Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO Issues Email Address Patent to Microsoft

Posted by timothy on from the oh-sure-why-not dept.

theodp writes "On Tuesday, Microsoft was granted U.S. patent no. 6,895,426 for treating electronic mail addresses as objects, which Microsoft notes allows email addresses to be easily added to a contact list, copied to the computer's clipboard, or double-clicked to open the related contact information for that email address sender. After the reaction to news of his first patent, betcha inventor Dan Crevier isn't too eager to let folks know about this one."

5 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. My new patent: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting



    Since we're on the subject, I thought this would be a good time to let all of you know that I have just patented the .sig file. That means that all you suckers who use .sigs now owe me a dollar every time you post. You'll all be recieving bills very soon now.

    ^_^

    Seriously, though, I think the exchange on Dan Crevier's blog regarding his last patent is pretty telling...he gets a barrage of posts criticizing him for stifling innovation, and instead of addressing them, he closes the thread. Yes, yes, I'm well aware it's his blog, and if he doesn't want to play, he' s well within his rights to close the thread...just like that kid who would always take his ball and go home when the game didn't go his way...remember that kid?

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:My new patent: by jcaren · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the UK it is your responsibility to provide proof that you have taken all reasonable steps to search for prior art.
      I see no reason why if this is proven to be false, punitive action should not be taken.
      Yes I do belive it is harsh but if implemented MS, IBm et.al would be divesting themselves of large numbers of patents - or registering them overseas instead.

  2. Time to fight back by fishdan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What needs to happen is someone needs to sue the Patent Office for negligence. There must be some case out there where it can be shown that the USPTO's negligence in issuing patents so casually has caused some company monetary damages. If a city can be held liable because of damages caused by a pot hole or a supermarket because of floors being slippery, or McDonalds for coffee being too hot, can't we hold the USPTO responsible for issuing patents for which there is BLATANT prior art? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. Why is the USPTO never held accountable?

    Hit them in the pocketbook. It's the only sort of censure a government office understands.

    --
    Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
  3. USPTO has been broken since State Street. by gdek · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Re: software patents, there's a whole lot going wrong. More to the point, just about everyone knows it's wrong -- except for IP lawyers, for whom this is all a tremendous boon, and who will fight tooth-and-nail to keep the system that way. It's just a matter of:

    1. Understanding why it's wrong;
    2. Formulating a clear position;
    3. Taking that position to your congressman;
    4. Over and over and over.

    Did you know that the USPTO has a public advisory board? Did you know that it's populated almost entirely by IP attorneys?

    http://www.redhat.com/magazine/007may05/features/p atents/

  4. This is what the uspto spends their time doing... by aphaenogaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I get at least 400 hits a month by somebody at the uspto. (biodiversity.georgetown.edu ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:43 -0400] "GET /tree/order/Homoptera HTTP/1.1" 404 339 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:44 -0400] "GET /tree/order/Homoptera HTTP/1.1" 404 339 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:46 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:46 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:47 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:52 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:52 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:55 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 360 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:55 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 360 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:38:59 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:02 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:04 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:06 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 360 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:09 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/leafhopper%20bug.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 363 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:11 -0400] "GET /tree/family/Cicadellidae HTTP/1.1" 404 343 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:13 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/planthopper%201.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 362 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:13 -0400] "GET /images/counter/infosearch/planthopper%201.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 362 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:14 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/planthopper%201.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 359 ptohidec.uspto.gov - - [21/Apr/2005:08:39:14 -0400] "GET /images/counter/picture/planthopper%201.jpg HTTP/1.1" 404 359