Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
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..
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.
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.
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.