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?

21 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 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. Re:Why stop with M$? by ivanmarsh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Doesn't a toaster have the same functionality?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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)

  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.