Microsoft Patents 'Phone-Home' Failure Reporting

So...many...jokes... by ideatrack · 2003-10-02 00:26 · Score: 1, Funny

When life gives you lemons...

I'm sorry, ET... by Chemisor · 2003-10-02 00:29 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm sorry, ET; I'm afraid we can't allow you to send that signal... Microsoft, you know...

I think I get it now... by Feztaa · 2003-10-02 00:29 · Score: 4, Funny

By awarding obvious and unoriginal patents, the USPTO's plan was to amass a ton of money so they can have wasteful, luxurious campuses...

Next we'll be reading about how each patent clerk gets his own stripper and lapdances are mandatory every hour on the hour.

Re:I think I get it now... by Slashdot+Junky · 2003-10-02 00:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

You know, I have heard that strippers and lap dances were part of the employee benefits program at a lot of dot coms!

Later,
-Slashdot Junky

--
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
Re:I think I get it now... by CaptainTux · 2003-10-02 00:38 · Score: 1, Funny

Next we'll be reading about how each patent clerk gets his own stripper and lapdances are mandatory every hour on the hour.
Next? I thought this had been done when AOL was trying to get a patent for IM...

--
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
Re:I think I get it now... by kin_korn_karn · 2003-10-02 00:42 · Score: 2, Funny

strippers and lapdances are punishment, not benefits, so let em have them
Re:I think I get it now... by Threni · 2003-10-02 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

"By awarding obvious and unoriginal patents, the USPTO's plan was to amass a ton of money so they can have wasteful, luxurious campuses"

Then perhaps a business model where they get $5 for approving a patent but $500,000 for finding prior art themselves would get them and the development community working together again, with some level of trust?
Re:I think I get it now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

Lawyers are liars. They circumvent patent law as crackers circumvent security devices.

It's time to get rid of software patents. Why isn't there a US section of FFII? In Europe they defeated the patent lawyer lobby groups and reached an amendment to the software patent directive which will reduce patentability to "computer-implemented inventions" only. Hope this will pass the EU minister (judicial!! argh!) council.

We need an international movement against those trivial patents that benefit the lawyer community and patent grabbers (EOLAS ...). World Summit Information Society may be a good platfom to voice our concern.
Re:I think I get it now... by jaoswald · 2003-10-02 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps we could develop a Slashdot reading model which understands that a patent is really about the claims, not about the abstract or a simple short phrase summarizing the patent.

For God's sake, any patent can be summarized into a phrase making it sound obvious, and most patents are actually about some marginally improved twist on a mature technology. That's why they have things like cites of previous patents.

On Slashdot, any new patent gets described in a way that makes a caveman beating two rocks together sound like prior art. I recall some clever LCD resolution enhancement get compared to Wozniak's also clever but completely unrelated scheme for kludging NTSC color out of a TTL circuit.

We need a new moderation "-100 Just doesn't understand."
Re:I think I get it now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:36 · Score: 0

Next we'll be reading about how each patent clerk gets his own stripper and lapdances are mandatory every hour on the hour.

Hey, I want that job.
Re:I think I get it now... by Threni · 2003-10-02 02:15 · Score: 1

"For God's sake, any patent can be summarized into a phrase making it sound obvious"

Yeah, and some things just *are* obvious, and would have been thought of by any vaguely competant software engineer. I'm not responsible for the foibles of other Slashdot posters. Perhaps you aren't familiar with some of the patents which people opposed to the ease with which such patents are being given out have had accepted? A `swing` springs to mind.
Re:I think I get it now... by drunk_as_in_beer · 2003-10-02 02:40 · Score: 2, Funny

strippers and lapdances are punishment, not benefits, so let em have them

If you're paying for them, yes.

--
--Drunk as in Beer
Re:I think I get it now... by AJWM · 2003-10-02 03:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Most patents are actually about some marginally improved twist on a mature technology.

Yeah, which is why most patents are obvious to someone skilled in the art. That latter phrase is a key part of the "obviousness" test, and what may well be unobvious to the lay person or the person only casually familiar with an art really is obvious to someone who has practised it for years.

Oh, and your comparison of subpixel addressing is misguided. Yes, Woz's color generation circuit per se didn't have anything to do with subpixel addressing -- except that it took advantage of the well known (to video engineers, anyway) aliasing effect of a high spatial frequency monochrome signal on the NTSC chroma signal (which is why you shouldn't wear pin-stripes on camera). Inverting that makes a direct relationship between color and specific subpixel areas that get illuminated, just as with the LCD-based subpixel addressing method. They are both a simple mapping of subpixel-area-desired -> pixel-color. The fact that the reasons it works is different for LCDs and synthesized NTSC video is irrelevant to the fact that the same method is used.

--
-- Alastair
Re:I think I get it now... by gfody · 2003-10-02 04:11 · Score: 1

ah yea, this time two years ago would be our stripper and lap dance party. more like hookers and blowjobs tho.. and cocaine, lots and lots of cocaine.

--

bite my glorious golden ass.
Re:I think I get it now... by jaoswald · 2003-10-02 05:00 · Score: 1

I'm aware of the standard "person having ordinary skill in the art". Obviousness, however, does not mean that *after* reading the claims someone skilled in the art says "oh, that's obvious." Lots of things appear obvious after they are explained.

It means that *without* reading the claims, a person with ordinary skill would, based on the prior art or generally available knowledge, have a suggestion or motivation to try the claim, with a reasonable expectation of success.

The color generated by the Apple II video signal isn't "subpixel." NTSC doesn't even have well-defined pixels. It has only a bandwidth limitation and a horizontal scan rate. The phase modulation determining the color is related to the timing of the pulse coming out of Woz's graphics generation circuitry. LCDs have well-defined pixels, each of fixed colors. No phase & timing involved.

The idea that a TTL circuit generating video waveforms is the "same method" as taking into account the physical arrangment of LCD subpixels when rendering letterforms is a perfect example of the Slashdot patent mentality. No one could ever patent *anything* if the patent had to be robust against that kind of broad conception of "prior art."
Re:I think I get it now... by rifter · 2003-10-02 05:23 · Score: 1

Perhaps we could develop a Slashdot reading model which understands that a patent is really about the claims, not about the abstract or a simple short phrase summarizing the patent.

For God's sake, any patent can be summarized into a phrase making it sound obvious, and most patents are actually about some marginally improved twist on a mature technology. That's why they have things like cites of previous patents.

On Slashdot, any new patent gets described in a way that makes a caveman beating two rocks together sound like prior art. I recall some clever LCD resolution enhancement get compared to Wozniak's also clever but completely unrelated scheme for kludging NTSC color out of a TTL circuit.

We need a new moderation "-100 Just doesn't understand."
p.Well, slashdot is the home of hyperbole, to be sure. However, I am curious. Do you have any reason to believe the aforementioned patent s *not* covered in prior art/obvious, etc? I can think of a whole lot of phone home software that predates Microsoft's and even works on their platform. The Motive tools that were standard on Dell desktops and servers for awhile come to mind, as well as the Netscape phone home feature, in addition to the IBM mainframe/RS6000 service processor aforementioned and a plethora of other hardware and software tools I could mention. So what is it about Microsoft's claims on this patent specifically that leads you to believe slashdot is off-base in your considered professional opinion?
Re:I think I get it now... by rifter · 2003-10-02 05:26 · Score: 1

"Next we'll be reading about how each patent clerk gets his own stripper and lapdances are mandatory every hour on the hour."

Hey, I want that job.

Too bad it s being outsourced to India where the strippers are considerably cheaper.
Re:I think I get it now... by AJWM · 2003-10-02 05:32 · Score: 1

The claim, or the method of implementing the claim?

Given the claim alone as a requirement ("we need a method to do X and Y"), for many patents yes, the method is obvious to one skilled. Not always, and sure, those nonobvious methods deserve patents.

As for the subpixel thing -- you're getting hung up on the hardware, which is irrelevant because in both cases, the hardware existed before the method. The hardware is not designed to allow sub-pixel addressing (and the Apple II video is certainly based on pixels, it's the force-fit of pixelated video into an NTSC waveform that makes the trick work), the method (same in both cases) just takes advantage of the fact that in both an NTSC signal and an LCD screen, the luma resolution is higher than the chroma resolution, and there is a fixed relationship between the two. The method of picking a particular chroma value to address the luminence component of the display "pixel" will work for any display technology where that is true.

Note carefully, we're not talking about the use of Woz's careful timing of luminance pulses to confuse NTSC TV circuits into displaying color, we're talking about programmers taking advantage of that implementation detail to do subpixel addressing on a monochrome display -- just as the LCD trick is only really useful for high-contrast (black on white or vice versa) text display.

--
-- Alastair
Re:I think I get it now... by spectecjr · 2003-10-02 06:25 · Score: 1

As for the subpixel thing -- you're getting hung up on the hardware, which is irrelevant because in both cases, the hardware existed before the method. The hardware is not designed to allow sub-pixel addressing (and the Apple II video is certainly based on pixels, it's the force-fit of pixelated video into an NTSC waveform that makes the trick work), the method (same in both cases) just takes advantage of the fact that in both an NTSC signal and an LCD screen, the luma resolution is higher than the chroma resolution, and there is a fixed relationship between the two. The method of picking a particular chroma value to address the luminence component of the display "pixel" will work for any display technology where that is true.

Ummm... two things...

1. The Luma resolution of an LCD display is the *same* as the chroma resolution. You're just deterministically limited as to which color appears at which spatial frequency. Also, strictly speaking, the luma resolution is variant and less for an LCD display than for NTSC, because the Luma band width for blue is lower than it is for green or red.

2. "picking a chroma value to address the luminence component of the display"... what kind of crack are you smoking? Under NTSC, luminance is constant and independent of chroma. It's only when you deliberately go outside the definitions of the standard that you get effects such as luminance affecting chroma. And it doesn't work the other way around. You can't pick a color and get it to affect the luma at all.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:I think I get it now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 08:28 · Score: 0

I wonder how much of that money came from M$
Re:I think I get it now... by AJWM · 2003-10-02 11:06 · Score: 1

The Luma resolution of an LCD display is the *same* as the chroma resolution.

Nope. The luma resolution is three times the chroma resolution. Imagine if you were color blind. Given the sequence of fully illuminated segments:
(segment color) RGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (where '*' represents an illuminated segement)
This would appear to someone with color vision as an alternating sequence of magenta and green stripes (ack!) three of each. To a colorblind person, it appears as nine each alternating light and dark stripes. Same thing applies to displaying an Apple II composite video signal on a monochrome monitor -- instead of magenta and green stripes, you get a tighter pattern of white (or amber or green, depending on the monitor) and black stripes.

Under NTSC, luminance is constant and independent of chroma.

Not in a composite signal, it's not. Hence the name -- it's a composite of the chroma and luma signals, and with high luma spatial frequencies you get chroma artifacts -- that was the whole point of Woz's video circuitry. As far as the rest of the computer was concerned, you sent a color pixel value to the video circuitry and got a color pixel on the screen (assuming composite color TV). But because of the implementation detail, if you were using a monochrome screen you could send a color pixel to the video circuitry and get a specific set of subpixels illuminated.

You can't pick a color and get it to affect the luma at all.

Sure, as I illustrated above. You pick the color to affect the luma at a specific location. If you couldn't, then Microsoft's subpixel antialiasing wouldn't work.

--
-- Alastair
Re:I think I get it now... by spectecjr · 2003-10-02 12:29 · Score: 1

Nope. The luma resolution is three times the chroma resolution. Imagine if you were color blind. Given the sequence of fully illuminated segments:
(segment color) RGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (where '*' represents an illuminated segement)
This would appear to someone with color vision as an alternating sequence of magenta and green stripes (ack!) three of each. To a colorblind person, it appears as nine each alternating light and dark stripes. Same thing applies to displaying an Apple II composite video signal on a monochrome monitor -- instead of magenta and green stripes, you get a tighter pattern of white (or amber or green, depending on the monitor) and black stripes

However, the width of the individual color pixels is the same as the that of the luma information.

Not in a composite signal, it's not. Hence the name -- it's a composite of the chroma and luma signals, and with high luma spatial frequencies you get chroma artifacts -- that was the whole point of Woz's video circuitry. As far as the rest of the computer was concerned, you sent a color pixel value to the video circuitry and got a color pixel on the screen (assuming composite color TV). But because of the implementation detail, if you were using a monochrome screen you could send a color pixel to the video circuitry and get a specific set of subpixels illuminated.

High luma spacial frequencies do not mean that the luminance signal is a melange of chroma and luma. It's not. However, when you push the frequency of the luma signal into the chroma band, you get color. That's nothing but a decoder artifact. You can try this yourself; take a black & white NTSC television. It displays the *same* signal as the color television; it just doesn't have the hardware to filter and process the chroma data. Similarly, if you were to take a light meter and measure the luminance of the screen at each pixel on both a color and a black & white set showing the same image, you'd get the same luminance back. It's independent of the color signal.

The color signal is sent as phase encoded data on top of the luma signal, on a separate carrier. You couldn't send true color data using it on the Apple II machines; that's why you were limited to magenta and green, as they're 180 degrees apart on the carrier. The only data passed out was luma; the Apple II didn't have any true concept of color.

Sure, as I illustrated above. You pick the color to affect the luma at a specific location. If you couldn't, then Microsoft's subpixel antialiasing wouldn't work.

Nope... Microsoft's subpixel antialiasing has nothing to do with NTSC signals. Read more carefully. You cannot pick a color to affect the luma of an NTSC signal. You can create a chroma carrier by generating a high enough luma frequency, but you can't affect the luma signal by doing *anything* to the chroma.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:I think I get it now... by AJWM · 2003-10-02 13:32 · Score: 1

However, the width of the individual color pixels is the same as the that of the luma information.

No it's not. We're talking about the visual output here, not whatever signals are input (which are quite different for NTSC vs digital LCD).

High luma spacial frequencies do not mean that the luminance signal is a melange of chroma and luma.

They do if the signal is pretending to be a composite signal rather than pure luminance (as with the Apple II).

However, when you push the frequency of the luma signal into the chroma band, you get color. That's nothing but a decoder artifact.

Exactly, and that's what Woz's circuit took advantage of. Feeding that same signal into a high rez monochrome monitor reveals the higher frequency (ie subpixel) luma pattern. NB, a B&W TV is not a high rez monochrome monitor.

Microsoft's subpixel antialiasing has nothing to do with NTSC signals

Quite right, I didn't say that it did. It does, however, work by feeding a pixel color value to the driver to result in selected portions of the pixel being illuminated (ie, subpixel addressing).

you can't affect the luma signal by doing *anything* to the chroma.

No, but you can affect the luma signal by your choice of color values to send to the video driver.

--
-- Alastair
Re:I think I get it now... by jaoswald · 2003-10-03 10:37 · Score: 1

Woz's circuit took advantage of. Feeding that same signal into a high rez monochrome monitor reveals the higher frequency (ie subpixel) luma pattern.

Ah, I think I understand your point of view. You seem to think that Woz's goal was better resolution. That's just totally wrong. Woz wanted color graphics from a minimal number of chips. Nobody took advantage of sub-pixel resolution, first, because nobody was using high-quality monitors, and, secondly, the sub-pixel shifts were not per-pixel.

Sure, by the time the IIe and IIgs came around, the 80-column card doubled the resolution of the various graphics modes, but by then, IBM PCs had pushed the graphics envelope to VGA, which didn't have any of the quirks of the Apple II solution.
Re:I think I get it now... by jaoswald · 2003-10-03 10:45 · Score: 1

Actually, I *do* have a reason to believe that the patent is not covered in prior art/obvious, etc. The PTO granted the damn patent, hence, they had to convince a patent examiner.

The burden of proof for prior art to invalidate a patent would require a detailed examination of the patent in question, and a detailed discussion of the "obvious" nature of the method given the prior art. But nobody provides that. They just say "oh, my copier was phoning the vendor in 1938, must be prior art. PTO is fucked up." No detail at all, no sign of having any clue about the patent other than the one sentence given in the article summary.

Now, I could just assume that the patent office is totally broken, patent examiners are moronic crack smokers, or whatever, so the majority of patents are actually invalid. Then, any patent that comes along will have a greater than 50% chance of being prior art, obvious, or whatever, and I could then start with the slashdot community's default assumption.

I'm guessing that most people on Slashdot *do* believe the patent system is broken, but only because they read enough purported examples on Slashdot to convince themselves. A bit of a circular argument, isn't it?
Re:I think I get it now... by AJWM · 2003-10-03 12:18 · Score: 1

You seem to think that Woz's goal was better resolution.

Woz's goal? No, of course not, I never said that. That was the goal of some programmers who took advantage of the way Woz's circuit worked.

Have you considered a course in remedial reading?

--
-- Alastair
Re:I think I get it now... by rifter · 2003-10-05 20:25 · Score: 1

Actually, I *do* have a reason to believe that the patent is not covered in prior art/obvious, etc. The PTO granted the damn patent, hence, they had to convince a patent examiner.

The burden of proof for prior art to invalidate a patent would require a detailed examination of the patent in question, and a detailed discussion of the "obvious" nature of the method given the prior art. But nobody provides that. They just say "oh, my copier was phoning the vendor in 1938, must be prior art. PTO is fucked up." No detail at all, no sign of having any clue about the patent other than the one sentence given in the article summary.

Now, I could just assume that the patent office is totally broken, patent examiners are moronic crack smokers, or whatever, so the majority of patents are actually invalid. Then, any patent that comes along will have a greater than 50% chance of being prior art, obvious, or whatever, and I could then start with the slashdot community's default assumption.

I'm guessing that most people on Slashdot *do* believe the patent system is broken, but only because they read enough purported examples on Slashdot to convince themselves. A bit of a circular argument, isn't it?

So your sole argument is that government agencies are infallible and slashdot is full of shit? I was hoping for something a bit more insightful than that, perhaps even directly pertaining to the patent in question, but then by your own admission expecting such things on slashdot is sheer madness.

Slashdot is not the only publication decrying the current state of the PTO. In fact years before slashdot was a gleam in commander taco's eye there was outrage over Compton's multimedia patent and even before this a number of stories about problems in the patent office had been written in the tech press. There is probably not a publication in the industry that has not weighed in on the side of reform.

The main problem is that the metrics patent examiners are given are soley based on how many patents they grant, and they are expected to grant a lot of them. There is very little budget, and almost no emphasis at all (certainly no incentive) for the search for prior art. Even then the search was mainly confined to looking through old patents using a paper filing system. Some computerization has occurred over the last decade, but not nearly enough, and again if the prior use of the technology was considered too obvious for a patent by its creators it likely won't get caught at all. So it's not all slahdot hysteria. There are real problems.

Did you miss the article in which the recent plugin patent was debunked at length by an engineer from lotus who went through the patent claim by claim in his report as he showed prior art in Notes? Clearly this at least was a situation slashdot was not wrong about, despite the fact this case has been before at least one judge already and Microsoft' attorneys trying to refute the patent in addition to the "due diligence" of the PTO.

Another problme which has been pointed to is that the patent examiners themselves are not knowlegable in the art of the patents they are examining. To be fair, I don't think anyone besides some kind of superhuman could be knowlegable enough to truly vet the kinds of patents put out today, and even then they would have to be awful charitable to put up with the niggardly salaries and constant abuse of the PTO, not to mention the constant downsizing.

But let's get back to the subject at hand. You made the claim that you had read the patent more carefully than anyone else on slashdot and understood the claims therefore. I asked you directly where you could point to claims in this patent which are not covered by the plethora of technologies described in this article, and you gave me your sorry excuse for an argument. PLease educate us here; don't hold back. If you know more than we do about this patent and know somehow that the claims are indeed novel please explain how and why you feel this way about it.
Re:I think I get it now... by jaoswald · 2003-10-06 02:57 · Score: 1

The question was not whether every patent was valid. That is an absurd standard. The question is whether a patent mentioned on slashdot is actually vulnerable to the prior art claims that a bunch of slashdot posters come up with, apparently off the top of their head.

Patent examiners are expected to examine patents, not grant them. As for their failure to recognize prior art, I would be much more impressed if a licensed member of the patent bar described the invalidity of a patent rather than some Lotus engineer. The legal definition of "prior art" is not a subject of engineering, but a subject of law.

I certainly never claimed to have read the patent more carefully than anyone on slashdot. I never claimed to have read the patent at all. I was simply making a statement that almost all slashdot discussions on patents and "prior art" fail to reach the threshold of "worth considering."
Re:I think I get it now... by jaoswald · 2003-10-06 03:03 · Score: 1

I read my own post, which was the first I know of to have brought Wozniak into the discussion. While not perfectly explicit, *I* was considering Wozniak to be the inventor of the Apple II circuit, and my recollection of the previous Slashdot discussion was that Wozniak name came up in association with the purported "prior art" in the LCD case.

Reading your posts, this is the first mention I can find of later Apple II programmers being the parties under discussion. You appear to have changed the subject, which is of course not an offense of any kind, but I fail to see how my reading skills could have been remediated to better follow your shift.
Re:I think I get it now... by rifter · 2003-10-06 03:45 · Score: 1

The question was not whether every patent was valid. That is an absurd standard. The question is whether a patent mentioned on slashdot is actually vulnerable to the prior art claims that a bunch of slashdot posters come up with, apparently off the top of their head.

Patent examiners are expected to examine patents, not grant them. As for their failure to recognize prior art, I would be much more impressed if a licensed member of the patent bar described the invalidity of a patent rather than some Lotus engineer. The legal definition of "prior art" is not a subject of engineering, but a subject of law.

I certainly never claimed to have read the patent more carefully than anyone on slashdot. I never claimed to have read the patent at all. I was simply making a statement that almost all slashdot discussions on patents and "prior art" fail to reach the threshold of "worth considering."

Fair enough. But it seemed to me you were asserting that this patent in particular was certainly valid, and your point about a patent being about the claims seemed to advocate closer reading of the patent claims. It seems hypocritical to me that someone would call into question the fact that slashdot called into question this particular patent, state boldly that despite the many citations of prior art the litmus test has to do with specific claims in the patent which slashdotters clearly have not read, but not read the patent him/herself.

My point is that saying the patent is valid because the PTO said so is a terrible position. Clearly the USPTO is a human institution and therefore capable of making mistakes, especially since they are an overworked and underfunded institution. I get the feeling you have not read the patent claims yourself which is an odd thing for someone defending the patent to do...
Re:I think I get it now... by jaoswald · 2003-10-06 10:18 · Score: 1

I certainly agree that PTO approval is not unimpeachable evidence of a patent's validity. It is however, prima facie evidence that the patent is probably valid, and requires a serious effort to undermine it, not just what an average slashdot poster comes up with in a fit of pique.

People make mistakes, even serious ones. But I'll bet that the patent examiner looked more carefully and understood the legal issues involved more thoroughly than the rash of slashdot complainers that comes out of the woodwork everytime one of these stories is posted.

In a court of law, the burden of proof, once a patent has been granted, falls to those who would contest the patent, not on the holder of the patent. And the only true definition of the validity of a patent is one ruled on in a court of law.

Method and system for reporting a program failure by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Method and system for reporting a program failure

They patented the BSOD?

not suprising that... by Findel · 2003-10-02 00:30 · Score: 1

..MS would have a Grand "bug bank" with all the program failures they must have to deal with.

--
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."

Re:not suprising that... by Findel · 2003-10-02 00:32 · Score: 1

i think i might have missed tha point... lol

--
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."

Museum by allanj · 2003-10-02 00:30 · Score: 2, Funny

My guess is the museum will hold long gone stuff like "search for previous art".

--
Black holes are where God divided by zero

Re:Museum by Rick.C · 2003-10-02 00:56 · Score: 1

My guess is the museum will hold long gone stuff like "search for previous art".
Actually, it is designed to display the old geezer who performs the search for previous art. After he dies, they plan to stuff him and prop him up in his chair in a realistic pose wearing his green visor and with his quill pen at the ready.
Admittedly, his efficiency will be lower than when he was alive, but only slightly lower.

--
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford

Here we go again... by Max+Romantschuk · 2003-10-02 00:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

A bit from the abstract: Method and system for reporting program failures. The system extracts information about a failure in a program module, such as the location of the failure, and establishes communication with a repository, such as a server.

Don't you just love how vague this is? It could cover almost anything, including embedded things like elevators, automated ovens and whatnot...

OK, I didn't read the whole thing, but the abstract just goes to show how little is needed these days to patent software. Argh.

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/

Re:Here we go again... by illuvata · 2003-10-02 00:37 · Score: 3, Informative

The abstract is not the real patent. it is only there to make skimming them easier, and judging the value of a patent by its abstract is like only looking at the title of a book before judging it
Re:Here we go again... by mallumax · 2003-10-02 00:37 · Score: 2, Funny

The patents are making no sense at all lately. It seems they want to patent everything under the sun. Maybe they will patent the patent system of awarding nonsensical patents!!

--
TechSutra
Re:Here we go again... by Davak · 2003-10-02 00:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Microsoft also will so patent the ability to turn error reporting off.

Thus, you'll have to pay to use it... or pay to not.

The good news is that slashdot will soon we patenting the right to slam microsoft. Due to the grant demand... slashdot will be rich beyond its wildest dreams and give free subscriptions to us all.

Davak
Re:Here we go again... by Max+Romantschuk · 2003-10-02 00:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

The abstract is not the real patent. it is only there to make skimming them easier, and judging the value of a patent by its abstract is like only looking at the title of a book before judging it.

I'm sure you are right in every respect, but shoudn't the abstract reflect the contents of a patent in a truthful way? If all abstracts are this general how do we differentiate one patent from another in a similar field at all?

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
Re:Here we go again... by Pharmboy · 2003-10-02 00:46 · Score: 2, Funny

The good news is that slashdot will soon we patenting the right to slam microsoft.

Won't happen, too much prior art....

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Here we go again... by stubear · 2003-10-02 00:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

"If all abstracts are this general how do we differentiate one patent from another in a similar field at all?"

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps you RFTP and not rely on the abstract? If two seem similar you need to do further investigation of the patents themselves, not just stop at the abstract and say "loo, the abstract for patent A says it affects wigets in this manner and the abstract for patent B affects wigets in the same or very similar manner." The patent itself will explain what the difference is and why it's different than what everyone else is doing.
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 02:26 · Score: 0

The claims of a patent determine its scope, not the abstract. In fact, the USPTO will rarley issue an objection to the content of the abstract, provided that it at least somewhat describes the invention.
Re:Here we go again... by Rogerborg · 2003-10-02 03:28 · Score: 1

Your post has an undescriptive subject, and therefore the content is worthless. OK, I didn't read the content, but the subject should be enough to judge it on, right?

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Here we go again... by Joe+Decker · 2003-10-02 03:55 · Score: 1

The abstract doesn't describe the protected material of the patent, the claims do. The rest is just scene-setting.
The claims are specific, if (it seems to me) overly broad and likely covered by prior art.

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:Here we go again... by Aidtopia · 2003-10-02 04:02 · Score: 1

The abstract can be general, it's just a searching tool for people looking for patents. I don't believe anything said in the abstract really goes to the validity of the patent. It's the claims that matters.
Re:Here we go again... by Thing+1 · 2003-10-02 05:34 · Score: 1

Under? Hell, you gave me a great idea.... I'm claiming a patent on the sun!

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 06:04 · Score: 0

HAH! Like prior art's ever stopped anybody before!
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 08:31 · Score: 0

I guess when you have a shitload of money, you can afford to hire an army of patent serchers to look for ideas not yet patented.
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 10:49 · Score: 0

Wat's RFTP? Remote FTP?
Re:Here we go again... by Karadryel · 2003-10-02 11:25 · Score: 1

A bit from the abstract: Method and system for reporting program failures. The system extracts information about a failure in a program module, such as the location of the failure, and establishes communication with a repository, such as a server.
Don't you just love how vague this is?
Bud, you're reading the ABSTRACT. Of course it's vague ... that's what "abstract" means.
RTFP ("patent") before complaining that it's too vague.

Netscape Talk Back? by bjb · 2003-10-02 00:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Wasn't Netscape's talk back feature available in 1996 when Netscape Communicator 4.0 came out? That was certainly a "phone home problems" system, though you had to enable it first. I haven't seen much difference, from my perspective, between what Windows 2000/XP has and what Talk Back does.

--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...

Re:Netscape Talk Back? by twocents · 2003-10-02 00:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Netscape is mentioned in the text of the patent:

To gather more information about a crash, different approaches have been taken. For example, America Online has the ability to determine the location of a crash of Microsoft's "INTERNET EXPLORER" web browser and report this information to Microsoft. However, other information regarding the state of a user's machine at the time of the crash is not known and it is difficult to distinguish between different crashes. Without this valuable information, not much can be done to determine whether there is a bug and, if so, correct the bug. Other approaches have been taken to tackle the problems of failures. For example, Netscape's "COMMUNICATOR" web browser includes a quality feedback agent to report a crash to Netscape, although it is not known what information is reported to Netscape. Moreover, both of these approaches apply to fatal crashes, i.e., when the operating system has decided to kill the application. Thus, there is a need for a method and system for reporting non-fatal crashes, such as when the operating system continues executing the application's code.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:39 · Score: 0

Yea, but MS had been doing this for YEARS before Netscape.

Also just because the patent was granted now doesn't mean it hasn't been in filing for 5 years. Patents DO take a long time to complete.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:43 · Score: 0

Actually if you read the patent, they actually reference Netscape's Talk Back there
while also describing how they differ from it.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by Bigby · 2003-10-02 01:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

This states in plain text how Microsoft just implemented an idea differently. That doesn't make a patent valid. Patents are for NEW ideas, not new implementations of ideas.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by Mr.+Moose · 2003-10-02 01:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Thus, there is a need for a method and system for reporting non-fatal crashes, such as when the operating system continues executing the application's code

HEY! Windows is able to crash AND continue??? That's a new one. Why didn't they patent this?
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by GarfBond · 2003-10-02 02:26 · Score: 1

Yep, Netscape used (and still continues to use, in the Mozilla project (no longer a part of Netscape)) Talkback software from Full Cirle Software (now SupportSoft it seems). It definitely detects a program crash, and then subsequently sends info on the crash back to netscape/mozilla servers. From all accounts, it's been instrumental in getting good data about Mozilla and improving the code. I remember a couple of incidents where talkback data was helpful in fixing crasher bugs and it's also being used to examine mean time between failure. SupportSoft might be very interested in contesting this patent.
For what it's worth, if anyone knows of an open-source solution that might replace Talkback, Mozilla would love to hear it.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by yams · 2003-10-02 02:53 · Score: 1

According to the filing report:
Filed: May 15, 2000
I am sure that Netscape has done it before May 15, 2000. Sadly, I don't know if they have published it before that.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by inburito · 2003-10-02 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

You got it all backwards!

Ideas are not patentable!!! Only implementations are patentable! Hence, Microsoft making a specific non-obvious implementation of an already known idea does actually qualify as patentable.

That said, now supposing that the patent is too broad and the clauses encompass prior art then there is a case of stricking out the clauses in question and perhaps invalidating the whole patent.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by modemboy · 2003-10-02 04:39 · Score: 1

Uhhh, non-obvious? You gotta be kidding me.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by derossi · 2003-10-02 04:52 · Score: 3, Informative

I am one of the two people who inveted Talkback (aka the Netscape Quality Feedback Agent).

We showed this technology to Microsoft early in 1998. We outlined the whole process, and nothing in their abstract describes any innovation over what we showed them.

The discussions in that meeting were held under NDA. As a small company, we had little choice but to use Microsoft's NDA. Their version allows them to use anything they "remember" as long as they don't disclose our specific confidential information.

We did get a patent for Talkback, one of several that were in the works before we sold the technology. Supportsoft now owns the technology and the patent.

I'm not saying that this is just another example of Microsoft having to rely on screwing small companies and coopting their innovations. You can decide that for yourself.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by Brett+Glass · 2003-10-02 05:38 · Score: 1

We did get a patent for Talkback, one of several that were in the works before we sold the technology.
What is the number of that patent? It does not appear that Microsoft cited it in its application, which is a cardinal sin. If it failed to disclose prior art of which it had knowledge (and it did have knowledge of it because you spoke with them), it is guilty of defrauding the Patent Office and the patent is invalid.
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 05:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

although it is not known what information is reported to Netscape

But Talkback is also in Mozilla, and Mozilla is open-source, so that statement is disingenuous.

I'm not familiar with non-fatal crashes in Mozilla. Has anyone seen this?
Re:Netscape Talk Back? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 10:19 · Score: 0

Thus, there is a need for a method and system for reporting non-fatal crashes, such as when the operating system continues executing the application's code.

Or such as when someone plays a movie or an MP3 in Windows Media Player, and Microsoft's partners would like to know about it.

Or when someone enters a particular FCKGW license key, and would prefer to think Microsoft isn't watching.

talkback by smartin · 2003-10-02 00:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Netscape has done this for years.

--
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.

Re:talkback by darkpurpleblob · 2003-10-02 00:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Netscape has done this for years.
Yep. This is even noted in the patent:
To gather more information about a crash, different approaches have been taken. For example, America Online has the ability to determine the location of a crash of Microsoft's "INTERNET EXPLORER" web browser and report this information to Microsoft. However, other information regarding the state of a user's machine at the time of the crash is not known and it is difficult to distinguish between different crashes. Without this valuable information, not much can be done to determine whether there is a bug and, if so, correct the bug. Other approaches have been taken to tackle the problems of failures. For example, Netscape's "COMMUNICATOR" web browser includes a quality feedback agent to report a crash to Netscape, although it is not known what information is reported to Netscape. Moreover, both of these approaches apply to fatal crashes, i.e., when the operating system has decided to kill the application. Thus, there is a need for a method and system for reporting non-fatal crashes, such as when the operating system continues executing the application's code.
But the key thing is that Netscape's error reporting only occurred in the case of a fatal crash, whereas Microsoft's patent covers non-fatal program failures as well.
Re:talkback by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:00 · Score: 0

"But the key thing is that Netscape's error reporting only occurred in the case of a fatal crash, whereas Microsoft's patent covers non-fatal program failures as well."

*Lol* Urrgh!

Probably like EOLAS's time stamp patent, their key invention: The private key is deleted after submission. It's already granted in the USA.

So please support FFII.org, Europe is our last hope to get rid of a world wide trivial software patent regime.
Re:talkback by CaptnMArk · 2003-10-02 01:21 · Score: 0

So, all they patented is this:

if (error >= WARNING) { ... }

instead of

if (error >= FATAL) { ... }
Re:talkback by danila · 2003-10-02 01:46 · Score: 1
I think to be patentable the invention needs to be non-obvious. Whatever your definition of obviousness is, I doubt, that MS feature can be considered non-obvious.

If it can, please enjoy the list of things that I am going to patent as soon as I finish this post:
- 9-button mouse
- 6GHz processor
- 130-key keyboard
- word-processor that can open PDF files
- etc., etc.
--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:talkback by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-10-02 03:02 · Score: 1

For example, Netscape's "COMMUNICATOR" web browser includes a quality feedback agent to report a crash to Netscape, although it is not known what information is reported to Netscape.

So, clicking that 'details' button would have been too much research for a patent?

Can you really file a patent and say, "we know of something else that does something similar, but we really don't know what it's doing, but we're certain it's not doing what we're claiming here" ?

I have a feeling if I submitted a patent application with a clause like this it would be rejected.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:talkback by AJWM · 2003-10-02 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft's patent covers non-fatal program failures as well.

So, what's a "non-fatal program failure"? Does that mean it's just wounded, but will get better? Does that mean the program is going to phone home every time the user tries to open the wrong kind of file or the app runs out of memory or the user makes an error? I hope Microsoft is planning on increasing their bandwidth...

--
-- Alastair
Re:talkback by hyfe · 2003-10-02 04:31 · Score: 1

Great, so if somebody already had shown to the public that their were able to chew gum and walk at the same time I wouldn't be able to patent it yeah?

But I would be allowed to patent chewing gum while walking or running? That sounds just plain silly.

--
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
Re:talkback by sootman · 2003-10-02 04:35 · Score: 1

Patent all you want, I'll still be richer than you thanks to my phat patent portfolio:
- 10-button mouse
- 7GHz processor
- 131-key keyboard
- Amp that goes to 11

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:talkback by derossi · 2003-10-02 04:59 · Score: 1

NB: I'm one of the two inventors of Talkback (aka the Netscape Quality Feedback Agent).
But the key thing is that Netscape's error reporting only occurred in the case of a fatal crash, whereas Microsoft's patent covers non-fatal program failures as well.
Talkback catches crashes by default, with the programmer having to do very little. That is part of its base level functionality.
Talkback ALSO reports on any other error (or non-error) condition the developer cares about. It's easy, and common practice, to put a call to Talkback in an exception handler, for example.
There's even a mode that will cause Talkback to report to the server the first time the application is used. This makes it very useful to compare the number of downloads to the number of people who actually install it and run it at least once.
So even Microsoft's "unique" addition of responding to non-fatal errors still falls short of what Talkback-enabled products could do in 1997.

But at IBM by TerryAtWork · 2003-10-02 00:31 · Score: 2, Funny

It's called the Big Blue Screen of Death, right?

--
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.

Re:But at IBM by Dragoon · 2003-10-02 01:12 · Score: 1

The BBSOD? Isnt it just BSOD (Blue Screen of Death)

heh.

--
Welcome to the End

Perhaps related to activation, too? by neiffer · 2003-10-02 00:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

With Norton products scheduled for product activation starting with Antivirus 2004, I wonder if Mircosoft considers phone home technology part of their greater product activation scheme. It would be amusing watching Symantic and Mircosoft battle it out. :)

Re:Perhaps related to activation, too? by Diamon · 2003-10-02 00:50 · Score: 1

Lets hope so! If companies are reluctant to put in any type of phoning home at all for fear of MS lawyers, that's all the better.

uh oh... by another+misanthrope · 2003-10-02 00:31 · Score: 1

...think baster worm * phone callls... it'll be like trying to get through to a radio station when in fact it's your own house. Sounds ugly to me!

No need by darkstar949 · 2003-10-02 00:31 · Score: 5, Funny

However, we all know that Microsoft has no need for error reporting software.

Re:No need by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 05:25 · Score: 0

I'm glad Microsoft patented this. Now nobody else will get the bright idea to use this bad idea.
Re:No need by vidnet · 2003-10-02 06:56 · Score: 1

The third time you BSOD, Microsoft goons will show up at your door and make sure you don't tell anyone.

Re:After IBM's done with SCO, by Devil+Ducky · 2003-10-02 00:32 · Score: 1

They won't have to wait to deal with Redmond. "The Giant" has so many lawyers it makes Microsoft and SCO look like companies that... don't have many lawyers (ok, not all analagies are clever).

--

Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.

Award for spyware by CoffeeCrusader · 2003-10-02 00:32 · Score: 1

hmm, obviously they were awarded for XP spying on you, thus keeping open a constant line to Redmond. sounds like a patent out of 1984 to me.

Re:Award for spyware by MImeKillEr · 2003-10-02 01:11 · Score: 1

Don't believe the FUD you hear/read about XP.

Sure, it has the ability to 'phone home' but that's so easy to disable and has been documented to death. Google is your friend.

Anyone who is still paranoid should install a nice software firewall (I use Sygate) and check whats going out-bound. Once you disable XPs capability, you won't see the OS sending *anything* out.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:Award for spyware by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 04:21 · Score: 0

Too bad then that there's network traffic originating from the win kernel itself that's not showing up on software firewalls... The content of this traffic is unknown and the destination of it differs but it sure as hell isn't dhcp/dns data... it might be just a glitch in my systems but with closed source, you'll never know...
Re:Award for spyware by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 06:16 · Score: 0

NTKernel.exe traffic appears in SyGate, even the free version.

Contestation period by Zarhan · 2003-10-02 00:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

We had a little seminar on patent system and patents in general at our company. As such, I asked some questions about software patents and these seemingly trivial patents like "one-click shopping". The guy responded that even though the Patent Office may grant the patent, all patents have (IIRC) 9 month period when others can comment on it and have it taken down if they have sufficient basis (such as prior art). Even after the period, they can still be taken down with a court ruling, but then the process is of course more expensive.

He mentioned that most of the more controversial ones, including the one-click shopping, have been contested and thrown away a long time ago. Can someone confirm this?

I'm not sure whether I should have believed everything, (mostly I think they were trying to goad the developers into thinking that software patents that were-soon-to-be reality here in Europe are a good thing), but just my two cents..

Re:Contestation period by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

The One-Click-Ordering patent was used by Amazon to get an injunction against Barnes & Noble during the holiday season a few years ago. Barnes & Noble was forced to insert an artificial 'second click' to comply with the injunction. It may have been thrown out since then, but even if it were it seems to have caused ridiculous, real-world damage while it lasted.
Re:Contestation period by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:04 · Score: 1, Informative

Here is the list of all withdrawn patents since 1790: withdrwn.txt

Shouldn't the Amazon one-click shopping patent (# 5960411) be on this list if it had been thrown out?
Re:Contestation period by triskaidekaphile · 2003-10-02 01:11 · Score: 1

As I recall, Amazon only got a preliminary injunction. Barnes & Noble eventually gave in and settled; the cost of the battle simply was not worth it. The validity of One-Click has not been settled in court, so the patent remains.

So if patents were created to protect the independent inventor, why is it that the deepest pockets have the advantage?

-Steven :)

--
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
Re:Contestation period by uberdave · 2003-10-02 02:37 · Score: 2, Funny

It would have been, but somebody owns the patent on a "method for automatically adding withdrawn patents to a list".

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:Contestation period by worm+eater · 2003-10-02 03:45 · Score: 1

Well, doing a search for patents owned by 'amazon' in the uspto.gov database brings up two entries: System and method for selecting rows from dimensional databases and System and method for exposing popular nodes within a browse tree.

The latter clearly patents the method by which amazon.com suggests items for you to buy based on your prior buying habits and the popularity of the suggested items (e.g. 'Customers who purchased Microsoft Windows also purchased Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access.').

The former I couldn't really decifer, but it doesn't seem like one-click shopping to me.

--
Maybe partying will help...
Re:Contestation period by k98sven · 2003-10-02 03:54 · Score: 1

Here is the list of all withdrawn patents since 1790:

That list seems far too short..

Also it says "withdrawn patent numbers" which is not necessarily the same thing as "numbers of withdrawn patents".
Re:Contestation period by symbolic · 2003-10-02 04:34 · Score: 1

The latter clearly patents the method by which amazon.com suggests items for you to buy based on your prior buying habits and the popularity of the suggested items

This ought to be thrown out as well. McDonald's has been doing something similar for years..."Would you like fries with that?"
Re:Contestation period by pyros · 2003-10-02 04:34 · Score: 1

Perhaps legal fees should be reverse-unionized. Put a cap on how much lawyers can charge per hour. For long and drawn-out cases the wealthier party still has an advantage, but not because they can afford more competent counsel.

Nearby... by Skater · 2003-10-02 00:34 · Score: 1

the new two million square foot USPTO campus

That place is about a stone's throw from my home. I wonder if they're hiring...

--RJ

Re:Nearby... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:44 · Score: 0, Funny

That place is about a stone's throw from my home. I wonder if they're hiring...

I wonder if you've got enough stones.
Re:Nearby... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:15 · Score: 0

That place is about a stone's throw from my home. I wonder if they're hiring...

Yeah, I hear they need someone to repair some broken windows. Some lunatic is throwing stones at the place from his house ;)
Re:Nearby... by Crash+Culligan · 2003-10-02 03:21 · Score: 1

That place is about a stone's throw from my home. I wonder if they're hiring...

I wonder if you can do the world a great public service if you do get hired there:

"Oh, I'm sorry, but while we were moving the information and all backups from the old building to the new campus they fell over in the truck and the truck caught fire just before falling into the Potomac and exploding. Was it important?"

--
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.

No Doubt "Most Used" in history of IT... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:34 · Score: 0

heh, yeah, go figure...

Any solutions? by dhuv · 2003-10-02 00:34 · Score: 1

Are any politicans looking into any of this? I know that the agency makes a lot of money, but what about all the business in the US that have to waste money fighting legal battles because of this stupidity. I am sure the innovation this stops makes it justifiable to have the lawmakers of this country do something about this mess. If I was asked for a topic in the debate during the next presidential election this would definetly be one of them.

Re:Any solutions? by plover · 2003-10-02 00:52 · Score: 1

Think about what you're saying. "business in the US that ... waste money fighting legal battles".
Where does this money go? Lawyers.
What business is congress in? Law.
Who runs one of the largest, best funded lobbying organizations? Trial lawyers.
And you want congress to shoot the horse they rode in on? Are you on drugz?

--
John
Re:Any solutions? by slim+hades · 2003-10-02 01:05 · Score: 0

We live in an age where any answer can be obtained by Google, any image can be seen in a JPEG, and anyone who operates a computer for more than a "tool" knows that that is exactally what Windows is. Eventually, all the shit we study in depth will be common knowldege for a ten year old, and anyone who wishes to do more with a computer than write proposals and email will use something open source and mallable. Even those who wish to just write things and email I am sure will much rather prefer to do it for free, since it is such a commonplace way of communication these days. (hate the tool quote with computers.. "but my computers just a tool"- "Yes, and so are you")
Re:Any solutions? by Short+Circuit · 2003-10-02 01:38 · Score: 1

IIRC, Any congressman can only get $2000 from each individual or organization that donates. I wouldn't call $2000 something to "ride in on."

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Patent madness... by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-10-02 00:35 · Score: 1

Someone needs to point out to the judiciary, if not the USPTO itself, that this is getting beyond a joke.

Take the car as an example. If Mercedes (or whoever it was who made the first car) had tried to patent the idea of putting four wheels together and putting a box on them to carry passengers, etc on a horseless carriage then, by USPTO standards, a patent would have been granted even though the arrangement was already commonplace - it's just a reworking of a horse-drawn carriage.

But, because this was a "new application" (or whatever they call this crap), it would have been patentable. And so would the steering wheel. And horns. And indicators. And headlights. And god knows how many engine-related things.

Software patents are the worst of the lot - how can patent law that's meant to give a generation's worth of protection (30 years) apply to an industry where 5 years may see two generations' worth of progress?

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:Patent madness... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:33 · Score: 0

You do realize that many of those things have been patented previously, don't you?

There are tons of engine related patents... and there have been patents on things like "intermittant wipers" as examples.
Re:Patent madness... by Eccles · 2003-10-02 04:43 · Score: 1

But, because this was a "new application" (or whatever they call this crap), it would have been patentable.

From this page:

George B. Selden, a shrewd patent attorney from Rochester, N.Y., filed a patent for a "road engine" in 1879. Under the liberal patent laws of the time, he was allowed to back date his patent to 1877 and to amend and expand it frequently. When it was finally issued in 1895 it covered a front-drive, three-cylinder carriage with a transverse engine. Although he had never built a car, Selden used his patents to extract royalties from early American manufacturers on every auto they built.

When Henry Ford refused to pay royalties, a famous court suit followed. During the long trial, the owners of Selden's patent were finally forced to build a vehicle in 1904. Essential details in Selden's patents had been left deliberately vague, and the car built in 1904 had much benefit from then-current technology. Despite all these loopholes, the "1877" Selden barely ran. The patent was finally shot down in 1911.

---

So patents and unscrupulous patent lawyers have been stifling innovation for more than a century.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Nice Buildings.. by s.a.m · 2003-10-02 00:35 · Score: 1

They're nice buildings but I just can't imagine the traffic they bring. Great now my mornings of taking a 15 minute drive to work, which is already 30 mins b/c of traffic, will now be about 45 mins. Lovely isn't it?

I guess the one good thing is my dad is doing a lot of the work for planning out the interior of the building. Some huge 3d plans are on his comp at home. Man those things he's built up are awesome!

Re:Nice Buildings.. by mOdQuArK! · 2003-10-02 01:20 · Score: 1

Tell your dad to make sure that the examiners can't get to the "patent approval" desk without being forced to use the "prior art search" library. It might not stop them from approving dumb patents, but maybe it will slow them down a bit.

New Campus by overshoot · 2003-10-02 00:36 · Score: 1

Maybe prior art searches will improve once the USPTO moves into the new two million square foot USPTO campus, which includes five interconnected buildings, a twelve-story atrium, a landscaped two-acre park, and a museum."

Don't be silly -- once they have the new digs, they'll have even less reason than now to look outside of their own records.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:36 · Score: 0

At least there is no prior art on that one.

But the Amiga had the "guru meditation"!

Patent-speak? by the+bluebrain · 2003-10-02 00:36 · Score: 5, Funny

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the new entry comprises the location of the location of the failure.

errmmmm ... huh?

/ damn. I think MS is trying a buffer overflow on my brain ...

--
yes, we have no bananas

Re:Patent-speak? by cosmo7 · 2003-10-02 01:24 · Score: 1

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the new entry comprises the location of the location of the failure.
errmmmm ... huh?

what? you've never used handles before?
Re:Patent-speak? by the_mind_ · 2003-10-02 02:23 · Score: 1

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the new entry comprises the location of the location of the failure.
errmmmm ... huh?

that's handy for all thoose computers placed in the 4th dimention!

--
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Re:Patent-speak? by FireBreathingDog · 2003-10-02 06:58 · Score: 1

(A tip of the hat to the parent, who is probably a Mac developer...)

--
Shame on Google.

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by blowdart · 2003-10-02 00:37 · Score: 1

Well, not on a blue screen, but "Server Abend" is close enough. Damn, that came from IBM as well.

Whats next? "This page left intentionally blank" in help files?

Prior Art by jhines0042 · 2003-10-02 00:37 · Score: 1

IANAPL nor did I read the patent....

But, I was doing this in 1997 at a small company just as a best practice.

For a larger prior art example, how about all those copiers that you hook up to a phone line that calls someone when something breaks so that the repairman will show up with the right parts? Surely those devices run software.

--
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.

Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:57 · Score: 0

IANAPL nor did I read the patent....

... but rest assured, I'm quite competent to comment on anything and everything that I haven't bothered to read.
Re:Prior Art by mOdQuArK! · 2003-10-02 01:24 · Score: 1

Heh - we never got that kind of service when I was working on a Tandem "fault-tolerant" mainframe. Of course, that might've been because the mainframe failed so often that it wasn't worth their while.

It was kind of sad, really - one of the paired "fault-tolerant" CPUs would fail, then (because the system was overloaded), we would watch all of the CPUs fail, one after the other, just like a set of dominos.

This was supposedly a 24x7xyear system. I _hated_ carrying that beeper :(

There is NO prior art by swissmonkey · 2003-10-02 00:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Neither IBM's method nor Netscape's method were able to diagnose the failure and point the user to a fix.

This feature is clearly specified in the patent, which the moderator obviously didn't read before making his comment about IBM's prior art.

So this patent is perfectly valid, as no other bug reporting system known currently has this capability.

Re:There is NO prior art by matthew.thompson · 2003-10-02 00:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

You obviously haven't tried this feature out have you.

They have a very similar link in Event Viewer in the newer OSes. Click here to find out more about this message.

Click the link and you get taken to a page whic, as far as I can tell, just tells you that they have no further information on that error message.

Meanwhile MS are collating more and more information on what software is running on their customers' machines.

--
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
Re:There is NO prior art by amightywind · 2003-10-02 00:48 · Score: 0

You mean the way photocopiers have for 15 years?

--
an ill wind that blows no good
Re:There is NO prior art by Skater · 2003-10-02 00:52 · Score: 1

Hasn't Real software done this for a long time?
Re:There is NO prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:55 · Score: 0

Bull the phone home feature does not point the user to a fix.
It tells Microsoft what went wrong so they can either fix it or ignore it.
If 5 users have a problem, Ignore it.
If 50,000 people have a problem, perhaps we should issue a patch.
Everyone I know turns this crap off anyway as it usually causes more problems than it fixes.
Re:There is NO prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Erm.

a) Lack of prior art does not validate a patent. It also has to BE art, i.e., original and non-obvious. I think we have a serious breakdown at that point with the patent.

b) You have no way of knowing that there isn't prior art. Even if IBM doesn't have it, thousands of other developers could be doing this.

c) If no one is doing it yet, that doesn't have to be because nobody thought of it. It would likely be because such a detailed level of error reporting is unnecessary in the vast majority of situations, and so has made little business sense in the past. Do you mean to suggest that I should patent every business or software direction that *may* be worthwhile in the future, because no matter how obvious it is, all that matters is who does it first? Why not patent a method of logging all system actions remotely? If I patent it today and it's not useful or common for 5 years does that mean it was original and non-obvious? Give me a break, I could write a computer script that came up with ideas like this.

d) The 'differences' MS uses to deny prior art are laughably trivial, such as how most systems are built to only report fatal errors. So what, every current limitation of a program should allow competitive lock-in? If I write an email app that shows 20 emails per page with no setting in its first iteration, my competition should be able to patent 'Method for Arbitrary Pagination in an Electronic Communications Client'?
Re:There is NO prior art by PowerBert · 2003-10-02 01:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Three words: IBM AS/400 ECS

I should say iSeries ofcourse. I'm not sure when ECS was added, but it was in atleast OS/400 V3R4 and later. It does differ from the MS system though, it detects hardware faults too.

Detects hardware/software faults
Calls IBM
Downloads/orders PTFs

How is that NOT prior art?
Re:There is NO prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

I am no fan of Microsquish, and I think Slashdot is great, but the Slashdot community seriously hurts its credibility with knee-jerk, contempt-laden reactions like the one that opened this thread. So long as M$'s technology represents a novel method, it does not matter that there are prior patents for different methods. So given the given, there is no prior art.
Re:There is NO prior art by follower-fillet · 2003-10-02 01:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

How does that compare to this:

"Install our free software, send crash reports to our database automatically, and check to see if a fix is known. Join computer users, software developers, and IT professionals from around the world; working together to eliminate computer crashes."

-- <http://www.bugtoaster.com/>
Re:There is NO prior art by aug24 · 2003-10-02 01:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

You 'obviously' didn't read the text at the very top of the page at IBM:
The eServer self-management technologies enable the server to protect itself, to detect and recover from errors, to change and configure itself, and to optimize itself, in the presence of problems and changes, for maximum performance with minimum outside intervention. [My emphasis.]
Sounds to me like prior art. So, not so insightful after all, huh?
J.

--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Re:There is NO prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 02:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Crashes that are reported to Microsoft via this system (known internally as Watson, not Dr. Watson, BTW) are "bucketized" by dll, version, module, offset. No PII is collected in the basic crash reporting.

Developers often use the crash bucket analysis to focus on high-hit buckets, but other kinds of analysis can be (crashes per module, etc).

A developer or tester can ask for regkeys to be sent back, files off the machine, or a minidump. If those things are asked for, then a different, more detailed user information dialog ("additional information is required..." is presented for ok by the user.

A survey can also be requiested, which navigates the user's default browser to a survey that asks "what where you doing", asks for (optional) phone number, email name, etc.

A bucket can also be can also return an OCA (Online Crash Analysis) URL back to the user, when a known crash cause is found. This fires up the default browser to that URL, which usually has something like "The cause has been identified. Install Windows XP SP1" or the like.

Given the millions of buckets, it's not surprising that you've never seen an OCA response. But thousands of buckets are set to return them.
Re:There is NO prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 02:27 · Score: 0

... to diagnose the failure and point the user to a fix.

New crash window dialog:
"Windows has crashed. It is your fault. If you had been browsing with Internet Explorer this would never have happened. Please call Microsoft Technical Support at 1-900-555-5555 to speak with a Certified Program Failure Solutions Provider..."
Re:There is NO prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 03:15 · Score: 0

You are half right. The Netscape and IBM prior art probably wouldn't anticipate a claim with the diagnosing feature, but the same prior art could have made the Microsoft "invention" obvious. That is, while the prior art wouldn't invalidate the patent under novelty, it might still invalidate it under non-obviousness. Non-obviousness failures, by the way, are the strongest attack against patents like this and like the one-click buy.
Re:There is NO prior art by Joe+Decker · 2003-10-02 03:57 · Score: 1

This feature is clearly specified in the patent, which the moderator obviously didn't read before making his comment about IBM's prior art.
...or, perhaps, simply doesn't understand how to read patents and how to determine the legally relevant bits--a problem epidemic to these discussions on slashdot.

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:There is NO prior art by dimonic · 2003-10-02 04:12 · Score: 1

The syslogd in Unix has been doing this for more than 10 years: Supplying an error string for _any_ level of problem: info, warning, error, fatal, and sending to a place specified in an external config file, (including uucp (telephone)) destinations, and specifying quite complex error info, such as the program, the authority it was executing under, the actual problem, and in many cases, the correction is implied in the message (such as could not write to device, ID=0, ID required=12, or: no space left on device, etc etc.
Re:There is NO prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 05:10 · Score: 0

Yeah, all those users using open office (compared to Microsoft Office) are sure to make a real impact!
Re:There is NO prior art by rarchimedes · 2003-10-07 01:40 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as a legitimate software patent. Copyright is about the strongest thing that can cover software. Even patents on software/hardware combinations should only cover the particular combination, as almost every system can be reprogrammed, and there should only be copyright on a particular version or part of such software.

I have a patent idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:38 · Score: 1, Funny

I think I'll patent "A method for discovering prior art in patent cases". It doesn't look like the USPTO have one...

Possible positive side effect by MadKeithV · 2003-10-02 00:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

The patent seems to indicate that Microsoft is focusing on improving the reliability of its software through analysis of failures in the wild.

Now, I don't know about you, but I find that a pretty bad way to go about improving your software. "Yeah it's buggy now, but allow us to analyse the gazillion crashes and we'll be able to reduce them to just a few hundred thousand."

Microsoft patents this, and thereby makes sure that no-one else gets to use this way of working (because we all know how happy Microsoft is about granting licenses to competitors). That's a GOOD THING. Competitors will be forced to use methods like improving the quality of the software through design, not PRODUCING buggy software in the first place, instead of pissing your users off by not only crashing software, but sending a bunch of data across your network, potentially complaining about not having an active connection, and opening up all kinds of exploits by triggering faults deliberately etc. etc.

Re:Possible positive side effect by zurab · 2003-10-02 09:13 · Score: 1

The patent seems to indicate that Microsoft is focusing on improving the reliability of its software through analysis of failures in the wild.

Obviously, you are getting this all wrong. Either you have been affected by Microsoft's marketing machine, or ... no, no second option.

Microsoft is patenting error reporting and fixing because they can sue and threaten to "cease and desist" others who attempt to do the same. It's one more step in the direction of leveling the field in the security and reliability arena. Microsoft has decided that they cannot raise their level to match their competitors' offerings in this regard, so they are attempting to bring their competitors down to theirs.

Having said that, this patent is ridiculous, like many others. Besides, Netscape's QFA (mentioned in the patent text) that was disregarded because it was "unknown"; besides IBM's prior art of doing what patent describes and doing it more thoroughly; the idea behind the patent that a problem is reported and logged and suitable fix, if present, suggested - is nothing special (and I am overusing the term). I have been reporting problems and getting suggested fixes for all kinds of problems from all kinds of providers - just because this process is handled by software, over a network does not make the same idea patentable; like patenting online payments, online video/audio (other than specific compression methods, but that's a different topic), online shopping, online "bookmarks", etc.

With lack of real world meaningful prior art checking, or virtually disregarding any findings of it, software patents present one more barrier towards healthy competition and free market, but do allow select few to control the market via such illusive "assets" (patented IP) and litigation.
Re:Possible positive side effect by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 15:52 · Score: 0

Fool!! Know you not of the effect of microsofts
strategy? At the end of the day will be a long
night. Programming will be effectively civilly
an illegal act, for every new program will have
to be investigated at prohibitive expense for
'prior art' lest its publication subject the
author to criminal prosecution in some future
time of penalization of 'IP trespassing'.
We will then no longer have programmers as we
know them. We will only have lawyers working
for corporations that will be rich enough to
buy access to facts kept secret by stakeholders
in hopes that new work would contain their
precious protected algorithms so that they
could then extort the unfortunates. It is this
limited access to only the rich that will allow
only new work by the oligarchies to be successfully legally survive the checking process.
It is this that will be the end of real progress
to our civilization, as the work of the few will
lack spirit and originality, and be only concerned
with short term small minded goals.

People. People... by kaellinn18 · 2003-10-02 00:39 · Score: 1, Funny

When will you learn? Microsoft invented the computer and the web browser; Al Gore invented the internet; SCO invented Unix; and AOL revolutionized the information age. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have experienced.

--

--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.

excertp : by borgdows · 2003-10-02 00:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Despite the best efforts of software developers, software programs inevitably fail at one time or another. One type of failure is a crash. A crash occurs while a program module is running and results in the suspension of operation of the program module. Crashes are frustrating to users and, in some cases, may cause the user to lose work.

oh my god!
isn't it supposed to be a feature??

Microsoft deserves the patent by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2003-10-02 00:41 · Score: 1, Funny

On Tuesday, the USPTO awarded a patent to Microsoft for its Method and system for reporting a program failure,

Yeah, so it's justified. I mean, other OSes display cryptic error messages, "guru meditation" errors (amiga), oopses, kernel panics or bombs with all kinds of unintelligible information only hackers can use.

Microsoft, on the other hand, introduced the large blue screen-wide postage stamp, so you *know* immediately it's time to hit that button next to the floppy drive, without having to read idiotic messages. How that for user-friendliness, hmm? uh?

Stop the Microsoft bashing. These guys really do innovate, whether you like it or not. Even Linux doesn't have that user-friendly reboot signal. It's such a sadly made OS it doesn't even crash in fact, that's how boring it is ...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Microsoft deserves the patent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:37 · Score: 0

The blue screen is a form of innovation? I don't really know what to say. Should I send a Thank You to someone, you think?

You could argue that the error reporting features introduced in Win2K, XP are innovative, but given that like blue screens, error reporting and kernel dumps are next to useless for everyone but Microsoft, I don't see much value in this innnovation. Certainly Microsoft "may" have been able to (at least according to their press releases) make changes/improvements to their software from users automagically submitting information, but the warm and fuzzy promises of fixes aside, what's in it for the end user, or for an admin?

I'd also suggest that FeelGood(Tm) innovation is about as useless as the Ctrl-Alt-Delete sequence on a non-responding system. Seems to me that every Microsoft OS should be programmed to just give up and power down the machine, because it's going down anyway. Now if Linux users regularly encounted this, they wouldn't be so critical, would they? But they don't. So they are.
Re:Microsoft deserves the patent by ShieldWolf · 2003-10-02 02:01 · Score: 1

You know I hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but since I moved to 2000 from NT I just don't get BSODs anymore. Never. It just doesn't crash. I used to get BSODs all the time relating to my SCSI controller (most NT crashes _were_ a result of bad drivers).

This is old news, you can't used the crashing to bash 'em anymore, just use one of the other million things wrong with them, like including buffer overflow exploits.

--
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();

Skip USPTO, the RPTO is way better! by scsirob · 2003-10-02 00:41 · Score: 1

Rob's Pattent Trade Office will grant you any patent you like! You even have a choise of blue or yellow stripes on the certificate, so what are you waiting for..

Never mind these useless USPTO certs, RPTO is the wave of the future. Get them while they're hot!

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB

The monitoring program "Big Brother" does this by farrellj · 2003-10-02 00:42 · Score: 1

And it's been around for a fairly long time...a guy in Canada named Sean McGuire wrote it, and a lot of people use it. It is client/server and it uses port 1984 tocommunicate.

ttyl
Farrell

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h

one obvious source of prior art by (startx) · 2003-10-02 00:42 · Score: 2, Funny

*cough*netscape feedback agent*cough*

Re:one obvious source of prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:46 · Score: 0

Read the patent. They reference Netscape and explain how they differ from it.
While I still disagree with awarding patents like this, it's definitely different
then what Netscape provides.

the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by Speare · 2003-10-02 00:43 · Score: 4, Informative

[RANT]

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 meager regulatory behavior also weakens further in tough economies, because Big Business believes that having patents, even if they are untenable, will generate revenue; the administrations can open the floodgates at will.

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. 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.

[/RANT]

--
[ .sig file not found ]

Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by GoofyBoy · 2003-10-02 01:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Yeah, I want mandatory strippers and lap-dances too.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by mavenguy · 2003-10-02 01:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is absolutely true; it has become even worse since I left the place over 10 years ago. And it goes a bit further than just being in favor of granting patents as a matter of principle; I will just comment on one aspect of the issues raised in the parent.

Apart from the often discussed issues of patentability of software patents, and, indeed, the whole issue of whether all intellectual property is proper, there is a significant institutional culture issue that has a strong influence on how the Office functions that took root several decades ago and has, regretfully, increased, monotonically, over time. The management attitude, in a nutshell, is that patents aren't "examined", they are "processed". The examination process is driven by production "goals"; to be rated in the key rating category of "Production Goal Achievement" as "fully successful" you must have at least 95%; less than that you are marginal; less then 90% you are "unsatisfactory", meaning your entire rating is "unsatisfactory" meaning a "90 day letter" to get it "fully successful" else you are fired. Also there are other time related requirements to meet, such as no amended application pending more than two months without an action. Persons get fired (yes, this does happen) almost always for low production or exceeding time limits for actions, almost never for improperly allowing claims.

About the only time you ever get static for improper allowance is when the management doesn't like you (not a team player, being active in the union, etc.) but your "numbers" are all good, so then they will strain and try to misinterpret stuff to make a crappy rejection (which, BTW, is another way they can ding you, if, in their judgement, your own rejections are not "justified")

I can say, from my experience, that there have been good and consciencous folks, some real turkeys (but who produce > 100% all the time and don't make blatent errors; they are mangement pets and are often groomed as future managers, making the old management culture self perpetuating); the vast majority of the working stiffs want to do a good job, the the management culture is just totally antithetical to a good, healthy and balanced work environment.
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by Elektroschock · 2003-10-02 01:47 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Nice text. Who is the author, may we quote it?
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by Gubbe · 2003-10-02 03:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

If successfully filing a patent cost x USD to the submitter and if unsuccessful filing of a patent (due to prior art, obviousness, etc...) cost 5*x USD, it would encourage PTO to seek ways to block a patent to generate revenue. It would also prevent companies from filing too obvious patents because it would just end up costing them.
Combine this with an independent free-for-all prior art submission period and it just might turn out to be something sane.
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by ratamacue · 2003-10-02 03:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

The US PTO is a money-making service for the government
Seems pretty obvious to me. Government profits off everything it does, because government cannot "fail" as private business can. When your revenue is acquired through force, rather than voluntary trade, the concepts of risk and loss are eliminated. Even when a government program fails miserably, government still profits. I'll cite the "war on drugs" as an obvious example.
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by pmz · 2003-10-02 06:14 · Score: 1

"And, now, from the makers of the IRS, the USPTO, and your beloved local DMV and coming to a hospital near you...UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!"

Sigh. Why is the voting public so naive?

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by pmz · 2003-10-02 06:16 · Score: 1

Even when a government program fails miserably, government still profits. I'll cite the "war on drugs" as an obvious example.

If the country reacts irrationally to today's economy, you can cite national healthcare, too, in a few years.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by Alsee · 2003-10-02 06:34 · Score: 1

less then 90% you are "unsatisfactory", meaning your entire rating is "unsatisfactory" meaning a "90 day letter" to get it "fully successful" else you are fired.

I have a question - if a bunch of people got together and filed a few thousand patents for ordinary paper-clips, bubble gum, and hoola-hoops, then 90+% of them have to be approved or they'd start firing half the staff?

Gee, and I was wondering how so many stupid patents get approved. Just wonderful.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by Speare · 2003-10-02 08:31 · Score: 1

I am. http://www.halley.cc/ed/microrants/

--
[ .sig file not found ]
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by mavenguy · 2003-10-02 08:31 · Score: 1

Well, no.

The "Production Goal Achievment" metric is expressed
as a percentage of the expected "Hours per Balanced Disposal" for an examiner. This expected goal is based on an overall office wide goal that is distributed to each examining group. Different areas of technolgy, or "arts" get adjustment factors, supposedly based on complexity. If someone wants their particular art rated more complex then some other arts must be rated LESS complex, i. e., it's a zero sum game, so, in practice, this doesn't change very often becuase the managers affected will fight tooth and nail not to be responsible for more production.

Now this goal is for a regular examiner at the GS-13 level; there is a "Productivity factor" (with the historic name of "Feldman Factor" named in (dis)honor of a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Patents); thus a GS-5 entry level examiner gets a factor of .5; A GS-15 Expert Primary Examiner gets a factor of 1.45 (if I remember correctly)

Over time time an examiner accumulates "Examining Hours", which is time at work not covered by leave or so called "other time" which management is always trying to cut down.

Now, the "Balanced disposal" is another "Feldman" invention (ha-ha): An examiner gets one "count" for the First action on the merits for each application, and once count for a Disposal (allowance, abandonment, or submitting an Examiner's Answer to an appeal filed by a patent applicant). Thus, no "counts" are awarded for all work that is not a first action or a disposal which is done to discourage stretching out prosecution.

A balanced disposal is then calculated by the infamous formula BD = (N + D)/2 where N is the number of first actions and D is the number of Disposals.

Thus percent acheivement is calculated by the formula ((H/BD)/(Expectancy /FF ) ) * 100 where H is the number of examining hours for the time period being measured (common measurement periods are biweekly, quarterly, annually), BD is the balanced disposal figure counted in the time period, expectancy is the GS-12 Goal assigned to the examiner based on the art area to which he or shis is assigned (the "docket") and FF is the "Feldman Factor" assigned based on Grade and "contact and commitment authority".

One final note: The overall office goal has generally (or certainly used to be) quasi-static, rarely changing. On the Office gets pressured to meet Congressinally dictated production requirements each fiscal year. Often, if the all examiners worked a nominal number of examining hours a year and and all performed at 100% there would be a short fall, so management often uses management tools such as "incentives" to achieve over 100% including bonuses, overtime (which is paid, albeit capped, but adds to the examining hours for the production calculation) or just plain coersion ("Anyone not doing 110% this quarter will be required to explain to the group director why this was not done").

So there is no explicit requirement that a certain precentage of the "Disposals" be allowances; however, if the production is low, meaning below 100.0%, or even more if the managers are trying to squeeze out more, then that employee, even if above 95% will possible start being harassed, and if they have a lot of abandonments (usually meaning they beat down applicants) relative to allowances, or lots of appeals, then they will be pressured to allow more cases because their standards are too high, or their boss will start criticizing their rejects as incorrect, etc.

The place is a snake pit, and it has getten even worse since I left 12 years ago.
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by Muggins+the+Mad · 2003-10-02 10:27 · Score: 1

Thus percent acheivement is calculated by the formula ((H/BD)/(Expectancy /FF ) ) * 100 where H is the number of examining hours for the time period being measured (common measurement periods are biweekly, quarterly, annually), BD is the balanced disposal figure counted in the time period, expectancy is the GS-12 Goal assigned to the examiner based on the art area to which he or shis is assigned (the "docket") and FF is the "Feldman Factor" assigned based on Grade and "contact and commitment authority".

Maybe someone should patent this.
- Muggins the Mad
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by mavenguy · 2003-10-02 12:20 · Score: 1

Sadly, this invention was described in a printed publication (Performance Appraisal Plan, certainly out by 1985 at the latest) more than a year before any possible application could be filed...rejected under 35 USC 102(b).....oh, wait, probably nobody will think of looking for this.....never mind.....
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by Alsee · 2003-10-02 20:48 · Score: 1

As I read through it I couldn't help thinking it would be funny if it were a geek-humor peice, like RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers. The fact that it wasn't humor just made it painful, very very painful.

Sigh. I'd be happy if we could just return to the simple rational rule that math and algorithms were not patentable subject matter. Just to be crystal clear, that means returning to the traditional patent system where "computer implemented invention" was a contradiction in terms.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator by IPMinder · 2003-10-03 07:46 · Score: 1

Well, being a former Examiner myself (and a currently-practicing patent attorney), I have to partially dissent from your post. There is no doubt that the USPTO has had problems adjusting to algorithmic patents since State Street Bank (the Fed. Cir. decision that effectively legitimized software patents and business methods). Those of you that follow the posts of Greg Aharonian know that some abominations have been (unfortunately) allowed over the last few years from the USPTO. The question is: how else would you have it? Patent Examiners can only work with the patent-searching tools they are given (i.e. EAST, WEST/Derwent, etc.). Since software patents were being allowed only at a minimal rate prior to 1999, there was little prior art for the Examiners to search through. As a result, a large number of bad patents were being allowed during that time. To be fair, most of the prior art that was published at the time only existed in particular trade journals and publications that typically sat at the bottom of a programmer's desk drawer. Without personal knowledge of these publications, Examiners had no way of knowing that they exist. Accordingly, the Examiner had no choice but to allow the application. Also, by increasing the time for Examination, you will effectively be ballooning the pendency period for USPTO action. Currently, the pendency is in the neighborhood of 2.5 years, which many believe is too long. With increasing the hours, you will backlog cases and push back response times in which applicants cannot use or exploit technologies. In some cases, technology can go obsolete during that time. There also are quality checks that go into the Examination process. While imperfect, the Office randomly reviews applications being examined, and properly dings the supervisory examiner if his/her subordinates are issuing bad patents. While my experience may be limited, I have NEVER heard of a supervisory examiner pressuring some to allow patents because they were "too hard". This is not to say that I am happy with the situation at the USPTO - they still have a lot of work to do. But practitioners constantly submit recommendations to the PTO on how to improve the Examination process. For the most part, the PTO does what it can to address the concerns. People have the right to be disgruntled over the examination process at the PTO - but so far, there hasn't been a solution that can be practically implemented. >>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. Eh? This is simply not true. Patents get withdrawn or severly scaled back in scope all the time. And through the use of Inter-Partes Re-Examination, third parties can now actively participate in invalidating issued patents before the Examiner, and participate in any appeal before the Board of Patent Appeals should the third party disagree with the result. For smaller companies, this can be a cheap and effective alternative to litigation. Keep in mind that patents don't realize their true value until someone gets sued on it in a district court. If the Examiner let something slip during the examination, you can be damn sure that a defendant will be dropping every bomb he/she can to invalidate the patent, and will have access to prior art and experts that the Examiner could never have. In the end, evey patent has its day - sometimes it takes a court proceeding to determine how good your patent is.

Overheard at the PTO... by pr0t0plasm · 2003-10-02 00:43 · Score: 1

GS4 Lackey 1: Here's that MS 'phone home' application, up for prior art check.

GS4 Lackey 2: ...MSN.com ...search ...'phone home fault reporting'... aand no results!

GS4 Lackey 1: Novel!

GS4 Lackey 2: Non-obvious!

MSN.com server: belches

--
- - - Patent applied for and deliver us from evil

Stratus prior art by jesup · 2003-10-02 00:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

In 1984 our Stratus 200 fault-tolerant 'minicomputer' (68010-based) would let you yank a running CPU, and it would phone home to Stratus, they'd check the system info reported and if needed run remote diagnostics, and the phone would ring and they'd tell you to put the CPU back in (oh, and the system wouldn't even slow down).

Haven't read the patent, but sounds like prior art to me.

Re:Stratus prior art by yerricde · 2003-10-02 01:37 · Score: 1

I'm guessing a "minicomputer" had more than one CPU. Notice "a running CPU" rather than "the running CPU" in jesup's comment. Lots of mainframes have hot-swappable CPUs.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?
Re:Stratus prior art by JCMay · 2003-10-02 02:10 · Score: 1

I think you're right. I found this page that, about halfway down, discusses the Stratus and some of its design choices. Very interesting.
Re:Stratus prior art by Carcass666 · 2003-10-02 02:23 · Score: 1

The primary difference between your example and Microsoft's is that a Microsoft system would shut down when reporting the error -- your example refers to a redundant, fault-tolerant system which, of course, Microsoft would have nothing to do with. Prior art indeed! Hmphf!
Re:Stratus prior art by rnturn · 2003-10-02 02:52 · Score: 1

Everything in a Stratus was redundant. CPU, memory, disk drives, etc. They had unmatched reliability but at a cost. If memory serves, a redundant 600MB disk assembly cost on the order of US$20K (that was around 1991). Replacing a running CPU didn't mean downtime. You were still running on the other member of the redundant pair. And I expect that most of the Stratus systems had more than one redundant pair of CPUs. (The 680x0 CPUs were pretty good but weren't going to set any speed records.)
The VOS operating system would even detect when a terminal was going bad and alert field service. (I'd bet that their UNIX clone OS could do that as well.) More than once I had the field service rep walk up to my cubicle and want to know where so-and-so sat so he could replace their terminal or I'd get a phone call out of the blue to let me know that they'd been alerted about a terminal that was going to need replacement.
And that's just one vendor that could contest this. Heck if your looking for prior art, DEC had maintenance consoles on some of the larger PDP-11s that could be used by field service to service the system or run diagnostics remotely. I'm not sure if they had a ``phone home'' capability but I wouldn't be a bit surprised. (I have some of the old literature/manuals down in the basement but I wouldn't know which boxes to dig through anymore -- the pack rat's curse!)

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Re:Stratus prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 02:55 · Score: 0

Was it a Dodge Stratus?
Re:Stratus prior art by AftanGustur · 2003-10-02 03:32 · Score: 1

The primary difference between your example and Microsoft's is that a Microsoft system would shut down when reporting the error
And what has that got to do with anything ?? I can require that a MCSE jumps in circles on his left foot while the system reports the error, but I am still "infringing" on the MS patent ..

--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Re:Stratus prior art by rifter · 2003-10-02 06:11 · Score: 1

Everything in a Stratus was redundant. CPU, memory, disk drives, etc. They had unmatched reliability but at a cost. If memory serves, a redundant 600MB disk assembly cost on the order of US$20K (that was around 1991). Replacing a running CPU didn't mean downtime. You were still running on the other member of the redundant pair. And I expect that most of the Stratus systems had more than one redundant pair of CPUs. (The 680x0 CPUs were pretty good but weren't going to set any speed records.)

The VOS operating system would even detect when a terminal was going bad and alert field service. (I'd bet that their UNIX clone OS could do that as well.) More than once I had the field service rep walk up to my cubicle and want to know where so-and-so sat so he could replace their terminal or I'd get a phone call out of the blue to let me know that they'd been alerted about a terminal that was going to need replacement.

And that's just one vendor that could contest this. Heck if your looking for prior art, DEC had maintenance consoles on some of the larger PDP-11s that could be used by field service to service the system or run diagnostics remotely. I'm not sure if they had a ``phone home'' capability but I wouldn't be a bit surprised. (I have some of the old literature/manuals down in the basement but I wouldn't know which boxes to dig through anymore -- the pack rat's curse!)

Indeed I did find mention of the ability to get into the old DEC machines remotely I could not find whether the system could call on its own, though. Unfortunately most old dec stories are about what was wrong with dec service not what was right :).
Re:Stratus prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 10:13 · Score: 0

Hey there! I recommend you get a "sense of humour" booster shot, before you start suffering from "taking everything I read too damn seriously syndrome".
Re:Stratus prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 10:15 · Score: 0

'minicomputer' (68010-based) would let you yank a running CPU

Holy SHIT. Now THAT'S hardware. Where were those designers when they developed our frigging desktop machines?

(Yeah yeah, I know, making money at a real job... it was a joke, of sorts)
Re:Stratus prior art by C60 · 2003-10-02 10:21 · Score: 1

That's a good one. Tandem mainframes as well have had a similar feature for (IIRC) just about as long as they've been manufactured. I can't remember if this predates 1984, but coupled with your prior art, the fact that IBM mainframes have done this for a bloody long time, and of course with Tandem systems there should be enough prior art out there to overwhelmingly destroy this stupid patent.
I wish I had the time and money to patent everything I come across or "create", there's gotta be a few million dollar patent lawsuits sitting around my house somewhere...

--
Karma: 0 (But I wield a mean +10 Vorpal Apathy)
Re:Stratus prior art by jesup · 2003-10-02 10:27 · Score: 1

From that page (http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/TheCompMusRep/TCMR -V15.html):

One of the first things we did after the architecture was determined, was to put a red light on the end of a board to signal failure. Then field service didn't have to figure out what was wrong, but just take out the board and send it to the factory. Then we asked ourselves, "If field service isn't needed for fault detection, why are they needed on the customer site at all? Have the customer do it without a service call." This creates a new problem. The replacement has to be a fool proof insertion, without any special switches or an umbilical cord which might confuse the customer. In the final design, any board could be pulled out of a running machine and put in another one without anything happening.

Another problem was uncovered. How would we know what board to send to the customer for replacement? Could we depend on a secretary to pull out a bad board, read the model number, and accurately repeat it on the telephone? We thought that would be too much to ask. We added a feature that let the system read the slot location, the error state, the model number, revision level, and serial number of the bad board, finally throwing in a modem so that the computer could report the bad board directly to field service at Stratus. The electronic mail message to the Stratus computer reports what failed and all the details of the occurrence. The typical scenario is that the Stratus home office then calls up the customer and tells him that his machine has a failure. The customer doesn't know it until he's told. By then, the replacement board is on its way by Federal Express.
Re:Stratus prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 12:13 · Score: 0

The old General Electric/Sperry computers did this, as did Honeywell computers with the Engineer account - before that (197?). The disk drives also called home for non-recoverable head errors. Dumps were automatically spat out on reel to reel tape. a sticky label and post.
BTW there is some hardware assist so that the dump procedure does not destroy critical registers - very important.

ICL's VMS operating system had User Code Guardian, which like IBM's system dump had first level and second level interrupt handling, and infininitely adjustable system dumps, AND has GTF trace facility to boot. Some advanced work went into working out what to transmit on 300 baud modems.

Who cares about sending 'dumps' off to the vendor. The critical thing is that the vendor actually DOES something with the dump, and produces a fix. How many times does a sysadmin ring the vendor on a severity one issue, to be told ' upgrade to the next release', or it will be fixed in the next release, and if you push further, be told 'there is insufficent data in the dump to determine the exact issue' - brushed off.

The vendors record of actually producing fixes for dumps in a timely matter is what counts.

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by plover · 2003-10-02 00:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Whats next? "This page left intentionally blank" in help files?

No, that they copyrighted.

Therefore, according to the DMCA, you should either sit there and wait for the Ashcroft SS to burst through your door, or cut a deal with the BSA in which you agree to pay $50 for every page on which you've ever read those words.

Damn, I quoted you. Forgive me, Ashcroft, for I have sinned ... it has been $150 since my last copyright violation ...

--
John

Error Reporting Software Reports Itself. by pointzero · 2003-10-02 00:44 · Score: 1

In other news, Microsofts Error Reporting Software reports itself. Users may go to windowsupdate.com to update their computers and fix this problem.... again.

Re:The world's gone mad by bizcoach · 2003-10-02 00:46 · Score: 1

The world's gone mad

No, it's not like the whole world has gone mad. Not every country has that "software inventions are patentable" bug in their legal systems (at least not yet).

I'd like to have a list of countries which do not have this problem. How would I go about finding / creating such a list? (tried google already, but possibly not with the best combination of serach terms)

Re:No wonder Einstein left the USPTO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:46 · Score: 0

Umm, Einstein never worked for the USPTO ... he was a patent clerk in Europe for a short time. I know this is a joke, but it would be funnier if you got your facts straight.

Yay, more patents! by Amorpheus_MMS · 2003-10-02 00:47 · Score: 1, Funny

What is it with this sillyness? Is the USPTO just waving requests through?

Random guy 1: Uh, I'd like the patent on what I call "vehicle wheel". It's round and has spokes.
USPTO: Approved. NEXT!
Random guy 2: We have integrated an automatic error reporting into our software. If it breaks, it calls and tells us what happened. Patent please?
USPTO: Approved. NEXT!
Random guy 3: Hey, I have come up with a method to enrich blood cells with oxygen using organic material which I would like a patent on.
USPTO: Approved. NEXT!
...

(#3 turns around and is revealed to be Dr. Evil - he snickers manically having just patented breathing)

Re:Yay, more patents! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:46 · Score: 0

he snickers manically having just patented breathing

Thanks. Jokes are always funnier when you explain them to death.
Re:Yay, more patents! by Amorpheus_MMS · 2003-10-02 04:48 · Score: 1

I knew you'd appreciate it.

Re:No wonder Einstein left the USPTO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:48 · Score: 0

I don't think Einstein ever worked for the USPTO, I believe he left his job as a patent clerk long before moving to the US.

Common error in the not so distant future... by borgdows · 2003-10-02 00:48 · Score: 1

Fatal Error in the module PHONEHOME.EXE

Can't contact Microsoft PhoneHome(tm) servers.
Please phone at 0800-MICROSOFT to report the error code.

error code: ms-caz767-aa$u%/!de-danc4eo-10.fe817ce;-e-5f-a'"(5 88

mynuts won: corepirate nazis or softwar gangsters by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:49 · Score: 0

take yOUR pick. we can hardly tell them apart. appears .asp dough won's as bad as the other. you know where to look/up?

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by blcamp · 2003-10-02 00:51 · Score: 1

Damn, I quoted you. Forgive me, Ashcroft, for I have sinned ... it has been $150 since my last copyright violation ...

You better patent ("Patent Penance(tm)") that before Bezos gets wind of it.

--
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher

Prior Art by rlp · 2003-10-02 00:52 · Score: 1

Tandem (bought by Compaq, bought by HP) FT boxes (both Unix and Non-Stop OS) had the capability of literally phoning home (a Tandem monitoring center) to report the failure of a single component. Often a customer would be surprised when a service rep "spontaneously" showed up with a replacement part without being called by the customer.

--
[Insert pithy quote here]

Like the sliding Windows Y2K patent? by Mycroft_514 · 2003-10-02 00:52 · Score: 1

I hope someone took that sucker down. They were granted the patent in 1997 of 1998.

I personally had written prior art that I came up with on my own in 1985. I'm not claiming to be the first one to create that particular idea either, just that I created it on my own in 1985.

Due to "work for hire" clauses, that implementation would belong to General Electric. Talk about having deep enough pockets to sue!

So can you dis-prove a patent?! by FatSean · 2003-10-02 00:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I meant, produce enough prior art that the PO didn't find that shows that Microsoft's solution is not unique? Or if it is unique, ammend the patent such that it is less sweeping?

--
Blar.

Yes, just as Apple =) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 00:55 · Score: 0

Microsoft has allot of things to learn from Apple =)

Re:Yes, just as Apple =) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:04 · Score: 0

'a lot'

Learn English or go home.

Bah, just go home.

Re:After IBM's done with SCO, by Dashing+Leech · 2003-10-02 00:56 · Score: 1

Technically, it's a similie, not an analogy. (=

Conspiracy theory by synergy3000 · 2003-10-02 00:57 · Score: 1

All Patent Attorneys have to take a separate Patent Bar exam in order to practice Patent Law. Does the USPTO take a cut of all patent lawsuits? If they do, it would explain why they license prior art every other day.

EMC and AIX affected? by cabes · 2003-10-02 00:57 · Score: 1

So what, do we have to pay M$ licensing fees for our EMC box's phone-home feature... They've had that feature for years... and IBM's had it in the RS/6000 (pSeries) for ages; it's called Service Director. Great thing. I think Bill Gates is rich enough.

--
use CPAN;
Cable's Black and White

Re:EMC and AIX affected? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:15 · Score: 0

These phone solutions are provided by external monitoring hardware which looks at how the box works. They are not provided by internal system software.

For example the monitoring of a HDS Array is provided by a laptop which sits inside the main box.

All paid for... by Eezy+Bordone · 2003-10-02 00:57 · Score: 1

By Microsoft.

Maybe prior art searches will improve once the USPTO moves into the new two million square foot USPTO campus, which includes five interconnected buildings, a twelve-story atrium, a landscaped two-acre park, and a museum."

--

-EB

Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?

Re:All paid for... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 04:22 · Score: 0

..."Seeking out what isn't there, searchin' only for a spark..." Good tune ;-D

Would that be brain-stack overflow? by Chemisor · 2003-10-02 00:58 · Score: 0

By infinite recursion due to a short attention span?

Wrong ... by cgh4be · 2003-10-02 00:58 · Score: 2, Informative

I know for a fact that on the pSeries (Unix) and zSeries (Mainframe), the system includes a separate service processor that does just exactly that. So even if there is some sort of catastrophic failure of the main system, the service processor sees it, phones IBM, and their service guy shows up in an hour with the exact part that needs to be replaced. I think I would call this prior art.

Re:Wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:07 · Score: 0

So it's not a software solution then is it? It's a system management server.
Re:Wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:18 · Score: 0

Ditto for their Shark storage line (ESS). The only way we typically are aware of a disk fault is when the CE shows up to replace one.
Re:Wrong ... by PowerBert · 2003-10-02 01:24 · Score: 1

Do you mean ECS?

On the iSeries(AS/400). All faults were reported to the system logs, and I believe to any one logged on with qsysopr privileges. The system would then make the call if it was setup to do so. Otherwise an admin could do it manually.
Re:Wrong ... by crotherm · 2003-10-02 04:04 · Score: 1

Network Appliance has this feature as well. When a hardware/software "glitch" is found, emails are sent to Network Appliance as well as the admins. Diagnostic emails can be sent on a regular basis as well.

--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK

More Microscoft thievery by bl8n8r · 2003-10-02 01:01 · Score: 1

Microsoft is hoping everyone has forgotten about the Quality Feedback Agent that Netscape has had for years in the 4.x series browsers and above. http://wp.netscape.com/communicator/navigator/v4.5 /qfs1.html Mozilla has the same thing. http://www.mozilla.org/quality/qfa.html This is nothing new. Just more blatant technology theft from the company that made it famous in a society that accepts theft as "fair competition". If you want to argue, go search for the current "Sendo vs. Microsoft" case.

--
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org

Re:More Microscoft thievery by VCAGuy · 2003-10-02 01:21 · Score: 1

Yes, both Fullcircle Talkback and Corel's CARM (Corel Application Recovery Manager) were around before this patent application was filed...and they probably are both instances of prior art...

--
Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."

Re:The world's gone mad by footNipple · 2003-10-02 01:04 · Score: 1

What will it take?

That's easy. Juries.

Go ahead and develop your software. If and when you encounter a situation where you may infringe on an absurd software patent, just ignore the patent. It's that simple

If you are called on it and you receive a cease and desist letter, just ignore it. If the media calls, don't comment. When the summons comes, just ignore it until you are tricked into signing it or you get a letter directly from the court (can't remember what that's called, IANAL).

After the summons, inform the owner of such absurd patent that you will not settle and that you look forward to the trial.

A week before the trial hire a lawyer for one or two days to help you prepare. When the trail day comes tell the jury you are outraged and try to get them to see your point. Tell them you are looking for a jury nullification so that this insane law can be nullified by the people who understand it the best (not congress people).

If the jury goes your way, great. If not, well...hopefully you've been keeping the press, your congressman and various activist groups informed of the situation and your progress.

In the mean time, read about jury nullification and try to find the quote by a supreme court justice that said something to the effect that in America if a law is overly onerous, it will simply be ignored at the peril of the people. It's a great quote.

Why should you care ?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:04 · Score: 0

I don't get it. So yet another way of doing things is patented why should I care?

I'm not going to write a full-blown "PH" diagnostic system in the near future and neither will you.

And if I need one it'll be there in Microsoft Windows, either for free or the company I work for will have to buy access to it from Microsoft. So what!

Oh... I hear you say...

What about Linux?!

What about *BSDs?

What about Athe"OS"?

Well what about them? These system will simply not be able to do certain things because it's patented and that's just that. Just be glad nobody put a patent on "interrupting the processing of one program to resume the processing of another program"... yet :) because then all semilegal software would have to be recoded run application, operating system and drivers in one tight loop... and no we couldn't service any interrupts from external hardware but would have to poll it all the time...

Someday we'll either all work at the same company or we'll steal food from each other in the city dump. Most likely we'll all have to work even harder and they'll feed us even less.

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by wolf- · 2003-10-02 01:05 · Score: 1

All our managed systems are RSODs.
Blue is too peaceful. RED scares the crap out of end users.

--
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab

Not All That New by Mikkeles · 2003-10-02 01:06 · Score: 1

Considering that "phone home" has been annoying people for several years now; I must agree with most posters that the PTO really are ignorant arseholes.

--
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.

Re:Not All That New by Mikkeles · 2003-10-02 01:09 · Score: 1

Sorry, forgot the link. (So sue me!)

--
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.

Historical instances of 'phone home' functionality by emes · 2003-10-02 01:07 · Score: 1

This patent is outrageous and unjustified.

DEC's VAX-11 series had this feature in the
1980's. IBM's mainframes have had this
feature for at least 20 years.

It is a wonder how the patent office can
remain ignorant of such clear and obvious
prior art.

That's not Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

Patents are all about semantics. The IBM machines send a hardware failure message so a service person can show up with the correct part. The Microsoft machines send a software failure message and if it's a known problem points the user to a known fix.

That difference is extremely important as it defines this patent. The IBM machines didn't inform the admin of how to fix a software problem, neither do the copy machines. Netscape's error reporting didn't inform the user that a fix existed, it just stored the information on a remote repository.

Try to find some applicable prior art that implements all of the specifics. This patent is 11 pages long with 9 diagrams, not a six word Slashdot article heading, or the single paragraph summary.

Re:That's not Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:59 · Score: 0

Patents are all about semantics. The MS machines send a software failure message and if it's a known problem points the user to a known fix. My next patent will also do this BUT IN GERMAN, I do not believe that Microsoft's patent specifies any particular language strings.

That difference is extremely important as it will define my patent and my rights to demand royalties on a trivial idea.

Thanks.

Software Patents by Quill_28 · 2003-10-02 01:09 · Score: 1

I am not against software patents in certain cases.
But some of the software patents that have been granted are simply stupid.

Is the push from most folks to ban software patents altogether? or simply to make the patent process better(if that is possible)?

so does this become a problem... by [magus] · 2003-10-02 01:11 · Score: 1

I've used an, albeit simpler, approach for many of the distributed web applications i've developed for the last few years, emailing application faults to an account which is used to log and track failures. Does this mean I'm going to have to find/develop a different system for failure reporting or is the patent specific enough to let other similar technolgoies through?

By definition by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

"So this patent is perfectly valid"

There's no such thing as a valid software patent.

What most of you snot-nosed kids don't realize is that before the 90's, there was *no such thing* as software patents.

And despite this, lets look at what was invented:
Mainframes
PC's
The Internet (yes!)
Client/Server
Web Browsers
Routers
programming languages

Holy cow, why would people invent all this software if there was no patent?

Since we've had software patents, we've invented...uh.... Well, One click shopping and Microsoft Phone home.

I'll let the reader decide which is a better environment for innovation .

Re:By definition by /dev/trash · 2003-10-02 03:52 · Score: 1

I am sure that K&R would have loved to have had patents. They could have retired and not taught snot-nosed rich kids how to program.
Re:By definition by Joe+Decker · 2003-10-02 03:59 · Score: 1

What most of you snot-nosed kids don't realize is that before the 90's, there was *no such thing* as software patents.
Actually there were, although they were couched as a software plus a hardware device. Example of a patent issued in 1984.

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:By definition by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 06:48 · Score: 0

And right now, we'd all be programming in D instead of C.

Re:The world's gone mad by Elektroschock · 2003-10-02 01:13 · Score: 1

Foundation For a Free Informational Infrastructure made a very good job in Europe. Unfortunately there is no such a strong movement in the United States, although many anti-Patent experts come from the USA. And the United States is said to be more friendly to liberal economics and policy, such as F.A. von Hayek, who wrote:

The problem of the prevention of monopoly and the prevention of competition is raised much more acutely in certain other fields to which the concept of property has been extended only in recent times. I am thinking here of the extension of the concept of property to such rights and privileges as patents for inventions, copyright, trade-marks, and the like. It seems to me beyond doubt that in these fields a slavish application of the concept of property as it has been developed for material things has done a great deal to foster the growth of monopoly and that here drastic reforms may be required if competition is to be made to work. In the field of industrial patents in particular we shall have seriously to examine whether the award of a monopoly privilege is really the most appropriate and effective form of reward for the kind of risk-bearing which investment in scientific research involves.

Wikipedia software patent page

You all missed this part of the patent. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:13 · Score: 1, Informative

"...process will try various methods to push failure to server with the first being dialing out to a end user paid 1-900 number..."

Data General Aviions had this feature, too, IIRC by porkchop_d_clown · 2003-10-02 01:15 · Score: 1

As did their Clariion RAID arrays.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

I'm getting me a patent! by turambar386 · 2003-10-02 01:15 · Score: 1

I'm going to patent my very own invention: a method of filing patents. Then, everyone who wants to file a patent will have to pay me royalties.

Re:your sig by cosmo7 · 2003-10-02 01:15 · Score: 1

a + b + c == d is a comparison.

a + b + c = d is an illegal assignment. your compiler would report an invalid lvalue.

the comparison makes more sense anyway.

Microsofts Idea behind this: by slart42 · 2003-10-02 01:18 · Score: 1

If we aren't able to make bug-free software, no one else should be.. So if they try to, we'll sue the hell out of them!!

Another angle by SnowWolf2003 · 2003-10-02 01:19 · Score: 1

Maybe Microsoft actually registered this patent not for themselves to actually use, but more as a defence against other patent lawsuits. Now if IBM try sure them for some infringement, they counter-sue with their own patent. The patent system is a mess, and all it does is make lawyers rich.

Get my vote! by Quixadhal · 2003-10-02 01:19 · Score: 1

Whichever Presidential candidate declares that they will level the USPTO, fire every employee who has any decision-making ability, and rebuild the patent system from the ground up, gets my vote!

I think this insanity has gone beyond the need for reform... the problems with the system have been obvious for years, and nothing has been done aside from making lots of cash giving out frivilous and blatently invalid patents. The system needs to be overhauled, and the people who let this happen need to be keelhauled.

Prior Art by Swannie · 2003-10-02 01:19 · Score: 1

I'm not a storage guy, but I'm pretty sure that EMC is prior art in this case. Their storage arrays call in when "sick", a tech diagnoses the problem remotely, and you have a field service tech on your door step in a few hours. ...any EMC guys out there that can comment on this?

--
:q!

Temptation for abuse by gosand · 2003-10-02 01:22 · Score: 1

Neither IBM's method nor Netscape's method were able to diagnose the failure and point the user to a fix.

Error! You have attempted to play unauthorized music which is controlled by the RIAA. Your MSN account has been charged $150,000 for the violation.

While this sounds like a feature that could be put to good use if implemented correctly, I can't imagine that Microsoft will be able to resist the urge to abuse it. With DRM, signed applications, and "trusted" computing, the odds it would get abused are very high. Of course, that assumes it is ever developed. After all, just the IDEA of it is now patented, so they don't even have to develop it.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by Elektroschock · 2003-10-02 01:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I found this document about MS Patents.

I have a Patient on Patients by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:24 · Score: 0

I have applied for a Patient on the process of applying for a Patient so now anyone of these dumb ass companies that apply for a patient will have to pay me.

Can't wait for those royalty checks from Bill to start rolling in. Ye Ha.

Did anyone even -read- the patent? by *weasel · 2003-10-02 01:24 · Score: 1, Informative

Phone home itself is an obvious application.

MS was granted a patent on a very specific phone home -implementation-.

I hate bad software patents as much as the next guy, and that's why I took it upon myself to get educated on the process and language; and that's why I -read- these patents.

Their patent covers a phone-home architecutre that:

. detects the failure (via exception handling)
. locates the source of the failure
. -asks the user if they want to allow phone home-
. phones home to a repository (if allowed)
. looks up the failure in the repository to determine if there is any request for additional information to gather for that particular type of failure (or by particular application that failed)
. gathers the requested additional information from the failed machine
. transmits all the desired information to the repository.
. searches the repository for any existing fix for the problem
. transmitting the fix to the failed machine and applying it
. if no preexisting instance of the failure exists, creating a new instance

further, the repository can be local or remote, as specified in a setting located on the client machine.

If IBM's system has done all this prior to microsoft's - then fine, it's prior art. But in my experience, that is well beyond the capabilities of IBM's 'phone home' system.

If you make a phone home system, so long as you don't -exactly- copy their implementation it's fine.

If you even didn't offer the user a choice to phone home, that would be enough of a deviation from their patent to protect you. Their patent is that narrow.

It's that easy to work around it. They're just protecting themselves from direct copycatting as a matter of routine.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"

Re:Did anyone even -read- the patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:31 · Score: 0, Funny

This is Slashdot. Since when do people read articles and let facts stand in the way of good ole' Microsoft bashing?
Re:Did anyone even -read- the patent? by VargrX · 2003-10-02 01:58 · Score: 4, Informative

So sayeth Weasel:

Their patent covers a phone-home architecutre that:

. detects the failure (via exception handling)
. locates the source of the failure
. -asks the user if they want to allow phone home-
. phones home to a repository (if allowed)
. looks up the failure in the repository to determine if there is any request for additional information to gather for that particular type of failure (or by particular application that failed)
. gathers the requested additional information from the failed machine
. transmits all the desired information to the repository.
. searches the repository for any existing fix for the problem
. transmitting the fix to the failed machine and applying it
. if no preexisting instance of the failure exists, creating a new instance

further, the repository can be local or remote, as specified in a setting located on the client machine.

Gnome, and Gnome based, apps have been doing this when they crash for quite some time now. They offer the enduser the choice of submitting the PR for the crash (which can be either local, or remote, depending on installation configuration), or checking out the gnomeapp crash page (which, again, can be local or remote, depending on the config).

It's that easy to work around it. They're just protecting themselves from direct copycatting as a matter of routine.

I've often wondered just who Microsoft is copy-catting for this.....

--
Sometimes people just have to learn and adapt to change, it is one of the requirements of being a living thing.
Re:Did anyone even -read- the patent? by rve · 2003-10-02 02:01 · Score: 1

IBM's 'phone home' system is actually pretty cool. More often than not, if there is a problem with the hardware, the first time you notice is when you get a phonecall from an IBM technician, telling you your machine called them to report a failure with this and that component, and what time it will suit you for them to come and replace the component.

Gathering all the additional information doesn't seem that useful for this system, as IBM will have all this info in their database, all they need is the serial number.
Re:Did anyone even -read- the patent? by infolib · 2003-10-02 02:04 · Score: 1

I hate bad software patents as much as the next guy, and that's why I took it upon myself to get educated on the process and language; and that's why I -read- these patents.

Good job. I think this is one of the bad ones:
The idea is very simple. Prior art or not, it ought to be unpatentable for "lack of inventive step". (In a sensible patent system, that is).

The actual coding is a matter of much perspiration and should be protected. That's what copyright is for. I think the US should follow the lead of the recent decision of the European Parliament and limit patentability.

--
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Re:Did anyone even -read- the patent? by *weasel · 2003-10-02 02:46 · Score: 1

I'm not up on my gnome utils - but if it predated MS' phone home implementation (first released with XP i believe, though possibly in some distros of 2k server) then it woudl indeed be prior art.

remember, this patent -only- covers the exact steps listed. So if another phone-home app didn't host fixes in their repository, or didn't allow automatic install of those fixes, or didn't check the repository for requested additional info then it is not at all affected.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:Did anyone even -read- the patent? by *weasel · 2003-10-02 02:59 · Score: 1

I tend to disagree that there is no inventive step in their process.

I think the idea that the repository potentially holds additional instructions to request further diagnostic information is a suitably inventive step. Eg A request to record particular data locations not generally gathered for every crash, but requested for a particular app/platform/exception type.

I don't think that step is immediately obvious, and it definitely increases the effectiveness of the system. The fact that IBM has had a phone-home system for decades and never implemented such a feature should be demonstrative of the non-obviousness.

Furthermore, their copious documentation of existing systems is definitely on the up and up, and I don't see how they would be able to leverage this patent in an anticompetitive fashion.

Other companies are free to have automated phone-home systems, even systems that automatically download patches. So long as their particular process isn't step by step identical to this one.

Of course I'm not trying to 'convince' anyone - I'm just stating my opinion. I can be, have been, and doubtlessly will again - be wrong.

The original post was primarily in response to the inane 'prior art' posts that weren't even dealing with the issue and get mindlessly slammed en masse on any patent article thread.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:Did anyone even -read- the patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 07:35 · Score: 0

Has Gnome done this prior to the filing date of May 15, 2003?
Re:Did anyone even -read- the patent? by danme · 2003-10-02 12:52 · Score: 1

Since GNOME 1.0 or at least 1.4 if I remember correctly, so yes.

Re:No wonder Einstein left the USPTO by Walrus99 · 2003-10-02 01:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

From Einstein's Bio:
Then Grossmann's father tried to help Einstein get a job by recommending him to the director of the patent office in Bern. Einstein was appointed as a technical expert third class.

Einstein worked in this patent office from 1902 to 1909, holding a temporary post when he was first appointed, but by 1904 the position was made permanent and in 1906 he was promoted to technical expert second class. While in the Bern patent office he completed an astonishing range of theoretical physics publications, written in his spare time without the benefit of close contact with scientific literature or colleagues.

EMC by sboss · 2003-10-02 01:30 · Score: 1

EMC has had this "dial home" feature on their disk unit forever. That is one of the long term selling points, is that if there is a problem or possible problem, it dials home, and the support center will dial into the disk unit and check it out. And if there is a hardware problem, they will dispatch a hardware technician right to you. You dont have to call them, they call themselves.

Plus Mainframes have done that for years and years and years. I think this one will be shot down.

--
Scott
janitor
sdn website family
email: scott at sboss dot net

that's funny by Ender+Ryan · 2003-10-02 01:32 · Score: 2, Funny

About 6 years ago, my company had some WinNT webservers. The fucking things always crashed, got DoS'ed, etc. Anyway, I wrote a little monitoring script that would ping and grab a document from the webserver every 5 minutes to make sure it was still running. When it crashed, and it did often, it would pick up the modem and dial my house, my boss's house, and my coworkers house. It did that so damn often that my boss told me to take his number off the dial list.

Anyway, I didn't read the patent yet, but does it have something to do with reducing the annoyance of phoning home everytime one of their shit products fails?

Now that would be spectacular, and something worth patenting.

We don't use windows on servers anymore...

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden

I have been thinking .... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:35 · Score: 0

all these obvious patents being granted by USPTO is useful in one way. Since patents are territorial, nobody will be able to get a patent on such obvious inventions in countries other than US. For example, the first place , where the indian patent officers would check for prior art is the US patents databse. So, unless US is able to somehow convince other countries to accept patents granted in US, these stupid patent policies will be hurting only the US , and will be actually good for other countries ..

Ban Software Patents altogether! by brlewis · 2003-10-02 01:37 · Score: 1

I share the US Supreme Court's opinion that software is not statuatory material for a patent, that all pure-software patents are invalid, and that patents on systems that include software must have novel invention outside the software portion of the system. The justices and I agree that patenting software is equivalent to patenting mathematical algorithms, which is explicitly not allowed.

Re:Ban Software Patents altogether! by IPMinder · 2003-10-03 08:36 · Score: 1

Um, if you're referring to the Benson case, that's old law that has since been changed. The last time the Supreme Court addressed software, they indicated that computer algorithms MAY be patentable. Subsequent rulings from the Federal Circuit (the court that effectively rules on all patent appeals) expressly indicated in State Street Bank that most algorithmic processes (i.e. software) were statutory patentable matter.
Re:Ban Software Patents altogether! by brlewis · 2003-10-06 01:01 · Score: 1

No, I'm referring to Diamond v. Diehr, which reiterated the points made in Benson and previous rulings. I'm aware that the Federal Circuit thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court rulings.

The only distinguishing point in Diehr was that having software (or other non-patentable material) as part of a system does not make the system as a whole non-patentable. You just need novelty in the non-software portion of the system. Also note that a whole section of the opinion was devoted to make sure people didn't try to use "an exercise in drafting" to make a software patent into a non-software patent.

Did the poster read the claim ? by MosesJones · 2003-10-02 01:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

And did anyone notice the references... that REFERENCE the IBM patents from 1983 that are used on the mainframes. Microsoft have "refined" the IBM patent and thus created their own patent that refers to but is not identical to the IBM one.

So who ever made the IBM mainframe comment didn't get very far in reviewing the application... its the first bloody reference on the page.

IBM already hold the base patent here, so the objective here is to avoid being sued by IBM by getting your own patent. The real question is what is new here.

And this

16. The system of claim 15, wherein the repository is a remote server and wherein the failure reporting executable communicates with the remote server using a web browser program module residing on the user's computer.

Could be it. IBM don't specify a web browser. But is this REALLY enough for a brand new patent ?

And should everyone be paying cash to IBM to do this anyway ?

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

Re:Did the poster read the claim ? by Joe+Decker · 2003-10-02 04:03 · Score: 1

Actually, if the IBM patent is cited, the examiner saw it, and every claim, including claim 1 (the broadest), was likely determined to be different than IBM's practice.

--
I'm a nature photographer.

USPTO patent review mailing list? by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-10-02 01:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is there a USPTO mailing list for new patent application review (better yet for software patent review) prior to the granting? I would love to get on that list.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain

There is NO prior art cited by Microsoft. by harriet+nyborg · 2003-10-02 01:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

So this patent is perfectly valid..

Yeah, sure.

The patent includes a list of the prior art which was considered by the examiner during prosecution.

Here is the list from the patent:

U.S. Patent Documents 5193178 Mar., 1993 Chillarege et al. 714/25
5790780 Aug., 1998 Brichta et al. 714/46
5928369 Jul., 1999 Keyser et al. 714/47
5944839 Aug., 1999 Isenberg 714/26
5948112 Sep., 1999 Shimada et al. 714/16
5974568 Oct., 1999 McQueen 714/38
6029258 Feb., 2000 Ahmad 714/46
6357019 Mar., 2002 Blaisdell et al. 714/38
6381711 Apr., 2002 Chiang et al. 714/48
6412082 Jun., 2002 Matsuura 714/38

Just 10 prior art documents. All US patents.

Often, when only US patent documents are cited, it is the examiner who has done the searching.

What probably happened here is the attorneys at Merchant & Gould filed an application with even broader claims and NO prior art. The examiner searched the original claims and found enough prior art for a rejection. After some amendments (and some more searching) the examiner could no longer quickly find material on which to base her rejection and she was BY LAW obligated to issue the patent.

I would challenge the validity of this patent simply by the appearance of a lack of disclosure from Microsoft. There is not one technical journal, not one product description, no one non-US patent document cited by the world's largest software company considered to be "material" to the examination of this application. This is on its face not credible.

Examiners usually do a pretty good job when they have the most relevant prior art in front of them. Lack of prior art for software at the USPTO is one of the principal problems facing the USPTO.

When the world's largest software company apparently does NOTHING to aid and assist the government's examination of its applications for patent, this is not good faith. This is abuse.

prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 01:43 · Score: 0

Well I know on Tru64/Digital UNIX there is DECEvent/DSNLink which does the same thing. And then on the Windows side I can think of the Mozilla Quality Feedback Agent.

Whew! by roystgnr · 2003-10-02 01:46 · Score: 1

But the key thing is that Netscape's error reporting only occurred in the case of a fatal crash, whereas Microsoft's patent covers non-fatal program failures as well.

Well, then it's a good thing they patented that difference so that the rest of us could figure out how to do it, isn't it? Can I patent a version that covers periodic status reports, too?

New EU patent law will stop all this!! by david1234 · 2003-10-02 01:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

On September 24, the European Parliament gave its initial approval to a 'Directive' on the 'Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions'. Before it did, however, it threw in loads of amendments, some of which were aimed at stopping these US practice of patenting 'business methods and software'. You can read more on e4engineering here.

The new prior art search by Drathos · 2003-10-02 01:48 · Score: 1

Maybe prior art searches will improve once the USPTO moves into the new two million square foot USPTO campus, which includes five interconnected buildings, a twelve-story atrium, a landscaped two-acre park, and a museum.

I can see it now:

"Another patent application. Time to stroll through the park to the museum to see if there's any prior art. I love this job.."

--
End of line..

Don't you get it? by fetus · 2003-10-02 01:48 · Score: 1

They don't really care about prior art when you slip a million dollar bill in with your patent application.

Xerox copiers by gr8_phk · 2003-10-02 02:00 · Score: 1

Don't Xerox copiers phone home when they need service? Or is that different than phoning home "over the internet" because your product "experienced errors"?

Re:Xerox copiers by embeddedcynic · 2003-10-02 03:20 · Score: 1

Yes, Xerox products have had an internet-remote diagnostic and troubleshooting/custom assistance system for a number of years now.

Another MS patent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 02:00 · Score: 0

Decentralized stress testing of mail servers using self replicating programs.

Ummm...I think EMC has a patent on this already by haplo21112 · 2003-10-02 02:01 · Score: 1

Their Symmetrix Products phone home, when their is a fault on the box, in hardware, firmware, or software I believe. They recently enhanced it in partnership with oracle I believe to cause the box to phone home to Oracle if something goes wrong with the Oracle databases hosted on the box.

--
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.

Re:The world's gone mad by Ian+Wolf · 2003-10-02 02:02 · Score: 1

One BIG problem here. This type of case doesn't always go to a jury. Often you will have to submit a motion for a jury trial and without a lawyer, good luck on getting one.

Also, ignoring a summons, C&D, and settlement offer usually pisses off the judges. They tend to frown heavily on people who refuse to negotiate, it demonstrates bad faith.

(IANALBIWAP) I am not a lawyer, but I was a paralegal and that is the worst legal advice I have ever seen. Then again anyone who takes legal advice on Slashdot deserves what they get.

--
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."

The patent office will rarely get involved in disp by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 02:20 · Score: 1, Informative

PTO rarely gets involved because there are rarely any requests for re-examination (I think only a handful so far this year).

Legislation was passed last year to encourage more non litigation challenges to existing patents. Here is an informative piece detailing what more needs to be done.

USPTO management by Windscion · 2003-10-02 02:25 · Score: 1

"Maybe prior art searches will improve once the USPTO moves into the new two million square foot USPTO campus ..." Maybe prior art searches will improve when the management of the USPTO gets their heads out of their collective recta and grant examiners non-production time to generate keyword cross references which might actually make computer searches useful. And when the contractors in the filing room start filing stuff in the general vicinity of where it belongs. And when new employees are given training to do their jobs. And when the examiners can get on the network to do searches. And when foreign patent databases are searchable (a friend works @ the USPTO and he says because the japanese patents are no longer translated, in a couple of years HALF of the patents he grants will be invalid!) "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

Let's Slashdot-Effect Congress! by ThosLives · 2003-10-02 02:27 · Score: 1

Okay, okay, we all read more and more of these dumb-ass patent approvals daily. I say we somehow form a movement to beat at our congressmens' doors and cry for reform. Sure, we may not be big business, but we're citizens of this country, and we should have a say in a democrazy (misspelling intentional).

Patents for using lasers to get felines to run around? Patents for pressing a button to buy something? Patents for pay subscriptions through the mail? Patents for an automated problem-solving process? Good lord, whereas patents were originally instituted to help the small inventor, now all they do is help Big Business!

Personally I'm sick of it, and I'm even willing to put some reasonable thought, time, and effort into developing a proposal for a solution rather than just ranting about it. Who's with me, and how do we get started!?

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)

Windows XP Activation.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 02:34 · Score: 0

Surely covers this anyway!

You have installed windows. MS knows about it. Windows will crash anyway. MS knows that.

And ...

If Windows phones home a problem will MS get on the phone to you and try and solve it? Probably but they'd reverse the premium rate charges first. :-D

Digital Had It Then by mwood · 2003-10-02 02:39 · Score: 1

The support package that came with the VAX 9000 included Symptom Directed Diagnosis daemons that would automatically call Field Service when a component was about to blow. You might not know anything was amiss until FS called to schedule installation of the replacement. Now, this was automatic failure reporting for hardware, rather than software, but I don't see any essential difference in the phone-home idea. (Mmmm, VAXsim, SPEAR, it all comes back to me now....)

And then there's the TalkBack stuff that's been in Netscape/Mozilla for aeons....

Re:Digital Had It Then by superchkn · 2003-10-02 04:14 · Score: 1

And then there's the TalkBack stuff that's been in Netscape/Mozilla for aeons....
They actually mention that in the patent and claim that Microsoft has no idea what data is sent with that. They also go on to say that what they are patenting is not a system for diagnosing fatal errors such as when netscape crashes, but rather non-fatal errors.

So, anyone ever had Windows report an error that may be causing problems (besides the compatibility warnings which aren't the same thing)?
Re:Digital Had It Then by dubstop · 2003-10-02 04:41 · Score: 1

And then there's the TalkBack stuff that's been in Netscape/Mozilla for aeons....
They actually mention that in the patent and claim that Microsoft has no idea what data is sent with that.

ICBATRTP (I Can't Be Arsed To Read The Patent), but how can they can they claim that they have no idea what data is sent from an open-source application?
Re:Digital Had It Then by superchkn · 2003-10-02 05:25 · Score: 1

Don't ask me, MS hardly makes more sense than SCO ;-)

Someone mentioned it could be the easiest patent ever to read, so I looked. That very well may be but does it really need 30 pages of info (perhaps not that long...)? Anyway, I didn't read the entire patent. I got bored after the third paragraph and started skimming.

IIRC the talkback part is closed, which is probably why I'm not seeing it in the Mozilla which I compiled. Still, I thought it gave one an indication on what was being sent to netscape when one clicks to get more information. I would think someone there at MS would be able to identify the crash data...but that might hurt their patent filing so now they have no idea what it does. It's a mystery...a magic piece of software. But then again, MS probably does believe in that -- at least my version of XP magically renders blue screens at the most inopportune times. That usually makes files magically disappear too.

Prior Art Part XXXV by Ex+Machina · 2003-10-02 02:42 · Score: 1

SGI's Embedded Support Partner:

SGI(R) Embedded Support Partner (ESP) is a problem-detection and solution-generating software program that's built into the IRIX(R) operating system. This program monitors SGI machines to detect conditions that suggest potential system problems and notifies you if something is amiss. In the event a problem is discovered, ESP alerts both SGI and you, via the notification method you prefer (plain text or encrypted e-mail, pager, or console message). ESP can monitor a single system or group of systems for a variety of situations, including: * Unusual environmental conditions * Potential software and hardware failures * Performance metrics * Availability of systems * Configuration changes to the parts level You can also generate metrics reports in a standard report format. Learn how proactive support can save you money, time, and trouble in the ESP service brief (PDF 128K). The activation process for ESP and auto-call logging is easy. To quickly register and initiate the program, you should first access the most up-to-date steps for activation, available on Supportfolio.

New building = relocating the problem by bs_02_06_02 · 2003-10-02 02:54 · Score: 1

If the anyone says that the new building will make all the difference in the world, then we need to re-examine all patents awarded during their stay in the old building.

Moving into a new "campus" will improve the USPTO? I doubt it. Moving the employees into new digs makes them more comfortable, it doesn't improve the process.

If we moved the Senate into a brand new building, would the Senate do a better job? Doubt it. If anything, the new building would probably distract them and slow the system down.

The problem here is that the USPTO is probably dealing with a boatload of attorneys, camped out at their front door for years at a time. These lawyers nit-pick and research. They argue w/ the USPTO for years. Eventually, the USPTO just awards the patent and lets the court systems try to sort it out.

Moral of the story? He who has the biggest and baddest attorney wins.

--
-- No sig for you!

Dang... by berklee · 2003-10-02 02:58 · Score: 1

Somewhere, Jeff Bezos from Amazon is saying... 'Damn, why didn't I think of that?'

--
As a child, I was very young.

OT: Online Poll about Dumping Microsoft by nutznboltz · 2003-10-02 02:59 · Score: 1

http://www.internetweek.com/question03/DumpMicroso ft.jhtml?_DARGS=/GLOBAL/apps/quickPolls/showQuesti onPoll.jhtml

Automatic Updates by SirChris · 2003-10-02 03:00 · Score: 1

Imagine how wealthy I'd be if I patented automatic updates. Has anyone done that yet?

Prior art used in preliminary searches by -stax · 2003-10-02 03:05 · Score: 1

Funny, this Patent application went in May 15, 2000. The USPTO had not yet switched OFF of their IBM mainframe at the time, and in fact it was most likely regularly calling home to report enviornmental data, and failures.

PTO Was a big IBM customer, but dropped the mainframe for a 'cheaper' solution from HP. IBM even offered to let PTO use it's patent searching system, but PTO declined.

An organization can afford to do that when they are the only agency to put money BACK into the treasury.

EAST and WEST (Thick and thin client patent search applications respectivly) now run on a couple of V-Classes for the databases and some K's for the web servers.

Re:Prior art used in preliminary searches by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 03:09 · Score: 0

As a previous poster mentioned, the EMC boxen also phone home. Good thing PTO is also a major customer of theirs.

Re:The world's gone mad by footNipple · 2003-10-02 03:10 · Score: 1

(IANALBIWAP) I am not a lawyer, but I was a paralegal and that is the worst legal advice I have ever seen. Then again anyone who takes legal advice on Slashdot deserves what they get.

You showoff ;-) The parent was a "human interest" post.

Regarding the new USPTO campus by ausoleil · 2003-10-02 03:11 · Score: 1

There's an old saying that applies here:

"You can dress a pig up in a miniskirt and high heels but would you want to take it to the dance on Saturday night?"

In other words, same organization, same (bad) methodology, same stupid patents that not only stifle innovation, they also tie up the court system having to prove them wrong.

It will take a complete overhaul of USPTO to straighten this out. Too many patents with years of obvious prior art have been and will be granted.

What's next? Microsoft patenting their TCP/IP stack?

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by AJWM · 2003-10-02 03:19 · Score: 1

Blue is too peaceful. RED scares the crap out of end users.

Which is exactly why MS's SODs are blue. Do you think Redmond wants to put up with the calls they'd get and the general aversion to the product with red screens? (As if blue weren't bad enough.)

--
-- Alastair

I worked on this one in 1982. by www.sorehands.com · 2003-10-02 03:21 · Score: 1

In 1982 I worked on a project called ARVIS, which stood for Adams Russell Video Information System. This was a automoted remote cable TV commercial insertion system which had two parts, the remote and the base station. The remote sat at the cable headend and inserted the commercials into the cable tv streams, and if there was a failure, it would automatically call the base station and send the failure information. When I say call, I really do mean call using a Hayes Micromodem II.

--
Fight Spammers!

Re:I worked on this one in 1982. by crucini · 2003-10-02 04:35 · Score: 1

Did you read the patent? Read Claim 1. It claims an innovation that you did not describe as part of ARVIS.
Re:I worked on this one in 1982. by www.sorehands.com · 2003-10-02 06:10 · Score: 1

No, it claims a superset of what I described. The first three paragraphs match.

The other steps are obvious to anyone in the field.

--
Fight Spammers!
Re:I worked on this one in 1982. by crucini · 2003-10-02 10:37 · Score: 1

It's normal for a patent claim to be a superset of prior art. You are not infringing the patent unless you perform the process described in one of the claims. Performing part of the process doesn't count.

As for the obviousness, I'd like to believe that, but why isn't any free software doing this? In 20 years nobody implemented this obvious improvement?

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 03:24 · Score: 0

Wouldn't you try to patent your core business model?

The biggest problem with the PTO is consistency by gearmonger · 2003-10-02 03:26 · Score: 1

As someone who has gone through a lengthy, and ultimately unsuccessful, trademark application process, I don't understand how something as obvious as this gets approved. When I was trying to obtain a service mark, the reviewing clerk denied my claim by coming up with several really thinly linked prior trademarks. None of them were anything even close to the services I provided, and the naming elements were all rather generic. My guess is that if I had gotten a different clerk, the outcome would have been quite different. Amazing how poorly managed and regulated the most important governmental functions are. Sad, too.

EMC may not have a patent but it's still prior art by Mouth+of+Sauron · 2003-10-02 03:29 · Score: 1

Their Symmetrix has done this for what, ten years? Even their Clariion and CX lines have this capability. It was kind of funny. I would come in to work and there would be a couple of EMC guys there already waiting at my cubicle.

Windows Activation by stinkydog · 2003-10-02 03:32 · Score: 1

I thought Microsoft had already patented Windows activation. Why the duplicate patent?

SD

--
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â

Illegal by picardsb · 2003-10-02 03:42 · Score: 1

Dear PTO,
We wanna apply for a patent for the processes below.

1. popup showing
"This program has caused an illegal operation"
where;
program = anything which is not MS windows, illegal = anything desinged better than ms windows handling capacity
operation = any form of useful process the user wants

2. next line showing
"at address XXXX5432XXXX"
which is not a street address of a b-movie theatre.

3. blue screen comes up (trademark already in place for this)

4. as win starts next time (if at all) it will figure out if Netscape / IE caused the error. If it was IE, then it's the error caused by Netscape trying to alter IE settings. Information about what port Netscape was using will be sent to MS.

4. MS now has the right to stop illegal Netscape from accessing the ports.

he he he :one-poly. 'clever pls people translate'

words : legal evsdropping, remote screw-up, more cherries for insects

PTO; what a great idea! patent for ms!

Read the claims by originalhack · 2003-10-02 03:43 · Score: 2, Funny

This patent only covers a system where the client reports failures, checks to see if the failure is a duplicate, then follows server-based instructions to see if someone at Microsoft want's the user's bank account information before sending it.

All they needed... by Datoyminaytah · 2003-10-02 03:51 · Score: 1

> Maybe prior art searches will improve once the
> USPTO moves into the new two million square
> foot USPTO campus, which includes five
> interconnected buildings, a twelve-story
> atrium, a landscaped two-acre park, and a
> museum.

What a waste of money. All they needed was the museum. (pa-dump CHING)

--
assert(birth_date<time-86400)

prior art by Aidtopia · 2003-10-02 04:00 · Score: 1

Those solar-powered cell-based emergency call boxes along the highway automatically call for help when they are knocked over.

You must admit, though, that this patent is certainly one of the most readable ones you've ever seen.

I Have Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 04:02 · Score: 0

I led a team that introduced a "phone home" email into a Java application three years ago. When an unexpected exception occurred, the application automatically emailed the support address with a stack trace. The application is still in use and we have a CVS repository showing the introduction of the feature and its date.

If anybody wants to talk to me about it, I can be reached at jshore at titanium-it dot com.

Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 04:03 · Score: 0

Don't EMC devices already do this?

shell script prior art by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · 2003-10-02 04:13 · Score: 1

I'm sure I have done this in a shell script once...

... 2> error.txt
cat error.txt | mail -s "script error" bill@microsoft.com

It extract information about a program failure (even non fatal), and establishes contact with a repository (my mailbox)
prior art?

If I'd only thought to patent that, I could have been rich, I tell you! RICH!

--
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush

Re:shell script prior art by pe1chl · 2003-10-02 07:10 · Score: 1

You should have read the claims of the patent and you would have found that it does not describe a system like that.

a good idea is a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 04:18 · Score: 0

Error reporting with diagnosis is clearly a good idea.

The web browser was a good idea. It was a better idea that no one was able to patent it.

Re:There is additional prior art by davecb · 2003-10-02 04:19 · Score: 1

Honeywell CP-6 included diagnosis, local remediation and replacement-part dispatch.

--dave

--
davecb@spamcop.net

Read The Fine Patent by crucini · 2003-10-02 04:21 · Score: 3, Informative

The specific innovation in this patent is that after the client "phones home", the server can request additional data. I didn't see that in a cursory scan of the linked IBM paper.

As usual, slashdot is making a patent sound broader than it is.

Re:Errors today.... by symbolic · 2003-10-02 04:29 · Score: 1

What tomorrow? I see this a way to get justify getting their foot in the "report everything back to the mothership" door. The problem is that once any kind of data stream is established from a user's computer to a third party, the user usually has no idea what's being sent, and where it's going, or what/how it's being used.

As a matter of principle, I never use the reporting feature in Mozilla. However, if I should happen to slip up and submit something, I'd be a lot less worried about it than if I slipped and sent something back to Microsoft.

Caveman and rocks by crucini · 2003-10-02 04:30 · Score: 1

We need a new moderation "-100 Just doesn't understand."

That moderation would apply almost every time slashdotters comment on the adult world. Law, politics and finance are three areas that come to mind.

IBM the good guy? by Yankovic · 2003-10-02 04:38 · Score: 1

IBM routinely gets more patents every year than any other company. Please consider for a minute that IBM knows how to take care of itself in the patent arena and if they felt like there was prior art, they'd know who to call at the USPTO.

PDP 1170's by Archfeld · 2003-10-02 04:47 · Score: 1

using manual dialers phoned home when a circuit downed, and this was in the 80's...The patent office is once again woefully uninformed and M$ are once again shown as the greedy, short-sighted, corporate morons they really are. Not that this condition is IN ANY WAY isolated to just M$. The corporation I slave for is run with much the same stagnant, close minded idiotic mentality. I swear they have to remove more than half of upper managements brains on the sly after they appoint them....

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

the NeXT Machine also had one of these in the 80s by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 04:55 · Score: 0

what I said !

They may just be covering themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 05:08 · Score: 0

given the plugin fiasco.

Copy machines have done this for years by Halo- · 2003-10-02 05:21 · Score: 1

When I was in high school (at least 9 years ago) my dad's office got a copier which required a phone line. No one knew why till the techs started magically showing up to fix things.

Maybe prior art searches will improve ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 05:22 · Score: 0

Somehow I doubt that ..

It's nice to dream, but if they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery (especially when the beer is supplied for free) I somehow doubt the size of the brewery will make any difference whatsoever!

Re:Method and system for reporting a program failu by rifter · 2003-10-02 05:29 · Score: 1

"Blue is too peaceful. RED scares the crap out of end users."

Which is exactly why MS's SODs are blue. Do you think Redmond wants to put up with the calls they'd get and the general aversion to the product with red screens? (As if blue weren't bad enough.)

I also think it is the biggest marketing mistake Microsoft ever made. Think about it. Every WinNT and Win2k box boots to a blue screen normally. The BSOD is blue as well, leading the user to think blue screens are normal on Windows. I have even taken calls from customers who had no idea there was an error on the screen because it was blue. They would call and say "My server is hung at that blue screen it starts up with...."

Then again, the idea that blue screens are normal on Windows is not so bad because it is true ;).

PLEASE MOD PARENT FURTHER UP by valmont · 2003-10-02 05:30 · Score: 1

good stuff. i'd replace 5*x with 100 or 1000*x

--
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices

Why patents are good in some cases by Bull999999 · 2003-10-02 05:37 · Score: 1

Greedy companies (i.e. MS) will waste money to patent obviously simple ideas just to have it made worthless in court via vest prior arts. Think of it was an extra tax for greedy corporations.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d

Clarification by Max+Romantschuk · 2003-10-02 05:38 · Score: 1

A lot of people seems to have objected to my thoughts. I realize the abstract is not the same as the patent, but I still feel that the abstract should be crafted with care to avoid generalizing too much.

Then again I don't know the inner workings of the patent system, and this may actually be the desired effect!

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/

Ancient 1970s technology by bani · 2003-10-02 05:43 · Score: 1

HP has been doing exactly this (except claim 16,17) since the 1970s.

Nice prior art...

They're patenting software failure _reporting_? by Fratz · 2003-10-02 05:44 · Score: 1

Why don't they patent software failure itself? That way, any time non-Microsoft software caused Windows to crash, the software vendor would have to pay a royalty fee.

--
-- Fratz, human

Filed on May 15, 2000? After Mozilla talkback... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 05:51 · Score: 0

Mozilla's been doing that since before then, hasn't it?

This I found on their milestone document:
03/04/2000 - First Look at top M14 Talkback data

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/milest on es/progress-2-beta.html

prior art by zerosignull · 2003-10-02 06:35 · Score: 1

ic the american patent office is firing on all cylenders: http://www.mozilla.org/quality/qfa.html Quality Feedback Agent Quality Feedback Agent is a small piece of software embedded in Mozilla that gathers data about what is happening in Mozilla when it crashes. Such information helps Mozilla developers to quickly isolate the cause of a crash and then correct it. Reporting crash data is one of many ways in which users can help improve the quality of the software. Participation is not required but highly recommanded. Why is crash data sent to Netscape? Quality Feedback Agent is a commerical program licensed to Netscape by Full Circle Software. Because it is not a public license program, mozilla.org has to rely on Netscape's service to collect crash report. The software is not a spyware. Quality Feedback Agent does not monitor your computer use; it is activated only when Mozilla crashes. Information collected is limited to information about the state of Mozilla when it crashes. Sensitive data, such as passwords, Web sites visited, and e-mail addresses will not be collected. Full Circle Software is not affiliated to AOL or Netscape. god knows how long this type of system has been in mozilla

The Importance of Patents by itsybitsy · 2003-10-02 06:40 · Score: 1

Cellular Nano Research, Inc. just received a patent on the automatic contraction and relaxation of a clump of cells divided into four chambers and interconnected with an oxygenation system of two inflatable bags, contained within a calcium framed structural scaffolding, and permeated by a dense network of fluid carrying tubes which in turn is connected to a distribution and collection network that spreads throughout a animated celluar hydrogen-carbon based atomic nanotechnology device driven by a twin object copier, using a base four information technology, within each nanotechnology unit.

Cellular Nano is hopeful that the global market will be able to sustain royalties of USD$0.01 per 1000 contraction/relaxation cycles, and USD$0.001 per replication using their base four object copier.

This is a ground breaking technology and patents will allow the full exploitation of the masses by the company. The granting of this patent demonstrates the effectiveness of the USPTO. ;--)

The Zen Point of view by axis-techno-geek · 2003-10-02 06:55 · Score: 2, Funny

If Windows phoned home, and nobody answered, did the error really occur?

In other news, after the release of Windows XP service pack 947, Microsoft has suffered a complete DDOS attack as every Windows XP based computer in the world tried submitting a bug report at the same time.

--
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick

Patent office's role by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 07:01 · Score: 0

The patent offices role is to register patents and make them available to the public in an easily accessible and indexed way. Also all details shall be available. The reason patents exist is that the goverment and lawmakers are making a trade with the businesses and individuals applying for a patent : "if you make your drawings available for the public to look at and use (for a fee) instead of keeping them trade secrets, we will make a set of laws that will enable you to protect your patents if you sue. "

Jefferson rolling in his grave.. by Ogerman · 2003-10-02 07:06 · Score: 1

Maybe prior art searches will improve once the USPTO moves into the new two million square foot USPTO campus, which includes five interconnected buildings, a twelve-story atrium, a landscaped two-acre park, and a museum.

Many years ago, Thomas Jefferson supposedly kept the US patent records in a shoebox under his bed. In those days, patents were actually examined with great scrutiny.. sometimes even to the point of testing inventions to see if they really worked as advertised. Nowadays, they're mostly rubber-stamped by government employees who don't give a damn and it takes a 2 million sq. ft. campus to contain this monstrous bureaucracy. Time for an overhaul it would seem...

http://earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/jeffer so n.html

Prior Art? by ThisIsFred · 2003-10-02 07:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Haven't Netscape and Real Player been done this for several years now?

--
Fred

"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS

APPLY FOR USPTO JOBS HERE by BasharTeg · 2003-10-02 07:35 · Score: 1

Job Listing

Worse Than Telemarketers by Psychotic_Wrath · 2003-10-02 07:48 · Score: 0

Is there a 800 number I can call to not get called every single time windows crashes?

--

Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?

Already there? by dghcasp · 2003-10-02 08:07 · Score: 1

Network Appliance file servers (www.netapp.com) have had this since, oh, at least 1998 or so. Whenever one crashes, it emails the crash summary and core file to Netapp support, and you semi-magically receive an email telling you that (a) you need to download a patch or (b) new hardware has already been shipped.

I don't know the internals, as my experience was as a satisfied customer, but this sounds awful similar.

Increased Productivity? by DJ-Dodger · 2003-10-02 08:45 · Score: 1

Increased efficiency at the new USPTO location? Not with all 22 screens of AMC Hoffman Center just down the street.

patent info by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 10:14 · Score: 0

the IBM stuff doesn't do the same stuff as what the ms patent talks about.

In the immitated voice of Eric Cartman by TPFH · 2003-10-02 10:42 · Score: 1

Stupid Patents piss me off!
If I see Bill Gates I'm gonna kick him in the NUTS!

(Are SP jokes retro yet?)

--
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you

No, not exactly wasteful... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-02 11:33 · Score: 0

To some extent it is wasteful, yes, but at least it gives me a job.

I will be making a lot of the metal parts that go into the skylights for their new campus. The warehouse out back is stuffed full of material marked USPTO. Probably for 6 months solid we will be working on it.

Is it tax money, or is it money they get from application fees - does anybody know? Personally, I don't care. Me and about 30 other guys get to feed our families because of their "wastefulness". Really, when they spend so many millions, what difference does a few extra thousand make? Compared the what they must spend on salaries, equipment, utilities... it is likely less than pocket change.

I'd rather see them spend the money this way than the strippers and lap dances suggested. (Yes, I know it was a joke.)

ac@work

Re:No, not exactly wasteful... by Feztaa · 2003-10-02 15:16 · Score: 1

I would counter that you would be able to build a different building for some other organization; it's not like you'd starve and die if the USPTO decided not to build this new campus.

obvious improvement? by www.sorehands.com · 2003-10-02 12:29 · Score: 1

Maybe because microsoft is used to having lots of bugs.

Actually, there are a few reasons. I think the first maybe privacy concerns. Two, being freeware, the attitude is that they can dump the debug file into an e-mail. And maybe the third, I don't have a need for it because my code doesn't have bugs.

--
Fight Spammers!

Argus by Kevin+DeGraaf · 2003-10-02 12:47 · Score: 1

Microsoft Patents 'Phone-Home' Failure Reporting

Darn. I just set up Argus to monitor server failure and phone me when it happens. Are the evil monkeys coming for me now?

--
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.

Priort Art? by clyons · 2003-10-02 18:52 · Score: 1

"Phone-Home" technology? I think prior art, in this case, would be E.T.

I think George Lucas gonna be suin' somebody! /Chris Rock

--

--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.

Details on Talkback by TheInternet · 2003-10-02 20:30 · Score: 1

Talkback was created by a company called Full Circle Software. I did some work for them in 1998, and I believe they already had a license agreement with Netscape at that point. The initial work goes back quite a bit further.

More info on Talkback is available here.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas

surprise surprise? by outanowhere · 2003-10-03 02:30 · Score: 1

Now we can patent prior art and things in the public domain! I'm collecting all my stuff I released to public domain right now and get a muckeysaft lawyer and patent them all!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-10-03 04:40 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-10-03 04:42 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Stop the Madness by IPMinder · 2003-10-03 08:59 · Score: 1

First of all, only the CLAIMS define what the scope of patent protection is (see thread below: "did anyone even -read- the patent?" - it's right on point). Whatever you read in the specification, abstract, background, or drawings is only there to support the claims - it doesn't define the scope of protection.

Second, it is very well possible that other products were doing this prior to the filing of the Microsoft patent. The Examiners do not have the practical background to find out which products did what during what time. All they have to work with are the patents and publications that they have available on their search terminals (e.g., EAST, WEST/Derwent, etc.). If they can't find a document that discloses the claimed "invention", they have no choice but to allow the application.

Third, if you or your company are threatened by this application, the USPTO now has mechanisms (Inter-Partes Re-Examination) by which you can directly challenge the validity of the patent. If you have published documents, articles, or any other prior art that was not cited in the patent, you can submit the prior art before the Examiner and order, and actively participate in, a re-examination of the entire patent. You would be surprised to learn of the frequency in which issued patents get invalidated (or at least reduced significantly in scope). This is a relatively new process which (unfortunately) isn't used as often as it should, but it is a cheap and effective way to eliminate problematic patents without resorting to expensive litigation.

BTW, if you are unsuccessful in convincing the Examiner, you can also take your case to the Patent Board of Appeals to make your argument.

The patent laws make sense - you just have to pay attention to how they are applied. It is no different than laws that pertain to taxes, corporations, contracts or even admiralty; people will always try to extend the law to give themselves the greatest benefit. Likewise, if you are being victimized by such a person, the law gives you plenty of avenues to put them in their place (assuming they are wrong).

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Patents 'Phone-Home' Failure Reporting

361 comments