Slashdot Mirror

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.

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 mhas also fully opened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP).

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.

well, according to The US government which won't let me link to search results (just do a search for evisa), they have both owned trademarks since 1999, with visa corp beating JSL by two months.

Visa also owns 'e-visa' and 'e visa', but not 'e-visa.com' or 'evisa.com'. Interestingly, they only own the TM in one international category IC036, while JSL owns it in IC046. I'm surprised VISA didn't register their TM in every single possible field.

Typed Drawing

--
Word Mark EVISA
Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: COMPUTER SERVICES, NAMELY DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING WEB SITES; PROVIDING TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR OTHERS VIA A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK. FIRST USE: 19971227. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19971227
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75816558
Filing Date October 6, 1999
Published for Opposition May 15, 2001
Owner (APPLICANT) JSL Corporation CORPORATION NEVADA 3540 W. Sahara #081 Las Vegas NEVADA 89102
Attorney of Record PARKER H. BAGLEY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Typed Drawing

---

Word Mark EVISA
Goods and Services IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Broad based financial services, namely, banking, payment, credit, debit, charge, pre-paid, stored value, cash disbursement, travelers cheque, travel insurance, deposit access, automated teller machine, point of sale, point of transaction services; providing electronic funds and currency transfer services; providing transaction authorization and settlement services; dissemination of financial information via a global information network
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75779435
Filing Date August 19, 1999
Filed ITU FILED AS ITU
Published for Opposition October 10, 2000
Owner (APPLICANT) Visa International Service Association CORPORATION DELAWARE 900 Metro Center Boulevard Foster City CALIFORNIA 94404
Prior Registrations 1065272;1071114;1313366;AND OTHERS
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

ahem.

Most of them come from unis, but not ALL of them. Lamivudine (3TC) was invented by IAF biochem in Canada.Patent #5,047,407.

Which enzyme's analysis are you talking about? I would argue pretty strongly that successful analysis of one enzyme is hardly the most significant result out of biotech in the last year. There are a whole lot of fascinating areas being covered, things like the massive developments in RNAi understanding, that were off the map a few years ago. Research in Uni's is just as if not more competative than that in the industry community. As the old saying goes, the fights are so bad in academia because the stakes are so low.

Try http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.ht ml&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Microsoft&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AN D&TERM2=browser&FIELD2=&d=pall
So what they don't get by technology, they might try to force by litigation, particularly if software patents would be officialised in Europe.

A quick search of TESS:

Word Mark X++
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Pre-recorded computer program for use in business management, namely, accounting, inventory purchasing, inventory control, order processing and sales, customer account management, budgeting, planning and production control
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM

I guess Damgaard International has a quite nifty piece of IP there to sell to MS.

I checked out their website a few days ago and as you've noticed, it has no details. You can get an idea of the technology from their granted patent (amended) 6,459,091 here. The idea in the patent is to impregnate cloth with a heavy metal such as barium salt, with a metal film layer or cloth woven from metal thread for additional protection. The technology mentioned in the New Scientist article sounds like a newer version that is still pat. pending. There's still no hard information about how well the suits actually work for the different radiation sources, e.g. Medical x-rays, airline cosmic rays, nuclear warfare. It's all marketing.

IE doesn't do real spam filtering yet, but MSN 8 now does content-based filtering that learns by example. Since they brag that it uses a "patented" algorithm, I assume they're using this Bayesian filtering algorithm.

Before everyone starts worrying that MSFT has patented Bayesian filtering, (a) I don't think the patent would hold up well in court, because e.g. ifile is older and (b) patents are not a problem for open-source projects anyway.

What happens when microsoft attempts to enforce this patent

This patent #
6,161,106, was granted to Motorola, in 2000. While this depends on a magnetic method, it is interesting to know that the current referred method depends on interaction with air. How long before "mods" are made to have a drive enclosed in vacuum??? :)))

A system allowing a user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia system to access and execute an embedded program object. The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects. [...]

No one would be allowed a patent on just the software part, absent the machine to run it.

People say that. They say "You can only patent software as part of a Method & Apparatus filing".

But its effectively no longer true, if it ever was. Look at blatant stuff like this.

The extent to which they specify a machine is simply a gratutious "on a microprocessor" comment. If that's all it takes for the patent to become valid, then you can effectively patent pure software.

Unless you want to make it impossible to patent a mechanism with certain properties that make it able to do X using method Y, there's no way to avoid software patents.

The mechanism (the hardware, the machine, the microprocessor) is the same across all software patents. That the point of software, the hardware doesn't have to change. Those properties have always been there.

If only Alan Turing had patented "Method and apparatus to load an arbitrary computable algorithm into computer memory for evaluation", then it would've covered every single software patent, and have expired by now too.

In the abstract, software patents sound OK. "He had a brilliant intuitive leap with practical applications. Why should he be any less protected just because he works in bytes and not metal or plastic?" But read through the USPTO database for a while, and a vanishingly small portion of software patents look like any kind of invention.

Those that are inventive were often patented from just an idea, without a "model" or reference implementation having been presented to the examiners. "Ideas are $0.10 for a pack of 12." "The devil is in the details" "10% inspiration, 90% perspiration".

What some software patenters are able to do is seize upon an important idea, which is difficult to implement. Very likely that many people before them have had the same idea, but not done anything with it because implementation is so tricky, or because the level of supporting technology is not yet adequate. But even if he can't figure out the details of making it work, our lazy inventor can gamble that someone else will. File a patent on the topic and wait until a hardworking entrepreneur has pushed through the sticky parts and is ready to bring his product to market. Then pounce on him with the relevation that all his expenditures were merely "stealing" your idea, and demand a cut of his profits or his business will be destroyed before its begun.

That scenario can occur with non-software patents too, but it seems less frequent there. Maybe because the examiners aren't as easy to fool- they can tell when your "invention" is a rigged demo or a vague idea presented in blustering, grandiose terms.

Read the patent itself. My intepretation of the patent is that he saw OLE in Microsoft Office and, as all predatory patent offenders do, he broadened the scope and then claimed invention (he actually even references OLE in his patent : "Other existing approaches to embedding interactive program objects in documents include the Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) facility in Microsoft Windows...At least one shortcoming of these approaches is that neither is capable of allowing a user to access embedded interactive program objects in distributed hypermedia documents over networks." ActiveX, a misnomer for COM, is a growth of OLE. Given that this guy references it in his patent, obviously Microsoft has prior art on that.)

His "invention" appears to be when these plug-ins perform work on another machine and then return the results. i.e. An embedded window in a "hypertext document" that requests information from a networked computer and then displays it. This seems to be the kind of patent that infuriates Slashdot normally, so it's perplexing how anyone would lines up to cheer them on, or to pretend that they're underdogs

The patent in question can be found here.

To be told more than anyone but a trademark lawyer would want to know, check out the USPTO's trademark page, or their FAQ.

The question of ``trademarks for competing products'' is addressed in Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual , which lists all the different categories which will be considered for registration, from `Abacuses' to `Wholesale travel agencies'. (What, no zippers? :-) They've got five (5) subcategories of `Computer cursor control devices'---go look it up.

The one that looks closest to Phoenix, the browser, is

Computer software for accessing information directories that may be downloaded from the global computer network

With that background, we can now check out Phoenix(the bozo)'s site.

Their full name is Phoenix Technologies, giving absolutely no clue as to what they actually make or do. We find mondo marketing buzzwordmanship (``Connect with Phoenix Technologies for Strategy2003'' ``undisputed device-enabling and management software leader'', &c.). The divisions listed on that front page are

OEM/ODM
System Builder
Distributor/Reseller
Software Developer

Searching on ``Phoenix Technologies'' turns up three entries. two of which are still in use (``live''), with serial numbers

• 2625542, and
• 2484133

(The raw entries (not the links above) also include:

Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TECHNOLOGIES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

Thus, they build stuff no normal human would ever go looking for, so only a geek would have to ``care for the differentiation'', which is why it counts. Any conflict between the two Phoenixes is purely in the minds of the greedy.

That said, of course, ramming it down their throats in a court of law is a lot more costly than a name change. However, if they could find a lawyer to write a letter pro bono, it might be enough to do the job.

I certainly hope the browser folks give the letter a try.

To be told more than anyone but a trademark lawyer would want to know, check out the USPTO's trademark page, or their FAQ.

The question of ``trademarks for competing products'' is addressed in Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual , which lists all the different categories which will be considered for registration, from `Abacuses' to `Wholesale travel agencies'. (What, no zippers? :-) They've got five (5) subcategories of `Computer cursor control devices'---go look it up.

The one that looks closest to Phoenix, the browser, is

Computer software for accessing information directories that may be downloaded from the global computer network

With that background, we can now check out Phoenix(the bozo)'s site.

Their full name is Phoenix Technologies, giving absolutely no clue as to what they actually make or do. We find mondo marketing buzzwordmanship (``Connect with Phoenix Technologies for Strategy2003'' ``undisputed device-enabling and management software leader'', &c.). The divisions listed on that front page are

OEM/ODM
System Builder
Distributor/Reseller
Software Developer

Searching on ``Phoenix Technologies'' turns up three entries. two of which are still in use (``live''), with serial numbers

• 2625542, and
• 2484133

(The raw entries (not the links above) also include:

Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TECHNOLOGIES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

Thus, they build stuff no normal human would ever go looking for, so only a geek would have to ``care for the differentiation'', which is why it counts. Any conflict between the two Phoenixes is purely in the minds of the greedy.

That said, of course, ramming it down their throats in a court of law is a lot more costly than a name change. However, if they could find a lawyer to write a letter pro bono, it might be enough to do the job.

I certainly hope the browser folks give the letter a try.

To be told more than anyone but a trademark lawyer would want to know, check out the USPTO's trademark page, or their FAQ.

The question of ``trademarks for competing products'' is addressed in Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual , which lists all the different categories which will be considered for registration, from `Abacuses' to `Wholesale travel agencies'. (What, no zippers? :-) They've got five (5) subcategories of `Computer cursor control devices'---go look it up.

The one that looks closest to Phoenix, the browser, is

Computer software for accessing information directories that may be downloaded from the global computer network

With that background, we can now check out Phoenix(the bozo)'s site.

Their full name is Phoenix Technologies, giving absolutely no clue as to what they actually make or do. We find mondo marketing buzzwordmanship (``Connect with Phoenix Technologies for Strategy2003'' ``undisputed device-enabling and management software leader'', &c.). The divisions listed on that front page are

OEM/ODM
System Builder
Distributor/Reseller
Software Developer

Searching on ``Phoenix Technologies'' turns up three entries. two of which are still in use (``live''), with serial numbers

• 2625542, and
• 2484133

(The raw entries (not the links above) also include:

Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TECHNOLOGIES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

Thus, they build stuff no normal human would ever go looking for, so only a geek would have to ``care for the differentiation'', which is why it counts. Any conflict between the two Phoenixes is purely in the minds of the greedy.

That said, of course, ramming it down their throats in a court of law is a lot more costly than a name change. However, if they could find a lawyer to write a letter pro bono, it might be enough to do the job.

I certainly hope the browser folks give the letter a try.

To be told more than anyone but a trademark lawyer would want to know, check out the USPTO's trademark page, or their FAQ.

The question of ``trademarks for competing products'' is addressed in Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual , which lists all the different categories which will be considered for registration, from `Abacuses' to `Wholesale travel agencies'. (What, no zippers? :-) They've got five (5) subcategories of `Computer cursor control devices'---go look it up.

The one that looks closest to Phoenix, the browser, is

Computer software for accessing information directories that may be downloaded from the global computer network

With that background, we can now check out Phoenix(the bozo)'s site.

Their full name is Phoenix Technologies, giving absolutely no clue as to what they actually make or do. We find mondo marketing buzzwordmanship (``Connect with Phoenix Technologies for Strategy2003'' ``undisputed device-enabling and management software leader'', &c.). The divisions listed on that front page are

OEM/ODM
System Builder
Distributor/Reseller
Software Developer

Searching on ``Phoenix Technologies'' turns up three entries. two of which are still in use (``live''), with serial numbers

• 2625542, and
• 2484133

(The raw entries (not the links above) also include:

Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TECHNOLOGIES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

Thus, they build stuff no normal human would ever go looking for, so only a geek would have to ``care for the differentiation'', which is why it counts. Any conflict between the two Phoenixes is purely in the minds of the greedy.

That said, of course, ramming it down their throats in a court of law is a lot more costly than a name change. However, if they could find a lawyer to write a letter pro bono, it might be enough to do the job.

I certainly hope the browser folks give the letter a try.

To be told more than anyone but a trademark lawyer would want to know, check out the USPTO's trademark page, or their FAQ.

The question of ``trademarks for competing products'' is addressed in Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual , which lists all the different categories which will be considered for registration, from `Abacuses' to `Wholesale travel agencies'. (What, no zippers? :-) They've got five (5) subcategories of `Computer cursor control devices'---go look it up.

The one that looks closest to Phoenix, the browser, is

Computer software for accessing information directories that may be downloaded from the global computer network

With that background, we can now check out Phoenix(the bozo)'s site.

Their full name is Phoenix Technologies, giving absolutely no clue as to what they actually make or do. We find mondo marketing buzzwordmanship (``Connect with Phoenix Technologies for Strategy2003'' ``undisputed device-enabling and management software leader'', &c.). The divisions listed on that front page are

OEM/ODM
System Builder
Distributor/Reseller
Software Developer

Searching on ``Phoenix Technologies'' turns up three entries. two of which are still in use (``live''), with serial numbers

• 2625542, and
• 2484133

(The raw entries (not the links above) also include:

Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TECHNOLOGIES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

Thus, they build stuff no normal human would ever go looking for, so only a geek would have to ``care for the differentiation'', which is why it counts. Any conflict between the two Phoenixes is purely in the minds of the greedy.

That said, of course, ramming it down their throats in a court of law is a lot more costly than a name change. However, if they could find a lawyer to write a letter pro bono, it might be enough to do the job.

I certainly hope the browser folks give the letter a try.

To be told more than anyone but a trademark lawyer would want to know, check out the USPTO's trademark page, or their FAQ.

The question of ``trademarks for competing products'' is addressed in Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual , which lists all the different categories which will be considered for registration, from `Abacuses' to `Wholesale travel agencies'. (What, no zippers? :-) They've got five (5) subcategories of `Computer cursor control devices'---go look it up.

The one that looks closest to Phoenix, the browser, is

Computer software for accessing information directories that may be downloaded from the global computer network

With that background, we can now check out Phoenix(the bozo)'s site.

Their full name is Phoenix Technologies, giving absolutely no clue as to what they actually make or do. We find mondo marketing buzzwordmanship (``Connect with Phoenix Technologies for Strategy2003'' ``undisputed device-enabling and management software leader'', &c.). The divisions listed on that front page are

OEM/ODM
System Builder
Distributor/Reseller
Software Developer

Searching on ``Phoenix Technologies'' turns up three entries. two of which are still in use (``live''), with serial numbers

• 2625542, and
• 2484133

(The raw entries (not the links above) also include:

Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TECHNOLOGIES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

Thus, they build stuff no normal human would ever go looking for, so only a geek would have to ``care for the differentiation'', which is why it counts. Any conflict between the two Phoenixes is purely in the minds of the greedy.

That said, of course, ramming it down their throats in a court of law is a lot more costly than a name change. However, if they could find a lawyer to write a letter pro bono, it might be enough to do the job.

I certainly hope the browser folks give the letter a try.

IBM, perhaps unfortunately, would be promptly sued for trademark infringement if they did that, since Sun still holds a trademark on the phrase. I liked it better when, for once, relatively obscure bits of technical reality were lined up with marketing hype. Alas, no longer; the marketing hype lives on.

It's already patented in the USA, UK, Europe-wide and is on sale in USA and Britain.
You can't patent things which other people have (well, you shouldn't be able to, anyway.)

I'm assuming Tivo doesn't own a patent on their TV recording technology

You'd be assuming very, very wrong. Not that any searching would have told you this. Nope.

These are just the three most recently granted patents. TiVo has others. Between TiVo and Replay pretty much every function and capability of a PVR is patented.

I'm assuming Tivo doesn't own a patent on their TV recording technology

You'd be assuming very, very wrong. Not that any searching would have told you this. Nope.

These are just the three most recently granted patents. TiVo has others. Between TiVo and Replay pretty much every function and capability of a PVR is patented.

I'm assuming Tivo doesn't own a patent on their TV recording technology

You'd be assuming very, very wrong. Not that any searching would have told you this. Nope.

These are just the three most recently granted patents. TiVo has others. Between TiVo and Replay pretty much every function and capability of a PVR is patented.

correct me if im wrong, but is USPTO's website http://patft.uspto.gov/ violating the patent it issued?

if you go to to http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%275,576,951%27.WKU.&OS=PN/5,576, 951&RS=PN/5,576,951

now click add to cart and check out. isnt that violation of the patent right there? wtf?

RIOR APPLICATIONS This is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/116,654 filed Sep. 3, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,309,355 which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/396,283 filed Aug. 21, 1989, which is a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/152,973 filed Feb. 8, 1988, which is a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 822,115 filed Jan. 24, 1986, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 613,525 filed May 24, 1984, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,567,359. This is also a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 08/096,610 filed Jul. 23, 1993, which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/752,026 filed Aug. 29, 1991 which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 168,856 filed Mar. 16, 1988, which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 822,115 filed Jan. 24, 1986 which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 613,525, filed May 24, 1984, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,567,359. This is also a continuation of the combination of the above-cited applications Ser. No. 08/116,654 filed Sep. 3, 1993 and Ser. No. 08/096,610 filed Jul. 23, 1993.

As it appears this has been trying to be processed for quite sometime before it was accepted, and also relies on several prior works.

They're just begging for a lawsuit claiming a confusingly similar trademark

These lawsuits are complete crap. After reading the patent, you can see that it was intended as a Airline travel agent system...

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, the objects of this invention, among others are to:

enhance the travel agent's sales ability
create a flexible travel sales system
increase the sales productivity and information accuracy of vacation tour packages sold by travel agents; ...


How did PANIP ever win the initial 10 lawsuits?

If you go to the USPTO page describing the patent, then scroll to the bottom you'll find a nice set of links, one of which is an Add to Cart button. Does that count as using graphical and textual information on a video screen for the purpose of making a sale?

If you go to the USPTO page describing the patent, then scroll to the bottom you'll find a nice set of links, one of which is an Add to Cart button. Does that count as using graphical and textual information on a video screen for the purpose of making a sale?

I hereby claim all intellectual property to the <form></form> tags. You can find this here. I'll see your ass in court, Slashdot!

EpiCentric also has a patent application running.
webMethods only has one application running. No patent, no royalties (yet).

Why didn't the press bother to find this out?

Anyway, I suspect both companies are not too sure about the position of their IP. I wonder whether they consulted their patent attorney before they contacted the W3C.
Unfortunately, there's no search report for the applications, yet.

This whole methodology is already patented by Microsoft. ANY implementation not licensed by Microsoft is going to be a violation... And now that you know, it is treble damages...

patent 6,161,130

Or atleast I'd consider it if I held U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,954,064; 4,075,948; and 4,148,260 which utilize "a gravity powered system that requires a tunnel several thousand feet into the earth."
If you wish to avoid future legal action, stop publicly defaming my patented inventions immediately!

Or atleast I'd consider it if I held U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,954,064; 4,075,948; and 4,148,260 which utilize "a gravity powered system that requires a tunnel several thousand feet into the earth."
If you wish to avoid future legal action, stop publicly defaming my patented inventions immediately!

Or atleast I'd consider it if I held U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,954,064; 4,075,948; and 4,148,260 which utilize "a gravity powered system that requires a tunnel several thousand feet into the earth."
If you wish to avoid future legal action, stop publicly defaming my patented inventions immediately!

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
Microsoft's patent on a Digital Rights Management Operating System

http://cryptome.org/ms-drm-os.htm

Microsoft Digital Rights Management Patent Applications Pending 2001-2002

Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act

Security Systems Standards and Certification Act

if anyone tries to patent it

Clicketh thee here, young man (or woman).

Since they are in two entirely seperate categories, linux software and shitty movies, they chance of somebody confusing them is slight.

Then what about GHOST IN THE SHELL brand computer data backup (ghost) software with a command line (shell) interface? Would that clash with GHOST IN THE SHELL® brand video games?

I went to TESS and ran a query for live U.S. trademark registrations matching the word GHOST, and got eyewear, a removable LCD panel, cosmetics, force-feedback joysticks, and loudspeakers.

I'd be worried about a trademark lawsuit from Symantec more than anything.

Ghost is a trademark of Paramount Pictures

You should do a trademark search at the patent and trademark office before releasing infringing software.

The system sucks, but they do have the term "Windows" tied up trademark wise, and have actively defended that in court.

More can be found here, here and here.

If you have the money, you can claim anything as your own.

If you read PanIP's initial complaint setting forth the "grounds" for its lawsuit, it is pretty clear that all the allegations are mere conclusory statements. "Defendant is infringing on our patent #whatever and continues to do so." ... stuff like that does not give adequate notice per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2). Just saying "you're infringing my patent #1234567" isn't enough. Gotta give some minimal explanation as to how they are infringing your patent. Check out Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp., Inc., 926 F.Supp. 948 S.D.Cal., 1996 for a good description on this vis a vis patent infringement suits. California federal court, no less. Keep in mind that the patent office is the second most profitable government organization, right behind the IRS. They are in the business of selling patents. For them to say "no, we're not gonna grant you a patent for that because that's a load of bullshit" is like Walmart kicking out customers because they aren't well-dressed enough to shop there.

'This invention is directed to data processing systems designed to facilitate commercial, financial and educational transactions between multimedia terminals such as automated sales workstations, information dispensing networks and self-service banking systems. {...) This invention also relates to financial service application processing, and interactive delivery of informative, educational and recreational audio-visual programs to the home, school or office.'

And later on: 'It will be clear that this system may be applied to many other types of customer service and sales industries.'

5. The search system according to claim 1, wherein said graphical and textual information are stored on a CD-ROM disc.

Patents cost money, right? So more patents really means more money for the USPTO, right? By granting ridiculous patents they are advertising that anyone can get a patent for just about anything. More patent applications = more money. How else could they increase their revenue? It's not like they could just encourage people to come up with more legitimately patentable ideas.

And the lawyers, their in on it too. You can bet on that. Damn lawyers. We could do with a few less of those bastards.

If you go to this link listed in the story that points to one of the patents, then scroll to the bottom you'll find a nice set of links, one of which is Add to Cart. What a great way to demonstrate this invention!

If you go to this link listed in the story that points to one of the patents, then scroll to the bottom you'll find a nice set of links, one of which is Add to Cart. What a great way to demonstrate this invention!