More Microsoft Patents

An anonymous reader writes "One of the editors of LinuxWorld Magazine has an entry in his blog detailing more patents that Microsoft recently acquired. No, this isn't a rehash of the sudo patent. The new patents include one that seems to patent the use of the keyboard to navigate a web page! See the article here."

Comments

It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[erick99]

This silliness ends when the Patent Office puts together a group specifically to deal with technology patents. It's important enough to warrant it's own dedicated group of industry experts.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[dpilot]

No. It ends when US IP Law gets to silly that innovation is completely stifled in this country. At that point, real innovation will have moved overseas, and the USPTO will be irrelevant.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[Bagels]

And who do you think they'll turn to for "industry experts"?

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem is not that they don't have a dedicated group of industry experts -- it's that they don't have *enough* people to handle the huge deluge of patents.

I think that another problem with this, too, is that patent disputes are often handled "incorrectly". Instead of disputing patent infringement through courts, I think that all patent-related disputes should be settled through a special (out-of-court) mediation system run by the patent office.

Perhaps I would suggest a system with 3 mediators per "settlement session" -- 2 who are highly-trained, skilled individuals with specific experience in the area of the patent dispute, and perhaps 1 who has some formal judicial experience.

Their jobs would basically consist, on a daily basis, of hearing patent-related complaints. Part of this effort could be funded through fees collected as a result of patent submission. (Hence, to fund this, I recommend that patent application fees be raised by some nominal amount.) That way, even "little guys" can go to this settlement session without having to have legal representation (and having to pay the large fees associated with them).

Of course, there are many other things that would have to be considered in order to implement such a system, but you get the point. I suspect that this "forced arbitrage" would render the patent system a bit "leaner" and less worrisome for the "little guy" who might be threatend by large, enormous patent-wielding multinationals.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[beh]

No - it will end once they put legislation into place to also punish abuse of patent laws.

(e.g. introduce a blocking period for a company/holding if they introduce an abusive patent; e.g. a patent that clearly violates obviousness restrictions, or patents that have lots of prior art, like the TAB-links patent seems to have; if a company were denied even filing additional patents for a year of so after trying patent abuse, it would definitely put more pressure on the companies to only submit sensible patents; because otherwise they might forfeit the possibility to patent something that might really warrant a patent).

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[gaijin99]

Not a bad idea, but I don't think it goes quite far enough. After all, MS can spin off as many daughter companies as it wants to to file patents for it.

I'd argue that extending the block period to two years (more damaging to the false filers), as well as extending it to all daughter companies would be more effective. Personally I'd like to see a more vendictive clause put in: you file a false patent and three of your existing patents will be placed in the public domain. I don't see that happening, but I'll bet that'd stop this crap cold.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[betelgeuse-4]

An interesting idea, but it requires somebody to identify patents that are attempts to abuse the system. The USPTO should do this at the moment but they don't (if they did there wouldn't be much need for your suggestion).

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[Ender Ryan]

At that point, real innovation will have moved overseas, and the USPTO will be irrelevant.

What do the major American CEOs care? They're moving it overseas anyway! Maybe that's what they want. They don't even have to worry if it costs them a few hundred million USD every now and then, they're still richer than the whole rest of the world combined(possibly an exaggeration, but maybe not...).

I predict that only until the U.S. itself becomes irrelevant, economically, nothing here will change.

Paranoid raving? Justified cynicism? Entirely right? I don't know...

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[runningduck]

I think there should be a three month public review system with bounties. Patent applicants should issue a non-trival bond. If someone is able to prove the patent to be invalid, they should be compensated by grant of the bond.

Basically, we create an insentive for public review, maybe even create a cottage industry, while at the same time creating a penalty for abusing the system or failing to do basic research.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[Reteo Varala]

Here's a thought...

Perhaps there could be a law where any company whose patents have more than X amount of prior art then receives an audit of all its patents. Any with Y percent of junk patents are barred from registering patents for Z years.

Of course, any junk patents that are discovered in the Audit are placed in the Public Domain.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[Titusdot Groan]

What do the major American CEOs care? They're moving it overseas anyway! Maybe that's what they want. They don't even have to worry if it costs them a few hundred million USD every now and then, they're still richer than the whole rest of the world combined(possibly an exaggeration, but maybe not...).

There is some hope -- the current generation of young people can't get jobs except at Walmart or McDonalds -- they're just not out there. People are starting to clue into this.

The problem is that the US (and Canada to some extent) is shipping all the blue collar jobs to 3rd world countries, good for CEO's etc. Bad for the lower middle class.

Next election I think this will be the biggest issue in both Canada and the US.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[hamishmorgan]

Its a good idea but I think that in reality it probably wouldn't work. The problem with arbitration is that there is NO guarantee of a solution. The parties involved must come to some agreement, and the arbitrators have no real power over them. While the arbitrators can try and help the parties to see sense, there is often a big difference between legal/moral/ethical sense and the economic sense that large companies have in mind. When things can't be resolved then the case just goes back to the court room. While it is clearly in the interest of the "little guys" to clear the whole thing up as cheaply and quickly as possible, this simply isn't the case for large companies. They have large legal teams and are quite happy to throw huge amounts of money at getting what they want.

Also, Having arbitrators with experience in the particular field is somewhat irrelevant. Eg. Whilst a small software company might send their head programmer to argue their case, Microsoft would send as many lawyers as could fit in the room to unflinchingly repeat their claims.

In my opinion the solution is: Tell the patent office to take all the time they need over each patent. Very soon a huge backlog would form and nobody would be able to patent anything for year and years. The more big companies patented stupid stuff the worse the situation would get. They would effectively hang themselves on their own greed. :-)

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[lspd]

I think the problem is not that they don't have a dedicated group of industry experts -- it's that they don't have *enough* people to handle the huge deluge of patents.

Call it what it really is.

Patent Spamming

Throw enough crap at the USPTO, and they're bound to approve some of it.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[killjoe]

"I predict that only until the U.S. itself becomes irrelevant, economically, nothing here will change."

And the US will not become irrelevant until the rest of the world stops buying pepsi, nike and britney spears CDs.

it just amazes me that millions of people protest US foreign policy but go see an americna movie or buy american cigarettes.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[sumdumass]

thats the way the job market has been for a couple generations now. All the good jobs have been filled for a while and the only way to get them was to know someone and apply at the right time. Nothing has really changed in the last dozen years that i know of.

One of the problems is that we have marketing people for industry that attemps to convince lots of kids to train in certain areas by stating all the saleries that people get paid and shit like that. Now were there was a downfall of workers in a certain area and the jobs paid well for lessor peole, all the sudden an influx of too many workers come about and they don't have jobs. Whats worse is that people that once had good paying jobs with lots of security now have to look for work at mc donalds or walmart. The amount of industry that has went over seas is nothign compared to the amount wanting of what people would consider good jobs. Yes there has been a shift in the locations of the jobs but the fact is that jobs just don't pay anymore or there are too manyy people in those fields.

Jobs like construction workers and such generaly require certain qualifications now. Most of industry that is left is automated and you need some degree of above highschool education to land most of them. This isn't even touching on the lack of work-ethics in some of todays youths that forces businesses to higher more people for less money to get the job done. The job market has just shifted and it cannot be blamed or fixed by one president or 8 years. People have to realize that this is an entirely different world then what thier father grew up in as his world was different then his fathers time.

I'm not saying that it isn't right were 3 or more generations get involved in maufacturing and all report to the same plant for different shifts. I'm saying it just isn't practicle anymore and those wanting to do what thier parents did, unless it is a trade or educated career, is out for disapointment. You can thank regulations and general over taxation for times like this too. Some of wich is/was neccesary though.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[eric76]

My suggestions on how to fix the problem:

1) Publish all patent applications immediately.

2) Require that the patent application identify anyone against whom an action may be brought or anyone that the applicant may want to put on formal notice about the patent. Under this scheme, I would think that any company filing a patent would provide formal notice to all known competitors from the very beginning.

2a) If an alleged infringement is identified after the patent is filed, but not issued, ammend the patent to include the newly identified alleged infringers and restart the entire procedure from the date of the submission of the ammended patent.

2b) If the patent has already been granted when the alleged infringement is identified, begin a patent review process. This review proecess should include the same steps as the original application.

3) Require a public, working demonstration of the invention not less than three months after the date that the alleged infringers have been notified. Make sure that the date of the working demonstration is publicly available and that the alleged infringers have been made aware of the date of the demonstration.

4) Following the public demonstration, allow a period of at least six months, preferably twelve months, during which the public and the alleged infringers may provide comments and objections to the patent. All comments and objections would become part of the patent and would be publically available to any interested party.

5) Following the period available for public comments, the patent examiner would then review the patent and the public comments.

6) If the patent examiner requires changes to the patent, for example, changes to the claims, allow a further period of public comments on such changes. Two to three months after proper notification would be sufficient.

7) If all the claims are rejected, the patent should be rejected in its entirity and the company seeking the patent should be precluded from reapplying for the same patent, but with different claims.

8) Before the patent application is accepted, require a final public hearing during which time final objections to the patent may be made known.

I think that this would allow plenty of opportunity for truly novel and useful inventions to be patented, but would significantly cut down on the number of silly patents.

One of the primary purposes of the above process is to require that every possible defendant be given proper notice of the process and have opportunity to bring objections to the patent prior to any infringement action.

For example, suppose XYZ Widgets invented a new widget and wishes to patent the invention. Suppose that Widgets R Us is the company's primary competitor and seems likely to build something similar once they see the product. Then, in the patent application, XYZ Widgets could provide notice to Widgets R Us just in case. Thus, Widgets R Us would have been put on notice of the patent and will be able to object.

During the patent application process, another company, Mr Widget Inc, comments on the application. In spite of those comments, they would need to be formally notified of the patent application prior to any infringement action. Thus, XYZ Widgets may elect to ammend the patent application to include a formal notification to Mr Widget Inc. This would effectively restart the timetable for the application process.

After the patent has been granted, XYZ Widgets finds that a brand new company, Western Wyoming Widget, is infringing on their patent. Since they did not provide notice to Western Wyoming Widget of the application, they would file for a reexamination of the patent with a formal notification of the reexamination to Western Wyoming Widget. The entire proecess including the public demonstration, the period of public comments, and the final public hearing would begin again.

If, during this time, XYZ Widgets learned that Widgets R Us were violating the pat

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[Yaa 101]

No this is worse it is DDOSsing the patent system.

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[killjoe]

"Although you have to give us some credit, when the world needs us we are there"

Really? The following people need our help desparately.

Liberians, Somalians, Sudanese, Chechnians, Palestenians, North koreans, Chinese, taiwanese, and billions more. Only if they had something we wanted...

Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there

[MrBigInThePants]

China is a much more important trade partner at this stage, but they have already started negotiating with the US I believe.
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/C9D099B97 7363DF6CC256EFC0029C894?OpenDocument

Lynx

[SpaceLifeForm]

How obvious does it have to be for the USPTO?

Re:Lynx

[Anonymous Coward]

Either we need to shut down the USPTO, or amend the process so that those who submit fraudulant claims can receive criminal penalties, not just the obviously ineffective civil recourse.

Consider if you went down to city hall and filed paperwork transferring ownership of several dozen properties into your name, as well as the city park and other "public commons" properties. You then went out and notified the legitimate owners of the properties you just stole that they either pay rent to you or you're evicting them.

In this scenario, you're going to jail. But when Microsoft fraudulantly claims ownership to other persons property and public commons property, their only risk is having the paperwork undone and the application expense wasted.

It's time to pursue criminal penalties. Balmer's obviously perpetrating fraud and theft. Let's see him spend time with Bernie Ebbers. And if our government doesn't see it this way, then they should not be surprised when we come and close down the USPTO and other enablers of this crime. Certainly they know they're accessories to this crime by now? Either fix the problem folks, or we're going to lump you in with the other white collar criminals.

Re:Lynx

[mindriot]

Well, it gets even better - some guy in Australia has patented the wheel (credit for that link goes to one of the comment posters on the article page).

I wasn't entirely sure if I should laugh or cry.

Old Patent

[sangreal66]

This patent was filed 7 years ago. They use IE 3 as a reference.

Re:Old Patent

[FLAGGR]

Still, that "invention" (the tab navigation one) has been used WAYYYY before IE 3

Navigate with keyboard?

[lphuberdeau]

Just try to tell me lynx didn't do it before IE.

Re:Navigate with keyboard?

[inaeldi]

The general order of operations:

1) voice opinion
2) read article (optional)

Quick, sombody please...

[Nick Driver]

...order immediate drug tests for the entire staff of the USPTO.

Patents

[backslashdot]

Patents are utterly ridiculous. The US Patent Office is profitable, so clearly funding isnt the issue.

We need to a have a period of public review before patents are issued. Then again, after the first couple months people will lose interest.
I suppose it's better than nothign. Does the US PTO have a permanent staff of patnet reviewers or do they consult out some of the work?

Re:Patents

[FooAtWFU]

Patents are utterly ridiculous. The US Patent Office is profitable, so clearly funding isnt the issue.

On the contrary: Perhaps funding is the issue. If they make money for every patent filed, there's no incentive for them to throw out or even discourage bogus patents.

Re:Patents

[rollingcalf]

The amount of funding isn't the issue, it's the method of funding.

The more patents they approve is the more people and corporations that will apply for patents. The more applications they get, the more money they receive.

The system promotes a cycle in which they approve patents easily because they don't have the staff to do sufficient reviews, and the increased approval rates attract more patent applications, which makes it even more difficult to do sufficient reviews.

There needs to be an incentive to reject stupid patents. Any patent overturned in court should have the court costs paid by the patent office, and/or the examiner(s) who approved it should be somehow penalized.

Re:Patents

[Zocalo]

I think this would be a good idea too; a period of a few months between submission and approval of a patent during it would be open to public review and any possible prior art submitted. This is in addition to the relevent PTO doing a thorough review of the proposal of course, and could also be used a means of annulling some of the more dubious patents already in existence. The fundamental problem with this approach though is that a key issue of patent infringement cases is whether the defendant knowingly infringed upon the patent. Obviously any damages are going to be much higher if that can be shown to be true, and it's this that leads to plausible deniability rearing its ugly head.

As the law stands now, companies try and remain ignorant of any patents filed by their competitors, thus (in theory) minimising their liability while enabling business as usual. The contingency plan in the event of being accused of patent infringement seems to be to be one of trying to fight the patent first, and if that looks like failing enter into a cross licensing deal with your own patent portfolio. Given that stance, even if patents are open for public review prior to approval, I doubt many companies would be willing to review and submit challenges if doing so might negate their claim to ignorance in the process. Sure, they might get patent application X annulled, but if they are found to be infringing upon approved patent application Y then they are going to find it much harder to show they were unaware if they are demonstrably reviewing patents.

The current situation with patents at the USPTO has gotten way too far out of hand, probably so much so that recovery isn't likely to happen no matter what is done. Even so, it's going to be better to at least make an attempt at reigning things back in than doing nothing at all, but I don't think that patent lawyers raking in the dollars are going to be too happy with that idea...

I'm rich

[Paralizer]

Patent the use of TAB! That'll show those bastards who's running things..

Prior art found

[Aim Here]

"A user may discover and navigate among hyperlinks through the use of a keyboard. For example, a user may press a tab key to discover and navigate to a first hyperlink that is part of a hypertext document."

Replace the tab key with the cursor keys and you've got the Lynx browser. Jeez, what a pile of nonsense.

Re:Prior art found

[backslashdot]

You know the sad part is that some historian in 200 years may look through the patent office archives and conclude that microsoft invented the idea.

Re:Prior art found

[TheNetAvenger]

Actually, I think it has been a standard part of graphical web clients for a long time. Tab and shift tab to any particular form entry, button or link, press space bar or enter to follow it.

Actually IE 3 was the first browser that allowed keyboard Navigation, and was one of the 'new' features of IE3 that gave it a lead on all the existing browsers of the time.

Just because it is COMMON in all broswers today doesn't meant that microsoft isn't the first software company to implement the idea in a Browser.

Which I am sure will anger a lot people here, but they were the first browser to have keyboard navigation features.

Some of us that were here when IE3 was released, remember this, and how handy it was at the time.

My part to end this foolishness

[IgD]

For the first time ever, I'm going 100% Linux. I'm getting ready to order my next PC in the next few days. I've got all the apps I need covered except gaming. Electronic Arts and other big game companies, I'd pay $100 for a Linux version of Battlefield Vietname for example.

The irony of the whole thing is that Linux is doing the same thing to Microsoft that they did to Netscape. Netscape should have run around patenting the browser I suppose...

If enough consumers give Microsoft the axe like me, maybe they will get the message.

Re:My part to end this foolishness

[Myrrh]

Fortunately you had a reasonable employer. I don't think a lot of people would have the luxury of saying, "Nope, that's a Windows box, I'm not touching it." I think in that case, a lot of employers would simply drop you like a hot potato. Especially since it's very easy to do when you've just been hired and you're still in your 30-90 day probationary period.

I like to be idealistic too, but not when it interferes with the livelihood of me and my family. The whole Linux-vs-Windows thing simply isn't important enough to me to place my job in jeopardy.

Fortunately, it's not an issue: I use both at work, and both systems are equally well liked.

Re:My part to end this foolishness

[vsprintf]

I don't think people switching to linux is really going to stop them.

People switching to Linux, and then convincing their friends and relatives to switch to Linux, is exactly what will stop Microsoft - in the end.

You're going to need to get Linux to over 50% market share before we find any type of interest from Microsoft to maybe stop doing the crap they're doing.

That's backwards. Microsoft is already scared by Linux, which is why they talk about viral licensing, TCO, and cut special deals to keep people from switching. MS has reached market saturation with nowhere to go but down. That's why they switched from selling software to renting it. They no longer give stock options as rewards to employees because the options don't get above water. As MS continues to lose market share, it will only increase its efforts to patent everything in sight in order to protect its territory and inhibit F/OSS. It hasn't gotten nasty yet - it will.

The keyboard navigation patent

[MntlChaos]

Apparently they have never used lynx or links. Those are about as old as browsers get and they have a key (the down key) that allows keyboard-based navigation and highlighting of the currently selected link (inverting colors). And they go over specifying in claim 6 that it basically be implemented in a linked list. As for claim 10 with image links, that's been around a good long time also. Someone must have been very high to grant that patent

Does anyone wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

...what will happen when a few companies have patented all the stupid, obvious shit that people have just been doing for so long, that in the short range seems to make sense, but in the end, ends up bringing down the whole patent system?

Is that what Microsoft really wants, to bring it all down so that it can get MSIP (Microsoft Intellectual Property) 1.0 codified into law, where everything is backed instead purely by contract law and the terms they put into all sorts of "implied by viewing", "implied by reading", "implied by opening", etc., EULAs that can be changed at a whim without notification to the other parties by Microsoft?

What next, patenting the idea of a "machine" that takes a textual, human-readable source of information and transforms it into machine-executable language, aka the compiler?

It almost reads like someone who just doesn't give a damn anymore, so they just start going to extremes in anything and everything, a scorched earth social (or business) policy. "Better to burn twice as bright than fade away!"

shoot itself in the foot

[jdkane]

Hopefully Microsoft will single-handedly make a mockery of the patent system (more specifically software patents) which will force the system to be reviewed sooner, and maybe some positive changes can come to it. On the other hand it's going to be tough in the meantime for the small developer to be caught up in small web page navigation patents and such in court.

Re:shoot itself in the foot

[ravenspear]

On the other hand it's going to be tough in the meantime for the small developer to be caught up in small web page navigation patents and such in court.

Nothing to worry about there. It will never happen. If M$ were to actually file a suit over any of these stupid patents, it would only draw attention to how completely baseless they are and might even cause their patent hoarding spree to come to a halt. Besides, there are too many people to sue. There were doubtless hundreds of infringers of this one the moment it was granted (pretty much every non-M$ browser).

Re:shoot itself in the foot

[vsprintf]

Nothing to worry about there. It will never happen. If M$ were to actually file a suit over any of these stupid patents, it would only draw attention to how completely baseless they are and might even cause their patent hoarding spree to come to a halt.

Since MS has already bought off the DOJ (and apparently the USPTO), what makes you believe they'd lose? Most companies would simply give in rather than face an expensive legal battle with MS and its bottomless bank account. When MS starts enforcing its patents to restrain OSS, the only thing standing in their way is the EFF.

Sheesh!

[keiferb]

There have been some silly patents covered here on slashdot, but these have got to be some of the silliest. What's next, a patent on the wheel?

Re:The reason...

[sangreal66]

Microsoft is filing all these patents recently is that they see themselves losing market share to Linux. They want to keep their profitability (stock) high by licensing/litigation revenue. I see it as a sign of *cough* (the year of Linux on the desktop) *cough*! Maybe that is a little ambitious, but I think MS is affraid!

Filed: March 6, 1997

EU: Listen!

[BlowGish]

Hopefully this happened just in time to show the EU the sillyness of the patent system. I wonder how long the US can hold up a system with so many bogus patents...

Re:EU: Listen!

[Ploum]

If EU ministers were reading slashdot or listening to people, no doubt that EU would use free software and be against software patent.

Obviously, they don't..

better still

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent Ctrl-Alt-Del!

Windows become unusable instantly!

p.s. if I decided to be nice and license my patent to MS my estimated royalties are:
1 cent per use (I'm a kind soul)
1 login, per day, per user = 1.8 billion per year, nice pocket money.
approx 10000 reboots per day, per user = 18 teradollars per year! Hooray, I'm so rich I don't even know what the units are called to describe how rich I am!

I'll say it again! Statute of Limitation!

[theluckyleper]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We need a statute of limitation on patent infringement suits! They already do this in China!

One of the major problem with patents (in my mind) is the fact that patent holders are permitted to sit on their patents and do nothing, even when they are aware of infringing acts. Then, 10 years down the road, they spring out of nowhere with the infringement suit. This is what Unisys did with GIFs. Unisys allowed the web to become addicted to GIFs, without filing any suits. No, no... they bided their time! Wait until everyone is dependent on GIFs, THEN spring the trap; that's the key! I find this behavior to be underhanded and repugnant. UNISYS HAD TO KNOW! As if they were not aware that GIF was the image format of choice on the web. It's impossible.

An infringement statute of limitation would prevent possible future evils, too. For example, how long has Microsoft known about SAMBA, and not done anything about it? Might they not enforce their IP at some point in the future, when Linux is finally becoming accepted on the desktop? To kill SAMBA at that point would severely cripple Linux desktop adpotion. A statute of limitations would prevent this.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that a similar statute of limitation be applied to copyright violation suits. If a copyright holder IS AWARE of an IP violation, then they must file suit within a specified amount of time (2 years?), or lose the right to do so, in that instance. It's easy to see how this would benefit society: SCO.

Kudos to Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Now there is a company that is an example of what a technology company should be today. They are not trying to imitate anyone but are innovating constantly.

I mean just image how great it will be when those innovations are actually implemented and we can use them. Simply run a program as an other user, I mean, wow, just think of the possibilities.

Or simply navigating a browser with the tab key, can it get any better?
And in case you missed it, you can't only navigate with the tab key, it will also be visually indicated where in the hypertext document you are. I mean, talk about brilliance. They simply think about every little detail! whoa!

I just can't wait to see these new features on my desktop.

I love this company!!!!!!1111!!oneone!!1

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Xero_One]

I think I'll order a Tab. [Presses Tab key, puts cup under disk drive]
-Homer Simpson

Seriously though, this is ridiculous and scary. How can anyone in their right mind not see the faults of the US Patent system? And better yet, why is nothing being done to rectify this?

-01

Re:Debunking theories here...

[Halo1]

Said "wiser" slashdotter will have a hard time doing that in this case. What is covered by a patent, is what's in the claims. This is claim 1 of the patent:

1. In a computer system having a video display, a keyboard device for providing a key input, a method of discovering each of a plurality of hyperlinks in a hypertext document, said input device having keys, comprising:

(a) displaying the hypertext document on the video display;

(b) organizing the plurality of the hyperlinks in the document into a sequence in an element list, wherein the sequence of the hyperlinks is based on the disposition of each hyperlink in the document, and wherein the element list comprises information describing a location of a next hyperlink and a type of the next hyperlink; and

(c) when a predefined key on the keyboard device is actuated, giving focus to the next hyperlink of the plurality of hyperlinks in the sequence.

So as long as you have

• a computing device, a display, some key-input device, an algorithm to discover all hyperlinks in an html document;
• a) a way to display to the html document on the display;
• b) a way to organise the links into a sequence in a list based on their disposition in the document (e.g. add them to a linked list as you encounter them), with the location of the next hyperlink (pointers!) and the description of the type of the next hyper link (typ: hyperlink_type_t);
• c) when a predefined key is pressed, shift focus to the next hyperlink.

Apart from that you have to keep track in your url list of the types of the links (regardless of the classification you use), all it does cover is indeed plain and pure going from one link to the next by pressing a key.

News in the discovery, not in the application

[SnakeStu]

Are you aware of every single patent application in the past 30 days? Yeah, me neither. There are so many patent applications, even those who are being paid to keep track of it all seem unable to accomplish that feat. Thus, patents get into the system without much notice. When someone runs across an "interesting" one and brings it to light, it is that "shedding of light" that makes it "news."

To use an overly-blunt analogy, it's not the death of a dinosaur that makes the news, it's the discovery of its fossil remains. The death event is "many" years ago, but it's still worth reporting today when the fossils are discovered, especially if there's something unusual about it, since we're all pretty familiar with fossils in general. (This analogy won't be as useful for those who believe dinosaurs didn't exist and that their bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us and turn us away from our Holy Creation origins.)

This just in...

[KoolDude]

The USPTO has just granted Microsoft a patent for "novel method to foster innovation". Using this new method, inventors will submit an application describing their invention to an authority which will then search through all previous inventions and judge whether the application is indeed novel. All succesful applicants are given a legal monopoly for their invention. Microsoft hopes this novel method will motivate inventors 768.8% more than currently used methods.

Re:"Self Defense" Patents

[Tim C]

Instead of wasting money "defending" against bogus patents, how about investing in fixing the patent system?

Two questions:

1) How exactly does a company do that? Sure, they can lobby, but despite common opinion here that often comes to nothing, and they wouldn't be lobbying unopposed. Also, given that this is MS we're talking about, the company that everyone loves to hate, the politicos may well be wary of being seen to be too cooperative.

2) In the meantime, they're still just as vulnerable to attack, with the added bonus of not being able to fight back as effectively. How does the CEO explain to the shareholders why they're deliberately avoiding taking out patents (thus reducing their assets relative to the rest of the industry) and simultaneously potentially leaving themselves open to costly litigation?

I'm going to write to my congressman

[kbielefe]

I'm planning to write my congressman about the problem. He was pretty responsive the last time I wrote about another issue. Does anyone have a pointer to accurate sources I can refer to in my letter?

Re:I'm going to write to my congressman

[Halo1]

If you want an overview of studies on software patents, have a look here. Clickable links to the referenced studies are provided in the bibliography at the end.

Re:News?

[FLAGGR]

*sigh* They're posted as the patents are approved. MS just APPLIED for that patent 5 years ago, and for some dumb reason, they're finally starting to get approved. It's news because this means something to open source. Should everyone just nod their heads and ignore it all? I'm sure thats what Microsoft would want.

YATWSDNARTPA

[xigxag]

Move along. It's just Yet Another Topic Where Submitter Did Not Actually Read The Patent Application.

It doesn't patent "the use of a keyboard to navigate a web page." What it patents is, as far as I can tell, the use of the tab key to navigate to and to place a non-rectangular highlight over a weblink, or to place any-shaped highlight over an imagemap.

Re:YATWSDNARTPA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it does. Every claim is a little patent of its own:

What is claimed is:

1. In a computer system having a video display, a keyboard device for providing a key input, a method of discovering each of a plurality of hyperlinks in a hypertext document, said input device having keys, comprising:

(a) displaying the hypertext document on the video display;

(b) organizing the plurality of the hyperlinks in the document into a sequence in an element list, wherein the sequence of the hyperlinks is based on the disposition of each hyperlink in the document, and wherein the element list comprises information describing a location of a next hyperlink and a type of the next hyperlink; and

(c) when a predefined key on the keyboard device is actuated, giving focus to the next hyperlink of the plurality of hyperlinks in the sequence.
Then follow the other claims. So they do patent "the use of a keyboard to navigate a web page."

Re:YATWSDNARTPA

[Anonymous Coward]

"It doesn't patent "the use of a keyboard to navigate a web page." What it patents is, as far as I can tell, the use of the tab key to navigate to and to place a non-rectangular highlight over a weblink, or to place any-shaped highlight over an imagemap."

and you think it's better? You are crazy, sorry.
And the dummies that modded you up too.

Re:YATWSDNARTPA

[xigxag]

Please mod up the above reply. My original comment was wrong. There are a variety of claims here, not just regarding highlighting the weblinks or imagemaps (as I mistakenly said), and the very first claim is in fact a method to use the keyboard to navigate the hyperlinks on a webpage.

Regarding that first claim, Microsoft is claiming to have come up with a different (unique?) method for doing what Lynx and other browsers already did. It is commonplace to patent a distinct method of achieving something which has already been patented in the past. Microsoft's behavior (in this instance) is nothing unusual or improper.

Speaking of hyperlinks, it's both interesting and informative to follow back the trail of references cited in this patent. You'll come across some surprising stuff.

In other news . . .

[Gabrill]

A new consortium of keyboard makers have replaced the old, patent encumbered "Tab" key with a new key in the same location, labelled "Over".

One more nail in the Patent Office's coffin

[jinxidoru]

Maybe this is a good thing. If some of these ridiculous patents try to be enforced by Microsoft, they'll meet with some stiff legal competition. GNU/Linux and OSS in general has a lot more more behind it than most people realize. Attacks of this nature will fail just like all other under-handed attacks have failed. The blessing comes as people realize how silly patents are becoming. Then we'll hopefully see some strong patent reform, or just a removal of the agency all together.

Re:The reason...

[Armchair Dissident]

And, unless I've misread this, approved August 31st 2004.

Which makes one wonder: how on earth can a patent that was filed in 1997 be granted seven years later in 2004 and still be valid? Especially when the basic techonology had been around since at least the early 80's (Text-based menus any one?).

Re:Remember when...

[atcurtis]

IBM WebExplorer... It was fully keyboard navigable - used the Tab key and all the hyperlinks were also made available in the Links pull down menu.

IIRC, WebEx predated any MSFT browser. Unfortunately, only available for OS/2.

But it was excellent at rendering pages before they had completed loading... even giant HTML tables can be rendered before all the html was loaded.

accountability....

[andrejs]

There should be accountability for examiners that approve these obvious type patents. If they are found after a complaint by an independent board of knowledgeable experts to have not done their homework so to speak; they should be fired with no benefits.

Next, let's offshore INNOVATION to the third world

[sevinkey]

of course I don't mean the buzzword "innovation" either.

Make it easy for big, slow corporations to own all of the ideas in the world, and that's exactly what will happen... innovation will shift to areas of the world that aren't covered by the patents, and unfortunately that's only going to be Russia, the Orient, and Africa soon. (hell, those people do need SOMETHING though)

However, as many others here have pointed out, regulation is a swinging pendulum and it will most likely swing back toward something more fair.

Either way, I tend to follow the advice that my dad, and a lot of my friends parents learned in engineering school in the 60's and 70's: don't worry about people suing you, just do it and see if the lawsuit happens. 99.99% of the time no one will notice you, and if they do, you'll probably have a better life than before you came up with the idea anyway.

U.S. Patent Office

[Ping-Wu]

Please visit a previous thread to see what kind of a moron our Patent Office has become:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/04/1825 22 7&tid=154&tid=1

We know that U.S Patent Office is notorious of issuing patents (particularly software patents) that are clearly unpatentable. But very few are aware that U.S. Patent Office is violating our constitutional right by promulgating and enforcing a Microsoft-IE-only policy.

This little-noticed law really makes me mad and feel like crying--why a government agency can be so stupid.

Basically, when you file a patent application, if the Patent Office thinks that your invention is not patentable because it is not novel or nonobvious, it will send you copies of prior art patents so you can rebut their rejection.

Now the Patent Office has changed its policy and will not send you those hard copies. Instead, it requires you to download those prior art reference on-line.

Under ordinary circumstances, this would not pose any problem, except that we are dealing with one of the most stupid government agencies in the history of mankind. The United States Patent Office, without much notice, now requires that, in order to download those references, you must register with the Patent Office, then the Patent Office will install a program ON YOUR MACHINE WHICH MUST BE RUNNING MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER UNDER MICROSOFT WINDOWS to allow you to communicate with the Patent Office before you can download those prior art patents that our government must furnish you as a matter of our constitution right and as part of the filing fees paid to the Patent Office.

Thus, basically it has boiled down to this stupid law: if you want to receive a patent, you are now REQUIRED BY LAW to have a machine with Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer in your office.

In other words, in order to exercise your constitutional rights, you must have a machine that runs Microsoft Windows and you must set Microsoft Internet Explorer as your default browser.

What kind of stupid government agency is this? I know many banks used to have the same requirement (i.e., using Microsoft IE running in Microsoft Windows), but they have got rid of this stupid policy because they have to compete in order to survive.

The United States Patent and Trademark can implement and insist such a stupid policy because it doesn't have to compete. But what about those 4000+ patent attorneys? How come all of them are so quiet? Are all of them idiots?

Even our HomeLand Security Department has changed its Microsoft-only policy. It appears that our Patent and Trademark Office is the only government agency in the whole world that requires its users to use Microsoft Windows. Unlike Homeland Security Department, the U.S. Patent Office has to account to no one!

Microsoft survives and propers exactly because our government agencies are unafraid to abuse their power and unashamed of being idiots.

and

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=120633&thres ho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=154&tid=1&mode=thread&pid=1 0160890#10163299

Article I, section 8, of the Constitutuion specifically provides that: "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Congress has the power to determine what can or cannot be patented (e.g., mathematical formulas cannot be patented, but mathematical formulas reduced to software code can, etc.)

Congress also vests in administrative agencies, e.g., the Patent Office, certain rule-making powers. Those rules, once promulgated, are equivalent to "laws", though they are much easier to be challenged in court. In order to exercise those rule-making powers, the agencies must follow certain well-defined procedure (e.g., publishing Official Gazette as Federal Register), AND

Re:U.S. Patent Office

[servoled]

Do you plan to repost this in every story remotely related to patents and web browsers?

If it is so much of a problem for you, why not just use pat2pdf which is a "script [which] fetches the pages of a U.S. patent document from the USPTO patent database and converts them into a single PDF file." which "is reported to run on Linux, FreeBSD, IRIX and Mac OS/X." (according to the homepage).

If you wish you can complain to the USPTO about no having a linux/mozilla version of whatever software it is you are talking about. Chances are they will tell you about the many other ways availible to obtain the patents you are looking for.

However, the idea that the USPTO is somehow denying your constitutional rights by not having a version of that software for linux/mozilla is asinine.

Re:U.S. Patent Office

[Ping-Wu]

Sure your "constitutional" rights are not violated if you don't mind spending hours, instead of a few minutes if you use IE, to download those patent images.

Also, I don't think you have ever encountered the situation when USPTO cut off your connection because you wanted to download more than a handful of patent images. Are your rights violated here?

USPTO's IE-only policy is only the tip of the iceberg. Beginning August this year, if you want to take advantage of the electronic filing procedure, you have to use another Microsoft product--Microsoft Office, to convert your specification including the claims into an XML file.

Of course, you don't have to file your patent application electronically. But electronic filing grants an inventor certain advantages not available with the conventional paper filing, including publishing your application as amended.

So, what's the big deal about publishing your application as amended (the right you will not have if you don't want to use Microsoft Office)? This has a lot to do with the so-called "pre-grant" damages, which can be awarded based on how your claims are published. If you cannot amend your claims before your application is published, you may lose a lot of your rights as an inventor.

For high-tech inventions which have a short life span, pre-grant damages may be the only compensation you can get.

Are our constitutional rights violated? IMNSHO, not as a clear cut as the IE-only policy.

But, again, the key issue is, whether the USPTO has projected an image that it is competent to judge the patentability of software/internet inventions, and whether "revenue-generating" plays an important role in issuing patents. This is what concerns me the most.

I fail to understand the point

[Second_Infinity]

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to understand how patenting the "use of the keyboard to navigate a web page" could beneficial. How could they possibly enforce this? Quite asinine.

However, Micorosoft > SCO as of now. At least Microsoft will have a definitive patent to complain about down the road.
Way to go! Setting the stage for lawsuits way ahead of time!

[sarcasm]
Maybe they will patent the act of actually reading websites in the future. I guess it'll be a pay-by-page system, to help increase the billions in revenue. Or maybe they'll try to patent bits and bytes, for a full sweep of the industry.
[/sarcasm]

Ignorant patent critics

[0x0d0a]

Once again, patent critics fail to know what they're talking about. The blogger got lucky -- he is probably right on the first patent being BS, though I'm a lot less sure about the second.

When you are determining whether a patent is sane, the abstract content *does not matter*. That's just a tool to help you find a patent you're looking for. Same goes for the title. If you are saying "this patent has prior art", you should never, never, ever even *mention* the contents of the title or the abstract. They don't have legal force.

The thing to look at are the *claims*. The patent covers anything that uses one ore more of the listed claims (these are numbered). Each claim has to be invalidated on its own, so you can invalidate a bunch of claims and not invalidate the whole patent. If there are multiple sections to a claim (these are lettered), then *all* of the sections must apply to a device,system, or whatever before it is infringing.

So if you want to say "this patent has a claim that's bullshit", you need to cite an *entire claim*, including all the subsections of that claim, and show how those subsections already applied to an existing system *before* the claimed date of invention (there's another point; the date the patent is *issued* doesn't mean much). Furthermore, unless every claim is invalid, the patent still has strength on the valid claims.

I don't like Microsoft. I really don't like software patents. But claiming that Microsoft is coming up with bullshit patents based on totally ridiculous grounds doesn't do anyone any good -- it just spreads misinformation among the group of people that could be criticizing Microsoft for one of many legitimate reasons.

This patent applies to Image Maps

[negative0]

If you look at claim 22 it sounds like they are talking about hypertext in general, but claim 23 narrows that scope to image maps.

Anyone remember who came out with image maps first? It's possible that Microsoft did.

Anyway, everyone is jumping up and down about this tab thing, when the patent is actually for highliting parts of an image map with circles, rectangles, or polygons as the user tabs through a list of hyperlinks.

Reminds me of an old story...

[dpilot]

about a Chinese emperor. He wanted to be known as a great patron of the arts and sciences. So he ordered all books and paintings burned. Then he got the artists and scientists to together to rewrite the books and repaint the paintings. That way all of this innovation would date from his reign.

Re:"Self Defense" Patents

[Rasta Prefect]

-1 Bullshit and the usual anti-Bush bashing.

There is such a thing as the Separation of Powers, and the President (Bush) has no power to dictate what the Judicial Branch does.

The grandparent said that Bush's Justice Department dropped the suit against Microsoft. The Justice department is not part of the Judiciary, it answers the the Attourney General of the United States of America. The grandparent is in fact correct that the Justice department under Bush caved on the Anti-trust suit. Whether Bush had anything to do with it is another question.

Raising fees for patents is a BAD idea

[solprovider]

to fund this, I recommend that patent application fees be raised by some nominal amount.

I agree with your ideas, but the implementation would not work:
1. Moving patent complaints to "settlement sessions" would not remove the need for lawyers. Big companies would send their lawyers, and normal people would have little hope without their own lawyers. Patent applications are so complex that applying for one without an IP lawyer is a waste of money; defending a patent without a lawyer would be worse.

2. Raising the fees would exclude even more "normal people" from applying for patents. They already cost too much: the basic filing fee is $770, and most patents require additional fees. My IP lawyer requires $8000 before starting the process (and you do not want to file without a lawyer.) This means that the McD's worker who invents a better basket for frying fries has no hope of affording a patent.

Better would be to lower the fees, but add penalties based on your income. One percent of your yearly income (average the last 3 years) should work. If the minumum-wage worker files for $100, and could be penalized another $100, he may go for it. If MSFT files for $100, but could be penalized $74,000 (generously using the net income after taxes and all other deductions), they might stop filing these obviously bad patents.

Extra incentive: give a portion (10%?) of the penalty to whoever provides evidence that a patent is bad:
- MSFT proves Joe WageWorker's patent is bad: Joe is penalized $100; MSFT is given $10.
- Joe proves MSFT's patent is bad: MSFT is penalized $74,000; Joe gets $7,400, preferably tax-free for doing the government's work for it.

This could result in patents being filed by the lowest paid person involved in the process (like the janitor.) Any ideas about avoiding that problem?

Re:Raising fees for patents is a BAD idea

[berzerke]

...This could result in patents being filed by the lowest paid person involved in the process (like the janitor.) Any ideas about avoiding that problem?

Assuming the plan *COULD* work (it would never be imposed), simply add a rule that if the patent is filed in the janitor's name, then the janitor owns it, not the company. If the company lays claim to the patent (via a w"e own everything you do" employment contract), then the company owns the patent not the janitor even though he filed it.

The problem isn't so much the penalties, it's that patent applications don't seem to be denied even when they obviously should be. The USPTO needs to start denying applications.

good ole fashion bribery

[zogger]

--yours is the best idea yet. I was going to post it (something very similar) until I read your reply. There should be something like a three strikes and you are out. Try to patent three bogus patents, or get three over turned, you are barred from ever trying again.

The other is obvious, just BAN IP patents. Eliminate thew whole shooting match, and invalidate all past IP patents. Patents should be reserved for TANGIBLES. Copyright-OK, patent, nyetski! We had intangibles before, when the patent office was setup and people starting patenting, but it was for STUFF, tangibles. We had intangibles, we had written intangibles, we had music, art, literature, etc, but it wasn't patentable because people realised that was loony tunes. They were never granted a patent as far as I know. (If anyone knows of an old exception, I can be corrected). It's only relatively recently in US historical terms that intangible IP has been treated like a tangible. And what's worse, they can get a patent,get treated as a tangible in pursuit of profits, BUT, never be forced to offer the tiniest warranty for these dubious "patented products" that all tangible products must have. What a sweet scam!

I'm cynical as heck about it, I think there's been billions in bribes paid off to legislators and bureaucrats to get IP to be "patentable" and that it's ongoing inside the patent office. No proof, other than these ridiculous tons of prior art "patents" being issued. It's criminal behavior, so look who has the means and opportunity, and who can profit from the scam of patenting obvious stuff.

Old saying, walks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck.

Have a public review period

[blitz487]

What would put a brake on some of this nonsense is to have, as part of the patent review process, a period of one year of public comment on each. The public would then have the opportunity to comment on whether or not the patent was "novel" or "obvious", and can bring up prior art. The patent examiners would be required to take the public comments into account when they rule.

Easy to Fix all this..

[IBitOBear]

I would pass a law that say, essentially, than ANY implementation of ANY patented technology can not be held as "infringing" that patnent if it is executed entirely on or using "commodity computer hardware" that is not itself the subject of that patent.

With this in place, general software is effectively unpatentable, but the software components of specialty hardware (e.g. CPU microcode) is.

This creates a basic economic pressure. If you invent a brand-new form of (say) networking, then as long as you are manufacturing the network cards that your cusomers *must* use, then you are good to go. If, however, you "really want to cash in" the act of licensing your network cards for general manufacture, or manufacture your cards for general use, then your patent automagically goes away when a commodity threshold is passed.

Another side effect is that "eumlators" are automagically legal. This means that your real devices must "outperform" the general emulation to be worth it. So a good "encyrption chip" for instance would be patentable, but the OOS/competetive implementation (which would presumably be slower unless your product sucks) would be legal and automatically non-infringing.

That also means that the agregious abuse of the patent system could go on for a while but the "regular computers" out there would be exempt from the battle. If MS made a "special" keyboard for traversing links, the commodity keyboard I am using + Lynx would not be infringing under any intrepretation.

Problem solved.

Re:Easy to Fix all this..

[IBitOBear]

The all important "synergy" will fix most of that. First off, there is no "business middleware" under the veil of patent, unless you imagine custom-made machines to run each package.

Since customers won't stand for having to buy new hardware for each application, once a piece of hardware becomes multi-functional it starts the long descent into "commodity".

Remember that "this software requires that dongle" isnt' enough. The dongle isn't the computer.

The actual model you should look at is "Pro-Tools" (formatting?) where the software and attached hardware thingy create a digital audio mixing appliance. Such a thing would be patentable. But if someone came along and wrote "Pro-Tools for the Sound Blaster" then *that* would automatically be outside the realm of patent protection. Meanwhile if a competeter made their "Go-Tools audio mixing station" that infringed the patent with hardware and software that was covered, then *that* would remain actionable.

The thing about proprietary networking is that it fails to scale. If "microsofts's internet" were different from "apples internet" the both woudl lose a lot of money.

So we have made "pure software" unpatentable, because if it is "pure" then there is no non-commodity hardware platform that the software could run on.

Consider separetely the DVD. It is patented, lets say, and as long as Phillips want's to solely manufacture, or at least aggressively license (e.g. limitedly license), the players then the patents hold. But as soon as they license it to everybody and their sibling (as it is today) they make a nut of cash and the hardware becomes commodity, and the patents become PD.

See, now by definition, the patents protect the little business, but those businesses naturally "leave the hothouse" when they go large.

So non-computer hardware is protected the same as it is today.

And specialty )or niche) hardware is protected the same as it is today.

But things like the RAMBUS patent memory thing automatically disapears when the patent goes into the hardware standard (you don't get more commodity than "the standard" 8-).

And software is only "protectable" when it is part of a larger solution.

The pure-software naturally foalls back itnot he domain of Copyright.

Exactly when was that?

[Reziac]

On my system I have NetTamer (a browser for DOS), which has both textmode and a sort of graphical mode, and allows keyboard navigation (including, IIRC, use of the TAB key to move between links). I don't recall when the program was first developed, but it runs gracefully on an XT, so that should tell you something about its age!! (1993ish origins, I think)

Is this really confusing?

[Pids]

I really dont see the confusion with these type of patents, since the USPTO moved to a totally fee based agency (Since 1991--under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990) they will of course take any and all applications. The more applications they process they more funding they have. They are no longer resposible to the people of the US they are responsible to the people and companies that pay them fees. They take as many applications as they can and let the courts actually do thier job of sorting out if they are even valid.

wiki it

[kwoff]

We need a WikiUSPTO.