Slashdot Mirror

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,978,791.PN.&OS=PN/5,978,791&RS=PN/5,978,791
They better go and sue Oracle. This describes the function of java.util.Hashtable.... hangon, that's been around since 1996 and the patent was filled in 1997.

Funny how the patent review officer never seems to catch these dag'gon things.

The first patent seems to be describing duplicate elimination by hash code (i.e. a Hash Map) when applied to distributed databases (surely as obvious as all the old attempts to add "over wifi" to everything). The second seems to refer to the same thing but retrieving a unique access control along with the data.

The first patent seems to be describing duplicate elimination by hash code (i.e. a Hash Map) when applied to distributed databases (surely as obvious as all the old attempts to add "over wifi" to everything). The second seems to refer to the same thing but retrieving a unique access control along with the data.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,978,791.PN.&OS=PN/5,978,791&RS=PN/5,978,791 They better go and sue Oracle. This describes the function of java.util.Hashtable.... hangon, that's been around since 1996 and the patent was filled in 1997.

The patent (filed 2001, granted 2005) is for remote license checking.

You mean like this patent, which they failed to list as prior art?

This is Slashdot and nobody seems to have done a simple USPTO search!

[...]

The USPTO search should be compulsory reading before commenting on these issues. It quickly shows whether someone has a case, may have a case, or doesn't understand how trademarks work

Actually, I did a Trademark search as soon as the story was posted.

And this is what I found, not that this told me very much, so I didn't post anything.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:r7b59b.2.1
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:r7b59b.2.2

This is Slashdot and nobody seems to have done a simple USPTO search!

[...]

The USPTO search should be compulsory reading before commenting on these issues. It quickly shows whether someone has a case, may have a case, or doesn't understand how trademarks work

Actually, I did a Trademark search as soon as the story was posted.

And this is what I found, not that this told me very much, so I didn't post anything.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:r7b59b.2.1
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:r7b59b.2.2

Actually he's filed, but not yet registered, one on:

IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Downloadable motion pictures and television shows about drama, carnival themes, fantasy, supernatural themes; Motion picture films about drama, carnival themes, fantasy, supernatural themes; Motion picture films and films for television featuring children's entertainment

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, the provision of continuing programs, segments, movies, shows, multi-media moving picture shows featuring drama, carnival themes, fantasy, supernatural themes delivered by television, radio, satellite, internet, live, and mobile applications

.

Take a look at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/search/refusal_grounds.jsp

The same name in a different field likely would not prohibit the granting of a trademark.

He has not (and I think cannot) trademarked a comic title. He has trademarked a trademark for sources of downloadable media content. From a read of the grant, this does not cover books or reviews.

He has two registrations, the first of which most certainly does cover books.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:m2hq6u.2.2
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:m2hq6u.2.1

I'd have thought the term already sufficiently generic enough to refuse these trademarks, let alone allow him to assert ownership over pretty much any fucking use of the phrase.

Pro tip for Kazan Wild: Did you know that the phrase "The Good Book" is yet to be registered as a trademark for religious multimedia content. Go grab it, and while you're on your way down to the the USPTO, don't bother looking before crossing any busy roads you encounter.

He has not (and I think cannot) trademarked a comic title. He has trademarked a trademark for sources of downloadable media content. From a read of the grant, this does not cover books or reviews.

He has two registrations, the first of which most certainly does cover books.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:m2hq6u.2.2
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:m2hq6u.2.1

I'd have thought the term already sufficiently generic enough to refuse these trademarks, let alone allow him to assert ownership over pretty much any fucking use of the phrase.

Pro tip for Kazan Wild: Did you know that the phrase "The Good Book" is yet to be registered as a trademark for religious multimedia content. Go grab it, and while you're on your way down to the the USPTO, don't bother looking before crossing any busy roads you encounter.

You are the one that needs the lesson: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent

so this: " If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art." is just wrong.

Unless of course they did it in a foreign country and didn't patent. See Johann Philipp Reis.

...made posts stating that 'WikiTravel (a trademark) was moving to WikiMedia'.

I doubt that's what they posted.

Posting the trademark symbol next to the word WikiTravel on August 18th, 2012, is illegal and it's a finable offense. The filing of the trademark only occurred on August 22nd, 2012, coincidentally just four days after the alleged incident. And no, pay no attention to "FIRST USE: 20030724. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 2003072", that part won't help them.

The fine for falsely claiming a Trademark is pretty significant. I don't think it's a mistake they would have made. You'll notice that the current site doesn't even have the trademark symbol anywhere yet, although technically they now have the right to use the symbol since August 22nd.

29. For example, on August 18, 2012, Holliday improperly and wrongfully emailed at least several hundred of Wikitravel members, purporting to be from Wikitravel and informing members that the Wikitravel Website was “migrating” to the Wikimedia Foundation. Upon information and belief, the number emailed is far greater.

I'll assume that this is still their interpretation and their paraphrasing of what happened, since there are no quotes that are used except for one single word.

So moving right along...

30. Specifically, Holliday’s email contained the Subject Line, “Important information about Wikitravel” and its body stated, “This email is being sent to you on behalf of the Wikitravel administrators since you have put some real time and effort into working on Wikitravel. We wanted to make sure that you are up to date and in the loop regarding big changes in the community that will affect the future of your work! As you may already have heard, Wikitravel’s community is looking to migrate to the Wikimedia Foundation.”

Ok, now we're getting somewhere!

They're finally quoting the people they're suing. Please note the careful wording inside those quotes: "on behalf of the Wikitravel administrators" and "Wikitravel's community is looking to migrate to the Wikimedia Foundation."

Is anything of this really untrue?

It seems to me like Internet Brands only started clamping down on its unpaid volunteer administrators only after they sent this message out, so they were still formally volunteer admins at the time? Right? That's the problem of giving volunteers unfettered access to your mailing list and web site. You can't just accept the benefit of all their work, you have to also accept all the downside that could possibly come from giving them such privileges (especially if they're not getting paid by you).

Plus, it's not like Internet Brands can't have the final word in all of this. I'm sure that they promptly locked down their mailing list and possibly locked down their wiki site as well, thus possibly locking out even more existing volunteers from participating in the discussion, and then sent follow-up emails telling their own side of the story.

In the end, owning the actual mailing list and the actual site gives them the final word. And the people that were contacted will have to make up their minds whether the community is still mostly with Wikitravel, or migrated elsewhere. That being said, I'm not a lawyer, and this is only my layman opinion regarding the reported Trademark claim made in the parent post. Perhaps the other claims they're making have more teeth to them, those other parts I really know nothing about.

Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until someone comes along to claim it all for itself.

Got it.

FTFY.

Unfortunately, particularly in the US this is about how the system works currently. The patent submitter must list any known prior art with their application, but there is little to really prevent them from leaving things out. It is the patent examiners job to also look for prior art, but their view tends to be very narrow (similar but not identical often isn't good enough), and due to (what I understand of) their workload, they don't necessarily due a particularly exhaustive search.

The end result is that if you're willing to pay for it, you can patent pretty much anything you want. That's why you get craziness like #6,368,227 -- Method of Swinging on a Swing (note: not an Apple patent).

Don't like it? You need to take the patent holder to court, and prove to the court that the patent is either a) frivolous, b) obvious, or c) already exists in the public domain (or is covered by another patent).

That's the system the US uses (I don't live in the US -- our patent system here in Canada seems somewhat better run, so isn't quite as bad; I have a patent (7,251,809) that was accepted in the US, but rejected here in Canada). If you don't like it, you need to change the system.

Yaz

Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until someone comes along to claim it all for itself.

Got it.

FTFY.

Unfortunately, particularly in the US this is about how the system works currently. The patent submitter must list any known prior art with their application, but there is little to really prevent them from leaving things out. It is the patent examiners job to also look for prior art, but their view tends to be very narrow (similar but not identical often isn't good enough), and due to (what I understand of) their workload, they don't necessarily due a particularly exhaustive search.

The end result is that if you're willing to pay for it, you can patent pretty much anything you want. That's why you get craziness like #6,368,227 -- Method of Swinging on a Swing (note: not an Apple patent).

Don't like it? You need to take the patent holder to court, and prove to the court that the patent is either a) frivolous, b) obvious, or c) already exists in the public domain (or is covered by another patent).

That's the system the US uses (I don't live in the US -- our patent system here in Canada seems somewhat better run, so isn't quite as bad; I have a patent (7,251,809) that was accepted in the US, but rejected here in Canada). If you don't like it, you need to change the system.

Yaz

You are the one that needs the lesson:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent

so this:
" If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art."
is just wrong.

No, he understands correctly. The patent is "unlock a computer using facial recognition". It does not describe a system of face recognition or a computer security model. It smiply says that you can plug these things together.

The 17,000 word filing indicates otherwise. It does describe a security model, and I quote "If the determined identity match does not match a predetermined identity, then requiring the first user to enter first alphanumeric information that matches first predetermined alphanumeric information as a condition for logging the first user on to the computing device. Then, if the determined identity match does match a predetermined identity, one or more gestures in a touch sensitive area of a computing device can be received."

So no, I reiterate: You, and now the other poster as well, do not understand patents. They do describe a specific process. Actually, they describe a great many processes, in an attempt to cover every conceivable method of implimenting it. But then, that's how patents these days work: Because the Patent Office doesn't do its job, the courts have to, with inconsistent and often tragic results.

Vague and overbearing patents have become legally popular these past few years, in an attempt to achieve what you claim has been true since time immortal: Patenting the 'what' instead of the 'how'. That may be the trend, but that is now how the patent system was envisioned, nor how it started. You are still wrong, however: It isn't how patents are supposed to work, nor historically how they have worked, and if the system hadn't been so badly corrupted recently by questionable laws and equally questionable judges and judgements, it wouldn't be happening now either. Patents are supposed to only be granted to an inventor who demonstrates a truly novel method of accomplishing something. The system was designed in the 1700s, when industrialization was still in its infancy. It has adapted quite poorly to the information age.

20120037751, filed 26 April 2010. Not yet issued. . . .

What lie?

What lie?

For those following along at home, this is what happens when a lawyer does describe a pinch to zoom gesture :

"1. A method, comprising: detecting at least two first contacts on a display surface of a multi-touch-sensitive display device; detecting a first motion associated with the at least two first contacts, wherein the first motion corresponds to a multi-touch gesture; adjusting a parameter of a graphical object in accordance with the first motion; detecting a breaking of the at least two first contacts; after detecting the breaking of the at least two first contacts, detecting at least two second contacts on the display surface; detecting a second motion associated with the at least two second contacts, wherein the second motion corresponds to the multi-touch gesture and the at least two second contacts are detected within a pre-determined time interval after the breaking of the at least two first contacts is detected; and continuing to adjust the parameter of the graphical object in accordance with the second motion.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the parameter is a non-linear function of a displacement of the first contacts during the multi-touch gesture.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the parameter comprises a magnification of the graphical object.
[...]"

Simple, right ?!

No, "scaling" is what the interface does as the result of a gesture, pinching is what the fingers do which again is not defined in the document. There's a reason the patent is called "Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations": it focusses on scrolling and how that operation is distinguished from a gesture. And a gesture is just defined as having 2 ore more input points without further elaborating on the state of those input points.

Scrolling is defined in the full patent text as :

"Scrolling is the act of sliding a directional (e.g., horizontal or vertical) presentation of content, such as text, drawings, or images, across a screen or display window. In a typical graphical user interface, scrolling is done with the help of a scrollbar or using keyboard shortcuts often the arrow keys. Gesturing is a type of user input with two or more input points. Animating operations include changing content within a given time period."

So, they only mention the 2 axis.

• Utility patent issue fee $1,740 (first 3.5 years)
• Maintenance fee @ 3.5 years $1,130 (next 4 years)
• Maintenance fee @ 7.5 years $2,850 (next 4 years)
• Maintenance fee @ 11.5 years $4,730 (next 5.5(?) years)

Source: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm#maintain

there was a foreman who was an engineer and has multiple patents. And led the juries, to protect the patents because he'd want "his" patents protected.

More precisely, he is a patent troll who patented the DVR several years after ReplayTV and Tivo released their DVRs to market. He probably recognised a kindred spirit in Apple, which thus managed to get confirmed patents such as pinch-to-zoom (first implemented by Myron Krueger in 1983) and slide-to-unlock (a trivial, obvious gesture but actually patented three years before Apple by Swedish company Neonode).

Additionally, he's been going around grandstanding, giving interviews where he reveals that he instructed the other jury members not to actually read their deliberation instructions because he acted as an expert witness for them in interpreting the law (thus being an expert witness giving testimony to the jury yet unavailable for cross-examination by Samsung). Mistrial material right there.

You just made that up, didn't you?

35 U.S.C. 289 Additional remedy for infringement of design patent

Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties.

He's an electrical engineer. Here's his patent at the USPTO.

I don't understand how any of what you said was intended to contradict what I said.

Regardless of that, from what I can tell, you're incorrect anyway. For one, the "Surface" you're talking about (now called PixelSense) was not demonstrated to the public in 2005, as you claim. Rather, it was publicly unveiled in May 2007, several months after the iPhone's public announcement, which took place in January 2007. The devices were certainly being developed concurrently, so it's possible that Microsoft may have had a claim for "prior user rights" (which is different from prior art), and as a result may have been able to continue using the idea of pinch-to-zoom, despite the fact that Apple filed for the pinch-to-zoom patent in December 2005.

Besides all of that, Apple and Microsoft have had a rather broad set of patent cross-licensing agreements in place for quite awhile now (i.e. a decade or two), and it seems to have worked out fine for them both.

god, i could imagine a trademark violation, but a patent?

The "t" in "uspto.gov" stands for "trademark"; the "p" does stand for "patent", but not everything issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is a patent - some of them are, not surprisingly, trademarks. The item I cited is a trademark.

they'll never release a retina display. it's not their style. they'll release a display with 300dpi or thereabouts, but they wont call it retina any more than Epson call them "retina printers".

It's not because "it's not their style", it's because Apple would probably sue them if they tried.

But copyright only matters if you copy the actual bytes, while patents apply even if you implement it from scratch and have never seen the patented invention before.

This is a common misconception, but there is case law, stretching back to Pacman/Muchkin case in the 1980's, that copyright covers the visual representations of computer programs as well as the actual text of the source and object code.

So computer displays may be protected by design patents, which last for 14 years, conventional patents, which last for 20 years, copyright, which lasts for 120 years, or trademark/trade dress, which potentially lasts forever.

But copyright only matters if you copy the actual bytes, while patents apply even if you implement it from scratch and have never seen the patented invention before.

This is a common misconception, but there is case law, stretching back to Pacman/Muchkin case in the 1980's, that copyright covers the visual representations of computer programs as well as the actual text of the source and object code.

So computer displays may be protected by design patents, which last for 14 years, conventional patents, which last for 20 years, copyright, which lasts for 120 years, or trademark/trade dress, which potentially lasts forever.

And OSI didn't register that logo until 2006

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006:j1td34.3.19

Slight problem: the Prada was referenced in the '677 patent. I.e. The patent was awarded with full awareness of the LG Prada phone, meaning that the LG phone must have been different enough so as not to invalidate the claims of Apple's design patent.

Patents applications are only made public by the patent office after they are granted which may take years to happen. Never heard of submarine patents?

That's absolutely true... before 1997. Welcome to the future, my friend! Applications are now published after 18 months.

Is that not an admission of guilt of infringement?

It is hard not to infringe if you are writing a single search interface. Here's the patent. Apple is claiming to have invented executing searches on multiple sites from a single interface, of ranking and presenting the results in some order, and of being able to guesstimate what file type the user is trying to search for:

The present invention provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information....

...web-browser applications are not designed to search for non-web-based documents or applications located on the computer or an associated computer network and, conversely, File Find-type utility programs are not capable of searching the Internet for web-based documents or applications. There has been no combination of desktop find routines that presents a single interface and Internet browsing routines to allow a computer user to find a needed or desired item of information from among all different types of information storage systems. Additionally, there is no program which is able to process the user's input and then determine, using many different factors, including use of the Internet, the intent of the user as to the file to be retrieved. Accordingly, in order to present a more informative and personalized user interface, a unitary manner of finding a user's desired item of information is needed.

I have bolded the things that Apple claims did not exist before this invention.

Not sure where that list came from the but trademark is a "rectangle with a filigree border and the stylized wording "JACK DANIEL'S TENNESSEE SOUR MASH WHISKEY". The wording "OLD NO. 7 BRAND" appears in an oval shaped design in the center with a filigree appearing around the border."

You can see a picture of it here: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85129461
Which looks really close to the book: https://mashable.com/2012/07/22/jack-daniels-trademark-letter/ (you can see them side-by-side)

It does look like an attempt to capitalize on jack daniel's brand recognition.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85129461
Looks to me like it's a valid trademark.

Maybe you're confused as to what a trademark is?

Please show us a source where Apple claims to have patented the concept of a 'rectangular portable touch screen'.

[Citation Needed]

US Patent D504,889

USPTO page

http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.DImg?Docid=D0504889&PageNum=1&IDKey=FF23354049EF&ImgFormat=tif

Patent Application

USPTO wrote:

United States Patent Application 20120169610

Why doesn't a site that talks about a specific patent at least provide the number or link to the patent in question?

Application #20120169610 VIRTUAL CONTROLLER FOR TOUCH DISPLAY
Filed December 29, 2010
It's also got a July 5, 2012 date, but I'm not sure what exactly that indicates.

If I understand the rules correctly, this means any prior art must have been published, sold, or publicly displayed before December 2009.

Patent Application

> new

This word, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Patent was filed in 2012, Android browser - for example - had scrollbars like these since 2.x.

Way to prove you can't read patents. "This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/969,819, filed Jan. 4, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,130,205"

Here are the two patents. Read them (as I did). There is nothing creative about either of them.

Here are the two patents. Read them (as I did). There is nothing creative about either of them.

It's already possible, and far more cheaply. Also doesn't require a CD drive. Human readable. . .

There's already a term for it: different.

The notion of using a touch-sensitive surface to control an electronic device isn't patentable. The specific type of device, paired with the specific type of screen, and controlled in a specific manner, is all wrapped up in a single invention. Change any core component, and you aren't infringing the patent. Apple's recent inductive-charging patent, for example, actually covers inductive chargers that also use reradiating antennas to amplify the charged device's communication signals. A third-party inductive charger that only charges and does not amplify is not affected. The majority of the patent is actually covering the implementation of reradiating antennas being powered by a docking station to boost reception, and inductive charging is mentioned almost as an afterthought, seemingly to head off claims of "our dock does this too, so it's a novel and separately-patentable invention".

Of course, even if you avoid the patent, you're still vulnerable to a lawsuit, just like you are any other time. Anyone can be sued for anything, at any time. Whether the plaintiff actually wins is a different matter, but the sensational story's trumpeted by the media, anyway, so people can see ads while they shout about how unfair it all is, then see ads again when they're surprised that the case was dropped in a "sudden outbreak of common sense."

Yeap, I was thinking that too, but turns out the patent in question was filed in 2004, so it's not about Sherlock.

While the subject is interesting, the article holds very little information for discussion and does little more than link a previous article from The Verge.
Anyhow, here's the patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604
I'm not qualified to judge its validity, but it seems to encompass more than "the ability to do a single search that covers both the local device and the internet" as stated by the article.

Functionality is irrelevant for design patents. They're on ornamental designs, not functionality.

You keep saying this but it doesn't make it any more true. You have the ability to understand what they are, yet you insist on redefining them into something that is completely meaningless. Functionality is not irrellevant to a design patent. A design patent is really a special kind of utility patent. Design patents don't arbitrarily protect ornamental design, but the ornamental design of a functional item . The functionality of that item is absolutely rellevant to the patent. A real car can't infringe on the design of a toy car because NO ONE WOULD MISTAKE THE TWO. Its the same with Apple's iPad: every example of prior art you've used could not be mistaken for the iPad or visa versa. Samsung's tablet was intended to confuse the ordinary consumer into believing that it actually is an iPad.

Samsung may have copied Apple, but it doesn't seem that Apple, whose design was copied in the first place, should be entitled to any protection from copying.

Show me the tablet computer that Apple copied.

Long winded self-gratifying and Irrellevant treatment of monopolies ignored, Apple has no monopoly. Anyone is free to design a tablet computer that doesn't infringe on designs currently protected by a design patent.

I was actually referring to the tablet from this nearly 20 year old video ....Also, I'll re-iterate again. A design patent covers a design, not functionality.

Also, I'll reiterate again: YOU ARE MISTAKEN. A design patent is granted for the ornamental design on a functional item. The "tablet" in the video was vaporware, NOT A FUNCTIONAL ITEM. No one would mistake something that doesn't exist for something that does exist. It doesn't meet the standard. This is why Samsungs attempt to use a prop from Kubrick's 2001 failed.

There is, in fact, such a fundamental assumption in the court. It's in 35 U.S.C. 282 presumption of validity. First line: "A patent shall be presumed valid."

This is not a "fundamental assumption," of the court, forming some necessary core to how the court works, but an incidental assumption.

You are spewing strawman fallacy after strawman fallacy, confusing concepts, and selectively using definitions that do not apply, and overinflating the importance of what you believe you have uncovered to try to support some underlying argument that may or may not have merit... it is difficult to tell with all your bullshit, and I can only assume that is your intention. You are intellectually dishonest, and your last post proves this. You want to believe something so bad that you are lying about what a design patent protects.

Then I suppose it's a good thing the people who actually award patents in the United States have degrees in the relevant fields.