Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Patents The Broken y-Axis

Posted by timothy on from the what-the-heck-it's-only-a-legal-monopoly dept.

theodp writes "Microsoft was granted a patent Tuesday for Displaying data containing outlying data items, covering the familiar concept of broken y-axis bar charts. Oddly, Microsoft's 2002 'invention' is described in detail in a 1999 listserv post and found its way into scientific journals and other sources before the patent's claims were disclosed. BTW, the patent's term was extended by 269 days, apparently the USPTO's way of apologizing for initially rejecting the patent."

20 comments

  1. What I meant to say was... by ralphclark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Shouldn't a patent be struck down *automatically* once indisputable evidence of prior art turns up?

    1. Re:What I meant to say was... by zcat_NZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only in a SANE world. The current system is so broken I suspect Microsoft could push through a patent on the wheel or fire, sufficiently obfuscated, and get away with it. Probably the only reason they haven't already is that wheels and fire have very limited use in the world of computer software.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    2. Re:What I meant to say was... by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No dude, the whole idea is to patent a LOGICALLY obvious combination of ideas A and B...

      Idea A: Thee Sledge
      Idea B: Thee Wheel

      TOTALLY NOVEL IDEA THAT YOU SHOULD PAY US FOR: A cart.

      See? Nevermind that the wheel was invented to make the sledge easier to move around, it's fair game since nobody explicitly stated such.

      In the words of Triumph, "did it hurt when they surgically removed your sense of shame?"

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    3. Re:What I meant to say was... by cyborch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Patent the wheel like this guy did?

  2. 2002-1999= by josepha48 · · Score: 1
    3 years.. which is more than the 1 year they are allowed. If it was described in 2001 then they would possibly be okay. So who's going to tell the USPTO? Does anyone know the Patent Examiner? Contact them with the details.....

    This is so wrong on so many levels....

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?

    1. Re:2002-1999= by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      A listserv may not count as a "printed publication".

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:2002-1999= by josepha48 · · Score: 1
      Actually it would. If it was described in enough detail to cover the claims section in the patent, it could.

      Even if it was on a sci-fi tv show it would count as prior art. EG: no one can get a patent on the flip phone feature, because in the 1960's on Star Trek the communicators would count as prior art and there is nothing unique about the phones themselves.

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!
      Does slashdot hate my posts?

  3. Just a few notes by Zaffle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its not patenting the idea of the broken Y axis, its a patent on an algorithm to automatically calculate where and how to break the y-axis on a graph. (Not as bad, but still bad).

    The patent goes in to explicit detail on how the calculation is done, so you should be able to avoid it by simply doing something slightly differently. The "prior art" mentioned isn't applicable in this case, because the patent is on a particular method of doing this that is different to the prior art mentioned

    This however doesn't mean the patent shouldn't be thrown out. Its the equivilant of patenting a sorting algorithm (eg bublesort).

    --

    I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
    1. Re:Just a few notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Forget working around; the claims are broader than just the detailed methods in the description. If you do what is in the claims, you infringe.

      The only 'special' aspect is in the end of claim 1: apparently the invention is to only do this trick if you have more than three data items.

  4. Damn You Microsoft by Y-Axis+Man · · Score: 1, Funny

    Those bastards! The y-axis is mine! I'm filing a lawsuit. The z-axis is mine too - EA and Sega are next.

  5. Uh oh by cuteseal · · Score: 1

    "To avoid potential patent-infringement lawsuits instigated by the billion dollar giant, Microsoft, schools and teachers nationwide have moved to a new mathematical construct - the discontinuous y-axis..."

    --

    The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!

  6. ALL YOUR X-AXIS ARE BELONG TO US by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    FOR GREAT GOOD!

    ...or possibly not, but they belong to us anyway. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  7. Re:First Post - where is everybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I think you are more likely to find out who won in about three weeks.

  8. er.. by ophix · · Score: 1

    i have seen charts with broken Y axis in school textbooks and magazines definately before 1999.

    i am talking at least 12 years ago.

    no urls to back this up but i cannot be the only one.

    1. Re:er.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      have seen charts with broken Y axis in school textbooks and magazines definately before 1999.
      There is (or was) a book called "how to lie with statistics" which we used in college - IIRC it contained the broken axis as one of the tricks. That was the late 80s.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. Next step... by Singletoned · · Score: 1

    Next they'll be patenting the broken y-chromosome as well.

  10. Re:First Post - where is everybody? by erinacht · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    A watched erection never returns...

  11. Invalidation exercise by Groote+Ka · · Score: 1
    Invalidity of a patent should be done by checking all elements of the claim and comparing them to prior art.

    1. An automated method of graphically representing a plurality of data items, wherein each data item has a numerically quantifiable magnitude and at least one data item is an outlier,

    Automated method? Go for method, automating it is obvious.

    comprising:

    Very nice word. All patent attorneys love to use it.

    automatically determining an outlier threshold value, such that representation of both over-threshold magnitudes and under-threshold magnitudes using a single linear scale would reduce visual differences between under-threshold magnitudes below a predetermined level;

    Again, skip automatically.
    Next, determine the threshold. This is common sense; when your values are between 0 and 100 (that's not 4, that hundred) and 99% of the values are between 45 and 55, the first observation of everyone is that the 1% other values (hypothetically located over 90 and under 10) are outliers.

    comparing the magnitude of each data item with the threshold value to determine if each of the data items is an outlier;

    already done, step above.

    representing non-outlier data items as images sized to a common linear scale;

    This is what you would do anyway.

    representing each outlier data item as a modified image not sized to the common linear scale; and

    Here's the tricky part. Is a broken y-axis the same common linear scale? It's a common scale, allright. But is it linear? It has at least two linear parts... However, I can recall graphs having arrows pointing at a value up in the air above the highest line of the graph. Prior art enough.

    determining whether there are at least three data items;

    Again, you always do that. I guess up to ten items, everyone determines the amount.

    . wherein the comparing and the representing each outlier data item steps are only performed if there are at least three data items;

    So the method is not performed when you have two data items, e.g. one at 0.5 and one at thousand. Why?

    and wherein, if there are less than three data items, all data items are represented as images sized to the common linear scale.

    Is that relevant for the invention? Or is that just an add-on to make the whole stuff just new?

    So I'd say it's invalid. Big issue for invalidation, however, is that you should be able to prove it. Not the easiest task. Have you marked you math cahiers with the correct date? Or should we determine the age of your writing with C14? Welcome in the world of the court... But I think some math books will help out. But you still need a very good lawyer/attorney/barrister/whatever.

    At least I'm safe; in Europe, this would (most probably of course, legal people like to cover their a-r-s-e-s) not be patentable as it is an automated (no inventive step) method of presenting information (not patentable as such).