Slashdot Mirror

According to this link that was given earlier, the patent was filed on October 27, 1986, so it will expire on that date in 2006, not 2004.

After reading the patent, I was reminded somewhat of a humor article I read in which Microsoft gained a patent for the semicolon. They were then able to charge programmers a per-usage fee......

This patent was filed on October 27, 1986. They are just announcing now that they have it.

For more information, search on the US Patent Office's website for patent number 4,698,672.

several emntions of patents on the web page.

I only see mention of a patent (singular) pending on their "MojoNation" page. Where else do they mention a patent or multiple patents?

It looks to me like it is US patent application number 20010037311. I am definitely not a lawyer, but it looks like the patent is on a method for determining how much use each computer gets to make of the system based on what they provide to the system, and not on the concept of P2P backup in general. I certainly hope I'm reading this right because I have my own P2P backup software that I'm about to release and I don't want to run afoul of their. I know there's plenty of prior art for P2P backup in general out there, but most people don't want a drawn out legal battle even if they're right.

They could say this covers EVERYTHING, JPEG, MPEG, PNG, AVI etc etc etc. What the hell is wrong with the US patent office? I hope some high court has the sense to see that this patent is much to broad and will only stifle development.

You know, that is what I kinda got from that as well at first. However, the *method* is specifically given, so unless the tables actually given in the patent itself are exactly what is being used, then it doesn't matter. This doesn't apply to anything and everything that compresses digital data. This applies only to the use of a specific algorithm, specifically described in the patent.

For those who haven't read the patent themselves yet, here it is: patent 4,698,672 . BTW, uspto.gov is suddenly not responding...heh. Guess they've been /.'ed... Keep checking.

I like the idea given that people should be required to make public claim to something within a set amount of time. I mean...they applied for the patent 20 years ago.

First, their patent is dated 26 October, 1986. IANAL, but I beleive that patents are only valid for 17 years, so even if it were effective, it would only last for another year or so. Also, in order for a patent to remain valid, the holder must continually defend it. You must file claims, or at least C&D letters within a reasonable time of becoming knowledgeable of an infringement. The entire industry adopting a technology as a standard for over ten years under the assumption that it is free (beer and freedom), is a strong indication that they have failed in that regard. They can't simply wait for a technology to become pervasive and then whack everyone that uses it. As soon as this patent goes to court, it will be stricken down.

You can look at the online version of the patent on the US Patent Office's website. Note that the patent process for this one was started 16 years ago in 1986 (stuff 4698672 into the Patent Number Search box on the search page to see this), which would certainly limit how much longer it could be pursued.

To me, the patent seems to largely be focussed around runlength encoding in digital video - not that this always has any real bearing on how a specific patent can suddenly become profitable. That patent itself states:

The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for processing signals to remove redundant information thereby making the signals more suitable for transfer through a limited-bandwidth medium. The present invention specifically relates to methods and apparatus useful in video compression systems.

The patent describes a single-pass digital video compression system which implements a two-dimensional cosine transform with intraframe block-to-block comparisons of transform coefficients without need for preliminary statistical matching or preprocessing.

It'll be interesting, and rather sad, to see if this actually get applied against JPEGs....

You can look at the online version of the patent on the US Patent Office's website. Note that the patent process for this one was started 16 years ago in 1986 (stuff 4698672 into the Patent Number Search box on the search page to see this), which would certainly limit how much longer it could be pursued.

To me, the patent seems to largely be focussed around runlength encoding in digital video - not that this always has any real bearing on how a specific patent can suddenly become profitable. That patent itself states:

The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for processing signals to remove redundant information thereby making the signals more suitable for transfer through a limited-bandwidth medium. The present invention specifically relates to methods and apparatus useful in video compression systems.

The patent describes a single-pass digital video compression system which implements a two-dimensional cosine transform with intraframe block-to-block comparisons of transform coefficients without need for preliminary statistical matching or preprocessing.

It'll be interesting, and rather sad, to see if this actually get applied against JPEGs....

A quick read suggests that this might also cover aspects of MPEG encoding. Now maybe they have assessed that those rights have been given away - but this might only be the first shot in an ongoing battle for them; trying to get some money to offset their financial position.

Far be it from me to suggest that people take advantage of the supplied email address to make their feelings known to this company of chancers.

it's kinda long. will talk more when i go through the damn thing.

Found here, filed October 6, 1987.

First paragraph:

"The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for processing signals to remove redundant information thereby making the signals more suitable for transfer through a limited-bandwidth medium. The present invention specifically relates to methods and apparatus useful in video compression systems. Typically, the system determines differences between the current input signals and the previous input signals using mean-square difference signals. These mean-square signals are processed and compared with one or more thresholds for determining one of several modes of operation. After processing in some mode, the processed signals are in the form of digital numbers and these digital numbers are coded, using ordered redundancy coding, and transmitted to a receiver."

Here is the Patent text at USPTO.

Abstract: The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for processing signals to remove redundant information thereby making the signals more suitable for transfer through a limited-bandwidth medium. The present invention specifically relates to methods and apparatus useful in video compression systems. Typically, the system determines differences between the current input signals and the previous input signals using mean-square difference signals. These mean-square signals are processed and compared with one or more thresholds for determining one of several modes of operation. After processing in some mode, the processed signals are in the form of digital numbers and these digital numbers are coded, using ordered redundancy coding, and transmitted to a receiver.

Some of the other patents mentioned as references are either a good laugh or a sad commentary on our patent system, depending on what mood you're in:

5366276 - delivering music over the Internet.
5944790 - localization.
5930474 - using clickable maps as a UI.

Patents like the above are free money for bottom-third-of-their-class lawyers. Patent searches used to mean something, but obviously a software patent search is almost wasted effort nowadays. I wonder why the software industry as a body hasn't raised hell by this time? If a few of the bigger companies kicked in the missing $33 million or whatever with no strings attached, they would probably save themselves many times that in nuisance litigation.

Or, how about funding the Patent Office with a royalty system? Say the gubmint gets a 1% royalty on every patent they grant? Sure, more big brother, but it would give the Patent Office itself financial incentive to investigate and determine infringement, and to become more capable at determining which patents are enforceable. Both things would automatically benefit legitimate patent holders.

Some of the other patents mentioned as references are either a good laugh or a sad commentary on our patent system, depending on what mood you're in:

5366276 - delivering music over the Internet.
5944790 - localization.
5930474 - using clickable maps as a UI.

Patents like the above are free money for bottom-third-of-their-class lawyers. Patent searches used to mean something, but obviously a software patent search is almost wasted effort nowadays. I wonder why the software industry as a body hasn't raised hell by this time? If a few of the bigger companies kicked in the missing $33 million or whatever with no strings attached, they would probably save themselves many times that in nuisance litigation.

Or, how about funding the Patent Office with a royalty system? Say the gubmint gets a 1% royalty on every patent they grant? Sure, more big brother, but it would give the Patent Office itself financial incentive to investigate and determine infringement, and to become more capable at determining which patents are enforceable. Both things would automatically benefit legitimate patent holders.

Some of the other patents mentioned as references are either a good laugh or a sad commentary on our patent system, depending on what mood you're in:

5366276 - delivering music over the Internet.
5944790 - localization.
5930474 - using clickable maps as a UI.

Patents like the above are free money for bottom-third-of-their-class lawyers. Patent searches used to mean something, but obviously a software patent search is almost wasted effort nowadays. I wonder why the software industry as a body hasn't raised hell by this time? If a few of the bigger companies kicked in the missing $33 million or whatever with no strings attached, they would probably save themselves many times that in nuisance litigation.

Or, how about funding the Patent Office with a royalty system? Say the gubmint gets a 1% royalty on every patent they grant? Sure, more big brother, but it would give the Patent Office itself financial incentive to investigate and determine infringement, and to become more capable at determining which patents are enforceable. Both things would automatically benefit legitimate patent holders.

link "Be at the Forefront of Technology At the USPTO, you have the opportunity to see new technology before anyone else." Really?

"Processor for geometry transformations and lighting calculations", assigned to Microsoft Corporation, issued today, July 9, 2002.

The OSI has trademarked a logo looking like a keyhole for their use as a graphical certification mark

While it is correct that a trademark registration for the typed phrase "OSI Certified" has been applied for by OSI, that application has been initially refused. I could find no application at the USPTO website for the logotype, apart from the typed mark.

AMP is a generic term for Audio Media Player ... and I can't see where they would have a case. Of course I don't have to foot the bill, so I can't say I would bother fighting it.

Also what are the specifics as to support being dropped by e-music? Have they also dropped support for Music Brainz? Music Brainz seemd to be CDDB done right with more information, proper support for multi-artist disks, etc.

Trademarks Goto search TESS, and goto basic search, and enter amp. The previous link didn't work.

Why do I think that is bull?

1) Amp is a generic term (short for ampere), and is in fact somebody's name.

2) Winamp has it

3) Which AMP are we talking about?

Why do I think that is bull?

1) Amp is a generic term (short for ampere), and is in fact somebody's name.

2) Winamp has it

3) Which AMP are we talking about?

I wondered about the article -- being so scanty on info needed to evaluate Kauffman's claim -- and then sent searching online for the patent application. The cos site was a pay site, offering searches for US$250/yr for individuals. Screw that. I went to uspto.gov and then here within it. I did an "advanced" query for Kauffman's name on published patent applications; the query string was "in/Kauffman or in/Jason", the years were "2001-2002". I got 411 results -- too many. Dunno why I used "or" -- so I reduced the query to just "in/Kauffman", which got me 15 results. I went through any that even remotely could have to do with numerical processes, but none were from Jason Kauffman.

Hmm.

I wondered about the article -- being so scanty on info needed to evaluate Kauffman's claim -- and then sent searching online for the patent application. The cos site was a pay site, offering searches for US$250/yr for individuals. Screw that. I went to uspto.gov and then here within it. I did an "advanced" query for Kauffman's name on published patent applications; the query string was "in/Kauffman or in/Jason", the years were "2001-2002". I got 411 results -- too many. Dunno why I used "or" -- so I reduced the query to just "in/Kauffman", which got me 15 results. I went through any that even remotely could have to do with numerical processes, but none were from Jason Kauffman.

Hmm.

Palladium is an open architecture (I mean, on paper, that is).

It doesnt exisit yet, but the idea is that its not just MS running the show - anyone could be the authority you trust - hell it could be the FSF!

One problem is that it's impossible to ship such an OS with a level of trust that preserves competition. If only MSFT is trusted by default, and a scary message must be acknowledged before trusting other parties, most users will use only MSFT software. If only MSFT and people it trusts are trusted by default, and a scary message must be acknowledge before trusting other parties, MSFT gains a lot of power over what people do use (and trust can be centrally revoked, enabling MSFT to partake of a number of slimy business models). If VeriSign or similar is at the root of default trust at the OS level, and a scary message must be acknowledged before trusting other roots, shareware/freeware authors have to pay a tax to VeriSign to create their applications, thus stifling innovation. If no scary message is printed at all, then the point of the whole system is moot.

Anyone can be a trusted source - anyone! This is about hardware enforced trust, not MS literally signing every piece of code that runs on your box.

This is about software trusting hardware and software trusting software. The hardware doesn't need to trust anything, and hardware trusting software is a well-researched and well-practiced problem which requires nothing short of potting whole systems in epoxy to foil attackers. Read Microsoft's patents, not Microsoft's propaganda.

You are correct - this is the same idea as "smart cards" except that its for the masses.

Releasing the code and a full specification, especially if the code is BSD-licenesed, will prove that MS's intentions and implementations are designed to elevate the entire industry, not just MS.

At this point MS could go closed, proprietary, only good for Microsoft, or it could go for open, wide-ranging, available for everyone. It looks like they are learning towards the latter.

This initiative has nothing to do with consumers except to ensure they consume and pay for the privilege.

-jhp

A digital rights management operating system protects rights-managed data, such as downloaded content, from access by untrusted programs while the data is loaded into memory or on a page file as a result of the execution of a trusted application that accesses the memory. To protect the rights-managed data resident in memory, the digital rights management operating system refuses to load an untrusted program into memory while the trusted application is executing or removes the data from memory before loading the untrusted program. If the untrusted program executes at the operating system level, such as a debugger, the digital rights management operating system renounces a trusted identity created for it by the computer processor when the computer was booted. To protect the rights-managed data on the page file, the digital rights management operating system prohibits raw access to the page file, or erases the data from the page file before allowing such access. Alternatively, the digital rights management operating system can encrypt the rights-managed data prior to writing it to the page file. The digital rights management operating system also limits the functions the user can perform on the rights-managed data and the trusted application, and can provide a trusted clock used in place of the standard computer clock.

TO ICANN LAWYERS - JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE

Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN looked for other Law firms?

Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?

A quote from a Karl Auerbach:

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.

Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.

Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.

Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.

And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.

There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.

Karls platform.

***End quote.

In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.

ICANN minutes.

As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.

Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.

MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.

The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.

They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?

Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.

There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.

Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.

However, main point ("ideas can not be patented") still stands. Idea needs to be developed to patentable things (which includes processes, arts and methods).

You are really muddying the waters here. Ideas certainly can be and have been patented. It is only "abstract ideas" that can't be patented.

From the USPTO site:

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.

Note the key phrase "complete description". You simply need to provide sufficient detail describing the idea. It is clearly not the case that "ideas can not be patented". In fact, I would state that "every patent describes an idea".

As an example from the software patent side, I can't just patent the abstract idea of "unbreakable encryption", but if I have an idea for a particular algorithm, and I can explain it sufficiently, then I certainly can apply for a patent. Note that the algorithm doesn't have to be practical with today's technology, and I don't have to provide an implementation, just a complete description.

The same goes for other patents. There are thousands of patents on devices that have never been built and proceses that have never been implemented . I would suspect the same is true of software patents.

For what it's worth, I'm against most software patents simply because they don't pass my interpretation of what's "obvious to a skilled practitioner in the field". I also believe quite strongly in the idea that "knowledge should be free".

I was bored enough to find the link.

There are two cases where an idea may infringe on another's IP: patents and trade secrets. Copyrights would cover the actual code. Even if the code is the same, if you can prove that you re-implemented it instead of copying it, you will win in court. If you're really doing a back box reimplmentation, you are not infringing on copyright. The other class of IP is trademarks, which are even more specific. Trademarks cover symbols, likenesses, etc. Ideas and code cannot be trademarked.

Now, back to trade secrets and patents. Patents cover abstract ways of doing things. If the idea your engineer came up with is patented, you are infringing. However, patents are in the public record. You can search for existing patents on the PTO's web site. I don't know if these are up to the minute or not. If you have reason to belive that an idea is patented, it's probably best to pay your lawyers to look for you. They're probably better at it than you and have better sources of information.

Trade secrets are a bit murky. Trade secrets are quite broad. The only restriction is that they are secret. Things that can be neither copywritten, trademarked, or pantented may be trade secrets. As far as I know, if someone reveals a trade secret to you, you can use it. It is the act of revealing the secret that is illegal. So, if you ask the engineer if he may reveal the solution to you, and he says yes, your company should be covered. (I think that if your company asks him to reveal trade secrets, then your company is at fault and is open to prosecution.)

Note that IANAL, and my knowledge of trade secrets is a tad on the sketchy side. As with all legal matters, the person to ask is a lawyer, etc.

Remove the DRM and this looks ok to me.

Everything is built upon a monsterously overgrown DRM system. If you remove DRM there's nothing left.

it looks to me, this system will actually protect your priacy

lol.

The whole scheme is built around a unique serial number in the hardware. Remember how the Pentium III briefly came with a serial number? Same thing, but much much uglier.

This is the patented DigitalRightsManagementOperatingSystem. It's based on two things - a CPU that cripples itself, and secret keys in the hardware.

Self-cripling hardware is easily defeated. Any software can be run on emulated computer. The self-crippling can be defeated by the virtual system.

The other part is the secret keys. There are two kinds of secret key - a unique key for every user, and/or a global key to the entire system. On a virtual system you can change the unique key at will, and have as many identities as you like. The global key to the system will be tough to get, but a copy of it will exist in each CPU. Someone in a college lab WILL scan a chip and recover the global key and publish it. Once that happens the entire system has been broken. At that point the billion or so dollars invested in Palladium becomes worthless.

Microsoft is going to have to support some sort of SSSCA/CBDTPA type law in an attempt to protect the system. Not that that will stop someone from anonymously publishing the keys anyway.

The main thing is that Palladium is pure evil. Why? It is not an enabling technology. It is entirely a disabling technology. Try reading Microsoft's DRM-OS patent. Note that "untrusted program" means anything not approved(signed) by Microsoft. Note that renouncing or revoking "the trusted identity" means that the hardware cripples itself. PURE EVIL

-

Microsoft knows what they're doing, and if this thing succeeds, you can forget about any non-Windows operating system being even remotely usable.

Microsoft holds a patent that describes a method by which hardware and software interoperate to guarantee "digital rights management" (aka fair use destruction and monopoly lock-in). The patent describes a mechanism in which there is a private/public key pair, with one half embedded in hardware (possibly the CPU). Only "authorized code" (aka Windows) can run in ring 0 (kernel space) on the CPU. Naturally, only Windows has the other half of the key.

This is probably how the Xbox prevents third-party operating systems from running, and it probably is why they originally applied for the patent. But it also has lots of uses in the monopoly business. This article describes how useful the patent could be in implementing the Hollings bill. Take it one step further and it's easy to envision a world in which this type of "protection" is not only mandated by law... but unimplementable by Linux hackers due to patent problems.

Hopefully, by the time this thing hits critical mass (if ever), Linux will be too firmly entrenched for the industry to allow it to be required. I think we're already there on the server side (1 out of 4 servers sold today ships with Linux, more if you include the ones they can't count). In another couple of years we'll be there on the desktop as well. But as they say, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Let's make sure we get heard.b

I'm fairly certain that the core technologies that this service uses were patented in 1997 by Bright Light Solutions, who later became BrightMail.

Here's a snippet from their patent:

1. A system for controlling delivery of unsolicited electronic mail, comprising:

a communications network;

a plurality of user terminals coupled to said communications network, each of said plurality of user terminals having a unique e-mail address, wherein each of said plurality of user terminals comprises a filtering application for receiving incoming electronic mail messages addressed to said unique e-mail address of said user terminal and filtering said incoming electronic mail messages based upon stored filtering data; and

a control center, comprising

a distributor for generating a probe address and transmitting said probe address to at least one site on said communications network, wherein said probe address is different from each of said unique email addresses of each of said plurality of user terminals,

a processor for receiving electronic mail messages addressed to said probe address, and for extracting source data from said received electronic mail messages, and

a database update signal generator coupled to said processor for generating and transmitting a database update signal incorporating said extracted source data;

wherein each of said plurality of user terminals receives said database update signal from said control center, updates said stored filtering data in response to said database update signal, and filters electronic mail messages received by said user terminal in accordance with said updated filtering data.

2. A system according to claim 1, wherein said user terminals filter electronic mail messages sent from other of said user terminals in accordance with said updated filtering data.

3. A system according to claim 1, wherein said probe address is transmitted to sites on said communications network that provide address information for senders of unsolicited electronic mail messages.

4. A system for controlling delivery of unsolicited electronic mail, comprising:

a communications network;

a plurality of user terminals, wherein each of said plurality of user terminals has a unique e-mail address;

a server coupled to said communications network and each of said plurality of user terminals, wherein said server comprises a filtering application for receiving incoming electronic mail messages addressed to said unique e-mail address of each of said plurality of user terminals and filtering said incoming electronic mail messages based upon stored filtering data; and

a control center, comprising

a distributor for generating a probe address and transmitting said probe address to at least one site on said communications network, wherein said probe address is different from each of said unique email addresses of each of said plurality of user terminals,

a processor for receiving electronic mail messages addressed to said probe address, and for extracting source data from said received electronic mail messages, and

a database update signal generator coupled to said processor for generating and transmitting a database update signal incorporating said extracted source data;

wherein said server receives said database update signal from said control center, updates said stored filtering data in response to said database update signal, and filters electronic mail messages addressed to each of said plurality of user terminals in accordance with said updated filtering data.

5. A system according to claim 4, wherein said filtering application updates said filtering data in response to said database update signal by adding said extracted source data to said filtering data stored in said server.

6. A system according to claim 4, wherein said server also filters electronic mail messages sent from each of said plurality of user terminals.

7. A system according to claim 4, wherein said probe address is transmitted to sites on said communications network that provide address information for senders of unsolicited electronic mail messages.

But it is no longer in production and it is patended.

Works with any software as it is attached at the front of the screen. Surface mirrors and the idea of doing the view-master 'on screen'

I'll keep mine for a long time.

A description and pictures of it here

Patent here with description.

See Comment #4 with the date of June 18, 1999 This is NOT part 4 of the first comment
Not really the algorythim, but rather the set of elements of the holy grail of algorythim possibilities, and rationality of why.
Though he gets history of Usenet wrong, what he identifies does allow for the building of complexity from the simple and even why it's done.

A quick search shows more great examples:
Three wheeled vehicle
Neoprene bottle insulator

A quick search shows more great examples:
Three wheeled vehicle
Neoprene bottle insulator

Their point is this:
The first keyboard design got a patent, right? (I believe it would fall under #3,932,842, but I'm not completely sure.) But an HP keyboard is no different that a Microsoft keyboard, or any other kind of keyboard. It's all generally the same (which is what the bottom of that patent report says, I think.) What they're saying, however, is that their product is so much different than normal 'flat' keyboards, that it got its own patent.

Feel free to correct me if you find a different patent for the first keyboard, there were 61,000+ search results, I'm bound to have missed something. And I do realize that different 'ergonomic' keyboards have gotten their own patents.

Their point is this:
The first keyboard design got a patent, right? (I believe it would fall under #3,932,842, but I'm not completely sure.) But an HP keyboard is no different that a Microsoft keyboard, or any other kind of keyboard. It's all generally the same (which is what the bottom of that patent report says, I think.) What they're saying, however, is that their product is so much different than normal 'flat' keyboards, that it got its own patent.

Feel free to correct me if you find a different patent for the first keyboard, there were 61,000+ search results, I'm bound to have missed something. And I do realize that different 'ergonomic' keyboards have gotten their own patents.

On the subject of stupid patents, you might want to check outthis one. Some guy patented a "Method of swinging on a swing." Crazy stuff!

They also awarded patents on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and how to exercise a cat. What's your point?

Hey, hey now! That patent wasn't just for exercising a cat. It was exercising a cat USING A LASER! That makes all the difference in the world! ;)

GMD

Here's the patents that apply:

Here's the patents that apply:

How about freedomware? It goes along with the long tradition of terms such as shareware, freeware, etc. It contains the word freedom right in it, so it doesn't have the gratis connotation of free software. It is a little easier to say than either of the phrases mentioned.

According to the USPTO Trademark Electronic Search System, Toshiba once tried to trademark it for a global services network, but as of August 29, 2001 the trademark is abandoned. Maybe we should see if we can get the FSF or the OSI to snap up this trademark?

If you're fluent in legalese, the patent is available online from the US PTO site.

Joy.

-J

They should be applauded. The GPL license enforces the honesty of their promise where the two meet in code, and to me at least it seems like they are fully aware of that and did it intentionally to protect the open source community from likely attacks.

I tried to post this sometime ago, but it got rejected, so:

Google has this patent:
United States Patent 6,278,992
Search engine using indexing method for storing and retrieving data

I believe this patent might be one of the best examples of good software patents: it is detailed enough to define the innovation to be patented. It is good reading for anyone interested in creating effective indexes, the text and images of the patent is better reading than many of the books on the subject.

DeKa has some very interesting patents ... including something described by others as a robotic tampon.

Someones owns the patent on "Method for describing a plurality a patents on an online discussion forum"; so I had to pretend that there was only one. Sorry.