Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Researching Patent Law with New Experts
wikinerd writes "According to The Register, Microsoft seeks to hire new patent experts. In their words, patent experience itself "is helpful but not mandatory" and advance knowledge of patent law is not required. The applicants need only be Computer Science or Electrical Engineering PhD holders, without any qualification in law. They will be involved in prior art search, patentability research and technical analysis. The article outlines some of the most controversial MS patents, such as online bill payment."
One only has to look at the rampant achievements and success of Free Software and Open Source to see how much the rest of the industry is being held back by software patents and other "intellectual property" restrictions.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
in other news, war is peace, hate is love, and microsoft ROXXORZZZZZ.
And soon microsoft shall hold patents to errors, bugs, patches and security updates.
http://www.sandstorming.com
This is one step to a Microsoft-dominated Tech Marketplace. Soon Microsoft will find every loophole there is to drive out competitors.
"Microsoft, the world's largest software company is seeking all manner of Patent Attorneys with Freakin' Lasers on Their Heads to assist with plans of world domination."
I'm a big tall mofo.
"Application for a patent that covers the act of patenting software intellectual property."
That that, logic!
I am from a small, grease-loving country in the north called Ca-na-da.
looks like the classic "If you can't work with them then work around them" trick. 2nd only to "If it aint solved throw more money at it."
They'll keep hiring new patent "experts" until they get the answers they want.
As much as I like to poke fun at Microsoft, I don't see anything wrong with this job posting.
Performing a prior art search requires 95% technology knowledge and 5% patent knowledge. The little patent knowledge their employees will need I'm sure they'll learn on the job. Come on, we've all sold ourselves during job interviews as being "fast learners."
In my opinion, this is just a silly reason to ridicule Microsoft.
How would that work? Would you have all your source code printed really small in a pretty logo which you register with the proper authorities?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I promise not to look for prior art or question the validity of any mouse click you want patented.
I wont be bothered to see if anyone else is even trying to do something similar, and will push to patent using keyboards to input data, using a pen on the screen to push objects, and even patent running software on something called a processor.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Maybe they'll patent their vulnerabilities so it will be illegal to exploit them. That'll make Windows secure. Kind of like what the cel phone industry did to full spectrun scanners. They had them banned instead of providing secure communications for their customers.
What?
is Microsoft wants to research technology they may have been first at, find patentable processes and then attack Linux with those. It seems MS has a lot of patents that could be easly reversed on the grounds of prior art or obviousness. I think they are searching for the silver bullet patents.
Also: a patent for type-os.
I am from a small, grease-loving country in the north called Ca-na-da.
Does that mean I can be a criminal lawyer and not know criminal law?
And you seem to have the same skillset as the current Patent people..
;)
Pre-exisiting posts..!
must be willing to trade in your humanity in service to the dark lords.
skum. must be skum.
Wanted: PHD in physics to serve fast food through drive through window.
Condidering the fact that getting a PhD in CS and EE is fairly easy these days, we should expect a lot of idiotic "methods and aparatii" from those new kids. Then couple of frivolous lawsuits against small corporations as a testing ground and finally against free software will follow during the next decades (probably some easy target, ala bnetd, so people will boycott Microsoft for few ours and then start buying new products, like with Blizzard) but it will result in very bad PR and counterclaims from IBM so the practice will probably be terminated after two (three at most) low-priority lawsuits from the top levels of the management, those new kids will get fired and everything will go back to normal. It will be certainly interesting to watch, but devastating to the US industry which will obviously benefit EU who will rather choose progress than software patents. It will mean stronger domination of Microsoft in the US and weaker in Europe. That of course means that it is a good time to buy stock of SuSE and Mandrake, and sell Red Hat.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
I hope some of the real lawyers that read this site can confirm or discredit this.
:). Lawyers who work on IP issues tend to be very specialized and the firms they work for tend to be specialized as well.
Anyway, a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer, when I asked what she knew about IP law stated that is so different from other types of law it has its own bar exam. Unless you actually pass that exam you are not really qualified to work on IP cases or to give legal advice. She said she will not touch IP law in any form because, in effect, it would be malpractice (I, of course, was hoping for some free advice
I have to wonder if by hiring unqualified people MS is heading for lots of problems.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
they're all valid.
Litigate.
I think it's far more likely that the purpose of these new employees is to help Microsoft invalidate patents that may be used against it such as the bogus Eolas patent a few months back. That of course begs the question, why do they think that this is going to be an issue since they also think that software patents are such a good idea? Unless, perhaps, they *know* they are invalidating patents, are afraid they will get sued and feel that the best defense is a good offense...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I believe you're exactly spot on.
I'll take it one step further, and wager that they only reason why Microsoft hasn't attacked Open Source projects with Patent Infringement is because they want to get the laws passed in Europe before they launch their attack.
They've bribed their way into getting Software Patents passed in India, and Europe is the only thing remaining.
Sadly, it looks like Europe will soon pass these laws themselves shortly.
Once Europe goes, watch out.
I recently finnished reviewing a few patents because of a grant application I've made, they were mainly to do with commercial detection routines some of which have expired so the free PVR guys might want to have a look at those :-). They are the most boring and badly written crap that I've ever seen. The entire purpose is to make sure that you can't understand what the hell is going on in them. The patent lawyers make sure they are as broad as possible just to see if they can get away with it, I ask my patent lawyer about that and she confirmed it. They are annoying and sometimes very sparse on the technical details so you just have to guess what is meant. I don't think that reviewing patents is a job that I could do for very long while staying sane.
"but I'm not about to fund any massive development efforts"
Don't be silly.
Nobody funds R&D development just to find clever algorithms.
Here's how 99% of all software (by volume) is coded:
You work for a company. They say, "Bobby, we need you to write a front end to the payables system".
So you code it, and if you're a programmer with half-a-brain, you come up with a few twists that make it run better/faster/nicer. The code is never sold, or used outside of your company. It exists, and probably nobody will ever see the code again except some 1st year puke out of college. And the world goes on.
To imply that something this guy did in a day is worthy of an entirely new set of legal protections is to show a stunning ignorance of how software is developed.
So to answer your diatribe, you aren't funding a search for new patentable software, you're simply trying to solve a problem. Therefore if software cannot be patented, you'd still have to solve the problem.
Oh, and to put the final torpedo in the burning hulk you call an "argument", the bulk of innovative software was developed before software patents were allowed. Software patents have be in force for probably around 10 years, and the software world has had a stunning lack of innovation in that time.
otherwise they run the risk of releasing something or developing something and then years later some nitwit coming along and demanding millions of dollars from them for some detail he claims to have invented a decade ago. we've seen it multiple times. i dont think anyone should complain until they actually tries to enforce a frivilous patent, ie amazon suing barnes and noble for their "one click sale", etc.
Why don't Microsoft patent spam, trojans, viruses, malware, spyware and genomes of script kiddies. That will send shivers down the spines of the miscreants, and we will all be FREE of the crap :)
"Performing a prior art search requires 95% technology knowledge and 5% patent knowledge."
At the US Patent office, prior knowledge apparently accounts for... at best... 1% of the entire process. In fact, I think they stopped looking at prior art, because it turned out that you'd have to reject every software patent if you start taking into account that every piece of software is derivative.
I fail to see how this differs from any of their own in-house attitudes towards patents, prior art, or the property of others.
It's kind of like the Mafia putting out an ad that looks like this:
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
The worst thing about the bicycle patent is its name. It's not a bicycle, it's an exercise machine with a single flywheel. The novel aspect is the pedals - they are independent of one another rather than being connected by a crankshaft.
There is nothing wrong with software copyrights because copyrights only cover that very literal piece of code and only factor in when that code has been copied. So if the code goes stale because of its short shelf life, then it doesn't matter if it cannot be copied.
Remember, with copyrights, if you write a program and I write one "just like it" that isn't _actually_ it, then there really isn't a conflict. Especially if there was no way I ever saw your code.
Also, you don't "own all code like yours" when you hold a copyright.
Software patents are bad because they grant a realm of control that extends beyond the scope of what you created (or might have thought about creatring) to give you dominion over all things kind-of like your theoretical thing. That's bad in the extreme.
Copyright is useful for software, and will remain so as long as we don't end up in the "copyrighted space" bull-pucky. (e.g. you can't take picutures in this public park without a paid permit because the sclupture is copyrighted, which is the bull actually happening of late.)
What *isn't* good is the ability to "copyright" "look and feel" (remember that old evil phrase?) because that becomes copyright of general concept, which is just erzats patenting but for longer terms.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
If I were to guess about what is about to come about, I'd say they are about to make some tests for their patents to see how well they will stand up against counter claims to invalidate their patents when they start lawsuits for usage.
This isn't just useful to ensure they aren't infringing. That's even kind of hard, because you're dealing with a huge space of potential patents.
What's useful about hiring a bunch of people to look for prior art is when you're trying to invalidate a patent being cited against you. Then you have a specific set of claims for which you can search for prior art. Of course, in the end, I like this, because it means stupid crappy patents will get weeded out by being invalidated at trial (if things go to trial rather than just being settled). Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to hire an army of people to do searches like this, so it's not the most efficient method...
I've been a lurker here for a few months, and while there's sometimes really intelligent stories, why is it that anytime someone mentions Microsoft we feel they've done something wrong?
Shouldn't we be happy that they're hiring PhD's to do their patent work, and not patent lawyers with no understanding of computer science?
And, after all, what is so evil about Microsoft? All that money that they make (mostly off of large corporations) does end up in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; yes, charity. I don't like IE anymore than the rest of you, but sometimes their corporation does no evil, same as google. Like them or not, software patents encourage incredible innovation in the field. You may be willing to release your source to the world, but for some, profit is a motivation. Would you rather that they left computer science entirely?
An open eye to the world, even to Microsoft, is never a bad idea. Disclaimer: I use firefox on Red Hat. I'm no great fan of Microsoft products either.
You are the nail. Tap. Tap. Tap. Fulcrum, lever, alloys. It's all math in semiconductor MR gates.
Other recent filings include attempting to patent the "y-axis", the "IS NOT" operator in Basic, interactive test feedback, and reading ahead 20 records at a time in a database, when the user clicks the Previous or Next buttons.
I'm surprised they haven't already patented the use of the Q-dimension to predict future technology developments.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
... the concept of security holes. :D
Precious little soft-ovation there. Send your wisdom there. In fact, go there. Please, please, please!!!!! yOUPR HURING MY SIDE. MY SIIIIDE!!
Okay with you?
I know a Physics PhD that took a position about 10 years ago with a large IP law firm. He did it for the money. From what he described of his job, it sounded like a paralegal position where his specialty is to look at the science of patent applications. I imagine law firms have a need for specialized paralegal services in other areas too, such as medicine, etc; evidently, software too. Lawyers can't know everything.
In the end, the lawyer moves the paper and puts on the public face. The paralegals do the grunt work and directed research behind the scenes.
As a software developer, all this stuff makes me cringe. Makes me feel like I'm blindly jogging through a land mine field every time I create a new product.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
In their words, patent experience itself "is helpful but not mandatory" and advance knowledge of patent law is not required. The applicants need only be Computer Science or Electrical Engineering PhD holders, without any qualification in law.
No experience needed? Damn, I'd better hurry up and finish my dissertation. That is, if I were willing to sell my soul to Bill.
Funding a lawsuit against OpenSource is obviously failing. Will this tactic succeed? It is obvious that MS wants it all. Their monopoly position has to be protected at all cost. By essentially patenting everthing under the Sun (pun intended) they intend in future to exercise their powers to dominate electronic communications. Absolute money corrupts absolutely. Giving MS patents on some of these communication functions is like giving a manufacturing/news/printing company an exclusive on the printing press! Wake up and smell the coffee America the shit is about to hit the fan.
There *IS* not legal category called IP.
You can have patents.
You can have copyrights.
You can have trademarks.
You can have trade secrets.
Each one of those is really quite separate in legal requirements, but patents have so divorced themselves from the rest of the legal system that they (I have heard) DO have a separate bar exam (sort of a post-bar), and if you aren't qualified under it's terms, it would, indeed, be malpractice to talk about what the law means. (And though a layman could get away with doing that, if he does it in court he lays himself open to triple penalties if he makes a mistake [or something like that]...you dasn't represent yourself in a patent suit. They've tortured the meaning of words even more than normal legalisms. (And as far as I can tell it's so that a small group of lawyers can charge exhorbitant rates...but they will make you suffer if you attempt to avoid paying their toll.)
If this were the worst thing about the patent system, however, I would think it was capable of being reformed into a reasonable system. It's far worse than that.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Given that in other news, the collapse of Microsoft is near, perhaps Microsoft will turn into a canopy type group? Perhaps they were funding SCO for R&D rather than FUD?
The anti-patent FUD here is such retarded bull$hit, only a moron would enjoy it. A poor wretched programming moron with no future. What's that say?
This is getting beyond a joke.
Now reading that BS online bill paying patent (whoever awarded that patent obviously was on crack) and another recent article on slashdot about Matshita patenting a help icon I'm wondering what the score is for patents with regards to non 'serious' applications like games.
Does anyone know if games companies have a load of dubious patents floating around like 'a sprite', 'a polygon', 'a character in a game' etc etc
Because a lot of what I am reading doesn't seem to be technological innovation at all, or some amazing new algorythm (sp) that some genius programmer has invented but for silly GUI concepts and artwork.
Particularly relevent thanks to M$'s X Box, so who knows what they are telling their developers to do.
Patent applications must be technical, novel and non-obvious. For example, you can't patent "one-click shopping" or "progress bars".
Oh, wait...
Hello ;) Yes it covers copyrights and industrial property rights (industrial property term was taken from French law doctrine and covers patents, utility designs, industrial designs trade marks, geographical indications etc. depends on which legal system we talk). ;) and You need to pass a bar exam (each state proviedes its own bar ex. but all are unified by American Bar Ass. rules). To become a patent attorney You need to pass USPTO exam. There are different positions for example You can be a patent examiner and there is no need to have law education.
I do not like this "empty" academic talks about is IP a real term for copyright, patents etc. or it is not. This term is in use and there is no need to discuss about it, unless You are a law professor and got a lot of free time to spent for such polemics
Anyway. Each country got different patent law and rules about to become a lawyer at all. Generaly speaking in USA to become a lawyer You have to be educated in a law school (it was not needed 150 yrs ago.
You as an inventor can apply for a patent or a design for yourself at USPTO. Its easy. Of course they suggest You to take an advice of a PA to avoid mistakes.
ABA rules statue that You have to be a legal advisor (lawyer, patent attorney) in the field You are specialised.
For more details check USPTO web page and American Bar Ass. web page.
Hope I help You a little.
Tomasz Rychlicki
www.rychlicki.net
MS has to stop Linux at all costs, and the cost will be the end of MS. I predict they are going to sink so low that the top brass at MS will end up in jail over Linux. You heard it here first.
"The article outlines some of the most controversial MS patents, such as online bill payment."
What so controversial about paying bill (gates) online?
Whoops !! My mistake.
I believe that Microsoft is only good for two things: gaming and grandpa. Smarter, more capable people are really gaining control of the Computer industry, and it won't be long until Linux will overtake Microsoft simply because of Linux's broader range of functions. If Microsoft would spend more time creating more flexable OS's and less time creating more 'MSNTV' Services, we would all be in a better boat. http://www.enstimac.fr/~alaouimd/linux_penguin_suc k-microsoft.jpg
You know I hate M$. I really hate them, therefore I feel somewhat in touch with the alledged /. zeitgeist whatever. If MS collapsed tommorow I would be happy.
But I feel Linux would make much more inroads if it could come up with a credible integrated strong desktop instead of the mishmash of WMs, DEs and various flavors of X holding it all together. I'm convinced it would do a whole lot better on the desktop.
Also if people started writing FOSS apps with the pizzaz of commercial apps it really would be hugely damaging to MS no doubt. But for some reason it doesn't seem to happen and the FOSS community seems more attached to a kind of fuddy duddy stale old image along with pious lectures about the GPL, probably putting (some) people off.
I can't believe this post has been up for a day and not a single person has actually checked in with the following info:
Law firms and companies with patent lawyers routinely hire non-lawyer technical experts to help them with patent work. In law firms, these people are typically called "technology specialists" or something similar. Often these people simultaneously go to law school, with the idea being that they will eventually turn into lawyers.
Additionally, there are many people out there who are called "patent clerks." What this means is that they have studied for and passed the US Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) examination. Once you have passed this exam, you are qualified to help people obtain patents, regardless of whether you have a law degree. Now, you obviously can't practice law, so you're quite limited if your only a patent clerk and not a patent lawyer, but you can still be quite helpful to someone who just wants to obtain a patent or two.
Bottom line: law firms and legal departments routinely hire tech/science people to help them with their patent work. I honestly can't believe this made it into a story. Next week there will be a post about Microsoft hiring SECRETARIES. I mean, they're a software company!! They're supposed to be writing software and they're out hiring secretaries!?!?
She asked me to come over to shave the hair off her back.
Keep in mind that Microsoft is also the deepest-pocket target for every crank with their own crazy patent. I know of several cases in the past few years where Microsoft spent a lot of money defending themselves in infringement suits against completely frivolous patents. Be glad that these patents were trashed, and hope that's how Microsoft continues to do its patent litigation.
Your mom is math, and she pays you, but you make squat, so you leave it here!!!!
So I might have a little bit of a bias.
No you are wrong about foss apps, good example is Kstars..light years ahead of anything available at a reasonable cost through closed source. Also the Scientific aps are getting really great...SCilab is a great example.
If you are only interested in simplified access to exreemly complicated applications and functions then OSS is way ahead. The interfaces to MySQL server, Open Office, and much other open source software are just as good and sometimes many times better than anything MS has to offer.
However if all you want is to surf AV pr0n and IM yourself into computer lala land then MS is way ahead.
Too bad that their insecure office ware has become mandatory in the most of the computer illiterate business world..If they had not succeeded in eating IBM's lunch, Gates and Co. would only be a foot note in the history of computing!
Let me be the first to say it...
"All your bill belong to us..."
(Well, okay. Thanks, Bill.)
... at Micro$oft ... ... No Formal I.T. Qualifications needed, although a phd in Law is highly regarded. :)
"Trade Secret"
"Confidentiality Agreement"
"Law Suit"
There are many ways to protect your work without software patents. They're less expensive, and last longer!
Must be a PhD? Oh... because we know that's gonna be a sign of an intelligent person... not like the previous "Doctors" who have basically put us in the mess we are currently.
/rant
I so hate degrees being toted as the be-all of the fucking world. From what I've heard talking with various schools my LibTomMath project [and book] would qualify as a Masters level thesis undertaking. Yet I wrote the bulk of it in a couple of months FOR FUN!!!
Not trying to put down the "educated" just saying that you can get by through school without a super breadth knowledge of the field. For example, how many wavelet experts know how to exponentiate in finite fields? You think many cryptographers know how to best use wavelets? etc, etc, etc.
So fucking stop with the "must be degree'ed" and just say "must have proven track record of 'getting shit done'."
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
They sure did get a lot of free advertising here at least. :P
face it MS's recent craze of Patents is their effort to stamp out any other operating systems and soon to be hardware. The PC makers that drool over the Windows OS as their os of choice should have saw the writing on the wall when MS released the xbox. All MS has to do now is make their own Windows Media Center computer and their total monopoly will be complete - oh wait! they have its called the XBOX-2! They should have been busted up into many pieces when they were found guilty of monopoly but too many in politics had stock in them.
Here's something I wrote the other day:
The Cast:
- Mr. Gates
- A European Commissioner
The SketchA `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The commisioner does not respond.)
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?
Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.
Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!
Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
...
Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!
Commissioner: I never!!
Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!
Commissioner: I never, never did anything...
(Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
contd...(due to limit on post size)
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
The Sketch (contd...)
Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.
Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?
Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.
Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.
Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!
Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...
Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!
Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...
Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!
Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.
Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...
(pause)
Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?
Commissioner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Gates: Well.
(pause)
Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.
Copyright
The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Writers Cramp is very painful. What with writing patents all day long. Now the villagers of redmond have to find other sources of patent generation, or their whole economy of patent writing will spin apart.