Slashdot Mirror
TVI to Sue Over MS Autoplay Feature
scubacuda links to this Infoworld article, which reads in part "TVI charges Microsoft's autoplay feature infringes on four of its U.S. patents. TV Interactive Data Corp. (TVI) of Los Gatos, California, claims that Microsoft infringes on four of its U.S. patents, three entitled 'host device equipped with means for starting a process in response to detecting insertion of a storage media' and one entitled 'method for starting up a process automatically on insertion of a storage media into a host device.", writing "I hope no one has a patent on the shift key, because that's what I hit when I insert a CD. (That is, when I haven't already edited the registry)" Wouldn't automount / autofs fall under the same shadow?
wouldn't the Mac be considered prior art since it has been auto responding for quite a while
Patents are supposed to be "novel" and unique. I don't see anything special about auto playing or mounting media when it is inserted.
slashdot needs an asinine tag, like fark.
this is ridiculous.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
is that it's growing among companies. Companies litigating the little guy out of business over patents is relatively straightforward.
Hopefully when enough 800, 1200 and 1600 pound gorillas start beating up on each other then there will be some reform. (Hopefully)
Automount and autofs trigger filesystem mounts on directory traversals, not on media insertion.
Maybe you were thinking about vold or some other similar project.
I don't think a bootable floppy would count.
:-)
The computer has to actively seek the drive and look for an appropriate filesystem to boot from.
In order for a boot disk to "violate" this patent, the computer would have to turn on and automatically boot from that floppy upon insertion, or something of that sort.
I'm not trying to say it's not yet another stupid patent, but just that I'm not sure your example would apply.
Their lawyers are going to make more money than they will.
And this differs from every other lawsuit in the world in what way?...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
There's nothing wrong, this is pretty much how the system works these days.
You can't just submit a patent and expect the examiners to prove a negative. "Go out and prove I didn't invent X". Unless its obvious, in which case they throw it out.
So, basically, they just go ahead and grant the patent (or application), and let the courts handle it. TVi says they have a patent, MSFT says the patents are invalid (because of prior art, obviousness, they invented it first, etc), and they dance in court about it.
Now the burden of proof is on TVi, to prove that they invented it and the patent is valid.
The system is open to abuses, sure, and that's a hole that needs to be closed. TVi is essentially playing the lottery. They'll probably lose, but if they win, they'll win big.
Frankly I'd rather they waste their own money fighting over it than taxpayer resources trying to research every single claim that shows up. Especially with all the high tech fields these days. You'd need multiple PhDs in every single scientific discipline to even read some of the biotech claims these days.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
There's enough prior art here to toss in out, IMO.
While it's a common practice for these patent vultures to prey on the small, cash poor "infringers", counting on a quick settlement, I don't understand why they'd tackle microsoft. MSFT has the legal guns to back this thing all the way to invalidation of the patent, if they want. I guess they might just figure it's cheaper to fork over a pay-off, but I wouldn't and I doubt Mssr. Gates will, either.
IANAL, IANAPE, but a patent lawyer told me that patent examiners are paid on a per-application-processed basis, and so they don't generally like to do more work than absolutely necessary. A patent that is initially rejected can be appealed, or modified and resubmitted by the applicant, both scenarios which create more work for the examiner but not more pay. Approved patents are never appealed, except that it *might* end up in court some day, but the examiner is not a part of that. You can see why the system encourages rubber-stamping of patent applications.
Does my toaster qualify as prior art? It's from the 70s, but it's smart enough to "start a process" (I.E. toasting) whenever I insert bread. My toaster is a fancy one (well, by 1970s standards), where I don't have to press down a lever to start it toasting.
I suppose the question is, does bread qualify as a storage media?
Fortunately my toaster toasts floppies and CDs equally well (although they are not nearly as tasty).
The worst part is that these patents keep being passed, over and over.. we need some technical people in the patent offices, not temps making $7 an hour.
No, we need to ban software patents. Software patents have done absolutely nothing for innovation. Everyone getting sued is not someone who saw the idea and said "Hey! Great idea! I think I'll integrate that with my product." They've all been developers who come up with the idea independently, and then years (and years) later the company who was successful in marketing the product gets sued. All it has done is increase the amount of patent barratry.
And software is already protected by an insane amount of IP laws anyway. Not only is it protected for 90 years by copyright (if owned by a corp.) but trade secret law, and still for some unfathomable reason, you can patent it as well.
Oh well. Sucks to be us, I guess.