Microsoft's 911 Patent

The register is reporting "'Microsoft was today granted a patent for accessing data used by the emergency services.' They quote from the application 'In sum, what is needed is a way to provide users with access to needed emergency information. This should be simple from the user's perspective, so that even very emotional users can find what is needed in a straightforward, yet comprehensive process.' Apparently the patent was filed one month after 9/11."

Comments

Re:I'm confused kinda

[gowen]

I sort of agree with you, with one massive proviso:

What's the non-obvious novel invention here? Answer (as far as I can tell): there isn't one. It's an IP land-grab that's an attempt to to gain a 20 year monopoly on computer-facilitated Emergency Service response.

We're only bithcing because it's Microsoft

[stlhawkeye]

Other companies have proposed patents, also since 9/11, in an effort to improve the reliability of the emergency response system. Some have been extensions of existing technology, some have been replacements for existing technology, some have been efforts to bolster the reliability of existing technology.

One of the more well-known was the one that VoIP filed, meant to stabilize the usability of internet phones for emergency calls by rerouting VoIP calls to emergency numbers through the conventional phone system.

Microsoft's patent isn't quite like VoIPs but my point is that if this was, say, a patent being filed by Google, a number of you who decry this move would be celebrating their the foresight and genius.

Invention?

[sepluv]

It must be a slow news day.

Needless to say, this is yet another patent that does not cover an invention (which is supposed to be the point of patents), but (arguably) a discovery--although it is more like common knowledge than something only Microsoft have discovered.

Once again like most U.S. patents:

• there is no physical object
• it did not take time, money or effort to hone and eventually produce this pathetic `plan' of an `invention'--it is just an idea
• this actually impedes the "progress of science and the arts" [U.S. constitution] (and, in this case, the emergency services) and in no way gives anything back (e.g.: by actually including useful plans to help someone make such a system after the patent has expired)
• it would be trivial for someone to come up with this independently (without realising they were breaking the law)

...and U.S. politicians wonder why people think their patent system is so insane...

The reason why patents were invented was to stop people keeping the workings of their inventions trade secrets which would never be released to the public (whereas--the then new-fangled--patents actually run out) thereby impeding the "progress of the science and the arts", therefore patents are only supposed to cover something that a company might be able to keep a secret. In this case, the idea (which is what they are trying to patent; as opposed to the specific invention that Microsoft has or has not yet--as the case may be--produced) would not be coverable by a trade secret as once they produced such a product it would be common knowledge (and thefore no longer a secret) that such a product could be produced. Whereas, if Microsoft were patenting the specific workings of their invention, these would be harder for someone with one of their products to hand to work out--thereby potentially patentable as they are potentionally able to be kept secret (while Microsoft sell the product).

Making a (possibly poor) analogy with the field of consumer law, this is a bit like Microsoft trying to trademark the generic term for the class of their product as opposed to a name for a particular brand (e.g.: hypothetically, if Microsoft were in the automobile maunfacturing industry, trademarking the word, "car"; or, again hypothetically, if Microsoft were in the operating-system engineering industry trademarking the word "windows" for a windows system...o, nevermind...).

The patent is entitled "a method and system of providing emergency data"; however reading it one realises that (in common with most patents using those magic `method' and `system' words in their titles) it is not actually a patent on "a [particular] method and system of providing emergency data" but actually a patent that stops anyone else from producing any "method and system of providing emergency data".

This is backed up by the way that, throughout the patent, it says that "this invention [sic.] covers [foo], [bar] and [baz]" or similar language (where foo, bar and baz are sorts of inventions that might be made in the future by others) instead of describing the actual invention that Microsoft have produced (or, I suspect, have not actually produced) so that others can gain from this knowledge after the patent expires.

There are many other ways in which this, once again, goes against the basic principles of the patent system. However, as I suspect (hopefully) everyone will laugh at any (unlikely) attempts by Microsoft to enforce this patent, I will not spend more time analysing this drivel (that Microsoft and other large corporations produced by the dead-tree load on a daily basis).