FTC Investigates Submarine Patents

Put your patents here by Cmdr+(Fuck+You)+Taco · 2001-09-12 22:06 · Score: -1

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g g o / \ \ / \ o a| | \ | | a t| `. | | : t s` | | \| | s e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x * \ \-~ ~-\ | * g \ \ .--------.__\| | g o \ \_// ((> \ | o a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a t /\ | C )/ \ (> |/ t s / /\| C) | (> / \ s e | ( C__)\__/ // / / \ e x | \ | \\__// (/ | x * | \ \) `---- --' | * g | \ \ / / | g o | / | | \ | o a | | / \ \ | a t | / / | | \ |t s | / / \/\/ | |s e | / / | | | |e x | | | | | |x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

One goatse.cx isn't enough for this story by Cmdr+(Fuck+You)+Taco · 2001-09-12 22:09 · Score: -1

Here's another one:

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g g o / \ \ / \ o a| | \ | | a t| `. | | : t s` | | \| | s e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x * \ \-~ ~-\ | * g \ \ .--------.__\| | g o \ \_// ((> \ | o a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a t /\ | C )/ \ (> |/ t s / /\| C) | (> / \ s e | ( C__)\__/ // / / \ e x | \ | \\__// (/ | x * | \ \) `---- --' | * g | \ \ / / | g o | / | | \ | o a | | / \ \ | a t | / / | | \ |t s | / / \/\/ | |s e | / / | | | |e x | | | | | |x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

If nobody else posts any comments, I'll have to by Cmdr+(Fuck+You)+Taco · 2001-09-12 22:11 · Score: -1

Patent this:

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g g o / \ \ / \ o a| | \ | | a t| `. | | : t s` | | \| | s e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x * \ \-~ ~-\ | * g \ \ .--------.__\| | g o \ \_// ((> \ | o a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a t /\ | C )/ \ (> |/ t s / /\| C) | (> / \ s e | ( C__)\__/ // / / \ e x | \ | \\__// (/ | x * | \ \) `---- --' | * g | \ \ / / | g o | / | | \ | o a | | / \ \ | a t | / / | | \ |t s | / / \/\/ | |s e | / / | | | |e x | | | | | |x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

whee by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:12 · Score: -1, Offtopic

this can't possibly be...

Re:whee by Cmdr+(Fuck+You)+Taco · 2001-09-12 22:14 · Score: -1

You're right.
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g g o / \ \ / \ o a| | \ | | a t| `. | | : t s` | | \| | s e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x * \ \-~ ~-\ | * g \ \ .--------.__\| | g o \ \_// ((> \ | o a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a t /\ | C )/ \ (> |/ t s / /\| C) | (> / \ s e | ( C__)\__/ // / / \ e x | \ | \\__// (/ | x * | \ \) `---- --' | * g | \ \ / / | g o | / | | \ | o a | | / \ \ | a t | / / | | \ |t s | / / \/\/ | |s e | / / | | | |e x | | | | | |x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

Kill All Mohammedans. Destroy Islam. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:14 · Score: -1, Troll

What must me done:

Kill all Arabs.
Kill all Towel Heads.
Kill all Mohammedans.
Kill all Muslims.
Kill all Camel Jockeys
Kill all Islam.
Nuke their countries to an ash heap.
Nuke them again.
Death to Islam.

I wipe my ass with the Koran. I spit upon Mohammed. I urinate on Mecca.

Nuke Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:16 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Israeli terrorism against palestines is what started the whole mess.

That's a scary concept... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:17 · Score: 0

I'd never thought about the prospect of companies keeping their patents secret. For all we know, Microsoft could have been awarded a patent for gravity *years* ago and never told anyone. Then one day they announce that anyone who does not pay them licensing fees (on their terms, which will include replacing your TV with Windows Media Player) will simply have to get off the planet.

Re:That's a scary concept... by Asic+Eng · 2001-09-12 22:45 · Score: 1

They can't keep it completely secret, patents are publically accessible.
Re:That's a scary concept... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Patents aren't really secret. They're "published" in a dead-tree-focused database in a format that's essentially unreadable even by most competent programmers. Just finding out whether an invention is already patented takes thousands of dollars worth of highly skilled, mind-numbing legal work.

Since publication is what the 20-year monopoly rewards, any patent that competitors didn't find and learn from obviously failed to promote progress in the art. This system doesn't work.
Re:That's a scary concept... by qbeast · 2001-09-13 01:20 · Score: 3, Informative

A quick patent primer:

The 20 year monopoly does NOT reward publication. It only confers upon the patent owner the right to EXCLUDE others from making, using, or selling the invention covered by the patent.

Secondly, in the United States publication of the patent applications has only recenly begun. Prior to the change in the laws this past November, information regarding any pending patent application in the Patent Office was unavailable to any parties other than the Examiner at the PTO or the individual or corporation which filed the application. The patents were "submarined" by extending the pendency of the applications by filing continuation and divisional applications which kept the information out of the public domain by preventing the patent from being granted and finally publishing in the US.

The patenting process in Europe and under the PCT system provides for publication 18 months after the first priority date, so there is a tremendous amount of information about what US companies are doing (or have done) that is available by searching the EPO and PCT websites at http://www.european-patent-office.org/ and http://www.wipo.org, respectively.
Re:That's a scary concept... by sealawyer · 2001-09-13 08:06 · Score: 1

"The 20 year monopoly does NOT reward publication. It only confers upon the patent owner the right to EXCLUDE others from making, using, or selling the invention covered by the patent."

The patent holder gets that right in exchange for publishing a complete description his invention in the patent office where we can all read it if we so choose. Why don't you consider that arrangement a reward for publication?
Re:That's a scary concept... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-16 12:30 · Score: 0

in the patent office where we can all read it if we so choose

Except that we can't because they're incomprehensible gibberish, not even held up to to the moderate brevity and clarity we routinely find in volunteer-written IETFRFCs.

Have an asshole on me by Cmdr+(Fuck+You)+Taco · 2001-09-12 22:17 · Score: -1

I love you all.

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g g o / \ \ / \ o a| | \ | | a t| `. | | : t s` | | \| | s e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x * \ \-~ ~-\ | * g \ \ .--------.__\| | g o \ \_// ((> \ | o a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a t /\ | C )/ \ (> |/ t s / /\| C) | (> / \ s e | ( C__)\__/ // / / \ e x | \ | \\__// (/ | x * | \ \) `---- --' | * g | \ \ / / | g o | / | | \ | o a | | / \ \ | a t | / / | | \ |t s | / / \/\/ | |s e | / / | | | |e x | | | | | |x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

Death to All Muslims. Exterminate All Islam. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:20 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Our duty to the victims:

Kill all Arabs.
Kill all Towel Heads.
Kill all Mohammedans.
Kill all Muslims.
Kill all Camel Jockeys
Kill all Islam.
Nuke their countries beyond the abyss of hell.
Nuke them again.
Death to Islam.

I wipe my ass with the Koran. I spit upon Mohammed. I piss upon Mecca.

Re:Death to All Muslims. Exterminate All Islam. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:35 · Score: -1, Redundant

what a pitiful fuck you are
Re:Death to All Muslims. Exterminate All Islam. by nivelo9 · 2001-09-12 22:49 · Score: -1, Troll

agreed. time for some moderation, eh?

--
another "quality" nivelo9 comment
Re:Death to All Muslims. Exterminate All Islam. by nivelo9 · 2001-09-13 11:25 · Score: 1

you didn't have to mod me down and kill my karma!!! i was agreeing with the second guy not the original poster.

--
another "quality" nivelo9 comment

submarine patents... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:20 · Score: 1, Interesting

...piss off *everyone* (excpet corporate america)

Japan espically... about a year ago, Japanese television had an hour long program about how some patents for robotic assembly and inspection had been granted over 20 years after the patent had been accepted. If I recall correctly, there were some very devistating consequences for Japanese industral conplex.

If Japan had a military, it was the kind of issue that might start a ware.

The point that seemed to fall on deaf Japanese ears was that the paten office is inherently a political tool of the unitied states government and corporate america. This particular patent had been "submarined" for the direct purpose of secrewing the patent filer out of roalties.

So, just remember, patents don't protect the inventer. Patents exist to the benefit of corporate america and the us government... and in a country where the patent generators a systematically screwed as a routine, generic part of the culture, it seems a little disingenuious and completely unnecessary to submarine a patent.

Re:submarine patents... by the_ph0x` · 2001-09-13 00:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

So, just remember, patents don't protect the inventer. Patents exist to the benefit of corporate america and the us government...

Actually I would slightly disagree with you on this matter.

Patents do a great deal to keep control of an idea/concept/plan/what-have-you for even single people. It is like all things that have come from the US so far, it started off as an excellant idea, but from there we grew as a nation and as a planet, however the systems we put in place have not. And that is the problem with not only the patent system but many other aspects of our life.

--

---
ps -aux | grep mind
Re:submarine patents... by csbruce · 2001-09-13 00:42 · Score: 1, Funny

If Japan had a military, it was the kind of issue that might start a ware.

I thought that wares were the result of outrageous prices or consumers who are too cheap...

Oh, you mean "war"...
Re:submarine patents... by Zeinfeld · 2001-09-13 04:11 · Score: 2

Patents do a great deal to keep control of an idea/concept/plan/what-have-you for even single people. It is like all things that have come from the US so far, it started off as an excellant idea
Did you study advanced ignorance in school or something? Patent law existed long before the US.
The principle defect of the US PTO, the lack of public review before a patent is issued is unique to the US.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:submarine patents... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 04:27 · Score: 0

Did you study advanced misreading in school? I said it is _LIKE_ - never said it WAS, sheesh - please read a comment before you make assinine statements about its author.

Thank you - good night.
Re:submarine patents... by markmoss · 2001-09-13 05:12 · Score: 2

Patent law existed long before the US.

Wrong. "Royal patents" existed long before the US -- but these were gained by political pull rather than set procedures, and were more likely to grant a monopoly on well-known processes than to protect innovations. Most people simply didn't recognize that inventions were valuable until the industrial revolution was well underway, that is, the latter half of the 18th century. (One exception might be military technology -- see for example Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks -- but no country has ever forgone useful weapons in war time just because they don't own the patents.)

It's possible that some other countries enacted patent laws before the Constitution allowing American patent laws took effect in the US (1793?), but we certainly weren't far behind anyone. We were way ahead of most European aristocrats, who in 1793 still thought that true wealth lay in vast tracts of farmland worked by downtrodden peasants...
Re:submarine patents... by Zeinfeld · 2001-09-13 16:08 · Score: 2

Wrong. "Royal patents" existed long before the US -- but these were gained by political pull rather than set procedures, and were more likely to grant a monopoly on well-known processes than to protect innovations.
The industrial revolution began a century before the US Constitution was written. The idea of awarding patents to inventors was already well established in the UK. Adam Smith came up with the definitive rationale, although by the time he wrote wealth of nations the sale of state monopolies was known as the continental system because that is where it was used.
The US did not in any case become an industrial power for another 75 years just before the civil war. And it only became a technology leader with Ford and Edison.
Even then Ford's main claim to fame was not the idea of a cheap car. It was taking on the patent baron who had obtained a fraudulent patent on the internal combustion engine.
The framers of the constitution were not making it up as they went along. They were attempting to codify what they saw as the best political traditions of the old world. The innovation was the idea of a federal political structure, but even that was a fact that had to be accounted for rather than a deliberate choice.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

Patents not secret by Ed+Avis · 2001-09-12 22:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

The whole point of the patent system is openness. You only get a patent monopoly in exchange for full disclosure. So it should be easy (in principle) to find out what patents cover something you are working on. But in practice the sheer volume of patents out there is too large.

I think that a legally binding 'patent challenge' might be the answer. You should be able to send a letter to Rambus or whoever saying 'I am developing the following... please disclose whether you have any patents or patent applications which cover this area'. The company receiving the letter then has to disclose what they have patented. If they lie or keep quiet, they lose the right to sue you later on. Obviously you couldn't do this for internal R&D, but for standards bodies (where the process is open anyway) this could be a useful tool to reduce threats from submarine patents. The only question is whether it places an unreasonable burden on the patentholding company.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

Re:Patents not secret by Asic+Eng · 2001-09-12 22:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is a law necessary, though? As I understand it the rules of these standards bodies require the companies participating in a standard to reveal their patents anyway. That seems to be the basis for these countersuits.
As far as volume goes - maybe there should just be a cap on patents. Something like "x patents a year can be awarded". The patent office would then be charged to award the patents with the most merit, each year. If a patent application doesn't make it in one year, it may make it in the next. If it never makes it... well then it probably shouldn't. :)
Re:Patents not secret by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

Patents are obfuscated; computer science is at least one field in which the typical practitioner can't read them. Volume wouldn't be a problem if patents applied to problems in narrow categories, but when executable content can be patented any searcher has to be exceedingly paranoid and waste thousands of dollars in highly-skilled mind-numbing labor just to be allowed to innovate.
Re:Patents not secret by Ed+Avis · 2001-09-12 23:00 · Score: 1

Software patents are notoriously bad, and for software the best answer is just not to grant patent monopolies at all (they should be restricted to physical objects, not abstract ideas). But in areas where the patent system is considered to be economically useful but still has problems with submarines, having some kind of mandatory disclosure would help the system work better. That's what I was referring to; the patents on hardware held by Rambus and the like.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:Patents not secret by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:06 · Score: 0
Since they have every incentive to hide their monopolies (or not announce them, which is just as good since patents are just about unreadable and un-findable), relying on every monopolist to
1. participate in the standards body
2. follow its rules
seems awfully naïve. If the system worked, the standards body could easily find out for themselves whether anyone holds relevant patents.
Re:Patents not secret by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:24 · Score: -1, Troll
Join hands to:
1. Kill all Arabs.
2. Kill all Towel Heads.
3. Kill all Mohammedans.
4. Kill all Muslims.
5. Kill all Camel Jockeys
6. Kill all Islam.
7. Nuke their countries to an ash heap.
8. Nuke them again.
9. Death to Islam.
I pee on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I spit upon Mohammed.
Re:Patents not secret by Asic+Eng · 2001-09-12 23:25 · Score: 1

If you don't participate in a standards body, you shouldn't be bound by it's rules, sounds fair.
As for the "system" working: it does if it provides you an opportunity to sue, and that seems to be the case.
Re:Patents not secret by DrSkwid · 2001-09-12 23:52 · Score: 2

so DoS your competitors by sending them a flood of letters

or

put the wind up them by send speculative letters - "we're developing a water powered car, do you have any patents that cover this area?"

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Patents not secret by pne · 2001-09-12 23:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

The patent office would then be charged to award the patents with the most merit

Er, I'm sure you've seen examples of some pretty weird patents having been awarded, despite the fact that some people think the thing was obvious to an expert or covered by prior art *cough*One-Click*cough*. Obviously, patent offices are already out of their depth in evaluating the merits of a patent application. What makes you think they will be able to copy with this additional level of scrutiny and evaluation that you're asking for?

--
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
Re:Patents not secret by MikeBabcock · 2001-09-13 00:31 · Score: 2

It should simply be required that you operate in a full-disclosure mode about patents you have or are seeking that are related to the issues in a working group you participate in. This should be part of the requirements of participating in the working group at all. In fact, I'm not sure that its not.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:Patents not secret by Asic+Eng · 2001-09-13 01:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
What makes you think they will be able to copy with this additional level of scrutiny and evaluation that you're asking for?
Fair point, but it may actually be easier this way. When you're checking a patent which seems to have low merit (e.g. one-click) you could just say "ok I give this 50 points" (of 1000 possible). It might be easier to compare it with other patents, than to make an absolute check. If you'd compare it with e.g. FM modulation it would be an easy choice to say "this one makes it, that one doesn't".
Another hope is, that companies might focus on their important stuff, and throw out the crap, because:
- the crap doesn't make it, and is therefore a waste of money
- if it makes it, it might delay their important patents
The important point for me is, that the patent office would be forced to do some quality assessment, whereas now they seem to take the easy way out, and award anything... In the worst case we'd just have less bad patents. :)
Re:Patents not secret by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 01:38 · Score: 1, Informative

The people attending, for example, IETF or IEEE standardization committees, are not representing their company, but themselves. In a big company people attending these meetings do not necessarily know about all the patents company is holding. It is even worse regarding patent applications: patents are public, but the patent applications are confidential even within the company filing the application. At best, a company can offer to license all standardized technology to everyone at reasonable and non-discrinatory terms (whatever that is). For more information, read the IPR policy of IETF and the section 10 of RFC 2026.
Re:Patents not secret by Speare · 2001-09-13 02:05 · Score: 5, Informative
[stock rant on the subject]
Patents are not about who is right, or who is first; patents are about who will sue.
The US PTO is a money-making service for the government, and this fact is why it operates as it does.
There is a misconception that it is the central duty of the PTO to form a blockade against granting patents. The PTO can and will block applications where there's heavy similarity with prior art or existing patents, but that's really just a guideline to using the service, not the core function.
The PTO's purpose is to grant patents for a fee, and it's wholly suited to do so.
The application vetting process of the PTO is a cost center for the operation of the PTO. This is akin to saying that customer service is a cost center for the operation of AT&T. It is required, but they'll cut costs as much as they can get away with.
To fix the patent application vetting process, two things must happen:
- Congress must stop using the PTO's filing fees as a revenue source for other pet interests instead of the PTO's own budget, and
- The PTO needs to allow third parties to aid the vetting process by challenging potential patents before they're granted.
As of 15 March 2001, the USPTO has changed their policies to solve that second problem. They can now publish patent applications before the patent itself is awarded to the applicant. Previously, the patent was hidden while pending, and patent seekers were not required to disclose this unless they had already signed contracts, say, as part of a standards-body. Third parties may now submit "helpful" arguments against controversial applications. The USPTO can then weigh obviousness against challenges without incurring the costs of doing all the searching themselves.
Breaking patents by finding simple prior art is not enough for most cases. Patents already granted are almost never cracked, certainly not by someone using an independent third party's prior art. In the famous Heinlein/Waterbed case, the patent was denied before it was ever granted by the Patent Office. Once a patent has been granted, the Patent Office rarely will get involved in disputes; that is a matter for the courts. (And in this case, the FTC aids the investigation for a countersuit.)
[end of stock rant]
--
[ .sig file not found ]
Re:Patents not secret by Thalia · 2001-09-13 02:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Reality is that a patent takes two or three years to issue. Most of the time, these companies would file a patent application at the same time, or slightly before, joining the standards committee. While the standards were being set, the patent was in the PTO, being kept secret.

In fact, since the DEC case most standards committees have a specific disclosure requirement, for example the IEEE standard requires such disclosure. In order to participate, each company must provide the list of patents they hold in this area, as well as guarantee a "reasonable licensing arragement."

Do note that if you want to find patents, because you're writing a standard or for any other reason, go to the USPTO's database search, and go for it. It's easy, it's cheap, and you can get PDF's for $3.

Thalia
Re:Patents not secret by Ed+Avis · 2001-09-13 02:43 · Score: 1

That's part of what I meant - you should be required to disclose *pending* patents, not just those already issued. In fact, it would probably be a good thing if all patent applications were out in the open from when they're filed, as part of the patent bargain.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:Patents not secret by mce · 2001-09-13 02:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

As far as volume goes - maybe there should just be a cap on patents. Something like "x patents a year can be awarded".
You've got to be kidding. Such a system could mean that a company cannot patent anything between, say, July and December, only because its competitors filled up the cap with "bogus" patents during the first half of the year. How long before the latter becomes a generally applied strategy? Smells like a preprogrammed denial of service attack to me.

--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Re:Patents not secret by Asic+Eng · 2001-09-13 03:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmmm, I see you point, but that's not quite the implementation I was thinking of.
Using some unrealistic numbers for an example, let's say 1000 patents would be granted per year. Than at the end of the year the 1000 highest valued patents come into effect, the rest remains in the queue. Bogus patents wouldn't be rated high and never make it to the top. (Well, if they are rated correctly, that is.)
Say the scale was 0-1000 points. A patent reviewer assigns a value to a patent. A good application rates in the 900s, a bad one in the 50s. In one year the threshold might be 910 (because 1000 patents were in the queue which were rated 910 or higher) in the next it might be 850. Which means the patent you submitted last year which rated 905 was now approved, too. (It would stay in the queue with the same value.)
Submitting lots of 50s applications would just create more work for the reviewers. Probably not a big deal, since there is a fee attached.
Re:Patents not secret by markmoss · 2001-09-13 04:44 · Score: 4, Informative

While the standards were being set, the patent [application] was in the PTO, being kept secret.

Patents aren't secret. Patent applications are secret (for a limited time in Europe, or until a patent was granted under the old American system), because it's unreasonable to ask a company to expose it's new technology a year or two before the patent office grants it legal protection. But it's certainly abusive to join a standards committee without disclosing any pending patents covering items under discussion. Usually it's also a breach of contract.

According to news reports about the Rambus lawsuits, the abuse went far further than that. They would come back from a standards committee meeting and call their patent attorney to amend the claims in applications at the patent office to cover the technology that had just been discussed.
Re:Patents not secret by Rogerborg · 2001-09-13 05:54 · Score: 2
- The only question is whether it places an unreasonable burden on the patentholding company.
I don't think so; if they get swamped, all they have to do is to not answer and hope for the best, rather than the other way around.

Neat idea, by the way, and probably worth doing anyway by concerned entrepeneurs.
--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Patents not secret by SurfsUp · 2001-09-13 07:39 · Score: 2

I think that a legally binding 'patent challenge' might be the answer.

Any solution that adds more procedures and needs more money and time spent on it just makes the problem worse, I hope you realize. Please only consider solutions that actually make the situation better for those with few financial resources.

Think it through a bit, you'll realize this boils down to one conclusion: time to tear the old creaking structure down, because it's infested with rats and is a health hazard.

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.

Some others worth investigating perhaps ? by emmavl · 2001-09-12 22:33 · Score: 3, Informative

What about all the patents related to jpeg2000 and mpeg4 ?
It seems most (or at least some) of them were requested and granted just when the relevant technology/algorithms got accepted into the standard. (See also this article)
As the article on advogato mentions : why can't ISO/ANSI/whatever enforce policy stating that no patented work should be included in standards released by it ?

Re:Some others worth investigating perhaps ? by flegged · 2001-09-12 23:19 · Score: 1

That's not the problem. The problem is that people like Rambus can sit on a standards commitee, steer it the way they want, and then file patents. Which get granted. And cause untold harm to the entire industry.

--

"I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
Re:Some others worth investigating perhaps ? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:40 · Score: 0

that's exactly what happened with some of the technologies mentioned : they were patented after they got accepted into the JPEG2000/MPEG4 standard.
But it seems the companies owning those patents claim they wont enforce them, which would allow open/free implementations ...
Re:Some others worth investigating perhaps ? by troc · 2001-09-12 23:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's fairly difficult as by steering things in certain directions you run the risk of revealing your ideas before they have been patented, thus increasing the prior art out there and reducing patentability.

Patents were designed to do two things. One was to foster innovation by FORCING disclosure of invention (or runing the risk of having secrets stolen) and thus adding to the sum of knowledge. The other was to protect the inventor so they could profit from their invention. This is why patenting is relatively cheap (here in europe the initial patent fees are substantially below the cost to the office of dealing with them) but the recurrent annual maintainence fees increase almost exponentially towars the last few years the patent can be valid - to dissuade the patentee from holding the patent too long, especially if it turns out to be a pointless patent they aren't making money out of.

Hohum

Troc

PS Yes I am apatent examiner ;)
PPS Here in europe you can't patent software or business methods.....

--
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
Re:Some others worth investigating perhaps ? by wurp · 2001-09-13 03:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know about in Europe, but in the US patents are not "to protect the inventor so they could profit from their invention". The limited monopoly is a sacrifice we make to satisfy the real goal. From the US Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Here in the US, people seem to lose sight of the real goal (to promote the progress of science and useful arts) and think that the purpose of patent law is to let them make more money. Any time patent law gives a company or individual a monopoly that hinders rather than advancing the state of the art, then the law has failed to meet its goals. This can happen because the length of the patent was longer than the usefulness of the technique patented, because the technique patented was already common knowledge or obvious to anyone trying to solve the problem, or for any number of other reasons.

And I'm not a patent examiner, or a lawyer.

WTC by Simm0 · 2001-09-12 22:33 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I'm pretty sure there's one of Sun Microsystems main offices in the WTC. Could anyone possibly confirm which brach of sun was located in there.

Re:WTC by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:35 · Score: -1, Flamebait

It was Sun's patent division. They got what they deserved.
Re:WTC by PhilHibbs · 2001-09-12 22:43 · Score: 1

A bit harsh, don't you think?
Re:WTC by PhilHibbs · 2001-09-12 22:46 · Score: 1, Offtopic

They all survived ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/sun .htm )
Re:WTC by elmegil · 2001-09-12 23:40 · Score: 1, Offtopic

It was a field office. I believe there were sales, service, and education personnell there.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001

10. Get a Life by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:34 · Score: -1, Offtopic

if you're going to post crap, please include a goatse link

Everyone Work Together and... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:34 · Score: -1, Flamebait

1. Kill all Arabs.
2. Kill all Towel Heads.
3. Kill all Mohammedans.
4. Kill all Muslims.
5. Kill all Camel Jockeys
6. Kill all Islam.
7. Nuke their countries beyond the abyss of hell.
8. Nuke them again.
9. Death to Islam!

Wheee by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:37 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Coming next on the U.S tragedy bandwagon jumping special:

Head of the FBI discuss why tapping each and every internet connection and mobile phone call would stop terrorists in their tracks.
George W. Bush on why disasters are useful for making lame duck corporate puppets look like real presidents.
Richard Stallman on why the use of the GNU GPL and open protocols would have prevented the terrorist attack
Eric S. Raymond on why arming all airplane passengers would create a safer environment because they could shoot hijackers.

Re:Wheee by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:00 · Score: 0

Gunfire in midair is exceedingly dangerous, but less so than cowering in terror while your surroundings become a missile guided by a handful of psychos with pointy sticks (or the modern equivalent). Their victory was the inevitable, intolerable result of a helplessness we've learned at the hands of an overreachingly intrusive government.
Re:Wheee by l33t+j03 · 2001-09-13 00:27 · Score: 0

.22LR Shotshells would not breach the hull of an aircraft, no even a Cessna.

--
Cunning linguists
Re:Wheee by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 05:55 · Score: 0

How about adding that this is a major high-tech failure!

There have been many comments about incompetence of organizations such as the FBI, CIA or NSA but I have only seen a few comments about the true reason, over-reliance on high-tech surveillance.

These organizations have relied more and more on high-tech gadgets. Words like Echelon come to mind. Because of reliance on such gizmos the CIA and FBI have been doing less fieldwork. Why do fieldwork when all you have to do is sit at a CRT screen eavesdropping on the world?

The only problem seems to be that Bin Laden doesn't seem to follow the West's nice bureaucratic rules. He apparently encripts everything but he doesn't use FBI/NSA approved encryption technology. How dare he not play by our rules! Being a billionaire, he can buy the finest high-tech communications gear in the world. The result is that our finest security agencies apparently cannot track where he is. I am only using Bin Laden as an example. There seem to be hundreds of potential Bin Ladens out there, none of them playing by our rules.

The only answer is that the CIA, for example, needs to go back to the good old days and get lots more agents out of their air-conditioned offices and into the field. They must learn local languages and make local contacts. High-tech play-toys, by themselves, just won't cut it, especially when budgets are being cut.

taleban.com Hacked by ScumBiker · 2001-09-12 22:44 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The Taleban website, appears to be continually hacked. Every time they fix their site, within minutes it's defaced again. WAY TO GO!!!!!! I'll make a mirror of the hack for prosperity. I don't feel so completely helpless anymore! There has to be more that we as a community of geeks can do, other than giving blood (VERY IMPORTANT!), or donating cash. I'm sure that the lowlife communicated electroniclly, maybe have secure or hidden websites. Think about a cell based organization, picking up and dropping off information anonymously via FTP. I'm almost positive that info is out there. LET'S FIND IT!

--
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---

Re:taleban.com Hacked by PhilHibbs · 2001-09-12 22:55 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Even google's cache is a hack page! And the page doesn't appear to be a spoof - it's registered to "Afghan Taleban Mission to the U.N.". It looks like ry_den@land.ru has been doing this for some time.
Re:taleban.com Hacked by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 05:47 · Score: 0

Hmm.. whoever this is used Frontpage. Oh dear.

Mod Parent Down by nivelo9 · 2001-09-12 22:45 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Do I need to say any more?

--
another "quality" nivelo9 comment

Another link by PhilHibbs · 2001-09-12 22:48 · Score: 1

http://www.panynj.gov/pr/9-99.html

Hey Muslim Pigs by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 22:57 · Score: -1, Flamebait

hahaha you dirty, filty, smelly, circumsized, muslim pigs who are running this useless website. Look at this picture and get ready to piss in your pants along with your Mohammed(piss be upon him) and your dirty QUEERAN, that tells you that you will have 72 houris and 28 gay boys for sex in heaven.

by the way the israeli's like to kill muslims and so do WE, hey pathan gay power, WE HINDU'S ARE THE MANLIEST, READ THE ARTICLES ON THIS WEBSITE ABOUT THE MUSLIM GENOCIDE, AND HOW WE LOVE TO HARASS AND RAPE MUSLIM WOMEN,

We created pakistan for you bastards and we will not rest till each and every muslim motherr fuker is wiped out of INDIA.

JAI HINDU RASHTRA(brahmans, dalits, kshatriya, vaishnav's, buddhists, jain's, sikhs)

WUAHHAHAHAHA wuahahhahahaha later loserssss!!!!

Re:Hey Muslim Pigs by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 05:44 · Score: 0

Yeah, your posting's very manly. So tell me.. do you get this way when your 2cm cock retreats into the fat in your crotch, or are you this manly all the time?

This is what I think by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:04 · Score: -1, Troll

Kill All Moslems. Death to Islam. Exterminate Them by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:06 · Score: -1, Offtopic

The list of honor:

Kill all Arabs.
Kill all Towel Heads.
Kill all Mohammedans.
Kill all Muslims.
Kill all Camel Jockeys
Kill all Islam.
Nuke their countries to an ash heap.
Nuke them again.
Death to Islam.

I urinate on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I spit upon Mohammed.

Suked in America! WH is next! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:11 · Score: -1, Offtopic

BAHAHA.... ! * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g g o / \ \ / \ o a| | \ | | a t| `. | | : t s` | | \| | s e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x * \ \-~ ~-\ | * g \ \ .--------.__\| | g o \ \_// ((> \ | o a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a t /\ | C )/ \ (> |/ t s / /\| C)america| (> / \ s e | ( C__)\__/ // / / \ e x | \ | \\__// (/ | x * | \ \) `---- --' | * g | \ \ / / | g o | / | | \ | o a | | / \ \ | a t | / / | | \ |t s | / / \/\/ | |s e | / / | | | |e x | | | | | |x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

FTC Notices by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:36 · Score: -1, Offtopic

...piss off *everyone* (excpet corporate america) Japan espically... about a year ago, Japanese television had an hour long program about how some patents for robotic assembly and inspection had been granted over 20 years after the patent had been accepted. If I recall correctly, there were some very devistating consequences for Japanese industral conplex. If Japan had a military, it was the kind of issue that might start a ware. The point that seemed to fall on deaf Japanese ears was that the paten office is inherently a political tool of the unitied states government and corporate america. This particular patent had been "submarined" for the direct purpose of secrewing the patent filer out of roalties. So, just remember, patents don't protect the inventer. Patents exist to the benefit of corporate america and the us government... and in a country where the patent generators a systematically screwed as a routine, generic part of the culture, it seems a little disingenuious and completely unnecessary to submarine a patent. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Patents not secret (Score:5, Interesting) by Ed Avis (epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk) on Thursday September 13, @05:24AM (#2291243) (User #5917 Info | http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~epa98/) The whole point of the patent system is openness. You only get a patent monopoly in exchange for full disclosure. So it should be easy (in principle) to find out what patents cover something you are working on. But in practice the sheer volume of patents out there is too large. I think that a legally binding 'patent challenge' might be the answer. You should be able to send a letter to Rambus or whoever saying 'I am developing the following... please disclose whether you have any patents or patent applications which cover this area'. The company receiving the letter then has to disclose what they have patented. If they lie or keep quiet, they lose the right to sue you later on. Obviously you couldn't do this for internal R&D, but for standards bodies (where the process is open anyway) this could be a useful tool to reduce threats from submarine patents. The only question is whether it places an unreasonable burden on the patentholding company. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Patents not secret by Asic Eng (Score:3) Thursday September 13, @05:43AM Re:Patents not secret Thursday September 13, @06:06AM Re:Patents not secret by Asic Eng (Score:1) Thursday September 13, @06:25AM Re:Patents not secret Thursday September 13, @05:53AM Re:Patents not secret by Ed Avis (Score:1) Thursday September 13, @06:00AM Re:Patents not secret Thursday September 13, @06:24AM Some others worth investigating perhaps ? (Score:1) by emmavl on Thursday September 13, @05:33AM (#2291255) (User #202243 Info) What about all the patents related to jpeg2000 and mpeg4 ? It seems most (or at least some) of them were requested and granted just when the relevant technology/algorithms got accepted into the standard. (See also this article [advogato.org]) As the article on advogato mentions : why can't ISO/ANSI/whatever enforce policy stating that no patented work should be included in standards released by it ? [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Some others worth investigating perhaps ? by flegged (Score:1) Thursday September 13, @06:19AM WTC (Score:1) by Simm0 (simm0 AT ii DOT net) on Thursday September 13, @05:33AM (#2291258) (User #236060 Info | Last Journal: Saturday August 18, @10:33AM) I'm pretty sure there's one of Sun Microsystems main offices in the WTC. Could anyone possibly confirm which brach of sun was located in there. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:WTC Thursday September 13, @05:35AM Re:WTC by PhilHibbs (Score:1) Thursday September 13, @05:43AM Re:WTC by PhilHibbs (Score:3) Thursday September 13, @05:46AM Another link by PhilHibbs (Score:1) Thursday September 13, @05:48AM Everyone Work Together and... (Score:-1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, @05:34AM (#2291260) 1. Kill all Arabs. 2. Kill all Towel Heads. 3. Kill all Mohammedans. 4. Kill all Muslims. 5. Kill all Camel Jockeys 6. Kill all Islam. 7. Nuke their countries beyond the abyss of hell. 8. Nuke them again. 9. Death to Islam! [ Reply to This | Parent ] Mod Parent Down by nivelo9 (Score:1) Thursday September 13, @05:45AM Wheee (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, @05:37AM (#2291266) Coming next on the U.S tragedy bandwagon jumping special: Head of the FBI discuss why tapping each and every internet connection and mobile phone call would stop terrorists in their tracks. George W. Bush on why disasters are useful for making lame duck corporate puppets look like real presidents. Richard Stallman on why the use of the GNU GPL and open protocols would have prevented the terrorist attack Eric S. Raymond on why arming all airplane passengers would create a safer environment because they could shoot hijackers. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Wheee Thursday September 13, @06:00AM taleban.com Hacked (Score:1) by ScumBiker (scumbiker@SPAM_SUCKS_jwenger.org) on Thursday September 13, @05:44AM (#2291277) (User #64143 Info | http://www.jwenger.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 04, @10:03AM) The Taleban website [taleban.com], appears to be continually hacked. Every time they fix their site, within minutes it's defaced again. WAY TO GO!!!!!! I'll make a mirror of the hack for prosperity. I don't feel so completely helpless anymore! There has to be more that we as a community of geeks can do, other than giving blood (VERY IMPORTANT!), or donating cash. I'm sure that the lowlife communicated electroniclly, maybe have secure or hidden websites. Think about a cell based organization, picking up and dropping off information anonymously via FTP. I'm almost positive that info is out there. LET'S FIND IT! [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:taleban.com Hacked by PhilHibbs (Score:2) Thursday September 13, @05:55AM Hey Muslim Pigs (Score:-1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, @05:57AM (#2291300) hahaha you dirty, filty, smelly, circumsized, muslim pigs who are running this useless website. Look at this picture and get ready to piss in your pants along with your Mohammed(piss be upon him) and your dirty QUEERAN, that tells you that you will have 72 houris and 28 gay boys for sex in heaven. by the way the israeli's like to kill muslims and so do WE, hey pathan gay power, WE HINDU'S ARE THE MANLIEST, READ THE ARTICLES ON THIS WEBSITE ABOUT THE MUSLIM GENOCIDE, AND HOW WE LOVE TO HARASS AND RAPE MUSLIM WOMEN, We created pakistan for you bastards and we will not rest till each and every muslim motherr fuker is wiped out of INDIA. JAI HINDU RASHTRA(brahmans, dalits, kshatriya, vaishnav's, buddhists, jain's, sikhs) WUAHHAHAHAHA wuahahhahahaha later loserssss!!!! [ Reply to This | Parent ]

How do I post? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:39 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Windows has stopped. Press CTRL+ALT+DELETE to restart your computer.
$!
Windows is now restarting...
$Abort$, Retry$ , Ignore$, Fail$?$
reading $
writing $drive $device $Please insert volume $&File allocation table bad, drive %1
$ serial $Write protect error$
Invalid unit$
Not ready$Invalid device request$Data error$"Invalid device request parameters$Seek error$Invalid media type$Sector not found$Printer out of paper error$Write fault error$Read fault error$General failure$Sharing violation$Lock violation$Invalid disk change$FCB unavailable$System resource exhausted$Code page mismatch$
Out of input$Insufficient disk space$hYou can now safely turn off your computer.
If you want to restart your computer, press CTRL+ALT+DEL.
$dCannot run Windows on this computer.
Windows requires a computer with a 386 processor or better.
$nVMM32.VXD is required to run Windows.
If this file is not in your PATH, you may need to reinstall Windows.
$JHIMEM.SYS is invalid.
Install HIMEM.SYS from your Windows Setup disks.
$OHIMEM.SYS is missing.
Make sure that the file is in your Windows directory.
$BThis version of Windows does not run on MS-DOS 7.00 or earlier.
$pInsufficient conventional memory to run Windows.
Reconfigure your system to have at least 335KB free memory.
$C
This version of Windows does not run in real or standard mode.
$
Starts Windows.

$WIN [/D:[F][M][S][V][X]]

$H/D Used for troubleshooting when Windows does not start correctly.
$k :F Turns off 32-bit disk access.
Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting: 32BitDiskAccess=FALSE.
$e :M Enables Safe mode.
This is automatically enabled during Safe start (function key F5).
$u :N Enables Safe mode with networking.
This is automatically enabled during Safe start (function key F6).
$H :S Specifies that Windows should not use ROM address space between
$. F000:0000 and 1 MB for a break point.
$J Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting: SystemROMBreakPoint=FALSE.
$L :V Specifies that the ROM routine will handle interrupts from the hard
$ disk controller.
$C Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting: VirtualHDIRQ=FALSE.
$O :X Excludes all of the adapter area from the range of memory that Windows
$$ scans to find unused space.
$G Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting: EMMExclude=A000-FFFF.

$S
One or more of your disk drives may have developed bad sectors.
Press any key to run ScanDisk with surface analysis on these drives...$
SCANDISK.EXE could not be found. You may have problems on your disk(s) that
require repairing. Press any key to continue starting Windows...$
There was an error running SCANDISK.EXE, or it was canceled. Run ScanDisk
for Windows, as you may still have errors on your disk(s). Press any key to
continue starting Windows...$You are already running Windows.

Press ALT+ENTER to switch this MS-DOS prompt between
windowed and full-screen display.
$' Type Exit and press Enter to quit this MS-DOS prompt and
return to Windows.
Press ALT+TAB to switch to Windows or another application.
$1You are already running Standard mode Windows.
$-You are already running Real mode Windows.
$#You are already running Windows.
$The MS-DOS Protected Mode Interface (DPMI) is running on this computer.
You cannot start Windows when it is running. To exit to your DPMI program,
type Exit and then press Enter.
$
You are currently running in MS-DOS mode. Do you want to
return to normal mode, to run Windows applications again [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$~
You are still running in MS-DOS mode. To return to normal
mode, exit the application you are running, or type WIN again.
$
Press any key to continue...$*Load all Windows drivers [Enter=Y,Esc=N]?$Windows is still running one or more MSDOS-based programs.
You need to exit your program(s) before Windows can be restarted.
$Internal structure overflow

Important news from George W Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:44 · Score: -1, Offtopic

%1 file(s) %1 bytes free
Invalid drive specification
&Code page %1 not prepared for system
+Code page %1 not prepared for all devices
Active code page: %1
NLSFUNC not installed
Invalid code page
Current drive is no longer valid!Press any key to continue . . .
Label not found
Syntax error
Invalid date
Current date is %1 %2Invalid path or file name
Insufficient disk space
Return code (ERRORLEVEL): %1
)WARNING: Reloaded COMMAND.COM transient
Out of environment space
File creation error
Batch file missing

Insert disk with batch file
Bad command or file name
9Cannot find WIN.COM, unable to continue loading Windows
Locking operation failed
Access denied #File cannot be copied onto itself
)Content of destination lost before copy
$Invalid filename or file not found
%1 file(s) copied

%1 file(s) %1 bytes free
Invalid drive specification
&Code page %1 not prepared for system
+Code page %1 not prepared for all devices
Active code page: %1
NLSFUNC not installed
Invalid code page
Current drive is no longer valid!Press any key to continue . . .
Label not found
Syntax error
Invalid date
Current date is %1 %2
SunMonTueWedThuFriSatEnter new date (%1): Invalid time
Current time is %1
Enter new time: , Delete (Y/N)?All files in directory will be deleted!
Are you sure (Y/N)?Windows 98 [Version %1]!Volume in drive %1 has no label
Volume in drive %1 is %2
Volume Serial Number is %1-%2
Invalid directory
Unable to create directory
6Invalid path, not directory,
or directory not empty
Must specify ON or OFF
Directory of %1
No Path
Invalid drive in search path
Invalid device
FOR cannot be nested
%Intermediate file error during pipe
&Cannot do binary reads from a device

BREAK is %1
VERIFY is %1
ECHO is %1
LFNFOR is %1
off
SunMonTueWedThuFriSatEnter new date (%1): Invalid time
Current time is %1
Enter new time: , Delete (Y/N)?All files in directory will be deleted!
Are you sure (Y/N)?Windows 98 [Version %1]!Volume in drive %1 has no label
Volume in drive %1 is %2
Volume Serial Number is %1-%2
Invalid directory
Unable to create directory
6Invalid path, not directory,
or directory not empty
Must specify ON or OFF
Directory of %1
No Path
Invalid drive in search path
Invalid device
FOR cannot be nested
%Intermediate file error during pipe
&Cannot do binary reads from a device

BREAK is %1
VERIFY is %1
ECHO is %1
LFNFOR is %1
off

My own patents. by GoodWIL · 2001-09-12 23:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic

These cases are very similar to the one I'm currently fighting. You see, I own the patent on the English language. I kept it under my hat while helping to develop it, so I'm in the process of suing anyone and everyone for their unwarranted use of it.

Don't worry /., you've been good to me, so I'm willing to settle out of court with you. :)

Re:My own patents. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:52 · Score: -1, Offtopic

FUCK U

I'm 37337

Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 14 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

If you this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to Source Forge:

Browser type
User ID/Nickname or AC
What steps caused this error
Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy or some sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously.
How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.
Re:My own patents. by Hard_Code · 2001-09-13 00:57 · Score: 1, Redundant

Ha! I've been sitting on a patent on hiding patents under hats! *BLAM*! SHOW ME THE FUCKING MONEY! And don't even DARE try circumventing the ROT26 copy protection on this message!

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:My own patents. by Saggi · 2001-09-13 01:00 · Score: 0

Craf goble tino expit tomct tålbath wisbut #2352 aq gilwo vimrod. Froply teco misway.

--
-:) Oh no - not again.
www.rednebula.com
Re:My own patents. by Hard_Code · 2001-09-13 01:00 · Score: 1, Offtopic

But seriously, the new Slashdot is really fscked up. Oh Slashdot is down sorry. Oh we logged you out randomly sorry. Hold on cowboy it's been 4.5 Gazillion Jabillion years and 12345 nanoseconds since your last post! Lameness filter rejected your message - Slashdot is too lame to accept it. Please follow this broken link with arbitrary spaces in it for further assistance.

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

Are moslems lower than pig shit? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-12 23:57 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Are moslems lower than pig shit? No. Are moslems lower than the worms that eat pig shit? No, but ...

Moslems are lower than the bacteria that eat the shit of worms which feed on pig shit.

Death to every moslem: man, woman, child.

Submarine Screendoor patents by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 00:00 · Score: 4, Funny

United States Patent 6,270,404
Sines , et al. August 7, 2001

Submarine chamber door allowing partitionment of exterior from interior while still allowing a beautiful, roomy feel with plenty of fresh air and sunshine.

Abstract
System consisting of wooden frame and screening material used as replacement for airlocks on submarines. After sitting here long enough, we decided that submarines just don't get enough fresh air or sunlight, and that the main problem is that their door is either open or shut. The solution: screen doors for submarines.

Inventors: Sines; Randy D. (Spokane, WA); Kuhn; Michael J. (Spokane, WA); Gregory; Randy A. (Spokane, WA)
Assignee: Digideal Corporation (Spokane, WA)
Appl. No.: 749046
Filed: December 26, 2000

Re:Submarine Screendoor patents by Zeinfeld · 2001-09-13 04:18 · Score: 2

Bogus unfortunately.
United States Patent 6,270,404 Sines , et al. August 7, 2001
Automated system for playing live casino table games having tabletop changeable playing card displays and play monitoring security features
Abstract Systems and methods for playing live casino-type card games, in particular blackjack. The systems include a presentation unit which has video displays which portray virtual playing cards and other information at gaming tables attended by live participants. Shuffling, cutting, dealing and return of playing cards are accomplished using data processing functions within an electronic game processor or processors which enable these functions to be performed quickly and without manual manipulation of playing cards. The invention allows casinos to speed play and reduce the risk of cheating while maintaining the attractive ambiance of a live table game.
Inventors: Sines; Randy D. (Spokane, WA); Kuhn; Michael J. (Spokane, WA); Gregory; Randy A. (Spokane, WA) Assignee: Digideal Corporation (Spokane, WA) Appl. No.: 749046 Filed: December 26, 2000

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:Submarine Screendoor patents by Jim+Mitchell · 2001-09-13 09:12 · Score: 1

Video poker wasn't invented until Dec 26, 2000? Wow.

MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 00:03 · Score: -1, Flamebait

MOD PARENT UP!

Clearly the truth!

Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 05:52 · Score: 0

Ah yes.. casual bigotry. I wonder what it is we fought World War 2 against.. nope, fascism and genocide and helping to keep the world free wasn't it. It can't have been, on this evidence.

Wonder if they'll check out others by weslocke · 2001-09-13 00:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

For example, Unisys's patent for the LZW compression in the GIF format leaps to mind. They didn't exactly keep it a 'secret', but they did wait ten years before trying to enforce it. By that time the vast majority of the developers out there had forgotten about it.

--

'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'

Re:Wonder if they'll check out others by Quarters · 2001-09-13 01:30 · Score: 3, Informative

Your example is totally different. Unisys never hid their patent. Patents, unlike trademarks, do not have to be continually defended.

Unisys had up until the day before the patent expired before they had to do anything. It's up to the people creating potentially infringing technology to do patent searches and make sure they are not stepping on any toes. The excuse of, "people forgot about it" doesn't work.
Re:Wonder if they'll check out others by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 05:10 · Score: 1, Informative

It should be noted that Unisys was making noise about CompuServe GIF long before the WWW came around.

At anytime after 1989, someone could have stopped and revised the format to get around the LZW patent. But instead people kept mindlessly grabbing the format and building it into new software (such as Mosaic and Netscape), and adding support for new features (transparency, animation) thus cementing it as a standard. PNG came onto the scene so late, that by the time it 'catches up' (meaning version 6 browsers become the minimum standard), the LZW patent will have expired.
Re:Wonder if they'll check out others by Quarters · 2001-09-13 07:45 · Score: 2

Unisys had up until the day before the patent expired before they had to do anything.

I'm sorry. I should've put that in the present tense. "Unisys has up until the day before their patent expires before they have to do anything."

IIRC their patent on LZW compression has not expired yet.

How can a patent be secret? by dpbsmith · 2001-09-13 00:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

How is it possible to keep a patent "secret?" Aren't all patents part of the public record?

--

"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

Re:How can a patent be secret? by SnapShot · 2001-09-13 00:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

To paraphase a wise man...

They are on display in the display department. In the basement of the courthouse. The lights are out. So are the stairs. In a locked filing cabinet with a sign that says "Beware of the Leopard".

Just because something is a public record doesn't mean that you necessarily are going to find it...

--
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Re:How can a patent be secret? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 01:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

Patents are secret from the moment they are filed until the moment they are issued. It usually takes a relatively short time to get them issued (within a couple of years). With legal quibbles, though, you can deliberately make the process take many, many more years. During the time the patent is pending, you can still sue for patent infringement, while still not being required to make the patent public. I am surprised the articles don't mention Apple, as their superiority is undisputed when it comes to submarine patents.
Re:How can a patent be secret? by markmoss · 2001-09-13 04:52 · Score: 3, Informative

How is it possible to keep a patent "secret?" The secrets here weren't patents, but patent applications. It's reasonable to keep applications secret for a limited time, since it takes two or three years for the USPTO to grant a patent, and meanwhile there is little legal protection for the technology.
However, if you want to sit on a standards committee, you probably have to sign a contract stating that you will disclose any pending applications concerning the area under discussion.

Aren't all patents part of the public record? Pretty much, although there must be an exception for military secrets. The problem is finding the patents actually related to what you are doing among tens of thousands of badly written patents with over-inflated claims.

Microsoft .NET submarine patents by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 00:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Will they also investigate Microsoft's submarine software patent on procedure invocation which make it impossible for anyone else to legally make a ECMA standard .NET runtime.

Re:Microsoft .NET submarine patents by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 01:15 · Score: 0

what is the Microsoft patent you refer to?
Re:Microsoft .NET submarine patents by SteveX · 2001-09-13 01:18 · Score: 4, Informative

The ECMA standards body rules section 1.4 say that if a company shows up with a patent and doesn't license it with "reasonable, non-discriminatory" license practices, then the standard will be cancelled.
Re:Microsoft .NET submarine patents by SurfsUp · 2001-09-13 07:48 · Score: 2

The ECMA standards body rules section 1.4 [www.ecma.ch] say that if a company shows up with a patent and doesn't license it with "reasonable, non-discriminatory" license practices, then the standard will be cancelled.

Yes, sure, after Microsoft has already brayed about their standard for years and gotten all the marketing value out of it. By that time you will have become dependent on some system that relies on it and Microsoft can extort whatever they want from you, with impunity.

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.

If only... by A_Non_Moose · 2001-09-13 00:33 · Score: 3, Informative

we could get the patents *revoked* on the human genome.

complete BS, If you ask me, consider one case reported by 20/20 (IIRC) where a guy's blood (hence genes) were resistant to the AIDS virus.

Essentially this comes down to theft and fraud. His Blood, His Genes and a Corp. says they own it? MYHAPPYASS they do.
By that logic, I could let Kingston/Rambus/(whoever) make memory, figure out the tech for it (do all the work)...and go buy a stick of memory (or steal it/whatever) and say "this is my memory company now".

And the courts are *believing* this piffle?

Riiiiigggghhhttt.

Moose.

Losing Karma not to my own stupidity, but bugs in /.'s datab...(mysql error processing this directive)

--
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)

Re:If only... by yatest5 · 2001-09-13 04:35 · Score: 1

>>Essentially this comes down to theft and fraud. >>His Blood, His Genes and a Corp. says they own >>it? MYHAPPYASS they do.
>>By that logic, I could let Kingston/Rambus/(whoever) make memory, figure out the tech for it (do all the work)...and go buy a stick of memory (or steal it/whatever) and say "this is my memory company now".

That is horseshit. Whomever designed the memory would have registered a patent. Anyone else copying that desing would have to pay royalty's.

People who want to register parts of the human genome need to be able to patent stuff they work out as otherwise some nobhead like you can come alogn and walk off with the research. If there's no profit in it, the research won't get done.
--
- Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37

Submarine patents?!?! by MissMyNewton · 2001-09-13 00:54 · Score: 1

Well, there goes Junkyard Wars...

--

---

Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.

no time for hate/prejudice/panic by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 01:04 · Score: 0

We're creeping back towards "normal" (our perception of that word has changed forever). God bless, & help us all, be rational, etc.... We're also busy avoiding becoming drum beating zealots, as a result of our recent over-exposure to politico/pr tv.

Don't forget to take advantage of the opportunity to acquire this flashy URL, from us. Be amongst the first on your block to have a url that matches what you do. Should be fairly easy to acquire, as there are but a few "entries" so far.

Sun Micro has a long history of this sort of thing by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 01:13 · Score: 0

Java itself is full of such "submarine patents". Why is anyone surprised by all of this? This is not "open" source by any definition.

patents, the US way... by lfourrier · 2001-09-13 01:37 · Score: 1

is the only one to accept patents after there is public communication.
In all other system I know of, once there is no longere secret, there is no longer patentability.
On a side note, monopolies are legel, abused monopolies are not. Patents grant legal monopolies, abuse of patent should be prosecutable (think of Brazil against pharmaceutical laboratories, selling remedies 10 times their costs. If it's not an abuse of monopoly, what is?).

Re:patents, the US way... by Lonath · 2001-09-13 05:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

On a side note, monopolies are legel, abused monopolies are not. Patents grant legal monopolies, abuse of patent should be prosecutable (think of
Brazil against pharmaceutical laboratories, selling remedies 10 times their costs. If it's not an abuse of monopoly, what is?).

Sure, 10 times the cost of making that one little pill, but it costs a lot to develop the drug and then you have the interest on those costs piling up for years before any revenue comes in, and you have the other failed drugs that they try to make but that never work or kill people or whatever happens.

BUT...I do agree with you, and personally I would do something like this: Make licensing fees proportional to the average incomes of the nation the drugs are being licensed to. That way, rich nations pay a boatload, and poor nations pay very little, and it is based on their "average" ability to pay. and if the costs aren't being covered, then raise the prices on everyone so that the rich nations have to pay much more proportionally.

--
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!

NOT a Submarine Patent by Compulawyer · 2001-09-13 01:42 · Score: 5, Informative

The term "submarine patent" applies to a patent whose application was filed and then allowed to lie dormant in processing at the PTO for an extended period of time (many years) and then is reactivated by the inventor and finally issues from the PTO. This is a problem because other inventors later come up with the same concept and may even file patent applications themselves. When the submarine patent finally issues, there are infringers already up and running with products in the marketplace. Due to changes in the Patent laws, these types of patents are no longer possible. (Do a search for Jerome Lemelson - the King of the Submarine Patent if you want to know more - his is a facinating story).

What is being alleged here is a type of fraud/unfair competition. The crux of the claim is that it is unfair for a company to propose its technology be adopted as an industry standard without discloising that it has patents or patent applications on file. If adopted as the standard, the others in the industry will automatically infringe. Options at that point: concede the market to the patent holder, redesign the product so it deviates from the standard set by the industry, or pay a royalty to the patent holder.

To the extent that patents have already issued they are public record, as noted in another post. But currently the law is in flux. The general rule is that until a patent issues, the application and all materials submitted to the PTO is confidential. (The confidentiality allows companies who cannot get patents to still protect the way they do business under trade secret law.) There is a group of applications that fall into this category. However, since the passage of the AIPA (American Inventors Protection Act) and some other tweaks to the law, there is now a publication requirement - applications are published 18 months after filing.

So - in my humble legal opinion, it is unfair for a company participating in standards-setting not to disclose that it has patent applications pending, but as for issued patents, companies should be aware of what their competitors are doing. Especially if it is a public record.

--

Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

Re:Sun Micro has a long history of this sort of th by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 01:47 · Score: 0

The question is, will they be enforced? .NET has certainly those too, and it is feared that MS will enforce them against open source implementations (which cannot license them). Microsoft isn't known for enforcing its patents offensively, but in the one known occasion it has, it was against an opensource project.

Be realistic! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 02:05 · Score: 0

But there are more of them than there are of us! Doesn't that give you pause?

And one of them seems to be smarter than the CIA, FBI and NSA combined! Bin Laden seems to have realized that while Americans are limited by Echelon and all kinds of other bureaucratic restrictions, Bin Laden can simply ignore them by encrypting every message to any depth necessary. He has billions to buy whatever technology he needs. The CIA, FBI or whatever, in contrast, are on limited budgets because of tax cuts.

Doesn't it bother anybody that we are girding up for a battle between dubya, leader of the free world versus Bin Laden and we can't even keep track of where Bin Laden currently is?

I heard on TV this morning that Bin Laden apparently, believe it or not, has relatives in the Boston area. Like any Arab potentate with multi wives, I guess that he has family just about everywhere!

Believe it or not, the CIA and FBI, etc. seem to have blissfully ignorant of this fact, judging by events, until that fact was bashed in their faces. I guess that these organizations have to dumb down to the level of their political masters, namely dubya.

Where is dubya going to get the money for all of the obviously needed increase in security. WHY, HE WILL RAISE TAXES, THAT'S WHERE!!! LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON!!!

But don't worry, God is on our side.

JPEG patent policy by yerricde · 2001-09-13 05:42 · Score: 2

What about all the patents related to jpeg2000 and mpeg4?

ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29 Working Group 1, better known as the Joint Photographic Experts Group, developed the JPEG bitstream standard (part of IS 10918-1), the SPIFF (.jpg) file format (IS 10918-3), and a new "JPEG 2000" wavelet coding system. JPEG has a policy of requiring all members to license patents royalty-free if the patent is essential for implementing the standard.

On the other hand, MPEG has more lenient standards, requiring members to pool and license their patents on a "reasonable and non-discriminatory basis," but not recognizing that a "non-discriminatory" policy toward Free Software implies royalty-free redistribution.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

The problem, though.. by mindstrm · 2001-09-13 05:49 · Score: 2

is that these companies had *applied* for patents, but not received them, so they had nothing to declare, or so they said.

This was the case with Rambus... they participated in standards writing.. and then *afterwards* were granted the patent.
New precedent is required to prevent this in the future.

The letter you ask for sounds great, but the problem is, who do you send the letter TO?

Rather.. companies involved in standards negotiations should be forced to sign declarations that they are not holding or attempting ot hold IP rights over the standards in question.

Wrong words by markmoss · 2001-09-13 06:12 · Score: 3, Informative

The USA Today article keeps saying "patent" where it means "patent application." Patents are on public record. Patent applications are not, for the first 18 months (formerly forever in the US), because it would be idiotic to let the gov't publish your hot new technology, and then take a year or two to process the application and give you some protection against imitators.

"Submarine patent" refers to patent applications that were kept in limbo at the USPTO for a very long time by a stream of amendments and other maneuvers, then finally emerged with apparent claims to whole broad areas of technology. For instance, someone filed a patent application about 1960 for several transistors grown on one block of silicon, interconnected by wires soldered between transistors, instead of the then-usual procedure of sawing up the silicon into individual transistors. After 20-some years of amendments, this finally became a patent which claimed to cover _all_ integrated circuits, never mind that there is as much resemblance between the original invention and a modern IC as between a high-wheel bicycle and a modern automobile. But the "inventor" hoped to collect royalties from companies that felt it was cheaper to pay than to fight.

The things talked about in this article aren't submarine patents, but rather are patent applications that became patents in the normal time, but belonged to companies sitting on the committees writing standards concerning the technology in the applications. That's clearly a conflict of interest, and so standards committees usually require members to sign contracts to disclose related patents and patent applications, and to license them at set rates. The three companies are accused of breaching those contracts. Rambus (at least) is also accused of using the standards committee discussions to target technology to add to their patent claims.

The feds seem to be claiming that this breach of contract voids the patents. That might be too far of a stretch under the laws as written by Congress, but it's certainly justice, and the Constitutional clause authorizing Congress to pass patent laws ("To encourage the progress of science and the useful arts...", or something like that) would seem to require voiding a patent like Rambus's that was deliberately written to _impede_ the adoption of new technology.

Re:Wrong words by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-17 20:31 · Score: 0

"Submarine patent" is often used in cases where a patent has issued but its existence has not been publicized anywhere useful (the USPTO database hardly qualifies, though if the system worked it would), because it allows the same sort of ambush on users of independent reinventions and adopted standards.

PS: Wrong words by markmoss · 2001-09-13 06:15 · Score: 2

Forgot to say: "submarine patent" was not in the USA Today article, but is a mistake by the slashdot headline writer.

Polling doesn't scale by Sloppy · 2001-09-13 06:23 · Score: 2

I think that a legally binding 'patent challenge' might be the answer. You should be able to send a letter to Rambus or whoever saying 'I am developing the following... please disclose whether you have any patents or patent applications which cover this area'.

Strong disagreement here, at least within the low-capital-investment realm of software patents. If I had to poll everyone who might have worked on the same stuff that I'm working on, I would be sending out millions of letters per week. This is totally impractical for stuff like software patents.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

That is different. by mindstrm · 2001-09-13 06:47 · Score: 2

Patent holders have the right to selectively enforce their patents. It is not trademark. The only thing 'allowing' people to use their patent limits is the amount of damages they can claim, because they chose to do nothing.

What is investigated here is different; this is about companies entering negotiations and striking deals/standards/etc, while keeping it a secret that they have filed for patents covering parts of the deal/standard/etc, and then later trying to profit from that. The premise is that if the other parties involved knew about the patent, they would have done something else.

Well.. by mindstrm · 2001-09-13 06:51 · Score: 2

it's not that black and white.

A better analogy is if you took some Rambus memory, and discovered that it actually acted as a high-gain subspace antennae. You COULD patent that, even though someone else built the ram, and held patents on it, because it's a new discovery.

Re:Unreasonable Burden by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 07:01 · Score: 0

Why cant the patent owning company stick the patents on their website? Job done.

Ali

Sun isnt perfect by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-13 09:21 · Score: 0

haha this is funny

Sun does another dispicable thing (just like Microsoft) and yet no one on Slashdot complains about them.

can anyone say HYPOCRITE?

Why was that flamebait? by PhilHibbs · 2001-09-13 19:04 · Score: 1

If the moderator reads this, I'd just like to know.

Re:Unreasonable Burden by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-16 12:33 · Score: 0

Now all I have to do is find and digest fifty thousand company web sites if I've written a few lines of code that are even slightly clever.

It has to be centralized or it's unworkable.

Slashdot Mirror

FTC Investigates Submarine Patents

119 comments