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.
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."
Woe!! A stray less than sign got my original post trashed. Shoulda previewed.
/.:
I wrote a small application ( less than 300 lines) that would create a mosaic. A list of pictures was used to simulate a master picture. I wrote it one evening and it doesn't do anything spectacular. It looks at a region on the master image and finds which of the small images match that region the best, then fills in the corresponding area on the output image. The exact same thing a person would do with a shoebox full of prints. I did this because I didn't know what to get my rich brother-in-law for Christmas. So, I got him something he already had...his own pictures in a different format.
Guess what? It's the process is patented. Something 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. Hell, if the patent had mentioned an obscure matching algorithm I would have been impressed. Instead the algorithm used a distance-vector to find the closest match.
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 all 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? Or do I meekly walk away, ignoring the possibility of creating jobs and wealth and generally expanding the economy? 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
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!