Slashdot Mirror
GeoWorks Patents Wireless Web Browsers
rhysweatherley writes "GeoWorks are at it again. They have just received US patent 6,173,316 on "Wireless communication device with markup language based man-machine interface", even though others have been doing the same for quite some time. After claiming to own WAP last year, this just gets me mad. Prior art reviews in the patent office are obviously not working." Ya know, it seems to me that taking something that already exists (Markup Languages) and changing some detail of the transfer mechanism (Ether? Cable? TCP/IP? AppleTalk? Post-it notes) just isn't a valid patent. But hell, lets start filing patents on every common net application, and any conceivable combination of layers from the OSI 7-Layer model. We only need to win a lawsuit on one of them to retire in bermuda.
Could mozilla claim prior art? Or would that be too logical?
According to a column in the Washington Post, a local fellow got a form back from the USPTO saying they were refusing his fax because it was -- get this -- upside down. Apparently the examiners are incapable of rotating a piece of paper 180 degrees.
Or perhaps they just awarded a patent to someone else re: said rotation and thus are unable to do it without violating that patent.
No, I'm not making this up.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I had this idea for patent reform the other day. How about this: if you patent something and the patent is later invalidated in court you lose the right to patent anything else for the next five years. Not only would this drastically cut down on the number of absurd patents, but it would encourage companies to only patent things which are truly innovative. This would make companies who rely on patents for their bread and butter particularly careful about trying to patent something stupid.
To give proper credit, this is sort of a twist on an idea somebody else posted to Slashdot awhile back about how there should be a law stating that politicians who vote for a law that is later deemed unconstitutional should automatically lose office.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
The idea of running a Web browser on a PC with a wireless network connection is obvious.
Weeelllllll, That depends on what your definition of 'is' is. :-)
Would this simple combination be in violation of their patent?
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
This one was always obvious, though.. honestly, who didn't think how awesome it would be to have universal access to the web when they first saw it?
'Wow, the web is cool! HEY! I bet if I had a wireless modem it would be better! I'm a genius, watch me run to the patent office!'
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
I'm tired of these stupid patents. If there's an organization that anyone knows of that wants to change the patent office's ways, I'd like to hear about it. I'd like to support in any way I can. If not, then perhaps it's time such an organization was created. These patents are absurd. The government is already shameful enough, but it's up to us to change it.
Sorry for the rant, but I'd really like to see the patent office face up to the dismal work they do. This is just plain silly that time and time again these patents are given. If the patent office doesn't understand this sort of stuff, they shouldn't be dealing with it. I'm writing my congressman now. Then, it's on to fight the way the legal systems works as well... but that's a battle for another day I guess.
Copyright Douglas Adams.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
No, no. We attack riding on top-secret "Ginger" prototypes!
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Please stop posting "I wanna patent (fire|the wheel|breathing)" every time there's a fscking patent story, will you? There must be about a dozen attached to this story, and it's NOT FUNNY ANY MORE! You're all "Redundant", that's what you are! And so am I! Mod me down before I explode.
What about a non-patent office, where everyone submits what amount to patent applications, along with some sort of public key notary system (I don't know, there has to be something). Anytime you notice anything about any technology you use, or any new idea you have, you log in and submit it. Yeah, it would fill up with garbage very quickly, but I'll bet a lot of "prior art" would
accumulate there as well.
Um...forgive me if i was mistaken, but i thought i WAS talking about the PTO.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Some examples:
- RFC 3043, IP encapsulation for carrier pigeons
- Every satellite based tcp/ip link that has carried HTML.
I'm sure there are others...
I've recently filed a patent (chemistry related) but it's actually not hard. Just follow the guidelines and your in. You don't need a lawyer to help and the filing fee and review (in Canada) is only $350 (about $12.00US).
An exploration of mixology, spirits and bartending.
Just because the technology was SCARCE doesn't mean it wasn't OBVIOUS.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
looks like the market is already punishing them for their stupidity. (I can dream, can't I?) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gwrx&d=1y
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
The patent's claims, as described, are a perfect description of a web browser; all browsers, from Mosaic on, have been built using those components.
A few more ...
6. The atom
7. The wave-particle duality of light
8. E=mc^2
9. Thought
10. God
Seems to me the solution is a flood of lawsuits against the Patent Office for incompetence. SOMETHING is needed to make them pay attention to the basic concept of "innovation".
See Claim 3 above. Unless you can document that you were reading slashdot underwater 6 months prior to my initial application you will fail.
As claim 1 or 2, but replacing the gaseous interface with any medium capable of passing photons.
As claim 1 and 2, but replacing the gasoues interface with a vacuum.
As any claims 1 to 4, but rather than being interpreted as "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" the signals will be interpreted as an invitation to "first post" (pat. pending), comment upon Natalie Portman or "hot grits".
As claim 1, but using a liquid crystal shutter between a light source and the gaseous interface.
What we really need to do is file a patent on a patent office, then charge them for every patent they have ever issued.
Abstract:
Hmm, maybe that's not vague enough ....
Bryn--
Or words to that effect
Or words to that effect
This idea is very worthy of development.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
I completely understand what you're saying, but this is what the patent field has looked like to me for ages: it's not how new it is, or how obvious it is, it's how fast you can patent it. Seeing that a patent comes out today for something which has been around for years has a very different feel to it than when a patent comes out for something "obvious" before it's caught on.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
CNTP - I hold patent #6,666,666 for the routing protocol used in the human central nervous system, I have called it Intercranial Nerve Transmission Protocol.
Every human on earth needs to pay me a monthly subscription service to transfer their thoughts from one nerve cell to another, this protocol is different because it is a Foo-free mixture of neurochemical.
This patent is for the TRANSMISSION ROUTING only, I also hold other patents on how to increase the effectiveness of the protocol, patent #6,666,667 applies to the process my which the a proprietary or Choline, DMAE, and water are introduced directly into the human central nervous system via a dermal patch over the temple!
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
The following is a patent on a process for collecting and disseminating technical and other news announcements in a self-moderating 'web log' environment.
The process features customized 'home pages', comprised of a screen of (filterable) newsfeed and 'slash boxes', containing indices of other news/log-type sites.....
- undoware.ca
But in this case, the problem isn't about big vs. small. It's about stupid patents and the companies that file them, regardless of size, and it's about a government that allows it to happen.
The essence of the patent is a wireless web browser, which could include a laptop with wireless net access, a PDA with wireless net access, or a cellphone with an HTML renderer.
I agree that a functioning patent system should help protect small businesses and inventors, as well as large businesses and inventors. But this is not the product of a system correctly functioning.
Perhaps I have been trolled, but I'd rather assume not, and that you are just less informed.
"Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
The ultimate extension of so-called "libertarianism": "quit whining and move to another country".
Female Prison Rape in NY
Anyone think the law should consider it to be harassment, and hence criminal, to try to enforce patents when you know you'd have no hope of winning a lawsuit? Although I guess if the USPTO are too stupid to realise it's prior art, then it's hard to argue a court would never fall for it.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
No, he have them cut off if he turned himself in or sold/ratted out the cause.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I personally have no problem with software patents, as long as they are novel and unobvious. The following proposal is designed to eliminate this kinds of patents, and as a side effect, provides employment for students.
1. Employ a shitload(*) of technical oriented students as interns/coops.
2. For any given new patent, select a random pool of interns, provide them with a description of the problem that the patent solves. Give them one day to develop a solution (individually).
3. If 50% of them come up with something that is similiar to the patent application, throw it out.
Example: develop a method to minimize the amount of mouse clicking needed to process an on-line order by a customer who has previously ordered from the retailer.
This one would be thrown out, guaranteed.
(*) - technical term for "lots"
Okay... I need sleep.
I read the headline as "GeoWorks Wires Pantsless Web Browsers".
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Interesting. After looking at the patent itself more closely (which is something that rarely happens on Slashdot...) it seems that what they are patenting is not WAP, as a lot of people suggested, but instead a phone that uses a browser as its *only* user interface. The standard phone functionality is just another set of (built-in) HTML pages that control the device's internal functions, so it can be easily mixed with downloaded pages. In a way, this is the exact reverse of current WAP-enabled phones, where the browser is part of the phone menu.
p r-98.pdf
If anything, this patent affects WTAI, which are special URLs to control the phone from inside a WAP page:
http://www1.wapforum.org/tech/documents/wtai-30-a
For example, a URL like this
wtai://wp/mc; 5554367
would make a call to the specificed phone number. Interestingly, the first version of the WTAI specification is dated 30-Apr-98, while the Geoworks patent was filed 8-Apr-98...
i would like to think that society is generally becoming more tolerant and thoughtful. unfortunately the evidence to support this is anecdotal at best.
a few months ago this would have been a great troll but its tired now and has been done better. on another topic how about this from the summary "a processor for executing the computer program product, and controls for operating the wireless communication device, the computer program product" computer program product? wtf is that? computer program makes sense, a processor for exectuting a computer program makes sense...whats the product part mean?
if you gave it web access you probably could
I wonder if the USPTO owns a patent on patenting? If not, I'd like to try that one. Any ideas on how to write it up?
"But hell, lets start filing patents on every common net application, and any conceivable combination of layers from the OSI 7-Layer model..."
You forgot about layer 8: connection to your mom.
this is going to sound kinda silly, but--why can't a group of people form a non for profit organization and put pattents on common things like this, so that some MORON in a marketing office (hey, i work in a marketing office so dont be offended if you do too) can bring up the patent idea to his boss and get it approved... I am rather sick of these DUMB patents on stuff like this... Hell my windows CE device has an XML based interface--and that thing has been out for like 2 years (yeah, i need to get a newer one--maybe go palm this time)
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
These companies think applying for a patent is like registering a domain name -- if it's not registered yet, it's fair game!
well yes, i didn't think it was necessary to point this out, of course I meant patents relating to information technology, computer hardware, etc. saying the obvious, really...
Obviousman is obviously not obvious enough
I always read about companies patenting obvious things and demanding big sums of money from everyone.
Can someone give me some examples of how people have actually COUGHED up money for these BS patents?? I already know about Apple doing the click-through shopping thing, but there are a lot more patents that I haven't read anything since their posting on /.
I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just curious.....
Trains stop at a train station. Buses stop at a bus station.
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
Ive seen in the kernel options linux has had ham radio support for yonks, this is really the same is wireless as far as i can see, just a different protocol.
Im sure people used a web browser with it.
Funny, I've been looking for the same thing for Jon Katz. I no longer even click on his articles, because I don't want to imply that /. should continue to carry his editorials.
-no broken link
Point being this wasn't filed yesterday. I'm sure it was filed before WAP stuff was around.
--
Free Mac Mini
Sure, it was just granted, but they filed for it YEARS ago. Before everybody had WAP phones and such.
--
Free Mac Mini
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Where is the noise that this ongoing problem should be generating? Or am I just a few months/years early on this topic. Am I missing some low-key grass-roots thing that will sprout wings in a few (units of time)?
It seems to me that the time is now, at the (argueably) beginning of the technical surge of society. If the system we use to protect the investments we make toward new ideas is flawed so badly, we could really see a hiccup or worse down the line when we hit some sort of patent litigation critical mass.
Thoughts?
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Someone, *cough*taco*cough,* should start calling them, as a member of the "press" - and ask them so pretty hard questions.
Outside of that, you could try talking to tech-savvy Congressmen and see if they won't start a move to reform the Office.
Outside of that, you could - ahhhh - ignore all these silly patents. Just like we ignore the Copyright Laws.
sig not found
Yeah. Patenting designs and implementations are ok.
But patenting a *concept*?!
That's plain idiocy!
In the case of Amazon, that would be to patent the way they solved the problem of "one click shopping".
If someone else do the same general thing but implements it in another way, it shouldn't infringe on their patent.
Otherwise I could, for instance, patent the concept of "Building a structure on other planets than earth" or "One click entering of a letter into a computer."
But on the other hand, one can hardly expect people to behave rationally since mankind seem to be plauged with a collective insanity.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
>Every week on Slashdot there is some kind of new patent
>>There is an easy solution. Just check the slashbox setting for the patent category.
Wow, and if I uncheck the plane crashes slashbox, airplanes will stop falling?
--
This space left intentionally blank.
>>The first rule of Geek Mafia is you do not talk about Geek Mafia.
>>The second rule of Geek Mafia is you do not talk about Geek Mafia.
>i already own the patent on the idea of a geek mafia
How did you patent it if you cant talk about it?
--
This space left intentionally blank.
I can't believe this. There isnt really any difference between a wireless device and a 'personal computer', when you have abstractions for the hardware. The patent office _really_ needs to do some thinking about this.
Wouldn't it be theoretically possible for an open source community to apply for patents on things that are generally considered to be public domain, just so an unscrupulous company can't do the same? As I understand it, in order to get in trouble for patent infringement, the patent holder has to get their panties up in bunches and whine to the feds first. Either you could get a site to solicit donations, or just do a kind of hungersite thing, IE: "Thanks, you just kept .8 public domain ideas out of the hands of unscrupulous money grubbing idiots."
Damn, does this mean we can't poke the patent office in the eye with a pointy stick without paying royalties?
Molt
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Nah...let's hold out until we can afford to retire in San Jose, CA...
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
The poster doesn't need to fear a race -- just his own stupidity.
(Oh, I refuse to post a reply to his (safe assumption!) post, so I post it here.)
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
This looks like a device patent rather than one of the infamous business method patents, so it shouldn't be a big deal. I would be surprised if you can buy any wireless device that has not been patented, and this one is no different. It just happens to have an interface that makes use of HTML. It doesn't patent wireless HTML interfaces in general, just one specific interface in one particular product. This won't prevent anyone else from designing (and patenting) their own wireless device with an HTML interface. It just can't be an exact copy of the GeoWorks device. Change the size of the screen and add/subtract a button and you're all set.
jeezus, i guess a moderator out there can't take sarcasm
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
On the one hand, companies like Amazon "Need to patent their technology before some other big company patents it and sues them for using it".
On the other hand, if you use a technology and three months later Sony patents it, you should be able to prove prior art pretty damn easily. It makes me wonder if perhaps the problem isn't the US Patent Office approving stupid patents as it is *gasp* LAWYERS!!
The lawyers are in it for the money, pretty much, and any good corporate lawyer knows how to rape the legal system to get profit. Perhaps if society didn't allow this kind of hideous practice, patent lawsuits would make sense again.
I tend to disagree. Look at claims 8, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32, and 34, each being a software claim. Some are extremely wide (do not mention any specific execution environment that would restrict their scope). Keep in mind that each claim creates its own infringement space.
We need prior art.
Lots and lots of prior art.
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
Oh, come on. Everyone knows that you can't possibly patent the Internet, because Al Gore has clearly established prior art. It was on the news so much that even patent examiners who have been buried in hole to prevent them from knowing anything about anything that's been invented before should know about it.
(Note to the humor impaired: I do realize that the Al Gore inventing the Internet thing was a misquote. This is intended to be funny.)
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
and we wouldnt have names, unless we died in combat. then we would have a name. and our leader would have his nuts cut off if he got busted.
Ive already got both.
Look at a science fiction movie. In Star Trek, they walk around with these data commucation devices. (They don't necessarily use HTTP, but it's some sort of data browser.) In fact, I've noticed quite a few of these silly patents are things that have been covered in science fiction.
Just a suggestion...
Do a search on /. for "Cue Cat" and after a bit of reading, you'll see the problem with your argument.
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
And laptops using a web browser fit the bill for this patent, right? 4 years previous. DING!
An interesting parallel regarding patents is starting to rage in the guitar amp industry. A writer/inventor of tube guitar amps has published many revolutionary books (full of schematics and new ideas on using/tweaking stock circuits, etc.), and patents have been granted by big manufacturers on these published circuits afterwards! There are also some really, really stoopid patents granted for 50 year old circuits from RCA applications manuals. Well, this same amp builder (Kevin O'Connor @ Londow Power) has designed a very unique way of 'power scaling' the output section of a tube guitar amp (so you can get the sound of the output tubes overdriving at low sound levels) that really works well. The details are fully described in his books. He came out with a book recently called 'Secrets and Secret Holders' which blew me away. In a nutshell, it seems he was more or less forced to look into a protection patent, probably before some big company (who read all his design books) patented the method of 'power scaling'. But, if he didn't want to go that route, he was advised he could make darn sure his stuff was 'really' in the public domain. I personally believe that is why he published this particular book. The author describes fully the scaling circuitry and methods (reads more or less like a patent application) in one part of the book, so it's ensured that anyone could use this method of power scaling for new amp design without having to worry. Very, very cool! Very 'open source'! He then analyses several patents relating to guitar amp circuitry/design. It is concluded that for some of them the patents should not have been granted and would likely be overturned if challenged (it is not a recommendation though heheh). Due to the nature of the technology, it is easier to do the same thing another way sometimes rather than go to court it seems. Some of these patents mentioned here are laughable ('cept I'm not laughing). Also, it is mentioned that some patents may actually get the holders into deep doo-doo if challenged since there is a law of some sort in the US regarding 'patenting silly things'. The biggest action lately in the amp industry is digital modelling and solid state tube amp emulation. There are some pretty silly patents going on here boy; a lot of 'obvious' things are being patented for both technologies. Weird....sad. I admire his commitment to knowledge, freedom of ideas, and the spirit of competition. Ah well, check out: The amp makers site (read the blurb about Secrets and Secret Holders on the publications link!): http://www.londonpower.com Another recommended 'open source' amp maker/techie guy (check out the Patents link): http://www.aikenamps.com/ Patent search: http://www.delphion.com/
Users come and go from /. every day. What's the turnover rate? Why assume a topic posted months ago is known by /. users today?
You know, I enjoy Charlie Chaplin and the Three Stooges. I guess I shouldn't because their films have already been shown in the theatres and rehashed on video and cable television. Surely there is no value in them anymore.
Er, so when an absurdity such as the patent office is brought up on /., why wouldn't users refresh the topic with more fun comments? Could it be that the topic is still funny after these long several months?
someone should come up with a patent describing exactly what .net is going to do, and sue microsoft over it. Maybe that will slow their retalliation to linux, or let you sue them for it. um, maybe they already have the patent...
lizard
Lizard
ok, i'm getting really sick of the same old jokes here in every single patent thread
Well, so am I, and that's kinda the point of the post...
No, just run in wearing Natalie Portman masks and pour hot grits all over their NT boxen.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
...reading Slashdot with my neural-ocular interface.
.sig that says "Patent Pending".
Synopsis
Phosphorus on a cathode-ray tube is excited in a specific pattern, causing photons to travel through a gaseous interface composed of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and 1% Misc. Gasses. Upon being translated into neural signals by the ocular interface of a human, said photons are translated into "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
Andover, Taco, Hemos: look out!! Pretty soon my Slashdot posts will have a
--
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
for protocol in http ftp irc ssh smtp; do ;-)
for transport in ipv4 ipv6 ssh 10ghz; do
register_patent()
done
done
Now THAT is the easy way to get rich!
SSL Certificate
Submitting an idea to a central registry, establishing intellectual property rights on rudimentary, perhaps already implemented concepts.
Next, I'm going to protect my patent at all costs... because I don't want society freely benefiting from my ingenious idea... and I have a credit card bill due soon...
I think the overall tone concerning patents is beginning to change. In the beginning, it seemed that patents were seen as a necessity, one of the only ways of protecting your work, your ideas, your income. Examples of this were of course, one of the main reasons behind the explosion of open source in the Pro-Information Information Technology industry. Later, Amazon's amazing "One-Click" patents and various other odd, but almost believable patents were reviewed and dismissed, but not with the animosity seen today. No longer is it just 'acceptable' to have a bad patent. People are becoming down right hostile about perceived rights to intellectual property and the supposed 'evolution' that companies stand behind when patenting such blatently general ideas.
It's actually comforting to see that, while stupid patents keep getting given, there is more of an uproar when they are passed, and bad press is certainly one of the major killers of companies in this new millenium
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
...viewing images on wireless devices.
Hell, I'm just gonna patent math.
--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
This is great!!!!
Finding and proving prior art for this will be so easy as to be laughable. If bountyquest puts this one up someone will claim it within hours.
Perhaps the solution is for the Patent Office to place applications online and invite the public to comment on prior art or obviousness. Clearly their own examiners aren't up to the job, or don't have sufficient incentive to do it well. What better way to head off lunatic patents before they get approved and start gumming up the system than to get a lot of interested parties to review them?
I think the reason this (and similar - Napster/copyright issues come to mind) issue generates 'more heat than light' is that it does touch a nerve with most people, and the reaction is gut-level and slightly emotional. We get upset when our Government gets not only stupid, but stupid and dangerous. In fact, you can just feel the frustration in Taco's original post.
/. voice would cry out into the wilderness:
/. community gains clout is by actually having political power. How do we gain political power? By actually seeking it. And the first step toward that would be to actually proclaim that we are seeking political power. But we don't seem willing to do that. I guess the status quo is really good enough for most of us.
So, even though we theoretically should have gotten it out of our system, we feel a need to vent, and the patent jokes are an easy way to articulate our frustrations.
But, to me the Real Frustrations among us include the fact that we post and post and post, and it doesn't seem to change things. That is the burden of the intellectual, I suppose. The ability to see things that others can't. Anyway, I think even more than "Stupid Patents are bad", a very unified
"Why the hell hasn't Stupid Patent crap been reformed two years ago? We've been telling you about it for the entire time! Don't you listen to Us?"
The problem is, it isn't only Us they don't listen to. It's also the New York Times, USA Today, hell, the entire press; many other discussion forums, small businessmen... In short, it appears that they (they being the government, your congressman, you know, They...) are unwilling to even give credence to the thought that our (slashdot) community pulls any weight with Them. Because, I can only assume, that would mean that we would pester Them a whole lot more if we thought someone was actually listening.
I learned the trick with my kids. Ignore them when they whine and they might stop whining. Not that it works, but...
So the way our
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Perhaps you meant goatse.cx...
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Catchs somebody having extramarital sex with an animal and, using pictures of the act, create a photomosiac of their spouse.
Patents don't cover criminal activities, do they?
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
I gotta remember that one.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
-t
-t
Doctrine of equivalents doesn't apply to amended claims anymore, and virtually all claims are amended in response to office actions from the PTO. Check the recent Festo case--but since you are familiar with the DoE, I figure you're probably aware of Festo too.
Your point is well taken, but (a) read the spec to see what the _patent_ means by "protocol handlers" and "content handlers", and (b) what the prosecution history says. Granted, neither one of us wants to pay for (b). However, if "protocol handlers" and "content handlers" are as broad as you state, and were not limited during prosecution, there's no way this patent would have issued. I have dealt with a lot of examiners, and even the dimmer ones weren't that dim. I will bet that the patentee had to make some kind of statement during prosecution that narrows the claims significantly. If not, this patent actually has negative value, since it will be knocked out on summary judgment if GeoWorks tries to sue on it, and they'll be out a huge chunk of $ on legal fees.
When you are a startup company, you only have two assets: your people and your intellectual property. These are also the only two things that differentiate you from your competition. If you want funding, you need both. That's just the way it is. Those startup companies, and the young companies they become, pay the salaries of a large number of slashdotters, I bet.
emmigration in that context.
immigrating *to* new earth, emmigrating *from* earth.
'nuf said.
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
"Amazon did invent the idea of one click shopping"
Yeah sure I believe you, and I invented the idea of one click websurfing. They owe me big time.
Are you telling me cafeine is bad?
hey MS doesn't have a patent on their One Click Desktop, i'm gonna patent it.
Maybe we should start the Open Patents Developer's Network. Ya know, people throwing ideas around, documenting them, possibly patenting them (Yes, I know its expen$ive), and then allowing others to use them freely. Maybe it would stop all of this 'let's forget about prior art.' This has gotten to the point of ridiculous. Or maybe we just get donations that we use to help qualified patents get patented. Most of us open source developers dont exactly have tons of ca$h to throw around. Just reply this if this interests anyone. BTW, this is probably just one of my brain farts...please dont flame me...
Intelligence is like four wheel drive, having it just means you'll get stuck in more remote places.
I think the problem is that the patent office rather than just allowing the patenting of actual inventions as was intended now allows the patenting of schemes or ideas. One Californian even patented the thought process
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
The phone.com browser has been in mitsubishi phones since 1996..
Only take advice from somebody who is where you want to be.
Exactly! I was going to put trench coats, instead of combat gear, in my orginal post, but I figured Jon probably does searches for terms like that. Then we would get an article about the Opression of the Geek Mafia, and frankly, I just don't want to be responsible for that
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Headline News 11:00
This just in. The Geek Mafia, after finding out they had been patented, destroyed themselves and the patent holder in a violent spray of paint and shaving cream. An officer at the scene remarked that "it looked like something out of a bad gangsta movie, or Hackers, or both."
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Lemmie see, go back about 10 years, with a notebook a ham radio and a packet modem. Connect to another packet modem station hooked up to the net, and use gopher...
you can go back more than 10 years with this one right? I mean thats the first time I saw that done, but it was old by then!
The worst part is that things like this are viewed as GOOD business practices by some corps now days.
Frightening.
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
Not to be boastfull or anything, but I have worked on a farm for almost two years now while going to college, so I am in pretty good shape. Also, all that experiance with cows should lend itself to dealing with the suits. (For those without the benifit of farm experience, cows are REALLY REALLY REALLY STUPID.)
Numbers 31:17,18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,but save for yourselves every virg
The third rule of Geek Mafia is, if this is your first time with Geek Mafia, YOU WILL CODE!
If they used the web before this patent aplication, that's prior art.
science is a religion
At what point will the law abiding citizens of this country come to find enforcement of the law reprehensible?
/.er's that don't get a sinking feeling whenever a cop passes them on the road?
April 25th, 1992
But seriously, are there any
There is a war going on for your mind.
General Magic and Active Paper shipped a handheld-based web browser that was wireless-capable in 1996. They also had POP3 and PPP access, if I remember right. Before them, there was a web browser working on a HP-LX 100 or some weird handheld like that.
--- only for the squeamish
It seems to me that the time is now, at the (argueably) beginning of the technical surge of society. If the system we use to protect the investments we make toward new ideas is flawed so badly, we could really see a hiccup or worse down the line when we hit some sort of patent litigation critical mass.
I agree with you, and I hope we might see a movement or two respond to this post (I won't hold my breath).
In general I have noticed a kind of political apathy in the IT industry. Governments are responsible for laws and patents, and if they're not doing it right, they're not going to know unless someone tells them and/or explains it to them.
Few politicans have much of a clue about technology, which is why you don't see many policies covering it.
I'd really like to see some global organisations covering this, not just US-centric. I don't think you just need lawyers, although they'd be an asset, but a pool of people willing to express their opinions and stand up for them.
Laws passed in one place often repeat themselves somewhere else...
Oh please, if you are so sick of the US Patent Office, then go someplace where the Patent Office is more enlightened. A third world country would impress you.
The system generally works. Bad patents are challenged and overturned. See BountyQuest.com if you need proof.
Upper left side of your browser window. Find the menu. Click preferences. Scroll down to Exclude Stories From Homepage: Authors. Scroll down to the checkbox beside Jon Katz. Click the box to mark it. Scroll to the bottom of the page. Click the button marked savehome.
Works for me every time.
Face it, people are stupid, and the internet is the place where they all meet.
Wireless communication device with markup language based man-machine interface man and machine - power extreme!
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
that work?
---
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
you know, that might sound like even a slightly good idea if the only areas of technology covered by patents were those discussed on /.
however, i doubt a lot of slashdotters could enlighten examiners who work in areas such as animal husbandry (class 119), paper making (class 162), textiles (class 28), boot and shoe making (class 12), undertaking (class 27 ) etc etc.
remember kids, not everything has to do with computers/communications.
---
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
that isn't right. at the PTO searches may be concentrated on the world patent database, but we do a lot of searching of technical journals and what not, IBM, IEEE, etc etc, at least in my area.
---
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
We could ship them off with all the hair dressers, tired TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, secuirity guards, public relations executives, management consultants, you name it. They're going to colonize another planet.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
There, now if TMBG wants a rock to tie a string around, then they'll have to get it past me.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
hey, i dont make the rules, i just file the patents
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!
i already own the patent on the idea of a geek mafia. i have decided it is to be closed source. please refrain from allowing it to appear in print, or copying or transmitting it via electromagnetic systems
if you do not cease and desist immediately, i will be forced to rot 13 it. please do not force me to take this drastic action
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!
Is this GeoWorks in any way related to the quasi-nifty PC GUI from a long time back?
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Let's also patent this one:
Abstract:
Process of applying for time-limited monopoly rights on an process or device that the applicant describes as novel and/or original.
Combine the two and we get to sue everyone involved in these debacles...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Software patent applications should be subject to a moderation process like Slashdot comments. This way the collective could toss out the unoriginal ideas.
As it is patents are awarded based on evaluation behind closed doors. Traditionally this is done to protect what may be insightful or original work from being stolen before it can reach market. However, in the case of software patents this method of evaluation isn't working. 'Things' are have clear prior art or methods are being awarded patents (one click, hypertext, etc).
Until a more open process is in place, many more patents will be awarded for things should never have been filed in the first place.
I was watching some show. Dateline or whatever. Talking about how the big Investment Bankers were hiring these consultants to pump up stocks and since they were on TV they were listened to.. blah blah blah..
The point that these analysts made that really interested me and is actually on topic here is that they were pumping up stocks that "had no firm business model, had no patents, and had no way to prevent others from competing with them" They want on to explain that this was why the stocks then fell because when it was pointed out that not holding a patent was not protecting your business issues people ran from the comapny.
Alot of other factors added in but I think this is why we're seeing this made rush to stupid patents. Companies think that a patent will grow the company again by stigmitizing their competitors.
Is it just me or should the patent office be forced to maintain a complaint line/emal address that an joe schmoe can send prior art evidence and flames too? Maybe 5000 geeks whining can actually get a patent repealed.
it was my idea in a former life....its mine mine mine!
si here by i declare that all patents are mine mine mine! for the next up coming 10 years...atleast...
why is this world so stupid ?
Is "tangential" even a word, or did I just make it up? :)
I dunno. But my girlfriend got me for saying "tangenital" not too long ago.(And no, it was not in the context you think. Pervert.)
Your beef with people slamming Microsoft out of context, while totally valid, must be taken in the context of people who are increasingly uncomfortable with the increasing reliance on one company's software. I know it's inappropriate, but try to understand. And be nice
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Okay, I want to patent 'code that causes disruption or dysfunction of an intended operation of a computer application, or a novel action not planned by the software application developers.' I figure with a patent on bugs, I could retire from the royalties from Microsoft alone.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
I want to use WAP for an easy home network. I will company pay one big company to do it. They have to pay another big company. I have to pay the first company more money so they can pay the royalty fees. I lose. I'm friggin p'od. That's why.
Well, i still think I should patent the sound a mouse makes (clicky clicky) because i have been making that sound since my childhood. I could sue people like that BOFH. Then when that goes through i would rather buy a greek island and retire there. There are my US $0.02. :)
___________
I don't care what it looks like, it WORKS doesn't it!?!
We better be careful not to be seen in "trench" coats. Jon Kats will type up another stupid article about kids shooting kids at school again...and then drag it out for 2 years. Dear god save us from his editorials
___________
I don't care what it looks like, it WORKS doesn't it!?!
It does specify "man-machine" interface, ie. that the patent is supposed to be for allowing the user to control the phone itself through a mark-up language based interface. It also specifies that what is being patented is the control of the "telecommunications functionalities" of the phone.
I think this is actually quite carefully written to avoid attempting to patent wireless web browsing, since presumably that would invalidate quite a valuable patent.
Interesting point with WTAI, but that is URL based not mark-up language based.
From the AP Newswire:
"...And in related news, the popular linux site "Slashdot" had decided to change its name to "Patentdot" in order to more easily identify itself with every-other story which has been accepted and posted the past month. And now, back to you Skip..."
*****Ok, So what's your point?*****
--Dave
Well considering GeoWorks is claiming to have invented all markup languages on wireless devices, ya remind me a little of that "Crossing Over" guy on the scifi channel, or that random Jamaican chick with the tarot cards. They're also succesfully patenting calling from an address book on your cell phone. Most of the patent claims deal with the typical operation of a markup language. I would suspect they only expected to recive a patent for a slightly smarter cell phone web browser. Of course they'll loose. But they're here and they're funny, so laugh. (Nice website those guys at delphion put together, I esspecially like the scrolling of Claim 24, I guess that one is particularly ammusing so they wanted to make you work for it.)
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
If they aren't already taken, I'm going to try and get "greater than one click shopping" and "e-commerce"
Maybe I should just patent Bermuda itself and start charging all the /.ers who think they're rich...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Can you still afford a laywer?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Don't ask me. BTW, Bermuda contains an "e" as well. How we gonna solve that once? Split the profits?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
How about patenting Fire? Or a beard, for that matter....
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
"Wireless communication device with distributed messaging based man-machine interface"
aka, the wireless email client. all that and I only substituted 2 words. I bet we could patent almost anything usefull with just a couple of changed words.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
What the patent office needs to do is instrument some kind of grace period for challenging a patent. Once a patent is accepted, if anyone can construct a working product that demonstrates all the features described in the patent within say a month or some other reasonable time frame, the patent becomes null and void. I think this would eliminate alot of the patents on "common knowledge".
The claim describes a web browser that has a wireless interface. I really won't accept the claim that PTO examineers are not dim. The idea of running a Web browser on a PC with a wireless network connection is obvious. Don't give me the lawyer crap about the legal definition of obvious being as bogus as the supreme court's Florida fixup. Geoworks contributed zilch to the development of the Web and zilch to the development of the wireless web browser. Making bogus patent claims should be a criminal offense.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
How about all the /.ers contribute a little... and we patent patents? :)
Do you like German cars?
The best? That would have to be BT's patent on hyperlinking. The one that they're actually trying to enforce.
The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout Apr 21-27
stupid. The patent system is being abused by opportunistic companies. This has to be the dumbest patent I have heard of in a while. The public should be able to sue the patent office for granting such a broad and potentially damaging patents. Then maybe people will think more carefully before issuing them. p
GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
If they can be proved to have prior art for WAP, then what is the problem? Sometimes I suspect that people are too ready to defend the big companies that benefit from the abscence of patents. My boyfriend works for Amazon, and he has told me that the only reason they took out a their patents was because other companies would have first, and after all, Amazon did invent the idea of one click shopping, so they were just protecting their investment. Patents protect, that is what they are for.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
Patents cost a decent amount of money to prepare, file and defend. They're prepared by lawyers, and not just your garden-variety lawyers, but IP-law specialists. I've heard that a large corporation spends around $20,000 per patent. This may be high, and of course it includes a certain amount of research to insure that there's no prior art-- I suppose you could just skip that, seems like everyone else does.
Ummmm... with the exception of the phrase "wireless communication device", this claim describes everything from the first releases of NCSA Mosaic onward. I'll assume your post was a joke.
Read all about it. Lucky for them, most folks don't think.
Sex is heriditary, if your parents didn't have it chances are good you won't either.
glad i could add to the discussion...
And everytime someone always posts this exact same post predicting that people are going to claim patents on air, etc...
This is what really aggrevates me with these patents, this one and "one-click" selling. The patent law states as follows:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Why do all of these seemingly "obvious" patents make it past this requirement. In Amazon's case, it's not like anyone saw this and said "jeez I wish I would have thought of that!", it is a natural progression to some kind of one-click buying and it seems like this is the same case here. Not to mention all the prior art that everyone esle is coming up with.
Scary stuff. I blame the government.
--
Keep attacking good things as "communist"
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Quite why the BT patent keeps being described as you just did I don't quite know, except possibly that in both forms it's just so ridiculous nobody can be bothered making the correction.
--
Keep attacking good things as "communist"
KMSMA (WWBD?)
While there may be many ridiculous and counterproductive patents out there, one shouldn't forget that without legitimate patents (and the business models supported by them) a lot of us would be out of work. I would like to think these frivolous patents are the exception, not the rule.
Somebody please tell this machine I'm not a machine -
And how to make them work? Fire the lazy officers!
Seriously: These guys patenting known or obvious technology try to steal the common (public domain) knowledge and make them "proprietary intellectual property". And patent office? Approves this robbery!
Proposition: Change the patent law in a way, that anybody (previous or potential user, state or any potential victim - so every consumer) can sue the bastards for invalid patent. If the "the prior art" is proven (published, commonly used or "obvious" technology of the patent) then apply the penalty corresponding to possible potential industry damages (and as most of /.-ers will agree some can have 8 or more zeros) and social danger (not less than some financial robbery).
In such a way make the patent applicant responsible for prior art research!!!
I would guess that:
1. number of patent applications will decrease at least by factor 1/10
2. you can fire 90% of patent officers as their job will not bee to investigate "prior art" (and they do not have a clue what is going on) but just to collect the pages and insert it to the database. You can save some budget money as a result.
3. The number of court cases will not increase as the number of patent application will be much lower
The institution of "patent office" originally had a purpose to stimulate the innovation (sorry for inflated word) and to protect "smaller and smarter" on the market. The real recent functionality is to allow "proprietarisation" of common knowledge of reach companies which can afford lawyers expenses and to prevent the competition.
There must be a cooperation between small companies, developers (and consumers) to push the politicians to make law changes...
Roman
I just read your post that Geoworks was jsut granted teh Flexible User interface patent. You are factually incorrect. Geoworks applied for this patent and it was granted in 1994 by the Patent and Trademark Office. This patent specifies a method in which one application is able to run on a variety of devices. The WAP Forum is employing this same patented method in the current WAp specification, so Geoworks, as a member of the WAP Forum, created a licensing program so that the company could receive royalties for the use of its patent (this is an extremely common practice in technology industries). At no point did Geoworks claim that it owned the WAP specification -- only that the specification was using same patented method. If you wish to learn the actual facts about this patent, please consult the Geoworks Web site at www.geoworks.com.
submitted to W3C
- 09 May 1997
.http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-Submission-HDML.html
"This proposal will use the data-ready mobile phone as an example of the typical handheld device"
and the secret to the Patent Office "prior art" search is....they only search existing patents
I know that this patent coming out now seems a little fishy, but looking over the page at delphion.com, it says the patent was filed on April 8, 1998. This was almost three years ago, and wireless devices with access to the internet were pretty scarce, if not non-existant back then. If my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't until late '99/early '00 that wireless devices with internet access became as well known as they are today.
That doesn't make it particularly innovative. What with the mobile phone craze, a monkey could have seen wireless internet comming. Hams were already doing packet radio so IP over wireless wasn't new. Data of all sorts has been transmitted wireless for decades. Hand held computers pre-dated them too.
In other words, wireless browsing over the internet on a hand-held device was simply the next step. It's not like a bunch of engineers had all of the componants together and working but couldn't think of what to do with them.
Seems like there are a bunch of patents that never would have flown if the patent office had been notified of the fact that there IS prior art. Obviously the company submitting the patent isn't gonna let the USPTO know, so who does? Perhaps we should start a prior art crusade, much like BountyQuest, only as a pre-emptive strike.
I'm going to patent the 20% Oxygen and 80% Nitrogen mixture as "Inhalable substance that can sustain survivability for extended periods of time" when I get the chance.
Every time you breathe, you would have to pay...
It occurs to me that if they have a description that a layperson can't make any sense of the patent office okays it. That really shows what kind of people are running the thing, don't it?
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
We all kinda know Geoworks as that operating system devluped on the C64 and later moved to the PC.
It also made it to PDAs and when that bombed.. Cell phones.
The prior art may be on Geoworks side guys.. The web browser in Geos version 3 may accually put Geoworks as the first internet ready os on a cell phone.
However Geoworks didn't clame a patent at the time and probably for good reason. They didn't need it. Yes to spite the fact that Geoworks was suffering horrably when they entered the cell phone arena they didn't need a patent on cell phone imbeded web browsers.
Patents like this are a clear sign somethings wrong. Ok we knew that at Geoworks but they've been hanging on pritty well over the years entering death throws many times sence they were nocked off the PC by Microsoft and then off the PDA market by it's own supporters apathy.
I'm cought between this on 3 points...
1. I like Geoworks... it's a neat operating system and they have done a great job. Getting that to work on a C64 and later on a cell phone is pritty cool.
2. This patent has got to go. This sort of thing hurts the develupment of internet cell phone systems.
3. Accually I'm not fond of internet cell phones and would rather see wireless PDA technology push them out.
In the end I want to see Geoworks go out of busness. The loss of technology is sad but the damage they'd do to a.. lesser technology.. is more distruptive.
Anyway it looks like Geoworks technology is dead allready.. and while I don't like internet cell phones I think wireless internet (in any form) is a good idea and I'd like to keep options open.
I mean at the very least we need Internet PCS phones to keep wireless PDA on it's toes...
I don't actually exist.
We were doing everything mentioned in their abstract in 1995 here in Kansas City - minus one thing: handheld devices (okay, the radio was handheld, but the display device was not as there were no handheld devices like what is really needed to do it). We used web browsers, TCP/IP, JNOS or KA9Q NOS, etc. to access stuff off the net over 1200 baud packet. Heck, some of us were even playing with this type of stuff back in 1987/88 by sending vector type graphics around that you got to click on to change pages, etc.
I, just an average Joe with no work experience in the graphics industry and only minimal hobbiest experience, can design and write an application for in one eventing is patentable.
Do I proceed with my business plans, and explain to the court that doing something with a computer in the same way that it is done in real life is not novel when the lawsuit comes in?
You are creating a business with such a low barrier to entry that you wrote the software in one evening.
cpeterso
And Bounyquest has overturned exactly how many patents? Oh right, it's exactly 0.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
The concept of retiring in Bermuda is patented by J. Laramie Lovegrass, Hamilton, Bermuda. You may retire in Portugal without violating our patent.
Off go the Telephone sanitation people again ...
- seek companies highly valued because of weak patents
- bet against them in the market
- break their patent
- cash in on bets
He describes the scheme even naming GeoWorks as a prime candidate but I don't find any followup.Geoworks would have been a good target given their performance. Maybe he is working quietly.
Anyone have any news? Anyone know Mr. Aharonian? Is he shopping for megayachts yet?
I'm sorry, but I let my frustration with a system that has corrupted a lot of optimistic dreams lead me to post off topic. This relates to the subject in that everyone who is trying to do anything is being frustrated by ridiculously obvious ideas being patented. The patent that blocks me took 3 years to get through, and simply uses a lot of big words to say something simple. It doesn't do anything that even someone not versed in the art could do in one evening. How is any industry to progress when someone holds a patent on a basic idea?
So, the question becomes: Do we as a society veto 'the government' and choose to ignore the whole patent system once it becomes obvious that it inhibits everyone except the lucky few? At what point will the law abiding citizens of this country come to find enforcement of the law reprehensible?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
But seriously, are there any /.er's that don't get a sinking feeling whenever a cop passes them on the road?
Good point, but let me counter. In North Carolina, the legislature passed a law granting each family a PFJ, prayer for judgement. Basically, the law says that everyone gets a pass on a traffic ticket every 2 years. IMHO, what the legislature said was, "Traffic tickets are our bullshit way of collecting revenue. The distribution of traffic tickets are fairly random with a weight to younger drivers. We've been handing out too many and now everyone beginning to see them for what they are. The people will revolt (by replacing us) if we don't do something, so lets make sure that people who follow the speed limit signs most of the time won't get too upset. We won't collect as much, but we also won't have to openly levy more taxes to cover our pet projects."
The point: people were starting to get upset about traffic law, and the legislature responded.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I wrote a small application (determine the best available matching source image by computing red, green and blue channel root-mean square error.
/.:
Well, no shit, Sherlock. How else do you find the distance between two points.
What's more, I had the brilliant ideas of storing the digital image on a hard disk and producing output with a printer. I even displayed the image on my screen, but the patent covers that too.
I've had several ideas how to make money with the program selling a service (ie, actually doing something that contributes to society), but it would appear that I'm blocked by a patent that has bogus claims. Tell me again how this benefits society.
My question to
Do I proceed with my business plans, and explain to the court that doing something with a computer in the same way that it is done in real life is not novel when the lawsuit comes in? What happens when the system gets so out of whack that no one pays attention to it, like those laws against sodomy and extra-marital sex?
For the curious, patent# 6,137,498
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Come on, people. It's one thing to slam Microsoft in a story ABOUT Microsoft, but it another thing entirely to bring up your personal biases in a completely tangential way.
Is "tangential" even a word, or did I just make it up?
Anyway, for all of the Slashdotter's that complained that Anti-Trust portrayed the open-source movement in a negative light (like it's all that they ever say) ... THIS IS WHY. Lighten up. There is more to life than open-source.
--
Hey, if you have art prior to April 1997, now would be the time to cite it.
Every Web browser has multiple protocol handlers (ftp, http) and multiple content handlers (HTML, plain text). This patent doesn't sound narrow.
two comments.
1. a buddy of mine is working on pattenting a process for using light to create an image on a screen. Of course, he's doing it with particles a couple of microns wide - and the technology will not be directly applied to monitors for *a couple* of years.
2. I think most people feel ashamed to live in the US. There are problems with our electoral process, our president, our "human rights", no national health care, our stance on various social programs common to other countries, our drug culture, the DMCA, the MPAA, our lawyers, SUV's, our constant complaining about the cost of fuel, immagration, the role of the US military, american football, OJ is guilty, professional wrestlers as govenors, Ted Kennedy and Strom Thermond are embarassments to both parties - despite their "experience", scientologists. Pattent law is only a miniscule (in comparrison) reason why we should be ashamed to live here.
You say you want a revolution?
This is nothing. Someone has patented the peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
ha ha ha ho ho ho. woo boy you're a funny one!
ok, i'm getting really sick of the same old jokes here in every single patent thread. the joke oh yeah, well i'm going to patent {insert silly answer} is very old. we already had a "silly patents" contest, we don't need any more of these stupid messages clogging up the discussion. it wouldn't even be so bad except that these stupid jokes are being moderated to +5 Funny all the time.
so moderators please, use your moderator points on relevant patent-related discussion, not on the same stupid jokes please.
- j
I am so dissappointed the book is it home so I can't provide the full quotation(s) but I think the clearest prior art has to be the auto-updating hitch-hickers guide which used a wireless network to broadcast updates to a hand-held/lap-top device. I thought patents were only meant to protect original ideas....oh I forgot this was issued by the US patents department.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I am taking a class called Introduction to Intellectual Property. The course project is to come up with an invention, prepare a patent application, and (if we want to shell out the money) apply for the patent. It would seem that the most difficult and time consuming part is the prior art search. But I guess that the way the USPTO is now operating, it doesn't count as prior art unless someone has done it EXACTLY the way you want to do it. Exact dimensions, color, name. . .
So I'm pretty sure noone has my invention EXACTLY, so I won't bother with the prior art search.
Seriously, it makes it kind of hard on the teachers when they teach us about prior art requirements or about non-obviousness ***subliminal message: boycot Amazon.com*** and by the next class the USPTO has granted patents in obvious violation. So they have to try to explain why it got through. (or why the USPTO is on crack)
So in conclusion, I will patent the method for applying for patents that should be denied on the grounds of prior art and obviousness, but aren't. Amazon: expect to hear from my lawyers shortly.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Please visit this site, as it is an important starting point that explains the necessity, rationale, and history of patenting,-- especially biotechnology. Exclusive distribution for drugs for patents based novelty, enablement, and usefulness provides the incentive for research.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
The specific invention they are patenting is a wireless browser who's user interface, which is used to access the features of the device, is constructed with the same markup language that the browser views. Clearly they intend to build something like a cellphone that has it's own proprietary HTML tags that let you put a phone number link in a page and call it with one click. This makes the patent much more narrow but still a bit frivolous in my opinion as this would be an obvious feature for a cellphone browser.
How is this possibly redundant?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
I've been looking for a "shut up when you're ranting CmdrTaco button" but they don't seem to have one. :)
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Ah. Good point.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
There is an easy solution. Just check the slashbox setting for the patent category.
Thank God CmdrTaco placed patents in its own category. I like to turn it off on occasion when he goes into a huge rant (like for the CueCat).
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Government workers actually doing work? That would be like M$oft open-sourcing their OS.
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
While, it's sort of a catch-22. While people have theoretically gotten most of the patent jokes out of their system, they've also theoretically gotten most of the actual patent discussion out of their system, too. It's gotten to the point where there's really not much left to say, other than "Oh. _Another_ stupid patent." And while the announcement of a different stupid patent is worthy of a brief slashdot story and link for more information, there just isn't anything more to say. In fact, if I had to pick one cause to unite the Slashdot readership, it would be "Stupid patents are bad." There's some disagreement over where the "stupid" line should be placed, but I've yet to see someone seriously argue that these patents that've been issued regardless of copious prior art are a good thing.
As for the sophistication of Slashdot, it seems that every time I've decided there's worthwhile discussion on Slashdot, I'll come across something completely moronic. But on the other hand, every time I've decided that Slashdot is totally worthless and none of the comments are worth reading, I come across something that's amazingly insightful.
Well, it doesn't really work right now, but in principle it's no more than a days work to finish it. And I'm not even a (real) programmer.
Now, this has been possible for long. As long as SMS has been available, which is when? 1994 or something? I have a really hard time understanding why it hasn't seen any mainstream implementation.
Now, unless this stuff gets us full web on phone, it's not going any longer than WAP, and WAP sucks, so it's no big deal, really.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Personally, I plan to file a patent on the action of expressing disgust by extending the 3rd digit of the hand of a homo sapien. Every time you flip the bird, you owe me ten cents.
Humorless sig goes here.
My recommendation is to downmoderate all such posts as redundant.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
IMHO, the Most Ridiculous Patent Award goes to BT for their claim to own the rights to the Hyperlink. They also get the nod for Most Ridiculous Attempt To Make Money Off Of A Ridiculous Patent by suing ISPs. Rat bastards!! :-)
---
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Why don't we just get a 'business method' patent on that idea? Then we can sue people who try to do that.
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
I think it has something to do with the fact that with every Patent Pending article there are dozens of "I'm going to patent {something stupidly obvious} and you will all owe me money" posts. You post simply repeats (in concept anyway) what was posted numerous times before.
Ok... lets do it... I'm not so hot on the idea of retiring to Bermuda, though, but I could use the extra cash to put my kids through college (in 18 years, mind you, but still...)
Hell, lets all try to patent everything under the sun, sue everyone else for existing, then use the cash to fund the further effort of patenting anything else we might happen to think of. A vicious circle of patent doom! It would truly be a beautiful thing - in that odd Tarantino-like way. I'm hungry, lets get a taco...
Anyway... this has gotten to the point where there just seems no sense in trying to be insightful about patents - the lawyers have pushed me too far. Long live the frivolous patent & their happy lawsuit offspring!
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
I just went through a patent filing for a client, I was the brought in to define the technology, and I can tell you there are some serious loopholes for prior art. And in some cases, all that is necessary to route around prior art is a timely filing date (within one year of prior art's development) and a dash of differentiation; such as the wireless aspect provides here.
You would be suprised what is NOT on the books at the patent office and it is all fair game as near as I can tell.
All it takes is a rocking attorney and a bit of cash...
I'm not so sure that legitimate patents really benefit so many people as you imply.
How many of us work for companies whose business models are supported by patents?
Most legitimate product-based companies get paid for making stuff, not thinking of stuff first. Those who think of stuff first are generally most capable of producing it either because of the talent of those who created the design, or simply because of the head start given them by being the first folks to start on R&D.
However, I myself don't care either way -- every last company I've worked at thus far has been a service company rather than a product company, and the product companies which purchased our services either produced a commodity, or (if producing an innovative product) had a unique ability to create their product ensured by engineering talent, rather than government-enforced monopoly.
I'm inclined to think that this is frequently true -- that more people are employed and supported by service industry than patent-based product companies, and thus that the benefits of legitimate patents are not particularly great.
As I've pointed out before, the dude in charge at the patent office has plainly and bluntly stated up front that the only "Prior Art" they search for are in existing patents, and current patent applications submitted before the one in question.
No talking with an "expert in the field", no looking at public domain, nothing. If a patent exists, there's prior art. If a patent doesn't exist, it MUST be patentable, so they grant the patent.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Here we have the umpteenth article this month alone, while ignoring Opera's announcement that they will be releasing Opera browser for free (as in beer) for Linux and the Mac OS this year.
Christ, no wonder so many posts these days are by folks in the 200000+ UID range (no offense. I'm just saying that CT et al. seem to have pissed off at least 150000 people).
Funny. The ad banner is one of those demotivators: "Blame: The Secret to Success is Who to Blame for Your Failures"
All those whiners who asked for slashcode were the ones who turned it into a spaghetti mess.
Why stick around? Slashboxes are a good thing. Time to go remove USPTO from my prefs, as it's just wasting bits at the rate CT posts the stupid things.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Uhm, Nokia Communicator? I think I bought mine in 97'ish, maybe 98.
Oh, wait,- GeoWorks wrote the OS and browser for that! AHAAA!
However, far before 98 we used a satelite based Internet connection (think DirectPC like) and I can't imagine there's isn't prove somewhere of someone using a wireless connection before 98. And what if you connected to the Internet through an airplane's phone system?
An other thing that lawyers should have a closer look at is the man-machine interface part of the patent. A user interface is NOT a web-browser, therefore this patent may only apply to the user-interface through a browser on a wireless device...
Breace.
All I can say is that I'm glad korporate amerika(tm) doesn't invent anything new, in general. If, for example, they had invented HTML, HTTP, or TCP/IP, we would never have had the Web. So let us pray and give thanks to St. Berners-Lee and the others before him who gave of their time and effort so that we might all benefit.
As far as corporate efforts go, there were some interesting attempts along the way. Let them serve as reminders. Take Lotus Notes(tm), for example. They're roadkill now. The fact is, no one should have to shell out $79 in order to communicate (or worse, just receive) ideas. The market has spoken.
I think this is the single best way to kill WAP (already foundering) and similar efforts. Not only do we now have to cough-up $50 for wireless/ISP charges, for a degraded network connection and 1980-style, monochrome, 320x240, largely text-based UI. But on top of it, we're expected to pay royalties to one shyster of a corporation, a usurper of prior art. No thanks. I'll stick with my T1 connection and save my "disconnected state" for some down time--that which people used to refer to as "being human."
that would assume that said geeks are in enough physical condition to be able to "run" and "aim"
just because you can fight well in Quake, Doom, etc. doesn't mean that you're able to do so in real life.
i've seen you guys. i went to linuxworld. i know how out of shape you all are. run? jump? give me a break.
(btw, I'm being sarcastic)
Is this covered by the patent ? Maybe patents should be voted on by /. users before being granted. Or we could design a new 'Ask Slashdot' subject called "Ask Slashdot (for employees of the US Patent Office)". That should give them enough background to decide on the validity of a patent claim.
Obviousman is obviously not obvious enough
I really am, I feel ashamed to live in this country anymore.. Every week on Slashdot there is some kind of new patent that just makes me want to vommit. I think the best is AltaVistas on Search Indexing.. But now this? Next thing we know they'll be patents for using Light to create an Imagine on a screen, and I'll be paying licensing fees to watch TV and use my computer.... sigh.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Reminds me of a portion of the book "Surely you must be Joking Mr Feinman" where he recalls his bosses requesting that all persons attempt to describe patentable ideas involving nuclear reactions. Dr. Feinman gave a few examples like (and I paraphrase) "put a nuclear reactor in a boat, make it boil water to spin a turbine and drive the prop. Poof, nuclear powered boat. Do the same thing with a sub, poof, nuclear powered sub. Or, eject heated air out the back, poof, nuclear powered plane." Years later, Dr. Feinman was asked to join a company working on super-sonic jets b/c he obtained the patent on nuclear powered jets...
main(i){(10-putchar(((25208>>3*(i+=3))&7)+(i ?i-4?100:65:10)))?main(i-4):i;}
I, the Great Jayhawk88, chock-full of awesome psychic powers, will now hearby predict 5 of the lame "I'm going to patent X" posts that are soon to appear in this article:
1. Air
2. The Wheel
3. HTML
4. The word "the"
5. The Internet
Thank you, thank you! Yes, my powers are truely mystical and beyond compare! Be sure to catch my next showings at 3:10, 4:15, 5:45 and 7:00! Don't forget to tip your waitresses!
----
The patent office doesn't have a clue, and I don't think they ever did.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
The first rule of Geek Mafia is you do not talk about Geek Mafia.
The second rule of Geek Mafia is you do not talk about Geek Mafia.
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
Patents are defined by the claims, and the claims only. What the abstract or title says is irrelevant. Typically, the broadest claim is claim 1. Let's look at claim 1.
1. A computer program product for use on a wireless communication device, the wireless communication device including a memory, a screen display, a processor for executing the computer program product, and controls for operating the wireless communication device, the computer program product comprising:
a shell for receiving a URL having a protocol component and a data component, the data specifying a command to be executed or content to be fetched, the shell providing the data component to a protocol handler according to the protocol component, and the fetched content to a content handler for processing;
a plurality of protocol handlers, each protocol handler communicatively coupled to the shell to receive a URL and either fetch content specified by the data component and provide the fetched content to the shell, or execute the command specified by the data component; and
a plurality of content handlers, each content handler communicatively coupled to the shell to receive fetched content and process the fetched content to output the content to the screen display of the wireless communication device.
Only the stuff after "comprising" is the invention (don't ask), and to infringe you have to have all of the elements described after "comprising." So, you have to have at least one shell, multiple protocol handlers, and multiple content handlers. You look at the body of the application to find out what is meant by "shell," "protocol handler" and "content handler." You also look at the prosecution history to see if the terms were limited by anything the patentee said during the patent process. Then, you compare a particular device or method you're concerned about to that claim to see if you infringe. Because you have to have multiple protocol handlers and content handlers to infringe, I would tend to think this is a pretty narrow patent. I'll let you guys take it from here.
Quake controlled robots, duh!
Let's see... synchro drive to move like a quake character does, some kind of jump jet or hydraulic jumping "foot", and a series of arms, each holding a weapon!
Then just link it up (wirelessly, of course), and use a quake-like interface!
Of course, if you do this wirelessly, would it infringe on the GeoWorks patent? That'd be ironic. "15 slaughtered by rampaging patent. Film at 11."
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
I know that this patent coming out now seems a little fishy, but looking over the page at delphion.com, it says the patent was filed on April 8, 1998. This was almost three years ago, and wireless devices with access to the internet were pretty scarce, if not non-existant back then. If my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't until late '99/early '00 that wireless devices with internet access became as well known as they are today.
I just think that the date the patent was filed adds a new dimension to how it should be looked at. Sure, it wasn't granted until Jan 9th, 2001, but that's due to the United States Patent Office, not GeoWorks.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Thank you for your submission for immigration from the Earth. We have, at this time, detemined the Ravenous Giant Space Goat is approaching quickly, and have placed you on the 'B' Ark. Your cutting-edge legal department has earned you this exciting place on the first Ark to be launched!
Please report to the launch site in Indonesia near Krakatoa (see map) no later than March 1, 2001, for in order to be properly processed and boarded.
We thank you for your submission and are certain that you and your other people on the 'B' Ark will help make New Earth a success!
Regards, The Society For The Preservation Of Earth.
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
Think about it. A bunch of vigilante geeks dressing up in black combat gear, performing guerilla hit and run operations on the corporate headquarters of idiot companies like Geoworks and Altavista. The group could carry paintball guns and balloons filled with shaving cream. No permanent damage would be done, but the message sent....
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
General Information Services Division
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Crystal Plaza 3, Room 2C02
Washington, DC 20231
Or you can call and say hello. I love getting threatening and perverted phone calls:
1-800-786-9199
i already own the patent on the frivolous interchange of transport mechanisms in order to create new art for the purpose of wealth generated cesation of work
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!