Microsoft Patents Your Local Weather Report

theodp writes "After a seven year wait, Microsoft was granted a patent Tuesday for the Customization of network documents by accessing customization information on a server computer using unique user identifiers, patent lawyer-speak for using preferences stored on a server for such purposes as "displaying stock quotes for the companies in which the user is interested, and displaying the user's local weather report.""

Comments

Hype

[OldMiner]

Nothing like a story involving Microsoft to bring out the haters. Nothing like patents to bring out the righteous indignance. The problem is, most Slashdot readers don't know much of the law behind patents, how they're written, and how they're challenged. Largely, they think if a patent claims something, and the patent is approved, then the claim has force of law.

The fact of the matter is, patents are structured with a series of claims, as you can see in the linked article. Claims are the only thing with meaning in a patent. The rest is provided for reference, clarification, and simple defence. So the only thing of true importance in this document are the claims, near the top.

Secondly, wildly broad claims normally start, and increasingly narrow claims are made as one works down the ordered list. Therefore, the first thing you claim is going to be ridiculously broad. Generally speaking, the first few claims in a patent are not serious attempts to patent something. The last few claims are the ones of importance. And, what do you know, the title of the patent is...the first claim. So before anyone flames Microsoft, have you read claims 11-20? Oh, there's still plenty to complain about, but not as much as the article writer implies.

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Many of us know how the system is. We just think it's dumb. There is no reason that something so vague should be patentable. If anything people that attempt to patent obvious or excessively vague concepts should be penalized. Patents are great in areas where someone is developing something revolutionary or new. Unfortunately today people are busy patenting many very obvious concepts and they are not having trouble receiving those patents. We know how the system works. We just think it's a bad system in need of major restructuring.

Re:Hype

[SirSlud]

Even if the claims held any wieght, the patent term (20 years) is rediculously inappropriate for software patents, as by the time the patent expires, any claims made within it are of little use to the public.

Computer technology changes far too quickly. 20 years protection on a software patent allows far too much protection for the 'inventor' (who decreasingly *is* the inventor, and usually just the first to file) and not enough benifit for the public.

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, it should be recognized that the detailed embodiments are illustrative only and should not be taken as limiting the scope of our invention. Rather, we claim as our invention all such embodiments as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.

No, they fully claim that they invented pre-processing of HTML code based on client-side data that indexes a database. This is the grab that you predict we overreacting zealots will predict.

The only thing that makes me feel good about this is that it's probably prior art against one-click. :)

Re:Hype

[Qzukk]

Secondly, wildly broad claims normally start, and increasingly narrow claims are made as one works down the ordered list. Therefore, the first thing you claim is going to be ridiculously broad.

And therein lies the problem. Because the patent office granted this patent, that first wild claim is enforceable. Patent law says that every claim individually is protected (we went through this at work when we were sued, trying to find a way out). And knowing microsoft, and the huge amount of money they have for these things, they will attempt to enforce it if they can kill a competitor by doing so.

Re:Hype

[SirSlud]

.. its called 'submarine' patenting or 'umbrella' patenting. Get a patent (or multiple patents) approved that make broad claims supported by more specific claims, and then litigate against competitors based on the overly broad claims.

Re:Hype

[ivan256]

that first wild claim is enforceable

Only in the context of the rest of the claims. It's clear from your comment that you don't know the whole story of what happened at your place of business.

You can't count the number of patents that have something as generic as "An electronic device" as the first claim. That doesn't mean the patent covers all electronic devices. The first claim is limited by the later claims.

Re:Hype

[grendel's mom]

The "increasing narrow" claims are as absurd (and as nearly as broad) as the first.

From the last claim: "A method of providing customized documents to multiple users on client computers; the method comprising the steps of:

obtaining customization information from a first client computer;

..."

This isn't broad? That's huge.

And patents effectively give the holder a monopoly on the idea. "The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States."

Re:Hype

[Feynt]

Yes, those later claims sure get specific:

16. The method of claim 11 in which the computer network includes the Internet.

Wow, the Internet! That really narrows it down, eh?

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Software patents are turning the law into a joke. Not a good thing for democtacy!

Perhap is it the right time for setting up organized boycott of patent extortionists (SCO for instance) ?

Re:Hype

[calethix]

yes but keep reading..
"obtaining customization information from a second client computer that is different from the customization information from the first client computer..."
That's where it stops. I'm going to patent a similar system which allows for a third client computer, maybe even 4 or 5 if I'm feeling greedy.

Re:Hype

[Duckman5]

Thanks for pointing out all that stuff about claims. I never knew any of that before. My question is this:

You point out that a patent simply being approved doesn't mean that it has the force of law. Technically this is true, but how many people have the funds and the stamina to fight the proverbial 800 lb gorilla with USD40 billion in the bank? As far as i know, that's the only way to get a patent overturned once it's been granted.

Re:Hype

[sql*kitten]

The problem is, most Slashdot readers don't know much of the law behind patents, how they're written, and how they're challenged.

Exactly correct. The /. editors should have "you cannot patent an idea, only the specific implementation of an idea" tattooed on their forearms so they cannot possibly miss it when typing up a story.

Re:Hype

[grendel's mom]

Heh...heh...now that's funny!

Put me on the patent too. We'll sue MS as soon as they connect 4 or more computers. We'll make $millions.

Re:Hype

[udippel]

Good to point this out. It needs to be stated again, over and over. Otherwise FUD moves in.
Ooops, you're not the most competent person, though, neither, since your explanations on the independent versus dependent claims is not valid.
Our weird and wonderful world of patents is definitively not distributed in first and last claims, but in dependencies. And an independent first claim is valid on its own !

Re:Hype

[Eccles]

The problem is, most Slashdot readers don't know much of the law behind patents, how they're written, and how they're challenged. Largely, they think if a patent claims something, and the patent is approved, then the claim has force of law.

I don't get this impression from Slashdotters at all. (Although certainly many confuse trademarks, copyrights, and patents.)

The problem isn't that the patent has "force of law", it's that it becomes an effective legal club, and prior art and obviousness defenses are difficult and *expensive* to use against it. Look at the early patent on the automobile and Ford's attempts to fight it for a historical example. Or the guy who successfully sued Ebay for patent violations. Ebay almost certainly never saw his patent before implementing their schemes, never saw anything else that used ideas gotten from reading that patent, etc; it just sat quietly in the patent database until it served as an extortion tool for someone to take undeserved money from Ebay.

Or read the story about Sun and IBM patents. (Read this for details.) It didn't matter that Sun never looked at or received any inspiration from IBM's patents; 1 lawyer just stole more than 100 men with guns from them with the aid of those patents.

The idea of patents is that I come up with an idea that I wouldn't otherwise come up with, and then explain it to the world in exchange for licensing fees. If someone else comes up with the same idea independently with no link to my patent publication, then my patent wasn't innovative, and I should get diddly. But that doesn't happen.

Patents are an enormous drag on the economy. Medicine patents, given the high cost of testing, at least have some merit. But most others do not.

Re:Hype

[harriet nyborg]

"have you read claims 11-20?"

The fact of the matter is, OldMiner, that each claim of a patent can be considered as an individual patent. Each claim serves the purpose of notifying the public the scope of the monopoly rights granted to the patentee.

As a member of the public I am compelled by law to assume each and every claim is valid... not just claims 11-20.

Claim 1 - whether it is valid or not - requires the public to take action (design around, take a license, etc.) and exposes the public to risk if they ignore it. Even if MS chooses to not enforce the claim, the act of granting it causes economic harm.

The patent office should not grant patents containing "widly broad" claims. Period.

Re:Hype

[udippel]

You seem to be ignorant on this aspect either.
Read the complete text. Otherwise you might think I'm tricking you into something. (1)(b) proves you wrong:

(1) The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. Wherever appropriate claims shall contain:

(a) a statement indicating the designation of the subject-matter of the invention and those technical features which are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter but which, in combination, are part of the prior art;

(b) a characterising portion - preceded by the expression "characterised in that" or "characterised by" - stating the technical features which, in combination with the features stated in sub-paragraph (a), it is desired to protect.

(2)46 Without prejudice to Article 82, a European patent application may contain more than one independent claim in the same category (product, process, apparatus or use) only if the subject-matter of the application involves one of the following:

(a) a plurality of inter-related products;

(b) different uses of a product or apparatus;

(c) alternative solutions to a particular problem, where it is not appropriate to cover these alternatives by a single claim.

(3) Any claim stating the essential features of an invention may be followed by one or more claims concerning particular embodiments of that invention.

(4) Any claim which includes all the features of any other claim (dependent claim) shall contain, if possible at the beginning, a reference to the other claim and then state the additional features which it is desired to protect. A dependent claim shall also be admissible where the claim it directly refers to is itself a dependent claim. All dependent claims referring back to a single previous claim, and all dependent claims referring back to several previous claims, shall be grouped together to the extent and in the most appropriate way possible.

(5) The number of the claims shall be reasonable in consideration of the nature of the invention claimed. If there are several claims, they shall be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals.

(6) Claims shall not, except where absolutely necessary, rely, in respect of the technical features of the invention, on references to the description or drawings. In particular, they shall not rely on such references as: "as described in part ... of the description", or "as illustrated in figure ... of the drawings".

(7) If the European patent application contains drawings, the technical features mentioned in the claims shall preferably, if the intelligibility of the claim can thereby be increased, be followed by reference signs relating to these features and placed between parentheses. These reference signs shall not be construed as limiting the claim.

Re:Hype

[stevesliva]

There is still much to complain about:

In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, it should be recognized that the detailed embodiments are illustrative only and should not be taken as limiting the scope of our invention. Rather, we claim as our invention all such embodiments as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.

• assigning to the HTML document customization information a unique user identifier corresponding to the user and storing the HTML document customization information on a server computer on the network in association with the unique user identifier.
• during a first accessing of the network by the user client computer, obtaining HTML document customization information from the user of the client computer, the HTML document customization information indicating user preferences for an HTML document available to the user over the network;
• storing the HTML document customization information on a server computer on the computer network; and
• during a subsequent accessing of the network by the user client computer, retrieving the HTML document customization information stored on the server computer and providing to the client computer an HTML document customized according to the HTML document customization information.

Sounds to me like they patent any process that involves a new user being assigned a unique ID and providing customization information to be stored on a server. The only narrowing of this broad claim seems to be the stipulation that each user get a unique identifier, and that the documents customized be in HTML.

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the claims held any wieght, the patent term (20 years) is rediculously inappropriate for software patents

Its spelled ridiculously

Like I am ridiculing you! not reeedicule.

Re:Hype

[philovivero]

Nothing like a story involving Microsoft to bring out the haters.

And the Microsoft apologists, apparently...

So before anyone flames Microsoft, have you read claims 11-20?

I took you up on your challenge. Claims 11-20 seem to limit this patent to HTML. Thank God. Now we know they won't be suing us over customising all of our non-HTML documents, since no server utilised by the Open Source community ever serves up customised HTML documents.

I guess since Microsoft has a long history of obeying the law and using its influence to better the world, we don't have to fear anything. This is probably just a defensive patent. Right? In case RMS or the FSF decide to sue Microsoft over something in their own extensive patent portfolios, Microsoft can just turn around and sue them right back!

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Largely, they think if a patent claims something, and the patent is approved, then the claim has force of law.

No, they think that if they implement what the patent covers, they'll be hit with a lawsuit that will suck up all their time and money. And so they don't bother implementing. And so it really doesn't matter whether the patent has any legal value at all.

Re:Hype

[calethix]

Ok, here's my interpretation of claims 11-20. Maybe you can point out where I'm wrong because they don't seem all that specific.
11. obtain the HTML customization info from the user and store it on the server. also assign a unique userid to the user.
12. determine the unique id on the server and sent it back to the client
13. the unique id should be returned as persistent information
14. give the user a pretty HTML form to enter in their preferences
15. add configuration groupings to the form so it's easier to navigate. i.e. stick name and email under a personal section and have a news section for selecting the type of news the user is interested in. (I made up the example>
16. this system should work (although it doesn't have to) over the internet
17. during first access, get the user's preferences and store them. during subsequent accesses, return the customized HTML based on the preferences from the first access
18. I'll admit I got a little confused on this one with it's less than standard syntax of the english language but I think it's basically saying this system should be comprised of a set of instructions stored on computer readable media i.e. a script/program.
19. This seems to be kind of a repeat, although with more details of #18. Basically, do all of this in some computer program.
20. the above method should support multiple users, storing different preferences for each one

Now if you continue reading, you'll find things right in the text of the patent like "The customization options may include a wide variety of information such as, for example, network addresses (e.g., URLs) of a user's favorite sites, types of news that the user wants to see, display information that determines how the information is presented to the user, stock ticker symbols for which the user wishes to receive stock quotes, or the city for which the user wishes to receive a weather report. The customization information can be virtually arbitrary" and "In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, it should be recognized that the detailed embodiments are illustrative only and should not be taken as limiting the scope of our invention. Rather, we claim as our invention all such embodiments as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto. "

So, can you point out to me some quotes from the patent that make the article writer's comments just hype because I missed them.

If someone would like to bring up points from the patent that prove it's not a broad generalization then by all means go ahead. I'll accept any argument and if it's good enough maybe even change my opinion. Please leave out any arguments based on my poor grammar, general flames or claims that it wouldn't hold up in court. That may be the case but I don't think companies should have to constantly incur the cost of defending themselves in court against ridiculous patents.

Re:Hype

[temojen]

Hmmm... I have read claims 11-20. There is as much as the writer implies. To sum up their claims:

On first visit to a website, return a session cookie.

Associate this session cookie with preeference information stored on the server, as configured by the user on a preferences setting web page.

Customize the web-site based on this.

Do this for more than one visitor at a time.

These claims, if enforced could make the web Microsoft's own little feifdom. What makes it most frightenin g is the filing date. Was anyone doing this prior to December 6, 1996? does anyone have proof? (CVS logs for Netscape or NCSA Mosaic with support for cookies might be good enough)

Re:Hype

[John Allsup]

Take a look at
http://www.lawnotes.com/patent/claims.html for some details. I obviously cannot vouch for the accuracy, but I'd guess it's pretty good.

Basically the broad early claims do have force (unless deemed unenforceable or whatever by a judge.) Certainly infringing on claim 1 in the MS patent in question is enough to bring a lawsuit, and then you'd need a few $m in the bank just to fight off the patent (which is enough to intimidate, even if the patent does not hold up in court.)

I agree with many here that the current patent systems are rather ridiculous (basically those doing the checking cannot possibly have enough expertise in the relevant area to evaluate the 'obviousness' or novely of a given claim, yet their approval puts the burden of proof on others to prove that they have not infringed: it is this shift in the burden of proof, and how easily it can be obtained that is a large part of the problem.)

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a somewhat intelligent man who could perhaps one day grow to be wise if you could gather the courage and humility to strive to understand that people who disagree with you are not therefore dumber than you are.

In other words, your fly is open and we are amazed that you don't think we will ever notice things about you that you can't see all by yourself.

Re:Hype

[dtfinch]

There still must be like 50 or more major sites that may be seen as violating that patent. I can't imagine none of them having had all those features in '96.

Re:Hype

[stupid_is]

someone's gotta: a) patent cookies b) ??? c) profit!!!!!

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the claims held any wieght, the patent term (20 years) is rediculously inappropriate for software patents, as by the time the patent expires, any claims made within it are of little use to the public.

What, like Unisys .gif patent on compression? The patent has expired (in much of the world), but te technology is still used today, despite the availability of tiff, .png and .jpeg.

Re:Hype

[NearlyHeadless]

And knowing microsoft, and the huge amount of money they have for these things, they will attempt to enforce it if they can kill a competitor by doing so.

Maybe they will in the future, but they haven't used patents offensively yet.

Re:Hype

[donutello]

And knowing microsoft, and the huge amount of money they have for these things, they will attempt to enforce it if they can kill a competitor by doing so.

And if they didn't patent it, someone else would (like plugins) and use it against them. Microsoft owns thousands of patents and I haven't heard any instances of them using it to kill the competition.

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

"You seem to be ignorant on this aspect either."

You seem to be ignorant on this word "either".

Re:Hype

[rknop]

Secondly, wildly broad claims normally start, and increasingly narrow claims are made as one works down the ordered list. Therefore, the first thing you claim is going to be ridiculously broad. Generally speaking, the first few claims in a patent are not serious attempts to patent something. The last few claims are the ones of importance. And, what do you know, the title of the patent is...the first claim. So before anyone flames Microsoft, have you read claims 11-20? Oh, there's still plenty to complain about, but not as much as the article writer implies.

Which would be all well and good if we all had infinite money and lawyers at our beck and call in our employ. Then we can afford to go to court and point out that, well, that first claim is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, an overly broad patent which is ridiculous on the face of it still has the possibility of being approved by a judge. If you're a very small company facing Microsoft's legal division, do you pay the protection money, or do you risk the expense of going to court? I thought so. While a patent may not have force of law, it has the force of possibility of law that allows really huge bullies to dominate based on ridiculous claims. It is a very serious problem that the patent office grants patents with stupid, ridiculous, and should-be-untenable patents.

-Rob

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a slashdot reader. Please read the address in your address bar.

Re:Hype

[zeath]

Imagine what we would be doing right now if Lotus were able to patent the spreadsheet concept it used in 1-2-3 20 years ago (January of 1983, to be precise - source). Admittedly, Lotus was not the first to develop the spreadsheet software concept, but since I'm drawing comparisons to Microsoft I don't see anything wrong there.

Microsoft would never have made its bloatware Excel product, and no one else would have made a spreadsheet app either. We would be stuck using 1-2-3 with Lotus charging and upgrading as it saw fit. Small business and individuals would likely be strapped for cash for such a product. Not much unlike the Microsoft Office suite. I really can't say the computer industry would actually be worse off today with such a patent. I imagine that the Windows platform would not have nearly as massive a footprint as it does now. In fact, 1-2-3 probably would have slowed adoption of graphical interfaces in general, since Microsoft would have been less able to use the Office suite as a driving force to convince businesses to upgrade.

Alternatively, the monopoly could have allowed Lotus' head to swell and, in that scenario, Lotus could be on the same track as Microsoft today. Now go play your Lotus Xbox and imagine what could have been.

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

And that has occurred on how many products? In this particular case, it was actually free to use until the submarine patent surfaced. The patent on RSA slowed down adoption of PKI immensely. Gifs would never have started off so big if it had been patented.

So, although you're not wrong, you are also not right.

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like a story involving Microsoft to bring out the haters. Nothing like patents to bring out the righteous indignance. The problem is, most Slashdot readers don't know much of the law behind patents, how they're written, and how they're challenged. Largely, they think if a patent claims something, and the patent is approved, then the claim has force of law.

What is this "most slashdot readers" crap? You really have no basis for this statement. Get off your high horse and stick to the facts.

Re:Hype

[Minna Kirai]

"Submarine" is a different kind of abuse of the patent system. It means becoming aware that someone is infringing your patent, but intentionally refraining from mentioning it until the victim has poured a heavy investment into the technology.

Then you spring the patent on him when it's too late for him to avoid it. He's then forced to concede to onerous licensing terms, or write-off the whole project.

Waiting to annouce the patent can actually increase the punitive damages you'll collect. Or at least weaken a potential competitor. The supreme example is the Polaroid patent on instant film development, which cost Kodak around $500,000,000

Re:Hype

[Loconut1389]

Wasnt visicalc before lotus 123? Or was visicalc renamed lotus 123? My memory is fuzzy back then, but there was some other product before 123.

Re:Hype

[zeath]

Yeah VisiCalc was before 123. But like I said, I was just picking 123 as it was the killer app for the PC.

Re:Hype

[Joe U]

Strange, a lot of this sounds like features of a web chat server I helped write in 1994/95. Members could save pictures and color settings.

We used URL parameters in place of cookies originally, and switched to cookies in 1996.

Re:Hype

[Loconut1389]

seeking out minor errors to try and feel better than the writer does not make you as such. Lots of posters seem to do this, but what's the point. Usually the parent posted something that took some thought or some work, or a random synapse firing that the rest of us didnt have. In any case, there is usually someone who goes and tries to find a typo and point it out as if it somehow invalidates everything the parent wrote. Give people a break. I cant tell you how many typos/brainfarts i have in a day.

Re:Hype

[rahlquist]

True on MS not enforcing. Yet being one operative word here. Now lets say I have an innovative idea based on something covered in this vauge (at best) patent. Do you think I will find any investors to help me develop it if I disclose it may infringe on a MS patent? So only MS can innovate (and subsequently profit) on their patented ideas.

Re:Hype

[Gorignak]

"not enough benifit for the public." Hmm, I never thought of patents being in place to benifit the public. I always thought the were put in place to protect and benefit the creator to put the hard work and money into the idea.

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

> Largely, they [Slashdot readers] think if a patent claims something, and the patent is approved, then the claim has force of law.

Yes, of course it has the force of law. Look at Amazon's ability to patent the idea of submitting an online purchase with a single mouse click. Barnes&Noble was sued for that, they lost, and they were forced to discontinue the technique. That was a case where a patent was enforced for an extremely broad and general idea. QED.

Are you seriously implying that Slashdotters are wrong for thinking that all patent claims don't have the force of law? Everything we've read for the last umpteen years makes it clear that all patent claims, no matter how ridiculous, are in fact subject to legal claim. A single statement by you isn't going to change the result of years of experience.

We do know, however, that a judge can throw out patent claims if they're so utterly nonsensical that even a lawyer can see it. But by that time, the damage is already done, since the lawyers have already extracted their fees, leaving the defendent feeling like he's been raped by the system even if he "wins".

Regardless of whether the patent claims are upheld in court or not, they still cause huge damage to the innocent. It's the battle that damages the victims. And the patent is the cause of the battle.

Re:Hype

[Loconut1389]

I wonder if VisiCalc had been able to obtain a software patent back then if Lotus would have made it at all?

Re:Hype

[SirSlud]

Why would you need patents in this case? Any method of invention could he beld secret by the inventor.

Patents are designed to encourage the publication of inventions and scientific discoveries, by providing *some* protection to the inventor. Edison would not have had to disclose how he made the lightbulb had he not patented it, and he could have been the only guy you could buy lightbulbs from. Because he patented the lightbulb (encouraged by the limited protection that patents offer), his methods were published and we will always know how to create a lightbulb as good as his thanks to the patent ensuring that his methods are published and publicly available.

Just never forget that patents exist to encourage inventors to disclose their methods and findings to the public; ie, to prevent monopolies via propriatary scienitific discoveries ... including, for example, proprietary protocals. When companies and inventors die, patents ensure their knowledge extends beyond their lifetimes, by offering some limited encouragement to disclose your scienitific discoveries to the public at large.

Patents are to protect the public. Successful companies like you to think of it the other way, so they can extend the protections they are offered via the patent system, while stripping the public of any chance of building inter-operable solutions and licenced implementations.

Re:Hype

[floodo1]

word up...its cuz he's an AC

its like "OMG OMG OMG like he didnt use proper grammar!! OMG" (alicia silverstone stylie)

goddamn annoying is what it is :(

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

and I haven't heard any instances of them using it to kill the competition.

Not yet. And why would they when they still dominate the marketplace? But just wait until they start to lose their grasp on the industry, if that ever happens.

Re:Hype

[penguin7of9]

You can't count the number of patents that have something as generic as "An electronic device" as the first claim.

Sure I can. The number of such patents is zero (well, barring a few typos, perhaps). There is no patent that says:

1. An electronic device.
2. The device in claim one that...

Even the first claim is qualified so that it stands on its own. In fact, in this patent, the qualification is extensive (but what it claims is still broad):

1. A method of providing a network document over a network to each of multiple users of corresponding client computers, the network document for each user being customized according to predetermined user selections of the user, comprising:

during first accessing of a server computer on the network by each user client computer, obtaining customization information from the corresponding user, assigning to the customization information a unique user identifier corresponding to the user, storing the customization information in association with the unique user identifier on the server computer, and returning the unique user identifier to the client computer; and

during subsequent accessing of a selected address on the network by each user client computer, retrieving the customization information stored on the server computer by using the unique user identifier and returning to the corresponding client computer over the network a document customized according to the customization information.

So, basically, you are wrong.

Re:Hype

[fermion]

Perhaps your grace could reference where we poor ignorant masses might educate ourselves rather than just insult us for lack of knowledge.

I hope it is not that you believe we are all too stupid to learn that you did not point to the method of protest or Prior art and Ex Parte Reexamination. One would at least a link to the fees.

Re:Hype

[angle_slam]

Wow. There are so many things wrong in your post, I don't know where to start.

Claims are the only thing with meaning in a patent. The rest is provided for reference, clarification, and simple defence. So the only thing of true importance in this document are the claims, near the top.

Sort of true, but not complete. The claims are what can be enforced in Court and define the invention. But the claims need to be supported by the specification. If a claim isn't supported by the specification, it may be found invalid.

Secondly, wildly broad claims normally start, and increasingly narrow claims are made as one works down the ordered list. Therefore, the first thing you claim is going to be ridiculously broad. Generally speaking, the first few claims in a patent are not serious attempts to patent something.

Incredibly wrong. Each claim is important and try to define the invention. The reason for additional, or dependent, claims, is in case the first claim is too broad, then the other claims can be found valid. For example, in claim 1, you may claim a chair including 3 legs. In claim 2, you may add a back to the chair. In theory, someone may have invented the chair with three legs before, invalidating the first claim. But claim 2, depending from the first claim, may still be valid. But it is not your goal to have an invalid claim.

And, what do you know, the title of the patent is...the first claim.

Huh? What are you talking about? If you are talking about the MS patent, the title of the patent is Customization of network documents by accessing customization information on a server computer using uniquie user identifiers. The first claim is:

A method of providing a network document over a network to each of multiple users of corresponding client computers, the network document for each user being customized according to predetermined user selections of the user, comprising: during first accessing of a server computer on the network by each user client computer, obtaining customization information from the corresponding user, assigning to the customization information a unique user identifier corresponding to the user, storing the customization information in association with the unique user identifier on the server computer, and returning the unique user identifier to the client computer; and during subsequent accessing of a selected address on the network by each user client computer, retrieving the customization information stored on the server computer by using the unique user identifier and returning to the corresponding client computer over the network a document customized according to the customization information.

To me, those don't look the same.

have you read claims 11-20?

Again, huh? Claim 1 is an independent claim and claims 2-10 depend from claim 1. Thus, claims 1-10 are directly related to each other. Claim 11 is an independent claim and claims 12-16 depend from claim 11. Each of claims 17-20 are independent claims. In other words, each of claims 11-20 are completely separate and independent from claims 1-10. Despite what you say, the claims don't get narrower and narrower. Dependent claims narrow the claims from which they depend, but independent claims are, well, independent.

Perhaps you need to read a tutorial on patent claims

Re:Hype

[angle_slam]

that first wild claim is enforceable Only in the context of the rest of the claims.

Bzzt! Wrong! An independent claim is read independently of the remaining claims. A dependent claim is read in light of the claim(s) from which it depends. You don't look at claim 1 and say it is valid because of something said in dependent claim 3.

Re:Hype

[Qzukk]

Given that at the time I was the sole developer and the person sued for infringement, yes, I do in fact know what went on here. Claims are not limited by later claims, in fact if you read a random sampling of modern patents, they follow this pattern:

Claim 1: Blah blah
Claim 2: The process in claim 1 using a widget
Claim 3: The process in claim 1 using a cog
Claim 4: The process in claim 1 using a psychic boar tied to a rock which in turn is resting on a switch which is connected to the power mains for the purpose of disabling the system when the psychic boar receives the telepathic order to move.

And so on. The reason for this is NOT to "limit" the first claim, its because if you patent "chair with 3 legs", I can claim that my "chair with 4 legs" is a novel improvement and therefore patentable (even though it contains 3 legs). By cramming in every possible improvement and variation they can think of into a single patent, they cut that kind of innovation off at the knees.

My particular case involved a patent where I just happened to win by just a hair, and I only got "doesn't infringe" not "this patent is a pile of crap". (Basically it came down to their Claim #1, which everything was based on, cited specifically a process which used "two databases". Mine used one database. There was much pulling of hair and arguing semantics over whether two tables within a single database was two databases.)

Re:Hype

[C10H14N2]

Not that the poster made any wildly paranoid claims. Having read through the entire document, I can't think of a single portal server that wouldn't meet most or all of the claims. I seriously doubt it will stand up to legal challenges, but expect to see quite a few million bucks that would be better spent creating jobs wasted in the courts.

Re:Hype

[MrScience]

Not really true of real innovations, such as the fractal compression technologies that are just now becoming public.

As for this patent... sure, it's obvious now, but this patent was filed seven years ago. Was it a common practice back then?

Re:Hype

[Trojan]

No that is not where it stops. You have to read *all* of this claim (claim 20). Only when a method has *all* the features mentioned in this claim, does it infringe the claim. Anyway, I guess it still is broad, but it seems the average /. reader does not really know how to read a patent claim (nothing to be ashamed of though).

Re:Hype

[stu-pendous]

for your answer, check this link http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm

Re:Hype

[brianosaurus]

"Common practice" and "obvious" are completely different things. 7 years ago the web was still very young. Yahoo! was still mainly a directory and search company, and had just begun serving Reuters news feeds to the public.

As I recall there wasn't much in the way of customization or personalization at the time, but EVERYONE was starting to implement it. As I recall, both Yahoo and Excite had personalizable pages by the summer of 1996. Yahoo unvelied My Yahoo, and Excite changed their homepage to be customizable. Those sites used the user's zip code to pre-populate local news, weather and sports sections of the page, and further customization was possible, with all settings stored on a server.

It wasn't common practice, but it was definitely becoming common practice. Certainly with the number of sites independantly launching customized pages around the same time, that practice was clearly obvious to people in the industry at the time.

Re:Hype

[rifter]

Not really true of real innovations, such as the fractal compression technologies that are just now becoming public.

As for this patent... sure, it's obvious now, but this patent was filed seven years ago. Was it a common practice back then?

Yes, Yahoo already had it then, and was copying a long line of others who had published local weather reports and stock market info based on user profiles.

Re:Hype

[zeath]

How useful. Glad you thought to look for it; I wouldn't have expected such a Q&A to exist.

Re:Hype

[rifter]

Submarine" is a different kind of abuse of the patent system. It means becoming aware that someone is infringing your patent, but intentionally refraining from mentioning it until the victim has poured a heavy investment into the technology.

Then you spring the patent on him when it's too late for him to avoid it. He's then forced to concede to onerous licensing terms, or write-off the whole project.

Waiting to annouce the patent can actually increase the punitive damages you'll collect. Or at least weaken a potential competitor. The supreme example is the Polaroid patent on instant film development, which cost Kodak around $500,000,000

I had always seen submarine patents as

1)File patent with overly broad claim describing obvious incremental technology advances

2) Delay the hell out of the patent filing process so that the patent is not granted sometimes for upwards of 10 years. Wait for people to implement the technology you are claiming.

3) ???

4) Profit!

It sucks and it is a serious abuse. Then there is the case like with the GIF patent which covered technology that was freely allowed to be used, then one day some company comes out of the blue and says "Oh, we bought this patent awhile back an dnow we are going to start suing people who use it!" It did not help that the patent changed hands several times, or that several times over the threat was made, public outcry ensued, then the company promised and swore to bugger off. (The fighting predates the web, even.)

Re:Hype

[Qzukk]

I haven't heard any instances of them using it to kill the competition.

Yet.

Pay attention to Mono and lets see how long MS lets it run. They've already made "threatening" remarks with respect to Mono. Not outright "we're going to sue you" but along the lines of "we have patents that cover what you're doing" type messages to the public.

Because, face it, Mono will be the first real challenge to Microsoft that they couldn't just buy out or otherwise take over. Not to mention that the existance of the Mono framework means that .net's vaunted "platform independence" will mean that their software cannot just be independent on all microsoft platforms.

Re:Hype

[willtsmith]

Just never forget that patents exist to encourage inventors to disclose their methods and findings to the public; ie, to prevent monopolies via propriatary scienitific discoveries ... including, for example, proprietary protocals

Yeah, as if someone needed to be told how to use a FUCKIN COOKIE to store a set of personal preferences.

Re:Hype

[kaltkalt]

The problem is the USPTO (the government's 2nd biggest cash cow, behind the IRS) will nowadays grant any patent you apply for as long as you pay the fees. Prior art, already patented, not unique and nonobvious, those things don't matter anymore. Too much work for them to do. They just take the application money, issue the patent, and let the federal courts hear the challenges that soon arise. I think anyone at the PTO who issues a patent which is later overturned by a court should at the very least lose his/her job. And they should personally have to refund all the application fees, with interest, to the person whose patent was tossed out.

Re:Hype

[WNight]

That's only the whole mother-fucking idea that cookies were invented to deal with. Identifying users. And why would you want to do that? Perhaps because only certain users get/want to see certain things.

It's like me patenting the idea of hauling computers in a truck, just because I'm the first to want to put that specific load into a truck doesn't mean it's revolutionary and deserving of a patent. Trucks were designed to carry loads, cookies were designed to store (possibly identifying) information on the client's computer, making the web stateful.

Patents were designed to enrich the public, for which we grant the creator a limited monopoly in return. If the idea was so obvious that a child would have thought of it, given the same situation, we (the public) don't benefit from having you tell us about it and thus we shouldn't give you a monopoly on the idea.

Re:Hype

[shaitand]

Remember, simply doing something which is already common on a new medium SHOULDN'T justify a patent. For instance online auction patents, almost all of them have a real world counterpart that has existed for centuries, and therefore there is nothing about them that should be patentable. There really isn't any room for a revolutionizing patent in online auctions.

Taking two existing ideas and combining them into one should be a no go as well. Storing of preferences FAR predates computers, hotels and retail stores for instance have been doing this for aa couple centuries, and long before that human beings did so simply by remembering each others favorites foods etc. This is obviously not patentable. A patent should require something NEW that will eventually be returned to the full public domain that would be the default if patent law didn't exist as a compromise.

Since software is typically just an automation of already existing things there isn't much in terms of software that should be patentable even if you do believe software should be. And it shouldn't... the software itself is rightly covered under copyright, and ideas were never supposed to be patentable in themselves (if I remember correctly the inventor used to actually have to provide a physical functional copy of the invention! These filled huge warehouses before this was stopped).

Re:Hype

[JuggleGeek]

Imagine what we would be doing right now if Lotus were able to patent the spreadsheet concept it used in 1-2-3 20 years ago

If Lotus had tried to get a patent, Visicalc could be shown as prior art, so (in theory, as I understand it, IANAL) the patent wouldn't be valid. However, if Visicalc had gotten a patent, Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't bave existed without some kind of royalty agreement.

Similar examples can be made in the areas of Word Processing, Databases, etc.

Re:Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

All claims patent exactly what they state. Yes, the first are often ridiculously broad, but that does not mean that they should be ignored. What the claim states is patented.

Why all those more detailed claims then? Because another inventor could claim one of the details, and thus stop the one with the broad claim to use that detail, which could be important. If that happens, cross-licensing is the usual solution, since the one with the detail claim cannot use it without having a license for the broad claim, and the other way around.

Also, having lots of those detailed claims protects the patent if it is attempted to invalidate it. Perhaps the first broad claim will fall, but many of the detailed ones will hold.

However, common practice work a bit like you say, that is few is sueing anyone over the first broad claims, although it does happen. Patent law gives you monopoly to exactly what you cover in your claims, even though if they are ridiculously broad.

Re:Hype

[Loconut1389]

That is a fabulous link, amazing you found that.
Although interesting, it didn't necessarily address my pondering.

Do you think lotus would still have existed?

Re:Hype

[calethix]

The first 2 replies seemed to get the fact that I was making a joke here but I guess not every slashdot reader knows how to have a sense of humour (nothing to be ashamed of though).

If you want my serious thoughts on this patent, try this post.

Re:Hype

[Gorignak]

I think the public disclosure part is optional. Let's use Coke for example. Their recipe is still a secret and is patented. They are not about to disclose the formula to help anyone come up with a candy bar that will complement the taste of the drink. If I came up with a way to convert matter to energy and energy to matter, while maintaining its original configuration and states, I would definitely patent it. I would probably state to some scientific magazines the basic principles, but not the secret for publicity. That way I could get some investors, start a business, produce a product, and do more research. NOT for the common good of mankind, but for the all mighty Bling-Bling.

Re:Hype

[SirSlud]

> Their recipe is still a secret and is patented.

Prove it. The recipie is a 'trade secret', meaning that if you can reproduce it without actually seeing the original recipie, you don't owe Coke a dime.

I do not think it is patented. Prove me wrong.

Re:Hype

[lanswitch]

"Its" should have been written as: "It's".

It IS spelled...

The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[ChaoticChaos]

We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated either through buyouts, via the fact we have more money than God, or through patents!

Bill "Laquotos" Gates
"It's no longer about software, it's about kicking around your candy ass"

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[matthew.thompson]

It's Locutus.

It may just be a throw away comment on /. but please attempt to spell names correctly.

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[MyDixieWrecked]

I, for one, welcome our new cybronic overlords...

(hey! it was just a joke! I swear!)

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[ChaoticChaos]

Geez, lighten up. :-)

I even tried using Google to find the correct spelling and couldn't. :-( You got the point though.

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[proj_2501]

Buy him out, boys!

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=picard+%22of+borg%22

first result.

not hard.

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[Thuktun]

Bill "Laquotos" Gates

Do you mean "Locutus"?

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I read it as: Lock-out-us...
(think vendor lock-out here)

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Latin and is related to "locution". You'd also have heard it if you are Catholic or listen to classical music. Don't they teach this stuff in high school anymore?

Re:The Borg are on the rampage! :-)

[mariox19]

Only in the best schools.

more please

[Cally]

the more stupid patents like this are granted, the greater the vested interest of those controlling the laws (corporates) in either getting the lawes fixed, or the Patent Office reformed.

Re:more please

[Bonker]

I disagree. This weakens the patent system as a whole. Individuals and companies don't even bother to check for patents on their ideas anymore since they know they'll be sued anyway.

Re:more please

[Snags]

"Individuals and companies don't even bother to check for patents on their ideas anymore since they know they'll be sued anyway."

As a matter of fact, engineers are encouraged *not* to do a patent search. Having seen the patents that you'll probably infringe on anyway just proves intent, making the penalties worse. It's much better to infringe by accident.

Re:more please

[ajs]

Actually, just the opposite is true. Bad patents are creating an "old boys club" of sorts among established companies where mutual assured suing-into-the-ground prevents most patent suits, but when an young upstart moves in and starts taking market share, they can be shut down with a landslide of patent suits over technology that that company needed to get started.

This is preventing innovatin and growth in the market!

That figures

[PowerBert]

My local weather report is about as useful as Windows ;-)

Re:That figures

[notque]

Yes, does this mean i'll never see weatherbug on another pc?

*Pictures self running around a chocolate heaven dancing.*

Re:That figures

[colinleroy]

do you live in Great Britain ? :)

Re:That figures

[Anonymous Coward]

My local weather report is about as useful as Windows

I've always thought that was strange- I mean, with all the computing power available these days, how come the don't have 'one month' forecasts instead of '5 day' forecasts? Hell, why can't they even get the fuckin '5 day' forecasts right more often than not?!?

Yay

[matthew.thompson]

Microsoft are now in the position where they've effectively patented the provision of personalised web content.

What's the betting they use this to drive adoption of Microsoft hosting solutions by charging a license fee if the solution is implemented on anything else?

I'm jumping on the bandwagon.

[Stingr]

I'm going to patent thought before Microsoft does.

wondering if

[odt]

..anyone doing any thinking lately in the patent office?

They're after /.!

[BJH]

I told you that we should never have gone along with user registration!

Re:They're after /.!

[ivan256]

Like you're one to talk. You gave in a signed up before me! At least a month before from the looks of it!

--

A little background for all the newbies out there, (If your ID is over 50k, you're probably a newbie) when Slashdot started user registration there was an anti-registration movement and loads of complaints about what slashdot may do with our personal information and such. When it got to about 15k registrations it mostly died down and everybody forgot about it. Most of the people with IDs between 10k and 20k are the ones that were anti-registration and held out for a while.

Re:They're after /.!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the bright side... without storing user info on network servers, companies like doubleclick might just go out of business... or perhaps just be assimulated into the 'dark side' by the evil M$ marketing empire.

And I must ask myself, am I already in violation of said patent by unknowingly using such cookie services without paying M$ its royalties simply by virtue of browsing the web? Do I need to pay M$ just to use a "PassPort" now? Somebody must be storing info on me if I use one and since everyone is _so_ suspicious of M$ storing all their info, now M$ could perhaps collect $$ from anyone using the passport service on their site to do so?

Re:They're after /.!

[BJH]

Yeah, yeah. So I'm a hypocrite, sue me ;)
Looking back on it now, the funny thing is that any personal information that /. may try to use is so riddled with people called "Fecal Troll" or "Penis Bird Man" that it's essentially useless...

Re:They're after /.!

[whig]

A little background for all the newbies out there, (If your ID is over 50k, you're probably a newbie) when Slashdot started user registration there was an anti-registration movement and loads of complaints about what slashdot may do with our personal information and such. When it got to about 15k registrations it mostly died down and everybody forgot about it. Most of the people with IDs between 10k and 20k are the ones that were anti-registration and held out for a while.

Right. Whatever.

Re:They're after /.!

[BJH]

You're just bitter because you're more of a sellout than we are ;)

Windows - the word - is patented too

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading an article that Lindows was violating M$ patent and trademarks because of the similarity.

M$ lost that case.

I think as time goes own people who create these patents for things will lose them mainly because it is main stream and part of society.

Hence why the patent and trademarking of the terms Windows related to a computer did not pan out for M$ in the past.

Re:Windows - the word - is patented too

[mopslik]

Patents and trademarks are two very different things. Lindows won their case against trademark-infringement because a judge ruled that "Windows" was too generic a term. Patent cases are another matter entirely and, given the past record, often far more damaging.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

This 90% chance of rain today is not a bug, it's a feature!

Pony up /.

[w3weasel]

Time to do a redesign of user services on /. or accept the inevitable... MS will own us all.

What I fail to understand is...

[strAtEdgE]

... what is the purpose of getting these ridiculous patents when everyone and their mom already has 'prior art'? Is there some kind of an advantage that I don't know about? Does the prior art produced have to be your own and not someone elses (MS could therefore eliminate any future competition)?

Re:What I fail to understand is...

[SirSlud]

Because, in so far as the current process works, 'prior art' can only consist of previously approved patents.

IE, the US patent system is truely a 'first to file' patent system. Patents will generally be approved even if somebody can demonstrate that they had 'prior art' but failed to patent it.

It's a nice way of facilitating an extra advantage to the markets' status-quo leaders ... who, generally speaking, have all the money and the lawyers they need to file for patents as often as they like.

Re:What I fail to understand is...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are WRONG. The fact that you speak in a pompous, know-it-all way makes your comment laughable. Prior art is not about patents. It is about prior implementation of the patent. Please refrain from talking out of your ass from now on, thank you very much.

Re:What I fail to understand is...

[extrarice]

You've got it backwards.

According to the US Department of State

"The United States is unique in its approach to the allocation of patent rights. In the United States, patent rights are granted to the 'first to invent' rather than the universally accepted approach of the 'first to file.'"

"...what constitutes prior use or public knowledge -- 'prior art' - differs considerably [in the US] from standards commonly adopted elsewhere. Although subject matter described in a printed publication or patent will constitute prior art, whether or not it is published or patented in the United States, the same is not true of subject matter in public use or known to the public. In these latter cases, only use or knowledge within the United States or its territories constitutes prior art. Many countries determine the applicability of prior art without geographic limitations."

Re:What I fail to understand is...

[SirSlud]

I *am* wrong. The US patent system is a 'first to invent' system.

But ... I am going on what little I know about the US patent office's methods for determining prior art when considering an application for a patent. In so far as the patent approval process is concerned, the method the patent office uses to search for prior art is, for the most part, their own database.

If you challenge a patent in court, prior art is of course, documented prior implementation. However, this introduces an inherent weakness in the system; to challenge a patent takes money. How this helps the inventor (ie, the holder of the 'prior art') is beyond me, seeing as patents should be protecting the first to invent, not first to file as it would appear to protect in this case.

Furthur more, the USPTO requires prior art to exist in printed documentation (european patent office accepts oral descriptions of prior art, which strengthens traditional/cultural knowledge as a potential source of prior art) and have a very limited time frame in which to conduct their search for prior art.

These are common complaints of the US patent approval system. Yes, in name, its a first to invent system, but in practice it tends to favour the first to file.

one such reference: http://shr.aaas.org/report/xxii/2_patent.htm

Re:What I fail to understand is...

[SirSlud]

Thanks for the correction. I've extended my thoughts in a reply to the above reply, which address your corrections. (Specifically that the restrictive terms of the USPTO's prior art guidelines cause the system to function in my ways like a 'first to file' system, since the first to file is frequently the first to document, but not neccessarily the first to invent.)

Re:What I fail to understand is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sibling posts are idiots. The sytem is 'first to file'. A stinking pile of sludge by any other name smells just as foul, and regardless of what our system is called, or how it is supposed to operate, it is most clearly a 'first to file' system.

Re:What I fail to understand is...

[udippel]

(I'll surely be modded down as usual for an un-american comment ..)

This *is* actually a difference between the US system and elsewhere. Think about the consequences. Shall I say 'intended consequences' ??

A bright chap makes in invention in - let's say - Egypt and publishes it. Sells it. A clever greedy American visiting Egypt therefore will get a patent for it from USPTO - only in US; see parent. Greedy American reaps royalties but is up for more. Contacts State Department and complains that Egyptian still makes money in utter disrespect of US patent. Egyptian cannot apply for patent, because greedy American holds it. State Department cite Egyptian Embassador and complains with him about Egyptian contravening greedy American's patent. Government of Egypt will blow the whistle on Egyptian to stop manufacturing his invention or pay licence fee to greedy American. For fear of reprisals.

You think this story is an invention ? An accident ? - It is not. It is occurring.
Beware, Americans are not utterly stupid !! (but rather up to something; you may guess what ... !)

Re:What I fail to understand is...

[Dhalka226]

Well, I agree in part with you.

A bright chap makes in invention in - let's say - Egypt and publishes it. Sells it. A clever greedy American visiting Egypt therefore will get a patent for it from USPTO - only in US; see parent. Greedy American reaps royalties but is up for more.

I don't know if that was an "intended consequence," but it is certainly a valid one. That is assuming, however, that patents are not governed by international law the way most copyrights are (Berne Convention). I do not know if they are or not.

However...

Contacts State Department and complains that Egyptian still makes money in utter disrespect of US patent. Egyptian cannot apply for patent, because greedy American holds it. State Department cite Egyptian Embassador and complains with him about Egyptian contravening greedy American's patent.

This seems entirely too far-fetched. The average Joe who secures a patent is not going to, or going to be able to, run off to the State Department and get them hopping. Maybe massive companies could do so, however most massive companies nowadays have ties outside of the US (or their respective country, whatever that may be) that they need to be wary of. Particularly, international companies would need to be wary as they may very well fall under other law.

Government of Egypt will blow the whistle on Egyptian to stop manufacturing his invention or pay licence fee to greedy American. For fear of reprisals.

Again, maybe, but I doubt it. Governments need to operate under the force of law. Even if the US could, and did, pressure the Egyptian government into coming down on the actual inventor, they need an established authority to enforce an American patent in Egypt, a patent that post-dates the one the Egyptian secured. If that be international law, then see my first point about the validity of the entire scenario. If there is some local law that permits the government to undermine a patent that same government has issued, the problem seems to be with the government of Egypt and a smoke-and-mirror patent system and not necessarily with how the US system affects anybody or anything.

(And yes, I know "Egypt" was only an example and I use it only in keeping with the given scenario; I don't mean to imply that Egypt has any such policies or problems.)

Did you even read the patent?

[stratjakt]

What the hell is this "MS patents weather report" shit?

This patent is about a very specific server-side customization scheme. Somewhat like cookies on the server-side.

Bunch of moronic zealots. "MS did something it has to be evil!"

Re:Did you even read the patent?

[infodude]

Isn't that bad enough?

Re:Did you even read the patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bunch of moronic zealots. "MS did something it has to be evil!"

Good argument. How can I disagree with you when you're so persuasive?

Re:Did you even read the patent?

[winkydink]

Bunch of moronic zealots. "MS did something it has to be evil!"

You said it, but then again, this is /. What did you expect? If there was a reference on the Main Page that said. "Bill Gates takes a dump. It's brown.", within an hour, there'd be 300+ replies slamming Gates, feces, Microsoft and how all 3 are really the same thing.

But, don't worry about people reading this or your original. We'll both be mod'ed down into oblivion very soon for not joining in the bashing frenzy. This is, after all, /.

Re:Did you even read the patent?

[ThosLives]

Hrm. Perhaps, this is about a server-side scheme. However, how is it unique? Why is this patentable? I'm not arguing the fact that this is what the patent says, but how is this different than any other use of an identifier to obtain information, regardless of where the identifier is stored? (Also, the "persistent client state" the claims mention seems an awful lot like a cookie, which isn't server-side at all.)

The main argument the folks here at /. have is that these patents don't seem to have any inherent unique value, and they appear to be granted long after people have been using the technology (especially in Software Land).

That said, IP legislation and philosophies are quite a touchy matter with this crowd...and they don't even see the patents the auto industry comes up with like "A method of attaching an ingress/egress panel to a vehicle side using a hinge".

Re:Did you even read the patent?

[AstroDrabb]

Do you smoke crack? Or are you just in love with Billy boy? Did you even *read* the patent?

instructions for obtaining HTML document customization information from the user of the client computer, the HTML document customization information indicating user preferences for an HTML document available to the user over the network; and

instructions for obtaining HTML document customization information from the user of the client computer during a first accessing of the network by the user client computer, the HTML document customization information indicating user preferences for an HTML document available to the user over the network

Do you really think MS "invented" this? These are techniques used by an INDUSTRY for YEARS.

Oh, and what abou this claim

The method of claim 1 in which the user identifier is returned to the client computer as persistent client state information.

Can you say COOKIE?

Or This one

The method of claim 1 in which the user identifier includes a globally unique identifier.

Umm, sounds like a SESSION ID?

MS can take this patent and basically shut down ANY web site out there. You get a cookie from /., you get cookies and sessions for any web commerce site. This is just sick. MS has enough money to shut anyone down with this patent they do not like. Do you think any small or medium sized site/company could withstand a cour battle with MS? You sound like the only Zealot here. Backing up any unethical, monopolistic action of MS.

Re:Did you even read the patent?

[chrisbtoo]

MS can take this patent and basically shut down ANY web site out there.

Presumably your IIS license covers the patent, though, so only people using non-IIS webservers would really be affected.

Re:Did you even read the patent?

[servoled]

Holy ignorant post batman! Seriously, you should actually learn a little about patents and patent law before trying to argue things like this.

All you have done in the first part ("instructions for obtaining HTML document...") of your argument is take 1/2 of a few claims and complained about them while completely ignoring the rest of the claim.

In the second part you complained about some dependent ("the method of claim 1...") claims, however, dependent claims still have the restrictions of the claims that they are dependent on and don't stand by themselves. So, you at least got something right, that is a cookie, and that second thing is a session ID, but they also have claim 1 incldued within.

Your argument is a composistion fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composit ion.html). You are basically saying that since one part of the claim is invalid, then the entire patent must be invalid, which is incorrect logic.

I have not read the entire patent and offer no opionion as its validity.

Re:Did you even read the patent?

[MultisSanguinisFluit]

I did, and I noticed the following in Claim 1:

during first accessing of a server computer on the network by each user client computer, obtaining customization information from the corresponding user

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when you access the "server computer" using HTTP for the first time, you're typically given a default page. If you click on a "customize this page" link, then you can customize away. However, that is a different page, and hence, a second access, according to HTTP. Claim 1 wouldn't apply, and so none of the other claims would. (I may be wrong because there are keepalives, etc.)

Well...

[winstarman]

I can't say that I'm amazed at all.

that's called innovation you lazy hippies

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps if you came up with important technical advances like this instead of watching kiddie porn and smoking dope you'd be rich like Billy G.

Forums?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Forums have been doing this for years right? I mean even /. customises its user interface based on user preferences, users being identified by a unique ID in a cookie...

<sigh>

Madness, utter madness...

Re:Forums?

[KarmaPolice]

> Forums have been doing this for years right? I mean even /. customises its user interface based on user preferences, users being identified by a unique ID in a cookie...
Maybe years, yes. But MS filed this claim 7 years ago. Sounds a bit like cookies to me, though. They were invented by Netscape many years ago...

Re:Forums?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if there is nowhere WWW specified then every client server app with a login might be prior art.
Sheesh you can trace back this kind of stuff into the 60s.

Fer chrissakes!

[caferace]

The paptent speaks to the use of cookies to maintain a persistent state. Since I don't remember MS inventing cookies (who did?) there obviously is prior art. This part is my favorite though:

"In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, it should be recognized that the detailed embodiments are illustrative only and should not be taken as limiting the scope of our invention. Rather, we claim as our invention all such embodiments as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto. "

jeez.

Re:Fer chrissakes!

[gigaloCA]

This patent goes a lot futher than cookies. If one reads through the text of the claim, it becomes obvious that Microsoft has been granted a patent to a complete system of persistent, user configurable web sites. Described is the method of storage on the server, transmission, storage on the client side, and perhaps most importantly, the idea of HTML dynamically produced on the server side!!!

" . . . And that's the way the cookie crumbles . . ."

Re:Fer chrissakes!

[AstroDrabb]

I am pretty sure it was Netscape that invented the use of Cookies.

Re:Fer chrissakes!

[jez_f]

perhaps most importantly, the idea of HTML dynamically produced on the server side

CGI generated HTML has been around for ages, they couldn't try that. I only had a quick read but it seemed to be the idea of dynamicaly generating content based on the content of the cookie.

Re:Fer chrissakes!

[Tony]

I only had a quick read but it seemed to be the idea of dynamicaly generating content based on the content of the cookie.

Right. So this patent covers everything except using cookies to track user information. Almost any time you *do* anything useful with the cookie, you are infringing their patent.

Fortunately, there should be tons of cases of prior art, including the standard, "Hello, World!" cookie examples I remember from years ago.

What's next?

[ShadeARG]

So.. Microsoft got a patent for cookies!? What's next? Patenting site specific identifiable location resources (bookmarks)?

Re:What's next?

[HostileTarget]

It's not a patent for cookies, It's a patent for server side storage. The cookie may be used to identify the user, but the data is to be stored on the server (perhaps in a SQL database). Basically any site with registrations that are stored on the server is in violation of MS's patent. I'm sure they'll be kinda enough to come up with a license fee for you to access your server database. Course the solution is to not create HTML pages. What about XML only web pages. More confusing but still an option. Even more farfetched, we can adopt a new web page format. SWF? PDF? Or let's just prerender everything into PNG files.

Re:What's next?

[ShadeARG]

Just imagine this in conjunction with Passport.

From dictionary.com:

passport - (4) Something that gives one the right or privilege of passage, entry, or acceptance.

So Passport seems to be the unique identifier. Can we say another successful monopolizing strategy, anyone?

Re:What's next?

[ThePilgrim]

Sorry but the patent claims all other methods that fall within the spirit of the clame. So it looks like returning any markup is in breach.

Is it just me, or did they just patent portals?

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

I read the article, and here's is how the abstract reads:
User-selected customization information for a network (e.g., HTML) document is stored at a server with reference to user identifying information that uniquely identifies the user. Whenever the user navigates back to the network address of the HTML document, the user is identified automatically and receives a customized HTML document formed in accordance with the customization information.

I'm not legal expert, but it sounds as if they just patented portals ... you know, like http://my.yahoo.com ... where you customize the information you want to see so whenever you use this page as your home site, your receive a "a customized HTML document formed in accordance with the customization informatio."

If so, what does this do to all the phpNuke, postNuke, phpWebsite and other mom-n-pop driven portals out there?

Re:Is it just me, or did they just patent portals?

[gl4ss]

yep, they patented slashdot to shut it down.

.

Patenting "cookies"

[l2718]

They seem to be patenting the "cookie" system. Were cookies first introduced by MS back when? If so, they may have the "originality" claim. I'd even concede that this solution isn't "obvious".

Still, is this an "invention"? is this patentable? How many people here think Leibnitz should have patented integration by parts?

Re:Patenting "cookies"

[EricTheRed]

I thought it was Netscape that "invented" cookies. At least all of the original authoritive documentation for them were on Netscapes site.

Re:Patenting "cookies"

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, some elves in a tree in a magical forest invented the first cookies.

Re:Patenting "cookies"

[ichimunki]

The answers to your questions: No. Not in my opinion. Apparently. A number greater than zero probably-- but who cares? Such a patent would have expired over 250 years ago.

And for the record this MS patent does not talk about just any use of cookies.-- only the use of cookies in the context of allowing a user to customize a web page like those served up by portals. Furthermore, I am not aware of any lawsuits filed by Microsoft in their entire history in which they alleged patent infringement by respondents. However, they have been sued on a regular basis on this type of thing since the 80s. Until proven otherwise, I consider Microsoft patents to be completely defensive in nature. While I generally distrust and dislike the company, this is one area where we can afford to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Patenting "cookies"

[Kindaian]

Cookies are already patented by netscape (now aol).

Re:Patenting "cookies"

[Anonymous Coward]

Cookies are client-side. Patent is for server-side.

Re:Patenting "cookies"

[Oloryn]

Were cookies first introduced by MS back when?

To the best of my recollection, Netscape introduced cookies to browser technology, not MS.

Re:Patenting "cookies"

[7*6]

care to elaborate?

Screw weather report, it covers POP3...

[Gadzinka]

Screw the weather report or stock quotes. The language of the patent describes also offline message retrieval via POP3 protocol.

American patent system is scary stuff... ;)

Robert

in other news....

[514x0r]

m$ patents...
typing with a keyboard
poking around on the internet while bored
walking
eating
breathing
sleeping

Re:in other news....

[ideatrack]

In other news... Microsoft has also just patented bitching about Microsoft, and is now contacting regular users of popular website slashdot.org for credit card details. More news as it happens....

All patents are evil.

[Thinkit3]

It's just when Microsoft gets one that it shows how evil they are. Abolish patents.

Re:All patents are evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

"Abolish patents." "All patents are evil."

Any more stupid sloganesque phrases you want to spit out to show further that you are a mindless sheep?

I'd like to patent...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

A shape for the minimization of expose surface area for rolling bodies. Since friction is a function of surface area, the ideal shape would be one that reduces the area from a plane to a point from all directions.

Anyone who uses the Wheel group will have to pay me royalties for use of the name.

Re:I'd like to patent...

[Mordibity]

Sounds to me like you've patented the sphere instead! ;-)

Re:I'd like to patent...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Sounds to me like you've patented the sphere instead! ;-)

That takes balls. Oooo another patent on bearings...

wow

[NotAnotherReboot]

I fail to see how this is non-obvious once someone creates the idea of any type of personalized content online. The idea of the consumer internet is to provide them with information; if there was any system where one could stick in a ZIP code or even have a login with user information on them, it seems to be a short step to save information that the user would have formerly inputted. I guess this is the same sort of reaction to most of these patent stories on slashdot, but it does seem as though the patent system is broken.

Mid 80's BBS?

[smoon]

Sheesh, sounds a lot like what my old Commodore with a 300-baud dial up into someone elses Commodore as a "BBS" system would do. Of course the "Server" had 64K RAM and a 160K floppy disk, but it customized what you saw based on your login.

I think this was in 1983 or 1984.

Of course CompuServe did this in a bigger way as well as many other online providers. Anyone remember Quantum?

Re:Mid 80's BBS?

[doppleganger871]

Quantum Link, or Q-Link... of course. I was Dopple on there. And the disk has 664 blocks, of 256 bytes each, so it was 166Kbytes. (using the 1024=1kbyte method, ya have to specify that in order to keep from getting sued)

Re:Mid 80's BBS?

[ivan256]

That doesn't sound anything like this patent. The patent clearly states that it covers implementations with HTML forms and cookies. Did you have those in 1983? I didn't think so.

Re:Mid 80's BBS?

[John Allsup]

Claims are INDEPENDANT! As I've said elsewhere, to infringe on the patent, you need only infringe 1 valid claim. (This includes claim 1, until such time as claim 1 is declared invalid in a sufficiently powerful court.)

Only claim 4 (and dependants) clearly states that it covers implementations with HTML forms.

How it works:
If I claim, for example:
1. A flobberworm comprising:
a. thingy 1
b. thingy 2
2. The method of claim 1 in which
a. thingy 1 is red
b. thingy 2 is yellow
3. The flobberworm of claim 1, further comprising
a. thingy 3

Then:
an object which comprises (includes) thingy 1 and thingy 2 falls within the bounds of claim 1, thus infringes the patent.

Claims 2 and 3 are fallbacks in case claim 1 is declared invalid. In that case, an object comprising a red thingy 1 and a yellow thingy 2 would infringe claim 2 and thus infringe the patent. Similarly, an object comprising a thingy 1, a thingy 2 and a thingy 3 would infringe claim 3 and hence infringe the patent.

The claims are arranged so that the broadest possible valid claims are staked. Thus if 1 is invalid, 2 may not be, if 2 is invalid, 3 may not be, etc., etc..

Blow me down!

[kiwimate]

FP and it's coherent, relevant, and even somewhat insightful. Next up -- bacon sandwiches go for an afternoon flutter around the skies.

The 'calm' before the storm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it only me, or does it feel like there's a storm brewing, and it's name is "patent wars"?

When I first heard of MS Longhorn being "delayed" (it doesn't matter if it's actually delayed or simply in When Done Mode) until 2006 I thought that this is MS trying to sprint of into the distance. Their view, and I don't think it's that off personally, is that GNU/Linux + Apps works by copying the good things off Windows. Now, I think they're trying to make the change so large, the amazingly huge, that they'll get a few years head start where GNU/Linux with KDE/Gnome will again look like it's far behind, trying to catch up. So, release Longhorn and tout the differences (never mind that users will find some things confusing and that "different than the previous Windows" was always seen as bad) as amazing and get all the PHB to buy, buy, buy.

Okay, so they release Longhorn with a lot of new features all of which they expect KDE/Gnome/etc developers to copy... but the surprise in the bag is... patents.

BAM!

It's going to get ugly.

[jole]

Fuck the abstract, read the claims.

[Anonymous Coward]

For crissakes. how many patent stories have to be posted to Slashdot before people learn to ignore the abstract and read what is ACTUALLY being CLAIMED?

Don't Blame Microsoft

[jetkust]

This is only because of the idiotic US Patent system that microsoft has to buy a bunch of dumb patents because if they didn't some moronic company would come along sueing them for having a web browser that supports plugins.

Re:Don't Blame Microsoft

[MarkJensen]

As much as I would like to bitch and moan about Microsoft and their nefarious activities... I have to admit that this seems like a move they HAVE to make. They were successfully sued because they used a concept (plug-ins) that someone ELSE had patented. I have to agree that this seems to be a legitimate defensive move on their part.

No bashing to be done here... The only real solution is U.S. Patent reform, and that is not going to happen any time soon, I fear. Let's move on to the next story.

Re:Don't Blame Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are saying makes sense up to a point. But what happens when Microsoft decides they want to be the "moronic company" that starts sueing everyone? What's to keep them from doing it? Nothing!

Their monopolistic behavior makes me believe that they will eventually do this. So what if they own the desktop market, and even a large chunk of the server market. They try to kill anything that competes, by hook or crook. Mark my words - they will eventually give into the temptation to use this against their competitors.

Go ape-$hit, yes, but...

[PDHoss]

... AFAIK, Microsoft files patents almost exclusively for defensive purposes. Look at their patent history. Not much in the way of patent enforcement. Take CSS for example.

PDHoss

Re:Go ape-$hit, yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are always in time to begin enforcing their patents if that helps crush the competiton.

OTOH

[houghi]

In Russia the Local Weather Report Patents Microsoft

(Sorry)

Re:OTOH

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh dude, that'd be in 'Soviet' Russia.

Patent Busters!

[bunnyshooz]

Looks like a job for Gregory Aharonian, who has busted a lot of patents in the past that had a basis in "prior art".

Patenting everything to do with computers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Next they'll be granted the patent for using any form of computer technology to accomplish work or solve a problem.

They put the obvious...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

in patently obvious.

This is actually a patent for the use of cookies to alter web content for individual users.

I'm a bit peeved because all of my websites do that, and they have been doing it for years. I will be more than happy to join a suit claiming prior art. I've been programming with cookies since at least 1999. (And yes I have written my own cookie implementations, and modified the cookie systems on the Tclhttpd.)

Re:They put the obvious...

[ivan256]

First of all, the patent was filed in 1996, so you're 3 years too late to be *prior* art.

Secondly I would bet your pages don't infringe. Do you organize your customization form by topics like News, Life, Technology, or Weather? If not you're in the clear.

Re:They put the obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: This was submitted seven years ago, as in 1996. I don't think you have claim to prior art in 1999.

Would anyone like to take a vote...

[Frobozz0]

... on how much longer the internet and open information exchange is around? I'm willing to bet stupid patents on obvious PROCESSES will be the end of the internet as we know it.

Greed. It's NOT good. Do the world a favor, and don't listen to your lawyer for moral advice. Just because you CAN get away with something obviously seedy like this, doesn't mean you should.

I believe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe cookies were first introduced by netscape back in the 2.0 days no (oh man and the fuss ppl made about it then ... what a web page storing info on my local computer... this must be something evil then )?
read here (article created more than 8 years ago...)
http://wp.netscape.com/assist/support/ser ver/tn/cr oss-platform/20019.html

Re:I believe ...

[CoolGuySteve]

I remember in high school, some kid was talking about how his friend's credit card information was magically stolen by a website, he didn't even have to enter it anywhere on the internet. It was because of those damn cookies! Don't use cookies! The RCMP says they let people steal your credit card information!!!

Then I told him that it was more likely that his friend did something stupid and was too embarrassed to admit it. There was a pause and then "Nuh uh, it was the cookies!"

Incredibly specific patent

[ivan256]

You'd have to go out of your way to infringe this patent. Lets look at some of the things you have to do:

You must provide the user's identifier on the server side. This means that if you use a user entered login name as the database index for the customization information, you're safe.

The server side user ID *must* be stored in a cookie.

Only HTML is covered. (I.E. not XHTML).

Only HTML forms are covered.

Customization options must be catagorized under headings, and the only headings covered are news, sports, financial matters, entertainment, science and technology, life, and weather. Not grouping the options selection form in that manner makes you a non-infringer. I can't think of any sites that do this. Perhaps MSN.com did at one point?

I would guess that it took so long to get this patent because it was overly broad when filed, and the USPTO made microsoft narrow it down to something so specific as to not really matter before issuing it. That's an example of the USPTO working correctly.

Re:Incredibly specific patent

[extrarice]

Not quite. The patent is full of:
"...in which the network document includes an HTML format..."

XHTML is an HTML format. If the patent said "in which the network document includes *the* HTML format", then you might be right. But the patent is not specific enough. Any document that contains any kind of HyperText Markup Language format is covered by this patent.

Re:Incredibly specific patent

[ivan256]

Any document that contains any kind of HyperText Markup Language format is covered by this patent.

Not any HTML document. It still has to fit the rest of the terms.

Re:Incredibly specific patent

[misterpies]

I'm afraid you're not very practiced at reading patents. Each separate claim is an individual protected invention, insofar as it does not rely on the others. Thus just because claim (x+1) refers to "claim x implemented using HTML", that doesn't mean that the patent only applies to HTML. It means that it applies to both x implemented any old way, and to x specifically implemented using HTML.

The reason for this is that if someone can defeat claim x (for being too broad), the patentee can still try and fall back on the more limited claim in (x+1).

Furthermore patent claims are read purposively. Thus for example if a patent for invention specifies a vertical support, then you can't evade the patent by using a support 1 degree off vertical, unless you can establish that the invention patented truly requires absolute verticality. In this situation, a judge would probably rule that a patent covering HTML implementation would extend to XHTML and any other mark-up language that can be read by a standard web browser, since obviosuly the purpose of specifying HTML is to cover such documents.

Re:Incredibly specific patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but did you read the closing statement of the patent? They basically contradict their entire specificity:

In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, it should be recognized that the detailed embodiments are illustrative only and should not be taken as limiting the scope of our invention. Rather, we claim as our invention all such embodiments as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.

Re:Incredibly specific patent

[aimless]

Just to clarify: Dependant Claims do not limit the scope of their Independant Claims. They are separate entities that have a more limited scope than the Independant claim to which they referr.

Also: If it is not in the Claims, they have no Claim to it...litigation-wise, it matters very little what is written in the Specification.

Fun discussion =)

-A

Re:Incredibly specific patent

[Anonymous Coward]

That means absolutely nothing, it's a common paragraph at the end of ever application.

Open Window . . .

[The Angry Mick]

. . . Look at weather.

It really is that simple.

One saving grace?

[extrarice]

Claim 6: "The method of claim 5 in which the topical groupings of customization options relate to one or more of: news, sports, financial matters, entertainment, science and technology, life, and weather. "

The above claim is one of the only entries that tries to narrow down the patent from being for any client/server/databased user prefrerence system.

But, it's not much of a saving grace. It states that the groupings deal with *one or more* of news, sports, money, entertainment, science & tech, life and weather. So, if any system keeps track of any of those settings, it is treading on Microsoft's patent. Well, if any site takes out all of those categories, to not violate the patent, what other categories can be made? I sure can't think of any.

Re:One saving grace?

[Fred IV]

It states that the groupings deal with *one or more* of news, sports, money, entertainment, science & tech, life and weather. So, if any system keeps track of any of those settings, it is treading on Microsoft's patent. Well, if any site takes out all of those categories, to not violate the patent, what other categories can be made? I sure can't think of any.

"Life" is probably broad enough to cover just about anythin a human might want to look at...unless the categories must use those exact terms, in that case we might be checking the calefaction forecast for my zip code in the near future.

Not hype

[fleener]

God forbid the patent office would act responsibly and avoid a slew of lawsuits to fight frivolous patent claims. Oh wait, I see now, this is a federal welfare program for lawyers.

Pretty useless patent

[seaton carew]

Reading the claims all the way through, it seems like it's a way of:

1. Letting the user pre-specify "preferences" on the client for one or more of: news, sports, financial matters, entertainment, science and technology, life, and weather.
2. Sending a customised web page back based on these preferences, even if it's their first visit

So it's not exactly going to affect the traditional cookie-based preference setting (which occurrs after the first visit).

Sounds like some misguided "My preferences" panel in Internet Explorer. Considering they haven't implemented it in seven years suggests that it never got past user testing....

Re:Pretty useless patent

[stratjakt]

Think when they filed it 7 years ago, it was probably a part of their vision for MSN.com.

Like you said, it's pretty useless and obsolete by now.

Which is a great thing about the patent process for software. Once its granted, the invention is likely obsolete.

US Patent

[triptolemeus]

Since slashdot use cookies to enhance my user experience, it will no longer be possible to host the site in the USA.

To protect us, I will be donating my bandwidth (12K up :-( ) to Rob and friends so they can host their site in Europe.

Guess my ISP will learn what the slashdot effect is.

Re:US Patent

[orasio]

In fact, they must be learning about the slashdot effect themselves, I have been getting "500 internal server error" in the past days.

This is old?

[pkunzipper]

Is not this method already used by yahoo and ISPs that give their customers personal websites to customize? Or am I understanding this all wrong?

So when I log in, I get a the week's performance chart for Starbucks stock and a thermometer pic that says 23 degrees? Can they find something more useful to drain my processors energy?? ...This "invention" by Isaac (Microsoft employee) falls under the category of unused accessories.

I don't understand???

[Martok7]

Maybe I am not thinking clearly today but what is this patent? Is this a patent to view file traffic across a network then alter the files by adding crap to it. Like cookie targeting for network traffic. So I can get a fun pop-up ad for financial services when I grab a file containing stock information?

friction IS NOT a function of the area...

[Pope Raymond Lama]

you insensitie clod!

Re:friction IS NOT a function of the area...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Like the rules of physics, common sense have anything to do with patent laws.

But really, does your fuel economy go up or go down with under-inflated tires? It goes down. Why? Inflated tires have a larger surface area.

Next example. Take a 5 pound block. Now, pull the block across the table. That was a bit of work. Take 2 wooden dowels and glue them to the bottom of the block. Now pull. That was a lot easier, even with the added mass of the "skis".

Why are aircraft round instead of square?

Your article just describes static friction and kinetic friction. It' doesn't get into modeling friction of different shapes, aerodynamic friction, how friction increases with relative velocity, or any of a large and rather nasty set of equations.

Re:friction IS NOT a function of the area...

[Zirnike]

"Why are aircraft round instead of square?"

Not to nitpick, but that example is drag, not friction. The reason is turbulence at corners, which will result in vortices, increasing drag.

"Inflated tires have a larger surface area"

Ummmm... true, but this is rolling friction. An underinflated tire and a properly inflated tire will actually require the same amount of force to move... if the tires are locked. The deformation of the tire, lack of possible 'slippery spots', etc. increase the force required to move the tire, but not the friction itself (except in that mechanical engineers prefer to make the whole thing easier to work with by 'distilling' all the variables to one easily measured constant, the coefficient of rolling friction. For example, I can take the torque of hte motor of a pump I built and tell you the maximum pressure it will be able to deliver (seals willing)... But the internal 'friction' comes from friction, efficiency losses in the gear train, 'drag' from the lubrication, seal friction, losses needed to recirculate the balls in the linear ball screw, etc. - but it all boils down to 'multiply torque in in-oz by 300* for pressure')

Now, the increased surface area reduces the heat at any given point, reducing the 'liquid film' effect (like how water film makes it easier to move smooth surfaces) as nothing melts. In this way, rather than increasing the frictional coefficient, you assure that it remains at its maximum.

Oh, and just to be sure, I checked my Design of Machine Elements book, and looked it up. Both dry and thin-film lubrication have the same rule (#2): Friction is independent of area.

"how friction increases with relative velocity"

Drag does, but friction doesn't, mostly. Rule 3, both dry and thin-film: The friction force is largely independent of the velocity of sliding.

And now, for the quote on my wall: Never, but never, question the engineer's judgement.

* not a real number, but damned if I'll look it up on my lunch break.

Re:friction IS NOT a function of the area...

[Anonymous Coward]

> But really, does your fuel economy go up or go down with under-inflated tires? It goes down. Why?

Because of the larger hysteresis losses in flexing the tires more. Flexing the rubber takes effort and the work done heats up the tire more, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the friction between the tire and the road.

The actual _sliding_ friction is independant of the pressure in the tire and of the actual contact area. Tires do not slide in normal use. If you locked the wheels and then pushed the car along with the tires sliding then it would make no difference to the effort involved if the tires were over-inflated or flat.

Wide tires may have more 'grip' than narrower tires, but this is a completely different effect where a much softer rubber is used for wide tires and this has a higher coefficient of friction. Using this soft rubber on narrow tires would cause them to wear out too quickly.

> Inflated tires have a larger surface area.

Inflated tires may have a marginally larger total surface area (think of a balloon) but have a _smaller_ contact area with the road. The pressure of air is used to give an approximation of the tire 'footprint'. If the tires are at 30 pounds per square inch and the car weighs 3000 pounds then 3000/30 -> 100 square inches of contact area, 25 per tire.

If the tires are at 15 lb/sq.in then the total area is 200 sq.in.

With under-inflated tires the contact area is much larger, but the 'road holding' ability is much less. Drive around a corner and the car will slide more. This has nothing to do with the area of contact but is entirely due to loss of stability in the tire - it can distort more.

As an aside: If one of the front tires on a car goes flat then there will be a large effort on the steering wheel required to turn against that side. This has nothing to do with friction, or even with extra drag on that side. It is because of the steering geometry being changed as the effective diameter of the wheel changes (ie hub height reduces). The steering pivot is at an angle designed to go through the centre (approx) of the tire footprint. As the tire deflates the axis of the pivot misses the centre and creates an offset on that side that results in unbalanced steering forces.

> That was a lot easier, even with the added mass of the "skis"

Wood on a table has a much lower coefficient of friction than concrete. Try your 'test' with two bricks, one resting on its smallest end and on on its largest face. You will find that the effort to pull them is identical.

> Why are aircraft round instead of square?

For commercial aircraft they are pressurised and the round tube shape is what would result if you started with a square fuselage.

> aerodynamic friction

Aerodynamic 'friction' is not friction. Certainly there is work done in accelerating the air as it is pushed aside and down, and this results in drag, but it is not friction.

As an aircraft flies through the air it also changes the pressure in different ways, mostly it compresses it at the leading edges and undersides and expands it at trailing edges and over the wing. Boyle's law tells us that when a gas is compressed the temperature rises. This produces heating at the leading edges of the aircraft which is _not_ the result of friction.

Re:friction IS NOT a function of the area...

[nameer]

Aircraft are shaped like a tube because they are thin walled pressure vessels (like a helium tank). They have round noses and rounded aft pressure domes, usually hidden by the outer mold line skin. This is so that the hoop stress from the internal pressure is evenly distributed and you don't have stress concentrations in the corners which would ultimately lead to fatigue cracks and failure. If it were not for the pressure problem, a prismatic airplane (think shaped like a bullet train) would be a heck of a lot more comfortable for the passengers. (flame bait ahead) I love being a "real" engineer when all my friends are CS geeks.

Re:friction IS NOT a function of the area...

[Zirnike]

That too. But the corners would generate vorteces. I didn't want to talk about pressure vessels and have to open another book.

Mind you, I'm thinking about angles perpindicular to the direction of airflow. I'm not sure what the effect would be on angles where the edge follows the direction of airflow... probably not all that much.

Regardless, I don't think comfort of the passengers is high on the list of design requirements for planes (beyond the basic 'passengers must not die or bleed excessivly') anymore. Efficiency (i.e. streamlined and max people) is the current requirement.

And I don't consider that flamebait. I'm a real engineer too. :)

Reality Check

[KaiserZoze_860]

The patent is essentially method of using a user database to customize content. The machine looks up a user in the db, reports back the preferences, which then sets a session variable (and possibly a cookie ?).

Why would they patent that? It's a fairly intuitive (and time consuming) process. They probably have some .Net app that does it in one shot.

What does this mean to everyday Joe's like us /.'ers? Nada. Although you can expect some extra junk email once your personally identifiable data is in a MS db. But you knew that already.

Part of the patent claim stipulates that the user ID must be the index (primary key for those playing at home). So if you too want to write a server app to do this, simply use another field as your index. But again... it's a lengthy process for something so simple.

-KS

Re:Reality Check

[prestidigital]

Excellent comment. But, I guess I should expect that from one of The Usual Suspects. :^)

FUD title

[m00nun1t]

Why do the /. editors insist on putting such FUD in the titles? Certainly doesn't help their credibility any, nor of the causes they support. Their choice I suppose.

For those that didn't RTFM, the patent is about customising content (which may include weather reports).

Re:FUD title

[BlackHawk]

• For those that didn't RTFM, the patent is about customising content (which may include weather reports).

Uh. Yes. Precisely. The use of the "weather report" example was to highlight exactly how extensive the patent could be. In patents, as in most of the law, precedent is everything. If Microsoft has received a patent for delivering customized content to a user based on a cookie-delivered user ID which enables the server to push back customized content based on that user ID, then MS could potentially use this patent as a precedent for further, more exploitive claims later. This is precisely why we need to a) reform the USPTO, and b) cast a very jaundiced eye on patents of web-based procedures.

Or the Bill Gates Way...

[UncleRage]

Open Windows... Look at weather.

Sorry, but somebody had to say it.

----

Hype-itty Hoppe to the Money Shoppe

[jefu]

It sounds to me like what you are saying is that most of most patents is meaningless bullshit.

So why are those claims put in?

Probably in the hope that they'll be taken for real and meaningful and upheld in the courts.

If they're never upheld in the courts, why bother? Are you saying that meaningless bullshit belongs in the patents? Then you're far from upholding your own thesis which seems to be that there is something meaningful (ie not meaningless) in the process. On the other hand, perhaps it is there to give patent attorneys something to do so they can get paid a lot. But I dont know that that justifies your crankiness with the automatically anti-microsoft, anti-patent slashdot geeks, it sounds to me like paying people to insert meaningless bullshit is a good reason to view the patent process with alarums and excursions (to the loo for emesis).

Re:Hype-itty Hoppe to the Money Shoppe

[ColonelTom]

So why are those claims put in? ... If they're never upheld in the courts, why bother? Licensing, my friend, licensing. With a patent this broad, they can merely threaten every company that uses cookies on their website, and offer them licensing terms that are cheaper than the cost of litigation. Most companies would rather pay the license fee than risk the enormous exposure and substantial legal fees of fighting the validity and/or enforceability of the patent, so Microsoft stands to make a fortune off all the companies that get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak...

So....

[LittleGuy]

Does that mean that Microsoft will repair the hole in the ozone with a Security Patch, a Service Release Patch, a Service Pack, or a System Upgrade?

Another absurd patent

[grendel's mom]

In other news: Microsoft patents communication. All of it. Licenses can now be obtained by selling your soul.

Re:Another absurd patent

[arcanumas]

Nah. That is too specific.
They will eventually patent "ideas to make money" so if you have an idea on how to make money.. they own it.
They will probably name it "Process of coming up with ideas to make money".

MOD PARENT UP

[inteller]

because rarely does someone around here tell it like it is!

patent cap

[seriv]

This is a crazy abuse of current patent laws.
There should be some way to put a patent cap for certain compaines that get to many patents, mostly in the computer world. Microsoft encourges the pantent of two many things to their own name that people shouldn't have the the right to patent. What is next? Patenting the thought paternts of good code ideas?
-Seriv

obviously crap

[FunkyMonkey]

Has anyone heard of .bashrc?

Re:obviously crap

[WebMasterJoe]

Has anyone heard of .bashrc?

This argument may not work outside slashdot. :)

You might as well...

[Anonymous Coward]

...as MS certainly can't claim prior art. ;-)

Lots of infringement

[digitalgimpus]

There are hundreds of thousands of websites currently infringing on this.

Boy is this bad news.

MAD

[4of12]

The cold war brought us opponents with arsenals so fearsome that no sane person could use them.

With what's been going on in the software and business practice patents, we're coming to the same kind of brink (Eolas, this, the Amazon one-click, etc.).

Enforcement of some of these patents would bring destruction onto large parts of the economy, only for the sake of a system that was originally meant to give innovators just enough incentive to keep innovating, so that society at large would benefit in the long run. It's pretty clear the current system is acting at least as much as a brake as it is an engine for progress.

It's going horribly wrong. If the whole notion of "intellectual property" isn't fixed, then the entire system is in jeopardy of collapse.

Re:MAD

[EvilTwinSkippy]

But you see, but making "ideas" property, it turns them into a finite resource. And finite resources are the only thing that markets can deal with. If it cannot be controlled, it cannot be sold. If it cannot be sold there is no oppertunity to dominate the distribution of it.

There are deeper issues to be considered, mostly about the role of "property" in a world filled with billions of people and only so much dirt to go around. At the risk of sounding like a communist, you really can't go on keeping this outmoded notion of individual ownership much longer. Look at real-estate: a bunch of old-money owns most of our inner cities, and extracts enormous rents for land bought before they were born.

I see a lot of empty storefronts and "Space Available" is starting to sound like a new business venture in my town. (Philadelphia, PA). Of course the land-lords don't care if the building is empty or full. And they are perfectly happy to watch entire sections of the city rot away. I've seen it first hand.

Re:MAD

[spRed]

I see a lot of empty storefronts and "Space Available" is starting to sound like a new business venture in my town. (Philadelphia, PA). Of course the land-lords don't care if the building is empty or full. And they are perfectly happy to watch entire sections of the city rot away. I've seen it first hand.

They care very much if the buildings are empty or full. They have to pay property tax regardless, but if no one is paying rent they lose money.

Property taxes over time force people who aren't putting land to good use to sell. No one could afford a 3-bedroom ranch on a 3/4 acre lot in downtown manhattan, even if it had been passed down through the generations. The property tax would be unbelievable. Property tax is based on the market price of the land (set by the town appraiser). People have an incentive to sell land if they aren't putting it to profitable use. Before you scream "capitalist pig dog!" consider that a profitable use in the owner's eyes may include living near work, raising a family, maintaining a vacation home, or any number of subjective things that make it "worth" paying the property tax. The overall trend is that land ownership shifts to whoever can put put it to the most profitable use.

Philadelphia has many problems, including a "privellage of working in the City of Philadelphia tax" which drove everyone to the burbs. People in the burbs used to take the train INTO Philly to go to work, now you see people taking the train FROM Philly to work in the burbs.

Uniquie?

[Bazman]

"Customization of network documents by accessing customization information on a server computer using uniquie user identifiers"

- good job I never use "uniquie" identifiers.

This may just be a defensive patent

[voss]

After being burned by Eolas...they may decide to patent everything they can in order to prevent from being sued again. The patent of cookies is likely to be unenforceable and if microsoft tries they may be targeted for more anti-trust action (for using lawsuits designed to damage competition in the marketplace). IE has 97% of the market its unlikely they are going to go after everyone else.

Duke Basketball Report Response

[CACondor]

Several years ago, the Duke Basketball Report (a fan run basketball site) implemented user customization for its bulletin board and web pages.

This morning, they disabled it. I guess someone like a Yahoo or AOL can challenge this, but it will be the little sites that end up suffering.

Interesting References Cited

[Godeke]

One of the references is to "New sites aim to personalize web navigation", Information & Interactive Services Report, BRP Publications, vol. 17, Issue 31, 9/96". The patent was filed in 12/96. So by definition, anything that was in that report can not be a claim of this patent.

The point behind references is to show items upon which the patent built, and by being in the references it can not be used as a prior art argument. However, the converse is that the techniques used in referenced items are not part of the patent, even if the patent later makes claim to something that would appear to be such. All that can be patented at that point is "improvements" upon such a system.

Since another cite is "Persistent client state HTTP cookies", http://oradb1.jinr.ru/netscape/MISC/cookie_spec.ht m, Aug. 24, 1996, pp1-5.*" we can rest assured that simply using a cookie is not patented here. So what *is* being patented? It can't be user customization (prior cite), and it can't be the cookie itself (this cite).

I suspect the clue must be in the later citations. Since these are from dates *after* the submission, and specific refer to Microsoft, these would be used to support the unique nature of the patented claims. I can only guess that this patent is very narrow in covering the *exact* implementation shown in the diagrams, as any broad claims to user customization are defeated by the references Microsoft themselves make.

A large portion of the document for example goes into specifying how a computer works in a general sense. Another simply lays out the format of a cookie. The only thing that appears unique to Microsoft here is the use of CoCreateGUID to obtain an identifier. That should be hard to work around...

Re:Interesting References Cited

[davidstrauss]

One of the references is to "New sites aim to personalize web navigation", Information & Interactive Services Report, BRP Publications, vol. 17, Issue 31, 9/96". The patent was filed in 12/96. So by definition, anything that was in that report can not be a claim of this patent.

The patent filing date is not the same as "who thought of it first." I could think of an idea today and document it. You could think of it tomorrow and document it. I could still file for a patent on Monday. My filing is not an admission that that date is when I first thought of it. In fact, it's ridiculous to think filing dates coincide with the inception of ideas.

Re:Interesting References Cited

[Godeke]

The patent office has no interest in "who thought of it first". The concept is meaningless. What they are concerned with is the order of documentation. Many inventors package an invention in an envelope and registered mail it to themselves and leave the envelope sealed in case of disputes over the invention: in a court of law, the documentation is the only thing that determines the order of things. The value of that practice is questionable, as I still win if I get to the patent office first and you don't make your invention public prior to that, either via publication or your own patent application, unless you can prove I had access to those documents.

In the case of a patent, there is a race to get to the door first, as the first *filer* will get the patent. However, prior publication in the area of research is considered to have legal precidence over any claims, which is why the patent office requires disclosure of such publications. Failure to cite a relevant article can damage the claim and require resubmission and narrowing of claims (assuming the examiner finds it).

The point is that the "inception of ideas" is not important, the documentation thereof is. The fact that Microsoft cites the articles means that it is aware of the prior art within, and is only claiming improvements or differences from the same.

Re:Interesting References Cited

[davidstrauss]

Of course documentation is more important than one's word, but the filing for the patent is an awfully belated form of documentation. Ideally, one should document one's ideas at their inception. And no, the first filer doesn't automatically get the patent. The person who proves they had the earliest conception of the idea gets it.

Re:Interesting References Cited

[Godeke]

No, they don't *automatically* get the patent, but generally speaking the practical issues cause the first filer to have a massive advantage. The company Knowligent has produced a product called "research notebook" to assist with documenting conception dates.

http://www.researchnotebook.com/

If documenting the conception date was easy, I doubt people would be trying to make a living helping you do so. Instead of trying to prove conception date, a much better idea is to file a provisional patent application. I believe it is less than a hundred bucks yourself, maybe a few hundred to use a service. It allows you the same year you would have otherwise, while holding your place in line from usurpers.

When it comes to a court case, an official document held by the Patent Office is surely going to hold more weight than an envelope mailed to yourself (which may have been tampered with). I don't know of a large company that doesn't file provisionals upon creation, which would mean that the cited documents would indicate what the patent *doesn't* cover.

Re:Interesting References Cited

[davidstrauss]

But you admit that massive advantage is not the same as something absolute.

That figures-Weather: The series.

[Anonymous Coward]

"My local weather report is about as useful as Windows ;-)"

Must live in the Antarctic.
Man1: What was your weather yesterday?
Man2: Snowy.
Man1: What was your weather the day before?
Man2: Same as yesterday.
Man1: And last week?
Man2: The same.
Man1: What about tomorrow?
Man2: More snow.

What a patent

[Toontje]

Well you have to be a really sh*tty websystem builder to do an implemetation that infrings that patent. It is so old stuff who's using that? same as: using a hammer to smash a brick to squash a mellon patent. Next please, where's me blender!

they also got a patent on web services yesterday

[Mackus Daddius]

it looks like the same patent examiner also granted them a patent on web services yesterday.

patent 6,632,249

who is stephen s. hong?

Hype perhaps, but not really

[ThosLives]

In my book this patent fails the Unobviousness test.

Using someone's "Name" to get "customized information". How is this different than using any other unique ID to pull out "custom" health records? School records? Any other "customized" data?

This patent is garbage because it describes what they want to be able to do, not a particular method of doing it, and I don't see any "improvements" that the claims seem to state. This is quite typical of the claims in a software patent. For a hardware patent, as far as I know, you must provide an implementation of the idea.

I've said it before and I say it again: write your congressmen to start a movement to reform patent law!

Re:Hype perhaps, but not really

[udippel]

For a hardware patent, as far as I know, you must provide an implementation of the idea.

Wrong. I forgot the classification entry for these, but there is a whole class for Perpetuum Mobiles. No need to present anything. (Actually discouraged, because it slows down the 'production' of the examiner; the most relevant criteria for promotion)

Re:Hype perhaps, but not really

[ThosLives]

because it slows down the 'production' of the examiner; the most relevant criteria for promotion

Therein lies part of the problem, methinks. And forgive me for thinking we had quit allowing patents for perpetual motion machines, unobtainium and the like. One is entitled to hold on to naive hopes that rationality will someday surface in society, is he not?

I see it a bit differently

[zibix]

Wait a second... if Microsoft is claiming that this information is stored server side and the content is fed automatically, then that means that NO information can be supplied by the client... no IP, no Session, no Cookie Nothing.... Which seems to mean they patented nothing at all...

No, you're wrong

[phooka.de]

you say that we should look at claims 11-20. Claim 11 is referenced by 12 to 16 and it describes Cookies.
Claim 17 describes server-side-cookies.
I didn't bother to read the rest but since claim 11 describes cookies and claims 12-16 refer to 11, maybe we should ignore 1 to 16 and only look at 17 to 20? Or maybe just at 20?

Or maybe it's time software-patents and how they're being granted should be reconsidered.

In Other News

[Ridgelift]

Today Microsoft was granted a patent for "the movement of air molecules using an organic bellows device for the purpose of saturating oxygen transport devices".

Next thing you know, Gates and Ballmer will be licensing the air we breathe.

Re:In Other News

[EvilTwinSkippy]

That's SCO's racket. They are trying to sell an enhanced re-mix of atmospheric gasses as SCOair. Anyone who doesn't breath SCOair must have copied the formula and has been distributing it illegally.

Nose Pirate!

Re:In Other News

[jo42]

> organic bellows

A.K.A. "sphincter"

stupid software patents

[sxpert]

hopefully, they can't enforce this madness in europe (hope it stays that way ;)))) )

...using uniquie user identifiers

[Freddles]

uniquie

I hope they haven't patented their spell checking software.

HTML != XHTML, and other easy end runs..

[dirtbird]

This is easy to end run. HTML != XHTML, heck you could even get the server to send RDF/XML and use a client based XSLT library to convert it into HTML and/or XHTML. no probs..

Re:HTML != XHTML, and other easy end runs..

[Tokerat]

This is easy to end run. HTML != XHTML, heck you could even get the server to send RDF/XML and use a client based XSLT library to convert it into HTML and/or XHTML. no probs..

Except that it's a bitch for every website in the world to have to do, just because Microsoft can get away with patenting the obvious. Which hurts everyone except of Microsoft, as opposed to leaving everyone alone and helping Microsoft like a patent is supposed to do.

And that's why software patents are bad.

After a seven year wait...

[happyfrogcow]

Ok, so patents are retroactive to the date filed. So that leaves 10 years (patents are active for 17 years, right? i forget..) for MS to enforce this patent which isn't very broad in scope. Make one minor chage, one different claim, to what they are doing and you have a new "patentable technology" or a way to circumvent their patent.

Just innovate beyond their innovation.

Re:After a seven year wait...

[LJM0625]

Actually, since this was filed after June 8, 1995, it has an enforceable term of 20 years from the filing date plus any time added back by adjustments. On the front page of the patent, it says that the term is adjusted by 1184 days (~3.2 years). This means that assuming Microsoft pays the maintenance fees (and assuming I did the math right), this patent will expire in March of 2020. Also, just to clarify, patents are not "retroactive" in the sense that a patent can only be enforced against activities occurring after the date the patent issued.

Did you even read the patent?-Do the MS Dump.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You said it, but then again, this is /. What did you expect? If there was a reference on the Main Page that said. "Bill Gates takes a dump. It's brown.", within an hour, there'd be 300+ replies slamming Gates, feces, Microsoft and how all 3 are really the same thing."

If he patents "taking a dump"? Then yes you will hear 300+ justified complaints.

Face it, the patent system is broken. And the citizens who have to suffer because of it, have a right to complain. Simple as that.

Re:Did you even read the patent?-Do the MS Dump.

[winkydink]

I don't disagree with you that the patent system needs reform. However, in my 45+ years on the planet I cannot recall having sufferred as the result of any patent. I recall sufferring when I broke my leg, when my heart was broken the first time (to name 2), but neither of those were the results of patents.

But, maybe I'm just lucky.

Or stupid.

Or both.

So what happens

[2names]

if the customization information on the second client computer is identical to the customization information on the first client computer?

Re:So what happens

[calethix]

Well, I was going to say that they would have to be different in case the 2nd user ever wanted to change their custom settings. Then I realized that my patent write up doesn't allow for users to change their settings. They only do that on the first access. I'm going to have to start all over now.

Slash

[dfn5]

Sounds to me like they just got a patent for doing what slash does when I log into slashdot to get all of my customizations. That sucks.

That's What Patents Are For...

[reallocate]

>> And patents effectively give the holder a monopoly on the idea. "The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling"

That's what patents are supposed to do. Only oddballs like RMS think people will continue to invent things without any prospect of reward and benefit.

By the way, a patent does not give the holder a monopoly on an idea. As you say, it excludes others from making, using, offering to sell, or selling the invention. None of those is an "idea". It's clearly impossible for anyone to have a monopoly on an idea, but patents concern themselves with specific implementations of ideas. E.g., did Edison acquire a monopoly on the idea of the light bulb? No, just a particular implementation.

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[grendel's mom]

Semantics. The "embodiment of an idea" is effectively monopolized. In this case, the "embodiment of an idea" is a broadly used communication scheme.

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[Theatetus]

Actually, patents were invented to promote what today is called "piracy". It began in the early renaissance with glaziers and silkmakers; governments granted them exclusive national rights to the industry in return for their ripping off foreign inventors' processes. It was only later expanded to include genuinely "novel" inventions, but patents' national character still allows the original intent of reducing imports by ripping off foreign ideas.

Only oddballs like RMS think people will continue to invent things without any prospect of reward and benefit.

You seem to be implying that patent schemes are the only way that people can have a prospect of financial reward and benefit from their inventions. This claim is absurd on its face.

Patents are a governmental intrusion into the free market. Like any governmental intrusion, they can be good or bad depending on how they are done. And like any governmental intrusion, "less" is usually better unless a clear case can be made that the particular intrusion in question will be of benefit to the market.

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[RevDobbs]

As you say, it excludes others from making, using, offering to sell, or selling the invention. None of those is an "idea".

And that's where the analogy between the physical world and software breaks down. Patent a working perpetual motion motion machine, and you'll have exclusive rights to sell it for 20 years. But patent one-click internet shopping? What exactly did you invent? You certainly didn't invent the push-button, or it's electronic representation. Nor did you invent "stores", the process of exchanging goods, or their electronic equivalents. All you did was create a process to streamline your business; that is something you do for a competitive advantage, not to license for the good of man kind.

Frankly, I think the Amazon patent and this MS patent should be invalidated by prior art: every time I walk into the local pub the bartender greats me with an update on the local ball games, we talk about stock market activity, and he hands me a beer which goes on my tab (the epitome of no-click checkout).

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[reallocate]

>> You seem to be implying that patent schemes are the only way that people can have a prospect of financial reward and benefit from their inventions.

Not the only way, just the way with the most appeal to the most people. Besides, gving it all away RMS-style just results in stagnation since only RMS-style oddballs will have an incentive to invent. (Even that's dubious: Open source software is mired in swamp of conservative me-tooism primarily because there's little real incentive to make something that's better than the "good enough" tools that someone made years ago. E.g., vi and emacs. Both are decades old, and both would be panned if they were tossed today to unsuspecting computer users. Meanwhile, other people kept/keep imitating WordStar/Office.

And...worries about govenmental instrusion in a "free market" always seem to be premised on the notion that a free market can exist without governance. That's wrong. Absent a role for government, a market will be organized and governed by the most powerful economic agents in the market. While these agents will act only to further their own interests, at least a government can, in theory, work to the benefit of all, especially those excluded from the market.

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>That's what patents are supposed to do. Only oddballs like RMS think people will continue to invent things without any prospect of reward and benefit.

So you think this patent is reasonable?!

You gotta be kidding me.

Patents only work if the claims are reasonable, which these are not, and the USPTO needs to start doing a bit more than letting the patent sit on the pile for 7 years than running a quick search on uspto.gov. Considering any freshman in Computer Science could refute these claims, sounds like some folks at the USPTO need sacked.

>>By the way, a patent does not give the holder a monopoly on an idea. As you say, it excludes others from making, using, offering to sell, or selling the invention. None of those is an "idea". It's clearly impossible for anyone to have a monopoly on an idea, but patents concern themselves with specific implementations of ideas. E.g., did Edison acquire a monopoly on the idea of the light bulb? No, just a particular implementation.

By definition, an algorithm is implementable. Therefore, wouldn't it be safe to say that the algorithm should be the minimum standard for patentable material, not some vague and overly broad description of what software sort of does.

Also, the legal system isn't examining implementation, only functionality and is rendering judgement based on that. Something needs to change.

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[Minna Kirai]

Only oddballs like RMS think people will continue to invent things without any prospect of reward and benefit.

I guess we're all sharing a mass hallucination! We can't be reading a website, because Tim Berners-Lee would've never invented the WWW if he wouldn't get a patent on it.

did Edison acquire a monopoly on the idea of the light bulb? No, just a particular implementation.

Well, Edison didn't have the lightbulb patent, it went to Joe Swan.

But even pretending he did, your claim is still incorrect. It presents a false dichotomy between "idea" and "particular implementation", when in actuality "implementations" are a subset of all "ideas". (The rubric "Ideas can never be copyrighted or patented" is false. Not every idea can be, but some can.)

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[geoffspear]

The existence of the military and police to prevent people from coming and blowing up competitors' factories or stealing all of their products is government interference in the free market.

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[reallocate]

>> ... patent one-click internet shopping?

Software patents make perfect sense, but you're arguing too broadly and with imprecision. You can't patent an entire broad and pre-existing "thing", but you can patent a different implementation of that "thing". For example, the Wright Brothers didn't patent the "airplane", they patented a specific way of controlling the flight of an aircraft.

No one patents something as broad as "one-click internet shopping". They patent a specific method of implementing one-click internet shopping. When someone comes along with another implemention of one-click internet shopping, the lawyers get busy.

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[reallocate]

OK, RMS plus Berners-Lee equals two.

Meanwhile, I have an idea for a faster-than-light spaceship. No plans or implementation, just an idea. By your logic, I can get a patent.

An implentation is not a subset of an idea. An idea is somethig bouncing around in your head. An implementation is a manifestation of that idea in physical reality.

Re:That's What Patents Are For...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok Mr Sarcastic. Patent your ship. Given the number of patents already granted for perpetual motion/free energy devices which obviously don't have a working implementation, you'll be in good company.

Read 'em

[RyanFenton]

I'm no Microsoft hater - I honestly doubt most Slashdot readers are either.

I've read the 20 claims. None of them contradict the idea that any news site's weather report could meet any and all of these claims.

1 describes a an abstract computer connection with persistant state and cookie setup and use - it is actually the most specific claim

2 describes the storage of the cookie on the user's system

3 clarifies that the cookie can help identify the connecting system

4 states that HTML is used

5 states that the cookie will contain data about user preferences relative to the site

6 states that information in the cookie may relate to one or more of the following: news, sports, financial matters, entertainment, science and technology, life, and weather

7 states that the form to select preferences will be in html

8 says that the internet may be used in this system

9 says that they may database user information

10 URL's may be used to state addresses

11 cookies may be used to send custom data to the user

12 the cookie can be used to identify the user in step 11

13 the cookie may (again) store this identifier used in step 11

14 again, the user may use a form to set preferences

15 again, topical groupings may be used in this form

16 again, this can take place on the internet

17 this process uses a client-server model, with cookies

18 requests may be cached along the way (happens on any network)

19 again - there is code that allows content to be customized based on the cookies

20 different computers may have different cookies, and they can both still access the system ...So, there you have it. There are no claims that could not be applied to any news site, any weather site, any sports site, any entertainment site, any science site, or any combination that uses cookies and customization. Indeed, all of the claims are much more general than that. If anyone has any ideas on how this could NOT be applied to any of these, I'd definetly be interested in hearing any other interpretations - I can't see any other way of differentiating based on this document.

Note: I have intellectual property lawyer relatives I speak with, yet I am not a lawyer myself.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Read 'em

[inburito]

Okay. So somebody just come up with a similiar system not using HTML. Poof, this patent's relevance shattered.

I'll admit to not reading anything more than your comment before writing this.

Re:Read 'em

[BrynM]

I've read the 20 claims. None of them contradict the idea that any news site's weather report could meet any and all of these claims. ...(proceeds to itemized list of claims)

Throw in some PERL and you've got Slashcode. Technically, the PERL just generates HTML, so in effect, it's HTML to the end user anyway. How's that for striking close to home.

Re:Read 'em

[John Allsup]

From lawnotes:

Q: Is Infringement OK As Long As Not All the Claims Are Infringed?

A: No -- infringement of even one valid claim results in liability.

Doing it without HTML will infringe all valid claims except 4 and any that reference (directly or indirectly) claim 4.

These may be invalide, but also note:

A defendant can avoid liability by proving that every infringed claim is invalid. It is the defendant's burden of proof; the patent owner need not prove that the infringed claims are valid.

This last bit is one of the biggest problems with the current patent system: it requires financial and legal resources to prove that a patent claim is invalid, and individuals and small organisations facing patent claims may not have access to this, even though the patents are stupid.

Re:Read 'em

[donutello]

I'm no Microsoft hater - I honestly doubt most Slashdot readers are either.

You must be new here.

Re:Read 'em

[lsa@486]

In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, it should be recognized that the detailed embodiments are illustrative only and should not be taken as limiting the scope of our invention. Rather, we claim as our invention all such embodiments as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.

So it's not only HTML with cookies, it is any form of customizable network content, where customization information is stored on server.

Re:Read 'em

[ChaoticPup]

1 describes a an abstract computer connection with persistant state and cookie setup and use - it is actually the most specific claim

Note: I have intellectual property lawyer relatives I speak with, yet I am not a lawyer myself.

Next time you see your IP lawyer relatives, ask them to explain the difference between independant and dependant claims and how they interrelate (assuming you're interested, of course). Claim #1, an independant claim, is not the most specific.

- CP

Re:Read 'em

[Bluelive]

Sure but did those sites exsist in that form 7 years ago ? Prior art is whats its all about these days.

Re:Read 'em

[grofty]

Thing is that the scope of this is not limited to cookies. Most of the language refers to server side information and manipulation. The specific item covered is a user's unique identifier being used to reference settings and other information. So this includes session based links as well.

Re:Read 'em

[zurab]

If anyone has any ideas on how this could NOT be applied to any of these, I'd definetly be interested in hearing any other interpretations - I can't see any other way of differentiating based on this document.

Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not a legal advice, I don't know what I'm talking about, you are on your own, talk to your lawyer, etc. etc. etc.

Here's how I see that it may not apply to all websites: if a website asks user to create a username and password (an account on the website) and customize that account, this patent may not apply. From the patent text, claim 1:

during first accessing of a server computer on the network by each user client computer, obtaining customization information from the corresponding user, assigning to the customization information a unique user identifier corresponding to the user, storing the customization information in association with the unique user identifier on the server computer, and returning the unique user identifier to the client computer; [emphasis mine]

This seems to claim that the server will create and assign a unique ID to each user customization submission and then returning it to the client. This would be different from a process where a user requests that a particular ID be assigned instead - where user creates the ID. i.e., if you use cookies to store server-assigned hashes to identify repeat users you are violating; but if you use cookies to store the actual user ID that was originally created by the user him/herself then you may be clear. That's how I see it anyway.

But the patent itself, it's clear, was filed after Microsoft had "discovered" the Internet - Dec. 1996. Surely, there must be quite a few examples of prior art to this. I remember sites running registration-based content at about that time, but specific sites and related timeline are kind of messed up in my mind.

Re:Read 'em

[inburito]

In a sense that is bullcrap that should not be enforced! Patents are supposed to be highly specific and relevant to a certain implementation only. But then there's US courts and patent lawyers..

Re:Read 'em

[Joe U]

The answer is Yes, and I ran one of them.

Re:Read 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want the weather go to CNN weather and punch in your zip code then bookmark that page.
You don't need to accept a cookie from them or any other invasive crap. Go to that page every day and it will be updated properly for that zip code.
MSNBC needs to use cookies, activeX, web bugs, scripts out the ying yang etc. to function properly which is why I don't go there anymore.
If your site doesn't work without downloading a bunch of crap to ten different folders on my computer I'll get my information elsewhere.
I turned off my blocking software the other day and forgot to turn it back on, went to a Yahoo news link, then remembered to turn it on and checked my cookies folder, I got thirteen cookies from that one click.

Re:Read 'em

[inburito]

Yes. As any good patent lawyer will tell you it is enough if you infringe on a part of one claim in a patent to start legal action!

Like I mentioned in an another comment this is rather bullshit as a patent is supposed to be applicable only to the specific implementation described in the patent. Infringing on a part of a claim should not really be considered a specific implementation of that particular patent since it has other relevant things in it too. If someone has a different implementation of the same idea it should not infringe. In particular I would say that using something else than html would from practical point of view (ie. looking at sniffed network data) be rather different. Of course the previous is just wishful thinking but the US legal system is equally crazy.

Alas, network communication protocols lend themselves to rather straightforward implementations and generally speaking it is hard to do things differently. Maybe the clause in patent law, that states that implementations that are obvious to any practicioner of trade should not be patentable, should be enforced more strictly.

Re:Read 'em

[Trojan]

If the user creates the ID, but the server still checks this ID is unique, assigns it to the information, and returns it to the user (for storing in a cookie), then you're still infringing (provided you also have the rest of claim 1).

Re:Read 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Didnt you just describe how myyahoo works?

Re:Read 'em

[zurab]

If the user creates the ID, but the server still checks this ID is unique, assigns it to the information, and returns it to the user (for storing in a cookie), then you're still infringing (provided you also have the rest of claim 1).

Except that that scenario is not described in the patent - nowhere does it say the server will "check" the user-created ID for being unique and then return it, etc. The patent cannot cover it unless it's explicitly described in one of its claims.

The patent claims:

server computer [...] assigning [...] a unique user identifier

which is in quite different from the user picking such identifier, transmitting to server, server checking against current identifiers for uniqueness, and returning either an error message or ID back to the user. Again, another condition has to be that you don't use persistent session cookies since those would be covered, but only the ID(s) that user picked, not the server.

This patent is quite ridiculous; I believe Amazon's "one-click shopping" patent violates this patent - it's that stupid.

Re:Read 'em

[zurab]

Go back and re-read the reply paying special attention to this part:

i.e., if you use cookies to store server-assigned hashes to identify repeat users you are violating; but if you use cookies to store the actual user ID that was originally created by the user him/herself then you may be clear.

My Yahoo! uses session cookies that contain identifiers other than user-picked IDs, therefore, if you were to buy into my argument, they are violating. If they were using an ID or a unique string that I (the user) picked then they wouldn't be.

Re:Read 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I am and I have noticed an increase in microsoft supporters and the more passive defenders not wanting to get flamed for coming accross too pro microsoft.

So, has microsoft started making their staff sign on to web sites to support them in a pseudo grass roots movement?

They have the money...

I don't care if they actually create something usefull for the world, they have stolen and stopped far more than they have provided us.

Microsoft has been hurting the industry for way too long and we need our free market back!!

Re:Read 'em

[IthnkImParanoid]

Just because I choose a username (IthnkImParanoid) does not mean I am not also assigned a unique identifier (410494). I would guess this is how most websites do it because, as it always seems to be the case with software patents, this way just makes sense from a technical (database) perspective.

So, while it may be easy to work around, MS effectively patented the logical way of doing things. Which is why patents are a joke.

Re:Read 'em

[zurab]

Just because you are assigned a unique ID by the server does not automatically mean it's violating this claim. You could be assigned unique IDs all day long, if they are not transmitted to the client and stored there.

The patent claim says server returns the "unique identifier" (that was assigned earlier by the server) to the client which is then stored on the client. So, if a site stores your user# or some server-generated random/unique string in a cookie it is violating; but if it only stores IthinkImParanoid (which you picked and not the server) then it may be in clear. That was my original point.

Not as much?

[mblase]

Let me see here... (scrolling down)... "This HTML or network document customization is capable or providing each user who accesses a network address with an HTML document that is matched to that user's preferences. This customization adds to the strength of linked information provided by HTML documents by providing each user with the information, or links to information, that the user actually wants."

That's from the description, which translates claims 1-20 into real English. It sure looks to me like they're basically patenting My Yahoo! and every other site that ever used a customized home page.

This isn't a complaint about Microsoft; if my sister was issued this patent I'd be equally astonished. This sort of thing has been going on ever since CGI and cookies, when Microsoft was still deciding whether the Internet was worth their while. How it could ever get issued is utterly beyond me.

MOD PARENT DOWN & GRANDPARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is talking bullshit.

Grandparent poster actually knows what he's talking about.

The patent attorneys generally think the first claims are broader but hence will be easier to to overturn, so they add more specific ones later. The first ones are still individually enforcable unless/until they're overturned, though.

The independant claims (the ones that don't say "the method of claim N where...") are the most important part of any patent.

Posting AC 'cos I'm named as inventor on a few software patents, and I don't want to lose my karma.

Username and password

[Psyx]

I thought that usernames and passwords were unique user identifiers.

And whats the problem with only allowing code patents, not software idea patents?

Re:Username and password

[guzzloid]

Code is already protected by copyright law. Nobody else can copy it for far longer than the duration of a patent. (Actual duration varies around the world, but mostly the best part of a century).

What other protection would your "code patent" provide that goes beyond existing copyright law, and that wouldn't also be protecting the idea behind the code?

MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod the parent up!

Wouldn't this already be covered...

[3Suns]

Wouldn't this already be covered in their patent of ones and zeroes?

prior art

[trelanexiph]

isn't slashdot itself prior art on this? I mean, you log in, and your stored preferences (Credits etc) are loaded for your page-viewing pleasure.

Re:prior art

[Kevinv]

Prior art has to predate the filing date of the patent, not the approved date. The patent was filed in Dec 1996. Slashdot started in September of 97.

Re:prior art

[flyboy974]

Quote.com on the other hand started around the '94 timeframe. They were doing customized stock portfolios based on logging in, setting a cookie, HTML edit of your list, etc. in late 95. I believe in early '96 timeframe they moved to a cookie only (no login) for some of their OEM/partner businesses.

Atleast stock quotes are safe.

Re:Prior art

[royles]

Just noted the 'Filed in 1996' so appologies for not checking the Patent submission. I will check my references in my publications as I am sure I refer to studies that pre date 1996.

DHTML Patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't for claim 6 stating limits on what they are patenting, then they would have a patent on DHTML or for that matter any other web application.

I don't think that they can actually collect on anything since this is almost the foundation of everything w3c does, thereby giving rights to all users to use it royality free.

who really DOES understand the patent system?

[orion67]

patents have to be the most misunderstood legal issue related to technology. I know I don't understand them, and from reading posts on /. it's apparent to me that most here don't fully understand them either. Why do people insist on having passionate discussions about things they don't fully understand? It's like insisting on singing in church as loudly as possible even though you are a terrible singer - no one wins. at least no one's patented brownies yet...

Re:who really DOES understand the patent system?

[Compulawyer]

I do. Feel free to check my posts. I agree with you - rants about topics you don't understand not only waste time, they are damaging if they contain misinformation that others believe.

Re:who really DOES understand the patent system?

[Frostalicious]

rants about topics you don't understand not only waste time, they are damaging if they contain misinformation that others believe.

Then why don't you clear some stuff up for us. I examined your post history but did not locate any rebuttals to the issues raised here such as:

1. 20 year patents, which might as well be forever for software.

2. Overly broad patents.

3. Patents, on something which you didn't invent, which are filed for the sole reason of amassing a war arsenal in case anyone pisses you off.

Re:who really DOES understand the patent system?

[Compulawyer]

Ok - although I believe I have expressed these themes consistently in various posts, I don't think I have put them this concisely in one place (outside of a seminar I have done for ACM students), so here goes:

1. 20 year patents: The US extended the patent term from 17 years from date of issue to 20 years from date of filing. Given that on average it takes 3 years from date of filing to date of grant, this is largely a wash. It was done to harmonize US patent terms with those of most foreign nations. As for the fact that it "might as well be forever for software" I have 2 responses: (i) Lots of software lasts longer than 20 years. Look at UNIX and lots of custom systems built for large corporations. You are drawing conclusions essentially by stating that because the rate of change is much more rapid in software than in other industries, 20 years is much too long. (ii) 20 years may be too long, but it is a policy decision made by Congress and only Congress can change it. I happen to disagree. I wouldn't want to tell Tim Berners-Lee that his creation will be useless long before 20 years are up.

2. "Overly broad" patents are the joint responsibility of the applicant's drafter and the USPTO. The drafter has an obligation to get the applicant the broadest claim possible in light of the prior art. In fact, the patent statute grants that right. The USPTO must examine the application and find prior art to reject the claims of at least require the applicant to narrow the claims to avoid the prior art. The USPTO simply does not have the resources to hire and retain the best qualified examiners and do thorough prior art searches. Whose fault is this ultimately? Congress. Congress diverts PTO user fees (application fees, maintenance fees, copy fees, etc.) from the USPTO to other uses (most recently, anti-terrorism - with an associated fee increase, of course.). The USPTO is a cash cow - it brings in MUCH more money than it spends. Politicians won't let the PTO keep its own money so it can improve its processes.

3. Patents on something you didn't invent: If you didn't invent it, you have no right to the patent. This is fraud, plain and simple. I think however, that you mean to bring up the subject of companies that hold patents on inventions that they do not then manufacture. This is perfectly legal and appropriate. For most patents in this category, if the company doesn't make money from them, then the patent expires in about 4 years because the company will usually decide not to pay the maintenance fee to keep the patent in force. Then ANYONE can use it. You have to keep in mind the purpose of a patent which is to allow inventors to profit from their work. You have to keep the rules as clean as possible. If you have a valid patent, you have the right to exclude others from infringing. If you didn't have that basic right, no one could profit from anything they invented because large companies would copy new valuable inventions and drive others out of the marketplace without any way for inventors to stop them.

Re:who really DOES understand the patent system?

[Frostalicious]

1. 20 year patents. I think the argument is that Congress should change it, and perhaps the world, if patent law has to be harmonized. The fact that it is Congress that has chosen the length of time isn't an argument for or against the timeframe. The fact that some software lasts longer than 20 years, and that the internet specifically has been useful for longer than 20 years is immaterial. The purpose of patents, according to the US constitution, is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", by allowing the inventor to benefit for a time. This precludes the argument that the inventor should be able to benefit for the useful life of the invention. The question now is, how long is neccessary to "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? The answer is somewhat arbitrary, however I think 20 years for general inventions is probably excessive. For software, you acknowledge that the rate of change in this field is much greater, therefore I think it is obvious that 20 years is excessive in this more specific case.

2. I don't think your position differs significantly from mine or others on Slashdot. Some place blame on the PTO rather than Congress.

3. I am not familiar with this issue, and mentioned it only because others were on Slashdot. I think the issue was more about "obvious" patents, such as Amazon's one click checkout. Another company who attempted to patent hyperlinks was mentioned. The issue is not clear to me, and actually I was hoping you could clarify. For example, since Internet2 is getting started, could I patent "doing commerce on Internet2". This to me is obvious, but since Internet2 is fairly new, probably no one has patented this yet.

Re:who really DOES understand the patent system?

[Compulawyer]

You are missing one key thing: "obviousness" is a legal term of art that has literally hundreds of court decisions defining the term and refining the legal tests for obviousness. The problem is that there has to be an objective standard, as opposed to a subjective opinion.

Think about this: The hyperlink had to have been invented by SOMEONE at SOMETIME. The person who did it had the right to a patent for the hyperlink. Part of the problem with US patents is that they are written in English, a notoriously imprecise language. When a patent attorney drafts claims for a patent (the part that legally defines the invention) he or she tries to use descriptive terms that are broad enough to capture a range of concepts in a single word while being precide enough to actually communicate some meaning. Add to that the rule that a patent claim must be one (and only one) sentence. If you ever tried to draft a patent claim, I guarantee you would find it to be one of the most difficult sentences you have ever written.

Now comes the REALLY hard part - the Court in a patent infringement case has the responsibility of interpreting what the terms used in the claims as a matter of law. Now you have entire proceedings to decide what the words of that single sentence mean to a person of "ordinary skill in the art." Try to now re-draft that sentence using broad but descriptive words that you predict a Court will interpret in the way you intended 10 years from now after the patent has issued and been around for a few years.

Did I forget to mention that patent law is constantly evolving in ways that attempt to make up for the fact that English is imprecise?

If you think the term is too long, lobby Congress to change it. Congress has determined that 20 years from filing is not too long. Remember - the inventor can only actually sue someone after the patent issues, and that takes at least 3 years in most cases, so the period of time for enforcement is really only 17 years. It can be much less. Example: The patent M$ had issue (mentioned elsewhere in today's stories) yesterday took 7 years from filing to issuance. That means (unless something funky happened) that this patent only has an effective term of 13 years.

Guys did you see many HTML words in it.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I say lets start using XML/XSL browser and all the patent up the ass.

All you lawyers out there...

[paulerob]

does the fact that the USPTO spelled 'unique' wrong:

"Customization of network documents by accessing customization information on a server computer using uniquie user identifiers "

mean that M$ has a a patent on something that doesn't exist?! Quick, somebody jump in before it's too late!!

Re:All you lawyers out there...

[StarFace]

No, it is a combnation of the words unique, queue, and quick. Microsloffic is promising that this new system will enable them to meet the needs and solutions of demanding sheepsumers who require queueable quick unique customizations for their optimizable browising exprintiance.

Re:All you lawyers out there...

[Compulawyer]

The PTO just reprints exactly what the applicant submits. In the vast majority of cases, the typo is the applicant's fault, not the PTO's. There are very strong patent law (and indeed, general governmental regulation) reasons why the PTO must publish exactly what the applicant has written.

That does not mean the PTO is never responsible for mistakes. There are sections of the Patent Act just for correcting mistakes (35 U.S.C. 254 for PTO Mistakes, 35 U.S.C. 255 for Applicant Mistakes). But I can also tell you in this instance, the mistake occured in the Title of the Invention. The title has just about ZERO legal significance. If the typo occurred in the claims, then perhaps there are arguments based on the typo. But in the Title? Forget it.

Hmmm, a companion for DRM and Passport?

[Anonymous Coward]

To me this looks like the perfect companion for stuff like DRM and Passport. Once mandatory user identification will be widespread guess who will benefit from a patent for giving services based on user identification.

Costs!

[HiThere]

The patent doesn't need to be valid to act to suppress developers. Can *you* afford a patent suit? I surely couldn't. And that means that no matter how invalid the complaint, I couldn't protect myself. And THAT means that stupid patents, or stupid claims made about real patents, can be effectively used to suppress anything I do. Of course I'm against things like that. It's not about justice. It's not about invention. It's not about innovation. It's not about techniques. It's about using cash to suppress the competition.

Re:Costs!

[sartin]

Actually, developers are better off going ahead without doing the patent research and infringing than they are knowing about the patent and trying to work around it. If you know about the patent, they can go for extra damages when they sue you, even (or especially) if you tried to work around the patent. If you don't know, they can still sue you, but not for the extra damages.

This applies in the US, but possibly not elsewhere.

IANAL, but a former corporate IP attorney told us to do this and let him worry about the patents.

Re:Costs!

[HiThere]

I wasn't even THINKING of doing a patent search. For one thing, I wouldn't know how to. For another thing, I've read a couple of patents, and discovered that I couldn't tell WHAT they were about (which violates the patent law if it's about computer code, as I am "skilled in the art", but it's been a long time since that mattered in patent law).

Re:they also got a patent on web services yesterda

[EvilTwinSkippy]

When you think about it though, IBM has a fairly large arsenol of just about everything computer related too. To their credit, indeed to the credit of most good citizens of the corporate world, most leave them quietly tucked away like a revolver in a desk drawer.

Okay, more like those fortress of doom armories in action movies.

The patent you listed only describes web-content generated for application dialog boxes, using DHTML and another of their patents for something called "TRIDENT." It's so specific as to be useless save as a buttress against folks like Samba who would copy the functionality on the server end for interoperability.

No wait, that's pretty damn scary.

.NET Passport?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this unique identifier be something like a .NET Passport? Your passport could potentially identify a set of predefined settings that would be applied to every supporting website that you visit. Could this be what they're getting at?

Slashdot in violation?

[hughk]

The problem is that the claim, which essentially mean cookies and session ids now belong to Microsoft is that their claim may be contested by large companies but not the small. A smaller company would find it hard to come up with $100K or so to have the claims shown to be irrelevant.

Lets just take Slashdot. The server has state. It knows who I am and I can leave a cookie on a system so that Slashdot can know that I am the normal user on that system. Slashdot tailors its output depending upon my stored preferences.

I don't know when Slash started all its per user customisations, but there were definitely other web systems that could deliver content based on user preferences seven years ago.

Re:Slashdot in violation?

[foobsr]

... but there were definitely other web systems that could deliver content based on user preferences seven years ago.
... The Age of the Customized Web Site
Reprinted from Web Developer(R) magazine, Vol. 1 No.1 Winter 1996
Sic{k}.
CC.

So......

[big-giant-head]

I've been writing software that looks at a login, takes that info looks up corresponding data in a database and then generates the HTML to display. Been doing it since '95. PRIOR ART......................

I've done it in C++, Java and PHP........

Except I try not to use cookies......

don't fret! just go to law school!

[Myrmidon]

I suppose you're right. This patent doesn't say "Microsoft definitely owns this obvious idea, which is as common as crabgrass."

Instead it says "if you invent a web service which appears to use this obvious idea, a big corporation can arbitrarily force you to turn your life savings into legal fees. After five years, assuming you stay out of bankruptcy court, you will know whether or not their claim has the force of law."

Imagine my relief.

And I'm not flaming Microsoft. This particular patent is just a symptom. I'm flaming the U.S. Patent Office, which seems hell-bent on insuring that the only U.S. citizens who are allowed to write software are millionaires, patent lawyers, MBAs with access to large venture funds, major corporations, and Anonymous Cowards who update their CVS trees late at night (and who live with the mortal fear that a lawyer will discover their True Name...)

No it is patenting 'remember me'

[jez_f]

I don't think this is patenting cookies it looks (from a brief scan of the doc) to be patenting a web page that changes its content solely on the basis of the cookie i.e. same URL and no form variables. It is basically a 'remember me' patent, though it could also apply to sessions based on cookies.

Seems like an obvious solution to me, but then I am a web developer not a patent clerk.

Re:No it is patenting 'remember me'

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, that means you are the one that matters, not the reverse. The idea need only be obvious to one 'skilled in the art'. I think we may safely assume that the patent clerk isn't in that category.

Re:No it is patenting 'remember me'

[Anonymous Coward]

"it could also apply to sessions based on cookies"
I think this is the intent of the whole thing. It does indeed apply to sessions based on cookies, although it doesn't apply to session based cookie sessions, only to persistent cookie based sessions.

talking about prior art...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't customization in the browser the reason why Netscape invented the cookies?

Yeah Right...

[ReallyTweakin]

Oh this is nothing, next week my patent on breathing comes through, and you all owe me BIG TIME... ...Jesus, when will something get done about this crap? It's like frivolous lawsuits, only orders of magnitude worse...

Funny

[Pan T. Hose]

"Microsoft Patents Your Local Weather Report"

Does it mean it will rain constantly with blue lightnings of death crashing every second?

Mom was right: a cookie monster does exist!

[$criptah]

This is may be off topic, but I must ask, "What the fuck is going on?" Why are companies like Microsoft, Amazon, SCO, etc. are still around? This country gave them a chance to succeed and instead of giving something back they continue to screw their own customer base! Patents, outsourncing, security holes, buggy software, lawsuits on a daily basis... Now Microsoft is playing a role of a cookie monster. Isn't it enough? If I were the judge for this case, I'd throw this case out right away and threaten to sue MS back for stupidity and wasting court time. And if Microsoft does not like it, may be it should move to India.

Re:Mom was right: a cookie monster does exist!

[Anonymous Coward]

> And if Microsoft does not like it, may be it should move to India. You have *no* idea how prophetic that statement is! -- My wife is a gorilla and my daughter has leprosy.

Re:Mom was right: a cookie monster does exist!

[$criptah]

My wife is a gorilla and my daughter has leprosy.

Wow dude, I bet you drink!

Re:Mom was right: a cookie monster does exist!

[oogoody]

Companies routinely ask their employees for
stuff to patent. As employees get money for
patents there is a lot of pressure to pattent
any old thing. You are also encouraged not
to consider prior art. The result is predictable.

Re:WE ARE SLASHBOT! M$ SUX0RZ! PAT3NTZ R TEH LAEM!

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Pak chooie.

Just won my patent

[Ozor]

I just filed a patent for having your computer turn on by pressing the power button. This is breakthru technology and I can't wait to start collecting money :-)

Bigger threat

[NineNine]

There's a much bigger threat to large parts of the economy, and that's OSS. It's already starting to take it's toll. I don't know of any instances where patents have hurt the economy, but large software companies are doing layoffs, due in part to OSS. You want to be mad about something, be mad about OSS. That's really going to be horribly destructive. Then, when the economy is in the toilet and ever the rich little college kids can't afford to write OSS in their free time (they might have to get a *job*!), then we'll be really fucked.

Re:Bigger threat

[4of12]

large software companies are doing layoffs, due in part to OSS.

That has to be weighed against the benefit derived by consumers of software.

Exactly the same argument could be made about lost jobs in any existing industry where there are artificial barriers in the marketplace.

If solar photovoltaic cells were suddenly available that produced electricity for US$0.005 /kW-hr, a lot of good people in energy producing industries would lose their jobs, too. And if I were one of them I'd be put out. But overall, it's the best thing.

Likewise with software. There's a big shakeout going on because of latent pressure for commoditisation of software that has been held back for too long.

Unless you can demonstrate real value-added in software and services, and not something whose value hinges upon some artificial barrier, you'll have to start looking for something different to do.

I'm sorry for anyone that has to undergo the discomfort of change, but I still have to believe it's for the overall good.

Re:Bigger threat

[EvilTwinSkippy]

At the risk of being trolled, I would like to point out that Business chose to use OSS. OSS isn't taking away anyone's job. I've worked in the Semiconductor industry, and I was laid off at $12/hour so they could move my job to Singapore. That had nothing to do with OSS. It's greed and despiration.

I would also like to dispel the myth of the OSS developer as one who sits around and has nothing better to do than code. I am an OSS developer, but I have a wife and kid. They need food, clothes, and all those other not-so-extravagent things. To support that expensive habit of living, I have a full time job, get this, supporting OSS software.

That's right, I'm paid to maintain a bunch of Linux servers. There are some Microsoft servers too, but they pay at least my salary in support fees for the 3 packages they run. Judging by the "on hold" time I spend waiting for Tech support, they aren't employing a whole lot of people.

I do some work on the side. Some volunteer work, some paid. All of it uses OSS software to do something useful on a budget. Those budgets are generally just enough to pay me to write the software, and not a whole lot more for licenses or extravegant hardware. If I didn't have the advantages of OSS, the projects would never have existed because there is no market.

So you see, OSS has created at least 1 job, and a wonderful side income for me. But I don't get paid for the software. I get paid (or when volunteering, recognized) for SUPPORTING the software.

Giving the software the results away avoids a whole raft of sticky intellectual property issues. Since my clients know that everything I write will be published they don't feel like I'm hording property developed for THEM. I don't feel like I'm being and intellectual prostitute.

My software is like the collection of techniques a carpenter developes while making furnature. By itself useless, but in skilled hands it can produce usefull things.

Re:Bigger threat

[avdp]

It's hightly questionable that OSS is the cause for "large software companies" doing layoffs. But even if it did, "large software companies" are a tiny drop of water in the employment pool. Contrarily to your belief, the economy of this country (or any country) does not revolve around software companies.

Having read the patent...

[gearmonger]

...this is pretty scary. It seems like it covers about 80% of the functionality of your typical login/ID system implemented widely across the web. It will be interesting to see if/how Microsoft pursues and protects this patent. I really feel like owners of patents should be required to sue *everyone* that infringes, not just cherry-pick the richest few. That way, it would make overly broad patents potentially too expensive to enforce.

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm being sued by Microsoft for logging into a BBS!

How MS can use this

[deck]

Microsoft can use this to completely monopolize the software market if in its broader scope it is enforceable. Hopefully it will be challenged in some manner and effectively anulled. However, if not, Microsoft will not allow any entity to do something that is encumbered by this patent unless they are using MS or MS approved software. This could mean the near death of all server OS's on the Net but MS's, and by consequence, all non MS OS's on the desktop. This is not just scary but outright, fundamentally disturbing.

Prior Art? Now what?

[MattGWU]

Whenever we get a story on Slashdot about some new patent, usually by Big Evil Corperation, there are many posts citing possible prior art. Generally something like this:

"What about [big obvious example]?"

"Haven't they heard of [lesser known example, generally an Open Source project, or something that has been in UNIX distributions since time immemorial]?!"

"I remember I used to use [Obscure example from the days of yore] and it did basically the same thing"

But what do you DO with this information? It seems like a nice exercise to try and pick apart the claims and come up with increasingly obscure references for their prior expression, but is there any actual good that can come of it? (Ok, the last statement kind of implies that all patents are bad; they're not.)

Assuming that at least one or two of the cited examples are valid, there may well be legitimate challanges to the patent. The question is, what to do about it?

It seems infeasable for some random Slashdotter or group of Slashdotters to light up the Laywer Signal and engage Big Evil Corperation in fisticuffs. Afterall, where's the gain? Would the case even be accepted if you weren't the one holding the prior art? What, then, is the answer, or is this just a big geekly pissing contest?

Only thing that comes to mind is firing off a letter to the holder of the prior art, telling them that you enjoyed using their product on the old VAX system at school or whatever, and now Big Evil Corperation is trying to eat their lunch, patent-style.

Re:Prior Art? Now what?

[LauraW]

>But what do you DO with this information?

If you're not involved in a legal action involving the patent, probably not much. However, posts about prior art can be handy for people involved in legal action (or threatened action) on the patent. At a small company where I once worked, we'd occasionally get threatening letters from people claiming to have patents on some fundamental (and usually obvious) piece of technology in our industry. Even worse, sometimes our customers would get threatening letters and then tell us they were going to stop using our product unless we "settled the patent issues." (SCO didn't invent this kind of tactic, unfortunately.)

When this happened, web posts about prior art, plus online copies describing the prior art in detail, were very handy. One of our engineers could usually use a search engine and dig up enough prior art to make the patent look fairly ridiculous. Then our lawyer could write a polite but nasty letter to the patent holder (cc'ing our customer) pointing out the ridiculousness and refusing to pay any license fees. This usually made our customer happy and often shut up the patent holder too.

Originality

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Microsoft claiming to have invented the cookie, or just the process of using the cookie for what it was intended for, storing information between requests and sessions. It baffles me how it can be legal to protect something that is just a combination of technologies being used for something they were intended for.

If someone held a patent on the wheel, could they patent attaching a wheel to anything so it can be rolled around? I can understand a patent on some mechanism that is unique by itself, but to patent every worthwhile use of the mechanism is absurd.

Not just weather reports and stock quotes

[cdunworth]

I just read the claims in the patent. This is completely outrageous.

In a nutshell, it covers the universal mechanism of delivering user-specific dynamic web content: tag the user with a unique ID (usually by way of a cookie), then use this ID as a lookup key into a database where user-specific settings reside (which the user provided at some earlier point by submitting an HTML form), then deliver HTML pages that are customized based on the stored user information (e.g. "This page was generated by a Barrel of Attack Elephants for cdunworth.")

If this patent is enforceable, nearly every single web application ever written would be subject to it. Your online bank uses this mechanism. Slashdot uses this mechanism. Amazon uses this mechanism.

There must be prior art to invalidate this. Aren't there any software developers that work at the patent office???

Re:Not just weather reports and stock quotes

[jefu]

Aren't there any software developers that work at the patent office???

A while back I was (um) underemployed and being interested in the patent system started watching the USPTO job listings for employment in that kind of area. I saw listings for employment for systems people to work on the USPTO systems (and the like) but not one for anyone who would actually get to do anything like look at software patents.

I came to suspect that all such people are really being impersonated by wind up dolls, with just enough functionality to stamp "Approved" on the applications.

Re:Not just weather reports and stock quotes

[skagin]

Aren't there any software developers that work at the patent office???

I knew a PTO lawyer. Acc'd to him the only folks who look over patents are lawyers. The legal profession is one of two I know of as being anything like as time and energy consuming as software development (the other is medicine)((IMHO)). So, no, I expect there are very few geeks of both law and compsci who are the least bit competent in both pursuits, much less wandering the halls of government

This is wrong

[merlin262]

import standard_disclaimer

Infringing a patent requires that only 1 claim be implemented. You can't simply ignore a claim because it is broad, they all matter. True, in patents, usually the first claim covers the gist what is being patented, and the rest of the claims add specific features to the base invention.

Now, of course you can defend against an overbroad claim in court, and even stand a chance of getting it struck down, but you will still end up spending thousands upon thousands. perhaps more. Friends, this is why taking legal advice on slashdot is bad idea.

What!

[sailboatfool]

I don't have any weather, I live underground you insenstive clod!

You're an idiot.

[JMZero]

Why? Inflated tires have a larger surface area.

Well, first off, we need to clear something up. Wheels certainly do reduce friction costs on motion, but not by reducing surface area. They do so by turning. The bit of rubber touching the road shouldn't be moving much relative to the road. The force from friction is precisely what's moving the car forward. A car is supposed to have great friction between wheel and road - again that's how it moves. This also explains why "braking" relies mainly on "stopping the turning" than "increasing surface area".

The problems with under-inflated tires are to do with the unpleasant mechanics involved in deforming the tire and such.

Why are aircraft round instead of square?

Friction is about rubbing. A large part of aerodynamic drag is about pushing air. These are completely different things.

how friction increases with relative velocity

It doesn't, so it's probably just as well that the article doesn't explain that. Friction is typically highest at zero relative motion.

Re:You're an idiot.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Ask the experts before calling me an idiot.

For those of you too lazy to click: The maximum coefficient of friction can occur anywhere in the contact area, so that the greater the area, the greater the likelihood of maximum traction.

And yes, underinflated tires increase fuel consumption.

How you managed to conclude a lack on intelligence on my part I'm not sure. I can assure you that the the friction averted by "rolling" is made up for at the axel. Why else do you need bearings?

New Microsoft Patent

[Jedi Holocron]

After a seven year wait, Microsoft was granted a patent Tuesday for the binary value of 101010 (also known as 42 in base 10), patent lawyer-speak for the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything for such purposes as "complete and unchallengable ownership and control of everything". Microsoft later issues the following warning that due to a critical flaw, the universe will need to install security patch #12455231244453+e42 and then reboot.

sounds a lot like ASP... JSP/PHP at risk?

[Creepy]

As I read it, this sounds exactly like what Active Server Pages, Java Server Pages, and PHP are designed to do.

Cookies are required, at least for ASP and JSP, as this is used for authentication and identification. I don't know about PHP, as I've never tried to turn off cookies and use it.

The "customization options" are basically a request. In their example, if you only want to see weather, sports, and news, you would check those three boxes on an HTML form page and click submit. The returned web page only retrieves those three areas and formats the web page with this specific information. The embedded script would probably retrieve these web page fragments from a database.

The return document is HTML (as expected for PHP, ASP, or JSP).

The described preferences are essentially a client side persistent cookie, so you don't have to fill out the form again. Nothing new here, but this is a method patent, not a specific item patent (e.g. not a patent on cookies themselves, but a patent on a method that uses cookies).

Oddly enough, claim 6 appears to restrict the information to "one or more of news, sports, financial matters, entertainment, science and technology, life, and weather." Depending on interpretation, this can be read as either extremely broad or extremely specific... Are my choices on the customization screen those options, or are they anything and everything related to those options (e.g. does it just cover a weather checkbox, or is Tulsa weather also covered?). I'm sure Microsoft meant the latter, but this appears debatable to me :)

So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean if I am logging onto a server with my user directory via NFS and I have configuration files on there that are specific to me and my desktop - background settings etc. this is covered by this patent?

This has been around long before you could even put Windows onto a network let alone a server. Who granted this sh*t?

Translated

[nazsco]

Since the fish doesn't have lawneesh to english, i'll try to do it by hand.

claim 11 says: Use of cookie to send customized HTML

claim 17 says: Use of cache for claim 11.

claim 18 says: use of HTTP GET, use of CGI and use of distributed cache

claim 19 says: same as 18 plus a login system

claim 20 says: a server can suport more than one user

got to love the one MS is being sued for...

[Shivetya]

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5090679.html

That story details a patent which is far worse. I see the patent presented by Microsoft as simply another protection mechanism.

Yeah it looks silly when you do the 2 minute analysis. Yet, when looking down into the history of patents and litigation it just becomes insulation.

Typically you get these nice little lawsuits, counter lawsuits, and then everyone settles confidentially with swapping of related patents and such.

If anything, I would not be mad a MS for getting the patent, its far better they got it than some corporation/person/other with pent up ego/idealogical issues using it as a sledge hammer to make news/money for themselves. Sure MS will probably beat someone with patents, but big corps do seem more logical about their application of them.

What goes around...

[d3cr33p]

Seems like microsoft isn't the only one having fun with this sort of stuff. They are just getting on the band wagon. In the end I wonder who or what will be left standing.

What about "One-Click" shopping...

[rongage]

Before anyone asks, I did not RTFP...

This sounds like "session cookies" to me. A Unique IDentifier(UID) is generated on first connect to a site and that UID is used to track your movement and configuration through the website.

This is a basic feature in PHP - the "register_session("$var")" function . I'm sure there are numerous other examples of this being used in other web languages (Perl, ASP, Java, etc...). This has obvious practical use in things like weblogs and even in e-commerce sites. Including such sites as our patent-hungry friends at Amazon.com.

The entire one-click thing they have is built on the premise of being able to remember the user and what that user has ordered while they are online - in other words, tracking their session. Session cookies by any other name.

Either Amazon is using this newly patented technology without a license, or Microsoft has a bogus patent (surprise surprise) based on already patented prior art.

I smell a big patent infringment party coming on here - real fast....

It has an achilles heel

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent requires that the unique identifier be returned to the client computer.

If one wants to work around it, all you have to do is assign the unique identifiers on the client, and keep them on the client.

So, if Mozilla reads /dev/urandom and hands some bytes to the server as "my unique ID", along with the user preference information, the server is allowed to store that, and later use it without violating the patent.

It's only illegal if the server makes up the UID, and hands it to the client.

Likewise, any site that uses your e-mail address as a globally unique ID does not have to violate the patent, because there is no need for the server to return your e-mail address to you.

So, all that needs to be done is the following: modify HTML forms so that you can make the client send a UID along with the form data. I'd suggest adding <input type=uid> to HTML forms.

Then, you need to add a facility to HTML cookies, so that the UID can be generated on the client. I'd suggest
Set-Cookie: UNIQUE=CUSTOMERID; path=/; expires=Wednesday, 09-Nov-99 23:12:40 GMT
which would set the NAME CUSTOMERID to a unique and random 512-bit value. The above cookie would be equivalent to
Set-Cookie: CUSTOMERID=89439263482893462; path=/; expires=Wednesday, 09-Nov-99 23:12:40 GMT

That would allow most web services to operate much as they do today, though of course there would be a substantial cost to make all those software changes.

UNDERSTATED title

[Tony]

For those that didn't RTFM, the patent is about customising content (which may include weather reports).

Exactly.

They gave one specific example. As I read it, the patent could go as far as to preclude Amazon's personalized shopping, CNN's targetted news, and Slashdot's login facility.

So it is far worse than the title suggests.

How is that FUD, exactly?

AT&T for UNIX should patent concept of OS &

[I-R-Baboon]

"A Frontend control program to allow interface with a computing device to avoid use of PunchCards and pure Binary entries in a multi-user environment while allowing use of mulitple devices attached to the computer to be used in a productive environment performing muliple tasks."

Then patent a shell to interface with the OS...

"Interactive Wrap to and OS to allow easier direct interfacing with OS interfacing with the computer."

DEATH TO SUPERFLUOUS TECHNOLOGY PATENTS!

Pronunciation: su-'p&r-flu-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin superfluus, literally, running over, from superfluere to overflow, from super- + fluere to flow -- more at FLUID
Date: 15th century
1 a : exceeding what is sufficient or necessary : EXTRA b : not needed : UNNECESSARY
2 obsolete : marked by wastefulness : EXTRAVAGANT
- superfluously adverb
- superfluousness noun

Patenting Ideas

[McFly777]

While correct that you aren't patenting the "idea" itself, the claims can be written so broadly that they cover almost any embodyment of the idea. Thereby, effectively patenting the idea itself.

For example, with the aparent attitude of our current patent office Edison could have begun the light bulb patent with a claim like "1. An electric device where light is produced by the application of electric current, without the production of an electric arc." (The last bit to get around arc lamps, which I believe existed previous to Edison.) Claims 2 through N would then go on to describe evacuated glass bulbs, filaments, etc. and would all start like "2. a device as in claim 1 which..."

Note that the first claim would effectivly prohibit production of florescent lights, LEDs and any number of other light producing items. Those items could be patented themselves, but their inventors could not legally produce them without licencing Claim 1 from Edison. As such, the "idea" of the light bulb would have been effectivly patented, not just the incandescent filament embodyment.

It is up to the patent examiner to determine when a claim is too broad to be allowed. In the patent I hold, my original claim 1 was rejected for this reason. We just removed claim 1 and rewrote claim 2 slightly to be independant and *poof* the patent was approved.

If the examiner had allowed my first claim, someone could have just taken me to court to have the same effect of nullifying that claim. The problem is that Microsoft has the cash to make it very expensive for anyone to challenge their overly broad claims which have been allowed by USPTO. (p.s. I know, LEDs etc. came more than 20 years after Edison. This is just an example)

Re:Patenting Ideas

[reallocate]

I wouldn't agree or disagree that the patent office sometimes grant patents that ought not to be granted. I certainly do agree that people and organizations with lots of money -- like Microsoft -- can more easily afford to hire lawyers than people with less money. That's a fact of life.

But, every time /. posts something about patents, it serves its purpose by prompting a few hundred posts from the braindead among us who decide that the concept of patents is evil just because the open source demigods tell them to hate software patents.

Re:Patenting Ideas

[McFly777]

I don't feel that patents as such are evil, just that the patent office isn't doing a good job in certain fields.

Also, I have problems with the length of time a software patent lasts. In today's world, 20 years is a lot longer with repsect to technological change, than it was in the 1770s.

To be honest, I became the most disenchanted with the patent process when I went through it. As it turns out I got my patent, but I am disappointed in the way it happened.

Re:Patenting Ideas

[cduffy]

But, every time /. posts something about patents, it serves its purpose by prompting a few hundred posts from the braindead among us who decide that the concept of patents is evil just because the open source demigods tell them to hate software patents.

Damn, but that's a gross -- and offensive -- overgeneralization. Could you consider that, perhaps, some subset (perhaps even a *large* subset) among us dislike software patents on their own merits?

Which is to say: If I understand an argument well enough to articulate it fluently in my own words, and actively defend it against someone who disagrees -- without strictly parroting the words of another -- am I still a member of the "braindead" set who holds the argument because someone else tells them to? To me, the contrary seems obvious.

With regard to software patents in particular, I'm concerned about them not strictly as an open source developer but also as an employee-shareholder of a startup getting ready to release our first product. While our product is indeed innovative and probably patent-worthy in a few respects, our interests are better served by focus on getting the product out the door with as much polish as possible. Given the number of man-years that have gone into building the thing, and the specialized expertise that has accrued in the process, we already have a natural advantage over any competitors in the field -- even one with far greater financial resources. I'm far, far more concerned about some opponent who comes up with a patent on some obvious technology our core product infringes than I am about one who decides they're going to "steal our idea"; as promulgated in A Good Hard Kick in the Ass, good ideas are a dime a dozen; making a profitable business is the hard part.

The problem is almost akin to copyright violation. Our CEO is quite severely concerned about the data our application runs on -- itself the product of multiple man-years by domain specialists -- being stolen by a third party who then starts a competing business. I'm less concerned: Someone who suddenly possesses the data -- or even the code -- without the knowledge used to create it, update it or fix the bugs would be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to the original team who understands both application and data intimately.

My point here is thus: Having a set of bytes or having a Good Idea is not enough to make money; one needs the infrastructure -- the people, the contacts, the skills -- to run a business. Focusing on the "intellectual property" is thus really a red herring with regard to where a company's value is -- even a company whose sole product is built around that "intellectual property".

So, they've patented the use of cookies

[Rogerborg]

How much will Slashdot have to pay them to put my username under "Welcome to Slashdot"?

I'd weep, but it's just too much. It's gone beyond farce, and far beyond my ability to rage against it. All we can do is to trust that they don't use their powers for evil.

God help us all.

Yep. Active Desktop.

[wneto]

You just described the old useless Active Desktop wich, in case anyone cares, Macromedia plans to revive with Macromedia Central in a similar way (Real Soon Now (tm)).

You don't get it...

[JMZero]

Ask the experts before calling me an idiot.

The experts in your article agree with my point perfectly. Either you're not understanding the point, or you've changed your mind.

The article you mention talks about maximizing friction? Why? Because road/tire friction is what moves your car forward. It's something you want to maximize, rather than avoid in order to save gas. I'm glad you now understand this, because you had it completely, idiot backwards before. Can't you see this?

I can assure you that the the friction averted by "rolling" is made up for at the axel. Why else do you need bearings?

Of course friction is important to minimize at the axel. It's a completely different issue than tire/road friction. That you're trying to grasp at this signals that you've given up your original argument - I'm glad, because it was retarded.

And yes, underinflated tires increase fuel consumption.

I never disputed that, idiot. I only disputed your interpretation (ie, that the lack of efficiency is due to increased friction).

Re:You don't get it...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Looking back at my original post, it does sound a bit silly.

Thanks for making me re-think the matter.

Prior Art

[appleLaserWriter]

MetNet was a network of weather stations across Oregon. It may have existed as far back as 1991, but was definitely in operation in 1993, when I wrote some Perl scripts and did some web development for them.

We produced custom weather reports and delivered them via email and web.

http://web.archive.org/web/19961221031214/http:/ /m etnet.geog.pdx.edu/

Prior Art

[jwang]

There is substantial prior art for this patent.

Cookies were first introduced by Netscape, either with Navigator 1 or Navigator 2. In any case, they were being discussed on public mailing lists in the first quarter of 1996, well before the December 1996 filing date of this patent.

Now all that needs to happen is for someone to tell the USPTO...

question on 'customization information'

[LifesABeach]

what the hell is it?

consider, anyone of their 'claims' are already accepted industry methods, and are being done, or has been done in the industry since the industry's inception. it doesn't make sense.

what's the point of this patent then? the methods described are not unique, but its ramafications are global in nature.

i question the intensions of the 'rubber stamping' of this patent by all involved.

this is not a troll-gram, but a real question, i read the patent, there exists prior work on all this stuff, and its not from m$. i guress i'm missing it, but these m$ folks have a prior history, and its not fun, healthy, or anything i'd teach children to learn to be.

Microsfoft's Other Famous Patents (Onion)

[bfioca]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents .html

My favorite quote:

"If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."

storing login information?

[LuxFX]

This sounds like it might also cover using cookies to store username/password login information -- the kind where you check a box to login automatically.

This seems like a thinly veiled effort to patent the use of cookies period, or at least what most people use them for.

Friction cleared up

[nameer]

O.K. I reached up to my bookcase and grabed Robert Norton's "Machine Design: an integrated approach" I will now commence to quote liberally. Nobody is really going to read this so far into the tree, so what the heck.

7.2 Mating surfaces

When two surfaces are pressed together under load, their apparent area of contact Ar is afffected by the asperities present on their surfaces and is more difficult to accurately determine. The tops of the asperities will initially contact the mating part and the initial area of contact will be extremely small. The resulting stresses in the asperities will be very high and can easily exceed the compressive yield strength of the material. As the mating force is increased, the asperity tips will yield and spread until their combined area is sufficient to reduce the average stress to a sustainable level, i.e., some compressive penetration strength of the weaker material.

The real area of contact can then be estimated from Ar = F/Sp = F/3Syc. Note that the contact area for a material of particular strength under a given load will be the same regardless of the apparent area of the mating surfaces.

7.3 Friction

Note that the real area of contact Ar is independent of the apparent area Aa that is defined by the geometry of the mating parts. This is the reason that Coulomb friction between two solids is also independent of th aapparent area of contact Aa. The equation for coulomb sliding friction is f=uF. (Some good stuff on how plough force affects friction which I'm not typing out)

Effect of roughnes on Friction

One might expect the surface roughness to have a strong influence on the friction coefficient. Tests show only a weak relationship, however. At extremely smooth finishes, below about 10uin Ra, the coefficient of friction does increase by as much as a factor of 2 due to an increase in the real contact area. At very rough finishes, above about 50uin Ra, the coefficient of friction also increases slightly due to the energy needed to overcome asperity interferences (plowing) in addition to shearing their adhesion bonds.

Effect of Velocity on Friction

Kinetic Coulomb friction is usually modeled as being independent of sliding velocity V except for a discontinuity at V=0 where a larger, static coefficient is measured. In reality, there is a continuous, nonlinear drop in u with increasing V. This function is approximately a straight line when pltted against the log of V and its negative slope is a few percent per decade. It is believed that some of this is due to the increased interface temperatures resulting from the higher velocities reducing the material's shear yeild strength.

Rolling Friction

When a part rolls on another without any sliding, the coefficient of friction is much lower in the range of 5e-3 to 5e-5. The friction force will vary as some power of the load (from 1.2 to 2.4) and inversely with the radius of curvature of the rolling elements. Surface roughness does have an effect on rolling friction and most such joints are finished by grinding to minimize their roughness. High hardness materials are usually used to obtain the needed strengths and promote smooth ground finishes. There is little variation of rolling friction with velocity.

Re:Friction cleared up

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Well for the record, I read this deep in the tree. ;)

IANAL

[D iz a n k Meister]

Can someone explain the major differences between:

microsoft patent

and this

weather central patent?

Re:IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

The personalized Weather Report is delivered to the user by email, and not by a web page, although email messages can be and often are composed of HTML.

Browser cookies were invented by Netscape

[rifftide]

They were supported by Navigator 1.1 in March 1995. Microsoft's patent filing references Netscape's spec, including this explanation:

This simple mechanism provides a powerful new tool which enables a host of new types of applications to be written for web-based environments. Shopping applications can now store information about the currently selected items, for fee services can send back registration information and free the client from retyping a user-id on next connection, sites can store per-user preferences on the client, and have the client supply those preferences every time that site is connected to.

I architected this solution for Intel in 1995

[ahooton]

I certainly hope the USPTO and Microsoft get challenged on this by Intel. There is significant prior art that Intel owns in this case.

In 1995, as a contractor to Intel, I architected and developed a solution that delivered customized lists of news releases and other information to end users based on unique user tracking information. Cookies were not widely used yet, so we had to invent other mechanisms, which performed the same function. There should be plenty of documentation on this if people wanted to look for it. The system was publicly available on the Intel corporate website, for anybody to make use of.

A few years after I was associated with launching the project, it was rewritten to use cookies, and eventually Intel took the feature off their website.

If anybody at Intel wants assistance in tracking this down, feel free to contact me at arhspam at hootons dot org.

What is a common document?

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider an application that resides on a network, such as email client software. This application defines a screen (or "document") that is displayed to all users who run the application.

Now, every user has a mailbox containing his personal mail. The system utilizes this mailbox (i.e. "personalization information") to customize the screen/document displayed by the email program.

How about that for prior art?

you are responsible for this.

[eadint]

Ya know its nothing like a daily dose of slashdot to turn me into a frothing angry, liberal wanting to scream at you guys in order to get you to listen, kinda like herding cats down a hallway with doors.
1) slashdot is known for slash-doting web sties.
2) believe it or not politicians do pay attention to their mail.
3) if every slashdot user snail mailed their congressman, senator, president. and a news company about this, they would probably listen, and look into it.
4) if you don't do this than every time a ridiculous patent comes up, you are responsible for it, democracy is a responsibility not a birth right.

Re:you are responsible for this.

[soccerisgod]

Please excuse me asking, but how on earth are you gonna pay the postage for every complaint, seeing how there seem to be 1000s of really stupid patents every month?

Re:you are responsible for this.

[eadint]

i would thing a one time letter inteligently explaining the problem and offering a solution to the aformentioned people would suffice.
imagin if in three days 100,000,000 letters were recieved by congress and senat, and a major news group. the news would see it as a marketing advantage. then the government would see it as a way to win votes.
mindshare is everything.

Re:you are responsible for this.

[soccerisgod]

Wonder if they would care for my mind, seeing how I'm not a US citizen ;)

URL History

[prgrmr]

How broad a reading would it take to apply this patent to any browser that tracks URL history for indivual users on the same computer?

Likewise...

[JMZero]

I thought I knew more about it than I do. Just from the few links I looked at, there's a lot of stuff there I didn't ever think about.

Mostly I was just really in the mood for a flame war today. Oh well - maybe next time.

Re:Likewise...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Winter is around the corner, and we are all looking for ways to cut down on the heating bill.

News flash: Microsoft Patents Cookies

[HeX86]

People see a person on the street, they match that person's face with information on them: their name, the way their voice sounds and all sorts of info so they can customize a greeting for that person...

I should patent that, then God would have to pay me royalty fees!

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft patents breathing, God says he's pissed.

There is plenty of prior art

[Da'Rante]

They have patented standards that have been openly published for more than 7 years. Netscape had used this technology on thier website before MS knew what a cookie was, since they were the first browser to use them.

Think of it this way. The pencil was invented, and the standards for making pencils went to the IWISA(International Writing Instruments Standards Association) for public consumption. Then Mead comes along and patents the use of a pencil to write notes on paper. You can't patent the intended use of an invention. Though if mead developed a means to turn said pencil into a flying machine, they then would have a case for the patent.

Cookies were intended to either store site preferences, or enough data to recover those preferences. This will fall when challenged by a company with enough cash, or when someone like EFF stands up for a little guy.

M$ Trying to Control the Weather?

[Valiss]

That's a new one....

Let's face it...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the good ol' U S of A, you could patent breathing if you had enough money to influence people and push it through.

---
Kucinich in 2004!

Yes, I RTFA'd

[DougMelvin]

Well.. while this is not at all surprising, this is very scary.

This means that almost all of my web-enabled applications are in violation of this patent. (And yes, I did read the patent document)

An example: A session-based survey form.
1) a user visits the site and starts filling out the form

2) half way through the form, the user chooses to save the form to the server to complete later

3) A unique ID is generated as an Index (and password) for the record in the database

4) The user later returns to the site and now loads the form using their email address and the Unique identifier/password

5) The HTML form is generated with the saved values in place and displayed to the user.

So: Customization of network documents (the form) by accessing customization information (the saved form values) on a server computer (my web server) using unique user identifiers (email and unique ID/Key/Password)

I smell a class-action suite coming on.

A couple of points:

• an email address is certainly a "globally unique identifier"
• A survey form is a network document containing HTML
• Loading saved values from the database and inserting the values into the HTML form is the Customization of a network document.

Who did ol' Bill have to sleep with to get this patent?!?!?

I feel better...

[Eric Damron]

"Generally speaking, the first few claims in a patent are not serious attempts to patent something."

Well this makes me feel better knowing this. I though for a minute that the patent laws were spinning out of control; allowing such things like a patent on a single click purchase.

What a relief! :-)

Web-Killing Patent. (But there's workarounds.)

[TrebleJunkie]

This patent seems to kill the web -- or at least anything that uses user state information, and some sort of web application to personalize a web site for a visitor or user. And it _does_ kill it, quite nicely, as written.

One might argue that this may only entail a Passport-type system, a system that can feasible handle *every* web user with a unique ID. Or you might argue that any username that is unique within one particular system, be it represented as a GUID or as the username "fred123" *is* a unique ID.

And, yeah, it's a broad patent, and to me, a seemingly obvious one -- we've been storing user preferences in database for YEARS for one thing or another. But hey, if you gots money you takes Microsoft to court.

Me, I'm looking for loopholes, and I think I found some, and, ironically, the best solution, and the easiest to implement is the *same* loophole that Microsoft is using to get around a patent these days. If you have a couple thousand dollars and a time machine, I suggest you go back to 1995, file for a patent for these, and then do us all a favor and don't make us pay you to use the idea.

On first glance, the *same* solution that Microsoft itself recommends users take to get around the Eolas (is this the right company name?) can be used here to get around microsoft's patent on a web server returning *one* *single* *customized* *html* *page* for a user. Simply use separate javascript to go out and get *partial* documents for the personalized stuff (and don't use a cookie to ID the user in these cases, embed something *in* the URL. More on this below.), and document.write it into the page, and totally avoid the scope of this patent. And if Microsoft asks you any questions, remind them that if they make you pay them, they'll be paying lots more to some other company.

Or, use hidden form fields or URL-based tokens to store the user id, since this patent only seems to deal with the inclusion of a unique user ID in a cookie.

Or, don't pass user information in the cookie at all. Use a unique *session* identifying cookie, and store the *user* information strictly server-side.

Soooo as you can see, there's a couple ways around this, and I suggest you patent them really. REALLY. FUCKING. SOON.

More prior art (sigh)

[Genus Marmota]

OK, back around '95 or '96 I was defacto administrator of a bunch of unix boxen at the department where I worked. I set up home directories for all users on the file server and optionally included startup stuff for them that ran the browser (Mosaic) and brought up a web page of their choice. In my case this was another server at the UW that had the daily weather report as text. For others it was the log file from the previous nights production runs.

Prior art? Yeesh.

Re:they also got a patent on web services yesterda

[jo42]

Why is it every time I read a patent document, my colon wants to jump out and strangle my brain...???

easy solution

[kaoshin]

patent the patenting proccess and then sue the patent office.

it's a real problem

[penguin7of9]

Secondly, wildly broad claims normally start, and increasingly narrow claims are made as one works down the ordered list. Therefore, the first thing you claim is going to be ridiculously broad. Generally speaking, the first few claims in a patent are not serious attempts to patent something. The last few claims are the ones of importance.

Yes, the first few claims are "overly broad", and that is the problem. The patent office has allowed those claims. That means they are in force until someone goes through the trouble and expense of trying to have them struck down in court. And they may not succeed at that, because contrary to your inane suggestions, there is no law saying that "the first 10 claims of a patent are always invalid".

The fact of the matter is, patents are structured with a series of claims, as you can see in the linked article. Claims are the only thing with meaning in a patent. The rest is provided for reference, clarification, and simple defence. So the only thing of true importance in this document are the claims, near the top. [...] Nothing like patents to bring out the righteous indignance.

Ah, well, you speak like someone who likes to pretend to know something about patent law on Slashdot. Congratulations, you have successfully parrotted the two or three key phrases to fool the high school students on Slashdot. Of course, to the rest of us, you are stating the obvious and your comments are merely redundant noise.

In reality, this patent should outrage any engineer and software developer. It is particularly outrageous because the patent examiners allowed the first 10 claims, but the remaining 10 claims are almost as bad.

However, as far as this being a Microsoft patent, the only thing that is unusual about that is that Microsoft didn't use to write a lot of patents at all. Now they have merely caught up with common industry practice in the creation of such stupid patents. We shouldn't hold that against Microsoft any more than we hold it against any other company that engages in such practices, but we should certainly criticize Microsoft for this patent as much as we would criticize IBM or Apple. Companies like that cannot unilaterally stop writing such patents because they need them for trading. But they can become politically active and have the patent system changed. In fact, they are probably pretty much the only players who can ultimately get patent law changed.

Easy way around it

[JeffTL]

It's called "cookies" and is better for most situations anyways.

Re:Easy way around it

[Trejkaz]

As far as I can tell, cookies are how you would implement the thing they're proposing. Or require logins for every user I guess, but for a weather site, do you really want to login every single visit?

Petition to revoke?

[nadamsieee]

We all complain about stupid patents, but has anyone tried to do something about it? Looking at the Petition Practices webpage there doesn't seem to be any non-litigation way to revoke a patent. :( It seems like there should be a way to let the USPTO know about any prior art.

Any IP lawyers care to comment?

two words

[pair-a-noyd]

Fuck Micro$haft..

Moore's laws for patent expiration?

[axxackall]

Do you suggest that in the computer industry the patent expiration time must a half of time that a typical technological level is obsolete.

That will split any time the patent idea is useful into two half - one for the patent holder and the other for the public.

Let's say, any given technology on the web is out of hype in 18 months. Ok then, 9 months the patent holder can milk the caw, while the other 9 months it's for the public benefits.

Sun Microsystem burritotool prior art?

[John Sokol]

Sun had there Burritotool and Pizzatool back in 1991
There is some discussion here.
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/22/17322 01.shtm l?tid=154

From most of the Sun office, Sun employiess could run this tool on your workstation and it would fax an order to the appropriate restaurant that would deliver it right to your office. Very good for keeping programmers from being distracted by things like lunch, dinner, or going home even.

Anyhow wouldn't this be location specific services and information?

Or for that matter wouldn't yp.yahoo.com also predate the MS patent?

claims are all that matter -- NOT

[penguin7of9]

Claims are the only thing with meaning in a patent. The rest is provided for reference, clarification, and simple defence.

That statement, of course, is complete nonsense. The primary purpose of a patent is to teach an invention. The claims don't do that, the body does. If the patent isn't written sufficiently so that your average engineer or programmer can implement it, then the patent is not valid. The "meaning" of a patent is not in the claims, it is in the rest of the patent.

The claims primarily matter for certain formal aspects of the legal process, but it has never been the intent of patent law to become some kind of playground for IP legal battles. The intent of patent law is to get people to publish novel ideas and for the patent office to determine what is novel and what is not. Legal disputes over patents were meant to be the exception, not the rule. Of course, today, the process seems to have become one where the patent office approves just about anything and then lets the courts sort it out. And the reason why we aren't seeing even more lawsuits is that almost all of the invalid patents that the patent office lets through are also worthless, so people never sue over them.

The fact that the process has become corrupted into something where many people believe that "the claims are the only thing with meaning in a patent", is one of the problems with patent law. But, of course, even in our litigious times, if you don't write the rest of the patent properly, you are still going to be in deep trouble when there is some dispute and things go to court. So even today, your claim is simply false.

I wish

[pair-a-noyd]

they would just drop a JDAM or a MOAB on M$ HQ.
Let's put a stop to this E.V.I.L.

http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/MS_Buys_Evil.html
Business News

WednesdayApril 510:24 AM ET

Microsoft Purchases Evil From Satan
by Brian Briggs

Redmond, WA - Microsoft purchased evil from Satan for $2.7 billion after many months of tough negotiations.

"We've been after Satan for some time," said CEO Steve Ballmer. "Negotiations were tough, but I think both Microsoft and the Prince of Darkness are happy with this deal."

Microsoft already controls 15% of the evil market, and with this purchase that number nears 100%. The Department of Justice voiced concerns over one corporation controlling so much evil, and launched investigations.

"We feel that there are real opportunities with evil, and that when evil is integrated into our next generation of Windows products consumers will appreciate evil on their desktop," said Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. "Businesses haven't been able to fully realize their evil potential. With evil integrated into Office XP, corporations big and small will begin to see enhanced evil productivity."

"Evil is a real growing market," market strategist Frank Dresgan of Merrill Lynch explained. "Microsoft is a little late in the game, but even when they enter a market late they still tend to dominate. I think we'll see the same results with evil."

"I've been dealing with Microsoft for some time," Lucifer said. "I've been at this evil thing for millions of years, and wanted a way out. I considered an IPO, but then Steve-O and Billy came along and told me about their 'Evil Everywhere' plan. I just couldn't refuse."

Evil was founded by Satan close to the beginning of time. It has been growing steadily ever since, although most of the growth has accelerated in the past five years with the development of the Internet. Satan plans to retire to a small island in the Bahamas and write a column for the local newspaper.

(C) 1999-2003 BBspot LLC
BBspot is a satirical news and comedy source and meant to be funny. If you are easily offended, gullible or don't have a sense of humor we suggest you go elsewhere.

In related news...

[djeaux]

Citing prior art, the Keebler elves have filed suit against Microsoft for using "cookies"...

Cookie Monster

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Stole my cookie

I would like to patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

A cooked mixture of flour and eggs, I will also dry it and use it for my invention.

The invention consists of a hole that allows for more even cooking (with boiling water) and decorative purposes that allows cheeses more easily absorbed by the applied and aformentioned material..

** Kraft is going to have to pay me a fortune!!!!

Re:WE ARE SLASHBOT! M$ SUX0RZ! PAT3NTZ R TEH LAEM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unf

Patent and be damned to you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL.

That being said, it appears to this reporter that the WWW --- both in total and as individual sites/pages --- constitutes a rather huge example of prior art. I damn sure do not have any intention of writing (or re-writing) any site code to avoid violating this patent.

Picard really should have unleashed that virus into the Collective.

Happy Hump Day,
Mal the Elder

Wow that seems broad

[SnprBoB86]

Customization of network documents by accessing customization information on a server computer using unique user identifiers

I have customized the Slashdot subjects which I would like to appear. Wouldn't that make the main page of /. customized by accessing customization information on a server using my unique /. user identifier? Is it just me or does that seem extrodinarily broad?

What good is the patent system, really?

[TomRC]

There seem to be two main classes of patents:

- Absurdly broad patents, that should have been denied as "obvious".

- Innovative and reasonably specific patents - which big corporations collect as trading chips so they can't sue each other but can keep smaller companies from getting into the business; or which they look at merely in order to find ways to get around them.

So what great value, really, does the patent system provide society? Seems to me that society would have gotten better value from a simple "invention registry", where the inventor only gets the ego satisfaction of having his name recorded as the official inventor - but anyone can use his ideas.

Tire physics

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, with modern steel-belted radial tires, this isn't true.

When they are underinflated, they tend to bow inwards on the middle of the tread, decreasing the amount of friction generated with the road surface as the grippy tread comes up and the slippery sidewalls go down.

The increased energy consumption is because of the increased rolling resistance due to the increased continous flexing of the tire... it has a larger moving "wrinkle" or "bulge" that has to be pushed through the stiff matrix of rubber, polyester and steel as the wheel turns.

So, you get the worst of all worlds with underinflated tires - worse mileage, worse traction, worse control of the vehicle.

None of which invalidates your point, merely your example.

And I don't really care, I enjoyed your original post anyway. Just thought you'd like to know.

Prior art

[royles]

My PhD thesis describes a solution along these lines in great detail. First prototype built prior to 1998 and details published 1998. Final thesis published in 2000.

Intelligent Interaction Between the User and Online Legal Content.

Used tailored HTML based on a knowledge base contained both in the HTML and in the users client machine. Used cookies as a key to reference the users remote knowledge base that was stored on the server and to maintain state during traversal through linked documents.

The first prototype was builtin 1998, I have thesis and published papers that state this point. The main publication details are listed here.

C.A. Royles and T.J.M. Bench-Capon,(1998), Dynamic Tailoring of Law Related Documents to User Needs.9th International Workshop on Database and Expert System Applications, 1998. IEEE, pp609

Its an IEEE publication so should be easy to track down.

Surely something published in 1998 should make it VERY difficult to apply for a patent on. Obviously I was unable to patent the solution because I had published it to the public domain.

But will Microsoft enforce it?

[4/3PI*R^3]

Unfortunately the way patent law works is "he who has the patent has the power." Sure it's obvious, sure it's been done 1000 times before but it's not patented.

The USPTO makes money by issuing patents not by being a fair judge. This is like paying referees based on the number of fouls they call. If the NFL did this football games would become 12-hour epics.

If "Joe's Web Development LLP" patented this and then sued Microsoft it would cost Microsoft thousands of dollars to defend agains the patent. Patents are rarely overturned by the USPTO they rely on the iraqianly expensive judicial (I've just coined a new adjective) system to clean up their messes. However, if Microsoft (or any other company for that matter) patents this they know full well that it will never stand up in court so they won't sue anybody but for a small $5K+ fee they've effectively guaranteed they will never lose a $500M+ lawsuit (Eolas anybody?).

This is a defensive patent. In 17-years it will have expired and all will be well again. If these types of patents really bother you start spending $5K+ of your own money patenting everything under the sun and assigning the EFF. Either that or start lobbying congress to change the funding mechanism for the USPTO so that they have more motivation to be responsible.

Pull a ...

[zurab]

I'd like to see Microsoft "pull a SCO" with this patent and start sending out $699 invoices to My Yahoo! users to get them to switch over to MSN or face the threat of legal action. I wonder how that would fly.

All your ZIP Codes are belong to us!

[nxs212]

And we be Microsoft.

Wrong!

[Trojan]

The first claim really does define the scope of protection, together with the other *independent* claims. Usually, if the first claim claims a method, some other independent claim will claim the corresponding apparatus or product.

Anything that falls within the scope of some claim of a (granted) patent is infringing. Since the dependent claims (like "method according to claim 1 wherein blabla") are by definition more narrow than the independent claim, it is sufficient to concentrate on the independent claims.

Why do they put in the dependent claims at all? Well, in case it is later decided in court that a certain independent claim is invalid, the dependent claims serve as fall-backs.

And you really will not find a patent with "an electronic device" as the first claim (without other any other limiting features). Not even in the USA.

Ivory Tower Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Wood on a table has a much lower coefficient of friction than concrete. Try your 'test' with two bricks, one resting on its smallest end and on on its largest face. You will find that the effort to pull them is identical.

My engineering prof used exactly this experiment to show why real-world experimentation is often at odds with engineering theory (which tends to ignore "negligible" and inconvenient forces).

I suggest you try it, with a fish-scale or bow-tester that is rigged for tracking (you can tape a bit of felt-tip marker and a piece of paper on the face).

Try it on a smooth lab bench top, then on a sheet of sandpaper or other high-friction surface.

You might be very suprised....

Oddly enough

[mog007]

In a totally unrelated story, all the apple trees in Washington have frozen solid, and it appears that the entire Macintosh crop will be decimated.

One day Microsoft will gain the patent for weather control... just watch.

Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that I have prior art. And also anyone one who does XML-RCP apps probably has it too..

This is beyond absurd

[tmortn]

This is like patenting the combined use of a hammer, nails and wood to make a tree house. I wonder who's retirment plan just got a serious shot in the arm at the patent office. At least I hope someone got paid and they were not just woefully ignorant of how software works.

Software is often to general to patent this way. The Patent office would not grant a monopoly on 'word processing' which is about the same equivalent as patenting client server communication software. if this gets any serious court time it will be a true sign of the madness and utter ignorance of the court system in regards to technology. Software is almost always an issue of copyright, not one of patenting. If someone out and out steals the code thats one thing, but developing a similar capability which by its nature is similar in structure and action is not copyright. there are a bazillion differnt ways to actually implement client server communication as regards the server identifying a specific client uniquely and this patent blankets any manner of coding that accomplishes that. Again its like patenting using a hammer nails and wood to build any kind of tree house. Its "patently" absurd.

Re:This is beyond absurd

[Mybrid]

I agree. I remember many years ago some guy patented the common sense idea of putting a third break light about the rear window of a car, thus being more visible. What an absurd thing to patent. This is no less absurd. This kind of "intellectual property" defies any kind of critical analysis. Let's patent common sense and get it over with.

USPTO

[ScrewMaster]

The patent and copyright system is supposed to encourage development of new ideas and products; it was not intended to suppress invention and maintain monopoly profit streams on an indefinite basis. I really wish that Congress would re-evaluate the current state-of-affairs in this area in light of the above. In spite of all the euphemistically-named "Consumer this" and "Consumer that" laws we now have on the books, it is obvious that Congress has completely lost sight of the Founder's intent. In spite of periodic mouth-noises made to the contrary, our elected representatives seem Hell-bent on destroying that portion of our legal system that was largely responsible for America's cultural and economic success. We had something that worked for over two hundred years, and I might add worked damn well, and they had to go and fiddle with it. Idiots.

In any event, the net effect of all this law-mongering has been to deter investment and increase profiteering. Just what America needs in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the face of global competition. John Hancock is probably spinning in his grave right now.

Just 10 more years left.

[Quila]

Luckily, the patent office finally stopped one mechanism of severe patent abuse and started the clock ticking on the date of application rather than the date of issue. There were some people who extended their time between application and issue into decades to both get patent-pending and then patent protection.

To quote Thomas Jefferson

[presidenteloco]

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man (sic), and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Well said. And who am I to go against nature.

One odd thing: Why did it take them seven years?

[tigertiger]

One thing: What is it with this patent taking seven years to get granted? Does this mean the patent office did not initially want to approve it? Or did they suspend on the process until something or someone prompted them to restart it?

Microsoft has patented Slashdot

[Brett Glass]

...which, likewise, customizes its display for returning users.

Re:Microsoft has patented Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Eighty-five screenfuls later, someone finally notices that Slashdot has customized the network (HTML) document that presents the arguments for and against the Microsoft patent claims about network documents.

Thanks for that!

"the server"--singular

[jellybear]

Actually, an easy way to design around the patent is to note that it specifically refers to "the server" which, from the language of the patent, is clearly the server accessed by the client. Thus, if one uses another server to assign identities and manage profiles, then one does not infringe the patent.

Seven years due to Board of Appeals decision

[Anonymous Coward]

The first Patent Office examiner who got a hold of this case absolutely did not want to patent this thing.
Inspection of the records of the PTO show that the examiner made a Final Rejection on 07 June 1999, which MS appealed on 20 December 1999. Due to the backlog at the PTO Board of Appeals, a decision reversing the examiner did not come down until 17 March 2003.
Curiously, MS seems to have resorted to a rare Oral Hearing, which the USPTO usually does not entertain. This Oral Hearing was held around Nov. 2002. (Maybe that is when the MS lawyers flashed their money belt.)
In their haste to reduce their backlog and provide (ahem) "Customer Service", the Patent Office Board of Appeals regularly reverses examiners' rejection on a whim. So, it behooves inspectors of this patent to get a hold of the 17 March 2003 decision and see if it needs to be held up to ridicule.

It is bad enough when a dumb examiner allows a patent on first action just to get bonus checks; it is far worse (and believe me it happens) that the Board of Appeals reverses that rarest of rarities, a good rejection made by a good examiner.
They ought to know better but unfortunately are on a production system every bit as much as rank and file examiners are.

Re:they also got a patent on web services yesterda

[o'reor]

Actually, the barbaric acronym "USPTO lawyer" is not really English. Nor is it related to any human language, BTW. It means "Vogon poet" in Vogon language. That may explain your cephalo-enteric crises..

No

[zero_offset]

User-selected customization information for a network (e.g., HTML) document is stored at a server with reference to user identifying information that uniquely identifies the user. Whenever the user navigates back to the network address of the HTML document, the user is identified automatically and receives a customized HTML document formed in accordance with the customization information.

The intent is to return a customized version of information stored on the server. POP3 doesn't do any customization of the data you're requesting. (That is also why this isn't a generic cookie patent like many people are ranting about.)

Stupid Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

They patent just every simple trivial shit,
it would be good if the people who
are working in those american patent offices would be a lot more intelligent.
This would hinder trivial patents.

Prior art from 1995

[1to1]

I've reviewed the Microsoft patent (6,632,248) and it's very similar to the technique we used in creating our personalization software in early 1995.

Our first personalized site (in October 1995) was a Web catalog that captured B-to-B leads for client/server companies like Oracle, IBM, Gupta, and Microsoft.

So, it appears that Microsoft's sales department benefited from this personalization before Microsoft developed their software and filed for the patent!

"claims" ORed or ANDed?

[multi io]

Does one have to implement *all* things mentioned in the patent's 20 "claims" at the same time in order to "infringe" the patent? Or is it sufficient to implement *any* of them?