Slashdot Mirror
MS Patents IM Feature Used Since At Least 1996
splorp! writes "Once again, a company is patenting a feature that another company implemented years before. C|Net's News.com reports that patent no. 6,631,412 grants Microsoft the rights to 'an instant messaging feature that notifies users when the person they are communicating with is typing a message.' Excuse me? Does anyone remember Powwow (now defunct)? I remember using that one back in '96 and it alerted the other people to whom you were chatting that you were typing. Or, alternately, it allowed you to SEE the other people typing in real time. Yeah, Powwow is gone, now, but that doesn't mean those features never existed."
Yahoo had this forever. There's also more coverage here, stating that AOL and Yahoo were not available for comment.
--------
Free your mind.
Where do I buy the rights's to Powwow?
--------
The fake Gzip Christ isn't not user number ~0xA6CA7
How about unix talk? I haven't used it since about 96, but I seem to remember that either the text got sent real-time (which could be considered a notification..) or there was a status change.
Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
Geocrawler error message.
Hey, maybe it's a pre-emptive patent. You know, patent it now so someone with less morals won't screw them over...later...hey, why is everyone laughing at me? :)
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
ICQ had/has this as well, in the direct chat (not im) mode.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
but for all we know powwow is now defunct cause M$ paid them off. :-p
time to found a country without any patent laws
I spent a year working for patent attourneys. What did I learn? If I ever go rogue and start taking out government buildings, the patent office is first on my list.
HO
HO
All my friends were pissed that I enabled the feature to watch someone type in ICQ, and would then call them on things that they were about to type but never hit enter on...
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
it allowed you to SEE the other people typing in real time
ICQ has done that for a while too
Technoli
this page's design proves it must have been there around 1996 :) It looks worse than my first members.aol.com webpage.
Sorry, dude. Looks like Gortbusters.org has prior art.
gee - we had topple on our dec 20s wayyy back in the 70s....
But not practice what you preach evidently...
Are you sure this patent grants them the rights to any implementation, or only their implementation?
Btw, would you need to sue MS in order to get this patent overturned, or could you do something like sue the patent office?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
How about UNIX talk and MUDs? Those have been around for decades.
Check out this site for complete details but to lift a few important parts:
a person is not entitled to a patent if the invention was "known or used by others in this country, or was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country" before the date of invention by the applicant for the patent
But later there is a brief comment:
Naturally, if an inventor abandons the invention, he or she cannot obtain a patent.
And finally in support of M$'s patent, and likely the way they got it:
In a fast-changing world, finding a single piece of prior art which discloses the same invention as that claimed in a patent is not the most likely scenario. What is far more likely to occur is that the prior art will be something similar but not identical to the patented invention. The patent statutes also provide for this situation--in a negative manner. Specifically, section 103 of the code provides that a patent may not be obtained "though the invention is not identically disclosed or described [in the prior art] if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." The test which is posed by this section is whether a worker of ordinary skill, knowing the prior art, would have found the patented invention obvious.
What I find amusing is that it probably took a lot more time filling for this patent than implement the feature.
One must be very creative to describe such a simple feature in so many pages of text!
Another good example why software patents are bad for us. As M$ was sued recently for the use of the parameters, and we will all have to recode our pages that they will work in explorer... the same could happen with this pattent... Even if it's not essential for chatting, it is cool to se how someone on the other side of the world types. It makes the conversation more "human".
2. waste $$$
3. make something unique
4. cease to exist
5. wait
6. sue M$ for prior art patent violations
I'm off to create something for micro$oft to steal from me.
No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.
Does anyone know if the MSN-T Or nextgen-msn-t is actually stable form jabberd yet? The latest one I tried (1.2.8pre10 I think?) segfaulted in the pthread code about every 3-8 minutes.
.. which is described in the original patent filing. Is this stupid or what?
A link to the actual patent might have been nice.
ICQ, at least the Windows client, also notifies that the other user is typing.
As much as we may dislike the MS products, they do have the inate ability to circumvent common knowledge and pass it as their own creation.
When Bill Gates and Steve Jobs co-operated in the late 70s with Novell to create the IPX stack for the Watcom compiler, we knew that this was history in the making.
In our corporation we shun Microsoft products as much as we can. Right now only our mail system, database infrastructure, firewall, web server cluster, browsers, and office suites run with Microsoft. The rest are all third-party products.
Which is nice.
The question shouldn't be, "How can they do this if had it in '96?" It should be, "When did Microsoft apply for this patent?"
Microsoft announced today that it holds a new patent that grants it the rights " an OS feature that allows the user to move a piece of hardware called a Mouse(TM)(R) to control a pointer on the screen and issue commands. "
WARNING: Mouse(TM)(R) is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Seems like write/talk (for us *nix people) also did the same thing. Two systems that I learned a lot of my *nix skills on back "in the day", GREX and M-Net had a version of write that was written by Jan Wolter. The link to his version can be found here
Microsoft is not the first company to pursue a patent over IM. In December 2002, AOL subsidiary ICQ won a patent that claimed rights as the inventor of IM. AOL has not flexed its muscle on the patent, and competitive IM services remain active.
So 2 questions, if AOL has the patent for IM how can MS patent a feature?
If push comes to shove, which patent will trump the other?
Still Mud? Try www.phoenixmud.org!
What about all the real-time unix talk variants? I used them back in '90, '91 and could actually see what the user was typing!
"He treats objects like women, man!"
- The Dude, The Big Lebowski
Enough! I am going to patent every useless thing starting now:
Device for controlling the position of a computer cursor
Method for entering text into a computer by a key matrix.
C'mon gimme more ideas!!!
this post used CAPS LOCK since the shift key is now a DMCA circumvention device...
how long until
If an inventor distributes embodiments of an invention to the public in the United States, the inventor must either have already applied for a U.S. patent, or he loses the patent (35 USC 102(a)). This patent was applied for in December 2002. I remember using a version of MSN Messenger with this feature in 2000.
Will I retire or break 10K?
...where what you were typing actually showed up on the other person's screen? That sounds like notification to me.
+40 roll of "duh"
SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
This is another example of Microsoft's long history of "innovation".
Errrr, couldn't agree more personally.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Powwow never had Clippy tell you the other person was typing.
i know AIM off and on would tell you "your buddy is typing"..... i don't know if it worked with certain versions or is part of another feature or what, but it's been in AIM for some time now too. Not to dismiss the other older ones, but AIM is so huge that they can't ignore it... and it's still in popular use. I don't think it shows up on Adium (for OS X) or other 3rd party apps, but it does for AOL's AIM app.
I could see if they had pioneered some innovative new technology, and wanted a return on their research investment. When you think about the amount of resources that must have legally gone into this, to me it seems to indicate that the company is running out of ideas. I mean, winning the IM wars? If that's even part of your strategy at this point...
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.
Actually I don't remember Yahoo having this until version 5 or 5.5?
I remember it distinctly because my girlfriend's Yahoo wasn't working so we had to default to (ugh) MSN messenger. We liked the Yahoo emoticons better but the only thing I liked about MSN messenger was the message that someone was typing a reply, thinking "wow, I wish Yahoo had that."
-Phil
Shoot questions, first ask later...
Interesting. Maybe you should patent that idea of practicing what you don't preach (before I do) !
Or patent the idea of patenting. I'd call it GARP (GARP's A Recursive Patent)
Never pet a burning dog.
When I first started with modems and the like in 86 or so, every BBS I was on had a "chat w/ sysop" feature... Realtime typing... Though some folks could get ahead of the 300 baud that the was popular at the time.. So this predates my first experiences...
It wouldn't suprprise me if the first computer to computer comminucations were a simple app that just sent whatever was typed to a receieving program on the other end.. ITs certainly one of the first things that I would do...
Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
Can someone who knows better tell me why we have patents these days? From all the expert witness and legalese and resources (money AND skill) to support the patent system you'd think as a nation we could redirect that energy to _making a better mousetrap_ instead of wasting time on protecting old ideas.
There has to be another way of spurring innovation and protecting inventor's ideas without giving all our cash to these faulking lawyers.
Sounds like the VMS phone utility from about 1979. IIRC, phone was a copy of something older from TOPS-20
Powwow is gone, now, but that doesn't mean those features never existed.
Also keep in mind that even though patents are often granted for what is obviously prior art, they can easily be revoked after a suitable demonstration -- in essence, as if the patent never existed. Also, the patent itself is fairly useless unless the owner tries to enforce it. For instance, AOL/ICQ haven't stopped other companies from developing their own IM clients. IMO, this one should be fairly easy to overturn if MS ever decided to try and sue anyone.
Yes, the patent system is horribly flawed, but it's not the end of the world. Yet.
What about TALK? It showed what you were typing when typing it!
What happened is simple. MS copied the program material from the back of an AOL "Free Hours" disk and changed the program just enough to avoid prosecution under the incomprehensible intergalactic intellectual property laws.
Then, a much more wiley project manager dropped a copy of the program through a worm hole that went back in time and, so there by allowing Microsoft the sue for copyright infringement.
Heck I remember having dialup BBS software that had this feature 10 years before MS filed for this.
I used Talk on a VMS Vax machine in '94 and it was
basicly an IM app. Heck the other user could see the letters as you typed them. So unless M$FT started the patent process before Talk was invented I'd say their SOL.
I have no
It should be noted that UNIX talk is specifically talked about in the patent and the advantages of this system over it are mentioned. This does not get around the apparant prior art of POWWOW. Remember that it is the claims of a patent that are important, not the abstract. It appears from quickly looking at the claims, that the broadest requirements are for client A to send a message to client B that client A is typing. Then client B must indicate that client A is typing. Finally, that message is turned off when client A sends another message that it is done typing. The initial typing message must be based upon typing within a predefined period of time.
Any prior art asserted against this patent would need to have been in use on or before July 21, 1998.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
And it's Open Source!
Doesn't unix talk do this -- can't you see the characters as the other person types them.
.plan "away message"
OK, it does -- just tried it between two accounts, and whaddaya know?
I first used talk in 1990 -- I think -- when phonecalls across the Pacific cost an arm and a leg, and any sort of real-time communication over the net seemed just enormously cool.
When Instant Messaging was suddenly the next big thing I had to smile -- talk and finger (back in the day when most sites didn't block finger requests) do much the same thing as an IM system with a central server. Right down to having an analog of the unix
doughmain.
that's right those phonIE corepirate nazis won't benefit from yOUR kode on this won.
of course, they are scared to debt/afraud of J. getting a whiff of the winds of change, which are bullowing at gale force. lookout bullow.
consult with/trust in YOUR creator...
you won't be needing any felonious payper liesense softwar gangsters' infactdead devices, in order to see the light/help with the increasingly popular planet/population rescue initiative.
Given that the courts are willing to grant patents for simple, obvious features which have been around for years, why wouldn't they go get a patent on it ?
If nothing else, it protects them from other companies doing this and suing them over the ridiculous patent.
The people to blame here are the patent office ad the US courts for continuing to not only grant these patents but also to enforce them.
I remember that from way back. People in the MSN chatrooms (the first MSN that came with Win95) would all join up in PowWow chats so they could trade files, etc.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents .html
The patent system is like communism: in theory it is a good thing, but in practice it is so totally broken that it will soon collapse, destroying a large part of the economy in the process.
The patent office doesn't care about prior art. This isn't the 19th century. If you have a problem with the MS patent then take them to court.
That's the first I remember seeing it on a chat BBS, anyway. Lambda Switchboard software. At least two of the original systems are still online - I'm sure a few slashdotters know what I'm talking about. LOIS, TREX I, TREX II, and.. LOLA and LANE, I think?
The DOS-based Lambda software was replaced years ago with the Unix-based Mu clone, but it's still got the idle indicator in the 'F'ull who listing.
We took delivery of our VAX 11/780 in August 1983 and were thrilled with all the doodads on it, including 'phone' that split the screen and allowed each user to see what the other user was typing, in real time. And last time I checked, 1983 happened before 1999 when this patent was filed.
Idiotic.
----
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
Yahoo Messenger has been doing this for a while..
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
In short, this goes back to at least 1967. I'm sure there is no way our esteemed patent office could possibly have found prior art back that far, let alone what happened last week. Someone should alert them to the existence of google.
...in that it could be started and showed everyone's typing in realtime, back in the early 1980s. It also alerted you when someone else was trying to reach you or connected.
Some of the instant message antecedants go back quite a way and are very clearly ahead of anything Microsoft did.
Is there a way for the common public (err I mean slashdotter type people) who are aware of prior art where they can tell the patent office
'listen you dimwits, here is prior art to the feature you just granted patent for. The company who applied for a patent would obviously not point it out to you. So we are doing it. Now revoke the f*&^&%n patent'
Lets not get into the story how the whole notion of patents is absurd.
Democratic USA - Government of the corporations, by the Corporations, for the corporations.
old school BBS chat programs showed ALL text as it was written, now we are talking 1981 technology from before MS even heard of networking...
35 U.S.C. sec. 301: Sec. 301. - Citation of prior art Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/301.html
I might get flamed for this, but can you blame Microsoft? I hate MS and all that but if they don't file for junk patents like this then some other company will and end up with it and suing Moneybags (errr, Microsoft). So now instead of being sued by companies who could have had this obvious bad patent, they get to avoid court and avoid paying millions of dollars (ie. Eolas). The real question is whether they will try to go after other companies.
It's been said before but the real problem is the patent system that grants patents like these in the first place.
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
because it protects their "innovations." If you amass enough of these little stupid ideas, you can really lock other companies out. Spell check is a gay little feture that retard end users want -- imagine if you had a patent on that? You'd be one rich feller.
Why the hell doesn't the Patent Office
publish pending patents and allow a 90-day
public comment period? They would issue a
lot fewer embarassing patents that way.
I really couldn't care less. This has to be one of the most annoying features put in an IM program, ever. The reasons for this are as follows:
Anyone on Slashdot actually like it?
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
What's even more amazing is that MS can get a patent from filing to grant in only 10 months...
It takes the rest of us 4 years...
Apple's iChat program using the AIM protocol pops up a text box with ... when someone is typing a message.
The patent specifies an implementation where the client sends out a message on a regular basis if the user has typed anything since the last message. The prior art I know of either sends out the characters as they're typed (not based on an interval, and including the typed characters), or sends a message when the user starts typing something that hasn't been sent.
To avoid infringing on this patent, you just have to do something more useful than MS has patented. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest sending a message when the user starts typing a line and sending another message if the user cancels it or doesn't type anything for a certain interval. Less traffic, more accurate, and it's not patented.
I remember it distinctly because my girlfriend's Yahoo wasn't working
Don't worry, it happens to everyone.
As shown in the PTO hyperlink in the article, "This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/359,337, entitled "System and Method for Activity Monitoring and Reporting in a Computer Network," filed on Jul. 21, 1999 now, U.S. Pat. No. 6,519,639."
On a personal note, there is CLEARLY prior art --as others have said talk/ytalk had this. Heck, a direct modem connection with a friend and seeing each other type exhibits this behavior even though that's hard to lump under the context of "An IM session".
This really feels like a defensive patent, not something they could turn around and sue AOL or Yahoo (or even Trillian or Jabber) over.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Unles something has a USPO ID# after it, its fair game to get a patent.
The USPO doesn't do any research anymore. That takes time and costs money. Prior art is no longer a meaningful concept. The USPO doesn't get money for refusing patents, it get money for granting them.
It grants them so shoddily that they aren't actually worth the paper they're written on. I bet you could patent "One Click" again.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
YAMSBT--
Yet another MS bashing troll. Get over it. Patents are only awarded after going through a very rigorous process, and can be revoked under the same process.
i remember when icq first came out you could see what the other person was typing. hell even going back i remember being able to see what a person was typing when chatting on a bbs, i think even talk on our favorite family of os's allows you to see text being typed.
About 10 years ago, thousands of free and non-free Minitel (french bbs-like) servers did it.
Including real-time chat that let you see every key stroke of other users.
{{.sig}}
And that's the whole point of this.
i on, so they lay off bludgeoning each other with stupid patents like this one.
Both companies (MS and AOL) like to have a stock of wacky patents. It protects them from each other, and from other real software companies (pretty much all of which have patents on something). They all know that a patent war would be Mutually-Assured-Destruction-by-1000-Year-Litigat
The only time software patents have really been problems is when they are held by a company that doesn't produce a lot of software. These companies (like Eolas) can extort money without fear because they can't be extorted in return (they can't violate patents because they don't create anything).
My solution? 3 year limit on software/"business method" type patents.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
what the hell?
...is informative?
this is informative?
ok, so now everyone who just says things like
"This sucks. You all knew that. Just thought I'd say it too. My boring comment."
ridiculous.
Don't forget that it supported text-to-voice. That was my favorite feature. I could be off doing something else and hear the whole message before I had to switch windows to respond.
But, I thought PowWow let us see the other person type, not just tell us they are typing?
It's really too bad Tribal Voice is no more. It was definitely my favorite chat program.
Malachi
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
This is essentialy a patent that MS can't really enforce, at least not to take out AIM or ICQ. The reason? AOL owns the patent on instant messaging. I don't see what good an instant messaging typing indicator is if you can't do instant messaging in the first place.
Ah yes, the patent system sucks.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
OK Troll, I'll bite.
It isn't the "information age" that is causing the problem. It is GROSS incompetence on the part of the patent office. They are not doing their prior art searches thoroughly enough. Government stupidity is a universal constant, and has nothing to do with information having value. If you recall, patents have existed for far longer than the "information age". The problem isn't the system, it's how it is being applied.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
It's kind of interesting, in a morbid sort of way, that due to patents, copyright, DMCA, etcetera, innovations made in the past wouldn't be possible with the laws we have today. For example, others here have often pointed out how under current laws, no one could have reversed engineered the IBM-PC to build clones.
It's beginning to look like innovation in the computer industry will be replaced by stagnation. At least, that's how I see it, and I hope I am mistaken.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
The first thing I can think of is old dial up BBS software from the 80s. A SysOp would be able to start a chat session with a user online and depending on the BBS software, see what the person was typeing as they typed it. WWIV, Celerity BBS, LSD BBS, PCBoard BBS, Vision-X, and a million others ALL had this feature. Worldgroup BBS from the late 80s had the ability to have up to 32 users online at the same time and ALL see what everyone was typeing if you joined the appropriate chat room. These pieces of software were ALL DOS based, existing before windows and internet instant messageing was even a glimer in someone's eye.
It is obvious that the patent office is ignoring the prior art clause. Why not just file a criminal charge against the staff of the patent office and use the law to stop this kind of behavior. If the office is failing to perform it's job why not confront it in a court of law? Hell you could push as far as treason if need be (only takes two witnesses last I checked) as a conscious act to undermine the Constitution, federal law, and confront it as an act of economic sabotage. There are plenty of ways to confront the problem. I find it odd that the EFF and ACLU have not touched the Patent Office in earnest. What is protecting the Patent Office such that even basic avenues are not used? At the point that the Patent Office has ignored it's purpose I would most likely pursue legal action first based on ignoring the law and establishment of the "Prior Art" rules and if there is still no change after that, move to the treason avenue. Sad to say that treason is becoming more and more reasonable when looking at the larger picture of the Patent Office problems.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
So the claimed innovation here is simplifying real-time, continuous updates by just sending activity updates. Hmm. I'm not sure that really passes the tests for either "obvious" or actually "innovative", but at least they address talk.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
On my first computer(1984)I a 300 buad modem, I would connect with friends to chat over the modem and we would see what each other typed in real time. Later I started a BBS and could break in and chat in real time with who ever was on it and then let them go back to their BBS session.
Wise men speak because they have something to say, Fools because they have to say something!!!!
Assuming that TCP/IP over AX.25 (e.g. "ham" packet radio), then TNOS has had this feature since the mid to early 90's...
72 de Mike, KO4WX
If this were easy, they wouldn't need us to do it!
Because everybody here knows it's true.
This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
Could it be that information *is* what's valuable now and that patents *are* worth their wait in gold, but that people are complaining when companies are given *bad* patents? Wouldn't this sort of be like a company counterfeiting money and have absolutely nothing to do with the value of the thing being amorally obtained?
I apologize for not including any curses in the above post. If you're feeling low, I'll include a few below:
Bullshit dumbass motherfucker.
Welcome to reality where information is valuable and ethics are dying.
MIT's Project Athena developed the "Zephyr" notification system (which is also used for what was later called instant messaging) in 1987 (see Feb. 1988 USENIX conference proceedings for paper). It also gives the recipient warning that a message was being composed.
It didn't appear in BSD until 4.2, but it appeared as early as 1962 on Dartmouth BASIC (GE 635).
Have we forgotten talk? Ytalk? Xtalk?
Jeezus!
The inventor has one year from the time of offering for sale (or describing in a printed publication) to apply for a patent.
I'm not so much bothered by the prior art issue -- I have a much bigger issue with this patent. I'm willing to bet that if you were to take an average programmer and ask them "how can I modify this IM program so that the person you are talking to knows that you are currently typing without actually sending each character as you type it?", they'd come up with the exact same solution as described by this patent.
Unlike many on slashdot, I actually believe there are some scenarios where software/algorithm patents are applicable. However, the standard questions still need to be asked: does this do something useful, and is the implementation non-obvious? Why (aside from purely financial reasons) are patents like this being granted?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I think it is clear from comments here and general knowledge that this patent was probably issued in error as there seems to be substantial prior art here.
Are there no penaties for requesting a patent on something that has prior art? Or is this an effective strategy to claim jump IP because of the cost for overturning someone elses patent. In the case of POWWOW, there may not be anyone with enough interest to persue it.
It may only come down to those effected, that would have to pay a licence fee . Then the econonimics might be that to pay the licence fee might be cheaper than the legal costs to fight the patent claim. It that is the case and people don't fight it on principle then the claim stands and the claim has been Jumped. I hope this is not the thinking here behind appying for the patent. But certainly they can't reasonably think that it was their original idea, can they?
i remember back in the original ICQ days.. i have a 6 digit ICQ number still.. you could watch what they wehre typing... that was way before '96.
so microshaft can take their ram rod and shove it up their ass.
link? plz kthx
What my friends and I found most amusing about "phone"--way back in the days of vaxen--was that it was not an "application". No, nor was it a "utility". Instead, Digital called it a "facility".
Right there in the computer lab, on our first day of college, my new found friends and I vowed to only write facilities from that day forward. It's worked out about as well as you might expect.
"Be Happy or Die." -- AoN
payper liesense stock markup FraUD execrable.
that's right. the momeNTdumb caused buy the decades of deception that has proceeded US, will be replaced by a GENUINE momentum such as has never been seen before.
you won't need any vehicles/model rocket cams to see the light.
for each of the creator's innocents harmed, there is a badtoll that must/will be repaid by you/US, as the perpetrators of the corepirate nazi life0cide against humankind will not be available to make reparations after the big flash occurs.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator... more breathing. that's the spirit (literally) moving you.
morons recommend warning labels for computers, (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08, @08:14AM (#7161705)
voting systems, stock markup FraUDs, etc....
computers:
the fcc has warned that this device may contain softwar nazi kode stolen buy phonIE corepirate nazi felons. use may cause immeasurable embarrassmeNT, & likely bankruptcIE.
polling booth:
please be advised that most of the fauxking 'candidates' either have outstanding felonIE/grand larcenIE charges, or are associated with/sponsored buy, those who do.
stock markup:
contributions to this pyramid scheme have been proven to be used as a method to reduce/eliminate yOUR choices, &/or to hold yOUR hardearned capitoll hostage, prior to robbing you/US bullined.
the lights are coming up now. you know where to look. see you there.
first program i ever used (before ICQ) to chat with....I think the patent law for computer software in general is a joke and really needs to be dealt with in a different manner. Obviously the law need to catch up with the times. I mean for all i know this could be my last message to slashdot for all i know if someone out there says they own pattents to forms (I wouldnt be surprised if someone somehow did). Although a form could be described as a bunch of data generated automatically along with some from user input sent to a server and a respond with new data is given back to the user....which would cover BBSes....
ICQ allowed this at some point (but I don't remember if it was before or after msnMessenger), and obviously AOL allows this now on AIM after you "directly connect" to someone.
But besides all that, do patent laws require that the *thing* not have existed before? I thought it was whoever was the first one to register a patent that got it.
And of course, as it seems happens too often these days: this patent is WAY too general and basic to not cause future trouble.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Isn't this what a teletype and all those other typewriter/printer communication devices did? I mean come on.
Before unix's talk there was a VMS command (phone?) that was similar. There were all sorts of similar things at universities - (one was started by a pysch prof, of all folks, at GA Tech).
If you read the patent, you will see that TALK and other prior chat systems are mentioned in the references and body of the patent. The specific "innovation" here is that the system polls for activity on a timer, and turns on and off the "user typing" message based on activity during the timer period.
/. as prior art. Even Yahoo's "user is typing" simply toggles on and never turns off if you abandon typing. Is polling periodically obvious? Surely. Remember, the USPO is a profit center, and granting obvious patents brings profit to both them and patent attorneys, so there is no motivation not to allow such simple changes to be patented.
While I think that it is absurd that this was granted, it is not any of the things being thrown around on
Sig under construction since 1998.
There's a problem here. I have a patent on hypocrisy. It's obvious that no. 6,631,412 is a derivative work and therefore infringing upon my IP.
For instance, if you so much as glanced at the article you'd notice that "Filed: December 20, 2002" appears rather promenantly. Then you wouldn't even have to wonder! Foreign concept, I know...
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
With those blue 'bubbles' that appear over the player's head when he starts typing, and disappear when complete.
Totally off topic, but don't think that Communism is even good in theory! It totally ignores human nature, and as such will never ever ever ever work. If I had a theory about how I could jump and fly to the moon (if I ignore gravity) it's a crappy theory and....
Do not forget Ddial - 1978!
An Apple II loaded with AppleCat 300 Baud modems.
I spent much of my afterschool time "chatting" online with friends (yes Slahsdotters - I had friends back then!)
More info:
www.ddial.com
Microsoft patents living, breathing, and dying. Trillions expected in back revenue.
Technically it is the priority date that matters, not the filing date. The filing date for this patent is December of 2002, while the patent has priority going back to July of 1999.
This is the date to beat for prior art.
Wanted: Someone to get the juice out of my keyboard and off my screen after reading this comment.
Join the Free Software Foundation
I am wondering if there is any party that should recieve an email or a call reguarding this issue. I don't know if the company, the patent office or some legistative person should be made aware that there is some feeling and opinion that this maybe be examined by the patent office as to its validity, and to whether the patent office is doing due diligence in this area. I know I plan on sending my Congressman a note.
Those both are prior art as well. ICQ has had a see-as-the-other-person-types (an indicator message and/or actual text). BBSes have had chat where you see the other person actually type for decades. See: Renegade or Wildcat (internal sysop chat), most sysop-chat doors
i blame this on american law as opposed to the companies in question who are abusing this.
Those in charge of a company have a duty to their shareholders to maximise income - and they will do it however possible. even if it may be done by exploiting stupid laws.
this is a prime example of "what's good for business is good for america", and characterises the selfishness and self-rightousness exhibited by America in the modern age.
This big flurry of patents by MS is aimed totally at Linux. Just wait and see. They are going to pull a SCO on us big time and claim Linux contains their IP and start demending fees from companies who use Linux.
It is now time for the USA to organise a strong movement similar to Eurolinux and FFII. We can provide you with assistence.
The World Summit on the Information Society may be used as a plattform as well.
Get organized and put pressure on politicians and administration.
trying to prove that they invent things
They just need one thing, that's all.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
First Patent!
GL
Him and everyone else in the world. (might take forever to execute)
Join the Free Software Foundation
I feel there is an obligatory Schwarzenegger joke in there, but I don't have the necessary enthusiasm to exract it.
Software patents are your fault. Your elected representatives voted in this measure. You didn't recall them, protest, make it politically untenable to support.
Hell, most of you don't even vote.
Democracy is a participatory form of government. You don't participate, other people speak for you.
an excerpt from here
A request for reexamination is commenced by filing a reexamination request along with a modest filing fee. In the request, the requestor cites the patents and other printed publications which purport to establish that the patented inven- tion is not new or unobvious as of the date of its invention. The Patent Office will then decide if the requestor has made out a prima facie case of invalidity. If so, the patent will be subjected to reexamination. Reexamination is between the patentee and the Patent Office. The requestor has no involvement after filing the request for reexamination.
if you have any interest at all on the workings of the us patent system, go here, read up.
The fee for "requesting an reexamination was 2520.00 in 1999.
Perhaps we should start a fund to have this patent reexamined?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Very simple, Microsoft gets patents on existing functionality or technology. If you use them, they go after you. Even if there is prior art, Microsoft can tie it up in court. Since Microsoft has a huge advantage in the money department, they can last longer, causing the victim to surrender or agree to some crazy license from Microsoft. It's basically being a bully.
It's smart business, however if we depended on "smart business" we'd probable be still living in caves after someone patented "shelters."
The fact that Microsoft gets themselves worthless patents doesn't mean we have to treat it as something that will have dire consequences for us, or any at all for that matter.
"Fact -- Prior art is not needed to bust any patent.
All you really have to do is show that the claims would have been reasonably obvious to any "practitioner in the field." That's all it takes."
Don Lancaster's Patent Avoicance Library
Yet another IM feature patent for something that MIT's Zephyr implemented long before. I started using Zephyr at CMU in 1992, and it could (and still can) notify you of a user beginning to type a message. It could even do that in the "public" chat areas. And I'm pretty sure those features date back to even earlier versions. Possibly as early as 1987, but someone would have to do some RCS digging to verify that.
No big deal. Yahoo and Aol will just have their browser display a little pop-up showing the typing status rather than showing it on the bottom status line of their dialog. :)
Push the button Max!!!!
This exact feature was in wide use at MIT in '89 if not earlier - the zephyr instant messaging system used by nearly all students at MIT when I was there ('89 to '94) had this feature, along with essentially every other feature currently use in IM clients. This is BS. I'm not sure if zephyr is still in use at MIT, but this is certainly NOT something new.
IANAL, but I thought "prior art" meant publicly explained methodology to do something prior to the filing of the patent at hand. It doesn't matter if ICQ or whatever else program had this capability, the fact that they didn't make their methodology public (which is usually done through an RFC-like document or by filing a patent) makes them unfit to be prior art.
But then again, I may be pulling this out of my ass.
-bm
If you feel that the US Patent Office should stop honoring bogus patents like these, do something about it!
/ 13 5237&mode=thread&tid=109&tid=155&tid=187&tid=189&t id=99
Write to:
usptoinfo@uspto.gov?subject=Patents Patent Number 6,631,412
You may also want to refer to this slashdot article in your post:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/08
Thank you.
But the MIT Zephyr project, which has been around at least since I was an undergrad there, has been providing precisely this kind of advance notification (i.e. you get a popup saying "so-and-so is about to send you a message" when so-and-so types "zwrite your_username" on the screen) since at least 1990.
-FP
That's what you get for $0.99/minute.
ICQ also had such a feature way back in the day, with this you could also see what they typed as they typed, it made responding kinda funny cause you could shoot out a yes or no before they even finished.
iChat in OS X does that since the very first implementation.
Same old Micros**t *innovation*
I share everyone's sentiment about possible prior art existing before M$ patent.... and what is needed is to document the prior art (much like what many have posted on here), and to be used/given to any defendants that M$ sues. Also, petitions to USPTO can ask for re-examination of the patent. I am currently focused on finding prior art against Acacia, SightSound, and USA Video. All three companies have some kind of claims over the streaming/downloading of audio/video files from a (web) server. If you heard digital audio or saw digital video prior to 1990, check out http://www.FightThePatent.com/v2/Searching.html for prior art searches i am currently working on. I provide my assistance to defendants for free.. being a tech head, these patent abuse cases pissed me off enough to get involved. Patents have their place, but patents that have prior art is bad. Patent holders who are wield patent infringement claims (which do not appear to be valid given prior art) and licensing agreements to companies who don't have the financial backing to fight a patent claim is Patent Abuse! I will be expanding my activism to other areas like the IM patents, PanIP, etc..... (bringing my post back to the thread topic *grin*). Fight The Patent!
------ Fight The Patent! website
It doesn't matter whether it existed before... patents are what you do when you want to protect your right to make money from an invention. If the original inventor didn't patent it, then the rights are up for grabs.
Amazing magic tricks
I have just been awarded US Patent 6,234,234, "Method of suppressing off-topic, inflammatory, or uninteresting comments in a Slashdot discussion by using moderator points to reduce the score of the comment."
/. for your user info under the DMCA.
Mod me down and I will sue you. I can subpoena
GNAA and Goatse posts may be modded down royalty-free. I don't want to see that picture either.
Rank Presidents by th
has had this feature for a long time, it works in exactly the manner described.
Zepher made it trivial to do this by modifying a config file. I implemented it myself after hearing about a friend who did the same thing.
I remember that ICQ chat had the "XXX is away from the screen" feature when the user changed the focus of the chat window... will they patent that too?... :)
:: Andrea
Anime Wallpapers
I remember using CDC's PLATO system in the mid-seventies. It didn't succeed in the marketplace, but in it's day Plato blazed trails: global networking, real-time multiplayer games, email ... and instant messaging where both parties see both lines of text in real time.
-kgj
Does anyone use the good old 'talk' program anymore? I know it was around for a long long time. Definitely before 1990. It used to give real-time indication of the other person typing, heck it used to show what the other person was typing, which most IMs couldnt for years (sigh)
DO NOT PANIC
talk is not relevant, neither is any messenging client that shows the text as it is being typed. the patent discusses an indicator to show activity, but not showing the actual text. if no other MESSAGING client does this then their patent is valid as there wouldn't be prior art. you've got the remember, the exact wording and context of a patent is incredibly important (not to mention strategically important!).
also - the indicator in something like quake 3, which was also mentioned in a post, is not relevant either as quake 3 is not a messaging client, but rather a game.
essentially this patent is very clever because i think the "person is typing" is a great feature as it allows the recipient to see that they aren't just sitting around waiting for nothing and it is favourable for the sender of the message as they can correct things without the recipient seeing their mistakes. so this patent is essentially preventing all of the other messaging clients from providing an indicator as such. of course the other guys could show the text as it was typed - but this is not as useful and would not violate the patent.
IBM may have something to say about this. Their Sametime corporate IM and collaboration system has had this functionality for at least 3 years.
While talk and other small scale packages may have a case against the patent, but no money to file suit, IBM has a case, money, and the IP lawyers to shred this patent up.
At the State University of New York (SUNY) at Alfred, on the VAX cluster there, running VMS, connected to BITNet and SUNYnet and a small, multiuniversity network running the DECnet protocol, there was a SEND command which would send what would accurately be called an instant message to any participant currently logged in on any system on one of these three networks. We even had some 'bots that could answer back and take messages. This was in 1989. Sorry Microsoft, you are at least 14 years late.
www.wavefront-av.com
Am I the only old fart who used to use zephyr?
It was part of MIT's Project Athena and was basically a sessionless IM tool. It batched up everything and sent the entire message as a zephyrgram. I know it had some sort of notification process because one of my friends you to reply "yes?" before I could finish typing. That was back in 1993, well before Microsoft even learned about the Internet, so I imagine that it qualifies as prior art.
- doug
In defense of Mirabilis, NOT AOL, Mirabilis, ICQ was a superior IM client before AOL screwed it all up. There comes a point in which every program becomes a suite and a suite becomes an OS. ICQ had an integrated P2P chat interface that would allow users to see, in real-time, the text they were typing to each other. It also featured a status message that would tell when the other person was typing. Long live the original Mirabilis! Die, AOL Die! Monopoly!
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
I'm confused. How is this different than the little "person is typing" on AIM or "..." in the world ballons in iChat?
In AIM it only shows when you're typing to that specific person, It sounds like this implementation would display a similar message when you were talking to anyone, but still...
mmm.. lets see.. (all dates are based on file dates)
Is that long enough?
however you cannot test them, as MS has shut down the protocols that they used.
OK - who stole my duct tape?
Geez, I use AOL's IM and it has the feature as well (I am not an AOL customer, just use the IM client since everyone I need to chat with uses it, forgive me...).
The AOL client puts control of this feature in the hands of the sender - some people use it, some don't but clearly the function has existed for a while.
Dogu
Imagine GM having a patent for an oil light for your car. What about a tachometer to monitor engine speed. How about movable windows in a car. What about a bumper?
Add computer or internet into it and you can get a patent.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Pending patents from MS:
(10) numerals on keyboard 0...9, letters q...m
(9) a = a+1; (does not mean 1 = 1+1)
(8) mouse has more than one button
(7) when you type 'a', the 'a' shows up on screen
(6) pressing 'enter' crashes the program, there are new advanced keys too 'crtl'+'alt'+'del'
(5) pc speaker sings RIP along with blue screen event
(4) only one website can do it all 'i can't believe it's not butterfly.com'
(3) you send an email, and it goes to the addressee - dodging the mail filter
(2) right to pick up the outlook icon on the screen - and safely save in the recycle bin
(1) computer needs to run a program - not just the os (and bios)
I think slashdot should add "Innovative" to the list of possible post moderations.
How long before the EFF or someone else sets up a non-profit dedicated to contesting bad patents? Why not organize the community to research questionable patents and find prior art, then have lawyers submit the challenges for review? One by one, the bad patents would be overturned and a message would be sent: that patents need to be accountable. I think this would be a way to actually make a difference with the patent office, by working within the system.
You forget that the talents of M$ lawyers far exceed their ability to innovate software.
Also, if you look at the patent text itself, I like this part:
As shown in a recent popular movie, "You've Got Mail,"...
Since when was you got mail a recent popular movie? 1999?
I disable sigs...do you?
Don't worry, it happens to everyone.
He said Yahoo.. Not her HooHa
UPS Sucks
So, why is this suddenly a Microsoft patent?
Well, excuse me but MIT Zepyr and IRC have been around long before 1996. Somewhere around 1990.
has this feature NOW! It is used by companies for internal chat. Sametime, which is part of the Notes suite, is owned by IBM, which I imagine has barrels of lawyers to throw around. I can't imagine IBM tucking tail and removing this feature.
-Steve
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
>Or, alternately, it allowed you to SEE the other
:) Repeatedly and often... This was my freshman year, certainly these talk/phone programs existed a few years before I used them...
>people typing in real time.
Heh, I used talk or phone (or both, don't remember now) on the VMS cluster at college back in '93 that did this realtime watch them type stuff. It was almost annoying to watch people back up half a sentence to fix a single character typo...
does this feature work anything like talkd which has been around since time began? you know like when people type, you SEE THEM TYPE.
FTW? Lotus Sametime has this feature for a while. The client says something like "So and so is responding..." in the status line when your opponent is typing.
So when was that released. This Patent was filed 10 months ago. December 2002. This isn't a we filed 5 years ago and just got the patent, but a patent filed less than a year ago.
This is a "would be obvious to an expert in the field" feature, so it's a BS patent. Pure and simple.
this is a continuation of a previous application with a 1999 filing date. the effective date of the application, the begining of its patent protection, and the date of which prior art must be earlier than is July 21,1999.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
ICQ has a similar feature, which exists longer then 1996, real time chat. you could see what the other was typing...
F/OSS & IT Consultant
It was in Windows even before 1996. It's called "MS Chat". And if you didn't need to see the person type, you could always "/net send". But there has always been talk and write. The whole USPTO must be on crack.
yeah, it's a shitty patent and all, but just because it's been done doesn't mean that you can't patent it...just that the original people didn't.
The simplest telnet based chat server you can make allows you to see what everyone else is typing before they hit enter. Usually the first successful compile and run. Then you fix it in the second build because it looks really ugly in telnet.
you are your girlfriend's Yahoo :)
I wanna get a patent to beat the crap out of Microsoft's managment. No really, why....why... microsoft is like that annoying kid in high school that always steal people stuff and hides it. you know the kid that got jumped by the entire english class. why do we even tolerate microsoft. its gone beyond the useing only non-microsoft software something needs to be done!
+-+-+-The folowing statement is true. The previous statement is false.-+-+-+
Maybe the most obvious candidate to challenge this patent is Apple, since AOL recently got cozy with Microsoft again.
iChat does exactly what the patent application talks about by putting up a "thought bubble" with an ellipsis in it next to your name as you type, and replaces it with your text when you're done typing.
Is he liable in any way? Does he have any repsonsibility for poor job he is doing?
Is to look at it as a necessary evolutionary step. The patent system is broken, in fact the whole IP system is broken. It isn't going to be fixed smoothly and painlessly. It's going to be ripped out by the roots and replaced. But to make that process happen the system has to reach a breaking point in the public's tolerance.
The public is historically slow to act, and is never good at acting on obscure issues, as is the IP world for the most part. Some good things the file-sharing debacle has done are to educate a lot of ordinary people about intellectual property, to demonstrate their willingness to ignore IP laws they don't agree with, and to give people some actual experience breaking those laws and getting away with it. This is surprising and encouraging behavior for an American public that has successfully been dumbed down and convenience-addicted to the point of virtual sheephood.
But it's going to take a lot more pain to get people's butts off their comfy couches in the IP arena, to the point where politicians find their constituents threatening enough to start representing them again. That point is years away, and I want to live through it and into the next Golden Age. So for me, anything that pushes this process along is a good thing, in its own way.
"If it isn't in our records, it doesn't exist."
--Jocasta Nu, Jedi Librarian
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
First of all, this is probably the slashdot interview you mentioned.
the PTO has gone on record (including in an interview here at slashdot a couple of years ago) to say that the only source they have or use for Prior Art investigations is their own database. If a patent application has been filed on it, there's prior art. If it hasn't, then there isn't any prior art and it never existed before.
...
If a patent's been filed, there's prior art. If not, then it passes the "new" test.
Sounds bad. Going by that logic, nothing can be legally released directly into the "public domain" since it has to pass through the PTO in order to receive acknowledgement of its legal status as a novel concept/product. This would include publications of research papers and the like.
This is not my sig.
The Nexus BBS developed by the South Australian Department of Education featured a multiuser chatroom that did this back in the mid-late 1980s.
Nice to see MIcrosoft continue to "innovate".
You are acting surprised???
We all know Micro$ofts tactics of buy up the small companies and technologies, and turn round and claim it their own and claim they invented it... Thats been around since the Windows 95 and Netscape debacles...
Besides, this is just more proof in the puddin' about the tangible mangling of US laws, and our constitution. Eventually, it will all be discovered, and nullified.
Cheers
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
From:
Title 37 - Code of Federal Regulations Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
Section 1.501
" (a) At any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, any person may cite, to the Office in writing, prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person states to be pertinent and applicable to the patent and believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of the patent. "
Section 1.510
" (a) Any person may, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, file a request for an ex parte reexamination by the Office of any claim of the patent on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications cited under 1.501. The request must be accompanied by the fee for requesting reexamination set in 1.20(c)(1). "
The kicker is this, if you want to file a patent the cost will start at between $385 and $770 (Section 1.16). However, if you want to force a reexamination the costs start at between $2,520 and $8,800 (Section 1.20).
Its seems they want to make it more expensive to request a reexamination becuase then the real work begins.
Now get this:
Section 1.520
" The Director, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, may determine whether or not a substantial new question of patentability is raised by patents or printed publications which have been discovered by the Director or which have been brought to the Director's attention, even though no request for reexamination has been filed in accordance with 1.510 or 1.913. The Director may initiate ex parte reexamination without a request for reexamination pursuant to 1.510 or 1.913. Normally requests from outside the Office that the Director undertake reexamination on his own initiative will not be considered. Any determination to initiate exparte reexamination under this section will become a part of the official file of the patent and will be mailed to the patent owner at the address as provided for in 1.33(c). "
Now I'm thinking that the director may not have any incentive on his own to ensure proper examination is performed in the first place so the director is not likley to do a reexamination either.
However, if someone up the chain of command were convinced by the people to put a fire under the director its possible we could get some action.
And, assuming we can find nobody who is interested in correcting these gross errors, I suggest a non-profit organization is started to hire the appropriate lawyers and begin filing reexamination requests. There will be significant costs involved, but get this, the owner of the patent is required to respond to every request for reexamination and citation of prior art. If we can get the purveyors of these bogus patents tied up in paying to backup their stupid claims then we could slow down the flow or pull back the tide.
I can only hope.
burnin
Not everybody around the world lives under the stupid US patent office and law.
Maybe OSS developpers and project managers should export their work outside the US ?
Léa Gris
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/359,337, entitled "System and Method for Activity Monitoring and Reporting in a Computer Network," filed on Jul. 21, 1999 (emphasis added.)
From the patent (link 1 in posting).
Also from the patent --
United States Patent 6,631,412
Glasser , et al. October 7, 2003 (again, emphasis added).
So this was issued yesterday, the 7th? (a date that will live in infamy...)
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
Not everybody around the world lives under the stupid US patent office and law. Maybe OSS developpers and project managers should export their work outside the US ?
Léa Gris
CNet ran an article about this development, and they were quick to note that other IM software from Yahoo! and AOL already implemented this feature. The article doesn't say when the patent was filed.
A related article points out that ICQ filed a patent in 1997 (granted in 2002) which covers pretty much any kind of instant messaging application on any network. Of course, there is prior art...
I was a student at MIT from 1988 to 1992. During that time, I used an instant messaging system called Zephyr, which could work either with X11 or with a text console (if run in console mode). Zephyr didn't support notification of other users when you were typing a message (since the application to compose messages and send them was command-line, and therefore run from the shell rather than as part of a monolithic IM app), but it did support notifying you when certain other users logged on, and Zephyr by default popped up separate message windows on the target user's X11 display when messages arrived. Kind of like how classic ICQ operates -- each incoming message is displayed in a separate window which has to be dismissed by the user.
I'm sure there are more prior art examples for IM and general, and this feature in specific. The big players are trying to carve up the IM landscape by making turf claims with patents. If ever there was a time to support alternative IM technologies like Jabber, now is the time, folks.
It appears that claim 1 is invalid for being indefinite. See, 35 USC 112, second paragraph. Claim 1 says "determining, based on receipt of said content message, that said user has stopped typing" but said user never starts typing, said user operates an input device, which is not necessarily the same thing. See claim 2, where the device is called a keyboard, which means under the law that the input device in claim 1 must include non-keyboard devices. But if it is not a keyboard input device in claim 1, how will one start typing so that it can be determined that said user has stopped typing.
The rest is left as an excercise.
Important note, IANAL, this is not legal advice!
your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
Wasn't there a chat command in SunOS? It allowed you to see, in real time, what your partner was typing.
-bZj
.sig
whenever talk is greater than content, it called:
Bullshit. Which is what the patent is of course.
There is just too much stuff that was done for decades by companies that don't exist anymore that is probably prior art that the PTO can never find unless people in the industry come forward. The stuff isn't running any more, the brochures aren't available and the like. Look at the stuff Ozzie did with Notes to show prior art in the browser patent suit.
It seems to me the patent system is based on a presumption that it is relatively straightforward to determine prior art. This may work in most disciplines, but it is a bad assumption in software. The system needs to be changed to allow a way to invalidate these patents without the huge legal expenses involved. otherwise, someone like IBM or Oracle or MS with very deep pockets can use a patent and the cost of litigation to stifle legitimate competition using undeserved patents.
However, since large companies make lots of donations to control the writing of the patent law, the needed changes are not going to happen.
Does this mean that I can patent matchsticks if nobody ever bothered and then run the existing producers out of business? Seems an indication that the system is broken...
e-mail
Telephone: 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)
snail mail:
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Yahoo has this functionality right now, I thought all good IMs did...
Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
Trilian, AIM, and iChat ALL have options to "let others see your message as your typing"
So MSN patented this? How is that possible since it's so commonly used?
Can I patent the chord order "C-G-E" so when played in that order I get $$$ from the RIAA?
Ave Molech Setting
If you can find a bunch of different pieces of software that fill parts of the claim so that they, in sum, cover the claim, it is NOT prior art.
If I can find a bunch of different widely-used pieces of software that fill parts of the claim so that they, in sum, cover the claim, then though it may not be prior art, it may count as evidence that the invention was obvious to one skilled in the art.
Will I retire or break 10K?
how important is that feature? it's nice to know that someone isnt ignoring you, but just typing al ong message, I say if it takes them 20 minutes to type a message, you know they're ignoring you.
I'm pissed due to the fact that microsoft claims something else as their invention (just like how IE is their "invention")
but really, is it that important?
let them wallow in their own shit.
we still have IRC and other ways to communicate.
Unless I'm mistaken ZWrite has a feature where you can tell when someone is zwriting you.
And moreover, email this to the USPTO people.
I commend Microsoft for taking an intiative and patenting something so that some bastard from Eolas can't come around claim IP right to something as trivial as this.
All patents have two purposes, one is to actually make revenue and the second is to protect yourself. I hope (and I really doubt Microsoft would actually try to make revenue from this patent) that their real reason is to protect this feature being patented by another Eolas and getting slapped with half a billion dollar fine and a stupid 'OK' button!
When a machine started a session with another, it would send an SOH character, to 'wake up' the receiver and start its motor. The sender would wait a moment for the receiver to get warmed up before typing.
The Are You There (AYT) symbol was used a lot for this, too.
(I think this is accurate. It's been a -long- time!)
at powwow.jazy.net they've revived the good ol' powwow chat application as a 'dynamic virtual on-hands museum'. granted it's not 100% running, as the registration servers at tribal voice's HQ are no mas, but with a local server (PULS set to powwow.jazy.net) hack, it does function just fine.. the live chat feature which was referenced in this thread can be clearly seen working in this code from the mid to late 1990s.. read more at powwow.jazy.net
Why would the USPTO trust it when it would be flooded with ignorant comments from people who haven't read the patent application and don't understand the first thing about patent law? Not you; I realize from your post that you read the application. But almost all the comments I've seen are ignorant.
Maybe a forum like that could provide some laughs for the PTO examiners. OSS zealots "debunking" patents are like Darl McBride "debunking" the GPL. Totally out of their depth.
But that has nothing to do with the patent we're discussing. It claims a specific technique, completely different from yours, for notifying the recipient when the sender is typing. Do you understand that? If someone patents a new method for achieving a certain result, and you previously achieved that result via an old method, that does not constitute prior art.
Whining to the choir on /. won't do anything. Most of the mindless USPTO drones who did this probably don't know you can type in that address bar thingy, let alone what a slashdot is.
Write them, in the widely used and open-source Dead Tree Format, about the prior art to this bullshit patent.
Contact them, and tell them about the prior art to this bullshit patent.
Send them a CD with a working copy of the prior art to this bullshit patent.
Don't preach to the choir. Go out and spread the word about the kind of insanity that reigns in our government.
Have you ever seen a computer before in your life? No? You're a shoo-in!
Have you used that intar-web thingy? No? Welcome aboard!
Have you failed miserably any questions on standard intelligence tests that measure your cognitive power to associate things that aren't exactly similar? Yes? You're as good as hired!
And all you need to provide, my friends, is a special hi-tech Patent Validator Device, a simple quarter dollar! Heads? Grant that patent! Tails? Ooh, better luck next time fella!
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
...when using Rendezvous messaging with another iChat AV client, and if i've turned on the proper option, not only does the '...' pop up, but i can also see what is being typed by the person with whom i am chatting as they type it... i think this behavior is specific to the AV beta.
As I've posted time and again on every "patent on prior art" Slashdot post since 2000 at least: the PTO has gone on record (including in an interview here at slashdot a couple of years ago) to say that the only source they have or use for Prior Art investigations is their own database. If a patent application has been filed on it, there's prior art. If it hasn't, then there isn't any prior art and it never existed before.
Wrongo-bongo, you're making this up as you go -- or at least misplacing your reliance on what you read on Slashdot.
As anybody who has actually bothered to check would know, the PTO routinely cites to non-patent prior art these days in its office actions.
Zephyr didn't turn off a "typing" indicator based on a timer, as claimed in the patent.
When Europe buckles its knees to to TRIP's and US patents, all this legacy, golddigging opportunistic patent crap is going to put its economic community at a distinct disadvantage, as designed.
.
EEC should adjust dispute resolutions that in cases like this, there is prima facie evidence that it has failed, or been found wanting, by public peer review, failure to state prior are in references etc, patents like this one are invalidated, and a please explain letter posted.
Recriprication - no. There remains the problem, of say MS waltzing up to powwow, buying their IP - or silence, then applying for the patent . The concept of legal discovery has just been anulled by the courts, when they said just because a cigarette company lied, cheated, and burnt evidence during discovery, they are still entitled to put forward a defence.
Europe had better consider putting a duty or tax on patent cross licencing, or 'silence' agreements having to be 'registered'.
Making people put these declarations in patents, will at nill cost improve the respectability of the patent process
The quality and information in previous posts, speaks volumes about the merit of this claimed patent, and the responsibility and 'due care' MS or its agents took when applying for this 'patent'.
I have a CVS entry from December 18, 1998 applying to just this feature in a YAWC style (telnet) BBS. Does that count as prior art? In addition, can I get more royalties because it also warns you if someone is messaging you when you're logging off?
Can I get free money and retire? Please?
Uh-oh. Are we going to lose a feature from Jabber as well?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
I can't think of a single IM or chat application that was out before MSN/Windows Messenger that lets you know that someone is typing a message to you without actually showing them typing in real-time. The patent may be for a seemingly small details, but for the reasons enumerated in the patent, it is a surprisingly important distinction from a usability perspective.
Yahoo Messenger implements this same functionality now, but Microsoft's Messenger had it first. If anything, the motivation behind this patent is probably to squash Yahoo and any other would-be copycats from using the technique.
Surprisingly, this seems like a pretty good example of the way the patent system *should* be working. There's a real-life implementation, the patent covers an explicit idea (nothing too vague or NYI), and the people who thought up and implemented the idea first now have the right to use it exclusively, for a while.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Just because a patent was issues does not mean someone ownes it. The patent office obviously makes a lot of mistakes and it is up to us to take the offending patent up in court.
If the user you were trying to talk to was in the middle of typing something for the entire time that it would take to transmit the message to the receiver at the recipient's modem rate, you would receive a message on your end that was something to the effect of " is already typing something", which was supposed to be a cue to just be patient. Because you didn't get any incoming messages until you were finished and pressed enter, at which point any inbound messages would come at you before you got an input prompt again, this was a sort of social engineering attempt at preventing the text queues from filling up on machines that had very little memory to spare.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Software patents are a major topic of debate. They are brought up in my ethics class it seems every week. I personally don't agree with software patents. I do agree we need a ways for software makers to make money off of their products and hard sweet, heck, I am one of them. We don't need software patents, software has been doing fine for the last thrity years, that is why we have been able to come this far so fast, because anyone can improve upon an idea.
:)
If software patents were allowed, then we are in essence patenting any particular combination of 1s and 0s that represent a process in real life. If we do not allow for software patents, then we are in essence setting a precidence for all other patents to be revoked, because they are to representing a process, just in real life and not virtually.
The next quetsion we have to ask is, do we really need a patent system? We base our economy on free enterprise. The problem is that free enterprise is all about protection from competition (duh), so they are going to be looking for ways to protect their product. Therefore they will want a patent system. We have all noticed that products that are no longer protected by patents still get along great without protection. The next argument is that patents provide protection for startups so that tehy may recoup R&D costs. I say that let the best person to make a product make it. It benifits society faster. We are still going to have people who are going to invent stuff since these people are ones that enjoy making stuff better, but instead of all the R&D costs being concentrate within one company, the costs will be spread out across numerous companies and individuals that want a share of the action.
In conclusion, I ask all Slashdoters what is a software patent, what does it represent, and by saying no to them, don't we really say no to the entire patent system? It is my thought for the day, not sure it if compelty right or wrong, but it is what seems to becoming around the corner.
Night all, I am off to bed here in Aggieland! WHOOP! If there are any spelling mistakes, I really don't care, it is 12:48 am in the morning.
Night
-Adam S.
OpenRPG does this, and it's been around for a lot longer than a year. I know for a fact that it had this feature at least 18 months ago. I notice the patent was filed December 2002.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
>>>I remember it distinctly because my girlfriend's Yahoo wasn't working
>>Don't worry, it happens to everyone.
>He said Yahoo.. Not her HooHa
C'mon, what you really mean is her Cho-Cha.
Reuters Dealing system pre-dates IM by many years as a "chat" system between traders. It handles conversations by running as a 1/2 duplex system whereby each end could take over the conversation. You knew who was talking and could send an interupt message to reverse who could talk. What was typed was also buffered and either was sent every so many characters or after a timeout.
The incremental benefit of IM over RMDS is presence - on Reuters Dealing its assumed that who you talked to was at their desk. With Reuters we're talking green-screen technology here on 1200 bps lines and patents for this are filed with PTO (Reuters Monitor Dealing System).
Getting a patent on indicating who's talking and using timeouts to poll who's talking isn't really a serious innovation. Whats been described is simply a multi-dropped multiplexor system. Remember multidrops ? What about token ring systems ? these have timeouts and whatever has a token can "talk" and after a timeout loses the token or passes it on. What about Ethernet or rather CSMA/CD - Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection. Hell change the CSMA/CD abstracts to say "IM data" and you have Microsoft's innovation.
Looking for prior art? Why do it the hard way? Post pending patents here, and believe me, we'll help.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Those using DEC's email applications in the early 80's, often used email for chatting short messages with each other. This was back when everyone using a computer was somewhat a geek, so we all used the "active links" feature in the operating system. DEC's email architecture was based on P2P approach rather than client server, so you could see the link (host name and user name) when someone was sending you email. So, 20 years ago, we were aware that someone was responding to your last message, and wait for it to arrive before sending something else. As rewritten in MS/IM, its better integrated into the OS, but it is NOT new. It pisses me off that this 20 year old innovation has been ripped from AOL/IM!
I remember using a macro to tell me who was on IRC. I think that predates anything Microsoft ever had. In fact the first MS Chat program was just an IRC front end.
Whats the problem - they are bieng sued for infringing a patent that was used 3 years before the patent was granted (IE Pluggins) - but the judge decided not to hear the evidence.
Anyway you will find that MS often then submits these things to standards bodies as royalty free. e.g. RSS. Point out to me where MS has actualy made use of a patent on someone when they were not using it in response to someone elses patent claim where they were supposed to have infiringed something stupid.
Frankly the US patent office blows goats and would hand out a patent for a business process such as "making a profit", if someone applied for the damn thing.
I still have four archived versions of PowWow, including the 4.22 final version. Perhaps I should send copies to MS and the USPTO just to shake things up?
This is describing a packet being sent.
My ctrl-g caused a packet to be sent notifying the other readers that I had finished typing and there was new information from me.
What is NEW about their system?