Microsoft Patents 'Phone-Home' Failure Reporting

theodp writes "On Tuesday, the USPTO awarded a patent to Microsoft for its Method and system for reporting a program failure, although a much more sophisticated version of this technology has been standard on IBM mainframes for years. 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."

Comments

Re:Netscape Talk Back?

[twocents]

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.

the US PTO is a profit-center, not a regulator

[Speare]

[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]

Re:talkback

[darkpurpleblob]

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:Did anyone even -read- the patent?

[VargrX]

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.....