Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Rejects SBC Browser Patent
theodp writes "Remember that dicey 1996 SBC Structured Document Browser patent that Slashdot readers immediately called BS on back in 2003? Two-and-a-half years later, a USPTO Director-ordered reexam reached the same conclusion, and a final rejection was quietly issued last month."
about damn time.
That's great news, but what about the other patents included in that same re-examination order? What's the status of "LABEL FOR SPOOLED WIRE PRODUCTS"? Will I finally be able to market my "METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT" without fear of legal reprisal? We need to know!
The system is broken!
You've been examining patents too long if you consider reacting in 2003 to an action in 1996 immediate. Or are you a congressman?
_____
Thank you.
... did something right!
I followed the links provided in the submission to this page containing a list of other reexaminations, where I found this gem:
6,520,942 Reexam. C.N. 90/006,758, Ordered Date: Sept. 24, 2003, Cl. 604/290,
Title: METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT
How fitting.
Better late then never.
But then again, this one off event makes you wonder wheter or not someone did not get some promised dough off the deal and decided to chop off the patent.
> "this is a quote of a quote" - Anon.
Reviewed by Sanjiv D. Shah...it looks like s/he knows what s/he is doing.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
All patents are issued or denied quietly. It's usually rumor sites like Slashdot and www.eff.org that make these quiet affairs larger than life.
I have bad news for you all. A final rejection just means that the claims have been rejected for the second time. It's not over yet...!
Method to improve peri-anal hygiene after a bowel movement:
T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6520942.WKU.&OS=PN/6520942&RS=PN/ 6520942
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
Pattent System
by spooje on Wednesday November 12, @10:01AM (#7453079)
Great now if we can just get the USPTO to review the entire pattent process we should be all set.
It is sad that after 1 1/2 year, we are still talking about reforming the patent system, instead of actually doing something.
How many other things does the governent "talk" about doing? Let's see...a couple of biggies are campaign finance reform (never happened), and social security. I truly believe that if they ever *did* accomplish anything with respect to these issues, they'd feel like there wouldn't be anything left to promise during the next election. The formula seems to be, "promise, do nothing, rinse, repeat".
So the original patent was 1996, the first talk about it was 2003, and it was rejected a month ago? This is almost as bad as that glass in space article.
Tonight in the news: Computer programmers have stopped producing software for the Apple ][e. Film at 11.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
Shame, it should have been upheld. Then we might get to see how stupid such patents really are.
Time to worry about SBC's CEO?
Ironic, isn't it, that Eolas' WebRouser was cited as invalidating prior art for this patent by none other than Bob Cringely ?
United States Patent 5,877,765 ; Dickman , et al. March 2, 1999T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,877,765.WKU.&OS=PN/5,877,765&RS =PN/5,877,765
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
which has the catchy title Method and system for displaying internet shortcut icons on the desktop
and yes, from a quick look, it's every bit as obvious as it sounds.
Now, I assume Apple and Sun have taken out licences (or swapped some other IP) for the right to use this patent, but how about :
- KDE ? /.'er right there running distro "X" with icons on your desktop pointing to URL's in VLAGRANT violation of :
- Gnome ?
- you ? - yes, YOU the
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the display of the visual representation of the shortcut object on the virtual desktop includes a graphic for identifying the shortcut object as a shortcut to the resource.
Does anyone else despair of this patent madness, where this rather obvious extension i.e icons pointing to an INTERNET resource is considered patentable, as it's such a VAST improvement (yeah right) over the basic icon to LOCAL resource ?
eg, the Apple Mac in 1984, 1983 Lisa, even earlier Xerox Star etc etc...all had icons - right ?
The question is whether or not the owner of that patent (Microsoft) has ever used it in an offensive manner. Thus far, it seems that the answer is negative.
In fact, with Microsoft holding onto the patent and not enforcing it against KDE/Gnome/Whoever, they are actually acting as good stewards of it. They, by owning the patent, are preventing less scrupulous companies (SCO, Eolas, Rambus, etc) from getting their hands on the patents first and then squeezing every last cent out of "licensees".
Microsoft's done good. Better than anyone on this site gives them credit for.
"Method to improve peri-anal hygiene after a bowel movement"
In Soviet Russia, bowels move you!
In Korea, only old people monitor peri-anal hygeine
I, for one, welcome our new peri-anal hygenic overlords
Yes, but can it run Linux?
But will it be released before DNF?
You insensitive clod, my peri-anal region is already clean!
Nah, I'll stick with this...
Wow, imagine a beowulf cluster of bowel movements!
I'm morally convinced that if he had enough money, an illiterate blind person could be granted a patent for reading.
The real problem/question I wanted to raise is with obvious extensions to prior art being patentable. (see my original post)
Finally, there is ~14 years left to run on this patent. A lot can happen in that time.. I wouldn't discount the possibility of Microsoft beginning to enforce their patents, and hence derive significant revenue if the rest of their business model begins to suffer from the encoachment of open source software.
IBM derive SIGNIFICANT revenue ($US 1.6B in 2000) http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,43186, 00.html
for thier shareholders by enforcing their patent revenue.
Companies are not "good", they just have interests (that of thier shareholders) to serve.
Enforcing a patent portfolio is inevitable for companies. It's just in the nature of the beast.
But don't take my word for it, how about Eben Moglen, pro bono counsel for the Free Software Foundation_ aiming_ibmscale_patent_program/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/08/microsoft
At this rate this patent wont even be an issue when it IS rejected (for the absolute final time). The internet will be a colaborative thought process like the Borg collective so we wont be using "browsers" to read anything on it.
SBC browses YOU!
Now that's a(nother) show I could enjoy seeing on Discovery; "PatentBusters."
The reason for having a patent system is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (that's what it says in the Constitution).
Allowing entities to patent large swaths of ideas and then expect them to be "good stewards" of them is not what the patent system is for. Why should we have to rely on Microsoft's good graces to use what are obviously trivial ideas.
Overly broad patents should not be granted. AT&T had a long history of being good about licensing patents widely and not trying to extort money for them. SBC, the inheiritor of that patent from Ameritech, went fishing for money with it. What guarantees are there that Microsoft will not be taken over by someone else (since you believe they are such wonderful folks) who would decide to enforce all of their dodgy patents?
No, solutions that rely on corporate self-restraint are fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, having Microsoft be the owner of the patent is just luck. The system needs to stop granting these things. In fact, the system needs to start punishing people who apply for this crap. Patent lawyers will apply for just about anything because the risks associated with not researching prior art enough are completely negligible.
perhap you missed this part :
:
/usr/home
the display of the visual representation of the shortcut object on the virtual desktop includes a graphic for identifying the shortcut object as a shortcut to the resource.
in other words, those funky little arrows that mean "shortcut"
yes, they have a patent on showing -> next to a link
now then, where did I see that sort of thing before, hmm lemme see if there's anything on my disk
% ls -ld home
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9 Jan 23 13:29 home ->
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
their coffee tastes like mud, now i know why, they are too busy making ridiculous browser patents...
SBC should try for better brewing not browsing!
And don't forget the legislation that falls into the "never going to actually get passed, but embarrasses our opponent".
I'm not normally one to nitpick on spelling errors, but if you're going to YELL that loud, you could at least yell the word correctly.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
... is that the patent office page linked to would itself seem to be in violation of this patent!
There have been numerous "campaign finance reform" bills in recent memory. So far, all they've been good at is securing the incumbent however. The most recent one has given quite a bit of power to the owners of media companies. What do you call a country ruled by its press? Mediocracy?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
SBC and was wondering what the IP Knowledge Ventures was created for but now I guess I know.
I think I am going to throw up - and then I will get my resume together -
Something is wrong when we have to resort to this for making a profit. The company has bigger problems than just trying to generate revenue.
In the wake of the Apple and Intel cooperation and now the USPTO actually denying/rescinding/rejecting a patent, I think it's clear that slashdot needs a new logo. Something representing hell freezing over, or perhaps pigs flying...
at least xfce and twm are not in an IP violation ;)
Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity. -Nikola Telsa
And no, that isn't why it was created. In fact, it didn't even exist when the deliberations on this patent started. Our prime job is to make sure that we make money off of our intellectual property, but not from stupid crap like the patent mentioned above. While we looove making money from patents which we think we deserve money off of, one of the jobs of the KV team is to make sure fiascos like this don't happen again, which means that BECAUSE Knowledge Ventures exists now, patents like these which are "obvious" won't get filtered through our systems, and if it doesn't get filtered, it won't raise stinks like this one.
Again, I work for KV and I also know that secretly, most KV personnel are happy that this patent is being reexamined.
They can DO that?!
Oooh no...
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Government is mostly talk and inaction, punctuated by bad actions, and the rare (perhaps accidental) constructive action. But the two examples you gave aren't examples of government inaction.
Campaign finance was reformed a coulple of years ago, making some real changes to the system. It wasn't nearly enough, and didn't address the real problem, simple bribery called contributions, especially from corporations. But they did back up their words with actions.
Social Security reform is mostly talk. The actions proposed are considered by practically everyone but their promoters in the Republican Party (and their bribers^Wdonors) to be at least counterproductive, at worst lethal for both Social Security and perhaps the rest of the government. This includes the majority of Americans, something like 2:1 against the proposed actions. So we're looking at talk threatening very unpopular action on a very important system, which has failed to approach execution. Sure, that's a lot of talk, but hardly worth complaining about as a citizen. Unles you're a Republican briber^Wdonor.
--
make install -not war
Silicon Graphics and IRIX 4DWm had this a long time before the above pilfered the idea -- already with IRIX 5.2, if I remember correctly, and possibly before. That's back when Mosaic was the browser of choice.
4DWm's file manager acts as a browser too, and you could drag icons from it (including the URL bar) onto your desktop or to folders. It even takes the idea one step further, and divides the file manager window into two -- one where you see the web page, and one where you see all the various elements as icons.
Regards,
--
*Art
You could have saved a keystroke or two by using `ls -ld ~`
Oh, I seem to have missed the point entirely again.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
~ doesn't expand to /home it expands to $home
and even then, only in some bloated shells
% ls -ld ~
ls: ~: No such file or directory
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I'm just a lowly BASH junkie, and I set my environment variables in my startup scripts. For the world I know, my statement is true. But, valid point never-the-less.
Incidentally, is shell bloat actually a significant problem in this day of GHz+ machines? I mean, is the footprint of even a bash shell significant for all but the most overtaxed of servers?
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
Wow, imagine a beowulf cluster of bowel movements!
Uhm Washington, D.C.? Sacramento? The Hague?
Our bashing of the PTO might mean a little more if once in a while some one would stand up and say, "Hooray for the PTO. They got one right."
Only a few hundred thousand to go.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
bloat is bloat
I'm an rc user
i like my startup times to tend toward 0 =)
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Neat looking stuff, maybe in time, once I'm an established user, I'll give it a try. As it is, any startup times seem great compared the the Windows machines I support, and also use here at work. Thanks for the link, it's time for me to clock out.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
What I can't believe is that on /. this patent ownership by M$oft of frikin' icons to URL's didn't seem to register much.
Hell, the longest thread that descended was about bash scripts... geez.
upholding a prior (1995) M$oft patent on icons to URLS's !!
Please see my earlier post, look at the referenced M$oft patent, and THEN reconsider are you *still* high-fiving the PTO ??d =12898180
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153768&ci
I think not.
Yep, they sure got it right this time
is all I had in mind. Like you, I have already returned to condemning their many failures. I've given the PTO its high-five; now its back to the tongue lashings.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I completely agree with this decision, since the company didn't really create anything new, but rather used something someone else had made in a differant way. A good way of explaining this to people who don't understand the finer points of the case and lacks a basic understanding of html is in the following metaphor: -The patent system is designed to protect the rights of inventors. If someone takes steel rods from lowes and invents a new musical instrument with them, than he deserves a patent, even though he used the steel rods, which were invented and produced by a 3rd party. This is like the person who used an existing invention - text - and created html with it. -What SBC is doing is more like someone finding a steel rod that someone else made, shoving it up his own ass, and applying for a steel rod dildo patent. This is like SBC taking an existing invention - the hyperlink - and using it in a slightly differant way from everyone else without modifying it or creating something new in any way. I hope this cleared the situation up for a few of you (although if anyone takes the time to read these comments on /. than they probably don't need such a base explanation.