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?

110 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. Why stop with M$? by Matey-O · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Mac has a 'detect on auto insert' for as long as it's had a floppy drive! (IIRC, the Amiga did too.)

    --
    "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    1. Re:Why stop with M$? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Why stop with M$? by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's what I was thinking.

      I really hope lawsuits like this don't get upheld... but sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.

      Auto-insert notification is such a simple thing, it's been in computers forever (and in microsoft land since '95) and just now the lawsuit?

      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.

      Whatever. It's just another case of "let people use it until it becomes vital and you can make a bundle of money, then sue."

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    3. Re:Why stop with M$? by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Funny

      How the 8-track? It starts playing when the tapes are inserted.

      Didn't SCSI have the cd-inserted data signal long ago? What was SCSI doing with it? or does MAC use SCSI?

    4. Re:Why stop with M$? by Xzzy · · Score: 3, Funny

      > IIRC, the Amiga did too.

      Yes, it did. That rhythmic clicking as it probed for a disk haunts me to this day.

      On the A500 it wasn't too bad but on the big boxy 2000 it was like someone kicking off a bass drum every few seconds. ;)

    5. 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.

    6. Re:Why stop with M$? by R.Caley · · Score: 5, Informative
      They are claiming a specific way of aranging auto-run, so it may be that (one of) Windows methods infringes, but Apple's doesn't.

      5,597,307
      6,418,532

      Of course, it fails the obviousness test, but since the USPO has aparently interpereted this test to be `obvious to somoene who doesn't know what a computer is and has no problem solving ability at all'...

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    7. Re:Why stop with M$? by ivanmarsh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Doesn't a toaster have the same functionality?

    8. Re:Why stop with M$? by ZeeTeeKiwi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      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!

    9. Re:Why stop with M$? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Suing microsoft is like entering the lottery. The odds are strongly against you, but if you win, the payout is usually pretty big.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Why stop with M$? by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The rule the USPO uses for obviousness is "Could a person with mediocre talent, and completely lacking in creativity, come up with the same thing?" So yes, you are more or less right. And that has ALWAYS been the rule, since patents were first instituted.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    11. Re:Why stop with M$? by junklight · · Score: 4, Funny

      Its a shame you can't patent business processes - because you could patent getting an obvious patent. Sitting on it for a while until the practice had become widespread and then sueing everyone.

    12. Re:Why stop with M$? by SonicBurst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    13. Re:Why stop with M$? by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    14. Re:Why stop with M$? by great_flaming_foo · · Score: 2, Funny
      Its a shame you can't patent business processes - because you could patent getting an obvious patent. Sitting on it for a while until the practice had become widespread and then sueing everyone.

      Its a good idea but it wouldn't work. There WAY too much prior art for even the patent office to miss it.... Unless they have replaced all the patent reviewers with monkeys!

    15. Re:Why stop with M$? by saden1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    16. Re:Why stop with M$? by frdmfghtr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?
    17. Re:Why stop with M$? by R.Caley · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The rule the USPO uses for obviousness is "Could a person with mediocre talent, and completely lacking in creativity, come up with the same thing?"

      Clearly they are applying lower test than that in IT, presumably due to lack of staff with clues about this area.

      Eg, the Amazon one-click patent was awarded for what anyone who knew the technology involved would have suggested as the first idea which came to mind: the IT equivalent of giving a patent for `using screws to attach things to the wall'.

      In the case at hand they seem to have awarded a patent for someone realising that the way to know what to run when a disk is inserted is to put the thing to be executed, or a pointer to it, on the disk with a known name. I don't think anyone could seriously claim that comeing up with that required creativity.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    18. Re:Why stop with M$? by Pikhq · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you can patent business processes. Even though it is dubious, it has happened before.

      --
      echo "rm -rf ~/* ; echo "echo "Exit" ; exit" > ~/.bashrc ; exit" > ~user/.bashrc
    19. Re:Why stop with M$? by Blackknight · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's Mac, not MAC.

  2. Back in my DOS days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had 4DOS batch files do things when the floppy drive was accessed.

    1. Re:Back in my DOS days by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then you violated these patents. Report to the nearest Intellectual Property Enforcement Agency and have your memory erased, you thief!

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:Back in my DOS days by DR+SoB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's go back to the 1960's if you want to talk prior art. Mainframes would autodetect a new DASD array that was inserted.. s/360 supported this feature..

      Going back even further, I'm sure there are some really really (1800's?) old record players that would autodetect..

      Come to think of it, what about all those acient jewlery boxes that would "automatically" play music when you opened them to take out or insert new jewlery?

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
  3. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bootable floppies.
    Take that!

    1. Re:Prior Art by infochuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most regular CD players? Tape decks? 8-tracks? I'm pretty sure my old 8-track would auto-start playing the tape when it was inserted...

    2. Re:Prior Art by supersam · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm afraid that isn't a valid comparison and won't count as prior art in this case. Bootable floppies do not autostart when inserted into the floppy drive. It is only during the boot-up process that these floppies would be accessed and read without human interaction.

    3. Re:Prior Art by viking099 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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. :-)

  4. 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. Re:Apple by SoTuA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  5. 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.

  6. Applies to more than MS by NinjaPablo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Applies to more than MS by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Every VCR I've ever owned has auto-played movies as soon as you insert them. If you knock out the "write-prevent" tab on a blank tape, they will try to play it, too.

      I've even got VCR head cleaner tapes that use this feature and the "auto-rewind at the end" and "auto-eject after rewind" features. You just put the head cleaner in and let the machine clean its own heads. When the tape pops back out, you're done.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:Applies to more than MS by happyfrogcow · · Score: 4, Funny

      VHS players, Laserdisc players, Betamax players, MiniDisc players...

      no joke, but my shlong too. It has DNA data that gets accessed upon insertion.

    3. Re:Applies to more than MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      It has DNA data that gets accessed upon insertion.

      I'm sorry for you and your significant other. I'm luckily have some control over when my DNA data gets accessed.

  7. the patents are.... by bpland · · Score: 5, Informative

    The patent numbers are 5,597,307; 5,795,156; 6,249,863 and 6,418,532.

    1. Re:the patents are.... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll remember to play those digits in the lotto tonight, because aren't patents good for nothing more than a random number generator lately?

    2. Re:the patents are.... by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Funny


      You have 795 numbers in your Lotto?

      Egads, THOSE are some stiff odds...

    3. Re:the patents are.... by no+longer+myself · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, apparently the USPO is granting pantents on the absurd, hoping to use the numbering system to search for very large prime numbers as a bi-product.

  8. How can you copyright a process? by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it plausible that towards the end of this lawsuit flinging, people will eventually realize that by Occom's (sp incorect, sorry) razor, code will trend towards the most logical and efficient, and that for two people working on the same thing, the code will maybe, possibally, be identical?

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  9. Priot art (Amiga) by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Informative

    My Amiga would detect when a floppy was inserted and start automaticaly and this was back in 1988.

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    1. Re:Priot art (Amiga) by teeker · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think it did actually - the floppy drives were periodically polled, rather than the drives notifying of a disk insertion.

      I'm not so sure about this. I think I remember there was a special switch in the drive that was used to support this feature...there were only a few manufacturers that made the particular mechanism with it...Canon, Chinon maybe...other mechanisms (Matsushita I think made one like this) could be used but then you needed a to run a CLI command when you inserted the floppy so it would mount (ie wouldn't autodetect with certain hardware...this part I DO remember clearly). I'm pretty sure there was something in the hardware that supported this.

      But on the other hand, I definitely know those things clicked contstantly, so maybe I'm not remembering it right. Ahhh the good old days of weird incompatibilities....

      And I think the A1000 was doing in in 85, so that's almost as long as the Mac.

      --
      teeker
  10. 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
    1. Re:new tag by HeX314 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's what the Fork, Spoon, Knife = Patent Pending label is about. Seems like there is a crapload of IP "theft" going on now that SCO has brought to the limelight the ability to sue over completely -- for lack of a better word -- asinine things. Most of these suits should be thrown out as frivolous, but the companies backing them have tons of money.

  11. I want to hear from a Patent Examiner by DarkFencer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

    1. Re:I want to hear from a Patent Examiner by pb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just wait until I receive my patent on "a method for fomenting cluelessness and incompetence through paperwork"... I'll sue those USPTO people into the ground, right after I bury SCO!

      --
      pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    2. Re:I want to hear from a Patent Examiner by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!!!!
    3. 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.

    4. Re:I want to hear from a Patent Examiner by cens0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you don't think the court case wastes tax payer dollars?

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    5. Re:I want to hear from a Patent Examiner by imr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hi, i'm from the uspto:
      1/ yes
      2/ yes
      3/ yes
      4/ yes (oups! It wasnt a question!)
      cheers.

    6. 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.
  12. Amiga 500 by MullerMn · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Commodore Amiga had this from atleast the Amiga 500, possibly earlier and that was in 1986.

  13. It's a non-starter... by gillbates · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. 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
    2. Re:It's a non-starter... by cnkeller · · Score: 2, Interesting
      because they clearly did not demonstrate "due diligence" in protecting their patent

      I thought that you only had to proctect a trademark, not a patent? As far as I know, from a legal point of view, you can just sit on something for a while. It's definitely slimy and I'm sure that any reasonable judge would look unfavorably, but I *think* it is legal. Comments?

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

  14. 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)

    1. Re:One good thing about patent ridiculousness.... by ZoneGray · · Score: 3, Informative

      When the big gorillas have patent fights, they just sign cross-licensing agreements, effectively forming a cartel. This is actually a case of the little guy suing the big guy, which seems to be more the norm for ridiculous patents like this one.

      What strikes me on this one is that it was filed in 1995, and the filing specifically mentions CD-ROMs and Wintel PC's. How could this have escaped notice until now? It's not as if it was hiding in some dusty filing cabinet for years, it was filed by the same company that currently holds it, while Windows 95 was in beta!

      I dunno, maybe the USPTO is right, maybe this stuff isn't so obvious. Even the people who filed the damned patent couldn't figure it out.

  15. What about VCRs? by enosys · · Score: 4, Interesting
    All the VCRs I've seen start playing write protected tapes after they're inserted (with no need to press play).

    (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.)

  16. 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.

  17. My new patent by kwiqsilver · · Score: 2, Funny

    A method of applying for vague patents on simple concepts (rather than inventions) and using those patents to hinder a business competitor or extort money from patent violators.

  18. The really sad thing... by n()_cHIEFz · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...about these recent patent cases is I find myself on the side of Microsoft.. yuck! I need to shower!

    --
    -- Is it a right to remain ignorant? -- Calvin
    1. Re:The really sad thing... by ejaw5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yea, but nevertheless MS has taken the AutoPlay feature too far IMO. If you insert a CD that autostarts the program or installer, that's okay.

      Whenever I have to use an XP box at the university, any data CD, zip, or key-drive thats loaded into the computer which has a directory of picures brings up a "this media has pictures...how do you want to open it?" prompt. I always end up hitting cancel, but whatever happened to "let me put the media in and don't get in my way"

      --

      $cat /dev/random > Sig
  19. Patently absurd? by BitRandom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Patently absurd? by sulli · · Score: 3, Informative

      I remember using that very feature of the Win95 beta. Also, Mac OS 7.x supported autoplay - here's a model from 1992 that had a built-in CD-ROM drive and used this OS.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    2. Re:Patently absurd? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      What counts is the date the invention was reduced to practice, not the date of application.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  20. Patently Absurd by pararox · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...detecting insertion of a storage media..."

    I suspect it's only a matter of time until someone draws up a patent claim of the nature:

    Patent 3,012,238,021...(ad infinitum) --- A method of inserting and pumping a large tubular or cylindrical item into a foes rectum, with the assistance of well studied lawyers...

    Just watch, man, I'm telling the day is well nigh!

  21. autofs etc. by tubabeat · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wouldn't automount / autofs fall under the same shadow?

    No, autofs/ automount automatically mount media (be that an NFS share or whatever) when they detect it is needed (so the process is demand driven rather than media driven).

    Perhaps you're thinking of supermount

    --
    "Linux is a serious competitor"
    - Steve Ballmer, Chief Executive Microsoft Corp.
  22. So what? by Ridgelift · · Score: 4, Funny

    My 8-Track player would automatically start playing music upon insertion of the audio storage media. I guess that either qualifies as prior art, or 70's electronic manufacturers better start ponying up their licensing fees.

  23. Patent Dates by ripsnorta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  24. The miracle of life by happyfrogcow · · Score: 3, Funny

    prior art...

    a man and a women have intercourse. data is transfered from the man to the woman. womans host process upon recieving data begins the process of creating life. details left out for as excercise for the student

    yada yada.

    1. Re:The miracle of life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      details left out for as excercise for the student

      I study computer science, you insensitive clod!

  25. Re:Back in my DOS days -- 19 trinkets by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Funny
    Report to the nearest Intellectual Property Enforcement Agency and have your memory erased

    However, in compensation for your cooperation, you will be allowed to keep 19 trinkets.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  26. Don't you see how good it is that they sued MS? by snafu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  27. Patent Suits are not what wil change Patent Laws. by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  28. Re:No kidding by bhtooefr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, Windows (and DOS) always assumes that a disk is inserted whenever the drive is mounted. It does check to be sure that it's the SAME disk, and it only does this on an access attempt. The only hardware that can autodetect mounting of a floppy disk is the Mac, and it's done it since 1984.

    Here are the dates on the patents:
    5,597,307: January 28, 1997 (filed May 11, 1995)
    5,795,156: August 18, 1998 (filed November 1, 1995)
    6,249,863: June 19, 2001 (filed May 3, 1999)
    6,418,532: July 9, 2002 (filed March 22, 2001)

    Also, here's the date on the Microsoft Autorun patent:
    6,366,966: April 2, 2002 (filed December 13, 1994)

    So, while three of the TVI patents are OLDER than the Autorun patent, the Autorun patent was filed six months earlier than the first TVI patent.

  29. More prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    So does my first (1982?) VCR. If the record tab is removed, then the VCR goes to play. This is a standard feature with almost all VCRs today....

  30. Automount / Autofs by Omega · · Score: 4, Funny
    Wouldn't automount / autofs fall under the same shadow?
    Hey that's right! Someone should tell TVI they're entitled to royalties on 5% of free!
    1. Re:Automount / Autofs by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Funny
      Hey that's right! Someone should tell TVI they're entitled to royalties on 5% of free!

      Or maybe they should sue SCO, who, after all, owns Unix and Linux...

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  31. Shred it by q-the-impaler · · Score: 2, Funny

    Most shredders accept storage media and begin processing automatically upon insertion. Vague patents sure do fire people up with 'prior art' brainstorming.

    --
    Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
  32. Toast, Waffles, Bagels, VHS Tapes HooHoo Nilly by whoppers · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've used toasters (fancy ones not in my house) that'll automatically start toastin when you insert stuff into em, this whole patenting stuff that's been happening for years thing is silly.

    Even sticking my hoohoo nilly into my wifes cha cha causes a reaction. Two boys so far to prove it.

  33. A quick look at the patents in question by clusterix · · Score: 3, Interesting
    5,597,307 appears to be a 1995 filed patent on booting from a removable storage media according to the claims. ie. The prior art that invalidates this is from the actual origins of computers depending on when storage media could be determined removable.

    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

  34. This would be the light entertainment story, yes? by ectoraige · · Score: 2, Informative

    Additionally, TVI charges that Microsoft patent 6,366,966, entitled "method and system for automatically running a program" interferes with the TVI patents as it covers a TVI invention.

    Funny, that patent was filed on December 13, 1994.
    The earliest of the TVI patents was filed on May 11, 1995. Now maybe their "invention" was developed prior to MS's patent application.

    I just find it funny that, on one hand, they'll be trying to use their products as prior art, while at the same time hoping nobody else's products are used against them...

    --
    Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
  35. Much Prior Art by digime · · Score: 2, Informative

    The patents and dates are:

    • 5,597,307 : January 28, 1997
    • 5,795,156 : August 18, 1998
    • 6,249,863 : June 19, 2001
    • 6,418,532 : July 9, 2002

    LaserDiscs were the first optical disc storage media, invented in the late 1960's by Philips. The compact disc was developed from this technology in 1980. The LD players were first available on the market in 1978, and first demonstrated in 1972. These players automatically played the video on the storage media, so this has been around for at least 30 years. It's also in CD players mentioned in earlier posts, which came just a little later. I often wonder if the employees of the US Patent Office came here, very recently, from another planet. That might explain why they have no clue about prior inventions.

  36. Some points/Questions by dmomo · · Score: 3, Funny

    1)Is a CD Rom "Storage Media" if it is read only?

    2)What about a toilet that 'knows' to flush automatically when I insert 'media'?

    3)My trash compactor will start up when I close the door, but only if there is a bag in it. Isn't this miracle of modern science 'prior art', thus invalidating that patent?

  37. Public Input by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People keep saying that it is too much work for the patent office to check every patent for prior art, so why not just put it up on a website somewhere saying so-and-so is claiming such-and-such and then if anyone has already done that they say so, and the patent is thrown out. They have similar things for planing permission on new buildings and suchlike, and it works fine. Of course, it does rely on people checking this website regularly, but I expect big companies would be able to pay someone to check the relevent subjects once a week or so.

  38. No autorun by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2, Informative
    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)

    You don't always have to edit the registry. Sometimes its a simple point and click job. Details are here.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  39. Re:No kidding by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Informative

    still think unix automounting FS's predates all of this. When a NFS system is initialized my system detects the mounted media and mounts it for me without any user interference or action. But I do remember the MAC chunking away on the floppy upon insertion as well. IBM Mainframe machines required the controller to let the machine know new media or devices had been attached as far back as 3081's, based on my admittedly flawed memory...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  40. detecting insertion of a storage media by frovingslosh · · Score: 2, Informative
    Wouldn't automount / autofs fall under the same shadow?

    Heck, wouldn't starting to play the pre-recorded tape when I insert it into my old VHS VCR also fit the discription? I've had VCRs that do that for 20 years.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  41. Need a new category by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stupid patents.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  42. What about a toaster? by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

  43. 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.

    1. Re:Minor correction (and rant) by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think MP3 was a counter example. I doubt it would have been developed independently.

      Not that I'm saying you're generally wrong, for most examples of software patent (ab)use, I think you're right. But there are exceptions.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Minor correction (and rant) by Xebikr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mp3 might not have developed independantly, but I'm sure a similar one would have. The web/internet was crying out for a audio format with better compression. The only reason MP3 became as popular as it did was because Fraunhofer didn't start enforcing their patent until it was already fairly entrenched. In other words, it only spread because people thought it was free.

      I do think that the MP3 patent is less harmful then the one in the article. At least it isn't trying to patent "A method by which digital audio files are compressed to around 90% of their original size." It's still the Intellectual Property equivilant of patenting a .doc format or .zip format.

  44. what about HR 1561 by ProfBooty · · Score: 2, Informative

    Slashdot posters aren't exactly on top of USPTO related news.

    Congress is already reviewing the patent process via HR 1561 being voted on today?
    United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003 is important as it allows for inventors to submit their own searches from an outside source, such as the european patent office or a private search firm.

    On a side note, tax payers don't pay patent examiners. The USPTO is a fully fee funded agency.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  45. Is there anyone NOT suing the planet? by WillAtMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is getting insane. It's sad that the whole world seems to revolve around blame and accusations rather than actually DOING or MAKING something.

  46. Oh no! by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone should really tell Nintendo and Sony! Hell, Nintendo has been violating this patent for decades!

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  47. Thinking like Microsoft by Tassach · · Score: 3, Informative
    Microsoft has a proven track record of rolling roughshod over everyone else's IP rights. Just look at what happened to Stac. They patented a technique for doing transparent real-time compression on a mounted filesystem. Microsoft blatantly and fragrantly violated the patent when they build filesystem compression into thier products. Basically, they said "so sue us" to Stac, and used their legal muscle to keep the case tied up in court until Stac went bankrupt.

    If microsoft wouldn't pay licensing fees for a patent which was clearly legitimate, why would they pay out for one as dubious as this one?

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:Thinking like Microsoft by caspper69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, Microsoft didn't *violate* a patent, they *stole* Stac's code. That was why DOS 6.2 went on to become DOS 6.22 so quickly. You could even scan the executables for DriveSpace (I believe that's what it was called) and see Stac's name all over it. And actually, Stac got quite a hefty settlement out of it ($50M+). What really killed Stac was that drive space became so cheap, no one really needed to use realtime compression anymore (at least not at the filesystem level).

    2. Re:Thinking like Microsoft by Why2K · · Score: 4, Funny

      Microsoft blatantly and fragrantly violated the patent when they build filesystem compression into thier products

      So what exactly does a violated patent smell like?

  48. Prior Art by sbaker · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm fairly sure the IBM mainframe I used back in 1975 would auto-load and execute a deck of punched cards if you just dumped them into the input hopper.

    Oh - wait...they're suing Microsoft. Ah. In that case:

    Those evil Microsoft guys - always stealing other people's technology. Bastards!

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
  49. Re:No kidding by scm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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)

  50. Re:Patent Suits are not what wil change Patent Law by StormReaver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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."

    That won't happen. For the average citizen to revolt against Congress, some severe problem must exist that directly and adversely affects the citizen.

    Patent problems only affect inventors, not consumers. The United States predominately consists of consumers who are not directly affected by patents one way or the other. Hence they don't care one bit about patent problems.

    If you sat them down and explained to them, perhaps in terms even a child could understand, they would shrug their shoulders and wonder what the big deal is. The vast majority are completely uncaring about what they perceive to be not their problem. Don't count on them to even understand, much less care.

  51. Re:New Patent by happyfrogcow · · Score: 2, Funny

    Method in which DNA data is accessed by means of a read head

    glancing at that the first time I thought it said "red head."

  52. My local causality patent by eagl · · Score: 2

    The original patent is invalid because it interferes with my own previous patent. I have whimsically called my own patent "cause and effect", which describes the process where when something is done, something else happens. This patent has been recently strengthened by the scientific works of Stephen Hawking, which not only clarifies my patent, but describes exactly when, where, and how exceptions to the process described may occur. To protect my patent, I am bypassing the lawyers and proceeding directly to locusts and plague.

    --god

  53. I think its refering to XP's autoplay by sgarringer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I dont think they're refering to the autoplay in Win9x that runs a specified exe file on insert of a CD-Rom. What I think they're refering to is the new autoplay in Windows XP that does different things depending on the type of media inserted... a disc full of photos and it starts a slideshow, a disc full of MP3s and it adds them to a playlist. If you read some of the patents that are linked here, you'll see that that is the basic premise they patented, the idea of autoplay depending of the type of files contained in the media. Just my two cents.

  54. I've got a 10 year old VCR by complexmath · · Score: 2

    that auto-plays tapes when they're inserted. Something tells me this suit won't last very long.

  55. Really, really prior art by leonbrooks · · Score: 4, Informative

    In... let me see... 1982? I dealt with a PDP-11/23 running RSX-11-M-PLUS which autostarted backups and things when you inserted media (e.g. 1600BPI magtape into a Cypher F880(?) tape drive). We also had monstrous great two megabyte removable hard disks the size of a sombrero, and the system would auto-start things when the correct one of those was inserted. It had been doing these things for many years before I arrived on the scene.

    A local Fight'o'net BBS operator I know, back in the same era, had a process auto-start when you inserted a tape cartridge (snail-mailed from the 'states) full of downloadables in your '286.

    So they're just being SCOlets, pump-n-dump barratrous assholes. It seems to be trendy these days.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Really, really prior art by tiger99 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes, that would be prior art!

      I seem to remember that in the early days of MessyDOS, small TSR programs could be loaded which would do that when a floppy was inserted. Don't know the exact year they would have been first used, but it was pre-286 IIRC.

      What about other computers? The microprocessor dates from about 1972, realistically about 1975 before they were much used, but computers with removable storage date from (very approximately) 1950. Maybe some of the early ones started a process on inserting a punched tape?

      There is got to be vast amounts of prior art, again it seems that patents are handed out willy-nilly without any proper checks. That should be illegal, and the relevant patent office ought to be responsible for the results of their negligence, after all they have charged a fee for issuing something worthless.

      I still say that all patent applications (except in a very few special cases) should be initially published worldwide on the internet, as the most reliable and efficient way of finding any claims to prior art. Then this sort of thing could not happen. Because technology is sold worldwide, the patent system needs to operate on a worldwide basis, and if it was done that way, there might be sufficient patent examiners to do the job properly. Instead of the limited resources in each country being used, duplicating effort, a patent would only need to be examined once (or better, twice, in two countries as an independent check).

      But it would need politicians in the leading economies to agree to make it work, and first you need a politician with sufficient intelligence to comprehend the issue. The leading (non-elected, at least legally!) politician in the leading economy certainly does not fall into that category.

  56. Patent Filing Dates by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 2, Informative
    November 1 1995 - 5,795,156
    May 3 1999 - 6,249,863
    March 22 2001 - 6,418,532

    June 30 1995 - 5,711,672

    The top three are "Host device equipped with means for starting a process in response to detecting insertion of a storage media," and the bottom is "Method for automatically starting execution and ending execution of a process in a host device based on insertion and removal of a storage media into the host device."

    Considering that the preview version of Windows 95, which included autoplay features, shipped before June 30 1995, it's safe to say Microsoft has prior art in this case. (Not that Microsoft has the only prior art; Amiga and Apple have both been pointed out.) This case is like myself patenting the idea of a typewriter, then beginning litigation against Underwood and Royal.

    --

    *****
    Dear Mary,
    I yearn for you tragically,
    A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

  57. Saddam virus aka disk-validator virus by whaley · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was called the Saddam virus (and now we finally 'got him' ;-)

    See:
    http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/c atalog/a miga/html/saddamor.htm

    It would slightly corrupt the disk, in order to trick the AmigaOS into starting the disk-validator, which itself was infected. Very clever trick, as it didn't require running a program or booting from a disk.