Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Seeks To Patent Education-Feedback Software

Posted by timothy on from the patent-system-needs-a-reboot dept.

theodp writes "The USPTO disclosed Thursday that Microsoft is seeking an early childhood education-related patent for Providing instructional feedback to a user, which the software giant says covers the use of computers to teach little tykes to form the letter 'b', make a 'ch' sound, and divide 321 by 17. Let's hope LeapPad-toting preschoolers are indemnified against Microsoft lawsuits." "Unstructured" is the key word in this patent, which (like most) is written in language that does more to obscure than illuminate. Just how structured was Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing? How about GCompris?

19 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Good move! by EEBaum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope they get the patent and litigate heavily. Then perhaps parents will spend time with their children, rather than plopping them in front of various boxes that they believe will do the work for them.

    If only...

    --
    -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
    1. Re:Good move! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry, but this is wrong. Im a single parent, and spend every senond I can with my child, however, you seem to forget, we dont live in this fantasy world where clothes dont get dirty, food comes pre-made, and the house stays clean all by itself.
      Mabey this is how it is where you come from, or mabey your a slob and constantly eat pizza, who knows and who cares. But I would rather my kid sit down and play at the computer, or on a LeapPad, than to get burned by the stove while I am cooking, or hurt with chemical cleaners.

      You obviously have no child and you are just speaking from your ass, which, imho makes you look stupid.

    2. Re:Good move! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, the real problems here aren't with use in normal children, but with specialists (i.e., speech-language pathologists, psychologists) using this in practice.

      We're not talking about something that would be nice for parents to use with children at home, but programs to aid in the treatment of children who have difficulties (and who often respond to software when nothing else works).

  2. Sleazy, dispicable, under-handed, and cheap... by eeg3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But, no reason for them to stop if they can get away with it and make money off of it.

    Write your congressman and plead for reform.

  3. Next thing you know... by kzinti · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...Microsoft will be trying to patent the see-n-say. Is nothing obvious?

    1. Re:Next thing you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course nothing is obvious.

      Patent law firms make MORE MONEY if they process your patent than if they explain to you why your invention cannot be patented.

      So it is the job of the patent attorney to rationalize away such things as prior art or existing conflicting patents, rather than to seek them down and prevent the conflict.

      This works since the firm that processed the patent doesn't have to defend it if it is challenged in court.

      Just follow the money...it's all quite plain...

  4. Another one by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another stupid software patent. Its an everexpanding mess which shouldn't have existed in the first place... can you really qualify software as an 'innovative invention'? Should it be protected for 20 (or whatever) years so no one can duplicate your code?

    In my opinion, it should be protected like books (and such) by copyright law only. If I can recreate the same effect without seeing your code, I can't see how your patented software is innovative. 'Normal' inventions are a different story altogether; they can be disassembled, reverse engineered, etc. (Ok, Java code too).

    --
    Eureka Science News - automatically updated
  5. No Way by pbooktebo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe that this could possibly withstand any attack. Education literature is filled with feedback technologies for learning, from B.F. Skinner's "Technology of Teaching" to attempts to teach vocalists with biofeedback.

    I know little about patent law, but as an educator, the world is filled with many prior attempts (some very successful).

    Anyhow...

    1. Re:No Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On distributed computers using tablet PCs as the input devices? Really?

      Could you give some examples?

  6. what about tachers by l3v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [...]education-related patent for Providing instructional feedback to a user, which the software giant says[...]

    And I thought parents and teachers were the ones to provide instructional feedback to the us... uhm, sorry child.

    As regarding MS & patenting: nothing to say here, /. has already expressed the opinion most os uf have regarding the matter: crapheap.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  7. Very Prior Art by JohnPerkins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know there's going to be a raft of prior art examples, but what leaps to mind first is the use of email back in the days when there were only a few universities connected together. Would using email to ask one of your professors fit as prior art in this case? What about using email to ask a question of a fellow student or anyone at another university? For that matter, how old is email itself? How old is the oldest know student-to-professor email?

  8. What about electronics that already do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I hope my speak and spell from 20 years ago is ok!!!

  9. Yawn... by nwbvt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Another evil MS patent story.

    Wake me up when one of these is upheld in court. That will be news. The patent office still hasn't even approved this one (and with its current rate, it will likely take a few years before it is).

    I can apply for a patent for starting a fire with two sticks. Its even possible the patent office will rubber stamp it a few years later. But it is meaningless because there is no way a judge would accept it.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:Yawn... by nwbvt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Except it will cost MS money to defend it. Whats more, after they lose they no longer have the patent which defeats the point of getting it in the first place.

      I believe the common practice is to use these patents as bargining tools with other companies. Such as "I want your patent for really cool item, so I'll trade you rights for really cool item for the rights to all this crap that I got through the patent system." It really isn't going to be worth it to go after small companies, especially when the patent is such that even a novice lawyer could defeat you. Also they can point to their long list of patents for pride reasons.

      I can tell that while I was working at a certain large company with an extensive patent portfolio (not MS, BTW), they encourage their employees to seek patents for anything they think might be novel. Otherwise someone would likely come up with a real patentable idea but fail to report it thinking that it isn't worth it.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    2. Re:Yawn... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you seriously think MS became the world's largest software company by throwing money into lawsuits they know they will lose?

      Why not? That's been their basic strategy until recently, and it has served them well. See the Stacker case for example. They have ultimately lost many expensive lawsuits. However, for each case they lost, they have undoubtedly intimidated or financially drained into submission many other legal opponents. By showing their willingness to dump a lot of money even into losing cases, they raise a barrier for those who would sue them. It will require a lot of financial resources to finance the effort to its final conclusion. Most will be deterred from even trying.

      Lawsuits can be extended for many years by shoveling money at them regardless of the merit; sometimes you can even win a meritless suit with brute force combination of money and lawyers. The vast majority of their opponents will give up or settle before Microsoft feels the slightest pain.

      A "lawyer or two" isn't going to cut it. These people took on the entire US federal government and ultimately prevailed. If stupid patents could really be taken out by a couple of small-time lawyers, then things like the one-click patent wouldn't still be in force.

  10. Hello, Speak & Spell, Lil Professor, DataMan, by artifex2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and a bunch of other Texas Instruments instructional toys from the last century.

  11. Re:Useful comments please. by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's plenty of opinion. As the summary points out, the important word is "unstructured". Unless it has a technical meaning in the context of patents, it will surely require interpretation by the courts eventually, because anyone sued for infringement will be able to make a good case that all computer IO is structured.

  12. Re:Oh great! by NoTheory · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are very very wrong.

    Microsoft is attempting to patent all intelligent systems. Their patent would essentially given them rights to any system that has a robust linguistic system and some sort of task oriented backend that explains things to people.

    As a computational linguist who's interesting in making peoples lives better (through things that would fall under this patent), i think this would be a really horrible stifling idea. As a result i'm glad that the patent is so stupid, because i'm sure i could come up with counter examples.

    --
    There are lives at stake here!
  13. Re:Speak and Spell? by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "unfortunately that patent (if exists) ran out..."

    Once a patent runs out, it's supposed to be in the public domain. Further, a patent isn't necessary. Simple publication is enough to get it into the public domain. Patenting *delays* that process. Public domain prior art is supposed to be as useful against a patent as patent prior art.

    Of course, in practice, the system does not always work that way.