Slashdot Mirror
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."
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
How obvious does it have to be for the USPTO?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
This patent was filed 7 years ago. They use IE 3 as a reference.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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...
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!
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.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
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.
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
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
- 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.Donate free food here
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.
getSexySig();
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?
This space intentionally left blank.
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.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
A new consortium of keyboard makers have replaced the old, patent encumbered "Tab" key with a new key in the same location, labelled "Over".
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
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...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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.
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.
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
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
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.
May we never see th
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.
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.
Why?
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?
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
--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.
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)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?