Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Seeks Latitude/Longitude Patent

theodp writes "Q. What does Microsoft feel is unpatentable? A. Apparently nothing! On Thursday, the USPTO published Microsoft's patent application for the Compact text encoding of latitude/longitude coordinates, in which the software giant explains how a floating-point number can also be represented as a less-precise integer that's displayed in base-30 notation!" If ever I have seen a silly patent, this is it.

598 comments

  1. On the bright side... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1, Funny

    The thing about Microsoft and patents is that they file them defensively, not offensively.

    1. Re:On the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Odd. I always thought of them as creating some patents on the offensive side against open source software.

    2. Re:On the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Until they need to kill a competitor. Then, they go on the offense.

      EVERYONE says their patents are "defensive". Just look at how many actually use them that way.

    3. Re:On the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't know, I find this pretty offensive.

    4. Re:On the bright side... by USCG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, if there were no software patents, then Microsoft wouldn't need to do this.

    5. Re:On the bright side... by mini+me · · Score: 1

      For now, but what will the do in the future? Especially if they see major a major marketshare slip.

    6. Re:On the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiight!

      and they are:
      1. scrupulously fair when dealing with other companies' and individuals' IP
      2. never likely to leverage any, repeat any, advantage in illegal ways
      3. NOT convicted monopolists!

      [/sarcasm]

      Sorry, there is a looong history of Microsoft's business dealings with others that directly contradicts your statement!

    7. Re:On the bright side... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The thing about Microsoft and patents is that they file them defensively, not offensively.

      Heh. Funny thing about that is that even if you take their assertion of such at face value, all it takes is to characterize any infringement as an "attack" to maintain their "defensive" attitude.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:On the bright side... by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      Right on the money.

  2. Is it entirely MS's fault? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Q. What does Microsoft feel is unpatentable? A. Apparently nothing!

    Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable.

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    1. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must be new to this country.

    2. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by neoform · · Score: 1

      Ummm, have you seen the patents they've let through? Last i checked they'll allow just about anything be patented with minimal background checks..

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    3. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
      Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable.

      No. The law tells us what is and isn't patentable. The USPTO is just the institute that applies the law and has the power to grant patents. Unfortunately, by and large the USPTO lacks the (scientific) knowledge to apply the law according to its spirit.

    4. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      Don't know wether this is really true or not:

      If my memory serves, both the USPTO and the EPO are receiving money for each granted patent as their funding. Hence, neither patent office is very eager to reject any application.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    5. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent office will patent anything. Check out patent number 5924074 at the patent office: http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html Its a patent for an electronic medical record...that's right the idea of keeping medical information on a computer! If you go searching, you'll find that someone also holds a patent on using the interent to do billing...the patent office gave up screening patents 10 to 15 years ago...

    6. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Illserve · · Score: 1

      Not if their answer is always yes.

    7. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      The US PTO can't even spell properly, let alone decide what should be patented or not:

      Assignee Name and Adress: Microsoft Corporation
      One Microsoft Way

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    8. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by RootsLINUX · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable."

      Oh really? I beg to differ. I've come across a couple fun examples recently

      Method of Swinging on a Swing.
      Gee, I wouldn't have thought of that one! I think I heard somewhere that this patent was granted to a 5-year-old? 0_o

      Method of Exercising a Cat (with a laser pointer...)

      Here's a nice little read on the US Patent System that was in IEEE Spectrum a couple months ago. The US Patent System sucks ass

      So you see, the US Patenting Office appears to patent just about everything. Oh no, I hope they haven't patented my favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches...!

      Patent 5,567,454
      Patent 5,855,939
      Patent RE37,275

      OH NOES!!!!

      --
      Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
    9. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by tambo · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If my memory serves, both the USPTO and the EPO are receiving money for each granted patent as their funding. Hence, neither patent office is very eager to reject any application.

      Nonsense.

      You are correct in asserting that the USPTO makes money from issance - as per their fee schedule, they get $300 (plus extra fees for various things like multiple independent claims) when the app is filed, and $1,400 when it issues.

      But the examiners - the people who make the allow-vs-reject decision - aren't responsible for the fiscal well-being of the USPTO. Were that the case, virtually every application would slide through to issuance with barely any examination. We'd be back to the patent registration scheme of the early 1800's, where you got a patent simply by filling out the right paperwork.

      We don't have that system - in name or in practice. The examiners do a hell of a lot of rejecting, with backing references to other patents, journal articles, etc. They don't have the resources for an exhaustive search - but the typical application garners at least two separate rejections from the examiners.

      But this is a classic catch-22 example: people often examiners for spending too much time on examination, and thereby contributing to the 2.5-year average pendency of patent applications.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    10. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by null+etc. · · Score: 1
      Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable.

      Not really. They approve pretty much any patent these days, collect the fees, and then wait until the patent is challenged before spending any significant time thinking about it.

    11. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So what exactly do you attribute the tendency for such fucking obvious patents sliding through? I'd guess bribes if I didn't believe that you should never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by thedustbustr · · Score: 2, Funny
      From Patent 5567454
      The combination of peanut butter and jelly has been, and continues to be, a favorite and desirable food product for people of all ages. In fact, one could say that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches have been a staple lunchbox food for years.
      How exactly is this not prior art?
      --
      This sig is false.
    13. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by tambo · · Score: 1
      So what exactly do you attribute the tendency for such fucking obvious patents sliding through? I'd guess bribes if I didn't believe that you should never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity...

      Why not just chalk it up to inexperience? The software patent system was suddenly dumped on the USPTO by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1998, along with this whole "business method" thing (an awful decision.) The USPTO hasn't had time to put together a system of examining such patents: hiring a fleet of examiners familiar with software, assembling a prior art database, etc.

      The biotech industry went through a similar panic back when the USPTO started issuing patents on DNA, proteins, and novel organisms (e.g., knockout mice.) Many experts predicted an industrial catastrophe of monopolization, obstacles to daily research, bad patents arising from examiner incompetence, etc. Surprisingly, none of this occurred. And have you noticed the explosion of new pharmaceuticals on the market in the past decade? That's directly attributable to the R&D incentive of biotech patents.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    14. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by eric76 · · Score: 0, Troll

      If I patent a method for encoding my dick length in a 16 bit integer, will Microsoft be willing to enter a cross licensing agreement with me?

    15. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by RichardX · · Score: 1

      How about patenting the patent office? I bet you could get away with it.

      I'd do it, except I'm too lazy. Maybe I'll file a patent on the idea of patenting the patent office though...

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    16. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Scarblac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously that is prior art, but the whole point of his post is that the patent office has completely stopped caring about such things.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    17. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by theM_xl · · Score: 1

      Your point two implies that grandparent checked every patent for silliness, and that's all he could find. This is at best doubtful, and you can't dismiss his point just because the possibility that there's a much larger percentage of silly patents destroys your argument.

    18. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What a jackass!

      1. You need the number of patents rejected to "prove" that out of 350,000 applications the 280,000 not granted were rejected.

      2. Your parent post cited 5 not just silly patents, but 5 absolutely ridiculous patents that a moron would be able to recognize in an instant shouldn't have been granted. Although anecdotal, the 5 cited certainly lend great weight to the notion that the USPTO will patent just about anything. I.e., if these 5 obviously idiotic patents are granted, what isn't granted?

      3. Worthless? That is just bullshit. You obviously don't understand the expense of even seriously thinking about litigating the validity of a patent. Patents can be and are a means of business extortion. Even thought the holder bears a great burden in proving the validity, the challenger isn't along for a free ride.

      4. The IEEE certainly has the means to retain comptent legal counsel, which your blanket rejection ignores. Good thing your declarations carry about as much intellectual weight as your opinions.

      5. You're right, simply abbreviating the USPTO as the "patent office" is not material, but it shows that because you lack the intellectual fortitude to challenge your parent post on its merits, you have to resort to juvenile distraction. It seems that your ass has just as much to say as any other ass!

      I don't need to "include an analysis of exactly how enforceable [I] think those patents are" to demonstrate you're just as stupid as anyone else posting in these forums. Analyzing your writing and logic are means enough.

      "What's a stupid patent?" One that has been successfully challenged in court. It is one the patent holder can not use to bully those without sufficient resources to challenge. You clearly aren't as smart as you believe yourself to be. Perhaps you should have someone else read your posts before you submit them, but until then, thanks for the laugh.

    19. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Bloater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An algorithm is mathematics, no more no less. If an algorithm produces a sequence of numbers describing a useful way to move something, then it is an obvious thing to implement in software. It is then obvious to run the software on a computer with an output device that translates the number into a movement. Thus the possible novel/inventive steps are to realise that there does exist an algorithm that describes the sequence, that you can construct the algorithm, and what the algorithm is.

      Those are all logical things, and not patentable. There is one other thing that could be considered to be the inventive step, it is to determine the reasonable sampling rate for the sequence and what the sequence is. That is an engineering feat, and fits the idea of patents well.

      I will use a concrete example for this: mp3's

      It is obvious that the compression waves for a sound can be described by a sequence of numbers. In this case the common options for sample rate are trivial to determine as useful choices. The transformation into and back from the frequency domain is straightforward maths, the framing is an obvious requirement and pretty trivial. The entropy encoding is logical maths and thus should not be patentable. That leaves one thing: the psycoacoustic model. That requires a large amount of experimentation to determine how many bits to assign to various parts of the bitstream, and what data can be thrown away. That is the novel/engineering component of the system, and that is the part that is reasonable to get a patent on. And you would get the patent on using one specific relation between the coefficients of the frequencies and a reasonable approximation that can be effectively losslessly compressed with the (respectively) obvious and mathematically based bitcoding methods that mp3 has.

      So mp3 wouldn't be patented (that concept doesn't even make any sense), the advance fraunhofer audio perception model would be patented. LAME could patent theirs too.

      That the examiners don't understand this nature of computation is part of the cause of the problems. That policy and law-makers consult only those with something to gain (and thus pay them off with those gains) is the real cause.

      Patent lawyers and major corporations lobbied for software and business method patents, and patent lawyers and major corporations benefit. The rest of us cannot set up our small companies to join in. Microsoft became huge without software patents and they wouldn't have if there were software patents back then.

      There is no reason that large corporations should get to purchase monopoly control of an easy idea. The decision on who has the right to use a simple idea must *not* be influenced by the ability to pay.

      I don't believe the judge in the case you mention ruled that the USPTO had to start granting such patents as a matter of policy, just that that sort of patent should be upheld if they were granted. So they could have waited till they got a prior art database, and had examiners who new that all software is easy, and that running software on a computer is obvious. Software is only faulty or feature incomplete because it takes time to create a given piece of software correctly and completely. Just like paintings and books, etc, that is protected by copyright, as it should be.

      And besides, that just means that judge is an idiot, and the opinion of an idiot must never be respected, so stop arguing that its just tough and that the decision has been made. Like all the other patent lawyers (as I gather you are from another of your posts) you are trying to maintain your income and giving advice on the meaning of the ruling based on how it will improve your income for people to believe it. I was under the impression that that was illegal.

      This can be changed and strong opposition is what will change it. I understand that you specifically want it to not be changed, but as a legal practitioner you should not be giving incorrect information about the limitations of the influence slashdot readers can have.

    20. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable.
      The problem is they are not using their say, a patent is supposed to be for a novel, unique, and previously undiscovered method that advances science, commerce or the arts; not issuing a patent for converting a base 10 floating point number into a base 30 integer! Base convertions are not novel, unique or undiscorvered method.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by gaj · · Score: 1
      Regarding the PB&J patents -- cute example, but not a very good one. What is pantented is not peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, but a new way of making them. In particular, PB&J slices, sort of like cheese singles.

      I hate the way the patent system is running here in the US as much as anyone (ask my coworkers who hear me bitch and whine about it all the time), and your first two examples are fine ones. But the PB&J patents are legit, if not exactly what I would call life altering.

    22. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by unoengborg · · Score: 1

      If you live in EU, this is exactly the sort of patents you should talk your polititiance about.

      That way they may be less inclined to do something stupid in their next try to make directives on software patent laws.

      Thank you Microsoft!

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
    23. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Please include an analysis of exactly how enforceable you think those patents are. Please stress the part about "you think". For example, please outline how the infringement lawsuit for "Method of Swinging on a Swing" would play out in a courtroom.

      The sad part is: Who cares ?

      You have to challenge it in court, which costs you $$$. If the patent holder has more $$$ than you have (or if it's a corporation with a yearly legal fund several times what you can earn in one lifetime), it might be a little difficult to challenge even a stupid patent in court. Sooo... who cares about enforcement when you are forced to settle ?

    24. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      Because going over patent applications is kind of like working on cars...

      You can have them faster, cheaper, or reliable. Pick any two.

      The current system is a compromise because we really would like all three. Some bad ones will escape the system because we are trying to keep it halfway affordable, and done in what people consider a reasonable amount of time. That means some bad ones will slip through the system.

      If you want to change it to make it realiable, you are going to have to either make it vastly more expensive to patent something, or take an extremely long time. While you might not have a problem with that, most people trying to patent something WOULD have a problem with that.

    25. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what exactly do you attribute the tendency for such fucking obvious patents sliding through? I'd guess bribes if I didn't believe that you should never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity...

      Are there you hit on the problem:
      The fundamental idea behind the USPTO just doesn't work anymore.
      It is silly to believe that a single organization can understand every technology on the planet.



      Sure, they have people who are SUPPOSED to investigate these things, but it's easy to take a simple, obvious idea and write it up in such a convoluted way that someone won't even realize that a "circular transportation device" is actually a wheel.


      IMO, the solution to this is admit that the USPTO has turned into a registry of "I invented this, on this date". Then, there is not automatic presumption of validity and a defendant does not have an uphill battle in court. Then you remove much of the incentive for trying to sneak frivilous patents through.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    26. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by tambo · · Score: 1
      It is obvious that the compression waves for a sound can be described by a sequence of numbers. ... That leaves one thing: the psycoacoustic model. ... That is the novel/engineering component of the system, and that is the part that is reasonable to get a patent on.

      But I think you're making not for abolishing software patents, but only for heightening the bar. You wrote it yourself - "There is no reason that large corporations should get to purchase monopoly control of an easy idea." And I agree with you. The general concept of audio stream compression/decompression has been around for 50+ years; no reason why the particular format chosen for MP3 should qualify for patent protection.

      The patent system also agrees with you. People aren't awarded patents on a general concept, e.g. audio compression, simply by showing one way of doing it. Their patent is limited to their particular technique, which has to be novel, non-obvious, etc.

      I think we're getting to the point where the "easy" concepts, as you put it, are well-documented - and thus unpatentable. I'm hoping that a rising percentage of software patents demonstrate greater novelty - e.g., "A method of implementing a psychoacoustic model for sound, comprising..." At least on the surface, it sounds like you agree with this.

      That the examiners don't understand this nature of computation is part of the cause of the problems. That policy and law-makers consult only those with something to gain (and thus pay them off with those gains) is the real cause.

      That is sadly true - the "erosion of the commons," economists call it. The public domain has no government advocate. Nowhere is this more true than in the copyright industry. I don't have a solution for this problem.

      I don't believe the judge in the case you mention ruled that the USPTO had to start granting such patents as a matter of policy, just that that sort of patent should be upheld if they were granted.

      The ruling was that a patent application could not be rejected simply because it claimed software. The USPTO had taken the view that software was not "statutory subject matter" - that it did not meet the requirement of 35 USC 101 that patents are only awarded for "machines, manufactures, compositions of matter, and processes" (and improvements, combinations, certain kinds of plants and ornamental designs, etc.) Accordingly, the USPTO had only awarded patents for software that had a "real-world impact" or that acted on "real-world inputs."

      The Federal Circuit stomped on this line of reasoning. The USPTO had no choice but to start granting software patents unless they could cobble together a rejection on the usual grounds: anticipation, obviousness, non-enabling disclosure, etc. So, yes, this ruling did create "software patents" as a new field of patentable subject matter.

      The rest of us cannot set up our small companies to join in.

      On the contrary, software patents are a huge boon to software companies that want to compete with Microsoft. How can a small startup ever get venture capital if Microsoft can eat their technology for lunch?

      Exhibit A: Stac Electronics - a small startup that won a $120MM judgment against Microsoft, who commandeered its Stacker drive compression technology for its own DoubleSpace software. Microsoft's current, zealous approach to software patents stems directly from such decisions.

      Like all the other patent lawyers (as I gather you are from another of your posts) you are trying to maintain your income...

      First, that's presumptuous and ad hominem, and you know it.

      I am a patent attorney, but I don't practice software patents. I am a patent attorney for a large hospital - we create, patent, and license biotechnology. 0% of my income is derived from software patents.

      I am an ardent advocate of software patents because (a) I understand the patent system, (b) I understand software (I'm one semester awa

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    27. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by realdpk · · Score: 1

      It's not prior art because that's not what he's patenting. I'm no big fan of patents, either, but seriously -- read them.

      They're patents on (basically) pre-formed peanut butter and jelly that you just unwrap and put on a sandwich. I've NEVER heard of that before. The knee jerk reaction seems, at least from my perspective, inappropriate.

    28. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have. I made one when I was 8. (It didn't work, because the peanut butter stuck to the waxed paper...but the idea was there. All I needed was a better sheath. Perhaps Skippy would know when it was invented...but it's been in supermarkets for years (not in sandwich form, precisely, but pre-combined peanut-butter and jelly in a non-stick container).

      If you want to say that it takes an "invention" to go from Kraft processed cheese slices to processed peanut butter and jelly slices, I feel you have a rather low threshhold of "invention".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by David+Rolfe · · Score: 5, Funny
      4. Nice link to IEEE - they're clearly legal experts. Oh wait, they know about technology, not law. Patents are legal animals that have technology as content. With my thinking cap on, I declare that IEEE does NOT possess patent law expertise.

      Since you can't read:
      ABOUT THE AUTHORS
      Adam B. Jaffe is the Fred C. Hecht Professor in Economics and Dean of Arts and Sciences at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass. Josh Lerner is the Jacob H. Schiff Professor of Investment Banking at Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Mass. They cowrote Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It, which was published in November by Princeton University Press.

      Holy shit "black pages" I didn't know you were a higher authority than both a published Dean and a published Professor at Harvard. I'm totally putting you on my "friends list" because you are the obvious expert when it comes to patent law and its intersection with Economics and Business.

      While we're giving full disclosure, what are your credentials? They don't appear to be listed on your user profile.
      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    30. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable.

      Nope. I do patent illustrations and I can tell you that the PTO will allow patents on things which are physically impossible according to the laws of physics that have been observed in this universe (I'm also a Physics Ph.D. student). Most of the patents I see are absurd.

    31. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't feel that they are legit, because such a minor amount of invention is present. Combinations of peanut butter and jelly were already being sold (always grape, as far as I can remember, but the idea is there). And processed slices of food stuff were already sold. And slick, anti-stick food wrappers were already sold. What amount of inventiveness does it take to combine them?

      I even tried this around the time that I was eight, but waxed paper wasn't a sufficiently good anti-stick food wrapper. And I wasn't even trying to invent something. It just seemed like something that might be useful if it worked.

      I don't see any invention here at all. It's probably not something that's been done commercially, but I'll bet that eight year olds all over the world have tried it with various wrappers. (And they've probably found that it's quite messy...but tasty!)

      My suspicion is that the reason it hasn't been done commercially is that it doesn't work very well. The jam needs to be layered between two layers of peanut butter (jam is stickier than peanut butter) and the peanut butter needs to be too dry to stick to the wrapper. So what you end up with if you get something that isn't too messy to use is not very tasty. And you lose most of the taste of the jam because it's a thin layer encased on both sides by peanut butter, so when you chew you tend to create small balls of peanut butter with the jam on the inside where you can't taste it.

      As you see, even if he built an experimental model, it wasn't original with him! There was prior art. And I told my friends (eight year olds don't have much ability to publish, and the teacher didn't ask for an essay on the subject), so it was public knowledge.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    32. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir are a useless cocksucker

    33. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I feel we would be better off without ANY patent system than with the horribly broken one that we have.

      The patent system was already showing that it was broken in the 1950's. I don't know that it wasn't before then, but in the 1950 I started to read science fiction stories about how broken it was, and to read fact articles by "Leonard Lockhear" (I think) detailing how absurdly the patent system was dealing with technological matters. Every year since then it has appeared to get worse. With the imposition of software patents, in the Intel case, it finally reached to point where we would be better off without any patent system. That's around 20-30 years ago now, and it's *CONTINUED* to get worse.

      The patent examiners are presented with an essentially impossible job. They need to be experts on ALL advancing technologies. And people even close to that can't be found to work for the salary of a patent examiner, or anything close to that. And there aren't many (any?) of them anyway.

      How is a patent examiner supposed to know what is current practice in a technical field? If he were an expert in a technical field, he wouldn't be working as a patent examiner. I suspect that patent examiners are generally basically lawyers. Perhaps they might be somewhat knowledgeable in some technical field. But the more they know about law, the more likely that their knowledge of the technical field is, at best, quite shallow.

      We would be better off without ANY patent system than the one that we have. (Also note that the current system makes a mockery of the original requirement that the inventor disclose his invention "in sufficient detail that it can be reproduced by those skilled in the art". [I may have that quote slightly wrong...the meaning is correct.])

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    34. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also they forgot the most important thing about patents. They reference themselves! So if it has not been patented before. IT IS FAIR GAME to patent. Even though 'everyone may do it'. It has not been patented.

      For example I could patent me driving my car with one arm. I am SURE many have done it. But it probably has not been patented. So if I write it up the 'right way' I probably can get it patented. Now would it hold up in court? Probably not...

    35. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      So, you'd rather that every company keep any and discoveries they make as trade secrets then. So that all tech advancement will slow down. Great. We can look forward to lot of lost technology and many folks reinventing the wheel over and over agin. And lots more incompatible trade secret technologies. Great.

      The founding fathers decided to reward people who made public their discoveries by giving them sole rights to those technologies for a limited number of years. That ensured there would be incentive to disclose those trade secrets. Letting all of society benefit from those advances for all future time(if that future started just 7 or so years later than for the discoverer).

      The founding fathers were smart. They learned from history that when you have only trade secrets, progress is slower and technology is lost. Look at Damascus steel for a good example. Personally I'd prefer quicker public advances in technology. Yes, the patent system isn't great, but I think it's MUCH prefereble to not having one at all.

    36. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by tambo · · Score: 1
      The patent examiners are presented with an essentially impossible job. They need to be experts on ALL advancing technologies.

      Incorrect. The examining corps is divided into different sections, based on different technologies. Examiners must have a decent background in a particular area of science to get hired. They're not rocket scientists, but given federal government salaries, the government can't hire rocket scientists (well, you know, outside of NASA.)

      Each examiner typically examines only a part of a particular field of technology. That way, the office can route all similar technologies to the same small cluster of examiners. This is only commonsense efficiency: the examiners are already familiar with the specific technology, and don't have to spend 100 hours reading up on it before starting examination.

      I suspect that patent examiners are generally basically lawyers. Perhaps they might be somewhat knowledgeable in some technical field. But the more they know about law, the more likely that their knowledge of the technical field is, at best, quite shallow.

      Completely incorrect. Check out the requirements for getting hired as an examiner. Applicants must have a degree in a field of science. Law degree not required, or even "a plus."

      Consider what examiners do all day: they read technical articles while trying to contest a patent application. They don't read law. The only law they know is what's in the compendious Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. So they're apt to be much better at science than law - which, arguably, is how it should be.

      Finally, consider that the USPTO's salaries aren't conducive to paying back law school student loans.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    37. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Given what is supposed to be the high criteria of a patent, there should be no silly patents. What, the examiner should be able to say he had an off day when he let the swinging patent go through? Or the cat and laser pointer one? If you want to say that some trivial patents get through because it was written by a lawyer and designed to be obfuscated that's one thing. There is no excuse for the patents cited above and you bloody well know it.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    38. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Bloater · · Score: 1

      This reply has a lot of long sentences, ironically in an attempt to be clear :)

      > "A method of implementing a psychoacoustic model for sound, comprising..."

      No, it wouldn't be a method of implementing, a method of implementing would be "typing on the keyboard while sat at a computer, then running the compiler". It would be something like:

      "Claim 1: A method of approximating the information in a sound comprising a set of scoring relations such that the method *can* be implemented in a computational system using few enough basic operations that so much data can be processed in so much time on some baseline hardware, and that the resulting approximation is a strong local or global minima wrt compressibility in the domain of some class of known lossless compression techniques.

      Claim 2: The scoring relations.

      etc..." (or however a patent should be written).

      The implementation of a known psychoacoustic model is trivial. That's the point. Putting any known fact into software is trivial.

      The difficult thing is how the information encoded in a sound can be approximated to a more sparse version that can be fed to some known lossless compression technique such that the data is an easy subject for the compression technique and that the sparse approximation sounds disproportionately better than one might expect given the resulting size.

      It is finding the set of scores upon the factors that form the information in a sound and how well a known compression algorithm can encode it that is difficult. It is thus *that* that is costly and not protected by copyright, and it is that effort that should be protected by patents.

      I will below describe my understanding of what the different IP protections are intended to protect (this will not use terms from statutes).

      Patents protect the investment in the discovery of scientific and engineering knowledge where the incentive to discover the knowledge is that it can be used in business, and when it can be discovered by study of your products instead of putting in the effort to research as you did originally.

      Copyrights protect the effort in the production of a non-physical "information product" from virtually costless duplication.

      Trade secrets protect the investment in the discovery of scientific or engineering knowledge where it cannot be discovered by study of your products.

      In software: For shipped products, the structure and design could be discovered by study of a product, so patents would seem to apply. For non-shipped products (eg, Amazon backend), trade secrets would seem to apply. The development of the structure and design is, however, quite a mechanical task, so there is very little investment in that aspect and patents wouldn't apply after all. The investment is in making the code maintainable and bug free, and that aspect of software is covered to extremely powerful effect by copyright.

      > On the contrary, software patents are a huge boon to software companies that want to compete with Microsoft. How can a small startup ever get venture capital if Microsoft can eat their technology for lunch?

      If Microsoft did not use the code, then Microsoft had every right to implement a similar product that did things in the same way, unless they had signed an agreement not to in order to get the product in earlier software. Such a patent should not apply even to Microsoft. In fact, drive compression is relatively easy. Although depending on the defined semantics of the filesystem interface of the OS, it may be provably impossible in general. In either case, patents shouldn't apply because Microsoft should be allowed to implement an easy idea, not prohibited because somebody made a business case for doing the obvious thing first. If they are to be prohibited, it should be because they are a monopoly and will implement such simple ideas at lower cost employing fewer people without passing the benefits on to allow those they didn't employ to find work elsewhere

    39. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by fymidos · · Score: 1

      >I see software patents as a good thing for the
      >future of software. Not the software industry, and
      >not the legal industry, and not even the David
      >Stein industry.

      Correct me if i am wrong, but i feel that patents do not work that way. When someone gets a software patent, it actually gives away something that could otherwise be a trade secret: "i do not hide my method, but you have to pay me for it".

      You could keep it secret instead and *everyone* else would have to come up with a different way to do it. In a ideal world, when you file for a patent you actually *want* people to use your way (and you price it accordingly: so that it is cheaper for everyone else to buy it than to search for an alternative).

      What you describe is an abuse of the system: Use the patents simply to *forbid* (practically) the use of the technology, but thats ok, as people will have motivation to do more researh. This only makes sense if you have a reason to forbid the use of the technology to others, i can only thing of one such reason: monopoly power.
      You mention RSA in a previous post, i'd like to point out that no new methods were invented during the existence of that patent, partly because it was broad enough to cover 99% of most alternatives (so researchers were in danger of litigation when they worked in that area), and partly because it was cheaper for companies to use the RSA algorithm than do research.

      >"How can a small startup ever get venture capital >if Microsoft can eat their technology for lunch"? ...
      >"Microsoft's current, zealous approach to
      >software patents stems directly from such
      >decisions."

      Excactly. by that time it will be impossible for any software company to create anything that doesn't violate a few of MS's patents (MS is an example, substitute with any major company).
      So all those little companies will be forced to choose: keep making the software and don't sue MS over -possible- misuse of their patents, or sue MS and stop making software. Both ways the patent system has failed.

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    40. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by fymidos · · Score: 1

      But this is the point: for *software* the current patent system is *worse* than going back to keeping everything secret:
      It is practically impossible to create a computer program that actually does something useful without infringing a number of patents. It would take years to read through all the software patents issued to determine which ones you might infringe. It is impossible to license all of them.

      So you might actually have a good idea, but there is no lawful way to bring it to the market. If patents didn't exist, you propably would need to reinvent the wheel, but at least you could build something with wheels. But now, not only the wheels are patented, but their forward movement is patented, their horizontal movement is patented, their perimeter is patented, their "going over 30mph" is patented, their "apply force to stop before obstacle", their "not touching the ground", their "turning oval after a hit", their "applying force to turn", their "running backwards" ...
      Nowadays you cannot use a wheel *even* if you reinvent it.

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    41. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by plover · · Score: 1
      Except for one not-so-little thing: I don't think this is an "obvious" patent. I think this one is worth patenting, as far as any legitimate "software" patents go.

      Using base 30 to represent lat/lon in 10 digits is extremely clever, and I wish I'd thought of something that smart. For example, Japan's street numbering system is absolutely useless for navigation (buildings are numbered in date-of-construction order rather than a Western north-to-south system.) Many Japanese print lat/lon on their business cards, and people commonly use GPS receivers to find them. So they have a huge need for a lat/lon system that has easy-to-remember values, and 10 digits is right at the edge of what humans can reliably deal with. This patent solves that problem.

      Thomas Edison is reputed to have explained the "non-obviousness" of patents to a congressional committee with this story: He placed an egg on the table in front of each congressman, and said "Make this egg stand on end." They all fooled around with the eggs for a minute or so, until they agreed that it was impossible to get an egg to stand on end. Mr. Edison took his egg and crunched the end of the shell down onto the table top, where it stood. The congressmen cried, "well it's obvious you can do it that way," to which Mr. Edison replied, "Less than a minute ago you agreed that it was impossible, and now you claim it's obvious." That's the nature of a patent.

      --
      John
    42. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by back_pages · · Score: 1
      While we're giving full disclosure, what are your credentials? They don't appear to be listed on your user profile.

      Holy shit! A professor of Economics is clearly an expert in law! He can also perform heart transplants because he is DEAN AT HARVARD OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!. He WROTE A BOOK! The book was published by PRINCETON Press! Clearly he is qualified to circumcise newborn babies!

      Full disclosure - I have a BS CS and BS Mathematics and left grad school to work in IP law. Also, I work in IP law. Granted, I'm not a professor of economics, however I spend 50 hours each week dealing with IP law and the US Patent system. And in case I was too subtle, I make every cent of my income by working in IP law.

      Guess what - I met a guy who is an EXPERT WHEAT FARMER and he says that AOL IS ALL YOU NEED for the INTERNET. Clearly, this is authoritative evidence that anything except for AOL is a burden on the economy.

      It's cool that you got modded funny and I got modded troll. Truth hurts, being obtuse is funny. In fairness, you're right; I don't fully disclose my credentials, and I don't -fully- disclose them here.. but I'm not about to create a PR situation for my employer while replying to the inanity on Slashdot (referring primarily to the original post) - I hope you understand.

    43. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But patent lawyers DON'T seem to be experts in technology. If they were, they'd know software patents are intrinsically stupid. You seem to think "it's the law, and that trumps all". Which is completely wrong - the law is our servant in a democracy. Patent lawyers need to be reined in and the laws rewritten to eliminate patenting and I"P" (noxious phrase), as the law as written by technologically incompetent lawyer-goons is interfering with technological development. We engineers are not your servants - if you get in our way too much, we will simply remove the obstruction.

    44. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Find me just one person who has gotten even a single idea for their software project by searching expired patents.

      I certainly have never met such a person. Patents are written in such a way that they are very hard to decipher and most developers have a 'not developed here' mentality too. An engineer would have more success reverse engineering code than reading a patent filing.

    45. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by tgrigsby · · Score: 1


      Method of Swinging on a Swing.

      Y'know, that one sounded so stupid I just had to look. As it turns out, it describes an unusual type of swing in which a single chain positioned in front of the seated individual is manipulated. Rather than imagine it, check it out.

      On the other hand, "Method of Exercising a Cat" was completely moronic.

      As for the peanut butter and jelly sandwich patents, I thought it appropriate that the inventor, Jeffrey Bogdan, lives in Sandwich, IL, and that the assignee is PJ Squares.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    46. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Historically, 20 and 60 have been used as bases since well before the year 0. It's generally not used because people aren't familliar with those bases and mental arithmetic is awfully hard to do with those bases, especially multiplication.

      I guess I can consider myself lucky that I've only used base 36 (0-9 + A-Z) and base 62 (0-0 + A-Z + a-z) and never base 30 in any of my projects, or I'd be infringing yet another patent.

      About that egg example: Had the statement been more specifically phrased, such as "Can you make the egg stand on end, including through the use of destructive means?", then it would be quite obvious. It is just a common and almost always correct assumption that one doens't want to break the egg. You can also make it stand on end without breaking it by hard-boiling it and then spinning it.

    47. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you down play the creativity of your invention? Maybe if you had kep trying you could have found a way to pull it off and patent it. Just because you came up with the idea and couldn't pull it off does not take away from the person who had the same idea and could pull it off. Sour grapes perhaps?

      And by your own admission it wasn't obvious how to make the idea work, right?

    48. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by tambo · · Score: 1
      You've posted an interesting and insightful response. I hope those with mod points reward you accordingly.

      No, it wouldn't be a method of implementing, a method of implementing would be "typing on the keyboard while sat at a computer, then running the compiler". It would be something like:

      You're right - "implementing" isn't the right word. How about "representing," as in, a method of modeling and applying a psychoacoustic model to raw sound data? Regardless of the specific language chosen, I have to agree with you. And I believe that what you've suggested should be patentable (and has been patented.)

      ---

      The implementation of a known psychoacoustic model is trivial. That's the point. Putting any known fact into software is trivial.

      Again, I agree with you. Of course, hardware circuitry and software are, in most cases, functionally interchangeable. The concept is the important point, and it is also the target of the patent. It need not be implemented in software.

      The focus on "software" patents is really just focusing on concepts that are more easily or familiarly expressed as software. If I came up with a valuable computing concept and patented it as a circuit, Slashdot wouldn't think twice about it - which says more about the Slashdot crowd than about the nature of software patents.

      ---

      Patents protect the investment in the discovery of scientific and engineering knowledge where the incentive to discover the knowledge is that it can be used in business, and when it can be discovered by study of your products instead of putting in the effort to research as you did originally.

      That's very close. My only quibble is that it's not limited to the discovery of such knowledge, but also encourages the application of it. A technology may be accidentally discovered - e.g., in academia - but unless it can be protected, companies aren't likely to apply it.

      (In my field - biotechnology - this is a fact of life: interesting disease pathways and drug targets go unexplored by pharmaceutical companies, because the researcher published the findings and the idea can't be globally protected. As a result, thousands of disease-curing concepts are sitting on the shelves gathering dust, because no company will invest in its development.)

      ---

      In software: For shipped products, the structure and design could be discovered by study of a product, so patents would seem to apply. For non-shipped products (eg, Amazon backend), trade secrets would seem to apply. The development of the structure and design is, however, quite a mechanical task, so there is very little investment in that aspect and patents wouldn't apply after all.

      With one exception (see below), your summary complies with the theory and practice of intellectual property. There's little point in patenting a process that is strictly reserved for in-house use. And as you state, the "effort" in setting up the back end does not imply patentability - the USPTO regularly rejects applications that are the "ordinary work of engineers." Without an inventive hook, a chosen network and software configuration isn't patentable.

      The exception that I noted is this: Back-end software is still patentable, largely because what separates "back-end" from "commercial" is simply a business decision. Consider that Google now sells appliances that apply its "back-end" technology to any other website. Who's to say that Amazon won't choose to license its e-commerce software (for $$$$$$) to other e-commerce sites?

      ---

      In fact, drive compression is relatively easy. ... Microsoft should be allowed to implement an easy idea, not prohibited because somebody made a business case for doing the obvious thing first.

      From Stac v. Microsoft : "Although there are a number of software companies which offer data compression programs, Stac is the acknowle

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    49. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by miu · · Score: 1
      For example, please outline how the infringement lawsuit for "Method of Swinging on a Swing"

      The funny thing is that even if the swing method were genuinely novel and non-obvious, based on new applications of materials, it would tend to be looked down on by a jury. The opposite problem applies to computer related patents, the patent could cover an uninteresting application of a modified basic algorithm or an obvious technique that is novel only by the addition of trivial changes. Computers are magic, swings are contemptible.

      That is the one thing I think the IEEE article had completely right - jurors are not qualified to make decisions on the validity of a patent. If a jury of peers can be claimed as an essential right it would still require that the jury be made up of scientists, engineers, and expert practitioners.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    50. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my arse

    51. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by plover · · Score: 1
      Now you're just making stuff up. Using base 30 doesn't make you a patent infringer. Using base 30 to represent lat/lon in URLs is a different question.

      Show me where in history humans have used base 30 for latitude/longitude descriptions, let alone in URLs. We've used base 60 for lat/long since the invention of the second. I believe the second itself was invented because of longitude, and not the other way around. So, lets represent your coordinates as 37.892799 x -85.948905, or as 37 degrees, 53 minutes, 34 seconds north by 85 degrees 56 minutes 56 seconds west. In URLs, they might be http://host/lat=37.892799?lon=-85.948905. In your mobile phone, it'd be http://host/lat=1hqd3?lon=c9d8q. It's shorter by 9 keystrokes, which is a lot of keying on a mobile phone.

      And as for the egg example, Edison was making the point that claiming a solution is obvious is impossible from a hindsight point of view. Hindsight makes it seem obvious, but it's the foresight that made it valuable.

      I'd say this is probably as patentable as any other form of compression, such as LZH. Again, whether algorithms or software should be patented is a different question, but that's not the current question, nor is it what the examiners are looking for: they're looking for novelty. And I think this qualifies.

      --
      John
    52. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if I'd still been eight when Saran Wrap came out I would have succeeded. I never considered it THAT significant. And I still don't. It doesn't even qualify as highly original for an eight year old.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    53. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by dmneoblade · · Score: 1

      Q. What does Microsoft feel is unpatentable? A. Apparently nothing! Next thing you know, Microsoft will patent E-mail! Whoops, better not give them any ideas.

      --
      Warning, knife is sharp. Please keep out of children.
    54. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      Actually, to me it would make more sense for a psychoacoustic model to be copyrighted, not patented.

    55. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by back_pages · · Score: 1
      You seem to think "it's the law, and that trumps all".

      When dealing with legal issues, that is completely correct.

      Patent lawyers need to be reined in and the laws rewritten to eliminate patenting and I"P" (noxious phrase), as the law as written by technologically incompetent lawyer-goons is interfering with technological development.

      Partly right in spirit. The laws do not need to be "rewritten". Case law needs to be established that will rectify the situation. The attorneys will always stretch the boundaries of the existing laws to their extreme, and this has been and always will be a property of a healthy legal system. This is what allows for progress, for example with regard to civil rights, and this is what illustrates inadequate statutes and case law, for example with current US IP law.

      We engineers are not your servants - if you get in our way too much, we will simply remove the obstruction.

      Now see, this is precisely what I talk about in many of my posts and am subsequently moderated as a troll. The "obstruction" is known as the judicial branch of the Federal government, but you and so many like you are unaware of that. If you understood the problem a little better, you would know that you are not railing against the USPTO but rather the rules that the USPTO must follow (loosely defined as case law that interprets 35 USC 101, 102, 103, and 112).

      But feel free to believe in your heart that I'm wrong - I'm armed with facts and a well developed, functional understanding of the problem. You have your emotions and beliefs. I might characterize this as the dialogue between those who have faith in religion and those who are knowledgable of science, but that would be mostly inflammatory. I leave it up to you to think about whether or not your opinion is based on personal knowledge of how the system works or whether it is based on pedagoguery - merely rhetoric that has been preached to you and which you accept as gospel.

      By the way, the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) defines every aspect of how a patent is to be examined, offers a guide for resolving every forseeable issue, and explains what statute, court decision, or federal rules justifies the procedure. It is freely and publicly available on the internet. Have you ever read it? I would recommend MPEP 2105 and 2106 as interesting starting points, as they briefly discuss what is or is not patentable under 35 USC 101.

    56. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by back_pages · · Score: 1
      That is the one thing I think the IEEE article had completely right - jurors are not qualified to make decisions on the validity of a patent. If a jury of peers can be claimed as an essential right it would still require that the jury be made up of scientists, engineers, and expert practitioners.

      eh.. a jury of your peers is your right in a criminal trial. Infringing a patent is not a crime. A patent is invalidated in front of a patent judge, not a jury.

    57. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law is just one of the mechanisms by which those already holding power maintain and extend it. Don't be too surprised if you're one of the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

    58. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The "obstruction" is known as the judicial branch of the Federal government, but you and so many like you are unaware of that. If you understood the problem a little better, you would know that you are not railing against the USPTO but rather the rules that the USPTO must follow (loosely defined as case law that interprets 35 USC 101, 102, 103, and 112).

      The tired old "I'm only following orders" argument. Every cog in the patent machine whose paycheck is provided by the system is just as complicit as the judges.

    59. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      Full disclosure - I have a BS CS and BS Mathematics and left grad school to work in IP law. Also, I work in IP law. Granted, I'm not a professor of economics, however I spend 50 hours each week dealing with IP law and the US Patent system. And in case I was too subtle, I make every cent of my income by working in IP law.

      I'm glad you took the time to mention where you are coming from. That's upstanding and respectable. I guess you've got a couple more years before you make dean (when you get tired of law). :-D Anyway, my point was that the article in question wasn't written by a bunch of USC Engineers who know more about lithography than IP, which you insinuate (you rail against the authors based soley on where the publication appears, "IEEE, they must all be idiot CS and Math majors, how could they have done enough research to write a book about IP").

      Anyhow, 256 pages is pretty short, you should give it a read and let us all know if the authors are 'omgwtflolretarded', 'alamegeh', 'kradedlite' or whatever it is you kids are saying now.
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/069111725X/ 002-6209548-3168005

      When you get published, drop me a line.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    60. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      Oh - also - you might find the authors other works of interest, since it is your field now.

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-ur l/index=books&field-author=Adam%20B.%20Jaffe/002-6 209548-3168005

      National Bureau of Economic Research papers in regards to Innovation Policy as far back as 2000. He's been at it at least 5 years already.

      Aw crap, wouldn't you know it:
      http://people.brandeis.edu/~ajaffe/
      EDUCATION
      1980-85 Ph.D. in Economics, Harvard University. Thesis: "Quantifying the Effects of
      Technological Opportunity and Research Spillovers in Industrial Innovation."

      1976-78 S.M. in Technology and Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Thesis:
      "Regulating Chemicals: Product and Process Technology as a Determinant of the
      Compliance Response."

      1973-76 S.B. in Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    61. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      Ok - I swear I'm going to stop beating this dead horse after this one. That other idiot author -- Lerner -- it looks like he's been IP law for years TOO (I mean besides teaching about it). I mean look at the scholary journals publications since 1997!

      http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/publications.htm l

      This guy may be writing the source material for when you go to law school. I'm just assuming that since you work in IP law, you must be an legal assistant or something (otherwise you would have been hitting me over the head with "I am a lawyer, neener neener!").

      Anyhow, cheers. It seems like this one is pretty well covered. Jaffe and Lerner are not some slouchy IP know-nothings; You might even call them experts in their fields. You sure showed me with those 'expert wheat farmer' anologies.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    62. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by jasonjacks0n · · Score: 1
      But this is a classic catch-22 example: people often examiners for spending too much time on examination, and thereby contributing to the 2.5-year average pendency of patent applications.

      Ok, that's a reasonable point. I'm sure it's not easy being a patent examiner these days, and all of the negative publicity probably doesn't make their jobs any easier or more rewarding, either.

      But, seriously -- the system is currently broken, and millions or even billions of dollars can ride on a single important patent. With that kind of money on the line, we need a lot more examiners, so they have the time to do the right research to prevent approving spurious patent applications.

      Maybe patent applications should cost more. It really hardly ever is a lone inventor working in his basement that applies for a patent -- it's mostly huge corporations anyway. Or hell, let's raise taxes to pay for a better patent office -- preventing silly patent grants is certainly within the public interest.

      The key here is that I am willing to concede that patents on certain types of algorithms, whether implemented in software or not, can be a good thing. The example of RSA given above is a good one. On the other hand, examples like Amazon's OneClick or Eolas' patent on browser plugins are just stupid, and reveal that the current system is horribly broken, and *needs* to be fixed.

      In fact, so many spurious patents are granted, and they are of such detriment to consumers, that I feel that those who defend software and algorithm patents (such as yourself?) should need to provide a convincing case that the patent system can be fixed if it is to be allowed to continue.

      Just my $.02 .. if you have ideas on how the system could be fixed, please feel free to share, as I'd be interested in hearing them.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    63. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Vince+Mo'aluka · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Government makes the rules. Microsoft is only playing the hand they've been dealt by government. A similar example is the proliferation of unethical lawyers willing to make a buck on unethical grounds. Guess what? It only works because government makes it all possible, with a hugely complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable legal system. The root of the problem lies squarely in government, and therefore, the only solution is to change government.

      --
      You took his stuff. You pound him.
    64. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by Bloater · · Score: 1

      Yeah,

      After discussion with the patent attourney, I think there should be a time-limited copyright on the choice of mathematical algorithm by limiting the set of algorithms according to engineering constraints. So if I work from the same constraints, I can produce and use the same algorithm. If I have the same constraints and copy their algorithm it would be a breach of copyright since I hadn't put in the investment that they had into figuring it out. If my constraint is to be compatible with the data their program produces, then I work out an algorithm that turns out to be the same, I have clearly put in my own investment. If the producer publishes their mathematical workings out, then I should be free to copy the idea without doing the workings out myself.

      The lawyer was right that the determination of which algorithm can require a significant investment, but patents are an unreasonable idiom. They are like a rich landowner purchasing a lordship. life+some years copyright for art (limited to duplication beyond educational purposes and allowing derivatives where the original art does not contribute to the artistic value of the derivative - only the choice of that art representing something). And the limited time frame for copyright on engineering concept where the engineering concept is not *necessary* to enter a market (eg safety critical feature). The engineering concept can also be independently developed from the same constraints like two peices of art can be independently produced. The source code and structure is an artistic form, and would be covered by the normal copyright while the algorithm is an engineering concept made to meet engineering constraints using costly mathematical labour.

      I think that is the core of patents (the engineering concept), and the whole point is to protect investments in effort from an investment free competition. Patents don't do that, while a time limited copyright *does*.

    65. Re:Is it entirely MS's fault? by WNight · · Score: 1

      The percentage of patents that the PTO turns away is irrelevant - they turn out enough real stinkers that you can say they aren't doing their job. Patents are supposed to be on things that aren't obvious to the average professional in the field. If you could vaugely discuss the idea with a skilled professional and he'd be able to implement it, it's not worthy of a patent.

      If that had been what people wanted when they wrote the laws they'd simply have said "The first guy to do something cool is allowed to impose arbitrary fines on anyone who copies him, unless they blow a huge ammount of money to call his bluff and possibly prove that his idea wasn't that cool."

      Note how short that is? That's because it doesn't impose many restrictions. Note how long "patent law" is, even discounting all relevant case law. That's because it DOES impose a lot of restrictions. Do you know why? It's because they didn't want the current mess. They recognize the difference between technological advancement, what we traditionally think of as patentable, and a good idea (what we call a business-model patent) or math (what we call a software patent).

      Further, your use statistics is specious at best, to declare that because only five bad examples were listed that the actual percentage is negligible. Obviously you do this to further your style of argument where you pretend that something the other person didn't say was a deliberate omission. More bad patents could be found if they were demanded, but you'd just say that the percentage was still near zero and demand more. This deliberatly deceptive style of arguing totally hurts your case, which is a shame because someone needs to preach that patents aren't bad, just misused ones, but you go so far by refusing to recognize that the system is obviously and objectively not what people or companies want it to be anyone.

      Both little inventors and big companies like IBM have spoken out against the current patent system. It doesn't offer any real protection to a lone inventor because of how easily a well-funded patent lawyer can delay any attempts by a non-rich inventor to protect his idea. However, it does also offer a well-funder patent-holder to blackmail others in the same field. Patents have gotten too hard to disprove (not the PTO's fault) but they keep granting barely legitimate ones which are perfect weapons for legal firms in the guise of technology companies to sue the rest of the industry. The only supporters of the way the system is going are the ones who have more lawyers than technology.

      I don't know who you think you're kidding by arguing for the current system. Co-filer on the one-click patent?

  3. Tommrow on Slashdot.... by One+of+the+abnormals · · Score: 0

    "Microsoft Patents Air!"

    --

    2b || !2b =?
    1. Re:Tommrow on Slashdot.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Too obvious.

      "Microsoft Patents Lungs!"

    2. Re:Tommrow on Slashdot.... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

      Fine....then I'll patent a process for using semi-voluntary human musculature for creating a partial vacuum sufficient to allow a positive flow of air into the lungs of a human being.
      .
      .
      now, if only someone could patent a way to get it back out again. I'd do it myself, but I'm still working on how to get just the O2 molecules into the bloodstream.

      --
      A goal is a dream with a deadline
    3. Re:Tommrow on Slashdot.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually since MS is a software company "Microsoft Patents human genome" would be more appropriate!

  4. Ha by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who care's what they patent? There's no chance in hell this would stand up in court, the judge would laugh it off and Microsoft's patent gets revoked.

    Is there prior art? Probably.
    Is it obvious?
    Probably.
    Is it capable of winning a course case? AAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!

    End of story.

    1. Re:Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. Only big businesses can afford to challenge a patent in court.

      Microsoft wins, either way.

    2. Re:Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Is it capable of winning a course case? AAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!

      Err, I don't understand your logic? Aren't the one with enough money and some superficial argument (i.e. some stupid patent) the ones who are supposed to win the case?
    3. Re:Ha by Xeo+024 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it capable of winning a course case? AAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!

      With the justice system, you can never be too sure.

    4. Re:Ha by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course it would win a court case. Why would someone convert latitude and longitude into base-30 integers with implied arbitrary precision? There's no reason to ever do that. Microsoft actually invented this one, because nobody else would want to. And they patented it to prevent interoperability. That's a problem. The patent itself, though, would stand up fine.

    5. Re:Ha by Epistax · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know about you, but I can't afford to fight them in court.

    6. Re:Ha by justins · · Score: 1
      Is there prior art? Probably.
      Is it obvious?
      Probably.
      Is it capable of winning a course case? AAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!

      They don't need to win. They just need to bleed whoever they're up against in court.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    7. Re:Ha by dattaway · · Score: 1

      And they patented it to prevent interoperability.

      Its amazing how a one line script would violate a patent and get a small man to lose his house in court.

    8. Re:Ha by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The reason they are doing this is to make URLs look really pretty in their online mapping application. Now instead of saying hte coordinates are 75.1234836 degress latitude, you can just write 384. Disclaimer, the numbers aren't right, but they do represent the point of doing this.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Ha by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      ... Yeah. 384 is... much better. Instead of "http://www.mapperator.com/maps/scripts/map.cgi? lat=75.1234836&long=21.112145", which we can all agree is hideous, you can have "http://www.mapperator.com/maps/scripts/map.cgi? coord=384", which contains beauty that I am not poet enough to describe.

    10. Re:Ha by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      Who care's what they patent? There's no chance in hell this would stand up in court, the judge would laugh it off and Microsoft's patent gets revoked.

      YOU should care, and so should everyone else.

      Do you have $4,000,000 to spend overturning the patent?

      Thought not. Guess your web page linking to M$'s proprietary geographical data is in violation, and you can be browbeaten into submission and forced to remove your webpage (or financially ruined in addition to that, if Microsoft's attorneys are having a bad day) even if the patent is bogus.

      Government entitlements to monopolies on knowledge, ideas, inventions, and expression are destructive to everyone except the monopolist.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    11. Re:Ha by k96822 · · Score: 1

      Yep. Like Bill Gates said to Homer Simpson while his goons were trashing his house, "I didn't get rich by writing checks!"

    12. Re:Ha by daniel_mcl · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is not justification for a patent. I cite Atlantic Works vs Brady, 1882.

      "It was never the object of patent laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of unknown liability lawsuits and vexatious accounting for profits made in good faith."

      Latitude and Longitude are normally expressed as base sixty rationals, so changing to base thirty integers isn't particularly innovative. This would never win a court case strictly; however, Microsoft has the money to keep this in court all the way to the U.S. Supreme court, so it would take a large amount of money to contest.

      --
      I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
    13. Re:Ha by sadr · · Score: 1

      Except that the patent is for converting latitude and longitute into any base with any fixed precision.

      The example is in base-30.

      Base-10 is also covered by this patent.

      It is not clear to me that using base-256 internal encoding in a computer is not covered under some of the individual claims. So if you convert lat-long to an integer, you might arguably violate this patent as well.

    14. Re:Ha by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft did not get a patent using base 30. They got a patent on encoding latitude or longitude in ANY base.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    15. Re:Ha by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 1

      ah.. my bad, didnt read the last part of the summary - im that stereotypical slashdotter.

    16. Re:Ha by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      You need to read the patent itself. The text talks, in great detail, about the precise reasons that the less readable notation is useful -- specifically, it talks about access from mobile devices and about URL length limitations on HTTP GET requests.

    17. Re:Ha by BigGerman · · Score: 1

      or even (using Apache-like URL rewriting):
      /maps/locations/384/map.html
      dynamically rewritten to your format.
      I think it is clever and patentable.

    18. Re:Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. I'm missing out on a huge number of patents because I write "clever" URL processing shit all of the time.

    19. Re:Ha by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      #!/bin/perl -sp0777iX+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..) *)$/)

      Because you know, RSA is bad..

      Anything can be done in 'one line' with arbitrary line lengths and code complexity.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    20. Re:Ha by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      No they did not.

      Converting numbers to other bases have been around along time.

      A few uses that I have use with this trick...

      1) Union/Intersection Searches to find a number or alpha string. Doing this allowes to tokenize the data. Helpful in searching for data with mispelling and generalizng a lat/long search.

      2) Encoding a large number unique number like date and time, into a small alpha key. I used to fix webbased POS system.

      3) Create "unique" "random" one use passwords.

    21. Re:Ha by budgenator · · Score: 1

      of course if they sued you for violating this patent, they couldn't easily force your to rack up hundreds of thousands to millions in legal expenses to defend yourself now could they.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    22. Re:Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Yeah. 384 is... much better. Instead of "http://www.mapperator.com/maps/scripts/map.cgi? lat=75.1234836&long=21.112145", which we can all agree is hideous, you can have "http://www.mapperator.com/maps/scripts/map.cgi? coord=384", which contains beauty that I am not poet enough to describe.

      Great. Now when I ask for "pizza 02134" on my cell phone to find pizza joints in Boston your method costs me $0.05 per pizza place because it's so verbose. The Microsoft method costs me $0.05 for the coords to 30 pizza places.

      You aren't thinking big enough. You are thinking on the scale that is defined by the concrete walls in your mom's basement. Think bigger.

    23. Re:Ha by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      They don't need to win. They just need to bleed whoever they're up against in court.
      Like the old NATO conventional warfare strategy: lose, but lose as slowly as possible.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, the US Government (specifically DoN) has prior art going back to at least 1981.

    25. Re:Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess in this case all your base belong to MS?

    26. Re:Ha by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      It's not converting a number to another base. There's prior art for that from the BC. There's more to it. Read the patent.

  5. Redonkeyulus by bird603568 · · Score: 1

    Thats crazy. I think ill patten short ahnd AND 1337 speak.

    1. Re:Redonkeyulus by Jozone · · Score: 1

      ...and he certainly will not infringe on any spell checking technology.

  6. Jeez.... by writermike · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't you think the title is a little trollish? I get it, already. MS is evil. But they're not going to deploy interceptors to stop ships using LAT/LON coordinates while out at sea.

    Wait... maybe they will...

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
    1. Re:Jeez.... by numatrix · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's not so much a finger-pointing about how Microsoft is evil (though of course, this is Slashdot, so I'm not disputing they are), but mainly an indictment on the USPTO itself.

      Companies are supposed to do whatever they think they can get away with to maximize their profits. That's capitalism. When the government agency assigned with forcing reason onto the situation drops the ball, however, the majority of the blame lies with them.

      I'm not sure what it will take to get some substantive, informed, and reasonable changes in the USPTO, but I'm hoping this will trigger it if nothing else.

    2. Re:Jeez.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trollish? You must be new here. Hey, that's slashdot, not some unbiased media outlet!

    3. Re:Jeez.... by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the concept of patents.

    4. Re:Jeez.... by k96822 · · Score: 1
      Companies are supposed to do whatever they think they can get away with to maximize their profits. That's capitalism. When the government agency assigned with forcing reason onto the situation drops the ball, however, the majority of the blame lies with them.

      I agree that capitalism can lead to unethical behavior by corporations. Isn't the above analogous to saying that a police officer is guilty of murder when they fail to catch the guy who pulled the trigger? Perhaps a bit dramatic, but I think it makes my point: the person holding the gun has at least the majority of the blame.

    5. Re:Jeez.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's more like a police officer who could have prevented it standing idly by. Or at a stretch, even assisting the murderer.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Well... by mkosmul · · Score: 1

    ...why don't they also patent the number "30"?

    1. Re:Well... by bruunb · · Score: 1

      I'll move to the moon if they pattent then number "42". That would effectively make them own the universe and everything... well, you know, they'll be able to collect royalties from everything.

      --
      Vegetarians eat Vegetables, Humanitarians frighten me...
    2. Re:Well... by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 1

      Neh, they've already set their eyes on the numbers 0 and 1. They figure that'll do for the next few lifetimes.

    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that was just a fiction book, right?

  8. Wow. That's pretty pointless. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

    They should really stick to just patenting things that someone else might want to do at some point. That said, anyone who actually read the patent would have to be squinting pretty hard to be upset with either MS or the patent guys about this one. I normally like me some MS bashing, but this one's pushing it.

  9. out of luck... by b166er_zeroone · · Score: 1

    doesn't that mean that any gps device manufacturer would have to pay licene fee to M$? damn... i should hurry up and patent the cartesian coordinates before it's too late! don't worry i'll open up the patent for OSS ;-)

    1. Re:out of luck... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      No, silly. They just convert the lats and lons to base N. This is about displaying the Base N data in an url. That is really what makes this patent unique and non-obvious.

    2. Re:out of luck... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't converting Base X to Base Y prior art? Say, Circa 500+ years ago?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:out of luck... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was attempting sarcasm, but in retrospect, I did not make it very obvious.

    4. Re:out of luck... by prutskovlen · · Score: 1
      damn... i should hurry up and patent the cartesian coordinates before it's too late!

      Good luck trying to patent something that's explicitly named after someone else :-) (Rene Descartes)

  10. PRIOR ART! by tepples · · Score: 1

    If the patent application were restricted to base number 30, it would be trivial to circumvent. But in fact, it seems to claim every base greater than 2, such that even the common-practice expression of latitude and longitude appears to read on the claims. Prior art! Prior art!

    1. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > But in fact, it seems to claim every base greater than 2

      All your base are belong to us!!! (SCNR)

    2. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I'd said that.

  11. Base 30?!? That's the silly part by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Good gosh. 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per degree, use base 60 for Pete's sake!

    Good grief. This only confirms what we have all known for a long time, Microsoft is run by a bunch of morons. They can't even get a silly patent right.

    1. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
      Good gosh. 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per degree, use base 60 for Pete's sake!

      Perhaps that one was already taken?

    2. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Morons? Perhaps... but they've got a hell of a lot more money than you or I... so if they are morons... I wouldn't mind being one too if it meant I could create such a powerful company.

    3. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're the moron for spending your morning on Slashdot, criticizing a very enviable company, and making an ass out of yourself.

    4. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Before calling people morons, perhaps you should expend a tiny bit of thought yourself.

      Two word hint: URL encoding.

      (sheesh, the arrogance displayed on Slashdot knows no bounds)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      (sheesh, the arrogance displayed on Slashdot knows no bounds)

      Sheesh, the lack of humor displayed on Slashdot knows no bounds.

    6. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you easily represent something in base 60? For base 30 you can use digits 0-9 and letters A-Z (removing the letters 'I' and 'O' to prevent confusion with 0 and 1), giving 34 combinations. Allowing capital letters as well would give you a maximum of 58, and using symbols would be much less obviously ordered.

    7. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, or you could use base 90. That way, you'd use most of the printable ascii char set except for a few chars like '/', '&', '?', and so on. This would produce an even shorter representation.

      Base 30 is basically nonsensical from any technical viewpoint. So to understand why they'd try to get legal control of that base, we must consider non-technical explanations.

      The explanation is probably, as others have hinted, the legal and "marketing" uses of a patent on such a representation. If MS can get this patent, they can control who can use base-30 representations in URLs. This means that they can either demand a licensing fee for, or block outright, any uses of this base.

      MS is ramping up a battle to block "free" software. And there's an important arena for this battle, hinted at by this patent's use of latitude and longitude as an example of their encoding.

      Microsoft has been buying all the online map sites such as mapquest, mapblast, mappoint, etc. (Check them out.) With this patent, they can switch these sites to use their encoding, and establish their URLs as the "standard". Anyone who wants to interoperate with them will have to use their encoding scheme. But you will only be able to do this with a license from MS. If you try giving out free software using their encoding scheme, they'll sue you for patent infringement. Or they'll sell you a license for, say, $100 per downloaded copy of your software. Meanwhile, they'll give out their software for free or at a nominal price. This will effectively eliminate any free competition.

      It could also effectively eliminate most non-free mapping software. If you have to add the license fee to your price, while MS is selling software without this surcharge, you probably won't sell many copies. Especially if MS's software comes bundled with Windows.

      Their lawyers are probably smart enough to figure out that base-60 and base-90 representations wouldn't be patentable. Even if the USPTO approved the patent, any court would throw it out on grounds of both obviousness and prior art. But base-30, since it's so nonsensical and isn't in use by anyone for anything, could be aproved and accepted by the courts. There's no prior art. And judges aren't technically trained in number theory, so they'll easily accept the spurious reasoning for base 30.

      If this patent is approved, we can see a shortage of mapping software from anyhone except Microsoft. If you can't represent latitude and longitude in the form that will be required by all the online map sites, how can you produce any map software at all?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    8. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by jonfelder · · Score: 1

      How about another non-technical explaination.

      Base 30 would be 10 digits + 26 letters - 6 confusing letters which can be easily confused as other letters and/or numbers...say OZSIQV.

      These URLs would be pretty easy to both read and say.

      Using base 60 or 90 would include having lowercase letters and punctuation marks.

      Punctionation marks are a pain to say and can be confusing. Having lowercase letters means you have to differentiate between upper and lower when you say and use the URL. In addition, it's pretty well known that IIS (and windows in general) is case insensitive when it comes to filenames...so if they were to create a list of files while utilizing this scheme, using a single case for unique representation becomes important.

      I see no reason why 60 or 90 would be more obvious and thus less patentable. The idea of creating a shorter number string using a higher base is obvious regardless of which base is used.

      This doesn't mean I agree with patenting the base 30 conversion either. I can, however, understand why they went with it.

    9. Re:Base 30?!? That's the silly part by jonfelder · · Score: 1

      Oh...as for the use of this patent, perhaps they don't intend to do anything with it. If I was in charge of a huge company, I would try to patent everything I could. The cost is relatively low, and the defensive benefits are high. It prevents someone else from coming along and suing you.

      Just because you patent something, doesn't mean you have to go around suing everybody.

      It's up to the Patent Office to decide whether or not the patent is worthy. I don't fault Microsoft for applying for the patent, I would fault the Patent Office for granting it though, because I do think it's a dumb thing to patent.

  12. Too much uncertainty by r6144 · · Score: 1

    There is a long list of claims which are essentially the same, except that the later claims are more specific so that they are less likely to be kicked out in court. Before someone actually get sued using this patent, most lawyers in the US could not be sure which claims are valid, which are not. However do you want the power balance between inventors and the general public to be (personally I think abolishing patents in most fields might be a good idea), this uncertainty is bad for everyone.

  13. Wait until you see their next patent by sharkey · · Score: 1

    They are filing to state that their routes across Europe are patently correct. Encarta is right, and the Europeans better move their landmasses NOW, see?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:Wait until you see their next patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replying to undo my incorrect mod (caused by accidentally picking the wrong menu option). Please do not adjust your screen...

  14. Tomorrow MS amends it... by Space_Soldier · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tomorrow, they'll add an amendment to that patent saying that they own the location of that coordinate too, and if granted, Microsoft will own any piece of land they want. MS: We own this coordinate. Linus: But this is my house. MS: Not anymore. Linus: I'm homeless :-(.

    1. Re:Tomorrow MS amends it... by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

      /me is glad US idiot patents are limited to the US. /me is sad - We've got an FTA with the US. Idiot patents are a US export.

  15. Honestly, they CAN, so they DO by Psionicist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a problem with USPTO, not Microsoft. I mean, how is this any different from me downloading pirated movies? It's wrong, but I do it anyway because I can (get away with it). It's the same with Microsoft, they can patent pretty much everything because the problem lies with "the system". Fix the USPTO, fix the problem. Fix the distribution system for movies, fix the warez problem.

    1. Re:Honestly, they CAN, so they DO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's absolutely right. If Microsoft didnt patent this then some other company might. Probably just defensive like others say.

    2. Re:Honestly, they CAN, so they DO by latroM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a problem with USPTO, not Microsoft. I mean, how is this any different from me downloading pirated movies? It's wrong, but I do it anyway because I can (get away with it).

      It is illegal, not wrong. Would you consider copying movies without permission still wrong if the law said that it is ok? I mean, we can change the law if it doesn't serve the public. Piracy is a newspeak term, please avoid using it.

    3. Re:Honestly, they CAN, so they DO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't change the law to permit unlimited online redistribution of movies without stealing those redistribution rights from the copyright holders. So yeah, that would be "wrong," for most peoples' definition of "wrong" in a capitalistic society.

      Don't like it? We won't shoot you for trying to leave, you know.

    4. Re:Honestly, they CAN, so they DO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU WON'T BE GETTING AWAY WITH IT MUCH LONGER

      - Jack Rosen, Head of the **AA Association of America

    5. Re:Honestly, they CAN, so they DO by latroM · · Score: 1

      You can't change the law to permit unlimited online redistribution of movies without stealing those redistribution rights from the copyright holders.

      We have given that limited monopoly power to them so we can take it back anytime we want. It's not like the movies are their "property". Monopolies don't fit well in capitalistic society.

  16. Bogus patent by yotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm usually pretty lenient about what I consider a good patent, but this one seems dumb. It's not even an optimal way to do it. They're just using a fairly cheesy form of compression to make a string shorter.

    So, they remove the ability for a human to tell what the lat/long is by inspecting the string, but compress the string suboptimally? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

  17. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Harrison definatly gets the royalties on longitude.

    1. Re:Prior Art by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Definitely.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior art for *one* part does not make the entire patent invalid. For this to qualify as prior art, they would have to be doing *everything* Microsoft is doing, like using base 30 (and skipping six vowels), which is doubtful.

    3. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like this? http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/documents/nac.asp 30 characters ... no vowels.

    4. Re:Prior art by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Prior art for *one* part does not make the entire patent invalid.
      How ridiculous! If that were so, you'd be able to take anything that's been around since time immemorial and make a patentable invention simply by tagging "with a computer" or "via the internet" on the end. That would just be plain silly.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. read the patent then speak by PepeGSay · · Score: 1

    it's not quite as nefarious as you seem to think

  19. Isn't this math? by ddewey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What happened to not being able to patent a mathematical formula? Isn't something like this basically just a math trick?

    1. Re:Isn't this math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, in the US you can patent such nonsense.

    2. Re:Isn't this math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math? Yes. A trick? No.

    3. Re:Isn't this math? by Hakubi_Washu · · Score: 1

      Congrats, you just realized that anything Computer Science produces (read: Software) is just Math and shouldn't be patentable as such. Now go tell that to lawyers and politicians, will ya?

    4. Re:Isn't this math? by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even have to be math. See United States Patent 5373560, a patent on two primes expressed in hex.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    5. Re:Isn't this math? by ddewey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Numbers are not supposed to be patentable either. US Patent 5373560 was registered by a member of the League for Programming Freedom in order to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain a frivolous software patent.

  20. Base 30 ain't nuthin' by CrayHill · · Score: 1

    We implemented a base 64 packing for floating point data using printable ASCII characters, as we needed to transfer files from VAX/VMS to CRAY machines. Yes, that was about 20 years ago!!!!

  21. Give me a break. by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This only confirms what we have all known for a long time, Microsoft is run by a bunch of morons.

    For a "bunch of morons" they seem to have done a pretty good job establishing and maintaining desktop and office suite dominance.

    For a "bunch of morons" they seem to have made a pretty big warchest of cash.

    For a "bunch of morons" they seem to have gone from nothing to second place in the game console market rather quickly.

    For a "bunch of morons," in other words, they're pretty damned successful. The last thing you or anyone should be doing is writing them off.

    1. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "For a "bunch of morons" they seem to have gone from nothing to second place in the game console market rather quickly"

      Unless you qualify this rather severely, this is incorrect. As in "not even close".

      On the other hand, I don't think you MS fanboi's are as annoying as Apple fanboi's, so that's at least a tiny thing in your favor...

    2. Re:Give me a break. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's a bunch of morons and a few geniuses. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of us, they have both morons and geniuses in control, so sometimes they do something really stupid that they should have seen coming and so far it's been stopping them from ruling the world.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. That was the most annoying post ever.

    4. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Once again, that yuppie attitude:

      They make lotsa money, they must be right!

      I could use similar logic to make Hitler the epitome of Planned Parenthood in the last century!

      Think, man, think! Do you truly want to make money the only measure of intelligence?

    5. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, don't even waste your breath, er... fingers. This is a land of fantasy, not facts. Let the geeks have their hope while they escape the real world for a bit.

    6. Re:Give me a break. by mrwoody · · Score: 0

      It doesn't take much effort to get all that, if you have enough money.
      Only one big moron managed to become the prime minister in Italy.

    7. Re:Give me a break. by smcdow · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      For a "bunch of morons" they seem to have made a pretty big warchest of cash.

      Whatever; now it's time for you give me a break.

      Clueless morons make sleds of money all the time. That's what business is all about: enabling hopeless idiots to become rich.

      Case in point: Microsoft.

      Of course you could try to argue that making money in business demonstrates smartness. But that would just make you an anti-elitist moron.

      --
      In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
    8. Re:Give me a break. by peawee03 · · Score: 1

      I think most of their problems with percieved idocy comes from them running into each other trying to control all markets at once, and it wasn't until recently when they were able to cool down, realize MS isn't going anywhere, and look long term- it's easier to slide stuff rather to force stuff.

      --
      I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
    9. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right they aren't morons, they're a bunch of rich corrupt corporate assholes, in other words "successful".

    10. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what business is all about: enabling hopeless idiots to become rich.

      Gee, thanks for that bit of knowledge. Now can I have pickles on the tuna sandwich, and olives on the BMT?

    11. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about right or wrong?

      Faust7 (314817) said "The last thing you or anyone should be doing is writing them off."

      You are a moron if you underestimate them. Business is war. Take some advice from ancient wisdom:

      http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

      "18. All warfare is based on deception.

      19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."

    12. Re:Give me a break. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, it's better to be lucky than to be smart.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahaha and your obviously a moron for thinking that anything other than MARKETING (read bullshitting) is the only way they got there.

    14. Re:Give me a break. by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Their goal is to make Scrooge-McDuck style lakes of cash. They have done so. Achieving one's goals effectively pretty much defines competence.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  22. You can't use it. by AverageMidget · · Score: 1

    I'm going to patent this comment.

    1. Re:You can't use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to. You already own the copyright to it, and assuming nobody else already wrote it, you can sue if you want. Keep in mind, this may be easier to accomplish in the USA.

  23. Using ints to simulate floats... by rdean400 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't FractInt doing this 10 years ago?

    1. Re:Using ints to simulate floats... by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      But not for representing Lat./Long. in a URL...

      --
      Did he inhale?
    2. Re:Using ints to simulate floats... by rdean400 · · Score: 1

      The fact that it's Lat/Long has no bearing. Similar uses for common practices (such as data compression) should not meet the standard for patentability. It would be like Sun applying for a patent on using the ZIP format for java binaries (jars, wars, ears, rars, etc).

  24. READ THE SUMMARY AT LEAST!!! by vosgienne · · Score: 0

    Never mind reading the damn article, did any of crazily anti-MS idiots managed to get past the headline without messing your pants? They're pantenting coverting floats to base 30 ints not the use of lat/long coordinates.

    1. Re:READ THE SUMMARY AT LEAST!!! by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Since computers by their very nature are based on ints and not floating point values, convertion have basically existed as long as computers. Perhaps with different base, but then using a different base is more than trivial and not a patantable thing. That is just silly.

  25. You can't use it. by wootest · · Score: 1

    I'm going to patent this comment.


    ;)

  26. What next... by shengd · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they will next try to patent a system in which each house is represented by a 4 or 5 digit number, followed by a name which will be used to designate each 'street', and they will then group some of theses 'streets' into 'towns'. Microsoft will then proceed to create some proprietary software called MS-Address, and they will sue the US Post Office for infringing on their intellectual property. For that matter, they can sue the patent office for using this system too, since I'm sure their headquarters uses a 'un-liscenses' address

  27. precursor to... by EuphoricaL · · Score: 1

    maybe this is a precursor to microsoft patenting base-10 notation, then they would own all our money as well as the air...

  28. RTFP! by mOoZik · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know it's in your blood to hate Microsoft, but least take the time to read the patent! What they are seeking to patent is a METHOD of encoding LAT/LONG in a URL in a better way than is currently employed. I think this patent is incredibly valid.

    1. Re:RTFP! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You think representing numbers in different bases is something that should be patentable? Oh shit, there goes bc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:RTFP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did

      Every flightplan in the world uses a compact notation for latitude/longitude. This patent is so bloody trivial that it should never pass, because it is obvious

      Microsofts only reason to patent this must be to prevent or license interoperability.

      This patent shows how horribly f%cked up the patent system is, and why we're fighting tooth and nail to prevent software patents in Europe.

    3. Re:RTFP! by stumbler · · Score: 1

      I agree regarding RTFP. Note though, that the patent is broader than endoding long and latitude. It's patenting the the encoding of *any object location based* on a coordinate system, using the string value of a "Base-N" number.

      I'm sure this pantent come back to bite the entire industry as mobile phones (and similar devices) become aware of the geo-positional location of their user and want to share that in a standard way via a URL or similar device.

    4. Re:RTFP! by raboofje · · Score: 1

      Whoa, wait a minute there. They indeed describe a nice way to encode lat/lon-numbers.

      But it's totally trivial. Such a patent should not be granted imho. Anyone can come up with that. Patents were meant for `innovative ideas', `inventions'. For the complicated stuff that takes research.

      This is just a simple technique.

    5. Re:RTFP! by Macadamizer · · Score: 1

      Representing number in a different base is not patentable.

      Representing numbers in a certain base for the specific purpose of creating a compact addition to a URL to send map coordinates over the internet, well, that justmight be patentable - it's just an app right now, we'll see what happens.

      --

      "That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
    6. Re:RTFP! by servoled · · Score: 1

      But it's totally trivial. Such a patent should not be granted imho. Anyone can come up with that. Patents were meant for `innovative ideas', `inventions'. For the complicated stuff that takes research.

      Whether something is trivial to implement is completely irrelevant to its being an 'invention' or 'innovatinve idea'.

      The light bulb is trivial, but it was an 'innovative idea'. Sometimes the stupidest little things make the best inventions, just thinking of them is often the toughest part of the process.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    7. Re:RTFP! by Macadamizer · · Score: 1

      "For the complicated stuff that takes research."

      Now that's just not true. Patents are for any new and useful invention -- there is no requirement that the invention take significant research, just like there is no guarantee that significant research will lead to something patentable at the end.

      And just because something is simple doesn't mean it is obvious.

      There are a couple of tests that are used for obviousness -- I don't remember them all off of the top of my head but something is generally considered "nonobviousness" if it meets a "long-felt need," (if there was a need for something, if it was obvious, others would have come up with it already) if it is "successful in the marketplace," or if people are trying to license it, there are a couple of others. Now these are not the patent office's test for obviousness when granting a patent, these are tests that you use after the patent is granted, typically in an infringement case.

      But the idea that just because something is simple it is not entitled to a patent is antithetical to the patent system.

      --

      "That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
    8. Re:RTFP! by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      Have you seen some of the patents on the USPTO site? A patent is only about registering your idea or method, meaning they don't have to be incredibly useful, efficient, etc. The person submitting the patent makes those decisions, as they wouldn't spend their time, money, etc., if they thought it didn't deserve a patent.

    9. Re:RTFP! by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I think this patent is incredibly valid.

      There is no such thing as an "incredibly vaild" software patent. Software patents are a big no-no.

    10. Re:RTFP! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The light bulb is trivial, but it was an 'innovative idea'.

      The light bulb was not trivial at the time it was invented. Neither the idea (use electricity to heat something so hot it gives bright light) nor implementation (which required years of work and thousands of experiments to get working) were in any way trivial.

      In any case, this whole discussion is idotic. Base-16 numbers has been used to shorten the representation of binary strings for years. Any hex editor will show you the binary data in hex format. In fact, several applications (such as FProxy of Freenet encode with a bigger base (FProxy encodes dates into base-16 and passes them in the URL) to shorten them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:RTFP! by Pofy · · Score: 1

      To me that seems trivial. Wanting to encode some numbers into a text string using whatever base. Just pick the most appropriate one. Seems trivial to me and even more to people with general knowledge in the area. Thus it is not patentable since it is too trivial. Just check the patent law if you want to see that such a thing can't be patentable.

    12. Re:RTFP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether something is trivial to implement is completely irrelevant to its being an 'invention' or 'innovatinve idea'.

      Absolutely incorrect. There was supposed to be an "obviousness" criterion for patentability. Just because the current crop of USPTO examiners is either too ill-informed or too well-paid to concern themselves with the obviousness doctrine doesn't mean it's not in the rules.

    13. Re:RTFP! by servoled · · Score: 1

      obvious != trivial

      go read chapter 2100 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and learn what the current laws actually state.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    14. Re:RTFP! by Macadamizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Seems trivial to me and even more to people with general knowledge in the area. Thus it is not patentable since it is too trivial."

      I'm not too sure that the courts will be impressed with that argument.

      "Seems trivial" and the legal standard for "obvious" are two entirely different things.

      "Just check the patent law if you want to see that such a thing can't be patentable."

      Part of my job is writing and prosecuting patents, so I kinda already have some idea of what the law says. I read the app -- the whole thing (did you?) -- and I didn't see anything wrong with it. If there is prior art, of if the invention is obvious, it'll get rejected by the examiner.

      Look, virtually ALL patents applications are published after 18 months -- it doesn't mean anything. Further, the app that is published is the one that is submitted -- if there have already been office actions, then there are likely amendments, changes to the claims, etc., that are not reflacted in the published application. At the 18 month mark, it may not even have HAD its first office action yet, so we have no idea what the actual status is.

      Wait until the patent is allowed, or is abandoned -- then you can see what the claims actually ARE, and then you can opine as to the generally worth of the patent office.

      At this stage in the game, you can't really say anything except that M$ submitted an application.

      --

      "That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
    15. Re:RTFP! by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      I know it's in your blood to hate Microsoft, but least take the time to read the patent! What they are seeking to patent is a METHOD of encoding LAT/LONG in a URL in a better way than is currently employed. I think this patent is incredibly valid.

      Okay, so you think that doing the following operations on the coordinate 44.035LAT 136.010LON should be patentable... I'll start with do the latitude:

      44.035 * 1000 = 44035 ->(base 30) = 01IRP

      Now the latitude:

      136.010 * 1000 = 136010 ->(base 30) = 0513U

      Now tack them together and you get "01IRP0513U".

      Reverse the steps and you get your lat/lon back. Ta dah!

      Nice patent. I just used it unlicensed after about 30 seconds of reading a few parts and 30 seconds of performing the steps.

      Next thing you know, someone will patent a cosine function that returns results in base 30.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    16. Re:RTFP! by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, it really could be represented as "1IRP513U", because I just did the calculation (after about another 30 seconds) and figured out it only takes DA00 base 30 numbers to represent all possible Earth coordinates to 3 decimals of accuracy.

      This patent is shit and it's commonplace to use such encodings to save space or better represent numbers with available characters, or make numbers easier to transmit over a medium. Hexadecimal is an example of the former, base-64 encoding an example of the latter.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    17. Re:RTFP! by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Okay, I could have taken more time to do the post, I'm aware that M$ uses a base-30 that omits the vowels in order to not produce a string like "ASSFUCKT" or something, but it's trivial to use their base-30 symbol set

      The corrected string, accounting for compactness, is "1LWT513Z".

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    18. Re:RTFP! by ekuns · · Score: 1

      If there is prior art, of if the invention is obvious, it'll get rejected by the examiner.

      Given that the overwhelming majority of patent applications in the US are approved (unlike elsewhere in the world), and given the large number of patents approved that are obvious to any practitioner, the last decade of history disagrees rather strongly with your statement above.

  29. the actual claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is claimed is:

    1. A computer implemented method of reducing the number of characters contained in a geographically-oriented string that includes a floating-point coordinate value, the method comprising: converting the floating-point coordinate value to an integer value; and converting the integer value to a base-N string, wherein N represents the number of characters in an implementation-defined character set; and using the base-N string as part of the geographically-oriented string. ...

    8. A computer implemented method of reducing the number of characters required to represent coordinates within a geographically-oriented string, the method comprising: selecting a character set having a predetermined number of characters; selecting a maximum level of allowable error; calculating, based at least in part on the predetermined number of characters and the maximum level of allowable error, a number of character spaces required to represent a coordinate; deriving a reduced character coordinate string representation of a coordinate based, at least in part, on the predetermined number of characters, the allowable error, and the number of character spaces; and placing the reduced character coordinate string representation of the coordinate within the geographically-oriented string. ...

    19. A method of reducing the number of characters associated with a set of latitude and longitude coordinates, the method comprising: converting a floating-point latitude value to a latitude integer value; and converting the latitude integer value to a first base-N string, wherein N represents the number of characters in an implementation-defined character set; converting a floating-point longitude value to a longitude integer value; and converting the longitude integer value to a second base-N string, wherein N represents the number of characters in an implementation-defined character set.

    1. Re:the actual claims by arose · · Score: 1

      So math done on a computer?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  30. tinifying the URL? by mmThe1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the patent abstract:
    "Methods are disclosed for encoding latitude/longitude coordinates within a URL in a relatively compact form. The method includes converting latitude and longitude coordinates from floating-point numbers to non-negative integers."

    Where are tinyurl and similar websites to claim that they have been converting URLs to relatively-compact-form, using non-negative integers and letters?

    1. Re:tinifying the URL? by cnettel · · Score: 1
      Those sites, IIRC, only add a row in their DB and encodes the primary key of the row into the non-negative numbers and letters. You can't make up the tinyurl for a certain URL on the fly without first contacting their server to register it.

      That said, I don't see why this would be patent-worthy. Neater than long floating point numbers, yes, special compared to hex or anything, no.

    2. Re:tinifying the URL? by raboofje · · Score: 1

      If you'd had read the page, you'd know that one of the goals of the described approach is not to require administration at the server side. And that's exactly what tinyurl and friends do: it's not compression, it's just a short-to-long-url-mapping that they keep on the server.

    3. Re:tinifying the URL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent should be modded down troll.

      This is for _latitude/longitude coordinates_, not shortening any URL. I assume TinyURL just matches a random short line of text to the acutal URL in a database and forwards accordingly. This is a specific encoding method for latitude and longitude coordinates.

    4. Re:tinifying the URL? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Where are tinyurl and similar websites to claim that they have been converting URLs to relatively-compact-form, using non-negative integers and letters?"

      Wow, just when you think you've seen the most random story about tech on the internet, you find out there's predecessors. Boggles the mind I tell you.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  31. As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by reporter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Why would anyone want to do base-30 mathematics? I hazard a guess that non-binary (i.e. not base-2) computational devices may exist in the distant future. Consider the quantum computer. Perhaps, a physicist can weigh in on this matter. Is the number of states in a quantum computer always a power of 2?

    Although M$ churns out mundane but fairly good software as the main line of business, this company has a huge R&D budget, and the central research laboratory at M$ is the equivalent of the old Bell Laboratory. I suspect that the M$ laboratory is not confined to only software research. There is likely small, upstart efforts exploring other technologies.

    Certainly, X-Box took me by surprise as, up to its debut, I had always thought of M$ as a software company.

    May be, there is something to the warning: "Resistance [in any technology] is future. You will be assimilated."

    1. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Informative

      It just makes it shorter to represent numbers. 11111111 in binary is 255 in decimal which is FF in Hex. Representing large integers in base 30 allows them to appear shorter in URLs, using standard character like 0-9 a-z. Pretty smart idea, but I don't know if it's really worth a patent.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      The Xbox is really a software venture. All it is (basically) is a IA32 PC, crammed into a small box that looks nice.

    3. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by tambo · · Score: 1
      Why would anyone want to do base-30 mathematics?

      Er, uh, just taking a stab in the dark: because you can represent it with 30 symbols - i.e., 10 digits + 26 letters. Of course, they could go all the way up to base-60 by using both uppercase and lowercase, but presumably case-sentivity would be much more painful ("3A4B" is always spoken aloud as "3A4B" if it's case-insensitive, but "3-capital-A-4-capital-B" if not.) Takes longer, more error-prone, etc.

      That's just my guess, but I feel pretty good about it...

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    4. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      URLs are not case sensitive. So 30 is about right.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    5. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1
      Pretty smart idea, but I don't know if it's really worth a patent.
      On the contrary, you, as an expert in the field, just said that it was worth a patent.

      An invention doesn't need to be ground-breaking to be patententable, merely novel and non-obvious. This one is not only novel and non-obvious, it's even a clever way to solve a real problem. That's exactly what patents are for.
    6. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny
      because you can represent it with 30 symbols - i.e., 10 digits + 26 letters.
      In what number base does 26 + 10 = 30?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by rcw-home · · Score: 1
      URLs are not case sensitive.

      DNS is not case sensitive. The filename portion of the URL is very much case sensitive.

      (Even on a Windows web server with a case-insensitive filesystem, CGI scripts can distinguish uppercase vs. lowercase.)

    8. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Converting numbers to convinent bases is not only obvious, but so obvious that the ancient greeks figgured it out.

      It may be a novel way to encode GPS location data, but it's very obvious, and trivial.

    9. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the idea that URL's are not case sensitive? The domain name is not, but the rest most certainly is.

    10. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by dspeyer · · Score: 1
      It needs to be novel and useful. Base 30 encoding is a trivial and inferior modification of base 64 encoding (which is more efficient in space and time). The earliest use of base 64 encoding in an internet standard I can find is from RFS 2045: MIME from 1996, but there must have been two interoperable implementations before that. Also see the Unix function a64l (in stdlib), which goes back at least to 1987, though I strongly suspect much longer.

      Really, though, to anyone who's played with compact representations, higher bases are obvious. I'm sure no one patented base 64, and I suspect several different people came up with it independantly.

      What I want to know is why base 30? It's an awkward number, which will just make everything more difficult. Is it just about obfoscating their formats? Fooling the patent office?

    11. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by russotto · · Score: 1

      It may or may not have been non-obvious at one point, but it's certainly not novel. The idea of converting numbers to a higher base to obtain compact text representations of them has been around for a _long_ time. Base-64 encoding uses it, for instance. You know those really hard to type license keys with letters and numbers? Those often use it. Using it for latitude and longitude is just an obvious application of an existing technique.

    12. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Although M$ churns out mundane but fairly good software as the main line of business"

      What kind of drugs have you been doing?

    13. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1
      The parent's an AC, so most people won't see the comment, which says
      Converting numbers to convinent bases is not only obvious, but so obvious that the ancient greeks figgured it out.

      It may be a novel way to encode GPS location data, but it's very obvious, and trivial.
      You're making two different errors. First, you're confusing the mathematical notion of radix representation with the technological notion of using radix notation, and, second, you're confusing elegance with obviousness.

      The first is why computer programs are patentable in the United States and in most of Europe. An algorithm is a mechanism -- a fact is not. The fact that all numbers admit of an arbitrary radix expression is not patentable, but an algorithm for converting between two radices would have been. In this case, the patent's author found a quite elegant use for the fact that all numbers have a compact expression in multiple radices.

      The second confusion is between elegance and obviousness. Something is non-obvious if there's an established unmet need for it, and this is something for which that's clearly true. That this is the kind of solution which leads people to say "Oh, that's obviously the solution to use" marks it as elegant. The fact that nobody came up with it before marks it as non-obvious.

      (By the way, your history is wrong. Radix notation requires the use of the placeholder zero, which wasn't invented until about 1000 CE. Radix notation for bases other than 10 is a nineteenth cetury invention which arose as a side effect of the study of modular groups.)
    14. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by russotto · · Score: 1

      Why 30? 10 digits plus 26 letters. Subtract 0,O,Q,l,i,1 because they're too easy to visually confuse. Though the example Microsoft gives instead removes 'l' and the vowels.

    15. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by tambo · · Score: 1
      In what number base does 26 + 10 = 30?

      You're misreading: I wrote that base-30 can be adequately represented by 10 digits + 26 letters - not that all of these 36 symbols were needed to represent base-30 numbers.

      Presumably, they felt that base-(10 * something) was somehow more convenient than base-36. Had I written the technology, I would have asserted base-32 - which would have eased the computational burden of half of the conversion, of course.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    16. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Actually, base 64 encoding isn't a compact representation. It was designed as a less compact representation of octet sequences which could be sent using only visible characters through a seven-bit Internet.

      In this case, the patent includes a precise discussion of why base 30 is used. URLs are case-insensitive, so base 64 won't work, and

    17. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      This one is not only novel and non-obvious
      It's not novel to use a different number base to fit more information into the same number of characters - I've seen it done for things like product master data, and, IIRC, UK vehicle plates used to use sequence letters in base 20-something. Not forgetting these guys: http://www.tinyurl.com/

      And it is obvious, to anyone enough maths to know what number bases are. It's just an extension of the principle of writing A3F hex instead of 10,3,15 or 100315 or 10,03,15.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by dspeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The second confusion is between elegance and obviousness. Something is non-obvious if there's an established unmet need for it, and this is something for which that's clearly true. That this is the kind of solution which leads people to say "Oh, that's obviously the solution to use" marks it as elegant. The fact that nobody came up with it before marks it as non-obvious.
      Nobody did this before (so far as I know, not having checked) because nobody needed it before. Nobody figured that URLs which included long numbers should be memorable. Thats what tinyurl is for. The solution is, in fact, obvious.

      The idea of the obviousness standard is to not grant patents for things that would surely be invented anyway, as patents are intended to encourage invention and such patents would only stand in the way. Now, consider asking any nerd who han't read this slashdot article for a way to efficiently encode numbers in a URL. (S)He'll almost immediately suggest a higher base. Admittedly, the base is likely to be 32, which simplifies computation and improves efficiency rather than 30, but if you demonstrate enough confusing characters to justify 30, that solution will come up quickly as well (most likely along the lines of "find as many characters as you can; count them; use that base.") The nerd will have little need of a pause for thought. That's what obvious means.

      Now if only we could get the courts to accept this standard. It would be fun watching professors re-invent patents on the stand with opposing lawyers objecting "he said 'um'! He had to think about it."

    19. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by reflective+recursion · · Score: 1

      nice fallacy you have there. you fail to realize that everything is obvious to those with enough specific knowledge, even if that knowledge is held by a minority of one. therefore, by your definition of "novel" or "non-obvious" nothing is truely novel or non-obvious. unfortunately for your argument, the US patent office has a different definition of "novel."

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    20. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 1

      No, a quantum computer does not have to have a power of 2 has a number of states, just as a classical computer does not have to. Intel could very well decide that 0 is -5V, 1 is ground and 2 is +5V. But there's no point in doing that. Similarly, most quantum computer designs use powers of 2 because it's simpler.

    21. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by John+Miles · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone want to do base-30 mathematics?

      In this case, you can think of the alphabet as a base-26 numbering scheme.

      IHNRTFA, but it sounds like the good old USPTO monkey squad has allowed Microsoft to patent the Maidenhead grid locator scheme, dating at least to 1980. Off to RTFA now....

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    22. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Well, as to whether you've checked or not, that's why we pay patent examiners. As to your invocation of tinyurl, again, the patent's author talks about it. This representation requires no server intervention -- it's purely stateless, and therefore scales better. TinyUrl requires a database table, which is a maintenance and scaling nightmare.

      What you've just shown, though, is that there was a major unmet need for a stateless representation of large URL contents. TinyUrl proves that there was a need for compression, and anyone who works on web service or large site architectures will tell you in tedious and mind-numbing detail why statelessness is critical.

      Smart people had worked on getting that combination, and that they had not succeeded. That is one of the operational definitions of non-obviousness, as it is applied in US Patent law.

    23. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Minority of one? I and other posters have supplied several examples of prior art.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      What I read is what you actually wrote: "30 symbols - i.e., 10 digits + 26 letters." I guessed what you meant, I was just taking the mick out of your expression of it.
      Presumably, they felt that base-(10 * something) was somehow more convenient than base-36
      Perhaps to avoid using letters such as I, O, and S that can be visually confused with numerals?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Use a base 256 then. That's a lot shorter, AND it's friendly to the computer...of course, it's not all that friendly to the reader.

      Or one could use a base 64. That is realtively friendly to both, though not as compact as base 256.

      But of what use is base 30, except for obfuscation. (I once created a system based around base -3. It also interleaved positive and negative "digits" to eliminate the need for a minus sign. It could easily represent nearly any number, but I never did bother to figure out how to do arithmetic without translating first into another base.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key is that an idea has to be obvious to someone practicing in that field of knowledge (i.e. electrical/mechanical/chemical engineering, microbiology, etc). If you're just applying a commonly used technique from one part of the field of knowledge to another situation, that should meet "obvious"ness requirements. Frankly, even if you're applying a common technique from one field to another, it may be fairly obvious to anybody crosstrained in both fields.

      Just because something isn't obvious to you doesn't mean it's not obvious, it could just mean you're a moron. Speaking hypothetically of course.

    27. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      unfortunately for your argument, the US patent office has a different definition of "novel."

      and that definition is...?

      I'll save you the bother of looking it up; it has to be non-obvious to anyone having reasonable knowledge and skill in the area.

      Ask any geek to solve the problem of encoding a large number into a memorable URL. 100% of them would come up with a scheme similar to this. Most would immediately suggest base64 and quickly discover that urls have some character limitations (case and most punctuation) and scale down the allowable characters accordingly.

      Many geeks also know already that some characters (O/0, l/1) are visually confusing and would avoid those characters for any scheme where the sequence may need to be printed out or retyped by hand..

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    28. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Only microsoft URLS are case insensitive. If you're connecting to an apache server running on a case sensitive file system, then the case does matter. Except with the domain name. Not to mention, the querystring values are obviously not case insensitive, as this would cause a lot of problems.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Nope. They wouldn't -- proof being that they never did. This isn't a new problem; every geographical information system has exactly this problem, and none of them ever came up with a solution. They all use the clumsy and verbose lat=, long= representation.

      That fact is sufficient to establish one of the standard legal tests for non-obviousness: an invention is non-obvious if it fills long-standing and unfilled need. For what it's worth, that same argument would establish not only US Patentability, but also Eurasian Patentability, under the more restrictive Eurasian patent treaty of 1995.

    30. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by gurudyne · · Score: 1

      That's like saying why would someone want base 360 of all things to circumscribe a circle?

      Lets see, 180 (base-10) degrees longitude = 60 degrees (base-30)

      and 90 (base-10) degrees latitude = 30 degrees (base-30)

      Likewise, 60 minute/seconds (base-10) = 20 minutes/seconds (base-30)

      All of a sudden, it makes a weird kind of sense.
      They must have some non-patantable algorithm in mind the notation enables.

      --
      Hey, Mom! Is it beer, yet?
    31. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      How do you use base 256 in a URL in any useful way? Remember, you need to represent each digit as a single character.

      Anyway, the patent does NOT just state base 30 as the only way to encode these values, that's only one example!

      It's actually trying to patent base-ANYTHING numbers combined with representing floating point as integers (ie FIXED POINT!?)

      Amazing.

    32. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just because something isn't obvious to you doesn't mean it's not obvious, it could just mean you're a moron. Speaking hypothetically of course.
      He isn't necessarily a moron; he might be a troll. But he's probably both.
    33. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know about the domain names, but the directory and file name part sure is case sensitive. How else would a person differentiate between file.txt and File.txt on my server?

    34. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wouldn't. I've got a far more ingenious way of coding it, which I still don't think is worthy of a patent since it used in stenography. I would rather encode the number as a sentance or two of text.

      Here's how it would go:
      1: Write a Mad Lib (a sentence with certain parts of speech, usually nouns, verbs, and adjectives, left out).
      2: Split the words in the English language into thier parts of speech, and for each part of speech, number the words. Take all words whose binary number is more than 2 digits shorter than the largest number, and reassign them to the end (since they'll never be used otherwise).
      3: For each blank in the sentence, take as many digits as can be represented by a word, and place the word in the sentence.
      4: With any extra blanks, encode error-correction bits.

      While the user will be hard pressed to decode the number in their head or even with pencil and paper, a machine could easily do it for them, and a witty sentence like "Mary slipped tendrils into the slimy rock." is much easier to remember than AF332EEO5598110. 1 misspelled or forgotten word shouldn't ruin the decoding, and even if the sentence is totally garbled, the GPS unit will at least know it's wrong.

      Additionally, multiple words can be mapped to the same number, to give businesses more leeway into what phrases they can use, and to avoid embarassing phrases.

    35. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break, 'base N' encoding has been around in computers for years. Does it matter if N=10,64,2 or 30????? Is it novel now because I stuff it in a URL?

    36. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you dont need a database table -> the conversion from a URL to an ID can be done in an O(1) operation (given that the ID can be of sufficient length), such as using a hash function.

      eg use SHA-1 on the URL -> you get a unique ID

    37. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by tfowler · · Score: 1

      > In what number base does 26 + 10 = 30? Mod 6 arithmetic.

    38. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      haha.. if URL's were case insensitive, how could you use method post..

      http://domain.com/login?user=SuperQ&password=Foo Ba r

      DNS resolution is not case sensitive, which is a totaly different thing than the URL itself being case sensitive

    39. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by reflective+recursion · · Score: 1

      i think you have a reading comprehension problem or ADD. either case, you haven't a clue what I wrote about.

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    40. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by reflective+recursion · · Score: 1
      Just because something isn't obvious to you doesn't mean it's not obvious, it could just mean you're a moron.
      quoth the coward who can not comprehend basic English. please re-read what I wrote before knee-jerk judging.
      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    41. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by reflective+recursion · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the US patent office fully disagrees with that (and everyone knows they do already.. hence the Amazon 1-click patent). After time, all will be "obvious"... and the fact that it's obvious after-the-fact does not mean it is less worthy of a patent. Perhaps you just think it's so silly to patent such a thing and can see no use for it. Patents are for inventions no matter how silly or obvious they seem. The fact remains, there is no prior patent and I'd really like someone to dredge up a prior usage of such a thing.

      I think most people are confusing what they agree is morally/ethically/whatever correct with what is actual practice.

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    42. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
      But of what use is base 30, except for obfuscation.

      Because it is different. There are other systems out there that use other bases - Automatic Position Reporting System uses Base 91 encoding under certain circumstances, for example, and it does it for the exact kind of reasons this patent application is addressing. And it's been around for a while...

    43. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You use the 256 base system as a isomorph to the tcp/ip. (Not exactly a URL, but pretty close. DNS isn't going to recognize those garbled URLs anyway.)

      Yeah, I can see certain uses for this system. Mainly for the monopolist to lock other people out. But I don't see any invention.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    44. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Base 7, you mean (which is mod 7, too, BTW--there are no 6s in base 6, they'd become 10s).

      As for the rest, they actually have 26 letters + 10 numbers - 6 vowels (aeiouy -- they want no vowels so it never spells something inappropriate by mistake).

    45. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      Prior art; I hacked up a php script that would generate an email address, encoding the time and IP into a moderately short alphanumeric string in order to better identify address harvesters. How to do it was obvious to me at the time (about 6 years ago?)

      The basic concept is the same; big numbers to shorter string.. just because it's co-ordinates instead of an IP address should make no difference at all.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    46. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by reflective+recursion · · Score: 1

      thank you for sharing. please take it up with the patent office, i really don't give two shits.

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    47. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duh, base 8

      of course you need to use base 8 on the left side of the equal sign and base 10 on the right side.

      Base 8 | Base 10
      26 + 10 = 30

      yes i know i'm stretching a little, but it does work

    48. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be base MCSE. All the R&D over at Microsoft has 10+26=30 in base MCSE. Yep! In the Microsoft world, 10+26 is always 30. C'mon man, GET THE FACTS!

    49. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, wait...you have something here.

      I could call it base36, get a patent for it, and start suing people for using the English language.

    50. Re:As Well, M$ is Not Stupid by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      He's a geek. It's obviously hexadecimal.

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
  32. From the patent text: by mrjb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The set deliberately omits vowels to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive."

    Wow, that is SO "politically correct". Still it does't prevent people from constructing URLs saying fvck 0ff. It would be better if people would simply learn to respect other peoples freedom of speech.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:From the patent text: by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Doing it that way also keeps it from bumping against filters like Websense or NetNanny.

    2. Re:From the patent text: by geoff+lane · · Score: 1

      OK, there's a limited set of possible encodings so it should be trivial to determine exactly which offensive words they are protecting the world from.

      Let's have that list NOW!

    3. Re:From the patent text: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it does't prevent people from constructing URLs saying fvck 0ff.

      I think it's less a problem of people constructing such a string, and more that people would be mad at Microsoft if the location of their house turned out to be something like "retardhome" by sheer chance. As you point out, they haven't ruled it out completely, and I wish them luck figuring out a way to do that.

      You don't get free choice over the longitude/latitude of your house, nor do you have a choice as to what this algorithm converts it to, so free speech doesn't really come into the picture.

    4. Re:From the patent text: by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      So it guess B1TCH, SH1T, 4SSH0L3, and the like wouldn't be offensive to anyone.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:From the patent text: by Ramses0 · · Score: 1

      We actually did this at my last place of work (http://www.sell.com) for any listings you put for sale on the site. It would only be a matter of time before you started getting sell.com/crap, sell.com/shit, etc.

      If I would have been thinking even more when writing the item translation function, I would have omitted not just vowels, but similar letters / numbers that are open to misinterpretation (1, 5, S, L/l) since we wanted people to advertise their item codes in "the real world" as well.

      Just another data point...

      --Robert

    6. Re:From the patent text: by isorox · · Score: 1

      But would you grandma be pleased when she gets a link "Meet us at the mall at location 'cvnt5d1ck5'", which would be a vlaid coordinate. I wonder who live there.

    7. Re:From the patent text: by wfberg · · Score: 1

      "The set deliberately omits vowels to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive."

      Wow, that is SO "politically correct". Still it does't prevent people from constructing URLs saying fvck 0ff. It would be better if people would simply learn to respect other peoples freedom of speech.


      Worsse it's pretty offensive in itself, given that Arabic doesn't use vowels. So, a lot of coordinates would still be rude to our Arabic/Muslim brethren..

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    8. Re:From the patent text: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      "The set deliberately omits vowels to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive."

      Why not just patent the bad words instead? They've patented everything else.

    9. Re:From the patent text: by miyako · · Score: 1

      you know, one thing that's bothered me for a long time is how people say that words that are similar to common curse words are offensive, such as in your example of "b1tch" or "sh1t", which is to say that it must be the meaning of the word which is offensive, and not the word itself, however the same people would say that "darn" or "fudge" or "gosh dang" are ok, when they obviously also have the same intent as the "offensive" words.
      people can be so fucking ridiculous.

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    10. Re:From the patent text: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be helpful to read more than one line. The character set they used is an example as stated right above the character set in the Application
      "For example, if a particular implementation involves converting latitude/longitude coordinates into a condensed parameter for incorporation into a URL, one might choose the following character set:0123456789bcdfghjkmnpqrstvwxyz (30 characters in the set)"

      Then right above that "The particular set of characters to be utilized is adjustable and can be selected to accommodate a particular implementation."

      I no longer respect your freedom of speech.

    11. Re:From the patent text: by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "But would you grandma be pleased when she gets a link "Meet us at the mall at location 'cvnt5d1ck5'", which would be a vlaid coordinate. I wonder who live there."

      And there you have it. This is probably part of a project of theirs where they want to map the world in latitude and longitude coordinates to make it sink up to a global location search function. That would actually be serious competition to Google's similar offer that I believe they were working on (anybody with a link to what i'm talking about please post instead of mod).

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    12. Re:From the patent text: by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I'd love to find out what location this would point to: "g4t35 5vck5" :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    13. Re:From the patent text: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arabic letters are not in lower ASCII

    14. Re:From the patent text: by kgp · · Score: 1
      The set deliberately omits vowels to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive."


      Remeber this isn't people genereating these things ... its a machine. And if you are in business you don't want to f3ck people off.

      Actually this resulted from a bug report on a different product. as a suggestion of an intern in a big meeting to fix these "swear words" bug. All around him Devs and PMs trying to come up with complext solution for why their encoding would occasionally generate 4 letter words.

      The intern suggested removing the vowels so you can't create any words. And then strolled off into the sunset.

      At least that's the way it is told :-)

      It passed into MSFT folklore and obviously was remebered by the designer of the format.
    15. Re:From the patent text: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arabic doesn't use vowles? What are you smoking?

    16. Re:From the patent text: by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Really? I was under the impression that Arabic does not use the Latin alphabet at all.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    17. Re:From the patent text: by aprilsound · · Score: 0

      The Bill of Rights does not give YOU the right to do anything. It prohibits the government from making any law that infringes upon your rights, but private individuals can censor you as much as they want.

    18. Re:From the patent text: by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Don't laugh. A few years ago I changed a login system to use s/key style keys to aide in memorization. To refresh your memories, s/key would take a 56 bit key and mutate into a string of six short English words. It used an internal dictionary of thousands of words. One week after I checked in the code a software tester came to me with a red embarassed face. The very first phrase the system generated for him started with the words "klan kills coon ..." That one got moved all the way up to a mandatory must fix bug.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    19. Re:From the patent text: by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      It does make it slightly less fun to find out where, exactly, "Bvtt-Fvck Idaho" really is when converted to longitude and latitude.

      But only slightly less.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    20. Re:From the patent text: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try. "klan" isn't an English word, not with that "k".

    21. Re:From the patent text: by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Look it up in the s/key dictionary. There are several words in it that make me think that when the dictionary was made they pulled words out of a daily newspaper.

      For your edification, here's a link to one copy.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  33. ill patten short ahnd by weierstrass · · Score: 1
    I think ill patten short ahnd
    whatever language this is, I'm sure you have a good claim on it.
    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
  34. Hmmm by worst_name_ever · · Score: 1

    I worked on something like this three or four years ago for my employers - lat/lon positions were stored in text fields with base 16 representation. I think we filed a patent application on it too (the lawyers' idea, not mine). I wonder whatever became of it...

    --

    In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
  35. uuencode by rdean400 · · Score: 1

    The early claims of the patent are simply for converting a floating point representation for embedding in a URL. While this is all fine and dandy, wouldn't uuencoding the binary form of the coordinates be an obvious way to serve this purpose?

    1. Re:uuencode by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      uuencoding creates some characters that don't play nicely in URLs, like &,/, and i'm sure a few other ones. These have to be expanded to things like & when encoding in urls, which would make it longer, and defeat the purpose of encoding it in the first place.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  36. Tomorrow's Headline by mslinux · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Patents One's and Zero's... Sun & IBM Scared. The US Patent Office says, 'We're just doing our job.'

    1. Re:Tomorrow's Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Idiot Puts Entire Post In Bold, Annoys Slashdot, Steals 5-Year Old Joke from Segfault.org.

  37. What? by AMDude · · Score: 0

    Assignee Name: Microsoft Corporation
    and Adress: One Microsoft Way
    Redmond
    WA
    98052

    Obviously the U.S. patent office doesn't care about patents. They're too busy learning how to spell "address".

    1. Re:What? by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

      It's actually "Microsoft Corporation and A dress" that filed for the patent- they are in collusion with this dress, which was once part of Ballmers private collection.

    2. Re:WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, it helps that the junk they're patenting has no actual value.

      Maybe Microsoft begs to differ? You ask why would they patent "junk." You really mean why would they patent the simple programs like this. Here's the answer: Because people use these things in programs all the time. It's immensely valuable.

      As long as Microsoft's choices of technologies to patent remain befuddled, it won't be able to tap the true, strong, monopoly-cementing power of software patents.

      Unless that's their plan all along? Did you know I cannot write the following computer program without paying royalties to Microsoft:
      on TAB key
      selectNextURL()
      end


      I'm not joking: Microsoft patents TAB browsing

  38. Prior art by smalgin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least one part of this encoding method - converting floating-point to non-negative integers - looks like prior art.
    For instance, ESRI does this for their spatial database (SDE):
    URL is here.

    And most likely it was known even before...

  39. A sillier patent by strider44 · · Score: 1

    You can't see a sillier accepted patent than the "circular transportation facilitation device" patented in Australia. If you think that your patent system is stuffed, with the addition of software patents that seem likely in Australia our patent system will be thoroughly rooted.

    1. Re:A sillier patent by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the wheel patent was of a type called an "innovation patent" which the patent office (IP Australia) does not even look at unless it's contested. You can literally patent anything, wheels, breathing, whatever. They let the general public do the initial analysis, and the patent is easily revoked. IP Australia also grant normal patents which are investigated properly - they even look at prior art which isn't patented!

  40. Preventing 3rd party/OSS interoperability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This type of patent is NOT about protecting their rights to an innovation. It's about restricting interoperability.

    After patenting this encoding method, they can create some kind of software interface based on it, e.g. have a web application that uses this encoding in it's URLs, or an extension to Internet Explorer that uses the encoding somehow. Then if the server/extension becomes popular, they can use the patent to lock out OSS and other vendor's applications.

    Location-awareness is a hot topic these days -- that probably has something to do with this particular patent.

    1. Re:Preventing 3rd party/OSS interoperability by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      That would fit well with their OSS hurts interoperability claim they made recently.

      Microsoft could make it illegal for OSS software to interoperate by refusing to license the patent - thus making their claim true.

      Heck, they could offer a patent license of $0.01 to every non-OSS software automatically and hurt OSS without doing any work. Or say it is licenses for $0.01 to all, OSS can't comply. Heck they could even say that any non-OSS software is allowed to use the patent without charge. They'd make no money (directly) off it, but no commercial software company would fight it since it wouldn't hurt them, and OSS would be hurt. Almost risk free.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:Preventing 3rd party/OSS interoperability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Location-awareness is a hot topic these days

      "There you are!"

      "Do I know you?"

      "No! But there you are!"

  41. Real reason to prevent linking? by jolyonr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect the real reason for this is so they can control/prevent deep linking into their Terraserver (etc) geographical systems. If my website has a way of generating their coordinate URLs and linking directly to their content bypassing their front page, they could now prevent me from doing this because of this patent.

    Jolyon

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    1. Re:Real reason to prevent linking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? It's still blatant abuse of the patent system. Thank God for Poland.

    2. Re:Real reason to prevent linking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suspect the real reason for this is so they can control/prevent deep linking into their Terraserver (etc) geographical systems. If my website has a way of generating their coordinate URLs and linking directly to their content bypassing their front page, they could now prevent me from doing this because of this patent.

      yeah that's why they provide a range of SOAP webservices , on the same site they tell you how it works and that its all public domain images...

      Many users of TerraServer-USA have requested permission to use imagery from TerraServer-USA. All the data stored within Microsoft Terraserver is public domain, US Geological Survey data. Thus, users are welcome to include references to TerraServer-USA imagery in their own web pages. All that is asked is that an acknowledgement be placed next to the image referencing that it is a USGS image and that it comes from TerraServer-USA

      so while its a dumb patent terraserver aint the reason, so go head and take what you want, enjoy

    3. Re:Real reason to prevent linking? by jolyonr · · Score: 1

      Maybe Terraserver was a bad example - but I would suspect the patent is for exactly this reason, if not for Terraserver for some other project. Jolyon

      --


      Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    4. Re:Real reason to prevent linking? by Rangataua · · Score: 1

      But what is to stop me from creating a script that visits 3 or 4 web forms in a row and enter all the required information at each step to display the map? If such a system was really smart the user would only ever see the map and none of the steps in the middle.

    5. Re:Real reason to prevent linking? by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'd lock it down in the future, but for now, you can make human-readable WMS requests to Terraserver and get shitty black and white satellite images back.

  42. Abstract by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

    For those too lazy to read even the article summary, here' the abstract...

    Honestly, it's threads like these that make me want to stop bothering with the comments on /. Even the abstract is fairly specific. Relax, people, they're not patenting maps.


    Methods are disclosed for encoding latitude/longitude coordinates within a URL in a relatively compact form. The method includes converting latitude and longitude coordinates from floating-point numbers to non-negative integers. A set of base-N string representations are generated for the integers (N represents the number of characters in an implementation-defined character set being utilized). The latitude string and longitude string are then concatenated to yield a single output string. The output string is utilized as a geographic indicator with a URL.


    Would it have killed the story submitter to say "encode latitude/longitude coordinates within an URL"? Then again, the story wouldn't have been trollish enough to be accepted then.

    --
    ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
    1. Re:Abstract by gilroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but none of that gives any indication why this should be patentable. Does it really meet the condition of a useful invention? Or is it just another attempt to fence off as much intellectual space as possible in the hopes that some of it might become useful later?

    2. Re:Abstract by arose · · Score: 1

      So a variation of the good old "on the internet" patent?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:Abstract by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      This indicates a use which will give rise to some bizarre scenarios.

      Imagine that this is destined for use in some mapping service, like MapQuest. Some enterprising free-software programmer writes a little app that will take your current GPS coordinates and open a browser window showing that location in MS's mapping service. They just broke MS's patents, and all of their users in the US are violating the law, just because this program generates a URL in a certain manner!

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  43. Don't be a fool by johannesg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ahh, so Microsoft is NOT going to use patents against the perceived open source threat because... Why exactly? Just because they haven't used patents as a weapon yet, doesn't mean they won't in the future.

    Don't you find it more believable that they are simply waiting for software patents to be established world wide, after which they'll take out all the major open source applications? I.e. Samba, Apache, Open Office, Mozilla, maybe gcc, etc.

    1. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ahh, so Microsoft is NOT going to use patents against the perceived open source threat because... Why exactly? Just because they haven't used patents as a weapon yet, doesn't mean they won't in the future.

      Well, it helps that the junk they're patenting has no actual value. I don't think Linux will be crippled by the inability to use an ISNOT operator in their BASIC compilers. :shakes head: Woodcock Washburn (the typically excellent law firm that drafted that patent application) should the hang its head in shame over that one.

      I'm a patent attorney. More specifically, I'm a software patent attorney, and I truly believe that allowing patents for truly useful novel algorithms is a boon for the industry. But I feel that the quality of many software patents is an embarrassment to the field. Worse, it's an embarrassment to the patentee: it's a sign that they have no ability to evaluate the usefulness of their software - no talent to determine which pieces of their products are both new and critically important.

      But the /. community should be glad about one thing: As long as Microsoft's choices of technologies to patent remain befuddled, it won't be able to tap the true, strong, monopoly-cementing power of software patents.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    2. Re:Don't be a fool by TheViciousOverWind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have this theory, that all these really silly patents won't be used in court, but used for the Microsoft "Get the facts" campaign...

      What I mean is that this patent will probably never ever end up in court, but it will most certainly end up in a "Linux violates 953292493294 patents" statistic.

      --
      My <1000 UID is with a hot chick
    3. Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to see a software patent that did not have prior art associated with it or was not obvious. Software patents were a very, very bad idea and business patents are even worse.

    4. Re:Don't be a fool by lottameez · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would like to know of a single instance where a patented "truly useful novel algorthim" was a boon for the software industry.

      Every patent I am aware of has only been used for litigation.

      (oh, you must mean for the legal industry)

      --
      Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
    5. Re:Don't be a fool by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, it helps that the junk they're patenting has no actual value. I don't think Linux will be crippled by the inability to use an ISNOT operator in their BASIC compilers.

      The inherent value in ISNOT is that Microsoft's Basic (the defacto standard used by the vast majority of Basic programmers) supports it. With this patent, other Basic implementations will be forbidden from supporting it. Only Microsoft will be able to produce Basic interpreters that are fully compatible with Microsoft's implementation.

      Just like with browsers and web pages, most developers will casually use whatever features Microsoft gives them by default. Thus, it will not be possible for Linux to reliably run Basic code developed for Microsoft platforms without somebody going through the source to manually remove all ISNOTs. This barrier to entry into the market for the most popular RAD language environment in the business world can be extremely valuable to Microsoft, and it could effectively cripple Linux-based attempts to provide a competing platform for hosting business apps written in VB.

    6. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I would like to know of a single instance where a patented "truly useful novel algorthim" was a boon for the software industry.

      Okay - RSA encryption. This novel encryption method is the mathematical basis for most encrypted web browser communication. Without such a technique, most of e-commerce would be untenable - either the encryption mechanism would be prohibitively cumbersome, or it would be riddled with holes.

      This algorithm wasn't created in the vacuum of academia. It was developed as a way of allowing easy, encrypted communication among businesses. Without a business incentive to develop it - i.e., if other companies had been permitted to just steal the technology after it was created - no one would have created it.

      So what happened once it was patented? Did the company take on the Darth-Vader-esque visage that most Slashdotters imagine? No, it had the good business judgment to promote RSA across the board, and to reap a reasonable profit through licensing to big companies like Verisign. The industry didn't grind to a halt.

      And what would have happened without a strong, business-savvy proponent of RSA? Internet technology in general is a hideous swamp of competing standards and compatibility issues. Ask any web developer how much time they spend on IE/Firefox/Netscape/Opera compatibility issues, or on Java version compatibility, or on security issues between or among various technologies and standards. It's insanity. The explosion of web development has occurred not because of these myriad and disparate technologies, in spite of them.

      Yet, in the midst of this sea of chaos, encryption technology just magically seems to work - automatically, unobtrusively, without a security update every 25 seconds. That technology works. I assert that this is because we gave one company some breathing room to develop it.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    7. Re:Don't be a fool by D.+Taylor · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm a software patent attorney, and I truly believe that allowing patents for truly useful novel algorithms is a boon for the industry. ... As long as Microsoft's choices of technologies to patent remain befuddled, it won't be able to tap the true, strong, monopoly-cementing power of software patents. So wait. You think that the "monopoly-cementing power of software patents" is "a boon for the [software] industry"? Or did you mean they were a boon for the software-patent-attourney industry?

    8. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      So wait. You think that the "monopoly-cementing power of software patents" is "a boon for the [software] industry"? Or did you mean they were a boon for the software-patent-attourney industry?

      Like any tool, software patents can be used well or poorly. Guns are a boon for national security, but can also be used to cement the power of the mafia.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    9. Re:Don't be a fool by ninewands · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh ... you mean the patented encryption technique that RSA stole from the US Government and then monopolized for 17 years? I hardly consider that a boon to the software industry. I consider it a classic case of theft from the taxpayers of the US that they (RSA) did the research with gov't funding then patented the results so that nobody but them could use it. I notice that US gov't research contracts are MUCH more carefully worded regarding assignment of patents nowadays ...

    10. Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, RSA is more of a counterexample than an example of your claim. Because the inventors published a paper describing their work before filing for a patent, they could only patent the algorithm in the US. (The US allows filing patent applications up to one year after publication; most foreign countries disallow any patent applications after publication.)

      This had two basic results: (1) much of the development work in employing RSA for practical purposes, particularly in open-source software, was done overseas where there were no patent constraints; and (2) given the de facto availability of competing code, RSA had little choice but to be at least somewhat accommodating.

      Of course, even so there were limitations: for example, RSA eventually made their own RSAREF implementation freely available for non-commercial use in the US, but at the same time forbade the use of more efficient foreign implementations in its place (a restriction that was often honored in the breach, I suspect).

      The one positive aspect that I see of the patenting of RSA goes directly counter to your assertions: because of the perverse patent situation, developers of things like key-exchange protocols were forced to make their code more modular, since they had to be able to employ different encryption methods in different countries.

    11. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      The inherent value in ISNOT is that Microsoft's Basic (the defacto standard used by the vast majority of Basic programmers) supports it. With this patent, other Basic implementations will be forbidden from supporting it. Only Microsoft will be able to produce Basic interpreters that are fully compatible with Microsoft's implementation.

      That's a pretty interesting assessment - and it would make a valid business rationale. The obvious target would be mbas - Mono's visual BASIC compiler.

      But seriously - show me two commercial compilers from different vendors that ever demonstrate 100% intercompatibility. Most compilers properly parse the language standard, e.g., ANSI C, and then tack on some proprietary language features. It's an inherent trait of the compiler industry - and not necessarily a bad one, except in the rare case where you want to switch compilers in the middle of a project.

      So what would be the impact of this? Mono disables support for the ISNOT operator. Users compiling code containing an ISNOT operator receive the following message:

      * Error: ISNOT operator not supported; use "!(IS)" instead

      ...and they spend 20 seconds doing a global find-and-replace. An annoyance, to be sure, but hardly a crippling blow.

      I can suggest several solutions to this problem, but I suspect this isn't the right venue.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    12. Re:Don't be a fool by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And zipguns are a boon for...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:Don't be a fool by belmolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm willing to grant that sometimes software patents can motivate innovation. It is certainly the case that making money is a major motivation for people (though not everyone) and in some cases, such as the RSA example, it is arguably true that this motivation would have been absent without patents and that the technology might not have developed as soon or as well as it did without them.

      My concern is that in many cases software patents seem to have the opposite effect, as many people have argued. It seems to me that the difference is that the RSA patents deal with something very specific. That is, it isn't by any means the only kind of encryption available, so for many purposes one could avoid the patent by using a different encryption scheme. Furthermore, the need for this kind of standardized strong encryption was restricted to a relatively narrow class of software. Most programmers could go ahead without any concern for this patent because their software didn't use encryption at all. On the other hand, a patent on hash tables or binary search, for instance, would have deterred innovation because these techniques are used in all sorts of software.

      It isn't clear to me whether there is a reasonable way to permit software patents in the cases in which they might be desirable and to exclude them in other cases.

    14. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I consider it a classic case of theft from the taxpayers of the US that they (RSA) did the research with gov't funding then patented the results so that nobody but them could use it.

      You must be unfamiliar with the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 - in which the government encourages recipients of government funding to do exactly this. I don't believe that something the government encourages people do with government property can be construed as "theft."

      (True, the RSA patent predates the Bayh-Dole Act, but there's no evidence of anything inappropriate in its patenting. You'll have to point to something particular in its history - and I don't believe any such backstory exists.)

      It looks like you're relying on the general concept of patenting government-funded inventions. You must be unaware that the government has a hideous track record of commercializing its own technologies. Before the Bayh-Dole Act, the government retained ownership of vast and sundry technologies - which, as it happened, sat on a shelf completely unused. They had no commercial proponent, and so they were never used.

      Your principle ignores the realities of business. Software is primarily a business - even the open-source kind. This is understandable; most Slashdotters know computers much better than business. Just be aware that virtually all of the software on your computer was written in a business context, and that the realities of commerce might play an important role.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    15. Re:Don't be a fool by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I don't think Linux will be crippled by the inability to use an ISNOT operator in their BASIC compilers.

      Why did I suddenly imagine a BASIC compiler's author being sued for trademark infringement from Apple, over their new iSnot nose-hair trimmer (combined with USB memory device)?

      I've gotta stop reading /. so much ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    16. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm willing to grant that sometimes software patents can motivate innovation.

      That's a relief (in this forum), though I'd encourage you to upgrade this to "often." Consider that you rarely hear about the software patents that are good and productive - they're not as newsworthy as "Amazon patents OneClick, oh no!"

      It is certainly the case that making money is a major motivation for people (though not everyone)...

      "Making money" has such a bad taste to it, doesn't it?

      Money derived from commercial sofware doesn't go (100%) into the pockets of a greedy CEO. Much of it goes simply to pay the salaries of the programmers, and the operating costs of the business. I harbor the overly idealistic, probably naive view that professional programmers are motivated by (1) the desire to create cool sofware and (2) a deep-seated love of programming. They can only pursue those goals if they get a paycheck.

      Sometimes, a patent is needed to secure the business capital to create this environment. That's where business realities, like patents, become important.

      My concern is that in many cases software patents seem to have the opposite effect, as many people have argued.

      I completely share your concern. Any time someone sucessfully patents an old or silly computing concept, it drags down everything.

      But I attribute it to the infancy of the software patent field. People are still floundering with this new concept, what it can accomplish, how it should be used. Over time, sofware business people become more familiar with the nature of patents - and patent attorneys become more familiar with the nature of software. There will be a focusing of the field on truly useful and worthwhile software patents. Anything else - patenting ISNOT, for example - is simply a waste of everyone's time, money, and reputation.

      That is, it isn't by any means the only kind of encryption available, so for many purposes one could avoid the patent by using a different encryption scheme.

      Absolutely. In fact, the RSA patent encourages competing software companies to find alternative methods. Maybe those methods will be better - more secure, less computationally taxing, offering features not found in RSA, etc. - and they'll separately patent and commercialize their better algorithm. Encouraging competition and "designing-around" has always been a goal of the patent system.

      It isn't clear to me whether there is a reasonable way to permit software patents in the cases in which they might be desirable and to exclude them in other cases.

      Yeah, that's an interesting question. It's also pretty subjective, though. At least I can offer this: All patents - good and bad - expire 20 years after filing. That's an eternity in the software industry (though it's much less offensive than the copyright industry's "life of the author + 70-95 years" schtick), but at least it's a backstop time limit to really egregious conduct.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    17. Re:Don't be a fool by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But seriously - show me two commercial compilers from different vendors that ever demonstrate 100% intercompatibility.

      Nothing's perfectly compatible, but over time people work to improve interoperability at least with older features. The difference here is that nobody would be able to fix this incompatibility for the next 20 years.

      ..and they spend 20 seconds doing a global find-and-replace.

      Assuming they have the source. One of the current criticisms of Linux is its lower level of support for running commercial closed-source applications. This patent could end up being a barrier to running many commercial applications that happen to be written in VB.

      In some cases a Linux port might not be on the vendor's priority list, but customers might wish to run the app on Linux using mono, Wine or some similar technology. However, patents like this could thwart the ability to fully emulate the Windows platform. This could effectively prevent Linux from reaching a critical mass as a platform for those apps, and it would tend to ensure that customers can never really get rid of all their Windows boxes.

      It's all a very shrewd move on the part of Microsoft, but IMO patent law should be changed to somehow prevent this purely obstructionist usage of patents. Maybe mandatory RAND licensing on all patents would be a solution to the problem. At least then people could choose to pay a reasonable royalty and continue with their work instead of giving the patent holder the total ability to block out competition.

    18. Re:Don't be a fool by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This {RSA] algorithm wasn't created in the vacuum of academia. It was developed as a way of allowing easy, encrypted communication among businesses.
      Actually, it was invented by a British intelligence wallah (nothing to do with spying or snooping. At all. No no no, not even a little bit.) at GCHQ Cheletenham. It was decided that this might make their job harder if got into enemy hands, so they simply kept quiet about it.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      [...and they spend 20 seconds doing a global find-and-replace.]

      Assuming they have the source. But this whole problem can only arise in the context of compiling source code. If you don't have source code, this entire scenario can't arise. Even the partially-precompiled, IL language code can't feature an "ISNOT" operator.

      IMO patent law should be changed to somehow prevent this purely obstructionist usage of patents.

      There is - there's a growing doctrine called patent abuse: people can't patent stuff solely to withhold it from the public for 20 years.

      Many other countries require patentees to commercialize their technology within a reasonable time. If they don't, as you suggest, a compulsory-licensing scheme falls into place: the patentee is obligated to grant licenses to the technology for fair market value.

      However, even if asserted as you suggest - Microsoft's tactic isn't "purely obstructionist," since its own compiler embodies it. It has made the "invention" (and I use that term generously here, since I don't view it as such) available to the public, and it is making proper use of the patent.

      I have many solutions, but one I'll toss to you is this: Put together a publication of currently known but unpatented software technologies. That journal will become prior art against any future patent applicant. I further assert that some of this is already being done - e.g., Don Knuth's excellent Art of Computer Programming series.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    20. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, it was invented by a British intelligence wallah (nothing to do with spying or snooping. At all. No no no, not even a little bit.) at GCHQ Cheletenham. It was decided that this might make their job harder if got into enemy hands, so they simply kept quiet about it.

      In the language of intellectual property law, they opted to keep it as a trade secret. Fair enough. The downside to this is that suppressed inventions will usually be rediscovered, by someone who's not in the same position and who opts to take a different route. Patenting is one. Relegating it to the public domain is another.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    21. Re:Don't be a fool by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The downside to this is that suppressed inventions will usually be rediscovered, by someone who's not in the same position and who opts to take a different route."

      Which is exactly why software patents are a state means of creating monopolies and are thus NOT beneficial to the advancement of the species.

      The bottom-line professed concept of IP is that no one will innovate without the chance to make monopoly levels of profit. The unstated - and sometimes stated - assumption is also that if there is no monopoly, that there will be NO profit and thus no innovation. This has never been proven or even demonstrated. Logically, practically and historically, it is also completely ridiculous. Profit is profit. And you can make adequate profit in a wide-open market by competing on both new technology and quality service, better marketing, better financial backing, and a host of other factors that contribute to or diminish business success. Innovation is a primary requirement, but not the only one.

      You do have to remember that in a wide-open free market, profit tends to quickly diminish to the general rate of return. Therefore the proper means of competing in a free market is to get to market quickly with a superior product, price it to sell fast, make your money fast, and get on with the next product.

      The overall effect of an economy based on this principle is RAPID technological advancement which is the primary benefit of the exercise for the species.

      Any attempt to SLOW this process by creating artificial monopolies by law inhibits this benefit.

      ALL IP law is detrimental to the advancement of the species. Period.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    22. Re:Don't be a fool by fymidos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The RSA patent should never have been accepted, for many reasons (prior act, broad claims, plain mathematics, to name a few) , and i fail to understand your argument that the patent itself helped the industry.

      You can read about the patent and its problems in this nice article in cyberlaw . I would like to add a few things though, regarding the industry reaction to the patent.

      In '95 computers were already fast enough to handle secure-only communications, but the existence of this particular patent was a big problem for most of the new and small web companies (and users). And make no mistake, RSA really enforced this patent, they didn't play Mr. nice guy, if that is what you thought. So the majority of web sites, did not serve encrypted pages, the majority of emails are not encrypted (even today), and most of electronic devices have no such support.

      To be fair, the patent did create a new market: a few companies selling "security" profited from this. RSA too. The industry as a whole didn't.

      Internet naturally did not die from this patent (as the patent was not broad enough to cover non-secure communication as well) , but online security definetely took a major hit.

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    23. Re:Don't be a fool by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1
      However, as you said, it will take at least 20 years for a given patent to get out of the way. And, excluding really unusual cases, who cares about a bit of software 20 years from now? 20 years is enough time to totally destroy any meaningful competition in a given field.

      Do patents help innovation? In the physical world perhaps so. But, in software I would wager they are far more often used as weapons, offensive and defensive, than anything else. To prevent competition.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    24. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Which is exactly why software patents are a state means of creating monopolies and are thus NOT beneficial to the advancement of the species.

      Your logic is flawed. Yes, people will reinvent the technology. It doesn't imply that (a) they will do it nearly as soon as they would have, and (b) they will disclose it to the public.

      If your schtick is promoting advancement of technology, then you should be railing against trade-secret law, not patents. Let's say there are two airplane manufacturers, each of which has spent $xx billion on R&D to produce airplanes, and each of which has kept its results as trade secrets under lock and key. Since none of this research is public, any new competitor will have to reinvent the wheel. Since no such company can get funding to do that, the industry remains gridlocked forever at two firms.

      Thomas Jefferson correctly opined that patents are an embarrassment to the government. But he just as correctly stated that some inventions are worthy of such embarrassment. The patent system is a public contract: in exchange for the tyranny of a state-sponsored monopoly, the public gets free use of a disclosed technology. In theory, this only applies to inventions that meet the high standards of patentability. In practice, it's not quite so good - and everyone involved admits that the system needs improvement.

      ALL IP law is detrimental to the advancement of the species.

      That's an interesting assertion. The framers of the Constitution disagreed with you, of course - Article 1 explicitly acknowledges the need to reward inventors and authors. Also at odds with your statement are 200+ years of America's technological prominence, and the fact that virtually every nation on the planet has wholesale adopted America's IP policy. What evidence do you have supporting your position?

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    25. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      You can read about the patent and its problems in this nice article in cyberlaw.

      :shrug: What you characterize as problems, I see as results of a successful business venture. Notably, the authors of that article chalked up RSA's success to "luck, bluster, and the naiveté of potential competitors." I don't see "impropriety" or "outrageous patent system" in that list.

      (By the way, I am hardly an advocate of big business. I find a lot of their actions obnoxious, hostile, and hugely detrimental to the (non-business) citizens of their host countries. But I also understand the context of business and why we need them to have any functional economy.)

      In '95 computers were already fast enough to handle secure-only communications, but the existence of this particular patent was a big problem for most of the new and small web companies (and users). And make no mistake, RSA really enforced this patent, they didn't play Mr. nice guy, if that is what you thought. So the majority of web sites, did not serve encrypted pages, the majority of emails are not encrypted (even today), and most of electronic devices have no such support.

      Your example doesn't demonstrate that software patents are evil. It demonstrates that companies don't like paying for things.

      Asserting any intellectual property right involves telling people they can't do things. Now, if that's the end of the story, then that business is probably being obnoxious. The RIAA is a prime example of a company asserting IP rights poorly - leading to missed business opportunities, reduced business profits, pissed-off customers, and damage to one's business reputation.

      But RSA went further, and did as most IP owners should: they offered licenses to the technology at fair market value. That's simply a function of ownership of a consumer good, which is the cornerstone of capitalism.

      So the majority of web sites, did not serve encrypted pages, the majority of emails are not encrypted (even today), and most of electronic devices have no such support.

      How can you blame RSA, Inc. for the absence of RSA encryption in today's devices? The patent expired in 2000.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    26. Re:Don't be a fool by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1
      If your schtick is promoting advancement of technology, then you should be railing against trade-secret law, not patents. Let's say there are two airplane manufacturers, each of which has spent $xx billion on R&D to produce airplanes, and each of which has kept its results as trade secrets under lock and key. Since none of this research is public, any new competitor will have to reinvent the wheel. Since no such company can get funding to do that, the industry remains gridlocked forever at two firms.

      You want to talk tyranny? That's it right there. The mere notion that anyone else should have any inherent right to research that a company funded entirely on its own is complete lunacy, and only a tyrannical government would ever attempt to enforce that. If the public wants technology, they can develop it themselves.
      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    27. Re:Don't be a fool by Jamesday · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are software patents which are truly novel and represent a truly significant invention.

      Then there are things like this one, which are so obvious that only an incompetent or inexperienced professional in the field wouldn't consider them the first time they were asked to make a shorter URL containing latitude and longitude without using server-side information.

      Now, I do have some background in this area, for I've personal experience with latitude and longitude converted to integers for smaller storage (in a leading distance calculation tool for ship owners). And I've personal experience with changing the base to make smaller representations (in the parts of file names after the period, so more can fit in three characters, as part of a payroll application for ship owners). The former is routine computer science. The latter used standard C language libary function, which represents an integer in any specified base. Neither of those represented any brilliant insight. They were simple professional competence, not requiring any great degree of skill.

      Regrettably, patenting the obvious and basic tools is what is happening today and in my opinion the harm from patenting the obvious approaches and tools is far greater than the possible benefits from the truly innovative things. Better not to have the software patents and to use trade secrets, copyright and simple business efficiency benefits to reward the innovation.

      With apologies for the effect on your income and a note that I've rarely encountered a lawyer I didn't consider friendly and helpful: progress in the field would best be advanced by abolishing your specialty.

    28. Re:Don't be a fool by johannesg · · Score: 1
      I have many solutions, but one I'll toss to you is this: Put together a publication of currently known but unpatented software technologies. That journal will become prior art against any future patent applicant.

      I have thought about this, but the task is basically too large. The things that are being patented are too obvious, too common - invisible like a tree in the forest. Until someone takes a patent out on them of course, and pretends it is a unique invention instead of a fact of life.

      Consider representing longitude/latitude as integers, as featured in another /. article. How would one 'create' prior art here, if the entire body of existing work (on integer numbers, non-base-10 representations, fixed point arithmetic, floatfixed conversion, the use of numbers to represent coordinates, etc.) isn't sufficient already? Basically one can take any of these "inventions", add another very minor detail, and claim a new "invention" that is equally without value. In this case one could examine further "refinement" by using unsigned integers, perhaps, or by using base-36 integers instead of base-30. Are those actual inventions? Could I really go out and patent those? [shakes head in wonder]

    29. Re:Don't be a fool by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Error: ISNOT operator not supported; use "!(IS)" instead

      Ah, but "is-not is not not-is". (Keith Laumer, The Great Time Machine Hoax, 1964)

      --
      -- Alastair
    30. Re:Don't be a fool by hdparm · · Score: 1

      No they won't do it because open source is not a threat, due to poor interoperability!

    31. Re:Don't be a fool by fymidos · · Score: 1

      >Your example doesn't demonstrate that software
      >patents are evil. It demonstrates that companies >don't like paying for things.

      It demonstrates that the particular patent damaged the industry and the consumers. Yes, companies don't like paying for things, nobody does. Apparently the "alternative" to paying for this patent was *not* to use encryption.

      >How can you blame RSA, Inc. for the absence of
      >RSA encryption in today's devices? The patent
      >expired in 2000.

      Just as i can blame win95 for security problems in WinXP.

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    32. Re:Don't be a fool by johannesg · · Score: 1
      Consider representing longitude/latitude as integers, as featured in another /. article.

      In case you are confused by this, I was referring to the inevitable dupe... Or something ;-)

    33. Re:Don't be a fool by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      >> ..and they spend 20 seconds doing a global find-and-replace.

      Do you really expect all users to understand what that error means? I get messages from so called "programmers" that wouldn't know what to do. People see "error" and immediately turn their brain off, because they are scared and confused.

      > Assuming they have the source. One of the current criticisms of Linux is its lower level of support for running commercial closed-source applications. This patent could end up being a barrier to running many commercial applications that happen to be written in VB.

      Huh? Are you stupid? Why would someone see "Error: ISNOT not supported" if they didn't have the source? Compiled programs don't have "ISNOT" written in them. This patent is on using ISNOT to compile into the binary equivalent, after it gets there it doesn't matter.

    34. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      It demonstrates that the particular patent damaged the industry and the consumers. Yes, companies don't like paying for things, nobody does. Apparently the "alternative" to paying for this patent was *not* to use encryption.

      Yes, the alternative was not to use the encryption, because otherwise it wouldn't have been invented for a commercial purpose. As noted by other posters, the only other group that invented it was a secret service agency that sat on it.

      Again, the group behind RSA didn't pick up a known mathematical algorithm and apply it to a new purpose. They invented the algorithm while trying to solve this problem. Arguably, if the incentive of starting a business around the concept hadn't existed, they wouldn't have done it.

      So the difference here between "software patents" and "no software patents" isn't "pay" vs. "free." It's the difference between "pay" vs. "the technology doesn't exist." I choose the former.

      (As I have argued, the technology was likely to be reinvented - but not necessarily soon, and not necessarily in the "free" software context. If Microsoft had invented it, they'd have locked it down as a proprietary piece of code - and then you'd bitch about that.)

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    35. Re:Don't be a fool by carl0ski · · Score: 1

      IBM, Novell, Redhat, Sun have all thrown they money where their mouth is to stock up on Software Patents to defend creation and innovation in Open Source software. They have publicly threatened M$ that they will retaliant any Software infringment lawsuit from M$or any other company against Open Source. So i guess the company with the most patents will win. M$ and Sun currently have a free trade of ideas / interoperability deal. so don't expect Sun's OpenOffice to be shut down any time soon :). Only the most notable software patent has made it to the news, but thousand of software patents that are possibly protect innovation have been filed. We only see the bad ones which are awful, M$ owns Double click Apple owns a trash bin icon Kodak owns a patent to dowhile written in psuedocode (how rediculous is that)

    36. Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RSA encryption is a mathematical process, hence there was no invention, only the discovery of a particular algorithm, meaning there should not have ever been a patent granted in the first place. But that's neither here nor there.

    37. Re:Don't be a fool by E_elven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the other hand...if I, entirely on my own and without knowledge or information of the patented entity, discover the exact same thing and am prevented from using it, well, that's pretty tyrannic, as well, no?

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    38. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have this theory, that all these really silly patents won't be used in court, but used for the Microsoft "Get the facts" campaign... What I mean is that this patent will probably never ever end up in court, but it will most certainly end up in a "Linux violates 953292493294 patents" statistic.

      Oh, I'm sure that's one of the intended uses. Companies do this all the time. A fellow patent attorney who used to do work for Kodak tells me that they patented tons of minutiae about their photo developing chemistry - solely to create a boulder of an obstacle for competitive development.

      My only response is that these companies are damaging their own case by patenting such trivialities:

      Microsoft says, "We have 1,000,000 patents."

      Opponent responds, "Yeah, like the 'ISNOT' patent, and the 'Condensed Lat/Long' patent, and the 'Tapping on a PDA' patent.'"

      It raises the inference that these patents are a whole lot of expensive drapery - that the average value of each one is quite low, and that the number of meritorious patents is only a small portion of the cited mass.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    39. Re:Don't be a fool by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That was a great story! Makes me want to go reread it. Crzmblski's Limit and all.

      "The mobile speaker you requested is ready" the computer said

      There was a brief flurry of motion, and Kuve hit the ground. Hard.

      "Is-not is not not-is" is the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the headline.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    40. Re:Don't be a fool by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that something the government encourages people do with government property can be construed as "theft."

      The government doesn't really encourage "people" to do this. It encourages corporations to do this.

      How about construing it as a reverse kickback or fraud against the taxpayer?

      It looks like you're relying on the general concept of patenting government-funded inventions. You must be unaware that the government has a hideous track record of commercializing its own technologies. Before the Bayh-Dole Act, the government retained ownership of vast and sundry technologies - which, as it happened, sat on a shelf completely unused. They had no commercial proponent, and so they were never used.

      Your principle ignores the realities of business. Software is primarily a business - even the open-source kind. This is understandable; most Slashdotters know computers much better than business. Just be aware that virtually all of the software on your computer was written in a business context, and that the realities of commerce might play an important role.


      Private entities also retain ownership of vast and sundry technologies - which, as it happens, sit on shelves completely unused. They have no commercial proponent, and so they are never used.
      that is until someone else uses them and then out come the lame patent infringement lawsuits.

      Your principle ignores the realities of business. It is not essential to have a monopoly on an invention in order to commercialize it.

      Your principle also ignores the realities of democracy. The important factor is that the people have access to the invention which the people funded. It is not a matter of public interest that it should try to insure that some private entity is exploiting a monopoly position to overcharge for that invention.

      Commercialization is not the purpose of government research.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    41. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      On the other hand...if I, entirely on my own and without knowledge or information of the patented entity, discover the exact same thing and am prevented from using it, well, that's pretty tyrannic, as well, no?

      Unfortunatey, that's practically unenforceable. Every company on the planet would claim that they "independently" developed the exact same method in order to avoid licensing the technology (or for actually investing in independent invention of the technology.)

      Patents constructively notify people as to what is and isn't patented. If "I didn't know I was speeding" were a defense to speeding, no one would ever get a speeding ticket.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    42. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      Ah, but "is-not is not not-is". (Keith Laumer, The Great Time Machine Hoax, 1964)

      Heh. Having not read the story (yet), I presume this is valid in the context of fuzzy logic - that "100% true" isn't the same as "not 100% not true."

      In the context of the Visual BASIC ISNOT operator, there is no such fuzziness. Either two pointers point to the same object, or they don't. "ISNOT" can be written as "p1 != p1"; "!(IS)" can be written as "!(p1 == p2)". Here, they're the same.

      But your humor is appreciated. -smile-

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    43. Re:Don't be a fool by jonabbey · · Score: 1

      ...and they spend 20 seconds doing a global find-and-replace. An annoyance, to be sure, but hardly a crippling blow.

      It doesn't take many incompatibilities to strongly discourage switching to another software platform. People today are refusing to look at Open Office because it is not 100% (not that it is not 99.9% compatible, not that it is not 99.99% compatible, but 100%) compatible with some version of MS Office.

      Heck, Microsoft went to considerable lengths to put a deceptive error message into a Windows 3.1 beta, that appeared when someone tried to run Windows on top of DR-DOS. And that was in a case where there was no actual incompatibility at all.

      Perhaps ISNOT can be worked around (though wouldn't any tool that did a function-specific search and replace fall afoul of an ISNOT patent?). Leave that aside. Perhaps some fraction of VB users would be willing to manually do a search and replace. How many other little incompatibilities are going to be forced through patents?

    44. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The government doesn't really encourage "people" to do this. It encourages corporations to do this.

      Incorrect. The Bayh-Dole Act is aimed at nonprofit institutions - mostly universities, but also nonprofit hospitals. Corporations are only incidental beneficiaries - a means to an end. If the government retained the rights to the technology, guess what they'd do with it? They'd license it to corporations, because the government doesn't produce commercial products.

      I strongly encourage you to read up on this act. As one sign of its incredible effectiveness, both businesspeople and academic researchers widely hail it as a great move. How often does that happen?

      As for encouraging "people," the government has many programs to help "people" to create companies around new technologies. Read up on the Small Business Innovation Research program, where states sponsor technology initiatives for small businesses (and only small businesses can apply for them.)

      ---

      Private entities also retain ownership of vast and sundry technologies - which, as it happens, sit on shelves completely unused.

      Read up on the doctrine of patent abuse. Patentees have an obligation to use the technology they patent; if they don't, they can be forced into a compulsory licensing scheme.

      ---

      Your principle ignores the realities of business. It is not essential to have a monopoly on an invention in order to commercialize it.

      Okay, I'll add one more topic to your growing go-research-this list: Check out how the pharmaceutical industry works. Academia creates thousands of concepts for new drugs every year, but only a few actually get turned into drugs. How do pharmaceutical companies choose candidates for further development? Think about it: the company must push the drug through several years of research, and then FDA approval. That costs a ton of money. Why would Merck take that chance if the moment its drug is FDA-approved, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Millennium can start selling the same drug?

      For this reason, pharmaceutical companies solely focus on drugs that can be patented. This is an undeniable business reality.

      This also has a direct line to software. Any company intent on developing a new software concept will probably choose Windows - by far, the largest software market in America - and thus faces Microsoft as a potential competitor. If the idea is good enough, Microsoft is an inevitable competitor. Now, why would any company spend $$$$$$$$ to develop a market that Microsoft can preempt without a second thought? Do you think the answer might involve software patents?

      ---

      Your principle also ignores the realities of democracy. The important factor is that the people have access to the invention which the people funded.

      Yes. And "access to the invention" is exactly what patents are designed to promote. In exchange for the modest price of a fixed-term monopoly, the public enjoys the benefit of a corporation doing a ton of research, creating an invention, and disclosing the results along with the best way of using them. That seems quite fair to me - and to the framers of the Constitution.

      ---

      Commercialization is not the purpose of government research.

      Oh - so we should spend our tax dollars on research that has no tangible benefit for humanity? "Commercialization" is just a concise term for "technology that people will find useful enough to buy." Hardly seems like "greedy business guys" in that context, huh?

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    45. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      The bottom-line professed concept of IP is that no one will innovate without the chance to make monopoly levels of profit.

      No one has ever asserted that "no one" will invent. Patents, nor any other form of IP protection, have never been asserted as the sine qua non of invention. They are merely an "incentive." Some who would choose not to invent may be persuaded to do so. Others who would choose to invent may be encouraged to work harder on finishing and commercializing their invention.

      ---

      Therefore the proper means of competing in a free market is to get to market quickly with a superior product, price it to sell fast, make your money fast, and get on with the next product.

      Oh, great! Just what we need - a bunch of half-baked, bug-ridden products that people whipped together fastfastfast and dumped on the consumer to make a quick buck. Screw customer support; we created that product last year - we've done eight others in the meantime!

      Yikes. The net is awash in incomplete concept software - we don't need more of it. Have you never visited Winfiles.com?

      (Yes, that's a joke. But I assert that if you're looking for an application to do something simple and stupid - e.g., scheduled file transfer - you're likely to go through a dozen shareware packages before you find something remotely decent. The rest is junk, if it works at all.)

      ---

      ALL IP law is detrimental to the advancement of the species. Period.

      (Sigh) This abstract, unsupported assertion gets tiresome by the sixth time one encounters it.

      Copyright law arose about 20 minutes after the invention of the printing press. Trade secret law has been a mainstay of our business system for eons. The need for patent law is expressed in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and patent-like systems date back to early Greece and Rome. If the issue were as simple and obvious as you assert, then a whole lot of people have made a whole lot of unwise choices.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    46. Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, what a pile of stinking bullshit to which I reply! The 'incompatible standards' that you cry out about, were not the internets fault. Indeed there are w3 standards. Microsoft chose to ignore them (ok, so did Netscape). Firefox and Mozilla follow W3 guidelines. So the 'incompatible' issue was a STUPID BUSINESS DECISION, MADE BY A STUPID BUSINESS!!! As for Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adleman, they designed RSA in an academic lab. Stock watching business tycoons have no knowloedge, nor the technical chutzpah to even understand how RSA works, much less design it. Another STUPID incompatible business decision was using winsock. Gee, I guess they stole TCP/IP from BSD to solve that problem too. I'm sure glad the internet which 'just works' doesn't listen to some stupid business and their petty little needs.

    47. Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Software isn't a business. Apparently you know about hammers and so in your world, everything is a nail. Software is literature. It's a story which tells a computer how to act. Like a well-written essay, there is an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. There is no 'business' in it at all. Further, a lot of really good software (the best software) isn't used for 'business' at all. It's used for science and research. Using computers for mere business sullies computers. Business people should be forced back to pencil and paper. Using advanced technology like computers, for something as useless as business is quite stuipid -much like attaching a hay wagon to a high performance aircraft. Computers drag business around all day, but never are allowed to achieve their potential, because of the stupid hay wagon (business). Even worse, business people are highly (shockingly) non-technical, and put useless applications like spreadsheets on them. While possible to dumb down a computer in this way, you cripple it's performance. The machines ability to reason --the inherent intellect it's designers put into it-- are wasted on ty-coons who try to out smart it (and waste it's potential). Much like technical people working for a business, their potential is 99.99999% wasted, because the people in charge (the stuipd business only people), see them as order-takers instead of solution providers. The only joy I see, is that in the world of outsourcing, intelligent overseas companies will quit treating IT people as mere servants to the "oh so mighty business elite" and use them as solution providers rather than order takers. At that point, the company will flourish, take over it's parent, and the stupid business people with their ignorant ways will find themselves outsourced. What is more bizarre, is those stupid business people take no training in (IT) or any other specific business, but in "Business in General". Those same two-faced individuals cannot accept that someone trained in 'computers' can learn about the specific technology when they get to the business. Instead they insist on very specific training in their specific business --something they themselves are unwilling to do. Two faced bastards!

    48. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      I have thought about this, but the task is basically too large. The things that are being patented are too obvious, too common - invisible like a tree in the forest. Until someone takes a patent out on them of course, and pretends it is a unique invention instead of a fact of life.

      So here's a second suggestion, if you're truly motivated: Sign up as a software patent examiner for the USPTO. Surely they need competent IT people to trundle forth rejections of obvious, everyday software. It's kind of like the army - the pay isn't great, but you're doing your country a great service - and it's highly unlikely you'll get shot.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    49. Re:Don't be a fool by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "in exchange for the tyranny of a state-sponsored monopoly, the public gets free use of a disclosed technology."

      Free? Since when has it been free? They get it after the monopoly profit has been made and they get it years after they should have (although I agree that patents last a shorter time than copyrights, which is good.)

      As for trade-secret law, I oppose ALL IP laws. As for companies protecting trade secrets, this is extremely difficult to do since the product has to be sold and the manufacturing process can usually be easily reproduced - or an equivalent product produced (Pepsi vrs. Coke - who really gives a shit which one is "secret" - and Coke's process isn't secret anyway...)

      As for companies hiding R&D results, certainly if they spent X billion AND no OTHER company wishes to invest an equivalent amount, then the release of that research to the public is slowed, to the detriment of the species. However, it is no different if the research is patented and protected by the state for X years. Can you cite any case where a critical technology was hidden successfully by a corporation from all other pursuers for years longer than patents would have protected them? I doubt it.

      And even if you can, it doesn't change the basic logic that such research should be released in the form of a functional product that is unprotected. Patents are an odd way of making sure something is made available, at best.

      As for the framers of the Constitution, they were subject to the same illogic as the rest of humanity. As for America's prominence, this has FAR more to do with being a coherent large country with (relative) economic and political freedom for the first century or so than it does the patent system. As for the rest of the world adopting the same system, it just proves that greed is universal.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    50. Re:Don't be a fool by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "No one has ever asserted that "no one" will invent."

      You haven't bothered reading any of the /. posts numerous times over the last week (probably) let alone anything else ever written on the subject, have you? This is EXACTLY what is asserted by the RIAA, the MPAA, and everybody else decrying any form IP roll-back.

      When I say get to market fast, I said nothing about incompetency. And Microsoft is a clear demonstration that taking years to get to market doesn't mean a decent product, either.

      "If the issue were as simple and obvious as you assert, then a whole lot of people have made a whole lot of unwise choices."

      No shit... And completely true...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    51. Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The effect was the opposite of what you claim.

      The patent on RSA (not actually on RSA, but on a specific aspect of it) prevented it from becoming widely used. Until the patent expired, half of the software out there used alternate algorithms, and interoperability was not very good.

      Had RSA not been encumbered by patents, secure standards based on it would've matured sooner. Seriously. Everybody wanted to use RSA, but many avoided it due to the patents.

    52. Re:Don't be a fool by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Rubbish!

      RSA patented the unpatentable. They patented a mathematical method, and then with the blessing of the USPTO they proceeded to set back the course of internet commerce for years! If it wasn't for RSA, 1024 bit encryption would have been standard years ago and we'd all be living with more secure communications. Web browsers have only recently been able to support higher level encryption, and most apps don't usually support secure communication and transportation of data. Why? Because RSA were granted one of the most obnoxious and unethical monopolies in recent history.

      Their monopoly gave them breathing room, yes. Is this required to nurture a growing software industry? NO! One (hyphanated) word. IBM-Compatable. If it weren't for reverse engineering, IBM-compatables would never have been so cheap. Apple would have dominated. But there was so much competition, the PC industry flourished. Take a look at early word processors, spreadsheets, etc. There was huge comptetition in the early days. Mostly gone now. Why? rippling Software patents might have something to do with it?

      I say again. The RSA patent was invalid. It was a mathematical algoritm. By granting their patent, the USPTO stifiled encryption innnovation in computer products by two decades. We are all years behind where we should be. Sure RSA made a lot of money licensing their mathematics, but the rest of us suffered. I still don't have secure email. I mean Jesus, it's only the worlds most important communication method! An yet it's still a pain in the ass to get even 128bit encryption emails as the recipient usually can't decrypt your mail. Here's one perfect example of how patents have set back all our standards of living.

      I can see that you are in favour of software patents. Admittedly they butter your bread, but they do precious little for anyone else. I believe in the free market and competition. And I know that software patents are anti-free market, anti-competative and ultimately a destructive force on our economy.

      Am I against ALL patents? No. But software patents are just ridiculous. With any other patent, if I change the internal design of my product, just enough, so that it works differently than described by patent XYZ, then I'm not infringing. This encourages innovation. Products just keep getting better and better. However with software patents, no matter how I change my internal design and metrics, if the end result products does the same thing, then I have infringed on the patent. This is it. This is the crux. Under the current regieme the quickest, most buggy, and most inferior product is the one which is granted the monopoly. And the patent protects it from all comeers, no matter how innovative. Consumers suffer, competition suffers, the government suffers, even the patent holder willl eventually suffer as their company loes it competative edge.

      If the current farce within the USPTO continues, then the entire patent system will come into question. Joe jobs will not distinguish between a bad software patent and a bad patent. If the general public ever get wind of the amount of idiotic software patents that have been granted then they will lose faith in the system as a whole. That's just another of the dangers that software patents hold for us. Just look around you. Look at all the bright young slashdotters. if they had gone into engineering or sciences, then they would be great supporters of the patent system. But they, largely, went into the computer industry, and many are now openly hostile to the patent system.

      Software patents must end. They must all, without exception, be completely invalidated if the patent system is to have a shread of respectability left.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    53. Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Business was around before software. It is not unnatural for business types to try and treat IT and software like support commodities rather than real tools of the trade that actually make them the money. It sounds like the business MANN definitely has you down. Which is to be expected. The majority of the entrenched business elite is very un-tech savy and unwilling to learn. Unfortunately, they are a necessary evil. To really use your analogy technology is the high performance aircraft, but business is the factory that built it. Without business IT would still be locked away in universities and academic institutions without ever seeing the light of day. We need business, BUT business now NEEDS IT and software to run it.
      There is only way this will solidify itself into the pointy heads of real business decision makers. Let every IT, telco and software worker of every walk of life walk off the job one day. Before they do that, shut down every system they control. When the world stops they will understand. Only then.
      If anyone has a better way I'd be willing to hear it now. Otherwise, plan a day and campaign it. People don't know the value of something unless it's gone.
      Of course this will be a severe problem if people walk out of power stations(especially nuke plants), hospitals, emergency response and military organizations. Although I'm hoping the decision maker of those institutions already know the value of their IT and software people?

      Good luck.

    54. Re:Don't be a fool by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      >"The government doesn't really encourage "people" to do this. It encourages corporations to do this."

      Incorrect. The Bayh-Dole Act is aimed at nonprofit institutions - mostly universities, but also nonprofit hospitals. Corporations are only incidental beneficiaries - a means to an end.

      Hospitals, universities and so called 'non profit' institutions are all still corporations. (and most of them are not factually non-profit (regardless of their legal status)) A corporation need not be "for profit" to actually serve the private interests of its shareholders.

      There are other ways to exploit a monopoly without making profit. for example : exlusive license to another corporation for "commercialization".

      And with that aside. Non profit doesn't really mean non-profit.

      Not withstanding whatever the text of the bill says: it encourages corporations.

      As for encouraging "people," the government has many programs to help "people" to create companies around new technologies. Read up on the Small Business Innovation Research program, where states sponsor technology initiatives for small businesses (and only small businesses can apply for them.

      If you are taking the position that handing over patents on government funded research is not intended to actually be a form of wellfare subsidies for large corporations (rather than "people"), then why do you rationalize that subsidy by showing that the government also subsidizes small businesses?

      Patentees have an obligation to use the technology they patent; if they don't, they can be forced into a compulsory licensing scheme.

      thats great. And I'm sure that forcing someone into a compulsory licensing scheme is not only cost effective but it is trivial to do. How can you prove someone is not "USING" a patent?

      There is no obligation to demonstrate to anyone how a technology is being used. Proving non-use would require someone to be able to prove a negative. Exceedingly difficult to do.

      Of course it doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. I will repeat it for you:

      "Private entities also retain ownership of vast and sundry technologies - which, as it happens, sit on shelves completely unused."

      How do pharmaceutical companies choose candidates for further development? Think about it: the company must push the drug through several years of research, and then FDA approval. That costs a ton of money. Why would Merck take that chance if the moment its drug is FDA-approved, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Millennium can start selling the same drug?

      I have no complaint about businesses owning patents to inventions for which they financed the entire cost of research.

      However, the government ought not help to cover the cost of research and then give the private partnet a 100% ownership stake in the fruits of that labour.

      For this reason, pharmaceutical companies solely focus on drugs that can be patented. This is an undeniable business reality.

      Contrasted with mundain commercial enterprises, your example of pharmaceutical companies is a special case of a product which costs a fortune to test, is very dangerous, and is relatively inexpensive to produce. It is not the general case of commercialization of inventions or business in general. What holds true for "pharmaceutical companies" does not hold for business in general. Your argument is a straw man attack.

      Moreover, your definition of "pharmaceutical company" only seems includes companies which research drugs and excludes companies that manufacture and sell drugs without research. Such as generic drug companies.

      However... if a non-patentable drug existed and it was already tested/researched/proven safe and cleared by the FDA. Drug companies DO commercialize them. Examples: ASA, acetomenaphine, penicillin, morphine, codeine and any generic drug on the market today.

      Yes. And "access to the invention" is exactly what patents are desig

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    55. Re:Don't be a fool by tambo · · Score: 1
      Hospitals, universities and so called 'non profit' institutions are all still corporations.

      Now you're quibbling. Sure, hospitals and universities incorporate - primarily so that they can take advantage of some techncical benefits of the tax code. If you're going to be this picky, then technically, our law sees every "corporation" as a "person," so your point is moot.

      If you want to switch to practical terms, well, your point is still moot. You're railing against government sponsorship of "corporations" via the Bayh-Dole Act, and now you're including hospitals and universities in your definition of "corporations." I doubt many would agree that the government should stop funding academic research (solely on the basis that universities are "corporations," and therefore somehow evil.)

      ---

      A corporation need not be "for profit" to actually serve the private interests of its shareholders.

      Actually, that's the primary legal difference between nonprofit and for-profit institutions: nonprofits cannot use their funds to benefit any private individual (including - no, especially - shareholders.)

      ---

      If you are taking the position that handing over patents on government funded research is not intended to actually be a form of wellfare subsidies for large corporations (rather than "people"), then why do you rationalize that subsidy by showing that the government also subsidizes small businesses?

      You've misconstrued my purpose. Small businesses are "people," in the finest-grain sense of the word that is practical for this purpose. The government asks a few people to get together and make an employment-class commitment to work on the funded research. I don't think that's asking to much.

      The alternative is to write personal checks (of large value!) to specific individuals to carry out research. That has a hideous taint to it, and the potentials for corruption are tremendous. Moreover, no one in their right mind would take on such personal liability. If a company works on government-funded research that doesn't pan out, the company can basically fold. (Most startups do, within five years, because prospective research is risky.) But an individual may be saddled with paying back some of that money... who'd undertake such a personal risk?

      ---

      Proving non-use would require someone to be able to prove a negative. Exceedingly difficult to do.

      In the abstract - e.g., "there is no god" - yes, it's exceedingly possible. In a specific instance, with limited objects to examine, it's pretty easy. Look: { 1 4 12 13 19 26 32 } - I can prove that this set does not contain the number 16.

      I'm not being smarmy here; I'm showing how "proving the negative" is done. It's pretty easy: company X patents a fantastic technique for drive compression, let's say, but they abandon work on the technology and solely assert it defensively. If it's abandoned long enough, any company that actually wants to use it can sue for patent abuse, and simply must show that the company hasn't offered the technology in any product. Hardly an impossible task.

      ---

      However, the government ought not help to cover the cost of research and then give the private partnet a 100% ownership stake in the fruits of that labour.

      (sigh) You're disregarding the fact that no business is going to pick up only part of it. Seriously, it doesn't get much easier than this. There are plenty of fish in the sea of commerce - why waste time pursuing one that another fisherman has also hooked? They would have to pull against each other as much as against their prey, and if they're lucky, each of them gets half of a torn-apart fish.

      ---

      Contrasted with mundain commercial enterprises, your example of pharmaceutical companies is a special case of a product which costs a fortune to test, is very dangerous, and is relatively inexpensive to produce. It is not the general case of commercialization of inventions or business

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    56. Re:Don't be a fool by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      You're railing against government sponsorship of "corporations" via the Bayh-Dole Act, and now you're including hospitals and universities in your definition of "corporations."

      My position is that the government should stop granting monopolies to private entities where it was the government which paid for the original research.

      It was my position that the primary benefactors of Bayh-Dole Act are NOT people, but are corporations (and shareholders) And moreover that this is not accidental, but intentional.

      I did NOT claim governments should never subsidize corporations under any circumstance (so I wont debate that here).

      You have misunderstood the breadth of my claim.

      I doubt many would agree that the government should stop funding academic research (solely on the basis that universities are "corporations," and therefore somehow evil.)

      I doubt that many people would consider funding public academic research and giving money to corporate shareholders to conduct private research to be exactly the same thing but there you have it.

      nonprofits cannot use their funds to benefit any private individual (including - no, especially - shareholders.)

      They can experience capital gains, they can generate income. They generate so called "political capital" for private parties. They can pay fat salaries to corporate executives. call me naive. but those sound like benefits.

      The alternative is to write personal checks (of large value!) to specific individuals to carry out research. That has a hideous taint to it, and the potentials for corruption are tremendous.

      The potentials for corruption have less to do with *who gets the money*. And more to do with who is *choosing* who gets the money.

      There is no reason to believe that grants to parties to do research with all inventions returning to the public is any more prone to corruption than a system which returns nothing back to the public.

      Those parties need not be motivated by altruism. They can pay themselves salaries for the work they do.

      Moreover, no one in their right mind would take on such personal liability.

      What liabiity? Academics *want* to do research. They aren't academics because they want to be businesspeople. To be paid to do research and publish the results for the whole world to appreciate how smart they are. That is what makes them happy.

      All they are responsible to do is show scientific research. They aren't responsible to sell a product.

      This is probably less liability than a researcher would have working for a private firm which is always looking to cut programs that can't turn in a profit next quarter.

      Look: { 1 4 12 13 19 26 32 } - I can prove that this set does not contain the number 16.

      Not analagous to the operation of private entities.

      Given the Set Y. The members of Y are not disclosed. Can you prove that the number 16 is not in the Set Y?

      You can't. You don't have enough information to prove such a proposition.

      The only way to demonstrate patent abuse, is to have access to information which private entities are, in general, under no obligation to disclose.

      Seriously, it doesn't get much easier than this. There are plenty of fish in the sea of commerce - why waste time pursuing one that another fisherman has also hooked? They would have to pull against each other as much as against their prey, and if they're lucky, each of them gets half of a torn-apart fish.

      That is what some people call free market capitalism working PROPERLY. It was something I learned about when I was a young lad being indoctinated into capitalist way of thinking. The teacher called it COMPETITION, and it was alleged that competition builds character and work ethic.

      You seem to be advocating a theory of economics that would suggest that it is good for consumers if their is no competition and the entire market consisted of monopolies and o

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  44. Oops. "future = futile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry. I meant to say "futile", not "future".

  45. The Point: URLs by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point of encoding lat/lons this way is to allow a compact coding in URLs.

    That's useful in mobile devices, where URLs are limited. It's also useful in that now you might be able to memorize and type in your latitude/longitude, since in a higher base (30 is just an example) you can get good precision in few digits (their example is 5 characters, with 2-meter precision).

    Why base 30? That's 10 digits and 26 letters, minus 6 vowels "to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive". Funny.

    So it's useful. As far as I'm aware nobody's ever done it before, which makes it both non-obvious and novel. Those are the three tests of a patent. If you don't want to use it, keep using base 10. If you do want to use it, at least give Microsoft credit for coming up with a reasonably clever idea. As another poster pointed out, this is the type of patent MS usually uses defensively, so that nobody goes out and patents an idea they're already using in live software.

    I think MS would like to see everybody memorize the lat-lon of their home as two five-digit strings, but it's not going to happen. First of all, the patent requires you to pick a precision beforehand; decimal degrees and degrees/minutes/seconds don't require that. Second, even if MS introduced a standard, they'd better release the patent for public use, or nobody will bother lest they risk being sued. Decimals are wordy, but everybody understands them and they're free.

    I have one other gripe about the patent. They spend considerable time explaining how to convert a number in base 10 to a number in base N. It's not one of the claims, and it really could have been taken as given.

    1. Re:The Point: URLs by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      j00 fsck3r

      j00 f41l3d 1t

      --
    2. Re:The Point: URLs by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's 10 digits and 26 letters, minus 6 vowels "to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive". Funny.
      B00BZB4BY.

    3. Re:The Point: URLs by raboofje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > So it's useful. As far as I'm aware nobody's ever
      > done it before, which makes it both non-obvious
      > and novel. Those are the three tests of a patent.

      Whoa, wait a minute. I agree it's useful (though the reason for choosing base 30 is indeed funny).

      It is *not* novel or non-obvious. Anyone who has ever seen various forms of primitive compression, as well as most people with common sense, could easily have come up with this.

      Patents are meant for the kind of really intelligent stuff that requires hard research work. This is not such an idea.

    4. Re:The Point: URLs by arose · · Score: 1
      As far as I'm aware nobody's ever done it before, which makes it both non-obvious and novel.
      1. I, for one, welcome our new prior art overlord...
      2. Even if they are the first to convert floats to ints on the internet, I still fail to see how it is non-obvious.
      3. Why do they obscure the fact that they are talking about an algorithm by calling it a "computer implemented method"?
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    5. Re:The Point: URLs by Living+WTF · · Score: 0

      What? When did M$ file a patent for using "L" (RTFA) as 6th vowel?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
    6. Re:The Point: URLs by blackjackshellac · · Score: 1

      This is a very clever idea, and I write this as someone who dispises (for a multitude of reasons that I won't go into now) Micro$oft. Somebody mod this poster up.

      --
      Salut,

      Jacques

    7. Re:The Point: URLs by sadr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Note that there are claims (1, 8, and 16-21) that don't limit themselves to URLs.

      Any software that uses such an encoding internally would violate this patent.

    8. Re:The Point: URLs by dabadab · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Non-obvious? Novel? Look at uuencoding or base64 encoding, they use a very similar concept, but they are case-sensitive and include other symbols besides letters and digits.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    9. Re:The Point: URLs by SagSaw · · Score: 1

      This is one of a class of patents which I don't think should be allowed, desipite possibly being useful, novel, and non-obvious:

      This is simply the combination of existing inventions:

      1. Using a base-N number to decrease the number of characters required to represent some quantity.

      2. Representing geographical locations using a 2-D coordinate system.

      Both of these have been done before, and no new invention is required to use them in combination.

      --
      Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
    10. Re:The Point: URLs by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      It is not clever, it is trivial. I needed to perform some form of compression to represent coordinates (not Lat./Long.) on a database a couple of years ago. Didn't patent it because a) I live in Europe, b) It simply required some first year university math.

      But, no doubt, M$ would have gasped with glee at our simple algorithm and M$ fanboys everywhere would have been slapping our backs and calling us "geniuses".

      --
      Did he inhale?
    11. Re:The Point: URLs by daniel_mcl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If you don't want to use it, keep using base 10."

      The patent covers *every* value of N, including 10. Under this patent you are no longer allowed to convert a "geographically-oriented number" into a decimal (or binary) integer representation.

      "Decimal degrees and degrees/minutes/seconds don't require [picking a precision beforehand]."

      They do exactly that -- it's a base ten integer, a base sixty integer, and then a base sixty real.

      --
      I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
    12. Re:The Point: URLs by too_poland · · Score: 1

      For binary data (eg. floats) URL base64 encoding anyone? With vowels replaced optionally by special characters. As usual M$ optimizes wheel.

    13. Re:The Point: URLs by sadr · · Score: 1

      A number of the claims don't reference URLs. Claim #1 covers encoding any floating point coordinate system (not just lat-long), converting them to integers, and then converting an integer into any arbitrary alphabet (including decimal, hexadecimal, or possibly even base-256, i.e. bytes.)

      And from their description down at the bottom:

      [0083] It should be noted that embodiments of the present invention are generally beneficial in that they enable floating-point numbers to be converted into a compact ASCII string. Application within URL's is only one example where such compact strings are beneficial. Other application scenarios are within the scope of the present invention. The scheme for generating the compact strings can be applied in any place where one needs to transmit or store binary floating-point information, with the constraints that one has to limit some arbitrary character set and one wants to make it as compact as possible while preserving a desired level of accuracy. Relevant applications are not limited to those involving transmission over a network, but also include storage in data files, etc.

    14. Re:The Point: URLs by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      As another poster pointed out, this is the type of patent MS usually uses defensively, so that nobody goes out and patents an idea they're already using in live software.

      In order to prevent someone else from getting a patent on this it would be sufficient to publish the algorithm. After it is published it is no longer "novel". This is much cheaper than patenting.

    15. Re:The Point: URLs by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware nobody's ever done it before, which makes it both non-obvious and novel.

      Novel means "strikingly new, unusual, or different". Non-obvious means "not obvious". Neither of these follow directly from the fact that nobody's done it before.

      I think Microsoft has clearly seen that nobody else has bothered to patent this, and so they have jumped on it in order to have a legal weapon to stop interopability, should such a situation ever occur in the future.

    16. Re:The Point: URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wrote a driver for a CalComp plotter in the early 80's. They used such a system for moving the pens. I believe it was base 36 (they didn't care about vowels).

    17. Re:The Point: URLs by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Decimal degrees can be carried out to as many digits of precision as you wish with the decimal point. Microsoft's format converts the real number to an int, sacrificing precision.

      Of course, it would be a simple (and, I suppose if we take this as a standard, patentable) extension to add a terdecimal point to the base-30 number.

    18. Re:The Point: URLs by jfengel · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell, none of the mapping sites encode information this way, even though it might be advantageous for them to do so. If somebody can show me a case where they do so of course I'd retract. But I'd argue that since people can and should have done this before, but haven't that makes it non-obvious.

      It's certainly true that any competent designer, faced with this particular problem (how can you encode a lat/lon in a short URL) would come up with the same answer. Often, however, the point of an invention isn't coming up with a novel answer but defining a problem to be solved. Often that involves taking several things that were just laying around and sticking them together in a way nobody's done before.

      I'm not certain that patents were ever limited to genius-level work. Early patents are full of tiny improvements to pin-makers and sewing machines. It's not unique to the software era.

      The difference is that it was easy for Joe Blow to invent his improvement to the cotton gin, but hard for him to mass-manufacture them. The patent was his was of getting Massive Cotton Gins, Inc. to pay him for his idea. Software has a far lower barrier to entry; you could start using this idea right now and have your software on the market tomorrow morning.

      It may well be that the world would be better off if patents were limited to earth-shaking improvements, but that sets up one of those hard choices: if you concede that patents are good for some inventions, it becomes messy to say that invention X is genius level but invention Y is merely kinda clever. Over the past decade the USPTO has proven rather promiscuous in its choice (leaving it up to the courts to make the real decisions), and I fault them for screwing up their jobs, but it sure doesn't mean I'd want to have their jobs myself. I'd do better, but still not well.

    19. Re:The Point: URLs by geoff+lane · · Score: 1

      I fail to understand what is non-obvious about base-30 arithmetic and representing such numbers using an ASCII subset.

      uuencode and a number of other schemes make use of ASCII subsets to encode data.

    20. Re:The Point: URLs by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Even if they are the first to convert floats to ints on the internet, I still fail to see how it is non-obvious.

      It's not just floats to ints. It's a way of coding a particular, well-defined kind of information, which involves at least two steps (converting the float to an int, then coding the int in a form which is not only brief but can be coded in a URL (though strictly speaking that last part isn't a requirement of the patent).

      Yeah, each piece is tiny, and the algorithm as a whole has not been done before, despite there being many others who might have done so. It would have been obvious to you if you'd been the first one to face the problem as MS defined it, but often times the real trick isn't so much solving a problem nobody's solved but finding a problem nobody's seen.

      Why do they obscure the fact that they are talking about an algorithm by calling it a "computer implemented method"?

      That's the way patents are written. I have no idea why. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because you're supposed to patent a thing, not an idea. An algorithm is an idea; a computer implemented method is a thing.

      At best that's playing semantic games, and numerous categories of patent (not just software patents, e.g. business process patents) are increasingly far from the "adding an extra flange to a sewing machine" you-can-kick-it-with-your-foot style of patent originally envisioned.

      I find the distinction stupid, because you were always patenting an idea rather than a machine. You're not inventing that particular flange on the sewing machine but the idea of sticking it on. They just wanted to limit you to ideas for physical things, as opposed to being able to patent, say, the plot of a book (though the actual text comes under a different category of intellectual property.)

    21. Re:The Point: URLs by jfengel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not a lawyer, but my suspicion is that the patent office reads other patents much more than it reads other prior art. Since MS has patent lawyers on retainer they probably got this patent for a few thousand bucks.

      A patent is "stronger" prior art than a journal publication. It shouldn't be, but it is.

      If somebody else were to patent it, or worse patent a similar and overlapping idea, it would take MS considerable effort and court time to prove that it had prior art. They may be hoping to forestall that by putting their idea in a place that patent examiners would be sure to see it if a similar patent comes in.

      Even if the USPTO granted that patent, MS could point to their own prior patent, which would probably dramatically shorten the negotiations and/or the time in a courtroom.

    22. Re:The Point: URLs by daniel_mcl · · Score: 1

      A floating point number still has a machine-imposed byte limit on the number of decimal places it represents. In fact, you can just interpret the n-byte float as an n-byte int to convert to an integer with zero loss of precision.

      Of course, you can use GMP or the like the represent arbitrarily long floats, which can subsequently be converted into arbitrarily large integers.

      --
      I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
    23. Re:The Point: URLs by jfengel · · Score: 1

      That's why I said "real", not "float". Though Fortran calls it a "real", and strictly speaking a float could have arbitrary precision, so perhaps I'm splitting hairs. I meant "real" as a mathematical concept, not as a computer term.

      In URLs (which are kind of indirectly the point) they don't use a floating-point represetnation; they use a fixed point and are abitrarily long. But they're still not infinitely long, so they're not true reals; you can't represent 1/3 precisely in any decimalized URL. But that distinction is subtle and kind of irrelevant, since more than ten decimal places of meters and you're talking about addressing individual atoms.

    24. Re:The Point: URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my company has been using base-36 encoding for lat/long since 1999 in an on-line GIS system. It seemed too obvious patent since I thought it up in about 2 minutes when trying to figure out how to make the URLs smaller.

    25. Re:The Point: URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.gulasidorna.se/query?mop=mc&what=map&ma pstate=1%3B1562200%3B6899163&map.x=200&map.y=267

      The patent says "base-N string"

    26. Re:The Point: URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      B1LL G4T3S 1S A C0CK SM0K3R

      (Tee hee hee)

    27. Re:The Point: URLs by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, none of the mapping sites encode information this way, even though it might be advantageous for them to do so. If somebody can show me a case where they do so of course I'd retract. But I'd argue that since people can and should have done this before, but haven't that makes it non-obvious.

      The design is defined by the constraints. The constraints are: A compact encoding of numeric value, such that the encoded form can be in a URL.

      The obvious manner for a printable compact encoding of a numeric value is Base64. Base64 isn't URL safe though - URLs don't distinguish case, and some of the extended characters won't be valid in URLs. So let's use the Base64 set, less the non-alphanumerics, and uppercase letters. That leaves you with 26 chars from a-z and 10 from 0-9 for 36 in total. All of these steps so far are very obvious for the given problem constraints. The step of choosing to drop vowels to bring the total number of chars to 30 for base30 encoding is somewhat arbitrary (I probably would have decided to just use 0-5 and base32 instead) but hardly represents a stunning insight, as certainly base30 or base32 are the obvious nearest "round number" choices.

      Why has no one does this before? Mostly because the problem (encoding lat long for inclusion in a URL) is relatively new. Has anyone done anything similar beore? tinyURL certainly have the issue of compactly encoding a number (an index into a databse of long URLs rather than a lat/long) for inclusion in a URL, and their solution looks suspiciously similar to what I outlined above.

      Essentially you are saying that the "novel" part is

      (1) Dropping vowels instead of other characters
      (2) using base30 instead of base32
      (3) using it for lat/long encoding

      Now (1) and (2) are arbitrary choices, not inventions. If you're going to allow that, then I can patent base64 encoding where I use @ instead of +. As for (3) - you're saying it is novel to use such an encoding specifically for lat/long numbers, as opposed to any general numeric argument? That's the same as the "add 'on the internet'" to anything to make it patentable concepts. I may as well use such an encoding to compactly represent dates and times in URLs (for online calendaring software maybe). I mean, the exact same encoding scheme, but for dates and times. No one has ever done that before, so it must be truly novel and creative (as opposed to obvious once the problem is stated) right?

      Jedidiah.

    28. Re:The Point: URLs by DrTime · · Score: 1

      This is not new or innovative. Back in the late 70's and early 80's Calcomp used a system where an arbitrary radix (MS uses a fixed radix of 30) and an arbitrary base would allow computers to communicate with thier plotters very efficiently over serial lines. This allowed numbers to be encoded as ASCII text.

      There were many reasons why Calcomp did this, all having to do with the many limitations vendors imposed on serial ports and terminal devices at the time.

      So, this is nothing new.

    29. Re:The Point: URLs by localman · · Score: 1

      You're right. I did this at payme.com (paypal competitor, no longer in business) to shorten the URLs in our emails. It is not at all novel. It's the first thing that came up when we wanted to shorten the integer in our URLs. "Um... let's do them in hex? Or base 64 or something?" I think that was the extent of the design meeting for that "feature".

      If we had patented it, maybe we'd still be in business :)

      Cheers.

    30. Re:The Point: URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " think MS would like to see everybody memorize the lat-lon of their home as two five-digit strings"

      Hmmm... I wonder who lives at Mvthrfvckr?

    31. Re:The Point: URLs by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      minus 6 vowels "to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive". Funny.
      Insensitive clod! Welsh I am!
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    32. Re:The Point: URLs by oldfogie · · Score: 1
      Why base 30? That's 10 digits and 26 letters, minus 6 vowels "to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive". Funny.

      So it's useful. As far as I'm aware nobody's ever done it before, which makes it both non-obvious and novel. Those are the three tests of a patent. If you don't want to use it, keep using base 10. If you do want to use it, at least give Microsoft credit for coming up with a reasonably clever idea. As another poster pointed out, this is the type of patent MS usually uses defensively, so that nobody goes out and patents an idea they're already using in live software.
      As for nobody ever doing this before, wrong (pretty much).

      One application where I work had to write unique alpha-numeric labels on boxes. A LOT of them. For the USPS.

      Of course, there were certain words that we were not allowed to generate. What were they? They could not tell us, as that would require them use the forbidden words. {sigh...}

      What was settled on was alpha-numerics without the vowles, so that words could not be generated by accident.

      So, while person 'X' may have never though of or heard of this before, chances are person 'Y' thinks this is old hat.
    33. Re:The Point: URLs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      It's a way of coding a particular, well-defined kind of information
      You could say that about many programming tasks.
      Yeah, each piece is tiny, and the algorithm as a whole has not been done before, despite there being many others who might have done so. It would have been obvious to you if you'd been the first one to face the problem as MS defined it
      Most of the programs I write are unique. I wouldn't say that they're patententable though. The reason that they're unique is they're written for a specific customer with a specific business requirement. The individual parts are the usual programming concepts - structures, arrays, loops that you'd see in pretty much any program.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:The Point: URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A floating point number still has a machine-imposed byte limit on the number of decimal places it represents.
      Decimal places != significant digits.
    35. Re:The Point: URLs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      also include storage in data files, etc.
      Wasn't a similar trick sometimes used as a Y2K workaround to fit 3 digits into 2 bytes?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    36. Re:The Point: URLs by jfengel · · Score: 1

      You are correct: neither (1) nor (2) is actually part of the claims of the patent. I bring it up only because of the numerous posts saying "Haw haw haw... base 30 how stoopid." I was just explaining why.

      Part (3) is where the patent lies: using a base N encoding for lat/lon values, where the lat/lons have been normalized to an integer. None of those pieces is novel, but to my knowledge they haven't been put together this way before. If they have been that's presumptive evidence to challenge the patent.

      If you wish to say (for example) "I propose that we normalize on milliseconds-since-epoch, and represent that as a base N number, which would be useful for compressing times in URLs", yeah, that's probably patentable. Base 10 is probably excluded due to prior art.

      It's probably not a terribly useful patent for you to have, since there are many alternative representation schemes already in use. Nobody else has particularly found the need for it yet, or they'd have done it already.

      Now, those same things could be pointed out to MS about their patent, and it probably applies. That's why I suspect this is a defensive patent: MS is probably using this coding on the terraserver or some such, and decided it would be easier to get a patent than fight off some numnuts who decides to patent the idea and then sue MS hoping to get a settlement rather than have his case tossed out by a judge.

    37. Re:The Point: URLs by jfengel · · Score: 1

      The cutting out of the vowels is not part of the patent; it's merely an amusing side note. I point it out only because people were wondering why base 30.

      The patent is on the representation of lat/lons in the alternative radixes.

    38. Re:The Point: URLs by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      It is *not* novel or non-obvious.

      Although using the number 30 is maybe novel and non-obvious. More likely just dumb.

      I realize that the state of US education is pretty low, but seriously!
      Converting numbers from one base to another is what, grade school level?
      Handling a pair of things of the same length by concatenating them seems rather obvious.

    39. Re:The Point: URLs by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      If you wish to say (for example) "I propose that we normalize on milliseconds-since-epoch, and represent that as a base N number, which would be useful for compressing times in URLs", yeah, that's probably patentable. Base 10 is probably excluded due to prior art.

      My point is not whether that is patentable, but that it shouldn't be. It's silly. A method and system for encoding a general numeric value in a printable form has been well known for a long time (Base64 or MIME encoding), and the variants and ideas involved are obvious to anyone who has ever done any work whatsoever in those fields. If general numbers are well covered by prior art, why should specific kinds of numbers now be patentable?

      Perhaps you haen't done much math in various bases, or perhaps you haven't played with any compression schemes. In that case this particular system may not be obvious to you. It is quite obvious to "anyone skilled in the art". This is akin to someone patenting a "special new engine" that is vastly different from every other engine ever constructed by dint of the fact that it has been "specially constructed for North American roads" by adjusting the timing slightly.

      Jedidiah.

  46. hahahah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you qualify this rather severely, this is incorrect. As in "not even close".

    oh that is the funniest thing ever, look at the MOST RECENT SALES FIGURES and more importantly the ATTACH RATES for xbox versus gamecube and then compare them to PS2. you have nothing at all to stand on.

    1. Re:hahahah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS has lost billions of dollars on XBOX that they will probably be unable to make up for years to come! That's genius!

  47. Going against the flow by hanshotfirst · · Score: 2, Informative
    IANAL - but I read/skimmed through the patent as much as I could decipher the doublespeak, and the description of a computer, etc. Not knowing about patent law or prior art, I have to say this looks like a patentable idea. The patent is describing a very specific problem, and an implementation for its solution. Some of the aspects, like the base-30 character selection, are thoughtful enough to not be obvious, IMO.

    The headline is misleading, becuase they are not patenting lat/lon, just one method of representing it in a URL.

    I do think there are a number of holes in it. For example, claiming a patent on the method of concatenating 2 strings together just because they generated those strings creatively to represent coordinates.

    Wrapping up, I think the patent is valid, but is a mix of patentable and non-patentable statements. It is at least an interesting algorithm to study.

    --
    Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
    1. Re:Going against the flow by jc42 · · Score: 1

      It is at least an interesting algorithm to study.

      Not really. It's just a trivial application of basic number theory. Number theory is a branch of mathematics that's centuries old, and this is a really basic application of it. If you've taken Number Theory 101, you won't find this at all interesting or worth studying. If you haven't studied basic number theory, it would be a lot more interesting to study a text on the subject. You'd learn a lot more than you would by studying this patent or any code that implements it.

      Using letters to represent digits in a number goes back to the anciend Hebrew and Greek writing systems. It's done billions of times per day in our computers, any time a hex number is generated. Also, see the Base64 encoding used in email MIME attachments. You can't get anything interesting or worth studying from the representation of base-30 digits in this patent. Using an unusual base is simply not interesting.

      Treating a floating-point number as a string of bits and reinterpreting the bits as an integer is standard in all low-level programming. See the hex notation again. There's nothing the least bit interesting about this, unless you're mathematiclly illiterate, and it dates to the very earliest computers.

      This is merely an attempt to stake a legal claim on centuries (or millenia) of prior art. If the patent is approved, it will mostly show just how low the USPTO's technical expertise has sunk.

      It's main use would be as ammunition in the growing "Abolish software patents" argument. Even accepting such an application should be grounds for wiping the USPTO and replacing it with something at least minimally competent.

      (OTOH, although this integer representation isn't interesting, there is the old mathematical proof that all the integers are interesting. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Going against the flow by A.Chwunbee · · Score: 0
      Some of the aspects, like the base-30 character selection, are thoughtful enough to not be obvious, IMO.
      Unless I am having a turnip inside my turban, original phrasing was along the lines of "obvious to skilled practitioner of the art".

      Not wishing to disrespect you good Sahib, but if this "invention" isn't being jolly obvious to you, you are probably not being the skilled practitioner of mathematics and/or the programming.

      --
      select * from base where originalOwner = 'you' and currentOwner != 'us'.
      0 rows returned.
  48. Any downside to msft for filing fake patents? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Clearly, msft is on a mission to patent every piece of prior-art msft can possibly imagine.

    Could there be any downside for msft? Could this clearly unethical behavior possibly bite msft in the azz? Could the DOJ say "Um, msft, you have 4000 patents for stuff you didn't invent - that's no good."

    Could somebody suing msft point out all the fake patents as evidence that msft is a scam organization?

  49. MS Business, the other side by fwitness · · Score: 1

    Ok, so MS does crafty things. Been there, not changing, not going back.

    What about MS hardware though? I was thinking about it the other day and I *love* MS's hardware. I have since my first SideWinder. All my keyboards and mice are MS. I never used any WindowsCE devices but I'm told they are top notch also.

    Does MS farm those out? And if so, to who? Anyone care to admit they love MS's hardware? You can post AC if you're afraid. :)

    --
    -- I have fans? Wow.
    1. Re:MS Business, the other side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS does not manufacture any Windows CE hardware or sell it as their own. It is all manufactured by a third party using Microsoft's own software, much like how they handle regular Windows (except you can't just go buy a copy of Windows CE and install it easily.)

    2. Re:MS Business, the other side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not afraid, but been too lazy to register for too many years now. :)

      I wouldn't say I love MS hardware, but in general I agree. Logitech makes better gear, but only slightly better and far pricier. I do love being able to point out to people that I am not one of those mindless Microsoft haters. When they make a good product that I need, I buy it. I have a Microsoft Mouse plugged into my iBook running Debian. I have a Sidewinder, and it's reliable and stood up to abuse (3 year olds) that joysticks I had prefered didn't survive. Microsoft should stick to what they're good at.

    3. Re:MS Business, the other side by Khyeron · · Score: 1

      the only thing I like about MS is their keyboards... and well... gaming... no, their games suck and I get most of my hardware from NYKO and Logitech... but the natural keyboards from the OLD days are top notch... (the new ones suck)

      Their servers work fine up to that little issue of "if you make use of a server as a server, the MS ones blow up" (I work for a microsoft partner, so believe me I've seen some crazy crap happening to Server 2003 and 2000... things that SHOULD NOT happen still do.

      In all honesty I'd sooner have run a samba server for file mapping since they never seem to go down (though I seem perplexed that samba 2 no longer properly interoperates with XP Serv Pack 2... I wonder if Bill's bullshit hit the Red Hat again?

    4. Re:MS Business, the other side by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think microsoft hardware is pretty good. I think they were one of the first with Force Feedback, as well as a few other things. I have to say though. Can't stand the X-Box. It's not that it's terrible. It's just that it's supposed to be a games console, and it's huge, and heavy. I like a game console that I can bring to a friends house, or move to a different room in my own house without any trouble. That's why I have a gamecube.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:MS Business, the other side by fwitness · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Although I considered mentioning the XBox in my initial post, it wasn't the best example. It's probably the only example of MS hardware that I don't love. Not that it's bad, but if you asked me to rate things on quality, an MS mouse would rate 50 points over the Xbox.

      However, if you rate the XBox as a SFF PC, it's actually not that bad. :) As a gaming console though, it's not the best. I still haven't hooked mine up permanently yet. Still playing Cube and PS2 games. Maybe I'll try fable to see. :)

      --
      -- I have fans? Wow.
  50. What about this explanation: by aclidiere · · Score: 1


    When you work at Microsoft, the job comes with salary, stock, and among other benefits the possibility for engineers to file patents. It must be very self-satisfying for an engineer to have a patent with his or her name on it.

    Maybe it's worth the cost for Microsoft. It would be a way to tell engineers that the company thinks that what they are doing is important. The message only costs money and a lawer's time; it doesn't require much social sophistication.

    Note -- This is only a theory. I have never worked at Microsoft, and those I know who did work at Microsoft never told me about this particular fact.

  51. Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am goign to patent base64 encoding longitudes and latitudes that is more than twice as efficient as their obsolete base30 technology!

  52. Thank You Microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By patenting an obvious mathematical concept, you are helping to expose the U.S. Patent system as a total failure. Keep up the good work!

  53. the what what? by fishbot · · Score: 1

    Is the definition-of-silly-pattents dept a subdepartment of the should-have-previewed-for-spelling dept?

  54. The law concerning what is and is not patentable by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    The primary case law concerning what is and is not patentable was set forth in 1980's SCOTUS decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty. The court ruled that "n choosing such expansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter," modified by the comprehensive "any," Congress contemplated that the patent laws should be given wide scope, and the relevant legislative history also supports a broad construction. While laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, respondent's claim is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter - a product of human ingenuity "having a distinctive name, character [and] use." Believe it or not, this is actually a compromise, because the respondent had actually argued the case based on a 1952 congressional memo (pertaining to the 1952 patent recodification) that "include anything under the sun that is made by man" is patentable.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  55. Fixed point by alas_anon · · Score: 1
    It's about time somebody patented fixed point notation. I wish I had thought of it.

    Has anybody patented floating point yet? "A method of representing numbers using a dot operator to signify numbers less than one"? How much does a patent cost?

    Eager to join the action...

    1. Re:Fixed point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be modded down as troll...

      The patent is for a lot more than that. Prior art for *one* part does not make the entire patent invalid.

  56. Prior Art by k4hg · · Score: 1

    This would easily be overturned. The amateur radio tracking protocol APRS has had a means to encode Lat/Lon as base 91 for at least 7 years. 91 was chosen to use all printing characters that can be sent over amateur packet radio without special encoding. Base 91 wasn't designed to be used in URLs, but they do claim uses outside URL, and all base numbering systems. Hopefully the patent office will Google before they grant this one...

  57. Weird by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    Yesterday

    Microsoft: Open source software isn't interoperable. Everyone should use Microsoft software because it is more interoperable.

    Today:

    Microsoft: Let's patent some obscure way of encoding Lattitude and Longitude so that no other systems will possibly be able to interoperate with our systems.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  58. Ham Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ham Radio has been doing this sort of thing for years. There are several different coding schemes but the one that seems to have won out is the "Maidenhead Locator". I live in a 3x2 Km area in West Sussex, England which is located by IO90PW. I used to live in Norfolk, England located by JO02LQ.

    This coding scheme has been around since the 1980's but there were others with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy before that.

  59. Re:MS = Prostitute ? by McNihil · · Score: 0

    OK these BS patents need to friggin stop. Also I can almost bet my behind that Akamai has prior "art" on this. Also why didn't they go with Base-64 notation? I am and it is more compact. MS are simply "smart" idiots and IF the patent office grants them this patent they should be lobotomized promptly.

  60. I think there's prior art by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting
    First, they're obviously not trying to patent the coordinate system like the article title suggests in all its sensational style.

    Second, I think there's prior art possibly in the universe simulator Celestia which supports URL encoding of coordinates (I don't know if it's uses the lat/long system though, that's why I'm bit unsure), and there definitely seem to be prior art in NASA's World Wind application. It uses a compact Lat/Long => URL encoding scheme as follows:
    worldwind://goto/world=Earth&lat=48.5&lon=15&view= 0.21
    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:I think there's prior art by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Ah sorry, missed the part about it being in base 30. Well, I guess that makes it unique. And human unreadable. :-p

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  61. Hint: base64 by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    2 * 26 + 10 = 62

    No need to worry about confusing I/1 and O/0, these are not meant to be used by humans directly. Heck, you've even got two left over for E/W or N/S.

    1. Re:Hint: base64 by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      You still don't seem to get it.

      URLs are case insignificant.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Hint: base64 by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Since when?

    3. Re:Hint: base64 by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Well, to be precise, the path part of URLs is allowed to be case significant, but not all web servers implement case significance. So it'd be stupid to implement an encoding scheme that depended on it.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Hint: base64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minutes/seconds are no more directly interpreted by machines, either. So why use base 60 if being easier to read by humans is irrelevant?

    5. Re:Hint: base64 by TomRitchford · · Score: 1
      You still don't seem to get it.

      URLs are case insignificant.


      You should be more polite, particularly when you are wrong.

      Many sites use mixed case, particularly for URL rewriting: for example if you shop at the Apple store you'll get nasty URLs like http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/71308/wo/IV5iL5wnsHhR23ec6ZU1PK3jWIo /0.0.11.1.0.6.21.1.3.1.1.0.0.1.0
      where the case is significant.
  62. prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is at least one prior publication. It is by a guy named Copernicus, 1590 or so if memory serves.

  63. patent used for intimidation by raboofje · · Score: 1

    Even though it'd probably not hold up in court, the patent is enough to bully around small companies/individuals that can't affort the enormous financial risk of actually taking it to court....

  64. Perhaps they should patent lying by rben · · Score: 1

    This could be a public service actually. This way anyone wishing to lie would have to pony up for a license fee. There would be an actual list of registered liars! Of course an automatic license might have to be granted to all politicians, but I'm sure that the politicians and Microsoft could work something out.

    Microsoft could make even more billions! They hold seminars to teach people the proper use of prevarication.

    Frankly, I can't imagine why they haven't already pursued patents in this area. Of course, they might be worried that such a patent might be too broad...

    --

    -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
    www.ra

  65. PRIOR ART by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Like, Magellan, d00d?

    Vasco de fricken' GAMA!

    The Phoenecians?

    EVER HEARD OF THOSE GUYS, GATES?

    Shit. Why didn't we throw his fucking Altair out the fucking window when we had his head in the toilet?

  66. Talk about useless patents by karvind · · Score: 1
    We coverd a story before on this.

    I wonder if slashdot patented option-of-posting-replys-anonymously.

  67. QTH Locator by pe1chl · · Score: 1

    Radio amateurs have used this system for about 40 years. It is called "QTH Locator" or just "Locator". (QTH is the International Morse-code abbreviation of "my location is ...")

    It first it was a European system, but it later has been modified for worldwide coverage. Longitudes and lattitudes are converted to letters and numbers, alternating between longitude and lattitude and between base-30 and base-10, so that a limited syntactical check can be made (if you miss one character you'll notice the letter in a place where a digit should be, or vice-versa)

    The more characters you send, the more precise your location is specified.
    For example, I could specify my location as "JO" which specifies the northwestern part of Europe, or "JO22" which specifies about the size of a province, or "JO22MC" which specifies the area of a small city, etc.

    Of course this system was not patented. Nobody would think of patenting such a system.
    But at least it exists as prior art.

  68. New law time by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    Lets make a new law, patenting bullshit which shouldn't be patented (see breathing air, using a mouse, peeing etc.) has a 1 million dollar fine on it. We'd soon see how fast this bullshit stops then.

    --
    I like muppets.
  69. Binary Angle Measurement by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

    its called Binary Angle Measurement System, BAMS and it has been used for YEARS !!

  70. Okay, I amend for the parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is a horde of successful, manipulative morons. One ignores a horde, no matter how moronic, to one's inevitable demise.

    Does that appease your complaint?

  71. Interesting by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

    So, does this mean that my Garmin hand held GPS will have to start running CE in the near future? Because that 8 megs of ram is just going to waste right now.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  72. ummm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is correctly referred to as "Maidenhead coordinates"

    http://www.arrl.org/locate/gridinfo.html

  73. Not to bad compression by the_arrow · · Score: 1

    Using the MS method of encoding, a lat/long coordinate is "compressed" from 18 characters (e.g. 359.59.59, two times) to 10, a "compression" rate of 45%. Not too shabby.

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
  74. Ahh! It's the Blue Sky of Death! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been assimilated!

  75. Are you blind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They make lotsa money, they must be right!

    "Right" is subjective. If they make money consistently, that means they know how to stay in business. And it takes more than marketing and strong-arming to stay in business.

  76. How to avoid infringement of this patent by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Patent application in its wording uses conversion to compact ASCII string.

    So, you can avoid infringement of this patent by using conversion to ISO-8859-1. Or perhaps a new patent, anyone? Just leave ISO-8859-2 for me, please.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  77. Not done before doesn't mean it isn't obvious by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because no-one's ever done it before doesn't mean it isn't obvious - it usually means no-one's felt the need before. If you came to me and said "Paul, we need a compact way to represent latitude and longitude in URLs, what do you suggest?" this is exactly what I would have reeled off at my desk without even needing to pause for thought, modulo the rather silly thing about leaving out vowels. I'm sure the same is true of every programmer in my workplace.

    MS aren't introducing a standard, quite the reverse - they are trying to prevent people interoperating with their servers.

    1. Re:Not done before doesn't mean it isn't obvious by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it is a standard, of course it is for a type of interoperativity.

      You must be unaware of the new MS location server.

      Soon when all cell phones have GPS receivers built in, you will want to transmit your coordinates constantly ... either to find your location (using mappoint no doubt), to find the nearest starbucks, to find whatever the heck it is you need to find relative to your position using any brand of cell phone / pda / laptop / etc.

      Of course it will also allow pinpointed targetted spam, billboards will target you as you walk by.

      The patent is simply covering one aspect of the method by which your location is transmitted to the location server.

      Anyways, wake up, this is nothing more than simply a new map projection system, of which there are 10's of thousands already.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    2. Re:Not done before doesn't mean it isn't obvious by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1

      Anyways, wake up, this is nothing more than simply a new map projection system, of which there are 10's of thousands already.

      Hardly a new system - it's just a new encoding of lat/long.

      The *second* thing I'd suggest would be to use a cube to divide the surface of the Earth into six squareoid sections, and then use coordinates on the surface of the squaroid - that way you don't get weird precision anomalies at the poles. I'm sure there are even more sophisticated techniques known to GIS geeks such as yourselves (or search Google for "sphere tesselation").

      I'd also want a few bits to indicate what geoid you're using (WGS-84 or whatever)...

    3. Re:Not done before doesn't mean it isn't obvious by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Lets not step out and pretend we know something when we don't now.

      Give me my coordinates in ANY map projection/datum, excluding the impossible coordinates that some projections may create outside their reasonable bounds ... and thanks to the wonders of Proj4 (open source .. ohh! ahh!) or other easy to use projection conversion techniques, I'll spit back at you my lat/long. ... geee, it's like I just used a new encoding of lat/long!

      Unfortunately, your low /. number has not enlightened you to the reality here.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    4. Re:Not done before doesn't mean it isn't obvious by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1

      Datum, that was the word I was looking for! Thanks.

      Apart from that, I can't figure out what any of your post is trying to say.

      Sure, it's possible to convert coordinates between datums. (Datums?) But you still need to know what datum was used for a particular set of coordinates to assign meaning to them. You could encode it alongside the coordinates, or you could choose one datum and specify that it's used for all purposes.

      The reality here is... what, that people are somtimes insulting when they could be polite? That's not unique to /.

  78. Reminder: This is an application, not a grant by mavenguy · · Score: 1

    Under most circumstances pending applications are published right after 18 months after filing 35 USC 122. What is published is, pretty much, the application AS FILED (Although the applicant can request that the application , as amended within one month of filing be used), which means the generally broad, intially filed claims (which actually specify the reach of the invention) 37 CFR 1.215.The claims may well have been narrowed by amended by now (if examination on the merits has started).

    Of course, as I'm sure the Slashborg will instantly react, it will probably issue with even broader claims.

  79. It is simple, really... by DrFishstik · · Score: 1

    Their plan manifests itself, Microsoft wants to pinpoint where both the legal owners of Longhorn live and where the hit squad can precicely go to get the pirates.

  80. If I understand it by mattr · · Score: 4, Informative
    Say you have a geographical coordinate like 39.2670N, 141.6000E. If N,E are treated as positive integers this could become:
    0392670 and 1416000, seven digits each. You concatenate them together in a base-N alphabet. So if in base ten you have 03926701416000, nothing gained except I would like to know what is at that digit of pi maybe but no real use regarding the patent.

    You could use a websafe alphabet (like I use when encrypting form data between one page and the next, based on a public CPAN module.. encryptform or some such) or a little bigger alphabet that would be MIME or Base64.

    From item 8 they are dropping accuracy in order to encode in less characters. Um. Well yes you can shorten numbers to lose accuracy. If you write the numbers using letters instead, like in base 16 or some substitution alphabet it may look like you are shortening a word but really it is just dropping decimal places. Microsoft claims they are unique at being able to go back and forth between string length and allowable error. They have a patented subroutine that you feed say a floating point latitude, number of characters to use, the number of characters in the alphabet (i.e. the base) and required accuracy, and it will spit back something like "KXW" maybe.

    Likewise you can feed another patented subroutine "KXWCMY" and it will give you back something like "39.3N, 142E" (well higher res than that really, it doesn't seem that useful unless you are measuring GPS coords to the inch). Perhaps this is the code a mobile device will shout whenever it can triangulate its location from a few known wifi points. :)

    Well I just skimmed the end of it but it seems this is for use when you really don't want to use all those decimal places (8 digits for meter resolution). Needless to say 32 bits is enough to handle it but it looks so *long*! So instead of just lopping off the last few digits, they want to compress it (okay so far) but then they tell the compression algorithm how compressed they want the string to be, how much they are willing to give up (I would think in decimal places but ultimately in meters I suppose).

    They then talk about personal info managers and map display programs on pdas, and the bs starts to pile up real fast. They start talking about nonvolatile memory, video tape, scanners, joysticks, office environments, what have you.

    There is mention of an URL (301) that 'contains a geographic parameter "mapcoord", which has a parameter value "ry7cx4tp95"'. There is some talk about users inputting information which sounds interesting, until you realize that in the end this is really a quintessential rot13 for the 21st century, written by a corporation that does not care if users cannot decipher the codes or tell how accurate it is at a glance, or find it on a globe or non-M$ map, that assumes every gps manufacturer will liscense the patent, who cares if you don't have alpha input on your keypad etc. Someone should tell them you could do it all in just a couple characters on a kanji-equipped Japanese phone. While it gets more seductive as you read more and more, it also hits you with a sledgehammer that you have to have a calculator with the patented subroutines built into it, just to understand what codes your are typing.. it can only ever be useful among a weenies who have been brainwashed to think in corporate speak and that is the problem with Microsoft and Windows. If they just published it for free openly most people would forget it (it seems neat maybe but in the end it's just too much trouble unless it is an accepted standard like geo8 for an 8 letter string.. and even then). As it is I think it is utterly disgusting. Also it is probably beaten by error checking code, lossy image compression code, and the CPAN module I mentioned. Yuck!

    1. Re:If I understand it by mattr · · Score: 1
      I guess there might be two cool uses for it. But they are such weenies they are scared to come right out and say it!


      1) They do briefly mention the third dimension. It seems to me that any arbitrarily length (divisible by 3) alphanumeric string could be an address in 3D space. But you would have to know how long the string is first. So if you have a stream of text coming at you (subtract spaces and punctuation) you will never know where in space it points to. Is it 21 digits long, or 36 digits long? So it can function as a DMCA-friendly codec for any arbitrary data stream to encode an arbitrary location.


      2) It can also function as an unlimited addressing space, a la ipv6. In this case you don't have to worry about allotting companies class A addresses, just pick the geographical coordinates of their head office! Just keep adding digits as necessary, as long as you keep the total number divisible by 3. The company's entire addressing space (well spacetime if we use 4 coordinates) could fit inside a desk drawer between 1 am and midnight on February 14, 2005. Or maybe February 29, 2004 if they want to be more evil. Bigger companies with more real estate and floorspace could encode all of it, achieving a couple digits more compression which would be suitably Darwinian. The secretive can pick irrational numbers, the miserly can pick fractal dimensions. Oh wait I see a patent calling to me, better stop here!

  81. Has anyone noticed by cspring007 · · Score: 1

    that lat/long is outdated. UTM is a much more common standard. Its also a lot more useful

  82. deceptively broad patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note the bit at the end. The patent is far broader than it pretends to be initially:

    [0082] It should be noted that the present description refers to coordinates in terms of "latitude" and "longitude" as an example only. The present invention is not limited to coordinates of the latitude/longitude variety...

    [0083] It should be noted that embodiments of the present invention are generally beneficial in that they enable floating-point numbers to be converted into a compact ASCII string. Application within URL's is only one example where such compact strings are beneficial. Other application scenarios are within the scope of the present invention. The scheme for generating the compact strings can be applied in any place where one needs to transmit or store binary floating-point information, with the constraints that one has to limit some arbitrary character set and one wants to make it as compact as possible while preserving a desired level of accuracy. Relevant applications are not limited to those involving transmission over a network, but also include storage in data files, etc.

  83. Welcome. by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the wonderful world of logic patents.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  84. Needs to be said by back_pages · · Score: 1
    that this is a patent application. Search through these and you'll find time travel, arithmetic, faster-than-light communication, and perpetual motion machines.


    Microsoft may think this is patentable, but I really doubt the USPTO will agree. IANAPatentLawyer, but I work in IP law and correspond with patent attorneys on a regular basis.

  85. Copyright is not so Automatic by irenetheno · · Score: 1
    Actually, it seems that it will cost you at least $30 before you have a case.

    I just happened across this commentary that claims "automatic copyright" isn't so automatic.

  86. makes me wonder... by fgb · · Score: 1

    from the article: The set deliberately omits vowels to avoid the possibility of the algorithm inadvertently generating real words that could be offensive. The letter 1 has also been omitted to avoided possible confusion with the number 1

    So, what's located at the following coordinates?

    LAT: d1cks
    LON: c11ts

  87. Let's look at what this patent covers by daniel_mcl · · Score: 1

    Converting a floating point number to an integer
    Converting that integer to a base-N string

    The following line of code therefore infringes on this patent if we assume that f is a float or double variable containing that f is contained in a "geographically-oriented string," perhaps one such as "Forest covers 2.1% of Afghanistan."

    printf("%d\n", (long int) (100000000000.0 * f));

    The multiplication/typecast converts a float to an integer, and printf converts an integer to a base-N string. In this case N = 10, but that's nothing special; recall that uuencoding converts a base-256 integer to a base-64 integer. This patent is entirely frivolous.

    --
    I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
  88. They already use their method by imr · · Score: 1

    And it is famous for working nicely:
    from norway to norway

  89. oh, you're hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it takes more than business smarts to make money and stay at the top in the TECHNOLOGY business, the SOFTWARE business - these aren't people making hamburgers, they're making complex software that runs on servers, pcs, handhelds, everything. you cannot be an idiot and run such an operation successfully, it is that simple.

    now get back to reality, sir.

    1. Re:oh, you're hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. All it takes is good marketing and good engineering, and these can be done by any monkey.

      Belive me, if you think that the businessman cares about internals, you're misinformed. They don't care about the technical details, they just care about the results, and they hire monkeys to handle the technical details.

      I speak from experience.

    2. Re:oh, you're hilarious by smcdow · · Score: 1
      Oh, please. Business is business, whether you're selling tires or software.

      Markets are markets, and that's what's important. The widget you're manufacturing is just that: a widget, nothing more. How you position your widget in the appropriate widget market is the important thing. It really doesn't have much to do with the quality of the widget itself.

      If you've ever seen a good salesman in action, you'll know what I'm talking about. I've seen sales guys close big deals (and make hefty commisions), when said sales guy knew nothing about the widget he was selling. Case in point: the widget was a big software suite (which was buggy to the point of being almost non-functional), but he closed the deal and made a metric buttload of commision. What's important here is that the sales guy could have been selling anything (say, tires). It's closing the deal that counts, not the widget itself.

      Extend this philosophy to marketing (which itself extends to product design, etc., which in turn feeds into technical details), and you have what business is all about.

      And since most businessmen are clueless morons, this is how business enables clueless morons to become rich.

      QED.

      So, there's your reality check.

      --
      In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
    3. Re:oh, you're hilarious by reflective+recursion · · Score: 1

      It seems you are the one who is on the clueless moron side. If you haven't noticed, capitalism is about selling people shit they don't need (which you do seem to notice). Very few things purchased today are truely needed. The perceived need is created by these "moron businessmen."

      No Sally, you do not need that shiny new iPod, multiple GHz computer, or fancy new LCD screen. More importantly and to the point, you do not need computers. Society is entrenched in technology that they have *become* a need, but 30+ years ago there was no need. They have only become a need because of mass production's need for accounting and quality assurance purposes.

      And if my point is still lost on you, then let me state it clearly. You cannot see the forest from the trees. You yourself have been bought and sold by these "moron businessmen" of capitalism. Now who is the bigger moron? Let me know when you build that log cabin out in the woods and plant your seeds.

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
  90. Purpose? by smcdow · · Score: 1

    What's the point of this enoding scheme? Everyone knows that the best way to encode a geolocation is just to use WGS-84 cartiesian coordinates (XYZ), and let the back-end convert to LLH for display or whatever.

    --
    In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
  91. Makes Sense by rspress · · Score: 1

    Since Microsoft has never really developed anything original themselves they were probably feeling left out. If they can copy software the can sure copy everything else.

  92. There's a typo in the patent application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a look at "Assignee Name and Adress:"

  93. That's not the point by Whiteout · · Score: 1

    I agree that lat-long->base 30 is (may be) original, but orginality does not, or should not, imply patentable. At the very least innovation should be required.

    Otherwise why should I not be able to patent my unique URL scheme on the basis that nobody else has done it.

    The parent post has the most significant comment: it's clear that Microsoft is using current US patent law to prevent interoperability. If they are able to go through with it then once again (US) law will have been shown to be an ass.

    1. Re:That's not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely it is old practice - I was using base 40 to store alphanumeric strings in 1969 when I built a small 'O/S' for Honeywell H516 that was a 16bit machine - 40^3 is less than 2^16 hence 3 chars went where 2 would otherwise go

    2. Re:That's not the point by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1
      Not to be a dink, but...
      innovation n.
      1. The act of introducing something new.
      2. Something newly introduced.
      originality n.
      1. The ability to think and act independently
      2. The quality of being new and original (not derived from something else)
      Sounds like the same thing to me.
    3. Re:That's not the point by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 1
      Not to be a dink, but...

      connotation n.
      1. The act or process of connoting.
      2. An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.
      3. The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.
      4. Logic. The set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term; intension.

  94. Prior Art? by jcbarlow · · Score: 2, Insightful
  95. Prior Art? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

    Probably in all the GIS DB's everyone was so enchanted with in the late 80's

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  96. Prior Art? Natural Area Codes by akobelan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This looks quite similar: http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/documents/nac.asp/ ... right down to the base 30 representation. Try it out: http://www.travelgis.com/geocode/

    1. Re:Prior Art? Natural Area Codes by akobelan · · Score: 4, Interesting
  97. HTM and HEALPix by teuben · · Score: 1

    I don't quite understand yet how they encode the accuracy. Bit depth? Well, in astronomy there have been for quite some time now two competing efforts to have a scheme of efficiently searching the sky. different outset, two angular coordinates with funny non-cartesian properties. They also come up with a single bit pattern to designate an area on the globe: HTM (hierarchical triangular mesh) and HEALPix. actually the HTM group at Hopkins has close ties to the MS Research group in the Bay area, under guidance of Jim Gray. It's fascinating stuff, as this makes searching large databases a lot more efficient. Something that is useful for the Virtual Observatory efforts.

  98. Heh. You think this is bizarre, or unpatentable? by zxSpectrum · · Score: 1

    With the danger of being modded way down by the zealotist crowd: If you are going to complain about Microsoft patents, could you instead point at the real problems:

    That particular patent, if granted, will in effect make mod_rewrite infringe. Not that Microsoft would stand a chance in court with this patent, since mod_rewrite predates both the application, and referenced patents.

    And if you want a laugh from the MS' patent portfoliom you should know that Microsoft holds a patent for an apple tree named Burchinal Red Delicious. (US Patent PP14,757

  99. Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://home.att.net/~jbcole/humor/Microsoft_patent s.htm

  100. Check out some recent US patents, if you can by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

    It's no secret that the system is screwed up. At least 3/4 of the patent applications are unpatentable things. The problem is that most of them get accepted nowadays. Mostly because there are far too many applications and far too less money to handle them all in a proper way. If I remember well, it all started back in 1990 when some really stupid decision was made in the US regarding patents.

    If you have money, you can now get a patent. On almost anything.

    One of these days, Microsoft will come up with a patent application on human reproduction. You won't be able to have a baby unless you pay a licence to Microsoft. The question is: will there be a "Baby Update" thingy, which will allow us to "patch" our babies whenever a health issue is discovered?

  101. Hold on ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don' think that is what the patent is about. The first paragraph says:

    "The method includes converting latitude and longitude coordinates from floating-point numbers to non-negative integers"

    So MS is patenting a new technology to *encode* logitude and latitude, not to patent them so that nobody can use as the headline seems to be suggesting ...

    -John S.

  102. Nihilism by rhizome · · Score: 1

    Just because a system is broken doesn't remove the ethical dilemma of taking advantage of it. You admit as much yourself when you say, "It's wrong, but I do it anyway because I can (get away with it)." Glib solutions aren't going to change the fact that people (and companies) take advantage of the system every day. There are two sides to the crime, and while nobody blames Microsoft for the problems of the USPTO, Microsoft is responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for making a bad problem worse. To use an analogy nearly as strained as your equating the USPTO with the MPAA, your logic tells me that it's okay to beat up on people weaker than me because if they didn't want to get beat up they would become stronger and fight back.

    --
    When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  103. Semi-Related Art: MIC-E Encoding by Cerlyn · · Score: 1
    This is not the first compact encoding of GPS to come about. MIC-E style devices use the MIC-E protocol (available as a link off that page) to encode low precision GPS, velocity, direction of travel, and other data in a mix of what roughly could be considered BASE-36 and BASE-256, depending where inside the AX.25 packet a particular portion of the MIC-E protocol is being stored.

    So the idea of encoding low-precision GPS in other formats is at least 7-8 years old.

  104. What are they up to? by drakethegreat · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering this because to the best of my knowledge they were trying to patent the ability to display IPs on a map or something. With this little addition about maps something tells me they are up to something. Maybe they are adding some sort of mapping system to their Anti-Virus like other companies have done? It would appear if thats the case that somehow they want to take over the Anti-Virus market by patenting little things that will screw people over later.

  105. I will patent patenting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I patent patenting them USPO will have to ask me first before patenting something!

  106. Like an Extra-Deep Spoon for Eating Peas by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1
    This is just tweaking prior art for a particular purpose.

    They could patent a spoon with a bump in the middle of the bowl for eating calamari, and another one with ridges for eating baby carrots.

    Packing data in this fashion is hardly new. They are just specifying a particular way of doing the packing for a particular purpose.

    Maybe I shoud patent "Using a font-color of Red for the purpose of sending nasty mail to Bill"

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
  107. Can not be done by webworm99 · · Score: 1

    It is not a valid patent request. I think the domain registrant would not allow this to go through. It would severely cause problem Throughout the internet. They did not invent the math. It was Albert Einstein if I recall correctly. Which mean it is public domain now. Microsoft wants to charge those people who use other oses money for what already paid for. Aclu and others will not let this happen.

  108. US Government missed its own prior art by bigdan · · Score: 4, Informative

    This co-ordinate encoding scheme sounds similar to one used by US (and other) military forces for air targeting.

    See this description of GEOREF co-ordinates for example. Basically you divvy the world up in to a grid and use letters to reference the major fractions of the co-ordinates and numbers the minor fractions. So 106 25' 44" W 310 48' 06" N becomes EJPB 3448.

    --
    .sig? .sig!
    1. Re:US Government missed its own prior art by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough the UK Ordnance Survey has used a similar system for over two hundred years.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  109. Re:As Well, MS is Not Stupid by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 1
    Reality drugs? In every other corner of the universe, Microsoft product is seen as being no worse than that of any other massive western corporation. Only here at Slashdot, where the political bias JUST HAPPENS to side away from capitalist software production, is Microsoft viewed as being particularly sloppy in its product creation.

    How many Slashbots happily drive around in vehicles built by American manufacturers cursing Microsoft quality control? That, if it isn't already, should become the new definition of the term "irony".

    --

    -
    Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
  110. Really? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Domain names are case insignificant, but everything after the ? and all parts of the path after a found executable are entirely subject to the interpretation of the server. How the part of the path that leads to the executable is analyzed is probably also up to the server.

    Considering that latitude and longitude would hardly ever be used except as a ? parameter, I doubt case would ever enter into it.

    Perhaps you had better rethink your career choice of slashdot smart guy. Apparently you never even came close to getting it.

  111. Maidenhead Grid by leighklotz · · Score: 1

    The Maidenhead Grid Square mechanism has been in use by amateur radio for a long time. It's even supported directly by some Garmin GPS unts. Mine is CM87wk. I have an Emacs Lisp conversion tool though you can find many others at the links above.

    1. Re:Maidenhead Grid by Dr.+Charles+Forbin · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it, Leigh -- the first thing I though t of when I saw the /. posting was "and what's new about this?
      - doc

  112. Translation is not patantable... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Or should we all rush out and patent all translations we can think of?

    If the Patent office grants this patent, then nobody need respect the USPTO or any of the patent grants they have issued or any court upholding such foolishness.

    It really quite simple. Don't just demand, insist and persist with a boston tea party style denial of the validity of the USPTO, until they get back to real and can prove it.

    Your defence? Simply the evidence that the USPTOs ability to identify genuinely patentable material has become distorted to the point of not being able to properly identify genuinely patentable material. As such, the court has been left with the task, and that being so, any paperwork the patent office issues, such as patent grants, should be worth zero in courtroom consideration.

    I'm sure there are plenty of presidence for this stand. One such resource might very well be the USPTOs own list of patent grants overturned.

    1. Re:Translation is not patantable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...presidence..., no: precedents.

  113. Patent Spam! by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

    Why can't Microsoft do something beneficial, like patenting spam itself.

    Actually, who sent the very first spam mail?

    1. Re:Patent Spam! by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      I guess Hormel Foods (the makers of Spam) probably did...

      --
      Did he inhale?
  114. Concept hardly novel, maybe the application by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

    I came up with a scheme like this to send longer messages by alpha-numeric pager during the early 90s. The only drawback was you needed the program on both ends to decode it, and the internet was usurping the need for this kind of thing. :-D Oh and it wasn't terribly necessary cause you don't get a ton of compression.

    Anyhow it worked pretty much just like this, except I didn't remove vowels because they could make offensive text, I removed letters that where ambiguous on the LCD 7-bar displays (like o, s, z, g, k, v [k looks like x, v looks like u]). Anyway, take a piece of [monocase, un-punctuated] text, encode it as a bunch of 2 digit codes (a = 10 b = 20 ... z = 62, j = 72, t = 82, space = 92 - swapped to avoid leading zero trouble) that will make a long integer (102030425262) etc, then turn this integer into a string representation of a base 30 number. Then this is what you send to the beeper. This is the stupid crap you do with Pascal in highschool.

    If only I had patented the concept. One could probably re-implement it in a one line Perl program.

    --
    Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
  115. Question about these stupid patents by ThomasFlip · · Score: 1

    If you do make one of these patents, what legal rights does it give you ? Do people need your expressed written consent to use it on Television, or a business, what power do these patents hold ?

    --
    If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
    1. Re:Question about these stupid patents by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      you have to pay some amount of money to the patent holder to use their design, i believe.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  116. Where do you want to go today? by Quill345 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on, it's legitimate, it is innovation that supports their trademarked slogan. ;)

    1. Re:Where do you want to go today? by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1
      Come on, it's legitimate, it is innovation that supports their trademarked slogan.

      Which slogan? "Where do we want you to go today?" or "All your base are belong to us?"

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
  117. Radix-50 by blitz487 · · Score: 1

    Non-obvious and novel? No. Radix-50 encoding is very similar.

  118. Latitude & Longitude by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I'm a bit out to sea on this one...

    Storage-wise, ASCII is certainly not more compact than a float.

    Display-wise, this is a foreign format, that human readers will not want to read.

    So, lets say that MS gets this patent... who cares? There are certainly more dangerous things in the world to patent than this.

    1. Re:Latitude & Longitude by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      I do hope you realize that they have not patented the lat/long coordinate system.

      They have simply patented a new way of encoding it for transmission within URL parameters.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    2. Re:Latitude & Longitude by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Right. Not seeing the issue is what I'm saying. Who cares? Who would get a patent for such a silly thing anyway? If the encoding is only compatible with MS products, how much will it matter anyway?

  119. Microsoft Patent Ambitions by Domox · · Score: 1

    Next on Microsofts patents: the concept of life. Human beings everywhere will be forced to purchase OEM licenses for their newborn children.

  120. Re:As Well, MS is Not Stupid by bitswapper · · Score: 1

    MS is the only OS maker that has had so many pervasive and systemic security problems - through the last15 years and 4 operating systems. They are the unchallenged leader in virus spreading, and new virus production. They are the only vender so afflicted, and just attributing that to "everybocy hates microsoft" doesn't cut anymore.

    Even just this weekend, one of the DS3's where I work went down, and MS Exchange was the only product that choked. This kind of thing happens with their software, that they have earned every bit of critism they receive here.

    So, while I wouldn't say MS is stupid, I wouldn't say they are smart either.

    I think bashing ./ers just to deflect MS critisms will never help MS produce better software.

  121. When will Bill patent the Pythagorean Theorem? by stankulp · · Score: 1

    Or has he already done it?

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    1. Re:When will Bill patent the Pythagorean Theorem? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      When will you read the article?

      MS has simply created a new map projection system, of which there are 10's of thousands.

      They HAVE NOT patented lat/long.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  122. For fixing the USPTO ... by Holger+Blasum · · Score: 1

    an option is to go via US Congress to disallow patents on computer programs (as hopefully Europe, India can do).
    Join eg https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl for that.
    (Another helpful thing would be patent situation analyses,
    eg on database patenting).

  123. Prior art? by FatTux · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The company I work for (in Brazil) makes an AVL system that uses a similar system since 1999. Normally, critical events are transmitted over the air, but in the event of a comm failure, the driver can read an encoded string in the truck terminal and voice it over a phone to the monitoring central.

    The string encodes Lat, Lon, nature of the event and control digits to minimize errors.

    Some characters are excluded, but not exactly vowels. The idea here is to prevent misreading (eg "O" (letter) and "0" (number). Or "l" (letter) and "1" (number) and so on). So the base used is not 36, but something around 30 (can't remember precisely).

  124. Look at the other end. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you want to be the guy at the USPTO who turned down Microsoft?

    How are you going to explain that to your boss, and what are you going to do after you clean out your desk?

  125. Re:Ha the laugh would be on us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say micro$$$$$$$$ gets this patent. In order to get data to the system, ordinary latitude and longitude figures would have to be input. Say that micro$$$$ claims now to have a 'supervisory system' that needs exclusive use of 'subordinate data' ( the latitude and longitude figures) to get its reasonable output.
    Now by using the 'subordinate data' in your ordinary navigation, you will be considered 'hacking micro$$$'s 'security system' or its 'acquired data' or 'subordinate data'..... Sound silly, I'm sure that by the time micro$$$'s lawyers get this patent, they will waste no time at all in presenting just such or similar an argument to various authorities in order to force payments to micro$$$ for all things having anything to do with navigation. Microsoft will then own all shipping in the world and by extension all countries in the world. Inasmuch as most energy supplies go by ship, at micro$$$$ say so, all civilization would stop.

  126. Wow brilliant question on Sept. 11 v security by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    "Even Microsoft seems to have first become aware of the danger after Sept. 11."

    Yeah, we need some really tight anti-aviation security for windows now...

    Is Sept. 11th a magic catch all:

    *insert industry here* should have woken up to *insert issue here* after Sept. 11th.

    For example:

    The rare fruit preserves industry should have woken up to the problems of shifting climatic changing since Sept. 11th"

    No, I didn't think so. I do not think that many Al Qaeda training camps are wired up with an OC12 and some uber geek types playing TA and writing syn attack code, shouting "OMG!!111 J1had!11 You are teh suck!" on irc channels and usenet.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  127. And then by jerometremblay · · Score: 1

    And then your software by a chance in a trillion points to Taiwan as "country". And you get banned from Chinese market. Way to go boy!

  128. Patentlysilly.com is a great resource for these. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  129. Trick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But would you grandma be pleased when she gets a link "Meet us at the mall at location 'cvnt5d1ck5'", which would be a vlaid coordinate. I wonder who live there.

    This is a trick question. Nobody lives in a mall.

  130. An Infringement of the Natural Area Coding System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This infringes the Natural Area Coding System (http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/) invented ten years ago with all the concepts and algorithms except the character set that remove "L" and add "Y". It's a shame that Microsoft does such a silly thing!. The Natural Area Coding System has already been widely adopted and implemented in the world. Now everybody from North America, Europe, Australia and Brazil can get their Universal Addresses (i.e. compact longitude/latitude) on http://www.travelgis.com/geocode/) instantly.

  131. DUMBASSES! YOU ARE ALL DUMBASSES! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 0

    No, microsoft is not patenting latigude/longitude!

    Don't any of you ignorant fools read the articles?

    They are patenting a method of encoding lat/long coordinates for easier transmission as a URL parameter.

    Essentially they have created their own numbering system to accurately take the place of lat/long numbers, to better suit their needs.

    Now if any of you know anything at all about GIS, you realize that really they have just created their own map projection system.

    Big fat hairy deal!

    Don't like it? ... use one of the other 10,000+ map projections out there! In fact, you wont even be using the new microsoft coordinate system in a visible way yourself, its just for transmitting the information better.

    Basically if you are not an ignorant dumbass, then you already know that slashdot is just trying yet again to scare you about uber MS taking ultimate control of your world, by sucking you in with a meaningless patant story that they know you will mis-read and mis-understand.

    Now why is MS making this patent? ... Because of their upcoming location based information server system which shall revolutionize how you search for information, and how information is targetted at you.

    Seen minority report? seen how the guy walks past an advertisement and it changes to target him specifically? ... That will happen and it requires your precise location data. Add the location server to mappoint (with say 100x more map information), tack on a cheap GPS receiver, which your cell phone will soon have, and you are there.

    yes, there will be a new kind of spam, but there will also be fast and simple methods for finding the nearest restaurant, nearest anything you need, from anywhere.

    The internet shall become a mere plaything after the location server has gained momentum.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    1. Re:DUMBASSES! YOU ARE ALL DUMBASSES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like you call us dumbasses and fools for thinking that slashdots just trying to scare us.. how about you take a look in the mirror and realise that MS is all about bullshitting us..

      "Now why is MS making this patent? ... Because of their upcoming location based information server system which shall revolutionize how you search for information, and how information is targetted at you."

      Revolutionize.. hahahahahahaahahah microsoft.. hahahahahahah .. good one.. you sucker.

    2. Re:DUMBASSES! YOU ARE ALL DUMBASSES! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      ignorance is bliss

      but

      your willful ignorance is just plain stupid.

      And who's scared of what? 'Anonymous Coward'? huh?

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    3. Re:DUMBASSES! YOU ARE ALL DUMBASSES! by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Essentially they have created their own numbering system to accurately take the place of lat/long numbers, to better suit their needs.

      Now if any of you know anything at all about GIS, you realize that really they have just created their own map projection system.


      No they haven't made any such projection system. They have merely patented the function round((X+360)*10^N) -> convert to base 30, where X is your coordinate in decimal degrees, and N is your desired level of decimal accuracy. Take both latitude and longitude cooordinates, perform this function, pad the results, and tack them together in string representation, and there you go.

      Just remember that 1 in any base is still 1.

      It's almost exactly the same as converting 3.2 kilometers -> 3200 meters -> any number base besides 10. It still conveys the same measurement and the same base unit and the same scale. Do the steps in reverse and you are right back where you started.

      Now why is MS making this patent? ... Because of their upcoming location based information server system which shall revolutionize how you search for information, and how information is targetted at you.

      Tool.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    4. Re:DUMBASSES! YOU ARE ALL DUMBASSES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's a ridiculous patent. Base-N representation of numbers over an arbitrary alphabet is Compsci undergrad stuff.

      I'm sorry I have to go now and patent base-N encoding for the Ns not yet taken.

    5. Re:DUMBASSES! YOU ARE ALL DUMBASSES! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Hey tool

      Go learn something about map projections.

      My coordinates where I'm sitting right now, whether expressed in lat/long, Nad83 UTM Zone 10N, BC Albers, or the patented MS encoded system all place me at the same location (within whatever accuracies you want to assume), just expressed differently.

      The MS encoding system can absolutely be considered a projection ... based on geographic coordinates and presumably the WGS84 or NAD83 datum.

      Your whole arguement against me simply proved my point more. ... Keep your eyes closed. Stay in the stone age while the rest of us benefit from what the location server will bring.

      Tool.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    6. Re:DUMBASSES! YOU ARE ALL DUMBASSES! by Kymermosst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, let me ask you some questions:

      Let us take, for example, the latitude 36 degrees, 1 minute, 30 seconds. (Assume WGS-84 for the entire post.)

      If I convert it to 36.025 degrees, is that a new projection?

      If I convert it to 3.6025*10^1, is that a new projection?

      If I say it in Spanish, or any other non-English language, is it a new projection?

      If I write it thirty-six degrees, one minute, thirty seconds, have I made a new projection?

      Now let's define a new unit, call it millidegrees. That is, one thousand millidegree = one degree.

      If I write it as 36025 millidegrees, have I made a new projection?

      Now let's take that number and write it in hexadecimal, 0x8CB9, is that a new projection?

      None of these have made a new projection (or projection onto a plane at all), because we are taking the exact same geographic coordinate (forget about not having expressed a longitude for now, the same argument applies) in DEGREES LATITUDE.

      In fact, we are still talking about spherical coordinates, are we not?

      Now, let's take one of the above numbers, 36025 millidegrees, and convert that to Microsoft's base 30, and we get 1B0T millidegrees in Microsoft base 30 (the set of digits does not use vowels).

      1B0T (base 30) millidegress = 36025 (base 10) millidegrees = 36.025 degrees (which is what Microsoft says the original coordinate is expressed in).

      If we take both a latitude and longitude, and convert them into Microsoft's representation, then we have not made a new projection because:

      (1) We have not changed the model used.
      (2) We have not performed a transformation on the coordinates other than changing base. Particularly, we are still dealing with (spherical/ellipsoidal/geoidal) geographic coordinates.
      (3) We have changed the scale, however, by expressing coordinates in millidegrees instead of degrees.

      Since a map projection involves also doing (1) and (2) in addition to (3), which we have not done a projection. In particular, we have written geographic coordinates in degrees as geographic coordinates in millidegrees and then converted the number to base 30. This is not a projection.

      Suppose you give me a map, how about the Carbury Creek Quadrangle, Oregon, Provisional Edition 1983. Now, if I cross out the scale in kilometers and draw one in in meters, and then cross out all the numbers on the map and write their base 30 (or hexadecimal, binary, or any other base) equivalents, have I changed the map projection into a new one? No, I haven't. The datum used to produce the map is still the same, and nothing I have done requires that the map be redrawn on its plane of projection. Likewise, the method described in Microsoft's patent has also not created a new projection.

      Now, prove to me that they have created a new projection. (Since I have effectively disproven it.)

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  132. Re:An Infringement of the Natural Area Coding Syst by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

    actually MS is simply creating a new map projection system.

    It infringes nothing, and will be valid globally.

    It is simply a way to transmit lat/long data more easily through a URL ... oh, but i guess you didnt read the article! ... so, when I read basically ANY map out there that has lat/long coordinates on it, am I somehow infringing on your uber NACS? NOO! In fact I'd say the NACS infringes on lat/long!

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  133. Airport codes by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    Base 36 has been used for decades. The three-letter airport codes (ATL, LAX, JFK, etc.) were designed for base-36 encoding. Forth programmers and bc programmers have been using this sort of "trick" since before MS existed. (Forth and bc have a variable that defines the base for input/output conversion) The only thing I see that's even vaguely original is omitting the vowels, in a (vain) attempt to avoid "naughty" words. And I'm really not convinced that's innovative enough to deserve a patent.

  134. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your maps are belong us.

  135. Other patenting reasons by qaffle · · Score: 1
    The one thing I never see anyone talk about when seeing these patents is that there isn't always a company wide reason for certain patents.

    Back in the day my dad worked as a manager for a meat packing plant. It was generally expected that if you were in the research part of the place that you would intermittently either publish some papers and/or get some patents. So while some of these patents are the companies making big plans (and this may or not be the case with this one), some patents are going to be people trying to get bonuses or meet their qouta.

    Now someone probably oversees the patent submissions, but that doesn't mean the entire company would agree with a particular one, possibly that just one overseer does.

  136. What MSFT got from this... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    is really, really tight DRM regional encoding.

    No doubt that MS License 7.0 will include a
    USB keyfob with built-in GPS, all as part of
    their Trusted Computing initiative. (Don't
    you dare move that computer from one cubicle
    to another without MSFT's okay + license fee.)

    I can't wait for the droves of Microsofties
    migrating over to F/OSS when this happens.

  137. D3C D1D 1T 0V3R THR33 D3C4D3S 4G0! by argent · · Score: 1

    High-base encoding like Base-36 and Base-40 is old hat. DEC used a base-40 encoding over 30 years ago, and MIME-encoding has been using high bases forever.

    And leaving off the vowels won't K33P P30PL3 FR0M SP3LL1NG N4WT1 W0RDS!

  138. GPS receivers? by steve_l · · Score: 1

    The garmin protocol for GPS receivers returns lat/long as unsigned integers; i forget the range but it is something like 32 bits. Really, dont need floating point, just big enough ints. There is a finite amount of detail you need for most things, and millimetre resolution of a position on the planet is about it.

    I wouldnt use Base30 compression when base64 is evern more compact. Or base 80.

    1. Re:GPS receivers? by mibus · · Score: 1

      base64 has the problem of using both uppercase and lowercase letters.

      30 seems a good match for lat/long, but seriously - they're just *encoding* *data*. Base-30 may not be common, but it's hardly innovative.

      Whether it's lat/long or random binary data shouldn't matter either, it's all data.

  139. Re:Don't be a fool i wish i had mod points by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    Software pantents are plain wrong. Software can be protected by copyright , and the nations that allow patens for software will be the losers in the tech world.

    I just hope those inovative programmers in asia GPL thier code or we will be lost.

    Patents should be limited to physical machinery. Trying to own knowlage is wrong for the world.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  140. Prior (albeit classified) art by pjt33 · · Score: 1
    This algorithm wasn't created in the vacuum of academia.
    No. It was "created" in GCHQ, although they didn't publish it, for fairly obvious reasons.
  141. Bottom Line by Alpha_Traveller · · Score: 1

    This is from the... Only a Geek Would Notice This... department...

    But I'd be laughing pretty hard if Microsoft was about to launch a GPS product.

    #1) It's a pretty good bet only Geeks care about Geeky things like GPSes.
    #2) If you want to know about truely geeky things you come to Slashdot.
    #3) Slashdot readers care deeply about strange, unusual and stupid Patents.
    #4) It's probably safe to presume at this point that Microsoft will come out with a GPS.

    My Completely Unfounded Conclusion: Either way this is either suggestive advertising or Free advertising. This is all free advertising. Because hey -- you, the slashdot reader -- might be considering geocaching or just the cooleness of general geekery. If M$ is about to launch a very cool GPS product you'll probably go look....

    Just a thought.. ;D

    --
    "Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
  142. Not an invention by Martdc · · Score: 1

    A person picks up a pen and writes their thoughts on a peice of paper. Thats encoding of thoughts. But can they claim ownership of the written word. MS think so. In the UK we spell "Colour" like that. But someone in the US thinks I can compact this to "Color" and then get payments off every one in the US. This is maddness I am glad we have not accepted software patents in europe, it would be a disaster.

  143. I don't think this is new, either by os2fan · · Score: 1

    I don't know about this one. The Barthomolews Atlas had a scheme where latitude and longitude were expressed in terms of an encoded number base 10, which is readily convertable to lattitude + longitude using alternate symbols. So the idea of comingling lattitude and longitude is by no means new. Their system involved letters and numbers as well, so the first letter is one of 24 time-zones, the first pair of digits were 9's, and there after decimal division: The only novelty here is the encoding in base 30, and i really can't call that "innovative". Also, representing numbers in base sqrt(-3) will automatically encode a plane as an alternating set of numbers. On the other hand, i used a system of calendar where 1 year = 12 months of 31 days, so you could store yymmdd in a 16-bit register, for a range of 178 years. (ie 178*12*31 > 65536), which is quite nifty.

    --
    OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
  144. Re:As Well, MS is Not Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft sides away from capitalist software production, as they rely on government-granted copyright and recently patent monopolies. If they operated in a true capitalist free market without copyright and patent, they'd last a month, tops.

  145. Euclid did this first. by smeckert · · Score: 1

    The whole X-Y co-ordinate system is a compact method of representing point on a cartesian plane using decimal digit strings in compact notation. If you add to this the html tag then you end up with a URL encoding a pair of co-ordinates. Doesnt this mean prior art?

  146. its all about the , by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its OK, we can still represent it as
    ?p=123.12342:234.23452

    Its only a problem if we seperate them with a ','

  147. Wrong interpretation of 'obvious' by dustmite · · Score: 1

    As far as I'm aware nobody's ever done it before, which makes it both non-obvious and novel

    W.r.t. patents "obvious" doesn't refer to whether or not anyone's ever thought of doing it. It refers to whether or not the solution to a problem (i.e. the "method" being patented) would be obvious i.e. easy for a person somewhat skilled in the arts if asked to solve the problem. In other words, if you were a programmer and someone came up to you and said "we need to come up with a scheme for encoding lat/long values in a compact way", and you could come up with this idea in, what, a few hours max, then it's "obvious". If another programmer can look at the solution and understand it within a few minutes, as is the case here, it's also "obvious". "Non-obvious" would mean if you described it to a programmer, and he/she went off and scratched their heads for a few days/weeks/months thinking "HOW did they DO that?" (E.g. take MP3 compression: although many of us have now read descriptions how it works, at the time it was patented, if someone had asked "please come up with a method of compressing music at a factor greater than 10 with almost no audible quality loss", the solution would not have been obvious to, well, pretty much any programmer I would venture to guess, and also would have boggled the minds (and it did) of many programmers at the time, saying "HOW did they manage such good compression that still sounds so good", and take weeks or months to figure out how.

  148. 150,000-300,000 software patents since 1998? by jonabbey · · Score: 1

    So there have been 150,000-300,000 software patents granted since 1998? Or is that merely when the appeals process for the lower court ruling ended? The problem I have with software patents, David, is that such a very small percentage of software is written for sale. Most is written for use. The USPTO seems to have no reasonable way of knowing what techniques have and have not been used by some programmer somewhere in the country. They can look at previous patents (there were none, initially), they can look at journals, but there is no viable way to prove lack of previous invention and use in someone's in-house code development. There are just too many programmers doing too much work. With 150-300k software patents out there, with some high fraction non-novel or obvious to experts in the field, programming has become a minefield.. even things that were nominally novel due to context, like writing software to do an old function on the Internet, are being locked away, and by companies that themselves benefited tremendously due to the use of software techniques developed and shared freely before software patentability. How does anyone but Microsoft benefit by Microsoft patenting a wide swath of approaches to reducing Spam? Microsoft gained many tens of billions of dollars of additional revenue due to the surge in PC sales brought about by the widespread adoption of the Internet, yet they and others are now putting roadblocks up as fast as they can to control any further elaboration of the Internet, or competition in providing compatible services on it. How can this possibly be defended?

    1. Re:150,000-300,000 software patents since 1998? by tambo · · Score: 1
      The problem I have with software patents, David, is that such a very small percentage of software is written for sale. Most is written for use. The USPTO seems to have no reasonable way of knowing what techniques have and have not been used by some programmer somewhere in the country.

      True, but that sword cuts both ways.

      One of the practical limitations of patents is that enforcement implies discovery of an unauthorized use: the patentee must find defendants who are using it and must prosecute them. In the context of private use, this is completely impossible. If a company wants to develop their own BASIC compiler with an ISNOT operator, solely for internal use, then Microsoft can do nothing to stop them. This kind of infringmenet is not approved, but is widely acknowledged and tolerated (for lack of any workable alternative.)

      True, this effect is not part of the explicit theory of patent law. But I assert that it's an implicit limitation to what should be patented. Certainly it's a guiding factor for any attorney or businessperson whilst deciding whether or not a patent is worth pursuing.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    2. Re:150,000-300,000 software patents since 1998? by jonabbey · · Score: 1

      True, but that sword cuts both ways.

      One of the practical limitations of patents is that enforcement implies discovery of an unauthorized use: the patentee must find defendants who are using it and must prosecute them. In the context of private use, this is completely impossible. If a company wants to develop their own BASIC compiler with an ISNOT operator, solely for internal use, then Microsoft can do nothing to stop them. This kind of infringmenet is not approved, but is widely acknowledged and tolerated (for lack of any workable alternative.)

      But what if some company developed an ISNOT style operator for some internal project in the last 30 years? Then Microsoft would be unjustly taking the use of such operators away from any distributed software for a period of twenty years, despite the lack of true novelty.

      As long as the original use is hidden, Microsoft has a weapon to take against public use of the operator, and if the original use is brought to light later, there's a $2 million lawsuit burden on the defendant who quite properly should be entitled to write software with a transitive negation test operator.

      It's all well and good to say that business exigencies will limit the use of such a patent in a suit, but a patent doesn't have to be brought to action in order to generate a presumption of illegality about someone's obvious software development work.

    3. Re:150,000-300,000 software patents since 1998? by tambo · · Score: 1
      But what if some company developed an ISNOT style operator for some internal project in the last 30 years? Then Microsoft would be unjustly taking the use of such operators away from any distributed software for a period of twenty years, despite the lack of true novelty.

      Again, if it's solely for an internal project, then the company can continue using it. Microsoft has no way to find out about it - and no incentive, either. Stopping company X from using the ISNOT operator has no income potential for Microsoft.

      Also, note that it doesn't necessarily take a $2MM lawsuit to resolve issues about bad patents. Thanks to the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, the USPTO offers a new inter partes reexamination proceeding: third parties can raise previously unconsidered prior art to have an issued patent invalidated by the USPTO. This inter partes system isn't perfect - as this report indicates - but it's clearly a step in the right direction. We may soon see the end of the "but it's too expensive to litigate it" argument.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    4. Re:150,000-300,000 software patents since 1998? by jonabbey · · Score: 1

      Again, if it's solely for an internal project, then the company can continue using it. Microsoft has no way to find out about it - and no incentive, either. Stopping company X from using the ISNOT operator has no income potential for Microsoft.

      Of course, in the hypothetical case we're discussing, Microsoft would have no moral right to stop company X in any event, income potential or no income potential, right?.

      But for company X to establish that legal right, they would have to spend some significant money to have the patent invalidated. In the meantime, Microsoft has the presumption.

      What do you make of open source software, and its viability in the face of such an extensive body of software patents? It seems that software patents have the potential to simply terminate open source software development and distribution. I believe this hasn't happened to any significant degree yet because Microsoft and other large patent holders are holding fire until the European Union ratifies software patentability, but with 150k-300k patents out there, such an assault seems inevitable. Even if in the future it costs less than $2 million to defend a patent suit, an open source development team with no resources won't be able to mount any defense whatsoever.

      Does this concern you at all?

    5. Re:150,000-300,000 software patents since 1998? by tambo · · Score: 1
      But for company X to establish that legal right, they would have to spend some significant money to have the patent invalidated. In the meantime, Microsoft has the presumption.

      No, they don't. I keep making this point, but it keeps getting missed. Company X need not take the affirmative, expensive step of invalidating Microsoft's patent. (Maybe this is impossible, because the patent is valid.) It need not do anything. It can go ahead and keep using it.

      Company X has no incentive to act - it should just keep doing what it's doing. Even if it finds out that Company X is using the ISNOT operator, Microsoft has no reason to stop them from doing so, and doing so would be an awful PR move. Both parties do nothing, and this is a win/win result.

      There's nothing "illegal" about this, by the way. Microsoft has the legal right to stop them, but no legal obligation. Unless Microsoft asserts the patent, the university has done nothing wrong.

      What do you make of open source software, and its viability in the face of such an extensive body of software patents? It seems that software patents have the potential to simply terminate open source software development and distribution.

      I have several responses.

      First, if it had the power to do so, Microsoft would have done so already. They've viewed Linux as a gathering threat for at least five years, and as you may have noticed, they're not keen on the concept of competition.

      Second, Microsoft would have an affirmative duty to show which patents Linux violated, and how. Linux could respond by taking those technologies out of the kernel. Certainly the inventive power of the Linux army can invent around anything Microsoft can throw their way.

      Third, if Microsoft tried to do so, it would face a commercial behemoth with an equally foreboding arsenal: IBM, which, in fact, is the world's largest software patentee. And IBM is Linux's big brother. Microsoft stands to lose much more than Linux in a patent gunfight.

      Fourth, Linux has its own pony in this show - not software patents, but defensive publication. Arguably, open-sourcing the Linux kernel blocks anyone else from patenting anything it contains (unless they can prove they invented it first, and that's an uphill battle.)

      Finally, it's noteworthy that Linus Torvalds doesn't seem concerned. (Link goes to Google archive of a thread originally on kerneltrap.org, which sadly is no longer available.) To wit:
      Dan Phillips: I suggest all vm hackers have a closer look at this [software patent]. It's stupid, but we can't just ignore it.
      Linus Torvalds: Actually, we can, and I will. ... The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    6. Re:150,000-300,000 software patents since 1998? by jonabbey · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has become much more aggressive about obtaining software patents recently. Why, in your view, are they doing so, if not to build a weapon against their only significant competition?

      In the case of the fabled IBM patent counter-offensive, how do you know that IBM's interest in the Linux kernel is greater than their interest in gaining access to Microsoft's ever-burgeoning patent portfolio? Large companies cross-license entire patent portfolios at the drop of a hat, it seems.. is it known that IBM and Micrsoft do not have any extant cross-licensing agreement in place? When Microsoft and Sun entered into a cross-licensing agreement, Microsoft was most careful not to allow that cross-license to leak into open source development..

      And it's nice that Linus Torvalds says he is not concerned, but he has also very publicly called for them not to be approved in Europe.

      I can agree that in some cases of extraordinary invention, a software patent might be a proper thing to grant. I can not agree, however, that there have been 150k-300k extraordinary inventions in software since software patents have been granted.

      Software patents are bringing us to a regime where it is necessary to have lawyers in order to write and distribute software. Requiring lawyers to be involved isn't such a burden when producing a product involves the funding and creation of factories and of physical distribution channels, but it is a significant burden on software development. Yes, lawyers are involved in copyright, but the scope of copyright is much narrower than the scope of patent, and patents are cumulative. It takes a lot of effort for a software work to violate many copyrights, but a single work could violate just as many patents as the USPTO is willing to give out.

      I fundamentally do not believe that software patents significantly advance the speed of technical development. Rather, I think they slow it down, to the benefit of the companies who obtain the patents, and not necessarily to society at large.

      To take the most obvious example, the Internet could not have happened as it did if all those protocols and techniques in the RFCs had been patented. Companies would not have been motivated to invest in software services on the higher levels if a Microsoft (or an EOLAS, as you point out.. paging the Viola browser) had been extracting patent-driven monopoly rents for the use of Internet technologies.

  149. 150k-300k patents since 1998? by jonabbey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry, once more with paragraphs

    So there have been 150,000-300,000 software patents granted since 1998? Or is that merely when the appeals process for the lower court ruling ended?

    The problem I have with software patents, David, is that such a very small percentage of software is written for sale. Most is written for use. The USPTO seems to have no reasonable way of knowing what techniques have and have not been used by some programmer somewhere in the country. They can look at previous patents (there were none, initially), they can look at journals, but there is no viable way to prove lack of previous invention and use in someone's in-house code development. There are just too many programmers doing too much work.

    With 150-300k software patents out there, with some high fraction non-novel or obvious to experts in the field, programming has become a minefield.. even things that were nominally novel due to context, like writing software to do an old function on the Internet, are being locked away, and by companies that themselves benefited tremendously due to the use of software techniques developed and shared freely before software patentability.

    How does anyone but Microsoft benefit by Microsoft patenting a wide swath of approaches to reducing Spam? Microsoft gained many tens of billions of dollars of additional revenue due to the surge in PC sales brought about by the widespread adoption of the Internet, yet they and others are now putting roadblocks up as fast as they can to control any further elaboration of the Internet, or competition in providing compatible services on it.

    How can this possibly be defended?

  150. Re:An Infringement of the Natural Area Coding Syst by FairJudge · · Score: 1

    What's new of the Microsoft scheme? A 30-based encoding scheme to compact lon/lat? That is the scheme introduced in the Natural Area Coding System (http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/nac.asp) ten years ago.

  151. Claim 83: Look out into the future... by Randym · · Score: 1
    The scheme for generating the compact strings can be applied in any place where one needs to transmit or store binary floating-point information, with the constraints that one has to limit some arbitrary character set and one wants to make it as compact as possible while preserving a desired level of accuracy.

    What Microsoft is claiming ownership of here is, basically, *any* encoding system whose output is subject to a length constraint. While the primary thrust of the patent is the collision of Natural Area Coding with the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle (for the purposes of minimizing URL length on mobile devices), *this* part attempts to boldly snatch algorithms which have been part of science for decades. Anyone ever hear of a guy named Huffman? Or Morse?

    Even more chilling are the implications for biologic patents. What, I submit, is RNA but an encoding scheme designed to cram information into 3-bit packets?

    --
    DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
  152. X, Y and Z by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to patent the coordinate system !

  153. been done before by xixax · · Score: 1
    From the C-Squares FAQ
    The main reason that the codes are purely numeric (other from the colon separator character) is the desire to retain as simple a relationship as possible with numeric values of latitude and longitude, as encoded directly into all but the leading character of each "cycle" of the hierarchy. Having said that, a case could be made for using a letter instead of a number for the leading character (since these are in effect a "special digit" rather than a number), however the decision has been made to use two existing precedents (WMO squares, see above, plus "Blue Pages" subdivisions of these squares), rather than introduce a new notation convention.

    Viz, they explicitly thought about using a non-base10 system, but had additonal design goals.

    ArcSDE (and I suspect PostGIS) already stores geometry as (slightly less accurate) integer to avoid handling lots of floats. In fact, I'd also argue that the UK's postcode system is a hierarchical location identification system that uses a alpha-numeric namespace in order to generate short, memorable unique identifiers. I'd classify this as obvious, if it stands I'll just base64 encode my WKT geometries.

    Xix.
    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  154. go read the state street bank decision by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    http://www.kuesterlaw.com/saris.htm

    Since this patent was held valid, after being held invalid by a lower court, the USPTO recieved a large number of applications. Since federal law is in part based off of precident, the Office was bound to issue patents since the initial State Street Decision determined that the claims of that patent passed the rules for determining if an invention was a statutory violation of 35 USC 101.

    Lobbying would not likely change the rules. Most likely another court decision would.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  155. Who's got the patent on base 60? by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    2500 years prior art, but that shouldn't be an issue these days. 10 digits plus upper and lower case letters - leaving out I because it looks exactly like l in Microsoft font. One character each for degrees minutes and seconds.

  156. Base 30 - Avoid confusion? by virtcert · · Score: 1

    It would be a good idea if they also dropped duplicate-looking characters, ie 1 and l, 0 and O, l and I, and so on, at least if they are going for visual usability.

  157. Expediamaps Changed URL's to Hide Long/Lat by americasroof · · Score: 1

    Several years I used Expediamaps for a list of the highest points of the world. It was easy to extrapolate the longitude/latitude in the good old days and the instructions told you how to link to its maps. For instance the Everest URL (which incidentally still works) was: http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=mrdr&lat s1=27.980665215563927&lons1=86.92149463948968&alts 1=400&ofsx=0&ofsy=0&ntid1=293b&plce1=&wpst1=1&regn 1=2&cnty1=4&fmap=1&&tpid=1&&zz=1107746517414& From that you could easily parse the latitude/longitude. In the Everest case Latitude: 27.980665215563927 (North) Longitude 86.92149463948968 (East) That's pretty much overkill. None the less you could take the extrapolated latitude/longitude and drop it into any mapping program. The new Expedia maps can only be arrived via search and you have to have the URL mailed to get it. Further it is impossible to extrapolate the longitude/latitude from the new Everest URL http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?tpid=1&eapi=0 &qscr=mmvw&msds=EX0184EEAC17$40$F6$D2$B2$2B$F6$D2$ B294002!701000!4$FF!50!Q$FF0!8$FF$1A0Kgvoy.Plpspfy .$28wpmt$29$2C.Mfjm!2$FF$0D0Kgvoy.Plpspfy$87$C5$D1 $CA$0C$FB$3B$40$2F$0D$7E$C5$EE$BAV$40$C80001000!4$ FF$3B$29!50!2$FF0000!2$FF!6i$EE$3F$14000!6$FF!I0&r frr=-6600 Microsoft did not come to dominate the world by giving away anthing for free.

  158. *we* can invalidate it by jmason · · Score: 1

    Since this is still in the application stage, some good instances of prior art can invalidate, or severely restrict, the final patient. More details here.

  159. No, actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > It's cool that you got modded funny and I got modded troll.

    No, actually it's because his post was funny and your post was trolling (at best).

    Not to mention that you appear to be a jackass, which never helps bolster your argument.

  160. Argh! I did almost this 10 or so years ago! by Meetch · · Score: 1
    I do mean almost. The www wasn't exactly a phenomenon then, but using integers to represent coordinates has always been a necessity if you are wont for floating point numbers in your system. Especially if you're working with a limited amount of processing power, or the cost of simulating operations gets relatively high.

    Summary: I was working on an LPMud which was darn well going to have a coordinate system for all "rooms" such that it would easily calculate who was within a certain radius of any action. I grabbed my old maths book, did the trigonometry, came up with the relevant equations, boiled them down, and then proceeded to implement them in the day's game driver. The game driver had NO support for floating point operations, so I used a few tricks:

    • Refer to coordinates in degrees, but increased a couple of orders of magnitude to make fractions of coordinates representable (store a precise value as an acceptably less precise integer). I even scaled it - 800 "degrees" instead of 360 seemed to work best for my needs.
    • Implement simple series for some trigonometric calculations - I got sufficiently accurate values with IIRC the first 5 steps in the series
    • Where speed really was an issue, I used incomplete trigonometric lookup tables, with some allowance in the functions to approximate results as "x/yths between a[z] and a[z+1]."
    • Bingo, one working coordinates scheme to accomodate the physics I wanted to allow for, with absolutely no real numbers in play.
    I did not even think of patenting it. Why? Because it only took an afternoon's worth of thought to do all the necessary derivations and calculations, and it was all common sense! Besides, I might have had to have credited my high school math text! ;) The only real difference is I was representing the coordinates in 2 separate variables, instead of concatenating them with a comma. But then I wasn't trying to store them in a URL.

    The implementation of all the basics in LPC took me probably the better part of a week, and was tested, and worked to an acceptable degree, but that was just coding. It's just a shame I went on to start University before I could release it and give it momentum to grow.

    [rant]Grow up Microsoft, and patent something that a high school student can't do.[/rant]

  161. and any one of those... by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...obvious and trivial patents is way more than enough to bankrupt just about any small or medium developer out there who gets accused of a patent violation by Microsofts teams of lawyers.(or some other large concern to be fair)

    It doesn't matter if it's obviously bogus on a casual review, the fact remains that they have the most money to burn, and can drag almost anyone through the "justice" system until they are quivering whimpering paupers. It wouldn't take too many public and loud examples of this nature to throw quite the chill into independent development of the overt and above board kind. This is a company that successfully fought off the US government and pretty much got away with it. Their technical legal "loss" wasn't a loss,not to them anyway, when they are allowed to print up their own "money" to use to pay the fines, and that "money" went to brainwash the next generation into still using their products. How many other folks get to do that in this justice system? The only other example I can think of readily and off hand is the music industry folks getting busted for price fixing, and then forced to distribute copies of their songs as the fine. Same deal, IP, trivially cheap to mass produce, being used as money to pay off a court fine. Sweet deal for them, and it's not a loss, and not even close to being any inducement for them to "change their tune" on anything really. From one day to the next day, business as usual..

    Then there's the question and observation that a construct such as "linux" isn't really owned by anyone, except the copyright Linus owns of course for the kernel. The groupings of softwares combined make a distro, various companies and orgs of both profit and not for profit status distribute these, along with individual files or groups of files called applications. Once the patent wars begin, which they will eventually (it is still in the scouting and skirmishing phase now, along with accumulating patent-ammunition stockpiles to use then), you'll see most of those dry up, be made illegal to distribute,be forced to either pay just scads of bewildering royalty licenses because of these thousands of trivial but still legal patents, or be forced into this dubious ephemeral "underground" existence at least to the point of a similarity to what the P2P networks are enjoying now,complete with take downs, raids, lawsuits, actual loss after loss in the court system, now even affecting joe and jane small fry when they choose to do it, and increasingly they are choosing to do it.

    It is quite conceivable that software patenting per se will result in just a small number of "legal" (I am only speaking inside the US for now), operating systems and application vendors in the not too far away future.

    They are not accumulating all these patents as a hobby.

    1. Re:and any one of those... by tambo · · Score: 1
      It doesn't matter if it's obviously bogus on a casual review, the fact remains that they have the most money to burn, and can drag almost anyone through the "justice" system until they are quivering whimpering paupers. It wouldn't take too many public and loud examples of this nature to throw quite the chill into independent development of the overt and above board kind.

      Do you have any examples of such conduct? Has Microsoft ever strangled any competitor through the use of a bad patent? Microsoft has done a lot of egregious things over the years - but this isn't one of them.

      Indeed, the only way Microsoft has violated the goals of the patent system is by willfully infringing others' patents. The software patent held by Stac Electronics was the only reason Microsoft could not freely abscond with their technology. Similarly Eolas Technologies, Inc., which developed a web browser plug-in technology way back in 1994 - a year before Microsoft released Internet Explorer 1.0.

      I can also cite the continued development of USPTO reexamination proceedings - an obvious and useful solution to the problem of $xMM patent litigation. Interested third parties can now request (and partake in) reexamination of issued patents in light of unconsidered prior art. This proceeding hasn't been perfected yet, but in a few years, your complaint may no longer be a business reality.

      ---

      This is a company that successfully fought off the US government and pretty much got away with it. Their technical legal "loss" wasn't a loss,not to them anyway, when they are allowed to print up their own "money" to use to pay the fines, and that "money" went to brainwash the next generation into still using their products.

      That is, indeed, a shame. Sadly, our government has lost all focus of the purposes of antitrust law. The FTC has simply surrendered its obligation to prevent excessive consolidation. I don't know when or why the antitrust system lost its head, but the consequences will be - are already - catastrophic.

      In Microsoft's case: It had an incentive to bust out the big (expensive) guns in that case, since the government had hinted at trying to break up the company. That would have been an excellent, appropriate, and deeply interesting result. Sadly, this didn't happen. The unconfirmed rumor is that the government accepted a plea bargain in exchange for backdoor access to Microsoft's security technologies... which, scarily, is fully in keeping with this administration's tactics. (Notice that the prosecuting attorney was none other than John Ashcroft, yet another paranoid Bush-backing crackpot.)

      However, this sidebar is irrelevant in a discussion about software patents.

      Responding to your general point that MS does what it wants: At least it's learned its lesson about respecting software patents. When Connectix developed a truly exceptional Intel hardware emulator, and patented some of the emulation techniques, Microsoft didn't ignore them and recreate the wheel. It bought the company and released the software as its own. This is a good result.

      ---

      Then there's the question and observation that a construct such as "linux" isn't really owned by anyone, except the copyright Linus owns of course for the kernel.

      I've responded to this in detail in another response. To recap briefly: Microsoft wouldn't dare try, given that IBM is the owner of the world's largest arsenal of software patents, and also a friendly giant when it comes to Linux. Tellingly, Linus Torvalds is not concerned about this prospect.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    2. Re:and any one of those... by zogger · · Score: 1

      examples? Not yet, just from similar large cartels like the xxAAs starting to nail IP infringers at the personal user level. A few years ago during the original Napster times I remember writing it would happen and had any number of people tell me it would never happen, there were too many people doing it, etc. I said, "Just watch". And it happened. and even more onerous laws passed.

      Like I said, I don't think the patent wars have even gotten off the ground yet, it's barely even started. But I predict they will. There has to be a tipping point where eventually about all types of conceivable code will have been written so that anything new will "infringe" on them. We do have patent software disputes already, I just don't think they are ramped up to the level that we'll see sometime within a few years or so. and it won'tmake any difference if large corp A has just as many as B, they will wind up cross licensing, what will happen is the small and medium places will get gobbled up. That's my prediction at this point.

      Side issue but, are you aware of any other business that can get a patent on a product, profit from it immensely, then use an EULA to avoid even the most minimal of a normal consumer warranty? That's the issue that really fries my grits over the entire IP patent dispute. They want every conceivable legal protection for their products,and have gotten it, yet will take zero responsibility for it. And the law allows it. Truly amazing.

      Normally I am against lawsuits, but I sincerely hope some time a group of software consumers, both corporate and private,just say ENOUGH,and initiate a class action to try and get no responsibility eulas tossed out and force all these companies to respect a warranty. I am dumbfounded it hasn't happened yet with all the financial losses suffered by people with being on the web with insecure and buggy products.

      funny sig BTW

  162. Its not just latitude and longitude by bgspence · · Score: 1

    They are claiming any encoding mapping integers to characters.

    RTFP(atent)

    [0083] It should be noted that embodiments of the present invention are generally beneficial in that they enable floating-point numbers to be converted into a compact ASCII string. Application within URL's is only one example where such compact strings are beneficial. Other application scenarios are within the scope of the present invention. The scheme for generating the compact strings can be applied in any place where one needs to transmit or store binary floating-point information, with the constraints that one has to limit some arbitrary character set and one wants to make it as compact as possible while preserving a desired level of accuracy. Relevant applications are not limited to those involving transmission over a network, but also include storage in data files, etc.

  163. Would Microsoft do it? by rofthorax · · Score: 1

    Is it outside of their character, considering their past?

    BTW, there is a lot of money to be made with E commerce and a GPS device.. Its amazing that all anyone can come up with is geocaching..

    I imagine Bill Gates already knows of the applications.. So it doesn't suprise me that he would try to patent anything he can about the technology before the ideas catch on..

    --
    Just say no to license servers!!
  164. Give MS some credit... by The+Religious+Left · · Score: 1

    It never hurts to try.

    --
    I believe in God and I believe in science, and I will continue to profess them both.
  165. A few points by nimblebrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's an application for patent. It's not a patent yet, and hopefully it won't make it through the gauntlet. That said, it could easily make it through the gaps in the system.

    Don't get bogged down by the "base 30" part. Patent applications have a "preferred embodiment" or current invention part, but this is not the part you have to worry about. Patent applications, if you have a good patent lawyer, try to cover off as broad a space as possible without getting summarily struck down. Look at the claims; they're the part that other companies can run afoul of. Other parts are supporting documentation to show that yes, it is an invention (you must make mention of the device the software runs on in software patents, for example) and to preemptively strike down the examiner's questions.

    So, what we have here is a patent on turning lat/long information into fixed point (trivial), then represented as base anything. It does not have to be in a URL. It does not have to be base 30.

    I don't think this one should stand.

    I'm wondering how many other software developers hang out on here, and what they think of software patents. I'll say, for my part, that I've never had to refer to patents to help me in my line of work in any way whatsoever. Never mind the triple-indemnity-if-you-knew clauses. If you're given a problem to solve, you cover them with assumptions to make the problem easier, standard techniques and analysis, and other peoples' components to bring up the shortfall. Patents that are broad enough to worry about rarely contain content that's helpful.

    I can't foresee patents helping software developers - unless you count learning to dance in minefields... 'helpful' :)

    I don't even actually see Microsoft being the main worry on an ongoing basis. I see our industry being held to blackmail by IP "holding companies" who do not develop software, and thus who cannot be threatened or counterattacked in the same way as Microsoft can.

    -- Ritchie

    --
    Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)
  166. Re:mod parent up! (nt) by rush22 · · Score: 1

    I said nt. Jeez.

  167. There is prior art in NAPLPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This type of encoding was used in the NAPLPS videotext system that predated Microsoft and the Internet.

    This will get you to a document describing the protocol.
    http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/library/P ROGRAMS/GRA PHICS/NAPLPS/

    Here is a reference to the ANSI standard documents that are definitive proof.
    http://uclsun.ucl.co.jp/naplps/naptech-e.h tml

  168. Understand the F patent test. by aug24 · · Score: 1

    I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase "not obvious". Any half-competent programmer would have suggested some scheme along these lines if asked "how can we represent all those numbers more easily" by their PHB.

    Justin.

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  169. Whatever by BlueTooth · · Score: 1

    My base 32 encoding system is alredy patent pending, and it knocks the socks off base 30.

    --
    SPAM
  170. Base-30 numbering systems by rebill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love base-30 systems - we have one that is about to expire, and has already caused all sorts or predictions of doom and gloom here on slashdot: The Serial Number for the Vehicle Identification Numbering system (VIN).

    Of course that was created to make it harder for your local sherrif and local auto dealer from writing down the VIN as "I2FO0000" instead of "12E00000" . . . despite the reality that rolling over the VINs at the end of this decade should only be an inconvenience for the corporate executives that have the "I must start numbering everything at 1" mind-set. But getting back on topic . . .

    Let's break this down:

    • They have a pair of floating point numbers: latitude, longitude - no immediate patent claim here, as the lat/lon numbers have been in use for a very long time.
    • They convert that number to a digital format, with a minor loss of precision. Prior Art: Every Analog to Digital Converter that has ever been made, from joysticks to MP3.
    • Storing a number in a specific base-30 format. Prior art: IEEE 754-1985, Standard for Binary Floating Point Arithmetic. Prior Art: RGB Monitors - the colors specified in HTML "*color=" tags actually represent a floating-point value in a base-16 numbering system.

    Sigh. Nevermind. Our entire society is built upon a foundation of information sharing - the public school system. We spend 12 years forcing our children to accept and regurgitate information from a small number of sources (teachers), and to share information freely amongst themselves (recitation in class), and then to prove that they know it (tests) . . . only to turn around and slap the label "Intellectual Property" and to forbid them from doing precisely what we just spent 12 years training them to do.

    Self-defeating.

    Information is the INFRASTRUCTURE of technological advance. Just like roads and the electrical grid is the infrastructure of modern society. Any nation that figures this out, and acts to build its infrastructure will do precisely what the United States did between 1865 (backwater nation fighting a civil war) and 1945 (superpower) . . .

    --

    Chivalry is not dead, it's just frequently misspelt. - M. Langley

  171. *yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool, another opportunity for the linux elite to talk about how they like working for low pay.

  172. This isn't all that innovative or orginal by rjune · · Score: 1

    The basic method doesn't seem to be that innovative or original. A program written in the late 1980's called ANGPLAN used the ASCII value of a character to compactly store data. For example, Ñ would be used represent the value of 165. It looks like the same basic concept to me. I can't imagine the Patent Office would know about the program (it was widely used in the Air National Guard for KC-135E mission planning), but I'm sure that other people could find similar examples.

  173. mod parent up by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I agree with everything you wrote, but that was a damned good argument! Never a mod point when you need one ...

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  174. The Real Reason for So Many Useless M$ Patents by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think the real reason M$ and others file so many patent applications is to flood the patent office, thus making the pendency time increase like mad. By the time any of their competitors are even able to have a patent granted, the protection value is almost nil since the usefulness of their novel idea has become obsolete. If they keep doing this, the pendency will inflate to 20 years, which will render any granted patents completely useless.

  175. This just in by moe613 · · Score: 1

    Hot off the press:
    Microsoft has just patented the patent. Hereby making all patents property of microsoft.