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.
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.
I wanna Mexican a-Radio-o-o-o
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
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
Of course, there is one alternative....
As a group, we (slashdotters) could patent anything we can think of, and give the patents to the EFF. This would prevent any future abuse
Of course, what would also amuse me would be if the EFF were to be ablet o sue the RIAA or MPAA for patent enfringement in one of their copy protection technologies. That would really make me smile :)
Just a thought, but I'm sure enough of us could do it.
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.
Im going to file a Patent on posting KarmaWhoring(TM) requests for people to *not* post silly "Im going to Patent..." messages on Slashdot.
You sir are not only a KarmaWhore - but are in Violation of said Pending Patent
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!