make sure that we can easily and indisputably prove "prior-art" in the event that MSFT tries to overwhelm some of our best projects with _expensive_ legal tactics.

I can't help but think that we need to _really_ be on our guard with regard to things like this, becuase I wouldn't put it past MSFT, et al. to soak up much of the good IP (Intellectual Property) and then try to "drop the hammer" on us down the road.

Just my .02 cents...

Secondly, part of patent law states that in being granted a patent, you must make the product available to the public at reasonable cost. The company that comes up with a cure for AIDS will not be granted a patent for the cure unless it is produced in a lab, and they will not be allowed to charge $200 a pill for it.

I can't find anything in the US Patent Code that requires that the inventor of a patented creation make it available to anyone at any price. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Also, you clearly have no clue what the average current triple drug therapy for HIV actually costs. If a drug company were to offer a cure for AIDS for $200, it would be an unbelievable bargin. It would be tantamount to somebody coming up to you and offering to sell you a new Ferrari for a thousand bucks. Maybe even better. The cure for AIDS, if it is ever found, would be easily worth tens of thousands of dollars per cure in the US, given the current costs associated with treating the disease and the lost economic capacity of the infected individuals.

The patent notice contains a U.S. patent number. When entered into the USPTO search engine, a patent number calls forth a complete description of how to implement an invention.

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

• 
  Counting events in a simulation
  Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
  Code Generation to query objects
  De-Loading shared libraries
  Licensing Java Objects
  Cleanup orphaned processes
  Process Calculus in XML
  Cross-Thread invariants
  Web based application delivery
  

Google deserves a patent because I love Google and they are not Microsoft or Amazon. What better justification is there?

Seriously though, this is a valid patent because it documents a new, usefull, and unique idea. The patent makes no proprietary claims about any of the trivial processes Google may employ in delivering it's product, just the core, non-trivial, methods used to generate it. Although the patent does mention the site and the systems required to support it, it is clear that it is the unique search functionality that is patented and not the website or it's infrastructure. Quite unlike the Amazon patent I ranted about yesterday.

Well, yes and no.

On one hand, the patent covers the fundamental aspects of the algorithim as of three years ago.

On the other hand, this algorithim does not include updates since then, nor does it include the actual values of the variables, simply their names. Likewise, google is probably using an updated version of this algorithim in their page rank system, one which may resemble this one but which doesn't necessarily emulate it. Furthermore, this doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know, at least at a fundamental level.

The exploits, such as putting up 1000 pages with lots of text and tags that point back to your page, are already known. They didn't exactly post any source code, so specific bugs are out of the question. The patent will not reveal buffer overflows.

"Open to public scrutiny" is a relative term... This patent opens google to as much public scrutiny as photos of the wing of the B2 bomber give away the secrets of the mechanisms inside.

So yes, it is open. And no, it doesn't actually tell you anything.

read the patent

There is more criticism of the Amazon patent because the technology involves the implementation of a known process onto the internet.

There had certainly been prior computer programs that store all information required for a transaction and shipment, thus allowing a single action by a customer to propogate such transaction and shipment.

Thus, this sort of application is supposed to have been rejected because of obviousness considerations.

... is a bit too late here, but if we can start finding these patents while they're still pending...

From their FAQ, there's a link to the procedure of allowing the public to file a protest to a pending patent. There are some interesting problems that a patent lawyer might be able to clear up...

One of the conditions imposed on when a protest may be filed is (from Section 1901):

• The protest is submitted prior to the date the application was published or the mailing of a notice of allowance under 1.311, whichever occurs first

... is a bit too late here, but if we can start finding these patents while they're still pending...

From their FAQ, there's a link to the procedure of allowing the public to file a protest to a pending patent. There are some interesting problems that a patent lawyer might be able to clear up...

One of the conditions imposed on when a protest may be filed is (from Section 1901):

• The protest is submitted prior to the date the application was published or the mailing of a notice of allowance under 1.311, whichever occurs first

... is a bit too late here, but if we can start finding these patents while they're still pending...

From their FAQ, there's a link to the procedure of allowing the public to file a protest to a pending patent. There are some interesting problems that a patent lawyer might be able to clear up...

One of the conditions imposed on when a protest may be filed is (from Section 1901):

• The protest is submitted prior to the date the application was published or the mailing of a notice of allowance under 1.311, whichever occurs first

A lot of these business process patents could be challenged because they are automation of a known manual process

A lot of these business process patents could be challenged because they are automation of a known manual process

A lot of these business process patents could be challenged because they are automation of a known manual process

According to the USPTO (and my own experience), the USPTO recently changed it's practice and started publishing patents before grant. The link (as I know most won't read it) says that items go into the database up to 18 months before grant. That is, this case may not have been examined for novelty/obviousness yet. Most commonly (ie across worldwide patent systems) there is an A and B-publication. The A is published to tell the public what's happening. The B tells the public what's being granted. The claims will nearly always change before B-publication. It appears the US is now following this type of system.

pbhj

Here's the swing thing

Get them wile they are hot, licenses to operate, manipulate, or control a computer using any form of input device, including (but not limited to):keyboard, mouse, touch screen, touch pad, joystick, eraser in the middle of the keyboard. It should be noted these licenses are not for the hardware but for the method of using the hardware, ie. the physical manipulation of these devices...

Now calm down everyone... if the boy licenses swinging sideways.....

I'm sure we will all be able to get licenses from Bezos, to use his Method and system for conducting a discussion relating to an item.

In my state we actually have to have a license to drive a car.... and people have been doing that for years.....

this is crazy -- i'm going to start applying for my own patents. what the hell, it seems so damn easy to get, i might as well... then i can start making the big bucks... contact this Kristine Kincaid who seemingly approved this thing, regular - 703 308-0640 FAX - 703 305-3719 -- contact list is here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/patpers/patpe rs3.htm

Here is an image of the patent.

Someone is sleeping at the wheel or just saw Jeff Bezos' name and thought, "OMG, didn't he basically invent the Internet!? Plus he predicted that the Segway was going to change the world! Now where's my big approval stamp?"

Mad what people can get patents for. The patent for swinging on a swing is one of the weirdest I've seen in the last few years.

Also, slight correction to what I said in my first post above - not ALL applications get published, because it is possible to opt out by giving up most foreign patent rights. Few applicants do this, though, with the result that most applications now are being published.