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."
Method and system for reporting a program failure
They patented the BSOD?
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...
However, we all know that Microsoft has no need for error reporting software.
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..
- 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the new entry comprises the location of the location of the failure.
errmmmm/ damn. I think MS is trying a buffer overflow on my brain
yes, we have no bananas
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.
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.
"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 .
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.