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?

45 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. What a Downer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This may be the big one folks. There is so much prior art for this that its not even funny. Not only that, this is the backbone of the world's economy and its rigorous enforcement may well wake up the world to the problem of broad software patents and bring about quick change to the patent system.

    May it be rigorously enforced for the good of humanity.

    1. Re:What a Downer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This patent will not be rigorously enforced. Microsoft would not be that stupid.

      Microsoft will only use this patent to increase the strength of legal threat against any specific (and in M$' opinion poor) entity that competes against M$.

      "According to our lawyers, your product violates seventeen separate patents held by us, listed herein:"

      It may very well be that every single one is superfluous, but very, very few entities have the kind of bucks necessary to successfully legally challenge the grounds for such patents.

      Microsoft won't play this card against anyone they think could trump it.

  2. Oh great! by MeatBlast · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh great now Microsoft is making crappy kids software. I'm waiting for the Mozzila version.

    1. Re:Oh great! by meburke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, I read the patent app and came to the following conclusions:

      First, the biggest threat is to "simulation" education, not regular teaching systems, and it looks like they are trying to patent a simulator. As the world becomes more complex, many things will be better taught by simulation than rote learning. The images didn't work well in Mozilla, but I get the impression that MS is proposing a stand alone unit over the broad scope of the early claims. IBM and Control Data may have the "prior art" for simulated learning systems.

      This should not be a threat to regular "programmed instruction" because PI usually requires specific answers to specific questions. It is a "reinforcement" to structured responses, rather than analog unstructured skill building. Texas Instruments built a great Typing teacher back in the 70's. You painted a child's fingers different colors, and painted the keys the right color for those fingers. The student was reinforced for both getting the right spelling for the words presented, but also for touching the right keys with the right fingers. Most of the typing teachers, type and spell, etc. use this type of PI based on the teachings of Skinner and Crowder. BTW, IBM was using this type of teaching back in the 60's, and I actually learned to program in AUTOCODER from this type of teaching. PI courses are considered inadequate if they do not teach 98% of the subject to 98% of the users, and it typically takes only about 1/6th the time that it would take with a passive presentation. I think that Skinner got such a bad rap that people "threw out the baby with the bathwater" when they de-emphasized PI in the 70's. To be fair though, even though PI is extremely useful for transmitting knowlege, it takes about 5 times as long to produce a good PI course or book as it would take to produce a passive presentation course.

      "Unstructured input" may be challenged by people using fuzzy logic or neural nets in learning devices. It's been done. In the near future, I can certainly envision cameras that will tell a system when a child is holding a pen incorrectly, and certainly it's possible to figure out how a person arrived at their answers, even if it's an incorrect answer. In arithmetic, for instance, accountants have multiple tricks to identify specific types of arithmetic mistakes.

      A lot of CAI is crap these days. It always tics me off when a company produces a multimedia presentation of a lecture and ignores the other things (like PI) that could so well enhance the instruction. If this MS patent would reduce the level of crap I'd be for it, but I'm afraid it's more likely that it will increase the amount of crap as people try to avoid infringement problems.

      It is, however, time to do something about the low level of learning among our children, and the slow process of teaching our adults. (These problems may be related!) Microsoft deserves some of the patents they've produced, and knee-jerk anti-MS responses won't solve the problem of teaching our population. If they have come up with something really new, I'd be delighted to see it distributed throughout our schools and homes.

      Where's Ray Kurzweil when we need him?

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    2. 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!
  3. 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."
  4. 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.

    1. Re:Sleazy, dispicable, under-handed, and cheap... by killjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Write your congressman and plead for reform."

      I hate to break it to you but it won't help. Your congressperson doesn't give a shit about you. Read this article. Here is a quote.

      While all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election in November, the truth is that only about 25 to 40 seats are truly contested

      So unless you live in one of those 24 t0 40 districts your congressmen gets re-elected automatically. As they say their only risk is to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy.

      MS is bribing them, they know they will get re-elected no matter what.

      When push comes to shove they will simply say that if you vote for their opponent gays will marry and terrorists will kill you and voila! They will get re-elected. Your neighbors are dumb and are much more concerned with preventing gays from being married then patents.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Sleazy, dispicable, under-handed, and cheap... by js7a · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you expect them to be able to fix the patent system when they don't even know that burning radioactive metal produces more nitrates than extrapolation from light elements would imply?

  5. 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...

  6. 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
  7. 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...

  8. Now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did you forget Microsoft Barney?

  9. This is really funny by oexeo · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a few decades when books have been practically replaced by software, the only education available will be from Microsoft. *Everyone* will be retarded!

  10. Post dept by ZZeta · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shold have been: "Posted by timothy on Saturday November 27, @08:11PM from the patent-system-could-use-some-learning-soft dept."

  11. 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.
  12. Prior Art - The Graffiti Tutor by RPayne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The PalmOS Graffiti tutor - very structured, obviously it's not prior art!

    And, these much older teaching tools are also obviously too structured and not prior art!

    Madlibs, a game from the Apple II days! - Obviously too structured.

    Lemonade stand - Apple II

    . . . Other examples, too numerous to waste time on! There is so much prior art on this, that maybe it will wake someone at the US Patent Office up!

  13. 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?

  14. Speak and Spell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speak and Spell came out in 1978. This is about as plain an example of "prompt user, wait for reply, respond" as you can get. Is MS claiming they came up with this concept before 78?

    1. Re:Speak and Spell? by bigberk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Speak and Spell came out in 1978
      That thing is still gold, if you can get your hands on one. I used to sample the robotic audio into techno music. Then I started hearing it in the clubs, and I'd be like, damn is that a Speak n Spell? "D. F. F." anyone?
    2. 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.

  15. 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 legirons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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"

      I think the "news" is that Microsoft are trying to get as many patents as possible, as quickly as possible.

      The apparent stupidity of some of the ideas they've come up with (patenting the comparaison of numbers?) implies that they're not trying to pretend that any innovation is happening at the company, they just want lots of patents.

      Notice the timing though. Europe is in the middle of a nasty debate about whether to allow software patents. The SCO harassement is starting to wane. Stallman and the FSF are warning that the next attack against free software will come using patents as attack tools. Everybody is expecting something to happen. And Microsoft seems to have decided it needs a stockpile of ammunition.

      I won't be waking you up when it's upheld in court, because that will occur many years after the patents concerned have been used to destroy a competitor (probably a useful OSS program we all use), or as "FUD" which we'll see when our managers sneer at the idea of using free software at work now that they're living in fear of being sued for it.

      But the action required is not so much finding prior art, as (a) ensuring that European law remains sane, and (b) continuing to create free software which is more innovative than anything the proprietary world can offer.

    3. 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.

  16. It's Clippy! by Ptraci · · Score: 3, Funny

    The patent is for the computer responding to "unstructured input" with an instructional response.

    "It looks like you're trying to..."

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

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

  18. No prior art.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    next up on the microsoft patent list:

    "Utilization of circular object to limit friction"

    (the wheel)

    Soon to be followed by a public pronouncement by Steve Ballmer that "The governments of many nations should be wary that they may be infringing on MS patents and could be sued".

  19. Lite version is called LearnPad by MavEtJu · · Score: 2, Funny

    There will also be a lite version of this patent freely available to everybody, limited to the letters needed to say "open source damages innovation" and "intellectual properties are an essential part of the economy".

    A.CDEFG.I..LMNOP.RSTUV..Y.

    Well, not so lite but the joke is there.

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  20. Microsoft can go and... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wrote a program that did this for my daughter in my own voice. If Microsoft wants to come sue me, they're welcome to go ahead and try.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  21. Example Lesson: by Saeger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: 1 + 1 = ?
    A: 2?
    ## We've got a bright bulb here! fork to college-level section.
    Q: In the following sentence, fill in the blank with the word that makes the most sense: "Software patents _________ innovation."
    A: kill
    ## Oh dear, it seems we've got an open source communist on our hands. silently fork to MS re-education section.
    Q: True americans believe in the Constitution, baseball, apple pie, capitalism, private property, and a healthy ecosystem of private intellectual property which promotes progress.
    A: fuck this propaganda!
    ## profanity detected. lost cause. BlueScreenOfDeath(WITH_A_VENGENCE);
    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  22. This is not Speak n Spell by xigxag · · Score: 3, Informative

    This patent app is referring to a (possibly networked) pen and tablet type device used as an educational tool. As this person points out, one can think of possible prior art here. But really, this is just an ordinary straightforward patent. It's not any more evil than any other patent application.

    If anything, it looks to me like MS is trying to end-run some of the Nintendo DS's possible functionality.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  23. Useful comments please. by northcat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I looked at the slashdot comments for useful information and opinion on the patent, but found some worthless posts meant to better the poster's karma and some humourless funny posts. I don't know how to read patents, so can anyone please make a useful comment about what the patent actually says? Please don't make funny replies to this with posts like "you must be new here".

    1. 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.

  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. What prior art? by lastberserker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everything mentioned in the original post is structured. What the patent covers (to the best of my understanding of the legal mumbo-jumbo) is kind of software parent-teacher-clippy: "Oh, that looks like 'B'! Let me help you to write that again! @"

    --
    My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
  26. Its not about ' code duplication' by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is so much broader then that : Its about 'concept duplication' and prohibiting that..

    Should simple concepts be patentable? I donno, but should people be able to profit off their ideas, yes....

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  27. I wrote a flash card program by thejuggler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Back in 1992 I wrote a flash card program for a girlfriends daughter. I used a non-M$ BASIC language that has a compiler (ASIC I think).

    I still have the program and source code if we need to show prior art to the id10ts at the USPTO. The program worked by displaying the letter or number (real big) the kid press on the keyboard. It also had basic shapes and colors (i.e. red triagle blue square, yellow circle etc.) It was interactive with he kid and parent.

    I hearby patent cows farting. Every farmer that has a cow that farts must pay me a penny for every fart.

  28. Re:The worst of it is... by newnerdyuser · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps if we were to become the 51st state

    Oi, Australia is the 51st state and don't you forget it mate!

  29. Its all interconnected, you see. by Foktip · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me, or is there some connection between this patent and the $100 PC (http://linuxpr.com/releases/7357.html), which mentions its use as an educational tool in schools, possibly using networks/internet to create or find educational tools for use on these DSL computers? Whats next, will microsoft be telling developing China that it cannot buy/use these computers for educational purposes (whatsoever, due to the broadnes of that patent) without the danger of patent litigation? It seems Microsoft is a sore looser.

  30. Prior art: 1968 by sakusha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jeebus, this is basic stuff that's been done in CAI for decades. The firmest prior art is probably IBM CourseWriter which dates back to 1968, maybe even farther. I worked porting some CourseWriter programs back in the early 70s, they did exactly what the MS patent describes. In fact, that was the whole POINT of CourseWriter, to branch to extended instructional material depending on user input.
    IBM even had a little "voice unit" for synthesized speech output from the old Coursewriter machines, but I forget the model number of the CPUs, I think they were 1401s. I have a nameplate from one of the old voice units somewhere, I found it lying on the floor when the old machines were decommissioned and the new DECs were installed.

  31. Re:The worst of it is... by reality-bytes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having read a lot about patentability in the UK recently, the damages caused by US patents can be far more real in the UK than the rest of Europe. For this we have largely to thank President....er....I mean Primeminister Blair.

    It is also of note that the current UK government is all-for patent reform. ie: adopting the US standards.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  32. No prior art. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Funny
    I am going to patent taking a shit. I'll title the patent: Method and Apparatus for Removing Human Feces from the Human Body and Placing Same in Feces Collection and Disposal Apparatus.

    Then, I'll install a money collector, along with a credit card machine, on every toilet sold in the U.S. I'll make millions!!!! Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahah!

    I'd bet you that the USPTO employees won't EVER figure out that some amount of prior art (though I won't tell you where it is) already exists.

  33. This patent is horseshit. by mizhi · · Score: 2

    My PhD research centers around a system that provides pronunciation feedback in response to a task-oriented dialogue situation. Assuming that MS considers speech to be unstructured input, I can cite several instances of systems similar to what microsoft is describing. Some of them are a couple DECADES old.

    Their patent is bullshit.

    --
    Humorless sig goes here.