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?
I had 4DOS batch files do things when the floppy drive was accessed.
Bootable floppies.
Take that!
How about your car CD player, home console, digital camera, DVD player, etc etc etc? What's next, someone claiming a patent on reading magnetic or optical storage?
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
Yup, the amiga would automatically load the 'disk-validator' executable from a floppy when it was inserted. Some pesky viruses took advantage of this mechanism too.
I really would love to see a Slashdot interview with someone in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that can explain the process and how things like this happen. They probably cannot comment on a specific case like this, but typically we get two of these ridiculous patent claims a week mentioned on slashdot.
Are they overworked and understaffed and forced to just rubberstamp things?
Are they untrained in technology to recognize things like this?
Are they in need of being hit over the head with a clue by four?
Something is seriously wrong at the USPTO (now more then ever seemingly).
IIRC, Autoplay has been shipped in MS operating systems since 1996. TVI has been sitting on this for eight years. Which means, of course, that if the statute of limitations hasn't expired, they will be severely limited in the remedies they are allowed to seek. It's not like this escaped their attention for 8 years.
Of course, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that even if TVI wins the case, they won't be able to collect damages for past infringement because they clearly did not demonstrate "due diligence" in protecting their patent. They might end up with a compulsory license agreement; or to avoid infringement, Microsoft OS's may end up simply popping up a dialog box ("Would you like to play this CD?") when a disk is inserted.
Yeah, I'd put TVI at net loss on this one. Their lawyers are going to make more money than they will.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
(Okay, they just output analog stuff from tape, but they do have microcontrollers, and some can even digitize the signal eg. for better pause and slow motion image quality.)
Evidently the new idea is that even the product your suing shouldn't be considered prior art. The first patent, 5,597,307, was filed in May 1995. The last Beta of Windows 95 was in March 1995 and the Microsoft DRG people were talking about it in 1994 (Auto-play was evangelized to ISVs - "Mr ISV you need to make sure that your application uses Auto-play"). What it looks like here is that the current patent strategy is to wait until someone releases a product then patent the features that aren't covered. Hopefully this is yet another nail in the stuipidity of patent issuing.
I did a quick search on the patent numbers in the Patent Office database. The earliest patents was filed in November 1995, and others were filed in 1999 and 2001. Strangely, the wording on all of them seemed to be very similar. (5,597,307; 5,795,156; 6,249,863 and 6,418,532)
November 1995 was around the time Windows 95 was released IIRC. It almost seems opportunistic. Maybe the patent holder quickly came up with a patent after seeing Win95, and filed it hoping that with a long enough gap he would be able to sue for patent infringement.
Cheers
Hollywood: The place good stories go to die.
By suing M$, we will get a huge company's resources (M$) fighting this; surely this will add case law against rediculous software patents!
With any luck, this will be a step in the right direction.
Seems every lawyer I meet these days is into IP law and living in downtown SF, I meet quite a few every week. Most of these lawyers also tells me with a very satisfied smile on their face what a complete and utter scam it all is. None of them want to see it changed. Hell, I can't blame them, it's like one big swollen tit from which to feed.
And no, it's not cases like this that will cause anything to change. For that will need to be done by tax paying citizens taking up torches and pitchforks and decending upon Washington in an orgy of blood lust. Then maybe we might see Congress decide to "review" the patent application process.
What about when I stick my media(bank card) into an ATM(host device)?
That starts a process:
"Enter your PIN."
Nope. It would only load the disk-validator if the filesystem was damaged. (i.e. you took the disk out during write)
5,795,156 is a 1995 filed patent claiming to have invented using a hardware based "output lead" on a peripheral in a computer to detect media. I a, confused here. Assuming they were not developing a computer from scratch(and had never seen a removable media before 1995). I am not sure how they can patent a feature of components they did not develop themselves.
6,249,863 is a claim modified from the above patent of checking for a specific file (ie. like reading a VCD or IO.SYS, COMMAND.COM as in old MSDOS) to make sure the correct or specific media is inserted.
6,418,532 filed in 2001, claims to have invented the play button.
The USPTO is not mandated to verify the novelty of patents. However, patent law must be changed so that the burden of prior art falls on plaintiff in these cases(ie. pay for third party patent researchers).
I would be ashamed to consider myself the inventor of these. They are obviously wanting a small payoff from MS. IANAL
Stupid patents.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yup, my previous VCR did that. In fact, it started playing IF the tape had the write-protection tab broken, meaning it was an "original" or "finished" tape, so it could assume you wanted to watch the damn thing. If you inserted a tape with the tab intact (or scotch-taped over :) it did nothing, as it couldn't assume you wanted to play or maybe you wanted to record.
Think like Microsoft for a moment...
Hmmmm, if we pay these guys off, that might validate the patent in everyone's eyes, and then Linux won't be able to have automount...
Hmmmm, how much are they wanting? Cheap at twice the price!
Not to mention all those Palm Pilots that run code when you insert an SD card.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
The Mac didn't always have an "AutoPlay" type of feature.
But there was a tricky cleaver way to get code to execute upon mere insertion of a floppy disk! (Yes, I mean even back in the old days, like 1984.)
Write a new WDEF. (A window defProc.) Put it into the resource of the Desktop file on the floppy disk. Make it have the same wdef ID as the standard system wdef, that is zero. Write your WDEF so that the window borders, title bar, frame, etc. that it draws looks pixel-perfect clone of the standard wdef.
Now insert the floppy disk. The Finder puts the floppy disks Desktop file on the resource chain ahead of the System file. When it tries to access wdef 0 to display a new window on the screen, it finds and executes your wdef code. Yours displays window borders and controls like normal, but can optionally have a payload that executes as well.
Of course, when you ejected your floppy disks, you needed to leave the window open so that when the next user inserts the floppy, it opens the same window in the same position on the screen. The act of drawing the window is what triggers your wdef, simply by virtue of it being on the resource chain.
It has been a long, looooong time. But I believe that this mechanism was the basis of the very first Macintosh virus, the WDEF virus.
Anyway, a nice way to "AutoPlay" code of your choice. Before Apple closed the loophole.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Only M$ will make it self look like a prime target for every stupid company that has a patent. When someone sues you, you take it seriously and if it is a bogus patent you have to make stand right there and then otherwise you will open yourself up to a lot more litigation.
Besides, Linux and the Open Source Community has Free Software Foundation. Plus, I'm sure Redhat, Novel, and IBM has vested interest in seeing Linux grow and won't site idle while shitty companies (ala SCO) tries to extort money from the open source community and its user base.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Hmmmm, if we pay these guys off, that might validate the patent in everyone's eyes, and then Linux won't be able to have automount...
Then neither would Palm PDAs, VCRs that start playing as soon as a tape is inserted, and DVD players that autoplay the DVD when inserted.
They tackle MS because MS would just fork out the dough to settle rather than litigate to the bitter end. Just because TVI attempts to tackle MS doesn't necessarily mean TVI will go after Palm, Sony, Toshiba, etc...they probably just assume that MS will settle the quickest--maximum return (settlement) on investment (litigation costs).
It's extortion, IMHO. If they were serious about defending their patent against all sorts of prior art, then they would have issued multiple lawsuits MANY YEARS AGO when autoplay was first introduced.
From the article:
Microsoft is the defendant in more than 30 patent cases, but only three are listed in Friday's filing. The others are the high-profile case brought by Eolas Technologies Inc. and the University of California over Internet Explorer and a case brought by InterTrust Technologies Corp. over DRM (Digital Rights Management) and other technologies.
Ever really wonder how much of this litigation is based on good-faith belief of true infringement, and how much is picking on the "rich kid of the block?" "Hey, MS has really deep pockets, maybe of we bug them enough they'll give us money to go away."
Sometimes I think this is a non-trivial percentage of the suits brought on MS. Not to say that MS hasn't infringed (they may very well have do so, voluntarily or otherwise) but they are a corn-fed, juicy target for carnivorous teams of attorneys looking for a quick settlement.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
You're missing this line from the patent"
This application is a division of application Ser. No. 08/269,492, filed Jul. 1, 1994.
Which means TVI's filings predate Microsoft's (but IANAL)