Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TVI to Sue Over MS Autoplay Feature

Posted by timothy on from the mmm-overbroadness dept.

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?

11 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    wouldn't the Mac be considered prior art since it has been auto responding for quite a while

    1. Re:Apple by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 5, Insightful


      I have had for a very, very long time a VCR that automatically turned on and played the tape when you pushed one into its slot.

      Sounds like the "host" is activating a process to me.

  2. Hopefully this won't hold up in court by mgrassi99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patents are supposed to be "novel" and unique. I don't see anything special about auto playing or mounting media when it is inserted.

  3. new tag by rootofevil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    slashdot needs an asinine tag, like fark.

    this is ridiculous.

    --
    turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  4. One good thing about patent ridiculousness.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  5. No by crlf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Automount and autofs trigger filesystem mounts on directory traversals, not on media insertion.

    Maybe you were thinking about vold or some other similar project.

  6. Re:It's a non-starter... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Why stop with M$? by robslimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:I want to hear from a Patent Examiner by miyoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:I want to hear from a Patent Examiner by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Now the burden of proof is on TVi, to prove that they invented it and the patent is valid.
    Close. But the courts assume that the patent is valid, since, of course, it was granted by the PTO. All TVi has to do is show that the MS autoplay feature is described in the patent claims. Microsoft probably doesn't dispute this, since they are apparently trying to bust the patent. So now the burden of proof has shifted MS to show that the patent is bogus.
  10. Minor correction (and rant) by Xebikr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.