Slashdot Mirror

• PlayStation
  • (REGISTRANT) KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION JAPAN 1-22 AKASAKA 8-CHOME, MINATO-KU TOKYO 107 JAPAN

• PlayStation
  • (REGISTRANT) Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment CORPORATION JAPAN l-l Akasaka 7-chome Minato-ku, Tokyo JAPAN

• PlayStation
  • (REGISTRANT) KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION JAPAN 1-22 AKASAKA 8-CHOME, MINATO-KU TOKYO 107 JAPAN

• PlayStation
  • (REGISTRANT) Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment CORPORATION JAPAN l-l Akasaka 7-chome Minato-ku, Tokyo JAPAN

1. Re point 1: It's easy to fake the post office seal. Just as it's easy to fake certified cheques, holograms on credit cards, currency, etc. End of story. In addition, it's easy to open envelopes at other than the top 'seal' and re-seal them. Any 'Post Office Seal' remains intact.
2. Re: point 2: Rudimentary is right. Unsupported documents are heresay, and must be rejected, esp. when contradicted by sworn testimony.

Abstract:

The present invention discloses a communication system including a communications network, a multiplicity of communications terminals which are connectable to the communications network and which can be employed by users to communicate via the communications network, the user not necessarily being identified with a given communications terminal, apparatus for monitoring whether or not a user is connected to the communications network irrespective of which of the multiplicity of communications terminals that user is employing, and apparatus for annunciating to a seeking user, currently connected to the communications network via any of the multiplicity of communications terminals, network connection status information relating to other users who are in a set of sought users, which set is definable by the seeking user, and for providing the seeking user connection address information relating to those sought users who are currently connected to the communications network.

The '992 patent was filed January 7, 1991 and issued July 21, 1992, and will thus be enforceable until January 6, 2011 (20 years after filing, which is longer than 17 years after issue in this case.)

The first independent claim reads as follows:

1. A transmission system for providing information to be transmitted to remote locations, the transmission system comprising:
library means for storing items containing information;
identification encoding means for retrieving the information in the items from the library means and for assigning a unique identification code to the retrieved information;
conversion means, coupled to the identification encoding means, for placing the retrieved information into a predetermined format as formatted data;
ordering means, coupled to the conversion means, for placing the formatted data into a sequence of addressable data blocks;
compression means, coupled to the ordering means, for compressing the formatted and sequenced data blocks;
compressed data storing means, coupled to the data compression means, for storing as files the compressed, sequenced data blocks received from the data compression means with the unique identification code assigned by the identification encoding means; and
transmitter means, coupled to the compressed data storing means, for sending at least a portion of one of the files to one of the remote locations.

What are the elements of the invention: 1) storage; 2) unique id code for each item of information in the storage; 3) a way to convert the data into another format; 4) a way to place the formatted data into addressable data blocks; 5) a way to compress the formatted data; 6) a second storage area for the compressed data; 7) a way to transmit the data to remote locations.

Do you really think anyone read this patent and said, "Hey! Let's transmit porn over the Internet. I just found out how to do it!"

The '992 patent was filed January 7, 1991 and issued July 21, 1992, and will thus be enforceable until January 6, 2011 (20 years after filing, which is longer than 17 years after issue in this case.)

The first independent claim reads as follows:

1. A transmission system for providing information to be transmitted to remote locations, the transmission system comprising:
library means for storing items containing information;
identification encoding means for retrieving the information in the items from the library means and for assigning a unique identification code to the retrieved information;
conversion means, coupled to the identification encoding means, for placing the retrieved information into a predetermined format as formatted data;
ordering means, coupled to the conversion means, for placing the formatted data into a sequence of addressable data blocks;
compression means, coupled to the ordering means, for compressing the formatted and sequenced data blocks;
compressed data storing means, coupled to the data compression means, for storing as files the compressed, sequenced data blocks received from the data compression means with the unique identification code assigned by the identification encoding means; and
transmitter means, coupled to the compressed data storing means, for sending at least a portion of one of the files to one of the remote locations.

What are the elements of the invention: 1) storage; 2) unique id code for each item of information in the storage; 3) a way to convert the data into another format; 4) a way to place the formatted data into addressable data blocks; 5) a way to compress the formatted data; 6) a second storage area for the compressed data; 7) a way to transmit the data to remote locations.

Do you really think anyone read this patent and said, "Hey! Let's transmit porn over the Internet. I just found out how to do it!"

If no one can find prior art, this patent #5,253,275 looks pretty good. It seems that it covers not only streaming and buffered play, but things like Tivo and Replay TV.

On the other hand, I can't believe there's no prior art, since it was filed April 2, 1992.

Surely someone here on /. was involved with some kind of interactive, buffered TV project before then. Maybe the MIT Media Lab's Advanced Television Workshop?

C'mon... everyone... start digging and maybe we can find the prior art that's needed to invalidate this thing.

Why? Is there any indication that other companies can't provide the same service just as well and possibly more cheaply?

I, for one, am rather disappointed that a couple of companies have tried to build patent fences around DVRs for what are pretty simple ideas that had been "in the air" for many years. Tivo's bankruptcy wouldn't necessarily free those patents, but at least it would demonstrate again that patent landgrabs don't assure commercial success.

I think this support for Tivo is similar to the support for Microsoft: people are saw awed by a product or feature that they don't stop to ask the question: how well could others do in this market if they had the chance?

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

I went to TESS, looked up word mark PINOCCHIO, and found the following live trademark registrations (links are to TARR because TESS expires URLs):

Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIOS PIZZA REAL PIZZA, REAL CHEESE, REAL FAST for pizza restaurants and PINOCCHIOS for pizza restaurants outside of Maryland.

Sandra Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO'S for pizza restaurants in Maryland.

ACR Shoeland Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for children's shoes.

Hermstedt GmbH owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for modem cards.

Escalon Packers Inc. owns trademark on PINOCCHIO for canned tomato products and more canned tomato products.

DisneyCo owns trademark on WALT DISNEY'S PINOCCHIO for cosmetics. DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls. Thus, the only thing DisneyCo can use trademark law to stop competing film publishers from doing is "moichandizing", as Yogurt put it in Spaceballs.

Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland.

More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.

The Walt Disney Company does not own the rights to the novel Pinocchio or to the name "Pinocchio".

Your post was great, but I'd like to point out that Disney has a trademark on Pinocchio. Just look it up at the US Trademark Office. (Use TESS to search.) Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland. I don't think it's right, but it appears the trademark office does...

yup..here a pic of it in detail :
http://aiw2.uspto.gov:80/.aiw?Docid=20020027173&ho meurl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft1.uspto.gov%3A8080%2Fnetac gi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF% 2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool. html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND% 2526d%3DPG01%2526s1%3DPolifka%2526OS%3DPolifka%252 6RS%3DPolifka&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=03 04222D3873

compliments of uspto.

Ah so _that_ is the plan, I knew there was a reason for patents like this

Patent Application

Actually, it's only a part of a sentence. Under current USPTO acceptable claiming procedure, the individual claims, no matter how long, must be a single sentence. Hence, the reason you often times see semicolons scattered throughout the claims is to separate components so as to increase readability.

From the patent:

(b) a lower enclosure disposed below and in a tandem arrangement with said upper enclosure, said lower enclosure including a lower annular sidewall having a substantially inverted conical configuration and open upper and lower ends and defining a lower interior chamber, said lower annular sidewall of said lower enclosure being mounted at said open upper end thereof to said upper annular sidewall at said open lower end of said upper enclosure such that said lower annular sidewall and lower interior chamber of said lower enclosure are substantially continuous and in flow communication with said upper annular sidewall and upper interior chamber of said upper enclosure...

Ok, one, that's one sentence, and two, the word "said" appears there 11 times. I felt like I was listening to "Einstein on the beach" again.

But apart from that, it (and the rest of the patents) describes the thing, and it's not a tornado gun like most of y'all are hypothesizing. It's...well, it's basically a wind-powered coffee grinder - no blades, just wind. So you can forget about pointing it at someone and watching their molecules randomly rearrange themselves, k? ;)

Triv

It's for Apparatus and method for circular vortex air flow material grinding.

It's dated March 7, 2002 and the applicant is listed as Polifka, Francis D..

You can read it at http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.h tml&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Polifka&OS=Poli fka&RS=Polifka

READ THE DAMN PATENT!
(yes, I know that you'll need to copy the patent number into the seach box, becuase the link is wrong, or just Use the link provided here)

Now also, they aren't pattenting the use of regexps in searching logs, they're pattenting the use of Regexps in conjunction with logical operations in **Generating** alerts. What i'd be interested in seeing is how this impacts of what snort is doing, and has been doing for quite some time now.

Sun's patents, if anything, look much more worrisome. For example, patent 6,477,702 patents the basic Java bytecode architecture and can be used by Sun to shut down any competing implementation. Furthermore, despite lots of cheery announcements, there is no indication that Sun has made a legally binding commitment to license this patent freely for open source implementations, let alone competing commercial implementations. The way it looks to me is that Sun is just stringing the community along with promises, and they will change their tune when they feel that they have established a secure enough market position. Sun has broken lots of Java-related promises; they are not to be trusted either.

In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA . Sun has also fully pened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP). Even to the point of granting full open source re-implentations of J2EE such as JBoss...

JBoss received the green light last week, after Sun told ComputerWire that it would allow all of the APIs contained in J2EE 1.4 to be open sourced. Fleury had expressed concern that certain critical APIs, including Enterprise Java Beans (EJB) 2.1, would be not be made available to open source organizations.

However, Java Community Process director Onno Kluyt said: "Sun's plan with 1.4 is that although it started before JCP 2.5, by the time it ships it will allow the creation of independent implementations. I don't think the APIs are that interesting, because the license that sits on top of J2EE will allow that [independent implementations]".

There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.

check this out. Thought monitoring/Kontrol. This is a US Patent Office entry. US Patent number 3,951,134

Already patented by Amazon.Com Holdings, Inc.?

Actually, Kleenex still has a trademark. See the USPTO web site. (Also check out the Kleenex web site in contrast to the Puffs site. The Kleenex site rather prominently features the logo and circle R for Kleenex.) Other manufacturers, such as Puffs or generic brands, call their products facial tissues. I think you're right in that some people say Kleenex to mean facial tissues, but it hasn't quite reached the state of genericness.

But I think operating systems are a different question entirely, in that a user of an OS is at least slightly more sophisticated than a user of facial tissue. I think most people, even general users, realize that a Mac doesn't run Windows, even though OS X features windows on the screen.

Plus, an OS is not like Kleenex or Saran Wrap. If you ask for Kleenex, someone isn't going to say, "I only have Puffs, is that OK?" But if a lay user were to say to a Mac or Linux user, "So you are running Windows, eh?" they would be corrected pretty promptly ;-).

Word Mark
APPLE
software; maintenance and repair of computer software applications; updating of computer software; computer programming services; computer services dealing with providing access to multimedia and interactive computer products; provision of computer databases and on-line information; services relating to downloading of information and data from the Internet; leasing of computers, computer peripherals and computer software. FIRST USE: 19800900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19800900

"services relating to downloading..." sounds a lot like telecom to me. However, it would require remarkable prescience to include the word Internet in a trademark app filed in 1980, so I checked the filing date. The filing date on that trademark application is 0ctober 2,2002.

I wonder when the former Apple Telecommunications company was founded, and if Apple Computer actually had a trademark covering telecommunications before the October 2,2002 filing date. Or at any rate, before Apple Telecom was founded.

The question here is if a large company can add items to its trademark coverage specifically so they can sue companies they suddenly discover have a similar name that are working in areas they might want to work in someday.

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

These are all the listings I could find for the single word "Windows" that are registered to Microsoft.

Just from a cursory look at these, it would appear that the only way you could use "windows" in reference to a computer or electronic device without fear of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft would be to say, "If there weren't windows in my computer room, I would never see daylight."

Listing 1, Listing 2
Listing 3, Listing 4
Listing 5, Listing 6
Listing 7, Listing 8
Listing 9, Listing 10
Listing 11, Listing 12
Listing 13

~Philly

This is a very bizzare trademark:

Windows

Printers? Is there something I'm missing?

Google is great, but how about a real trademark search?

If you want to talk about patents more generally, yes, Microsoft is patenting a lot of C# related stuff. But so is Sun. Both companies are lying when they say that they are creating "open systems". We have no more reason to trust Sun than Microsoft.

The best approach for the open source community is to give both Sun and Microsoft the cold shoulder. Let McNealy and Gates play out their megalomaniac power plays and let us get on with writing good software.

In fact they have patents for Tab Completion.
Automatic word completion system for partially entered data
Software companies usually patent as many things they use in their own software only to avoid being sued by some lame ass that patent those things years later and the consequent extorsion.

Go to the US Patent Office's website and do a search yourself ( hint "AN/Microsoft" ), there are plenty of examples of patents to be concerned about.