Slashdot Mirror

I wonder how long it will be before they start informing Snort users that certian configurations may request licensing fees be payed for patent 20010041989.

Btw, those that are conserned with licensing pop-under patents may also be aware of:
20020046087 Method of drawing attention to advertisements

I wonder how long it will be before they start informing Snort users that certian configurations may request licensing fees be payed for patent 20010041989.

Btw, those that are conserned with licensing pop-under patents may also be aware of:
20020046087 Method of drawing attention to advertisements

I wonder how long it will be before they start informing Snort users that certian configurations may request licensing fees be payed for patent 20010041989.

Btw, those that are conserned with licensing pop-under patents may also be aware of:
20020046087 Method of drawing attention to advertisements

Actually, if you look at the patent application found here, you will note that they cite NO prior art (patent or non-patent) which is a dead giveaway that they know they have prior art problems. This thing will never issue and anyone who pays a royalty -- read blackmail -- will be throwing away their money.

I'm gonna submit a smart-alecky patent application, for things like sitting in a chair and picking my nose. Because how are they different from this advertising method (apart from the latter being a piece of software), or from a revolutionary swinging method?

I did some research. I think I found a non-provisional application filed by these bozos. The link to the application is here

Of course, there still remains the issue of this POS ever issuing!

Ok, this started out as a joke, and I usually stay out of these 'whose was first' controversies, but further research for something solid turns up this:

"The court's decision, Case No. 369, identified as 'Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America vs. United States,' rendered invalid Marconi's basic patent No. 763,722 dated June 28, 1904. Tesla's patent No. 645,576 of March 20, 1900, and it's subdivision patent for apparatus No. 649,621 dated May 15, 1900, had priority. (2,4)"

Ok, I'll go check these out at The PTO. Should be interesting viewing the scan of Tesla's patent.

Patent 6,366,907 - Real-time search engine

And there are more pending

See this explanation for some cautionary tales; it's not exactly the same, but you'll get the gist.

Someone has done their physics homework well and got a real patent (yes, I looked it up at the The US Patent office) apparently on the strength of some nano-technobabble. Jeepers.

So, now Mr. Dolphin, tell us how much power it takes to cool our chips?

This includes a broad patent on form signing which appears to cover most forms of hierarchical documents, such as XML.

Henri Charmasson is one the "inventors" of the 'self-service terminal' and several of panIP's patented 'inventions', and simultaeneously one of the "attorneys" representing panIP.

A quick search at http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=o5 ltqq.1.1 seems to show that "PanIP" as a word only trademark was abandoned by these people and is up for grabs. That would be an interesting volley back into their court...

The patent Automated Sales and Service System contains a sentance that states: "Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created". As long as you can ensure your site can't deliver an infinite number of combinations, perhaps you're not in breech after all...

Though the story (and the associated web page) doesn't refer to the patent number directly, the reference to "accepting information to conduct automatic financial transactions via a telephone line & video screen" strongly suggests to me they're talking about US Patent #5,576,951.

This patent was filed on 19/11/96 - erroneously, I believe, as many companies, including Amazon.com, were using this process over a year earlier. I think it extremely unlikely that PanIP doesn't realise this, but admittedly that would be hard to prove in court. So I think I should instead write to the USPTO and point out that PanIP's "invention" appears to be the same as a previously established practice. Hopefully they will either agree and void the patent; or they will rule that the patent stands because it covers something other than straightforward e-business, in which case all the little companies should be off the hook anyway.

At least one of the patents in question appears to be this one. (you may need a free registration to view)

I was only able to find one patent registered to Pangea (strange as they are an IP company ... you'd think they'd have a few more show up). In any case, this particular patent was applied for in '97, if I'm reading the application correctly. If that's indeed the case, prior art should hardly need an actual hearing.

Good luck!

This is a link to the same patent at USPTO. The filer is supposedly The Pangea Project LLC whereas PanIP appears to be named Pangea Intellectual Property ... dunno, quick inspection is all I have time for tonight!

You could make that assumption, but the income differentials are sufficiently large that it makes no sense. (Something on the order of 300X more money comes in from applications than from reexam requests.) A better theory is that the PTO gets a lot more applications than they can handle. Unfortunately a large percentage of their income in taken into the "general" fund, and they simply cannot hire enough competent examienrs. (They're hiring, if you feel masochistic.)

Oh yes, and they pay folks with CS degrees ~$35K to start, to live in DC. Odds that they'll get competent examiners at that salary are between slim and none.

Thalia

Just took a brief tour around the USPTO and their online managarie of patent material. According to the Central Distribution Center, one of the patents is "AUTOMATED SALES & SERVICES SYSTEM", which does not seem to exist as a patent at the uspto. I did not check the patent pending section or the other "claim" so I'm wondering...
Get your lawyer to check into this - you can oppose the patent if it's not a real patent, and it will call into question their right to sue. Also, remember that if the lawyer types get really annoying, you can file a complaint with the Bar association.

The patents appear to be United States Patent 6,289,319; US Patent 5,576,951; and US Patent 5,309,355; all registered in the name of Lawrence B. Lockwood, of 5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037.

The patents appear to be United States Patent 6,289,319; US Patent 5,576,951; and US Patent 5,309,355; all registered in the name of Lawrence B. Lockwood, of 5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037.

The patents appear to be United States Patent 6,289,319; US Patent 5,576,951; and US Patent 5,309,355; all registered in the name of Lawrence B. Lockwood, of 5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037.

From the US patent office, Patent number 5,576,951 :

&gt Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created (emphasis mine)

It looks like a very ambiguous patent to me, but the word infinite stood out as I read it. Is it truely possible to obtain infinite configurations?
Surely there are very many, but infinitely many?
Can you prove that your website does not provide infinite configurations? (maybe your site only provides 256^1293923836238348 configurations) IANAL, but it seems like a possible argument.

For everyone suggesting that they band together, I believe they have taken the first few steps. The link from the question (labeled "more details") leads you to a site with a bunch of defendants. Namely, listed here.

Furthermore, I took a look at the patents (admittedly, only the abstracts), and while not as depicted as explained, still very vague and very obviously a stragety, not an actual protection of IP. First and second.

Looking at the abstract for the former of the above listed, I have a few qualms (besides with the whole thing entirely). The claim that they can have an infinite number of variations in the abstract (actually, on a quick search, they go into further details in the summary of the invention), it doesn't seem to me that what you're implementing can possibly be infinite. Note, I certainly ANAL (yet), but it just seems out of place.

Moving on to the second patent and it's respective abstract... it seems to me that such a patent had to be filed before September 11, 2001 (when the patent was made, hell throw that in your closing speech) as it seems the way it's described in both the abstract and summary of invention is very much alike to many implementations set forth by other companies, not just internet, but stores as well.

Good luck with that all. Open up a donation bin. I, for one, will throw in.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/15/232425 3&mode=nested&tid=8.2
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='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227& RS=PN/6,368,227

This looks like a patent that would let them SUE any website that has a search function and sells anything online? What the hell is wrong with the patent office?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=''5,576,951''.WKU.&O S=PN/"5,576,951"&RS=PN/"5,576,951"

At the end of his rant, Keith references this. I think this sums up that he was always an enemy of innovation.

Jesus, this guy get in bed with Microsoft only because Microsoft illeagally stole 80% of the browser market.. and gets bit.

Cry me a river.

If you deal with jerks, don't expect them to not be jerks in the future.

Plus, this twit had a patent on thist stupid "invention"

The song has been combined with another song, creating a new and different work...

Legally, that is not a "new and different work." It is a "derivative work." If you search uspto.gov you will find this page: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/ipn ii.txt, which is about intellectual property rights. It includes the following text:

A derivative work is a work "based upon" one or more preexisting works.112 A derivative work is created when one or more preexisting works is "recast, transformed, or adapted" into a new work, such as when a novel is used as the basis of a movie or when a drawing is transformed into a sculpture.113 Translations, musical arrangements and abridgments are types of derivative works.

You can not create a derivative work without the express permission of the initial work's author/artist. Pretty clear-cut.

See here: "Electronic book apparatus with dual screen display"

The US Patent Office has already geranted Javier Movellan a patent conering: "Method and apparatus for programming computers to identify human emotions through the use of emotion markers, comprising facial expression, vocal tone, and metabolic responses"

The US Patent Office has already geranted Javier Movellan a patent conering: "Method and apparatus for programming computers to identify human emotions through the use of emotion markers, comprising facial expression, vocal tone, and metabolic responses"

The US Patent Office has granted Matt's a patent covering "Method and apparatus for sprucing up the front of your case a bit, when those lighted case badges don't seem like enough"

The US Patent Office has granted Matt's a patent covering "Method and apparatus for sprucing up the front of your case a bit, when those lighted case badges don't seem like enough"

Any word yet on Apple filing a trademark infringement lawsuit with NASA over this?

I'm sure a lot of high-level executives are under a bit of fire now!

Primary Examiner: Kuntz; Curtis A.
Assistant Examiner: Eng; George

Madison Priest's Patent

Editorial: Bwa-hahahahahaha, Dumbasses. Maybe they should invest in Alex Chiu

-Sean

Madison Priest shows a patent certificate issued by the U.S. government for his magic box technology. Priest said the box could transmit data much faster than any existing system, and could do it through an ordinary household telephone line.

Uh.

If this guy has a patent certificate, can't any of us, you know, go down to the patent office and *read his patent*? I mean, that's the point of the patent office, you get a temporary monopoly on your innovation in exchange for which you have to tell EVERYONE exactly how it works.

I'm looking around the patent server trying to find anything with this guy's name on it, and i haven't found anything yet.. maybe i'm using this thing wrong? Don't you have to get the inventor name exactly right? What's this guy's middle initial?

You can find the patent here. It's completely bogus. Any patent examiner with a minimum background in electrical engineering should have thrown this out, and anybody investing millions of dollars in it should have had it checked out by someone who actually knows something about electrical engineering. This is really no different from the patent and investment follies of the Internet bubble.

As to the Big-Brother aspects of the thing, Arbitron says this to broadcasters:

• Measuring Compliance
  Compliance began with undocking the meters each day. We instructed panelists to undock their meters first thing in the morning and dock them in the recharging unit at bedtime. During November, the median undocking time on weekdays was 7:39AM, and the median docking time was just after 11PM. As expected, the undocking time was later on the weekend, around 9:00AM, as people tended to sleep later. The docking time was also later, 11:25PM, as people stayed up later (Figure 2). The PPM detects encoded media even while it is in the recharging unit, which means it picks up the clock radio in the morning and late-night TV viewing by people in bed.

The system covers TV as well as radio. Arbitron is partnering with Neilsen on this. The details are:

• Encoding Status
  (As of July 18, 2001, in the Wilmington, Delaware test area)

  Of the 71 media outlets invited to participate, 63 are now encoding their audio full time.

  • All 38 radio stations.
  • All 8 local TV stations
  • 17 of 25 cable networks.

The Arbitron Portable People Meter listens to audio, has a DSP, "extensive storage", and an uplink system via its docking station. So it could potentially be used as a bugging device if reprogrammed. One more small step towards the surveillance society.

At least the current model doesn't have a GPS.

Overlapping components are very common in software and in web design. Maybe they should sue Google [google.com] for their use of components which overlap with their tabbed menu of web, images, groups, or directory search. I would say that overlapping components are more common these days than popping up dialogs in a stack. Adobe did not innovate this

Adobe innovated and patented being able to drag and drop tabs from one palette to another. Read the patent.

Method of displaying multiple sets of information in the same area of a computer screen

Abstract:

A method for displaying on a computer screen multiple sets of information needed on a recurring basis, comprising the steps of: (1) Establishing an area on the computer screen in which the multiple sets of information are to be displayed, the established area having a maximum size which is substantially less than the entire area of the screen. (2) Providing within the established area a plurality of selection indicators, one for each of the multiple sets of information. (3) Selecting one of the multiple sets of information for display within the established area by pointing to one of the selection indicators within the established area, whereby the selected set of information will be substituted within the established area for the set of information previously being displayed therein. A selected set of information may also be moved out of the selected area by pointing to its selection indicator and dragging it away.

Filed June 23, 1994. I guess that does put it before I remember Altsys doing similar it in Freehand (before Frehand was sold to Macromedia).

Piracy is already illegal. How does adding a new law improve anything? If Congress really wants to look like they're doing something useful, they need to take a look at all the existing laws that are 1) stupid, 2) caused more harm than good, and 3) pork, and repeal them.

This is certainly the right answer, albeit not to the question posed. However, it probably implies the correct question, which is what can be done to deal with the morass that copyright has become? There are a couple of questions that Congress really should be addressing:

• What is copyright for? Is it about rewarding creators or enriching the public domain? Something else? Or, if both these things, how to maintain a working balance between the two?
• What is it that distinguishes digital media from other media? Is it the quality of the content, or the ease with which it can be produced/copied/distributed? Again, what is the appropriate balance between the losses associated with copying against the economic advantages of digitial distribution?
• What is piracy? Is it making copies? Using them? Distributing them? Selling them? Buying them?
• What to say about Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure? Are the findings really a basis for legislation, especially the doctrine that the digital object generated on a local machine in the course of a networked transaction (e.g., looking at a WWW page) constitutes a "copy" under the copyright law?

The key legislative need is clarification of the government's position, rather than relying upon the courts to thrash this out. CBDTPA's flaws are deeper than the content providers vs. computer industry conflict, and patching it will only slow the development of the clarity needed to go forward.

Or shall we patent/copyright "a method for cleaning windows?"

Haha, yeah its called Windex. Hundreds of patents for cleaning windows...

Why hasn't Microsoft attacked Windex as much as they've been attacking the GPL?

I intend to develop an application of the recent swing patent that combats bioterrorism.

"A method of swinging side-to-side and whacking any terrorists that get in one's way with a stick."

This should have been listed as a "funny" article.

Well, isn't that about the same thing? :)

On second thought, I wonder if this circus can change the way we interpret patents as sign of serious research activities (see top patenting corporations for 2001.

from USPTO corrections page:

"Any person may file a request for reexamination of a patent, along with the required fee, on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. At the conclusion of the reexamination proceedings, a certificate setting forth the results of the reexamination proceeding is issued."

from there fees page:
147 1.20(c)(1) Request for ex parte reexamination 2,520.00
099 1.20(c)(2) Request for inter partes reexamination 8,800.00

it is sad that getting a re-examination is about 10 times more expensive then filing a claim.

I wonder what the Bars official view is a lawyers who waste texpayer money, file something they know can't hold up in court is?

going to have to find out.

Unfortunately, I think the only mastermind was the attorney who wrote this up and submitted it as a joke. It may gotten through as an accident, as a statement, or through a sense of humour on the part of the examiner, but based on a bit of additional research I'm guessing that the attorney knew that he would have a pretty good shot at landing this patent without any extra help from the inside.

Based on USPTO web site searches, the primary examiner listed on the patent appears to focus on toys, amusement devices (and methods), and decorative items such as jewellery. With increasing frequency (50 since October), he has been the primary examiner on nearly 700 patents over the past 5 or so years, and assistant examiner on about 300 prior to that. Seems pretty busy - anyone know how that compares to the average rate?

Going through these search results gives a quick review of the patents in this area and to anyone over 6 years old or not otherwise "skilled in the art" of toys, many of these patents seems pretty funny. I'll leave it to someone else to pull out their favourites, but while I'm sure many of these are very legitimate for this particular area, a lot of these "amusement" or "ornamental" patents seem suspect from the get-go.

I wouldn't be surprised if the attorney was aware of the types and numbers of patents in this area in particular and choose an amusement method not only because it would be silly, but also because he thought it would have a real chance to get through, based on the current practise and the workload of the examiners.

While I wouldn't place the examiner as the likely mastermind behind this, I don't mean to single him out either. The attorney doesn't appear to have any past history with this examiner, and I bet it could have gotten past any number of others working in the same category.

While I think this is really funny and "mostly harmless" (until someone references the scope of this one in their next patent), I think we can probably legitimately chalk up this patent as another symptom of an overworked and poorly designed patent system, and not simply the outcome of an inside joker or an office activist.

lol, Method of Exercising a cat by using a laser pointer. link i've been doing that for years now. but my stupid cat always gets bored after a couple of minutes, its not really a good way to exercise it.

Those test programs are commonly called "monkeys" due to the ways they act on the control items provided by an application. Analogous to a monkey randomly pounding the keys of a typewriter,

This one's pretty stupid:

Patent #5443036

"Method of Exercising a Cat With a Laser Pointer"