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?

6 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. 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)

  4. 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.

  5. 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.