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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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