Slashdot Mirror

HDCD, while developed by a high-end audio company whose name currently escapes me, is now 100% owned by (you guessed it!) Microsoft along with the aforementioned original developer.

It is also patented.

You can find an overview of how things work during the encoding process here, but don't expect anyone to tell you how to do any of those things without you first handing them vast fistfulls of cash.

You might be able to glean some useful information from the patent text, but probably the only sane way to go about this effort would be to read the bitstream coming from the CD. And while you should able to discern what the bitstream looks like without too much effort, it would probably be a fairly involved task to learn what it means.

So. My only suggestion would be to give up now before you've wasted any effort on trying. But if you insist on putting real time into this project, here's a couple of nice encapsulated postscript HDCD logos you can illegitimately use to adorn any illegitimate HDCD products you produce.

Office office suite

"Microsoft Office(tm) application suite" sounds better.

Media Player media player (or is that Windows Media media player these days?)

Microsoft products are often named including a generic term, and "Microsoft" or "Windows" is the trademark. Thus, the WMA player is called "Windows(tm) Media Player (generic)", and the database management system is "Microsoft(tm) SQL Server (generic)". And the OS itself is the "Windows operating system" or "Windows environment", which contains a ".NET framework".

OpenOffice office suite

You need only one generic term: "StarOffice(TM) software"; "OpenOffice.org project".

America On Line online service, AOL Instant Messenger instant messenger

"America Online service"; "AOL Instant Messenger service and software"

Unix operating system

Close enough to the official line.

BSD unix software distribution (for extra fun, spell out what BSD stands for), Solaris unix, Gnu's Not Unix unix

Better: "BSD operating system family", "Solaris operating environment", "GNU system", "GNU/Linux operating system", etc.

Laser Jet laser printer, DeskJet inkjet printer

You're more likely to find those in HP literature as "LaserJet printer" or "DeskJet printer".

That way lies madness.

That way lies trademark law. You need only one generic term, not the monstrosities that you exaggerated.

Though an argument can probably be made that the Linux trademark has not been protected by its holder in that regard, since he actually encourages people to use the term to refer to more than just the kernel, but that is another kettle of fish.

The LINUX® mark covers "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation".

"tissue" has a meaning very different from anything Kleenex makes

OK, "Kleenex facial tissue".

I've seen a Barbie doll commercial where the word "doll" was awkwardly dubbed in, presumably after Mattel legal complained.

Even without trademark law, what's better: to be pedantically correct, or to be understood?

It depends, If it is being used to indentify a product or a company then it can be trademarked. But that does not protect it from from being used in other ways. For example, Disney has several newly submitted trademarks HERE, and they mostly pertain to products, however that may prevent someone from making a Mickey Mouse line of clothes, that does not prevent someone from making a Mickey Mouse cartoon. Trademarks are unique identifiers for a line of products and/or services, but that does not keep people from working with it in some other line, whether they like or not.

Not all medicines were of the snake oil variety. In 1897 Felix Hoffman of the Bayer company found a better method to synthesize acetylsalicylic acid. In 1899 Bayer began marketing the new product as Aspirin. Bayer lost is rights to the trademark, as aspirin became a generic term.

Actually, there is no "S in a circle" symbol for a registered service mark. The symbols TM and SM are used for unregistered marks. The "R in a circle" (®) is used for registered marks, be they service marks or trademarks.

I tried to find a good reference that explains that, but perhaps this link will do: 'Any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO. However, you may use the federal registration symbol "®" only after the USPTO actually registers a mark, and not while an application is pending. Also, you may use the registration symbol with the mark only on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the federal trademark registration.'

They claim that these trademarks are registered in many countries throughout the world. However, TESS lists only some for the US, where they're based, I had thought?

Also, if you check this link here, you can see that Scientology has 173 trademarks, which include the letter "S", "THETA", "LIFE", and "NED", among many others.

Trademarks only started being registered about the mid eighties, but they point first use back into the fifties.

Point of this? Why on earth would a "church" or "religion", or even pseudoscience, *NEED* 173 Trademarks? Anyone who feels that this "religion" is truly something founded on research and not the facility of a science fiction hack who was paranoid and delusional, and is nothing more than a real pyramid scheme . . . Well, hope they wake up before they're too far into the cult.

Ok, I jumped the gun a little when I posted this. Under the name that they give on their trademark page, I found "Freedom" and "Flag" and "Source" in the USPTO website, and they are only Magazines.
Although they listed so many of those on their site I am unable to find some of them in the USPTO find. Over all only 173 records were the owner's names contains "Religious" and "Center" and "Technology" (yeah, go booleen searches...), incase you need a link, http://www.uspto.gov

One minor correction. You can actually find out the status of any application for which you have the correct reference numbers at http://pair.uspto.gov.

This will let you know if a Notice of Allowance has been sent and a patent is about to issue.

A little boy from Minnesota, aided by his father, who is a patent lawyer, has patented swinging. In the description of his invention, he clarifies that while "The standard method of swinging on a swing is defined by oscillatory motion of the swing and the user along an axis," his method involves pulling the chains, alternating between the two, in order to swing back and forth, i.e., parallel to the axis.

The procedure is detailed in section 1.99 of the following document:
Title 37. Note that there is a $180 fee.
I'm sure there are members of the slashdot community that would
be willing to contribute. As would I, unfortunately I have to post this AC.

The GIF patent expires June 20, 2003 and is US patent 4,558,302.

You can't do that because you'll violate this patent.

Lets see:

To reseach prior art? No, they don't do that anymore.

To enable inventors to file a patent? No, you can't do that without a good lawyer unless you want a useless patent.

To defend patents? No, lawyers again.

To write patent law? Nope. Congress and more lawyers.

So the difference between the current situation and doing away with the USPTO and just letting lawyers write up descriptions of inventions and defending patent rights would be? Nothing. (except $1 Billion US dollars saved)

-Ryan C.

I am a registered US Patent Agent...#51,292 if you wanna look it up. You can use a patent agent instead of an attorney. Attorneys went to law school, but probably only took one or two IP classes. Patent Agents and Attorneys take the same registration exam from the USPTO. An agent will likely cost less. However, an agent cannot secure you trademarks, or litigate (ie sue someone for infringing) for you, since they are not lawyers.

Suggestions to check out "Patent It Yourself" are right on. I use this book all the time, and it gets better each version. Also, uspto.gov is a fairly well designed site with a ton of useful content, as you have probably seen already.

Just like all other legal activities, there are specifc rules to follow. Getting a lawyer helps you make sure that yuo follow all the rules. However, all of the rules are available...though not necessarily understandable. Again, many of them are explained in "Patent It Yourself."

The purpose of getting a lawyer is to get you the best patent possible (gee, no shit). That means broad coverage...probably broader than you indented when you made your invention. The lawyer will know how to anticipate possible obstacles to getting your broad patent. This is what you pay for...the broadest protection possible.

Anyway, anyone can file their own patent application. Believe it or not, it is the USPTO's job to help you get a patent. Once you file your application, you are allowed to ask the Examiner what it will take to get your patent granted. However, this will not have the broadest claims possible, but you will have a patent protecting what you describe in the specification.

Free advice: There are a few types of claims to describe your invention. Method of use, apparatus, and product. You invent a cup with a handle. You also have developed the machine that makes the cup and attaches the handle (apparatus). Your cup (product) has a specific purpose (method of use). You want to write your specification to describe all of these. In IP-Speak, this is called supporting your claims. This is vital, and most patent writers start by writing claims, then supporting them in the specification, rather than writing a specification first, followed by the claims.

More free advice: Provided you haven't publically disclosed your invention (published anything about it, offered it for sale, etc...), if your first application gets completely rejected, you can file another one. Furthermore, if your first application isn't exactly what you want, you can make improvements to your invention, add to your first application, and file a second application while the first is still pending. This is called a CIP (continuation-in-part) and everyone uses them. The day after you file your first application will be the day you discover a better way to do it! The downside of course is someone else might be right behind you with the same invention.
This is part of the patent tradeoff...the longer you keep it secret the more options you have, but the more likely someone else will discover the same invention.

In all seriousness, I'd be glad to answer more questions, general or specific. Take my ./ ID and add on immunicon.com to send an email.

Good luck!!

IMAL but let me part from my traditional role and offer some free advice.

First of all, getting a patent is expensive. Its as simple as that. The government doesn't give away monopolies easily, that's why most people pay us patent lawyers to handle it. If you can't afford the $5-$10k it will cost to file a patent application, you should probably reevaluate the need for it.

Second, trying to find a cheap patent lawyer in the bay area is a waste of time. The PTO has a list of all registered patent attorneys and agents; I suggest you use that to locate a lawyer in the mid-west or a small town where the market rates for lawyers are less than $200-$300/hr for a junior attorney. Most patent work does not require face to face meetings so there should not be a problem using an attorney in another city or state.

Finally, as one of the posters pointed out, you can file a provisional application for a nominal fee (under $100), which (if the description is complete enough), will act as a placeholder for 12 months to allow you to determine if the cost is worth proceeding with a formal application and/or to find someone else to foot the bill for a formal application.

Good luck.

Incidentally, I also agree that lots of incorrect information is floating around in this thread, making me think it is about time for a /. interview with a patent lawyer to correct lots of misimpretions about the patent system that seem to be pervasive among /.ers.

I too have been looking into this lately. As far as a lawyer or not, I think it depends on your skill level at being able to describe your concept effectively, using the correct buzzwords that the USPO might be looking for. I have many years experience with writing technical documents for the government, reams worth, so I feel confident that I can at least establish the paper work.

There have been a few good answers here. I agree with NOLO books, they are the best. My own little copy-cat method, is to search for the most complicated AWARDED patent that is in the general vicinity of mine, and don't stop writing until it at least looks passable. I think you also have to say to yourself "how much am I willing to lose?" just like any gamble in life. I know my stats: Around $1,000.00, many hours of hard labor writing the thing and making the drawings, and hours more of research making sure every possible corner is covered.

One poster here mentioned that you get two tries? If that is true, then I say I will write my own, submit it, if it gets bounced I'll run to a lawyer then. I have been sitting on this idea for five years now and even have a working mock-up (which I hear you no longer need). I too have looked high and low and still I do not see anything there, but I know something must be creeping out there somewhere. If someone were to challenge me, I guess I would just let them have it.

I don't agree with all this fear of being sued, or fear of not being good enough. I am tired of people being frightened into submission, afraid to put out even a simple flash video or a new web site for fear of infringement. If you are not good at essay writing, and being very descriptive, then patent writing is not for you. But look at these: Patent App #20020124197 Could someone be trying to patent the CTRL-ALT-DEL or the Function key (Fn) to bring a notebook out of sleep mode? Or this one: 20020123936 , it seems someone is trying to patent a town web site that includes maps and local merchant access "generating a home page with links to web pages that are relevant to the specific town, wherein one of the links is a map link to a map page that displays a map of the specific town".

Can you even patent a web page, or more importantly, should you be able to? Or how about serving content to a client?

If these guys can do it, then I certainly can.

I too have been looking into this lately. As far as a lawyer or not, I think it depends on your skill level at being able to describe your concept effectively, using the correct buzzwords that the USPO might be looking for. I have many years experience with writing technical documents for the government, reams worth, so I feel confident that I can at least establish the paper work.

There have been a few good answers here. I agree with NOLO books, they are the best. My own little copy-cat method, is to search for the most complicated AWARDED patent that is in the general vicinity of mine, and don't stop writing until it at least looks passable. I think you also have to say to yourself "how much am I willing to lose?" just like any gamble in life. I know my stats: Around $1,000.00, many hours of hard labor writing the thing and making the drawings, and hours more of research making sure every possible corner is covered.

One poster here mentioned that you get two tries? If that is true, then I say I will write my own, submit it, if it gets bounced I'll run to a lawyer then. I have been sitting on this idea for five years now and even have a working mock-up (which I hear you no longer need). I too have looked high and low and still I do not see anything there, but I know something must be creeping out there somewhere. If someone were to challenge me, I guess I would just let them have it.

I don't agree with all this fear of being sued, or fear of not being good enough. I am tired of people being frightened into submission, afraid to put out even a simple flash video or a new web site for fear of infringement. If you are not good at essay writing, and being very descriptive, then patent writing is not for you. But look at these: Patent App #20020124197 Could someone be trying to patent the CTRL-ALT-DEL or the Function key (Fn) to bring a notebook out of sleep mode? Or this one: 20020123936 , it seems someone is trying to patent a town web site that includes maps and local merchant access "generating a home page with links to web pages that are relevant to the specific town, wherein one of the links is a map link to a map page that displays a map of the specific town".

Can you even patent a web page, or more importantly, should you be able to? Or how about serving content to a client?

If these guys can do it, then I certainly can.

I too have been looking into this lately. As far as a lawyer or not, I think it depends on your skill level at being able to describe your concept effectively, using the correct buzzwords that the USPO might be looking for. I have many years experience with writing technical documents for the government, reams worth, so I feel confident that I can at least establish the paper work.

There have been a few good answers here. I agree with NOLO books, they are the best. My own little copy-cat method, is to search for the most complicated AWARDED patent that is in the general vicinity of mine, and don't stop writing until it at least looks passable. I think you also have to say to yourself "how much am I willing to lose?" just like any gamble in life. I know my stats: Around $1,000.00, many hours of hard labor writing the thing and making the drawings, and hours more of research making sure every possible corner is covered.

One poster here mentioned that you get two tries? If that is true, then I say I will write my own, submit it, if it gets bounced I'll run to a lawyer then. I have been sitting on this idea for five years now and even have a working mock-up (which I hear you no longer need). I too have looked high and low and still I do not see anything there, but I know something must be creeping out there somewhere. If someone were to challenge me, I guess I would just let them have it.

I don't agree with all this fear of being sued, or fear of not being good enough. I am tired of people being frightened into submission, afraid to put out even a simple flash video or a new web site for fear of infringement. If you are not good at essay writing, and being very descriptive, then patent writing is not for you. But look at these: Patent App #20020124197 Could someone be trying to patent the CTRL-ALT-DEL or the Function key (Fn) to bring a notebook out of sleep mode? Or this one: 20020123936 , it seems someone is trying to patent a town web site that includes maps and local merchant access "generating a home page with links to web pages that are relevant to the specific town, wherein one of the links is a map link to a map page that displays a map of the specific town".

Can you even patent a web page, or more importantly, should you be able to? Or how about serving content to a client?

If these guys can do it, then I certainly can.

...and I write patent applications (plant patents, as opposed to utility patents) all the time.

My company has had dozens of plant patents granted, and the vast majority of them were done without lawyers.

I highly recommend Nolo Press's Patent It Yourself -- it walks you through the process and assumes you know nothing about it.

You have to be patient; the process, from application to grant, takes anywhere from 18 to 36 months. Also, filing with "small entity" status will halve most of the fees, but you'll need deep pockets in any case.

Good luck!

I would expect a lot of posts basically saying "patents are (or have become) for rich corporations to hoard their cash and take out the little guy. Here's my .02 cents:

If the lawyers are charging that much, do some research on your own and figure out how to do it yourself. Here are some quick links as starting points I found from google (I could wonder why the author didn't do this first, but oh well):

The US patent office homepage.
The patent grant and patent application.
The patent database. Your 200$/hr lawyer would probably look here.

You're on your own here, but a google search also returns some commercial websites that automate the process for you. The sponsored ad that came up in google seems reasonable. Another sponser ad was a book, which details how to apply for patents yourself (the reviews seem nice, but they always are).

I would expect a lot of posts basically saying "patents are (or have become) for rich corporations to hoard their cash and take out the little guy. Here's my .02 cents:

If the lawyers are charging that much, do some research on your own and figure out how to do it yourself. Here are some quick links as starting points I found from google (I could wonder why the author didn't do this first, but oh well):

The US patent office homepage.
The patent grant and patent application.
The patent database. Your 200$/hr lawyer would probably look here.

You're on your own here, but a google search also returns some commercial websites that automate the process for you. The sponsored ad that came up in google seems reasonable. Another sponser ad was a book, which details how to apply for patents yourself (the reviews seem nice, but they always are).

I would expect a lot of posts basically saying "patents are (or have become) for rich corporations to hoard their cash and take out the little guy. Here's my .02 cents:

If the lawyers are charging that much, do some research on your own and figure out how to do it yourself. Here are some quick links as starting points I found from google (I could wonder why the author didn't do this first, but oh well):

The US patent office homepage.
The patent grant and patent application.
The patent database. Your 200$/hr lawyer would probably look here.

You're on your own here, but a google search also returns some commercial websites that automate the process for you. The sponsored ad that came up in google seems reasonable. Another sponser ad was a book, which details how to apply for patents yourself (the reviews seem nice, but they always are).

I strongly recommend going to to do searches on trademarks for your idea.

Also, I like "Patent It Yourself", which is how I got my patent application filed. It's a really good text. Also, if you need representation, talk to the guys at GrayCary. They are a good bunch of folks, and they will do some consulting gratis and defer payment......

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

why are we even considering this method when microsoft has a trademark on it? nothing can be done.. they have a lock on it. trademark here

Despair, Inc. has held the trademark on the :-( for some time, now.

Read all about it.

God bless patents

There is a long held principle called "official notice" that the PTO and courts have at their disposal in deciding patent validity.

It basically holds that obviousness can be present based upon a technical line of reasoning, such as established business principles, art-recognized equivalents, legal precedent, common knowledge or official notice.

The PTO has posted example arguments deciding for obviousness as applied to business method patents

These arguments are applicable in cases involving automation of a known manual process, including automation on the Internet .....the chances are low that there will be any bright lines of easy patentability in the area of obviousness for business methods. The Patent Office has made it clear with these examples that there are various weapons at their disposal for rejecting business method patent applications.

"1. A method of commerce comprising:

creating a first trade channel for a predetermined good or service between a first entity and second entity, using, at least in part, an interconnected network of computers; and

eliminating, simultaneously or nearly simultaneously, a second trade channel for said predetermined good or service between said first entity and a third entity."

"1. A method of commerce comprising:

creating a first trade channel for a predetermined good or service between a first entity and second entity, using, at least in part, an interconnected network of computers; and

eliminating, simultaneously or nearly simultaneously, a second trade channel for said predetermined good or service between said first entity and a third entity."

But am I missing something?

Patenting an online auction in my mind is akin to patenting the idea a selling milk in refrigerated display cases, ie,

What, you mean something like this patent?

Patent Seems valid if we accept the idea of Business method patents.

Check out the actual patent application. As near as I can tell, it's a mesh of photo sensors and LCDs so that it works from every direction.

United States Patent 5,864,874
Shapiro January 26, 1999
Community co-presence system

Virtual Places

I think this patented idea and method is obvious and useful. The methods practised allows a community of users to interact depending on a resource (ie. you visit a URI and can interact with others at that URI using the protocol developed).

.. yet he does apparently like trademarking RSS.

Doesn't seem quite consistent with one of the first US patents (1790) being for a method of making potash and Pearle ash. And that's to say nothing of the first British patent hundreds (?) of years earlier. Sure, founders would not have envisioned software patents, but just because they don't fit into some clumsy 'machine shop' metaphor doesn't mean they don't still make some sense.

Here's the Application.

His patented voicemail technology is used by the majority of telephone companies throughout the world.
I believe they're talking about patent 5,475,748 which you can look up here. Was there really no prior art on this?

What he's doing is just immersive research. And he's paying for it with his own money...

So if we were able to see his tax return he wouldn't have possibly deducted the cost of the house as a business expense for research. No siree. Wouldn't do that. After all, the USPTO has already made him a rich man by giving him a monopoly on an idea, so why would he begrudge them some of those winnings?

Observe, a model doesn't need to work to be patented, but it does to be prior art. Something's wrong here...

-jbn

Heh. As a Philadelphia resident, why am I not surprised? Like they don't have a small enough fan base after the strike and years of playing like shit, hey, let's alienate the few who remain over trademark issues.

Even when they do get the occasional decent player, like that fuckwad Scott Rolen, he turns into a whiny bitch in a season or two and demands to be traded to a contender.

So it appears that "Phils" is trademarked, but if your friend's site is noncommercial and expressly not affilliated with the Phillies, he might stand a chance at fighting it them. If there are any posts critical of the team on there, he can always try playing the 'First Amendment' card.

With the anti-baseball sentiment these days, I think a jury would probably side with your friend, if it came to that. :-)

I believe you mean this.

The quote: "The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."

Now, one could convincingly argue that software patents shouldn't be allowed in the first place, or that they should have shorter terms, or that the patent office doesn't do a competent job of checking for obviousness or prior art. I'd probably agree. But the fact remains that any damage done by patents is at worst a temporary setback to everyone else, not an irretrievable disaster.

We see very little use of strong cryptography, as the technology was expensive to use for a long while. The start of the "Internet Revolution" (the time when most people got on the net) passed without the use of cryptography being routine, partially because it was not possible to include cryptography in the software everybody used without a lot of hassle.

We are seeing similar results from another patent - David Chaum's patent on blind signatures. This blocks the simple implementations of digital cash, and is at least part of the reason why true digital cash is not widely used, and we instead of use substitutes (like Visa over SSL).

Also, both of these blocks has resulted in a large interia of non-use, with alternative solutions being employed (in the case of RSA, non-encryption, in the case of blind signatures, accounting-based systems). It is in my opinion a high risk that neither of these will be really resolved, as we got sub-optimal de-facto standards, and standards have a way of staying around (look at qwerty for an example.)

It is clear that patents do have permanent influence, as the availability of technology during particular periods of change is relevant for the future development of society. And with the pace of change in software "scenery" (what becomes realistic to do due to changing external constraints - there are few changes in software itself), 20 years gives a permanent change of direction. The potential of the technology is lost in an attempt at commercial exploitation, like the beauty of a valley turned into a reservoir. When the reservoir is drained 20 years later the valley is not the same, and it takes a long time before it becomes even similar.

Eivind, who has not decided whether software patents may be a good idea, but is certain he does not like the way they are implemented.

I would like to point out that pdf files are not 'open' formats. As a matter of fact, you can't get any more closed or proprietary than the Patented 'Portable' Document Format, which has almost 102 related patents.
Yes, PDF is 'free as in beer' but in no way is it an 'open' model, nor is it a 'standard' but rather a 'de facto standard' like 'flash.' Because it's patented, because it's owned Adobe can say "anyone who want's to sell or give away a program that can read or convert PDFs has to pay us $.75 cents per copy of software..."
There is an industry standard, it's called PostScript, but unfortunately, that too is entangled with patents, and the main issue with PostScript is that the fonts needed to render PS files correctly are mostly owned (by adobe no less), although you can use free fonts to replace them, this can cause any munber of formatting issues. Adobe maimed postscript through insane fees on their fonts (to complement a laser printer with a full set of PostScript fonts may cost easily $600 or more), to force people into using pdf, which comes with all those owned adobe fonts supported 'free'.
PDF isn't free, and adobe may well decide they need to crack down on programs that allow people to open pdfs or convert them to other formats. Especially if they believe there is money to be made from it.

Can I patent how I can swing on tree swing?

...oh wait...that kid beat me to it!

I wonder just who is going to get the patent on patenting things, and then satrt suing everyone? Or did someone already get that too? Leave it to the lawyers... We already know IBM beat you to it...

US Patent on Using the Bathroom by IBM

the problem with pixelated detectors is reading out the darn pixels fast enough. Normally this is done by some sort of bucket brigade across the ccd or some sort of serial memory access across a cmos array. very slow. And parallel access to an entire ray is absurdly complicated and expensive

In my approach I solved this problem by multiplexing all of the pixel signals onto the same single wire. Each pixel when activated creates an osciliory signal at a unique frequency. All of these are combined on a single wire out put (amplified by a single fast amplifier) and then the AC signal is digitized by a single fast digitizer and streamed to a hard disk. The frame rate is determined by the frequency separation between the pixels, so if the oscillation frequency is a megahertz then a frame can be resolved every microsecond. This process is continuos and can go on for as long as you have disk space.

the other cool feature is that the chip you do this on is a single pixel chip! not a pixelated array. the pixels come from painting the chip with a rainbow of light. for a 1-D example, imagine red light on the left edge and blue light on the right. when a reference signal comes in it beats with the light. the beat frequency that gets ouput is determined by where (left to right) the incoming beam hit.

of course the good news and the bad news is that this is intended for active remote sensing where one is illumunating a target with a single frequency laser. It does not work with ambient light (note the second articele referenced above will work with polychormatic light) . The good news is that the detection method is hetrodyne detection which has shot noise limited detection sensitivity even on a crappy photo detector. thus the system is capable of detecting a single photon of light.

Another cool feature is that one can do doppler detection with this too since any frequency shift in the target's reflected shifts the pixel frequency. This could be used for example the image bllod flowing in veins, find moving objects in noisy scenes (e.g. submarines, air planes) or any number of flow imaging concepts. The heterodyne detection means its sensitive enough to do at very long distances (say space), or to use it for imaging through very dense media (for example, imaging through the side of a vein or through breast or brain tissue.

A description of how it works in stilted patent language can be read on line here

A description of how it works in stilted patent language can be read on line here

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='4,873,662'.WKU.&OS=PN/4,873,662& RS=PN/4,873,662

"Heard that" in Patent It Yourself (a book..). It's also available at the USPTO's website.

Another person replied to this post, and he/she is exactly correct. The same thing happens with trade secret infringment. If you don't attempt to prosecute within 5 years, you've essentially said "it's okay. It's not that important to me."