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

I'm sorry, ET...

[Chemisor]

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...

[Feztaa]

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.

Method and system for reporting a program failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Method and system for reporting a program failure

They patented the BSOD?

Here we go again...

[Max Romantschuk]

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.

Netscape Talk Back?

[bjb]

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.

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.

No need

[darkstar949]

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

Contestation period

[Zarhan]

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..

Patent-speak?

[the bluebrain]

• 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 ...

There is NO prior art

[swissmonkey]

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.

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

[mavenguy]

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.

Stratus prior art

[jesup]

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:Method and system for reporting a program failu

[plover]

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 ...

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.

By definition

[Anonymous Coward]

"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 .

There is NO prior art cited by Microsoft.

[harriet nyborg]

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.

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.....