Microsoft Frowned at for Smiley Patent

theodp writes "ZDNet UK reports on criticism of Microsoft's attempt to patent the creation of custom emoticons. 'I would have expected to see something like this suggested by one of our more immature community members as a joke on Slashdot,' quipped Mark Taylor of the Open Source Consortium. 'We now appear to be living in a world where even the most laughable paranoid fantasies about commercially controlling simple social concepts are being outdone in the real world by well-funded armies of lawyers on behalf of some of the most powerful companies on the planet.'"

Comments

Uhoh

[Drathus]

I can see it now:

=( (r)

* Disclaimer: "=(" is a registered Trademark of Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, WA. Used without permission.

(Please don't sue)

Re:Uhoh

[takeya]

Does their Japanese division claim ownership of ^_^, -_- and >_> ??

'Cause I use those sometimes >_>

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent in question isn't quite as general as you may believe. It is quite clearly a patent on the exact method MSN Messenger uses to display custom graphical emoticons - amongst other things the patent specifies a 19x19 pixel grid (claim 2), a PNG file (claim 7) and the web browser cache (claim 18).

So don't worry, you can all chill out and go back to watching downloading Star Trek on your Linux box or whatever you do between Slashdot stories.

Re:Uhoh

[Alkarismi]

That's quite funny, but even M$ would never... oh, wait!

Re:Uhoh

[Xabraxas]

You don't think that is generic? So now I can't make a png file that is 19x19 and use it as an emoticon?

Re:Uhoh

[PakProtector]

Don't you mean their Korean division?

Re:Uhoh

[some guy I know]

I can see it now:

=( (r)

Watch out!
They've applied for patents on "(r)" and "(c)".

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you cannot rip off the exact method MSN Messenger uses to display custom graphical emoticons and use it yourself. That's what this patent protects, and quite right too --- it wasn't your idea, so why do you get to steal it?

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, someone did trademark the frownie.

http://www.despair.com/frownies.html

Re:Uhoh

[some guy I know]

The patent in question isn't quite as general as you may believe.

Claim 1:

A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination.

This could cover the following sequence:

1. An app displays the emoticon on the source CRT.
   This requires the source app/OS to "select pixels" from a font in order to display the emoticon.
2. The app copies the emoticon to the output buffer, which is "assigning a character sequence to the pixels".
   (It happens that this is the same sequence that the user originally entered, but the patent does not disclaim this).
3. The app/OS sends the emoticon to the destination machine.

"The app" in this case can be any email client, a browser with a text box, etc.

Another example is an email client that sends a picture of an emoticon using uuencode or base64.

I think that this patent covers more than I think that you think that it does.

Re:Uhoh

[bonk]

So, they are patenting the IMG tag with local images that exist on the client?

Re:Uhoh

[ryanov]

If it's that specific, what's the point? Who would want to copy it, and if they did want to, wouldn't it be extremely easy to do so changing things ever-so-slightly?

Re:Uhoh

[kurzweilfreak]

It's ok, as long as you aren't using a CRT monitor.

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

A patent comprises of more than just the first claim, you idiot. Read the rest of it too.

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we'd have no problem to claim prior art for these examples.

The patent is about how the icons are inserted. Well... I think we have no trouble claiming it is no innovation. display a grid with foo, and dubbelclick to insert, single click and click Select.

Remember Charmap on windows 95? prior art, except there are no characters, but icons, how did we assign a regular icon to a file type, of shortcut.

It's only trivial innovation.

No way it's going to hold in court

Re:Uhoh

[cortana]

Please explain how implementing the same method for selecting a smiley deprives the method's "owner" of its use?

Re:Uhoh

[SnowZero]

How true; This fairly useless feature was in AIM first, so its not ours to steal. Apparently it's for MS to steal though, since only big companies get to steal ideas. Go look up who got a patent on the car, and how much they had to do with actually developing the technology. And remember, don't ever make a website where you can carry out a transaction with only one click, since obviously nobody skilled in the trade could ever come up with that idea on their own...

Re:Uhoh

[dourk]

I think Despair, Inc. got there first.

Re:Uhoh

[lengau]

That's a trademark, though. Anyone is still free to use :-(, as long as they don't promote a business with it.

If this patent gets accepted (which I'm quite positive it won't), nobody will be able to include that method of Emoticons in a program they make.

I believe the true goal of this is to stop programs such as Kopete, GAIM, etc. from implementing MSN chat (or, for the examples I've given, to remove it), as they would have to pay Microsoft.

Re:Uhoh

[imsoclever]

Looks like we'll have to create a more esoteric set of smileys to express our emotions

&-* is how microsoft makes me feel

Re:Uhoh

[zippthorne]

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Bad haircut with an exploded cigar?

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

The abstract basically covers anything which sends a user-selected image (either the picture itself as part of the message, or a set of characters e.g. =] which is then turned into the image) to somewhere else.

I don't fully understand the claims section of patents and am too lazy to try to find the answer, if someone could explain it I'd be grateful.
Does it mean that claim 1 is the main claim, and the next claims are simply clarifying things further (in which case I assume this means all claims must be infringed for the patent itself to be infringed)?
Does it mean that claim 1 is a summary, and nobody is allowed to do that, or something similar as described in claims 2+?

Depending on which, this is either ridiculously stupid, being a completely obvious feature most developers would end up adding to their IM client at some point. Or its nothing to worry about, instead of a 19x19 pixel image developers can just change it to a 20x20 pixel image and they'll be fine.

Either way, IMO, patents are generally misused (in MS's case anyway), we need a new patent system and we need a new language. "Understandable" english is inherently flawed with ambiguities, e.g. Person A sees B and they say "hello".

Depending on how pedantic or how much you know about english language, I assume this can mean any of the following...
Person A sees person B and person A says hello to person B.
Person A sees person B and person B says hello to person A.
Person A sees person B and person A says hello to nobody in paticular.
Person A sees person B and person B says hello to nobody in paticular.
Person A sees person B, person A and person B then say hello to eachother.
Person A sees person B, person A and person B then say hello to nobody in paticular.
Person A sees person B, person A says hello to person B, who says hello to person A.
Person A sees person B, person A says hello to person B, who says hello to nobody in paticular.
etc.

I understand situations in which patents are used and people are pissed, but the patent is still legitimate and reasonable.
But MS are takin the piss here, once again.

Re:Uhoh

[TwentyLeaguesUnderLa]

Despair.com already promotes it's business with it's :( emoticon. And has for a while now.

Re:Uhoh

[Tolookah]

Claims are actually the main part of a patent, the rest is just there to back it up. Infringing the set of claims causes patent violation. The abstract is for people who don't know anything about patents to briefly look at it

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see if your notion holds up..

1. selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon;

Say, maybe a set of GIF files?

2. assigning a character sequence to the pixels;

' :) '

3. and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination

*Bloodoolooing!*

' :) '

Nope, I dont think it does cover anything more then this, just a few not so fancy words to describe a very simple process.

Re:Uhoh

[ripismoney]

How could anyone make a huge amount of profit from smilies? I mean, come on, Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar a year corporation and they're worried about someone stealing their smiley faces. They'll barge into our 1st grade classrooms: "Timmy, you drew that smiley and gave it to Joe for a gumdrop. You sold a registered trademark of the Microsoft corporation. We'll see you in court, scumbag!" :)*
*:) is a registered trademark of the Microsoft Corporation, unauthorized reproduction will result in a major lawsuit.

Re:Uhoh

[fr0dicus]

I think he's kissing someone whilst wearing opera glasses.

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet micro$oft would have people believe it invented image compression, because that is exactly what the patent describes.

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination.

Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like <img src="http://www.website.com/image.jpg"> Would HTML be illegal then?

Re:Uhoh

[HeroreV]

Japanese emoticons totally pwn crappy American ones.

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I'm going to trademark the string 'WTF!!!???' to indicate when someone wants to express 'WTF!!!???'.

Re:Uhoh

[KDR_11k]

He meant other people don't infringe unless they promote their own business with it, Despair can use it but not block it from everyday usage.

Re:Uhoh

[Seumas]

In Korea, only old people patent smileys.

Re:Uhoh

[Seumas]

That's becuase you have fervently established prior art.

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's that specific, what's the point? Who would want to copy it, and if they did want to, wouldn't it be extremely easy to do so changing things ever-so-slightly?

So some other company doesn't patent it and sue Microsoft for millions. Most of Slashdot seems to forget all the stories posted about companies suing Microsoft for patent violations, but Microsoft doesn't.

Re:Uhoh

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Go look up who got a patent on the car, and how much they had to do with actually developing the technology.

Here's a link; basically, someone patented an existing invention, then set up a consortium to enforce the patent by way of a licensing agreement. Ford would've joined, but they demanded he set the price too high, so he got the patent killed.

Remind you of anything?

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are patenting converting, for example, sending the character sequence :) to a client and having it converted into an image of a smiley face.

Re:Uhoh

[paulymer5]

I think the question was whether infringement of one claim is sufficient infringement of the patent, or whether you have to infringe all of them. I too would like this clarification.

Re:Uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

Despair, Inc already trademarked the frowny (tm) name and symbol ":-( (TM)" All trademarks are owned by their respective owners, ie Despair, Inc.

Re:Uhoh

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

You only need to implement what is described in any claim of a patent to be liable for infingement, you idiot. Read the law too.

Re:Uhoh

[vsprintf]

No, they are patenting converting, for example, sending the character sequence :) to a client and having it converted into an image of a smiley face.

There are a number of sites that have been doing that for years, unless you mean something different by "client".

Re:Uhoh

[ryanov]

Not exactly true there. You cannot use they as a pronoun for one person. If you wish to be non-gender-specific, he or she must be used instead of they (ie. "he," "she," or "he or she"). There is no uni-gender single person pronoun.

Re:Uhoh

[dbIII]

Claim 1:

I really can't see why any of the above could possibly be considered as an original work and subject to any sort of protection. I wish the US government would get off their arse and fix this stupid patent situation instead of trying to spread it to their trade partners in an attempt to stop innovation happening offshore as well.

It looks like an incredible waste of time to even put in an application for this sort of thing - is this just some sort of paper denial of service attack on the patent office to make it useless?

It's interesting that MS thinks wireless networking is not worth a patent (Australia's government owned CSIRO has it from years back and MS is contesting it) but a smiley is? These weird patents look like a cynical use of a government organisation at US taxpayers expense to stop competition for no paticularly good reason.

Re:Uhoh

[spike1]

Hmmm, so...
"A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination."

That sounds a lot like XFace used in usenet and e-mail posts (a header line that contains about 64 characters that're reconstructed into a graphic)

Re:Uhoh

[It'sYerMam]

No, they are actually patenting the IMG tag - whereby the pixels are sent from client a to client b and reassembled at b. Now, I know virtually nothing about patents, but someone down there said that you only need infringe one claim to be liable. Therefore, any application implementing img tags for .pngs is infringing, although it might require the image to be an emoticon.

Re:Uhoh

[msim]

It wouldnt be so much about gaining a profit as to have a whole heap of random things in the armoury if they ever get in a patent war with someone.

I'd call it following IBM's lead, but the difference IBM actually have practical patents, this just defies logic.

Re:Uhoh

[It'sYerMam]

It's not necessarily about profit, unfortunately.

That said, if this feature allows Microsoft to sell more copies of a version of MSN that is paid for, then it could actually get them profit. The idea, most likely, is to prevent other protocols from using custom emoticons and get more users on MSN. Then perhaps they'll release them as part of a zombie army.

Perhaps best to ignore the last part.

immature community members?

[aendeuryu]

'I would have expected to see something like this suggested by one of our more immature community members as a joke on Slashdot,'

I don't know. These days it seems like the editors don't comment as much as they used to...

[rimshot]

Re:immature community members?

[Excelsior]

I don't know. These days it seems like the editors don't comment as much as they used to...

I don't know. These days it seems like the editors don't comment as much as they used to...

I don't know. These days it seems like the editors don't comment as much as they used to...

I don't know. These days it seems like the editors don't comment as much as they used to...

-The Slashdot Editors

Re:immature community members?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. These days it seems like the editors don't comment as much as they used to.

All I have to say...

[Anonymous Writer]

about this is :P

Re:All I have to say...

[Alsee]

No no.... you didn't properly violate the patent. You need:
A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination.

Note that if you happen to use a 19x19 group of pixels it not only violates the primary patent but claims 2 and 3 as well (and maybe others). I will select a 19x19 emoticon and a 2 character sequence and I will transmit it to you through this post such that it can be recontructed at the destination:

M$

-

Re:All I have to say...

[jo42]

My response is more like [insert goatse here]...

They want for us to hate them, it must be

[1010011010]

Microsoft must actually want for us to hate them. Protected video path, lies and litigation about Linux, patenting fucking smilies.

Stop it, Bill!

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[someonewhois]

Uh, defensive patents are a common thing in all industries. People just enjoy jumping down Microsoft's throat because they have nothing better to do.

Having the patent doesn't mean they're going to go sue AOL, Yahoo, etc. if their messengers have custom emoticons. Clue in, guys.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Tim C]

Indeed. IBM registers a couple of thousand of patents each year, and in the (relatively distant) past has been just as evil as MS is percieved to be today. MS, on the other hand, has not (to my knowledge) used a single patent offensively.

Besides which, yes it's a dumb patent, but is that MS's fault, or the patent office's? If I ask you for a thousand dollars and you give it to me, thus ending up unable to pay bills, isn't that your fault for being stupid enough to do it?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Whafro]

why doesn't it mean they're going to sue AOL, Yahoo, etc? I mean, it's not as if MS invented smilies, and it's not as if people weren't making variations on smilies well before MSN/Windows Messenger existed.

I remember using smilies as early as 1990 (could have been earlier).

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[1010011010]

Microsoft (Ballmer specifically -- you know the CEO guy) has been threatening Linux with "over 200 patent violations".

Why mention that at all, except if on the offensive?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[1010011010]

yes it's a dumb patent, but is that MS's fault, or the patent office's?

Both.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[inflex]

I remember back in 1987 using smilies/emoticons on BBS. No doubt they were certainly used before then as I was showed them by a crusty old BBS admin.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[inode_buddha]

Defensive patents are justifiable under the currently liberal patent office? Better check those lobbyists and donations again, I guess.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[meburke]

BAD thinking! There is no reason to establish rights over something unless you intend to exercise those rights. Even just the threat of enforcing those rights, legitimate or not, is an obstacle to competition or individual initiative, and in this case, it coerces people into MS-sanctioned behavior.

In some countries, like Japan for instance, the loser in a lawsuit has to compensate the winner for their expenses and may be assessed a fine. Some judges here in the US require a bond be placed to protect parties from frivolous lawsuits. IMO, the next needed steps in patent reform are, first, fines for filing frivolous patents, and second, clearer criteria for what is and is not patentable. These criteria need to be so clearly written that even government employees can determine if a patent application has merit.

A third reform step is to eliminate the limits on the time a patent can be challenged and overturned. For instance, if no one challenges a patent within two years, the patent holder can benefit from the de facto protection of the patent without recourse, until such time as that protection was determined to be erroneously granted and the patent overturned. My thinking is that a person erroneously granted patent rights should not be granted full patent protection just because someone didn't notice it within the challenge period. I wonder how many thousands of people are unproductively tied up spending anxious hours perusing published patent apps to protect themselves from trivial patent abuse.

Which brings me to the fourth reform: Patent apps need to be screenable by computer. (I wonder who is going to get the patent on that!)

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Flyboy Connor]

Uh, defensive patents are a common thing in all industries. People just enjoy jumping down Microsoft's throat because they have nothing better to do.

No, people just don't like a company -- any company -- get a patent on something which (a) the company did not invent, (b) already existed more than a decade ago, (c) is really really obvious, (d) is in common use by nearly every computer user today.

It's like Microsoft said: "Hey, nobody got the idea to patent smileys yet! And everything should be patented by SOMEBODY! I mean, we can't have any concept not OWNED by someone, can we? So let's see if the patent office is stupid enough to grant us exclusive rights to something that is currently in the public domain! We can see what we do with such a patent later."

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, defensive patents are a common thing in all industries. People just enjoy jumping down Microsoft's throat because they have nothing better to do.

This concept is about as patentable as
mine: A method by which oxygen is infused
into the bloodstream by means of alternating
periods of inhalation and exhalation.

Of course, I don't plan to enforce my patent,
it's just 'defensive'. Better hope I don't
develop a dislike for you, however.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[YrWrstNtmr]

There is no reason to establish rights over something unless you intend to exercise those rights.

Another reason is to prevent anyone else from doing it. Even if you don't plan to actually use it.

Mine...all mine!

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[neoform]

gosh and all this time i thought patenting something was actually supposed to be done to something you invented and not something you do when you see the creator was "too stupid" to patent it him/herself..

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[tolkienfan]

1. If it's likely to make money for Microsoft, they'll sue. The only reason they won't sue it if it would probably fail in the courtroom.
2. What this does mean is that someone wishing to create an instant messenger with custom smilies is in for trouble. No lawyer is going to advise possible infringement.
3. So with this Microsoft may be differentiating their products, making it impossible for other products to have the same feature.
4. Worse, there is no legal requirements (IIRC) on licensing. In other words, although the patent system was instigates to promote publishing ideas in such a way that more companies implemented them, there is no requirement for the patent holder to actually allow it (with or without a fee).
5. Is it MS's fault or the patent office's?
Abusing a broken system is immoral and unethical. Microsoft have shown themselves to be both, which is why I will never buy or recommend their products.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[MyDixieWrecked]

Uh, defensive patents are a common thing in all industries.

however, I do believe there's prior art, here. Perhaps the patent is invalid!

Adium instant messenger for OSX has smiley plugins where you can design new smilies (ie: make +<:-) into a pope smiley) and use them in your IMs.

They've had that in there for quite some time... at least a year or 2. maybe longer? I never used theplugin system, as there haven't been anything I liked created and I like the defaults just fine.

People just enjoy jumping down Microsoft's throat because they have nothing better to do.

I'd say "you must be new here," but this really has nothing to do with microsoft. This is a perfect example of why software patents are bullshit and evil (or vice versa).

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Ravatar]

The horrible thing is, MS has to do this so *company name* won't come along in 6 months and do it to them. I hope MS tries this for thousands of other small features. Defensive patents like these might finally help the industry realize how silly software patents are.

Besides, the patent only covers 19x19 pixel PNG emoticons in an IM client, which work somewhat like AIM's.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[PhYrE2k2]

It's the question of the dumb patents. The fact that these things have been in computing environments for tens of years and yet this is suddenly somehting they decide to patent.

That says that they look for things that aren't patented and patent them as a money-grab. Contrast that to how patents should be: coming up with a genius idea after years od development and protecting your investment.

It's not a genius idea, they didn't come up with it, and it's stupid to patent. In the same way that RollerBlade is now the common word for 'inline-skate', it's used everywhere and shouldn't have rights given to one company.

-M

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Tacky the Penguin]

Besides which, yes it's a dumb patent, but is that MS's fault, or the patent office's? If I ask you for a thousand dollars and you give it to me, thus ending up unable to pay bills, isn't that your fault for being stupid enough to do it?

If you ask someone for my thousand dollars, and they give it to you, I'll be pissed at you both.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[techwolf]

The First Smiley :-)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/12/213321 6

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Richard_at_work]

He wasnt threatening, he was commenting that there were, according to their sources and experts, over 200 patent violations in Linux and that someday, with more countries entering the WTO, people would most probably come looking for the money associated with those patents. It might not be the current holders, the patent might have been sold on. At no point did he threaten.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[greg_barton]

Besides which, yes it's a dumb patent, but is that MS's fault, or the patent office's?

Uh, MS took action, so yes it's their fault.

When the WTC was hit, was it America's fault or the terrorist's fault?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollox! Microsoft secretly passed money into SCO to fight Linux. When M$ is afraid the court of public opinion will turn against them, they sneakily look for other ways to get their way. But they were wrong, and you are too.

And there are *no* patent violations in Linux - that would have to be determined by a judge, which hasn't happened yet.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[ThisIsForReal]

Here's something that just popped into my head:

What about capping the number of patents a single company can own? What if, in order to gain a new patent, one must release an old patent into public domain?

It wouldn't be too much different than our current use of the judicial branch to regulate monopolies. Any thoughts?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[stoborrobots]

Should we have been forewarned of the possibility of this patent when that article linked to a research.microsoft website?

Just a thought... :-S

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[chemistry]

That is an interesting idea indeed. I like it because it promotes innovation and sharing of knowledge. It also forces companies to release old knowledge back to the public. This is also a good thing. Unfortunately us little guy's simple don't have the money or the lobbying power to pull this off....but if you start the process by all means give me a shout. I need a new cause worth fighting for. Cheers

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[SnowZero]

And shopkeepers pay the mafia protection money "so that no trouble should happen to come upon their store". But that's fine, because at no point was the shopkeeper ever directly threatened.

In the real world, people do connect the dots and interpret an indirect threat.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Locutus]

1. If it's likely to make money for Microsoft, they'll sue. The only reason they won't sue it if it would probably fail in the courtroom.

Microsoft already makes tons of money off the Windows monopoly and that is what all of their actions are about. Since the early 1990's, Microsoft is more worried about protecting their monopoly than expanding in other areas. Expansion is secondary IMO. They spend a couple of $billion per year on losing markets outside the desktop/server but THAT is more about keeping budding technologies/companies from getting too much power and marketshare in the PC periphery sectors. Look at their recent earnings report. ~30% from MS Windows, ~30% from MS Office for Windows, ~20% from MS Windows Server/software, and until last year, EVERYTHING else was losing hundreds of millions each year. MSN advertising brought MSN into the black finally( popup ads maybe? ). Also, failing in the courtroom is not a big concern for MSFT since they'll be using much of this stuff as threats. It only has to LOOK like it has teeth in order to work as they intend it to. With $40 Billion in CASH, they can sue til the cows some home and not make a dent in that cash horde.

IMO, the current IP patent land grab is about protecting the Windows monopoly and very little about making money from new sectors or business markets. Never have I seen Microsoft support a none-Windows based product having over 50% marketshare. Even when Palm had 80% marketshare, every dbase vendor had a PalmOS based micro-dbase except MSFT. They came out with MS Access for WindowsCE when that only had 5% marketshare. The key to understanding Microsofts actions is to know their motivations and that is protecting the Windows monopoly. THAT is their business.

Everything else you wrote is right on target.

LoB

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[imsoclever]

Out of all the possible analogies you could have used, I'm pretty sure this was the worst one. Brace yourself.

"AMErica DESERVED IT BEACUSE WE Drive SUVS"

"I THInk WE SHOULd BOMB ALL THE BROWN PEOPLE"

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Nikker]

How can they patent making your own smiley when that is exactly how they came to be?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[NineNine]

No, people just don't like a company -- any company -- get a patent on something which (a) the company did not invent, (b) already existed more than a decade ago, (c) is really really obvious, (d) is in common use by nearly every computer user today.

Well, OK. Then people should not like Amazon, Google, Ebay, Apple, VA Linux (the owners of Slashdot) and every other computer related on the planet because it seems that they all do this.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

This is something that affected myself as well:

I built a toolset that did pretty well over @ ZDNet/CNET's download.com called "APK Windows Tools 2002++" & it rated out 5-5 stars & all that stuff...

Latest build Summer 2005 re-release here, just for the hell of it:

http://www.avatar.demon.nl/APKWin2kTools2002SR7Fin al.exe

Well, later (back in 2002 etc.)?

I get this letter from attorney's @ Microsoft, stating basically this:

"We demand that you change the name of your toolset from its current name, to one that uses "for Windows" it its title"

I was like, wtf? Does Microsoft also own the patent on the Windows in my home as well?? The name of my tools IS "APK Windows 2000 Tools" NOT "Microsoft Windows 2000 Tools", which is the name of YOUR OS folks...

Needless to say, I did end up changing the name of my toolset to & crumbled under the pressure:

"APK System Tools FOR WINDOWS 2002++ SR-7"

That was around 2002 because of this threat from Microsoft! That action DID end up causing me some difficulties too, with the name switch (more later on that).

(After all - I personally don't have the monetary might to combat the fleet of attorneys MS has on their payroll/retainers for their legal machine).

This bugged me a bit though & affected alot for me, having to change the name of that utilities suite!

Much as when Borland change their name to "Inprise" for a bit there a few years back & then finally, back to "Borland" again... believe it or not?

Name brand familiarity & recognition, matters.

E.G.-> When I changed the name of my toolset, this caused me problems with end-users looking for latest updates/upgrades... With many people writing me with things like:

"Where is it now, etc. I cannot find it online & is there a latest update"

Affecting me on search engines etc. for my wares being found by end users, etc.

What bugged me THE MOST however, of all of that?

Is that I tend to "champion" Microsoft alot online vs. say, Linux/Unix/BSD zealots...

* & yet MS' gave me a hard time about that!

APK

P.S.=> Sometimes, I wonder about that myself... this smiley face things? It's another one that makes you go "hmmmm?"

I don't personally think it is very good "p.r." for MS as well trying to patent something like emoticons... anymore than them trying to "own" the word "Windows" itself which I was affected by badly imo, @ first @ least for about 6 months having to change it all over the web where it was hosted etc. which believe it or not?

Is a PAIN!

E.G.-> Also, having to redo the interfaces & string resources in the files (35 .exe files in the suite) to reflect this as well thru ALL of their content in interface screens as well as help files, documentation, tooltips, & more! apk

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Locutus]

except it's not really about "a money-grab", it's about protecting the Windows monopoly.

That says that they look for things that aren't patented and patent them as a money-grab. Contrast that to how patents should be: coming up with a genius idea after years od development and protecting your investment.

This point does apply to Microsoft, they just don't need to invent the idea. They only know how to take ideas from others, kill them off, and put that/those ideas into Windows. They always sell themselves as the innovator/inventor of these ideas, only now, they are now trying to protect them, via patents, like they were their own ideas.

Something has to change or the next "economy" built around MS Windows is not going to be the Windows repair business, it'll be the IP legal business.

LoB

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[andalay]

Uh, it wasn't secret *at all*

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[sgt_doom]

Clue in, guys!

I realize MS patents every speech given by any of its employees (just in case they actually said something original - go figure!!!!), but seriously, this is the outfit that licenses everyone else's innovative tech and then unethically Borg's it into their operating systems AND THEN starts that software foundation to halt sofware piracy - when obviously they are the biggest single software pirate on the planet.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[erunaheru]

"1. If it's likely to make money for Microsoft, they'll sue. The only reason they won't sue it if it would probably fail in the courtroom."

On what do you base this opinion (other that the Linux bashing)

"Abusing a broken system is immoral and unethical. Microsoft have shown themselves to be both, which is why I will never buy or recommend their products."

Again, when has MS been more unethical than any other corporation?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[erunaheru]

Ballmer doesn't always represent Microsoft as a whole (CEOs don't have absolute power) and his anti-Linux stance sometimes seems like a personal vendetta.

Anybody else think the repost time limit is a little low?(It's been 6 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment)

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[rpdillon]

Patent (and Copyright, for that matter) violations don't exist merely as artifacts of the law, like, for example, contempt of court.

Patent violation is like robbery - it can happen regardless of whether or not a court has found that it happened. Sure, you can't say "legally" that the robbery occured, but you know it did. You don't have to wait for a judge to tell you that (but it isn't legally binding until he or she does).

I am morally certain that there are patent violations in practically every piece of software out there today, and I'm sure Linux has its fair share. All you have to do is look at the patent minefield even small developers have to wade through to understand how much the patent system is bogging us down in software development.

With that backdrop, all you have to do is add the piece about "selective enforcement" and it is easy to see why our system is deeply flawed. Essentially, there is a huge motive to patent everything in sight, to be used defensively, or offensively, which is a decision that can be made sometime in the future. Once you have the patents to use as weapons, you can then use them as bargaining chips, bullying some competitors and not others, at will. I think it would be very inteesting if companies were required to prosecute every violation of a patent issued to them. I think they would have to give a lot of thought to every patent they filed, both from a strategic perspective, as well as a resources perspective (who else does it hurt when I patent this? Are they my business partners? Do I have the legal and technical resources to hunt down every violator?)

In the case of MS, I think they would be perfectly willing to take Linux vendors to court. The main problem is that they wouldn't be able to change a whole lot by doing that, because you can just torrent the downloads and host them in a data haven like Sea Land. Sure, Red Hat would get litigated into oblivion, but then there'd be the next guy. Everyone moves to Debian, or Gentoo, or SuSE, or Mandriva, or whatever.

IBM saw the patent issue for what it is: a sword of Damocles over the head of open source software. So IBM responded by "donating" those patents to open source, i.e., promising not to sue if those patents were used in the Linux kernel (IIRC, not sure if it might have been other software as well).

Anyway, the point is that patents ARE a threat to open source, and one of the worst things you can do is ignore them or dismiss them. We can't afford to wait for a judge to rule about the violations, there needs to be some other plan.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Hex4def6]

Here's something that just popped into my head:

What about capping the number of patents a single company can own? What if, in order to gain a new patent, one must release an old patent into public domain?

It wouldn't be too much different than our current use of the judicial branch to regulate monopolies. Any thoughts?

The problem is the number of ways you can get around this; many big companies these days share their patent portfolios with other companies, which (I think) has the effect of locking out potential competitors entering the market (barrier to entry, and all that). Would you prevent this "sharing"? If not, what about a spinoff "research" company that buys tech from the main company for $1, patents it, then grands a 20 year use of the patent for the main company?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[cvd6262]

Hey, nobody got the idea to patent smileys yet! And everything should be patented by SOMEBODY! I mean, we can't have any concept not OWNED by someone, can we?

From The Little Prince, 1943, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (The Little Prince's conversation with a businessman who claimed to own the stars - emph. added):

"How is it possible for one to own the stars?"

"To whom do they belong?" the businessman retorted, peevishly.

"I don't know. To nobody."

"Then they belong to me, because I was the first person to think of it."

"Is that all that is necessary?"

"Certainly. When you find a diamond that belongs to nobody, it is yours. When you discover an island that belongs to nobody, it is yours. When you get an idea before any one else, you take out a patent on it: it is yours. So with me: I own the stars, because nobody else before me ever thought of owning them."

[...]

And the little prince went away. "The grown-ups are certainly altogether extraordinary," he said simply, talking to himself as he continued on his journey.

Full Text
Wikipedia article

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[LnxAddct]

Considering that AOL has a patent on the instant message, they could blow all their competitors out of the water. Instead they seem to jsut hold on to it for leverage against other companies.
Regards,
Steve

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[AhBeeDoi]

I guess so but that I do irrational things when people point firearms or armies of lawyers at me.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[meburke]

Nawhh- There are too many companies like 3M that provide really cool and useful stuff among their hundreds of inventions, and I'd like to see them prosper. Better we teach people to invent. (See TRIZ http://www.triz.org/triz.htm)

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[stonedonkey]

Indeed. IBM registers a couple of thousand of patents each year, and in the (relatively distant) past has been just as evil as MS is percieved to be today.

Is this really true? Because most of the people I've talked to in IT who've been around the block say that IBM was never as reviled as MS is now.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

"People just enjoy jumping down Microsoft's throat because they have nothing better to do."

Regarding the "they" in that sentence: Do you mean Microsoft or... ?

Just checking, of course. :)

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody else think the repost time limit is a little low?(It's been 6 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment)

I think it depends on your karma. I can repost every two minutes, at least unless I post anonymously in which case it takes at least an hour.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[ThisIsForReal]

True, and I considered that briefly while posting.

I think another problem, and I see this first hand because I work for the government, is that beaurocracy begets beaurocracy. More regulation would wind up making more loopholes, which creates more regulation. Gotta be a better way.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[ratboy666]

Microsoft HAS used patents "offensively". Bad-um, bump.

Anyway, the patent on VFAT was used.

Ratboy

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[NickFortune]

"Nice little IT industry you got there, guvnor - be a shame if anything was to happen to it. I expect you'll be wanting to join the World Trade Organisation too. Only I hear them fellow can take a dim view of open source software. Could violate up to hundreds of patents, they say. That sort of compensation can be brutal, if you get my drift, squire.

"Better for all concerned if you get your software from Microsoft, really. Safer too. I don't have to draw you a picture, do I guv?"

Which is roughly what Ballmer said at a trade conference at Asia, not so very long ago.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[ect5150]

The argument against that is it is an incentive not to invent as fast.

You may think it works to keep crap like this from happening in the IT sector, but other areas (Health Care and drugs) would be hurt far more where it could be used for good.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Hugonz]

Having the patent doesn't mean they're going to go sue AOL, Yahoo, etc. if their messengers have custom emoticons. Clue in, guys.

But it means they can do it.

And it means they will wield this patent when they need it, even if everyone considers it not legit.

So I'm assuming you're trusting if you, say, find a clause in your employment contract saying they can rape you, because that does not mean they will...

Clue in, guy!

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM registers a couple of thousand of patents each year...

I've seen these patents as they are being processed and they are a joke. IBM patents tons of software and the patent is on the solution that they come up with to each specific problem. The problem with this is that anybody would come up with the same solution given a similar problem. It is all trivial CS stuff. The PTO doesn't care at all if something is trivial or not. At this point, the PTO is just a money making machine. The PTO has decided that it will just let everything through and make the courts decide if it should be really patentable or not. The problem is that the courts assume it is a valid patent because the PTO issued it. The US system really really sucks.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[thue]

MS, on the other hand, has not (to my knowledge) used a single patent offensively.

Here you go: Microsoft patents ASF media file format, stops reverse engineering.

Microsoft is also demanding that people buy licenses to use their FAT file system: Wikipedia article

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Dolda2000]

Having the patent doesn't mean they're going to go sue AOL, Yahoo, etc. if their messengers have custom emoticons.

Right -- they probably won't sue AOL, Yahoo or any other company with lawyers to stand up to them.

It seems far more likely that they may try and send C&D letters or sue, for example, the Gaim developers, however, who have no lawyers and far lesser resources to stand up in court. The Gaim developers may choose to cease and desist just to not have to pay the court costs. Just like how the PearPC developers still haven't sued Maui StreamX (that was their name, right?).

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[MrResistor]

Patent (and Copyright, for that matter) violations don't exist merely as artifacts of the law

Bullshit.

Patents and copyrights themselves only exist as artifacts of law. The violation of such cannot be any more "real" than the thing itself.

I agree with your general point, but likening patent violation to robbery, especially in the current ludicrous state of the patent system, is pure bollocks.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

"Having the patent doesn't mean they're going to go sue AOL, Yahoo, etc. if their messengers have custom emoticons. Clue in, guys."-
----
You clue in, it does mean they will probably use it for threat against open source messengers. They dont have to sue, it is enough to have the patent.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

The terrorists fault for doing it, and our fault for believing Islam is a religion of peace.

Fuck you Osama!

Fuck you Al Qaeda!

Fuck you Mohammed!

Fuck you Allah!

Burn in Hell!

Osama and Al-Qaeda will eventually, but why don't you bomb yourselves away from civilized people and go there now.

Mohammed is already burning, and Allah doesn't exist. He is a false pagan moon god.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Umm "VA Linux" was renamed to "VA Software" quite a while ago, and OSDN is who owns Slashdot!

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[vsprintf]

Having the patent doesn't mean they're going to go sue AOL, Yahoo, etc. if their messengers have custom emoticons. Clue in, guys.

Have that tattooed on your forehead. I don't want you to be able to disclaim that in five years.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Hektor_Troy]

When the WTC was hit, was it America's fault or the terrorist's fault?

I blame it on bad eye sight, causing them to think it was vertical landing strips.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[starakurva]

I guess MS reckons that controlling language will be the best way to stop people from making "Microsoft bites the whanger"-type comments...

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[vsprintf]

Is this really true? Because most of the people I've talked to in IT who've been around the block say that IBM was never as reviled as MS is now.

IBM was widely reviled and prosecuted for anti-trust violations just like Microsoft, and like MS was able to outwit/outlast the prosecutors. It tried to close an architecture (the PC) that it had opened once it became a big item. But, yeah, I have to agree that it was never considered as evil as Microsoft is now. Then, MS was considered the good guy who was looking out for the little guy (us). How times, companies, and perceptions change.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Minna Kirai]

The horrible thing is, MS has to do this so *company name* won't come along in 6 months and do it to them.

Wrong. You evidently don't know what a "defensive patent" actually is. To prevent another company from doing the same thing, they need merely to post the patent text in some public place- there's no need to actually officially file it. Once a concept has been published, it is unpatentable by others.

So-called "defensive patents" are actually retaliatory patents, which can be used to threaten someone who threatens you with an unrelated patent, creating a standoff.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Paraplex]

Yeah he's right guys! Microsoft are our *benevolent* dictators...
not like those other tyranous, oppressive or otherwise evil dictators of old!

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Ravatar]

A defensive patent can be interpreted in more than one way, as it is simply another buzzword. In theory, all patents could be defined as "defensive".

Either way, this just seems like Microsoft attempting to increase their patent portfolio.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Thomas Shaddack]

MS, on the other hand, has not (to my knowledge) used a single patent offensively.

Does forcing Avery Lee to drop ASF support from Virtualdub count as offensive?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[rtb61]

Bog balls does as he is told. M$=B$ is basically a company that does not care about anything but generating maximum profit. Wether it be continual failure in their products, abuse of the patent system, corrupt abuses of the legal system and false advertising (their apparent willingness to lie cheat and steal for profit is self evident).

It appears personal only so wee willie can blame bog balls for everything (the genitals of the tinylimp software company), when they can no longer milk windows for maximum profit and try to kiss up to their ex-customers with their linux offering (though I am sure they have delusional dreams about being able to steal linux via software patents, the just need to be able to buy a few more polititions, well a lot more, M$=B$ is not all that popular to be associated any more)

Fear and panic combinded with greed will always results in stupid decisions, just like this one. In their greed driven ignorance they are not only attacking the whole software patent process and even the concept itself (providing a lot a ready ammunition for the anti software patent group) but they continue to do further damage to an already extremely tarnished M$=B$ reputation.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge problem with a "loser pays" legal system. The problem is that it discourages the "little guy" from taking legal action against a corporation. Imagine if your average person sues company X, and company X spends $8mil on legal fees. What happens to that person if they lose? Their life as they knew it would be completely destroyed.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[jackofallbrandnames]

So, kinda like grabbing up domain names as money-grab. Hmmm....it would seem as an anti-competitive monopoly move if brought out in the open. Which might explain why it can't/won't be enforced?

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[SnowZero]

Well, he said that but without the British slang. I think he'd be much cooler with a British accent, but I'm not sure the UK would be amused. Here's to hoping he doesn't ever get knighted...

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[NickFortune]

What? Us knight some bigwig from Microsoft? Like that'd ever happen..

Oh, hang on a sec... :D

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[ultranova]

Indeed. IBM registers a couple of thousand of patents each year, and in the (relatively distant) past has been just as evil as MS is percieved to be today.

Key terms here being "distant past" and "today".

MS, on the other hand, has not (to my knowledge) used a single patent offensively.

When you have horrible reputation and start stockpiling Patents of Mass Litigation, people will start speculating.

See it this way: if some random horsemen buy bows and arrows, they don't get much of a reaction. But if those horsemen happen to be Attila and the Huns, people will start hiding their children.

Besides which, yes it's a dumb patent, but is that MS's fault, or the patent office's?

MS's fault for making fraudulent claims (the implied claim that the thing was patentable - novel and non-obvious - made when patent was applied), patent office's fault for falling for them.

If I ask you for a thousand dollars and you give it to me, thus ending up unable to pay bills, isn't that your fault for being stupid enough to do it?

Perhaps; but if you got those money by selling me New York, I might still be stupid but you are a criminal.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[meregistered]

Microsoft has a lot of money, hires a lot of lawyers, and has a long history of suing as soon as they can damage a potential competitor.

Lindows (Linspire) didn't give up their name because a US court told them they had to. They couldn't afford the legal fees of beating Microsoft in court for every* frivolous lawsuit Microsoft perused.

In fact it would be quite interesting to know the lawsuit ratio of a company. The measurement could be number of lawsuits by size of company during a given time frame listed. Also quite interesting would be a variant of this analysis which displays the same data organized by whether the company initiated the lawsuit.

Microsoft, I'm fairly certain, would end up very near the top of the list.
-ME®

*If I understand correctly they lost once in a South American country, so they didn't actual win every time. 1 out of 10 plus countries isn't really losing when most of the powerful countries agreed with Lindows.

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[meregistered]

Excellent comment.

Unfortunately the truth that the business model of M$ is to maintain a monopoly will likely never be accepted by the general public.

As unlikely as it seems there are a number of /. readers who appear to be M$ fanatics.

Not much hope for the rest of the world.

-ME®

Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be

[Anonymous Coward]

dbase is a software and not a short form of the word database.
There are many database vendors but only one dBase.
www.dbase.com

they want to patent emoticons, eh?

[v_1_r_u_5]

Well, they can kiss my ( | ).

Re:they want to patent emoticons, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can kiss MY (*). Yours appears to be a bit stretched, however. You might want to get that checked out.

Re:they want to patent emoticons, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

(_|_) or (_._) or (_o_) or (_O_)

Re:they want to patent emoticons, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah they can kiss my ( * ) too

Re:they want to patent emoticons, eh?

[kahanamoku]

if they patent those, people will be (_O_) for being such a (_._) not paying for it use!

Re:they want to patent emoticons, eh?

[spectre_240sx]

And they can suck on my (_(_);;;;;D

Instant Messengers....

[fudg3tunn3l]

Owned! oh well i hate smileys anyway, damn nuisance things.... Bill Gates can eat my =========8

Re:Instant Messengers....

[Anonymous Coward]

shouldn't that be =8 ?

Re:Instant Messengers....

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean 8========D ??

Oops :(

[springbox]

I predict that the frowney face will be widely used in Microsoft today

Re:Oops :(

[ggvaidya]

But the frowny is already a trademark!

(p.s. that is one awesome website. the posters are bloody hilarious :)

Re:Oops :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool! They're on discount now... only $0.00 for a "Classic" Frownie. The others are out of stock.

Patent THIS!

[rylin]

.,|,, -_- ,,|,.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.

Re:Patent THIS!

[rylin]

To whoever modded this redundant,

.,|,, -_- ,,|,.

Sincerely, A victim of a crackhead-moderator-maffia

Re:Patent THIS!

[Cruciform]

It looks like Maddox.

At bottom of page.

The resemblance is uncanny.

Re:Patent THIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer this variation:

<^> { ' ; ' } <^>

Re:Patent THIS!

[TheoMurpse]

That's excellent, considering I just succeeded in posting an ASCII tubgirl just about three posts above yours. Most likely because I used "adkasd;lfkaadf" for the projectile diarrhea

d-_-b /me shrugs listens to music
and Microsoft's attempted patent makes me:

4949 ToT

Points for anyone who knows the meaning.

while you were all posting, i patented these :)

[mediumcool]

!-( Black eye !-) Proud of black eye #-) Wiped out, partied all night #:-o Shocked $-) Won the lottery, or money on the brain %(|:-) Propeller-head %*} Inebriated %+{ Got beat up %-( Confused %-) Dazed or silly %-6 Brain-dead %-\ Hung over %-{ Ironic %-| Worked all night %-} Humorous or ironic %\ Hangover >>:-- Female >-> Winking devil >--) Devilish wink >:) Little devil >:-> Very mischievous devil >:-:-:-( Annoyed >:-) Mischievous devil >=^ P Yuck Devilish expression Devilish expression .. ) alienated (( )):** Hugs and kisses ((())) Lots of hugging (initials or a name can be put in the middle of the one being hugged) () Hugging (-: Left-handed smile, or smiley from the southern hemisphere (:& Angry (:- Unsmiley (:-& Angry (:-( Unsmiley (:-) Smiley variation (:-* Kiss (:-\ Very sad (::()::) Bandaid, meaning comfort (:| Egghead * Kiss *--->--- A dozen roses 2B|^2B To be or not to be 5:-) Elvis 7:) Ronald Reagan 7:^) Ronald Reagan 8 Infinity 8 :-) Wizard 8) Wide-eyed, or wearing glasses 8-# Death 8-) Wide-eyed, or wearing glasses 8-o Shocked 8-O Astonished 8-P Yuck! 8-[ Frayed nerves; overwrought 8-] Wow! 8-| Wide-eyed surprise : ( Sad : ) Smile : [ Bored, sad : | Bored, sad :( ) Loudmouth, talks all the time; or shouting :* Kiss :*) Clowning :**: Returning kiss :+( Got punched in the nose :,( Crying :- Male :-# My lips are sealed; or someone wearing braces :-& Tongue-tied :-> Smile of happiness or sarcasm :-> Puckered up to kiss :- Very sad :-( Frown :-) Classic smiley :-* Kiss :-, Smirk :-/ Wry face :-6 Exhausted :-9 Licking lips :-? Licking lips, or tongue in cheek :-@ Screaming :-C Astonished :-c Very unhappy :-D Laughing :-d~ Heavy smoker :-e Disappointed :-f Sticking out tongue :-I Pondering, or impartial :-i Wry smile or half-smile :-J Tongue in cheek :-j One-sided smile :-k Puzzlement :-l One-sided smile :-M Speak no evil :-O Open-mouthed, surprised :-o Surprised look, or yawn

Re:while you were all posting, i patented these :)

[Markus Landgren]

You forgot one: XP

Or did Microsoft beat you to it?

Re:while you were all posting, i patented these :)

[idonthack]

(|<( ^-^)>=|::::::>
Defend-the-Taco Kirby
---
"Man, when the day comes, count me in with the robot smashers." - Anonymous Coward
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Re:while you were all posting, i patented these :)

[Beautyon]

let me guess, a dead cyclops with its tounge sticking out?

Prior ASCII Art???

[drunkahol]

Is there not enough prior art with the old ASCII smileys which could be customised to the users whim?

I don't remember them all now, but two that always made me smile (in that slightly juvenille undergrad way) were

8- Boy smiley
>- Girl smiley

I'm pretty sure the list was huge as you had a certain amount of customisation by adding different characters.

Surely graphical smileys are just an extension of this and not a demonstrable leap to justify a patent?

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[rylin]

I dunno.. I always think of the 8 as being boobs.

;)>8-<
;)>-`<

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[Adelbert]

Surely graphical smileys are just an extension of this and not a demonstrable leap to justify a patent?

I thought putting "Copyright (c) 1996-2005 Microsoft Corporation" was a demonstrable leap that justified a patent.

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[pair-a-noyd]

No, there are boobs.. (.)(.) for knee knockers
then you have (*)(*) for pert, firm pointers
or you have (o)(o) and if you like them bigger, (O)(O)
and of course there's (0)(0) or if you frequent tiddy bars these might look familiar ($)($)
( O )( O ) and if you like them extra large..

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[pair-a-noyd]

( o | o ) Oh yeah, I almost forgot, CLEAVAGE!!

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[wowbagger]

You still missed a few:

(Q)(Q) - pasties/pierced

(@)(@) - clipped

(+)(+) - erect

(0)(0)(0) - Eccentrica Gallumbits

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[Kevin108]

What about the DOS Code Page 437 smilies? Alt+1 (White) Alt+2 (Black)

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[Shaklee39]

Please use a 'Y' for cleavage, as in:

( o )Y( o )

Thanks

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[Anonymous Coward]

or more simpler, ( . Y . )

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[register_ax]

So that's informative huh? I guess we *are* on slashdot. In that case let me indulge a bit of what a small little bird once let me know. (This is all from memory so bare with me.)

(.)---(.) -- far apart

( . | . ) -- big and smushy (>=D)

(.Y .) -- oops, the tity seems to be distracted (lopsided)

(@)(@) -- large aerolas/nipple

o o -- A cup

. . -- Zero cup(?)

\o/\o/ -- saggy

(o)(%) -- extra nipple

(`o)(o) -- zit on breast

# (o) -- Mastectomy

(^)(^) -- perkys

(~)(~) -- pierced

{o}{o} -- muscular breasts

|O|O| -- 19th century kinda girl (corset breasts)

(>)(>) -- 1940s rocket breasts

(.Y.) -- Wonderbra

Caution: Use above only as a rough guide. It is advisable to get real world experience for expert identification.

Re:Prior ASCII Art???

[damunzy]

Forgot the Janet Jackson SuperBowl Breast:
(*)(=)

Despair.com

[Registered Coward v2]

Remember their press release announcing a trademark on the frowning face and that they'd be licensing it?

It was a joke, but a brilliant one - check out their site; their "demotivation" slogans and posters are classic.

One of my favorites:

Meetings - None of us are as dumb as all of us.

(Could be the /. motto)

Of course, as an AFU'r, I do believe emoticons are for those who lack the skills to express themselves with words and the intelligence to understand what others have written.

Re:Despair.com

[Reverend528]

Of course, as an AFU'r, I do believe emoticons are for those who lack the skills to express themselves with words and the intelligence to understand what others have written.

:-(

Re:Despair.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe emoticons are for those who lack the skills to express themselves with words and the intelligence to understand what others have written.

And I do believe you're one the kind who like to talk too much.

Re:Despair.com

[Ann Elk]

Meetings - None of us are as dumb as all of us.
(Could be the /. motto)

Or Microsoft's...

Re:Despair.com

[catdriver]

Remember their press release announcing a trademark on the frowning face and that they'd be licensing it?

http://www.despair.com/frownies.html

Re:Despair.com

[EternityInterface]

Expressing emotion is for poets.

Prior art?

[blcamp]

Wan't the face... any face, smiley, frown or otherwise... a creation of the Almighty?

Ah, never mind...

Re:Prior art?

[PhrostyMcByte]

I, for one, welcome our new smiley overlords. (prior art?)

Re:Prior art?

[rajafarian]

... a creation of the Almighty?

No, "the Almighty" is a creation of man.

Ok, here's how I think it happened:
Big guy got all the chicks because he could provide and defend them. Little guy invented "the Almighty" (and the idea of priests) so he could instill fear in the big guy and be able to get some chicks, too.

Re:Prior art?

[Urchlay]

Big guy got all the chicks because he could provide and defend them. Little guy invented "the Almighty" (and the idea of priests) so he could instill fear in the big guy and be able to get some chicks, too.

Big guy retaliates by enforcing celibacy on little guys who become priests, so they can't get any chicks?

Re:Prior art?

[One Childish N00b]

Don't say that! you'll confuse the lil Neocons!
Playing the Almighty off against big business?
Their brains will implode!

Re:Prior art?

[erunaheru]

So now we've graduated from MS bashing to religious bashing?

Re:Prior art?

[Thomas Shaddack]

What religious bashing? There are no gods anyway, only an infinitely iterated mutation-selection on molecular level, and the life is an emergent property, a mere tool of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

What came first: Emoticons or Microsoft?

[vonoech]

It seems that while someone patent something that already exists; that patent claim could be challenged by someone who has any sort of proof that they had the idea first.

I have to think that there will be challenges to this.

Re:What came first: Emoticons or Microsoft?

[Cromac]

I have to think that there will be challenges to this.

I'm sure there will be many, probably thousands or tens of thousands, who will want to challenge it but who is going to pay for the challenge? As we know MS has more than enough cash to hire as many lawyers as it takes to defend their patents, it will take other lawyers ($$$) to challenge it.

Re:What came first: Emoticons or Microsoft?

[russotto]

The problem is that the prior art seems to be interpreted narrowly while the claims get interpreted broadly. So if your prior art isn't _exactly_ what's in the patent (e.g. you did it over an RS-232 line instead of the Internet), it doesn't count.

But if you actually implement a system which is slightly different, Microsoft's lawyers will claim their patent covers it. In some cases, even if your system is exactly some piece of prior art. You might be able to win your case.... but with the court's presumption of the patents validity and the fact that their lawyers are better and better funded, you're probably screwed.

U+2639

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll have to make do with ASCII art, or ask the Unicode Consortium to include a few more emoticons...

Goatse version

[Anonymous Coward]

(=O=)

Re:Goatse version

[TheoMurpse]

Tubgirl version:

/---\
.--. /--. \
| O | \,
| | | | adlifjaiejfalijdglak
| | | | alkdjfalkdjflakjfalkjf
/ / \ \ asdkfjaldkfjalkdfjalkdjflak
/ / \ \ adlkfja alsdjfaskdjfa adjfa;fj
adlfjaiefalkdaljhfa..asd.ifaegkjacdkva.a seliad

Re:Goatse version

[Anonymous Coward]

(_!_) = Normal Ass
(__!__) = Big Ass
(!) = Tight Ass
(_?_) = Dumb Ass
(_E=MC2_) = Smart Ass
(_$_) = Rich Ass
(_x_) = Kiss My Ass
(_X_) = Get Off My Ass

Being a lwayer

[tsa]

Lawyers live in an alien world. They make a great fuss about many things `normal' people (as far as they exist) will never even think about, let alone worry about, and they get paid enormous amounts of money for it too. They must be even more `out of this world' than your regular scientist.

Re:Being a lwayer

[someone300]

Lawyers live in an alien world. They make a great fuss about many things `normal' people (as far as they exist) will never even think about, let alone worry about

So do geeks ;)

Re:Being a lwayer

[tsa]

Geeks, scientists... what's the difference? :-)

Re:Being a lwayer

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

There are even more parallels.

Those into the law (not just lawyers, but judges, etc) insist on things being precisely defined.

Just like computer geeks.

Because in both law and computers, close ain't close enough.

It's a patent application, not a patent

[phage434]

Note that this is an *application* not an issued patent. While I have no trust of the existing patent examination process, we should at least give them the opportunity to examine and reject this before getting too upset. Not that this excuses Microsoft for wasting all of our time (or worse) by filing it.

Unknowning patent infringement

[lightyear4]

What do such patents entail for the rest of us? Patents used to be filed for innovation, not retroactively to capture something already long established. Of late, it seems entirely possible to unknowingly infringe upon a patented concept, device, or process. Incidents such as this one (and there are many) seem to undoubtedly violate the non-obvious requirement for issuing a patent.

And my opinion is...

[fraxinus-tree]

8===>
(very common in local comunities)

Re:And my opinion is...

[Anonymous Coward]

People in your community have dicks shaped like spades? I guess they don't have many kids.

Re:And my opinion is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw where Microsoft has patented their new emoticon for their Linux strategy.

o
|\__o
/\/\ /\

Bastards.

Re:And my opinion is...

[Anonymous Coward]

you live in West Hollywood?

Re:And my opinion is...

[morgajel]

actually I'm pretty sure it much closer to this

8=>

(ok, I've got my juvenile humor out of the way for the day)

Immature community members

[inode_buddha]

As if businesses weren't members of the community.

Rich pickings!

[gunpowda]

There's lots of fresh plunder for them, if they want it.

Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

That patent is actually very specific. It covers exactly the way MSN Messenger (both the protocol and the client) work, and nothing more. It doesn't try to patent the concept, but a specific implementation of it. For example, if you use a 20x20 pixel image instead of 19x19 pixels, or transmit the image as something other than a PNG, or store them somewhere other than a web browser's disk cache, it doesn't apply.

It's still quite dangerous though. I don't think that any other IM client that implements MSN's custom emoticons would infringe it, because none of them use a web browser cache to store images. Every other claim is pretty much required to interoperate with Microsoft's client. So if you implemented a full MSN client as an extension to Firefox, for example, it almost certainly would infringe on this patent. Or if your operating system had some unified cache for storing any downloaded content that is used by both the web browser and IM client.

I certainly wouldn't consider it patentable. It's hardly complex, innovative, or non-obvious.

A good indicator is that the patent application probably took them far longer to write than it took to design and implement the thing in software.

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Who ever told you you knew how to read a patent? Why would you say it's limited to 19x19 pixels? That's a dependent claim. If someone makes a 20x20 pixel implementation, they'd probably still infringe the independent claim.

Slashdot is such a joke. What passes for knowledge here is sad...

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[shadowcode]

I think that you're right. It's not as if they're trying to patent smileys themselves, which is what half of the slashdot community here seems to be thinking.

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[gstoddart]

That patent is actually very specific. It covers exactly the way MSN Messenger (both the protocol and the client) work, and nothing more. It doesn't try to patent the concept, but a specific implementation of it. For example, if you use a 20x20 pixel image instead of 19x19 pixels, or transmit the image as something other than a PNG, or store them somewhere other than a web browser's disk cache, it doesn't apply.

So, they've patented an image size implemented in an open graphical standard and tied it into fundamental browser technologies and called it a novel invention?

Indeed. I'm going to patent using 10pt font in a wordprocessor document which has letter-size page layouts. I should be rich. (I'll charge openoffice.org a nickle and apple $20 bucks for it, everyone else can pay me millions.)

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[Evil Adrian]

They probably did it so people can't make a chat client for MSN that looks suspiciously like MSN messenger.

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[SA Stevens]

(I'll charge openoffice.org a nickle and apple $20 bucks for it, everyone else can pay me millions.)

Ah, so you have a chosen band of litigious bastards who you favor...

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[Samari711]

IANAL and I don't know the inner workings of MSN messenger but if this is the method they've been using for years then this patent shouldn't be issued. If the patent office doesn't throw this one right out the door then it's more messed up than I previously imagined.

from the USPTO:

an invention cannot be patented if: *SNIP* "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ."

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[Keeper]

No, they've patented a method of identifying and displaying emoticons. Part of that method requires the use of a specific image size saved in an open format.

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[Alsee]

The parent post should be rated -1 Wrong, not +5 Informative.

The parent post does not know how to read a patent and he gets the law wrong. Patent law 101, if you violate claim 1 then you violate the patent. Claims 2 through whatever are all additional patents, in case the first one ever gets stuck down. Not only is this inherently bad because it is a software patent, but it is also insanely broad.

If you want to read a patent, skip the abstract and everything else and just read claim 1. That tells you the fundamental thing on which the patent office granted a patent.

-

Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous

[Alsee]

No, he's wrong. The Anonymous Coward does not know how to read a patent. The patent office granted patents for EACH of the listed claims. In particular the patent office granted a patent on claim 1. Everything in the patent is insane, but take a look at claim 1... they were granted an extra-insane and insanely broad patent in claim 1.

-

Something like this...

[GillBates0]

I would have expected to see something like this suggested by one of our more immature community members as a joke on Slashdot

OMFG imagine if M$ patent3d teh emot1c0n5!!! th4t wud so SUXXORRZZZ SO B4D!!111!! LOLZZZ WHAT wa5 1 THinKING!!! M$ wudnt do that because that would p1ss of everybuddy and their AOL BUDDIE5 SO B4D!!!

Oh they really did? Never mind.

Re:Something like this...

[Alkarismi]

weirdly, that is almost exactly identical to the first draft of the text of the patent application in question...

Re:Something like this...

[gibson_81]

Please, can't someone patent 1337-speak? And ban EVERYONE from using it ...

Re:Something like this...

[RichardX]

Heck, let's go a stage further and sort this out once and for all.
I'm patenting the patent, along with it's application and issuing process.

While you were all posting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I visited the USPTO and got me a patent on A big red clad fellow called Santa... KATSCHING!!!!

Schweeeeeet!

In the Uzbek...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Uzbek, if such company is trying steal idea from average peasant, we have easy solutions - we are tying minister of company to donkey drag to next village. Fat pig amerikans are tame too much for such exercise, but is always fruitful.

It's not that simple.

[ExtraT]

Have you people read the actual patent description? It doesn't talk about patenting smileys, but only the method of creating custom smileys and addigning bitmaps to them. Basically, they are trying to patent a universal bitmap smiley distribution protocol.

Re:It's not that simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, they are trying to patent a universal bitmap smiley distribution protocol.

Typical Microsoft. How do they expect something to be universal if it is patented?

(It's a rhetorical question.)

It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[DrSkwid]

All the other posters in the thread seem not to have read the application :

"Methods and devices for creating and transferring custom emoticons allow a user to adopt an arbitrary image as an emoticon, which can then be represented by a character sequence in real-time communication. In one implementation, custom emoticons can be included in a message and transmitted to a receiver in the message. In another implementation, character sequences representing the custom emoticons can be transmitted in the message instead of the custom emoticons in order to preserve performance of text messaging. At the receiving end, the character sequences are replaced by their corresponding custom emoticons, which can be retrieved locally if they have been previously received, or can be retrieved from the sender in a separate communication from the text message if they have not been previously received."

The patent is not for smilies.

It is for having both ends having pre-set images displayed for certain character sequences in text mesages, be they :-) or pwn3df46607

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[dmaxwell]

It is for having both ends having pre-set images displayed for certain character sequences in text mesages, be they :-) or pwn3df46607

They shouldn't have a patent for that either. It's damned trivial and IM clients have been doing it for awhile.

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[Anonymous Coward]

That still doesn't make it any less infuriating. Many applications already do this.

"1. A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination. "

Let's take the IRC client I use for example. If I press ctrl+l:S, whoever's got the same client as me will see a sad face - a graphical emoticon (PNG). Similiarly, if I press ctrl+lbomb, the image of a bomb will come up.

As far as I can see, it coveres all of:
"2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the pixels comprise a pixel array of pre-determined dimensions."

"3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the pixels comprise a 19.times.19 pixel grid."

"4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the character sequence allows real-time mapping to the pixels."

and "7. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein the data comprises a portable network graphics file. "

....oh my precious IRC client, thankfully this is just a patient application.

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[meburke]

I read the application first and, listen up, Dude: This is how computers work! (But, since no one studies anything but Java in CS courses anymore, I guess it's not that obvious.)

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[cowscows]

Isn't this sort of how the whole web works?

An image isn't embedded directly in the webpage, the html just includes a specific text reference to it. Then your browser goes and finds the image, and displays it instead of the text. Sure, the image might be on a server, instead of saved locally in a directory somewhere, but it's basically the same.

Don't most online video games do this? When I move my guy around in battlefield, my cable modem isn't sending video clips of my character animations to the other players. It's sending boring ol' data, which the server and then the other clients eventually turn into images by using local resources. Find a simpler, tile-based game, and then they're using pre-set images. I remember doing this over email a decade ago.

And yeah, IM clients have been doing this specifically with smilies for a while.

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[Joe U]

Hello Microsoft, 1995 called, my web-chat program has been doing similar things since then.

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[Locutus]

This sounds alot like how the old CompuServe and AOL browsers used to work for their client side application. They used to download and cache images if you didn't already have them locally and I'd bet that the line protocols describing/calling up the images were not binary.

It's been a long long time since I've run or seen these clients working but I do remember that the dialup line/connection would be really fill the pipe on startup if new graphics were needed.

IMHO, MSFT is doing this to protect their IM business from OSS client connections in the future. They might not exercise the patent now, but mark my word, IP patents is the ultimate weapon they plan to use on OSS projects. Valid or not. After all, when Jose, Joe, and Vladimir get a letter from Microsofts legal team to stop their OSS project or go to court, what do you think is going to happen? The EFF just doesn't have the funds to fight MSFT off and I'm sure MSFT knows this.

LoB

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[Beautyon]

Skype is already slightly crippled because of an M$ patent covering 'the other person is typing'. They have not put in this very useful feature even though other clients have it and Skype is based outside the USA.

They also have a system that is directly affected by this patent. You can type an emoticon in a chat session and Skype will interpret it and display a custom emoticon instead of what you typed. Hello from Picassa/Google does this too.

Frankly, in light of the recent trashing of EU software patents I wish that Skype would just go ahead and put this feature in. Why should everyone in the world have to suffer crippled software because the US has a morally bankrupt patent office handing out nonsense patents like candy?

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[erunaheru]

Not quite. Right now I'm seeing an annoying flash ad for centrino. The patent is for someone putting [centrinoad] in a page and my computer displaying the file WITHOUT actually downloading it on the spot. In MSN messenger the :) is sent across the net and the receiving computer turns that into a cute and graphically advanced smiley that was installed locally with messenger itself

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[erunaheru]

Not quite. Right now I'm seeing an annoying flash ad for vonage. The patent is for someone putting [vonagead] in a page and my computer displaying the file WITHOUT actually downloading it on the spot. In MSN messenger the :) is sent across the net and the receiving computer turns that into a cute and graphically advanced smiley that was installed locally with messenger itself

(sorry for the double post. they needed the same response)

The video game parallel is a lot closer, but actually the images aren't stored locally per se. the textures are stored locally, but the game engine compiles the actual image you see on screen on the spot. It's still alot too close for comfort, and I can see some technophobe judge not understanding the subtlties of it.

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[Dhalka226]

The patent is for someone putting [vonagead] in a page and my computer displaying the file WITHOUT actually downloading it on the spot.

Maybe I'm wrong, but a glance at the section from the application posted in the great-grandparent seems to say otherwise.

My impression is they've done it two ways. Yes, you put "[vonagead]" (or whatever) in your message. But then they list two ways of dealing with that: 1) the image to replace [vonagead] is sent with that message, or 2) the local computer checks to see if it already has the appropriate image; if so, it uses it and if not, it sends a request to the original sender asking for it. (Sounds a lot like how a webpage works to me. "Is this image in my cache? Nope. Okay, let's grab it then.")

Some people seem confused about it being for CUSTOM emoticons. They don't mean :) into their version of the smiley that already exists when you downloaded MSN Messenger. They mean using their feature of the same name, using whatever image a person wants for an emoticon, assigning it some character sequence, and being able to use it with clients who never had that image on their system originally.

Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version

[eneville]

ICQ has 'other person is typing', but this is slightly different as the other person can stop typing and the original message is then potentially 'other person has stopped typing, but im not telling you'.

So I wonder if that is part of the patent?

XP?

[sim82]

Maybe it's because 'XP'(r) looks like a smiley chocking on something really disgusting.

Here's my reaction...

[chriswaclawik]

(_:-(|)
D'OH!!!!

Re:Here's my reaction...

[Anonymous Coward]

~(_8^(|)

Patent Application for...

[Anonymous Coward]

the change from :) to the stupid graphic, 19pixels by 19pixels, that show a image of that text :).

I am NOT defending M$ here but trying to say that what they are attempting is to patent when you are wacking (slashdot crowd giggles) the keys and type an emoticon, low and behold a little smiley graphic comes out instead of the text! NOT the actual emoticon itself.

OMG... Did M$ come up with that!?

Bah.

Still sucks.

Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

despair.com should've really patented it... http://www.despair.com/demotivators/misfortunate.h tml

See?

[Rick Zeman]

Microsoft DOES innovate! No one thought of patenting smilies before them!

Re:See?

[Oniros]

There was despair.com mock trademark of the frownies a few years ago tho :)
http://www.despair.com/frownies.html

2 things:

[dreemernj]

1. Does this mean that users of the ASCII smiley will retroactively owe M$ a chunk of their soul? 2. Doesn't the creator of the 'Have a Nice Day' smiley have anything to say about this? I mean he invented the business of making money off of smileys...Unless he has already been hired by M$. Hmmmm, that could be. If they went after the pet rock inventor next it could be a problem. MS logos on pavers and skipping stones. Hmmm.

Re:2 things:

[BrowserCapsGuy]

I can't find a link but IIRC the "Have a nice day" smiley guy never patented his idea.

Re:2 things:

[zappepcs]

Actually the inventor of the "have a nice day" smiley face did not make a dime for that. I saw a show on TLC or somewhere, and he's as broke as me or anyone else. He made nothing for that, which makes him a supporter of sorts for F/OSS!

OMG! Well, it was just a matter of time really....

[Anonymous Coward]

OFF-TOPIC ... but a sign of the times no less ...

I just got a pop-up whilst visiting slashdot. I wouldn't make this stuff up folks. I'm using firefox - I got that bar up at the top of the viewport saying 'a popup has been blocked' after following the "Read More..." link.

Did anyone else get the same thing?

What a bunch of fscking sell-outs!

PS: AND the "confirm you're not a script" reads "threaten" ... a long-shot, maybe I'm being too paranoid, but now I'm thinking slashdot might be getting phished. Apologies for the sell-out remark if that's the case.

may i be the first to say.....

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

:)

*sound of a thousand lawyers approaching my frot door*

Re:may i be the first to say.....

[Anonymous Coward]

:( Now I get it too! >_>

(Okay fine!)

:( is a reg. TM of some wacko Yahoo! store >_> is a reg. TM of Msft. Corp JP

PS: Long live Linux!

yeah, but

[darkonc]

Have they patented the Business method of creating a bunch of (sometimes trivial) patents and tehn using them to litigate an opponent (where the opponent is a (possibly proper) subset of the Open source community) into oblivion?

oops.

Someone patent that quick. I don't have the money to do so!

Re:yeah, but

[Anonymous Coward]

But.. you can't patent a criminal procedure

Re:yeah, but

[darkonc]

It's not criminal if it's legal... It is only likely to be illegal for the likes of Microsoft, who already has a monopoly control of much of the market.

Prior Art: ligatures

[cait56]

Typesetting already has well established prior art of having a special optimized representation for a sequence of characters.

It's called a ligature. "To" is an example of a sequence that is frequently optimized with an alternate image (that moves the 'o' closer to the 'T').

Re:Prior Art: ligatures

[foo12]

'To', where the 'o' is moved closer to the 'T', isn't a ligature --- it's a kerned pair. A ligature is one more joined letter combination (e.g. fi, fl, Th, tt, ffl, etc.) to prevent collision of the characters.

Re:Prior Art: ligatures

[NASAdude]

My interpretation of the definitions indicates that "To" would be an example of kerning, not ligature.

From morrcom.com, "Kerning refers to improving the appearance of type by adjusting the spacing between selected pairs of letters. The most problematic pairs of letters are AV, AY, FA, AW, PA, and AT. Kerning becomes of greater importance as type size increases such as in headlines and poster copy which uses all caps."

From Webster, a ligature is a "printed or written character (as æ or [ff]) consisting of two or more letters or characters joined together."

From the Patent

[MrShaggy]

Sorry if this dupes. But this is part of the patent explaining smilies in IMS. Odd how they are concerned about the "custom smiley". [0019] Many real-time messaging applications aim to minimize data for transmission. An instant message or chatroom communique that contains very streamlined data is referred to herein as a "lean" message. To include one or more custom emoticons in a lean message would degrade the performance of many instant messaging or chatroom applications. Thus, the subject matter also includes exemplary techniques for sending a lean message to a receiver wherein one or more custom emoticons appear in the lean message at the receiver's end.

Re:HOWTO: A Muslims guide to Backpacking in London

[Anonymous Coward]

I roffled heartily - you, sir, certainly do have the knack of generating rors!

Er, won't this create a weird time paradox...

[Alkarismi]

or something?

On the other hand maybe *I* can be the immature community member making the joke, and perhaps that way M$ will put out all their smileys under GPL...

Everybody calm down

[EachLennyAPenny]

it only affects 19x19 pixels emoticons.

/me heading to patent the 20x20 pixel emoticons since he thinks they will be the Next Big Thing (tm).

Psuedononymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

This has all happened before and it will all happen again.

No, that's not right either

[mrRay720]

A lot of people are reading this wrong. They've probably skimmed over the text and read "MS.... patent... emoticon..." and jumped to incorrect conclusions.

As it says, it is for CUSTOM emoticons, ie an arbitary emoticon on Client1 being encoded, transferred, and reassembled, installed, and displayed on Client2.

Now I don't agree with this patent application either, but IF you're going to attack MS here, at least attack them for the right thing. Bitching at them for trying to patent emoticons is just wrong.

Re:No, that's not right either

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Oh, you're completely right. Here I though they had just patented something that would be obvious to anyone with some experience in programming.

When you add the word "arbitary" the situation changes completely. Using such innovative techniques as customizeable font sets, transfer of image files over a network and using a file cache.

Custom Smiley

[slashflood]

:-d

Look, I can lick my nose!

Prior Art acknowledged in patent

[Anonymous Coward]

From the patent

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The subject matter relates generally to instant messaging and more specifically to custom emoticons.

BACKGROUND

[0002] Emoticons have acquired immense popularity and hence importance in new email, chatroom, instant messaging, and even operating system applications. The variety of available emoticons has increased tremendously, from a few types of "happy faces" to a multitude of elaborate and colorful animations. In many cases, an increase in the number of available emoticons has been a selling feature for new releases of communications products. However, there are now so many emoticons available that some applications may be reaching a limit on the number of pre-established ("pre-packaged") emoticons that can be included with or managed by an application. There is an exhaustion point for trying to provide a pre-packaged emoticon for every human emotion. Still, users clamor for more emoticons, and especially for more nuanced emoticons that capture the subtleties of human emotions and situations.

The patent itself has some information of the background; does that not in itself supply EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ART?

Re:Prior Art acknowledged in patent

[cnettel]

It's a quite common property of a patent to reference to the prior art/known technology. Then, they set out to explain what's flawed with that technology and finally how this solves it all. It's the way patents work. They may even reference other patents, from other manufacturers, just to set out how completely superior this new thing is compared to everything else.

So, the problem here is if this "invention" is really worth a patent, not that it describes status quo.

Re:Prior Art acknowledged in patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you have fallen into the trap by reasoning within the patent system.

My position: I do not want a patent system!

"slashdot" owned

[flibuste]

Greetings Slashdot. I write to you to inform you that I have filed a patent (REF: TOTAL-NONSENSE-54345-ID-4234) regarding the "slashdot" sequence of letters (or keystrokes). As such, I offer to enter in agreement with you where each time this sequence is used (particularly on the web, but other instances may apply), I get PROFIT. A lot of it, if possible. Thank you for your understanding and attention. The Retarded Corporation.

Unbelievable ...

[gstoddart]

Smileys have been in use as simple text glyphs since before most people had even heard of the intraweb.

There are book of smileys which have been around for years (that one was '97).

Smileys appear in everything from ICQ, to AIM, to almost everything. Word has the annoying habit of turning my typed smileys into graphical ones.

The concept of smileys is so widespread they get used in advertising.

Except for creating a tool which allows you to create smileys, this sounds as if there is absolutely no merit to this type of patant whatsoever.

Blah. Hate Microsoft. Rage rising. Strength increasing. Must smash!

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

[mrRay720]

Learn to read, people!

"OMG M$ have patented teh smilies!!!!1" - wrong

The patent APPLICATION is for encoding and transfer of CUSTOM smilies. ie an arbiary image or animation on one computer being transferred to another one automatically in a seamless manner via encoing, transmisson, reconstruction.

Not to say that this application is good - it's not. Just that 99% of people here have it so wrong that it's laughable.

From TFA:
""Thursday, covers selecting pixels to create an emoticon image, assigning a character sequence to these pixels and reconstructing the emoticon after transmission.""

*Note the key words such as CREATE and RECONSTRUCTING.

*Note the lack of the words "changing :) into a picture"

Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

[flowerHercules]

I'm not going to read the entire patent, but custom, in this case, seems to me like it could mean any 'emoticon' other than the simple colon + paranthesis. Technically, that is a custom image. What would be an interesting question: if this patent was awarded, and AIM (Yahoo!, ICQ, etc) were all forced back into the dark ages of IMing in ASCII and such, would it be possible for them to impliment a rudimentary form of something like UUEncode (or yENC) in which you type: :) it converts that into the binary equivalence of your standard smiley, sends that string and the receipients client uses UUDecode to display it as an image? or would that be encompassed in the patent also? To me, it appears as if they want to patent :) -> Send -> Raster Image -> Receive -> Reconstruct. I hate Microsoft just the same, in any case.

Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you think you are a very smart motherfucker, don't you?

This must be the lamest patent i've ever heard of. And you aren't even half as smart as you think.

Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

[mrRay720]

Yes, it is a lame patent application - it's a trvial patent that does only a little more than something like Base64/UUE/yEnc'ing an image with a bit of metadata along for the trip (emoticon name/ket combination/etc).

Still, as has been said before, the key problem isn't the companies filing for these dumb patents (ok I make an exception for Amazon - it IS their fault, and they unlike most others try to enforce shitty patents). As long as the screwy patent office allows them, it's not unreasonable to expect companies to try and get there first if only to defend theirselves.

What would be a good idea would be penalties for filing dumb patents. So as not to punish the little guy unduly, the cost should rise exponentially with each dumb patent you fail to get each year.

Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

[Sven Tuerpe]

The patent APPLICATION is for encoding and transfer of CUSTOM smilies. ie an arbiary image or animation on one computer being transferred to another one automatically in a seamless manner via encoing, transmisson, reconstruction.

So they invented ... the Internet?!?

Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

[daniel_mcl]

Right... so I send the bytes 3A 29 to someone's computer, and the patented technique could convert it to pixels, say the pixels ":)" which comprise an emoticon, and then display it on the receivers computer.

Yeah. This patent covers, among other things, every font which has a character which can be used as an emoticon. Sure, that's not exactly the intent, but the language of the patent doesn't distinguish the two cases.

Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

[eneville]

How can this be a patent. It's just gay. Things have existed longer that do the same things. Doesnt a vector image format do the same?

ASSHATS

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of asshats.
I've used smilies for years, before bill gates got lucky.
I'm glad I don't use his substandard shiat.

I just don't get this crap...

[Doverite]

I mean I just read an article on Robert Heinlein over at Wikipedia about how back in the sixties someone couldn't get a patent on the waterbed because Heinlein had described it in a couple of books. He hadn't even BUILT one.

A new novel patent Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Now here is an idea for a new patent.

A series of methods where by we can have market monopoly, put others out of business, evade the anti-trust laws, get a couple of politicians in your pocket, avoid fair practice acts and extort or give no choice to people to use our product.

It might fail though as Al Copone and others have used this before, but if successful you could sue Microsoft for patent infringement.

Copyright Infringement Notice Notice ID: 43-131844

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sir

We believe you may have been enaging in the illegal use of the following copyrighted emotions, which are the property of GlobalTech MegaCorp Holdings, LLC:

Happiness, Suprise, Bewilderment, Outrage, Despair, & Suicidal Depression.

Please cease and desist all current feelings of the above copyrighted emotions.

Please be advised that this letter is not and is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts or law as they may pertain to this matter or of MegaCorp's positions, rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are specifically reserved.

Very truly yours,

Copyrighted Emotions Department
Internet Anti-Piracy Team

RTFP

[Anonymous Coward]

Read The Flippin' Patent, would ya?
---
Methods and devices for creating and transferring custom emoticons allow a user to adopt an arbitrary image as an emoticon, which can then be represented by a character sequence in real-time communication. In one implementation, custom emoticons can be included in a message and transmitted to a receiver in the message. In another implementation, character sequences representing the custom emoticons can be transmitted in the message instead of the custom emoticons in order to preserve performance of text messaging. At the receiving end, the character sequences are replaced by their corresponding custom emoticons, which can be retrieved locally if they have been previously received, or can be retrieved from the sender in a separate communication from the text message if they have not been previously received.
---

Microsoft is NOT trying to patent smiley's nor emoticons. They're wanting a patent on a way to transmit custom emoticons from one source to another.

I don't know how many trillian users are out there, but we all know that our emoticon set is different than the others -- especially the extended ones from Yahoo...we may not see what the other person is really wanting to convey.

I personally can't wait to make my personal emoticon for "STFU-Boss Is Here"

Emoticons are already trademarked...

[bigbigbison]

WHile not a patent, despair.com owns the trademark on :-(. Luckilly, you can buy them from despair.com to use in your emails...:-P

keystrokes into pictures... what about...

[ccrf]

http://totalabstinence.com/pics/ronniedishead.gif

which, if I'm not mistaken, is a string of keystrokes that would be turned by a browser into an image. ;-)

Precedence

[knapper_tech]

I don't know what precedents they were planning to use to legitimize this joke, but DO NOT let them have the precedence of smilie patents!

Uhhh - network games???

[Imposter_of_myself]

Sending identifiers to represent graphics has been around for a while. Isn't that how network games work - the images are not actually sent over the wire - an identifier is sent that represents the scenery image - NOT THE ACTUAL SCENERY IMAGE. How can Microsoft patent this use - there is tons of prior art.

I had a dream last night

[Maluvia]

In it, the Almighty spoke to me and said:

"This is God, and I have already patented every thought you have ever thought, or ever will think
- and I've got one hell of a lawyer!"

Re:I had a dream last night

[tokul]

- and I've got one hell of a lawyer!"

You confused God with Satan.

Re:Patent THIS! ----- MOUSE!

[Jafafa Hots]

I have invented an emoticon, the mouse:
8:9

I would patent it but I fear a protracted suit by Disney.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

usually

[akhomerun]

ususally strange, nonsense patents like this can actually make a company money. like amazon's one click purchasing patents, or even patents on user interface ideas.

but emoticons?? why does microsoft care? they would probably make more money by not paying lawyers to fight for this crap in court then to...like...um...try to make money off emoticons. if that's even possible.

besides, aol instant messanger probably thought of the idea first.

Does this mean Microsoft has jumped the shark?

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

How can they do this with a 8^| , I mean, a straight face? ;) I think they have definitely jumped teh shark with this stunt.

Eventually, you have so many mutually

[crovira]

exclusive laws and mutually inclusive patents that it no longer matters.

At some point in the commission of *any* act, you are either infringing (and somebody gets something unearned) or breaking a law (and somebody gets a cease and desist to stop you.)

At times like these, when only the criminal don't have to watch their steps, people head for the hills and watch in awe as civilization collapses into a festering dung heap.

Re:Eventually, you have so many mutually

[emilv]

... or move to a country without software patents, and where the laws are written by politicians that (mostly) listen to the people.

Re:Eventually, you have so many mutually

[Jesus_666]

There is such a country? In Europe there certainly isn't. North America looks bad as well. Africa is mostly ruled by people who don't listen to anyone. I'm not sure about asia...

Right Right Right

[crovira]

The patent covers digitizing of images, at some point they are static, from perception through transmission to their reconstitution.

Can anybody say 'Microsoft now has a patent on video conferencing.'

Um...

[Mr. Cancelled]

'We now appear to be living in a world where even the most laughable paranoid fantasies about commercially controlling simple social concepts are being outdone in the real world by well-funded armies of lawyers on behalf of some of the most powerful companies on the planet.'"

So where's he been living for the last 5 years?

Re:Um...

[Alkarismi]

Europe...

Potential challenges

[mattr]

Okay so they are talking about assigning an emoticon text string to a pixel array that (supposedly both) sides of a communication agree to display.

Here is a challenge, and then a list of other brainstorming potential challenges for you to think about. (I came up with them before I remembered the best challenge of all).

In 1995 I was involved in one of the first ISPs in Tokyo, Cyber Technologies International (CTI, www.cyber.ad.jp). Our engineers created maybe the first 3D Java chat in the world. IIRC you in fact would type ascii emoticons while chatting to someone else online using this Java client, and an avatar would change its expression (i.e. new bitmap shown) depending on your smiley. IIRC they were like pacman faces and you had a few onscreen at once.

Here are some other ideas that might be related to potential challenges:

1. On my Apple II (Integer Basic) with 16KB language card, when booting the pascal IDE you would get an alternate characterset (font) in which different keys actually looked like faces, if I remember correctly.
2. Japan has had far more complex emoticons for a very long time.
3. Japanese fonts have long included faces and in particular current Japanese cell phones allow input in various alphabets (kanji, english, arabic numbers, and symbols). The symbols (square bitmaps) are common to all users of a given handset (or manufacturer) and include many kinds of tiny faces with different expressions, or hearts or other symbols which are currently used as a new kind of written language by young girls. So prior art. For example, the heart key is transmitted as a numeric (or ascii?) code and reconstituted as an image, but also is read as a Japanese word. Very close (maybe inverted here) to what M$ wants to claim.
4. Some PHP based chats I remember had an automatic conversion of smiley emoticons to small bitmaps that would be embedded in your chat on the bbs at least prior to 2004.
5. MUDs, MOOs and chat programs may have something similar here.
6. Often a programmer will choose to specify an icon or other bitmap in a program as a string of ascii characters, to be displayed as an image. While not as highly compressed as an emoticon (which the patent submission does not in fact define), it will work on any system the executable can run on, and as a communication between programmer and user is equivalent to that which is claimed.
7. Emoticons are in fact displayed as pixel arrays already. A tall, thin font could easily make it 19x19 pixels. And there is also no reason to specify 19x19, presumably 8x8 or 20x16 would also infringe.
8. There is little difference between them making an arbitrary unicode font and what they are claiming.
9. thepalace.com and other graphic chats shold be looked at, Sony for example liscensed a nordic one I believe.
10. Tic Tac Toe played on the computer, or Tetris for that matter, are prior art

Re:Potential challenges

[Misagon]

I remember the japanese TRON text encoding, which was not only a character set but which also allowed embedding of custom glyphs in the text stream. I don't remember if these were vectorized or bitmaps or both.
The original purpose was to allow the transmission of unusual Kanji glyphs such as names of japanese villages where the glyph was unique to that village.

I did a quick Google search and found out that TRON Code is indeed still used in cell phones to this day. That might be the tech behind point 3 in the parent post.

Re:Potential challenges

[Buran]

The original patent said:

wherein the pixels comprise a 19.times.19 pixel grid.

So, why would anything else be a violation? The patent specifically says 19x19. Just change the size of your icons by a few pixels and if they sue, point this out and countersue.

Re:Potential challenges

[mattr]

If the software you make works for the general case then it will also work for 19 x 19 pixel images, which will infringe.

Re:Potential challenges

[Buran]

If you set up your system to display images as other than 19x19, it doesn't. All you have to do is create the smiley images at any other size and use that.

What, like this here?

[shine-shine]

:-(

Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely Apple could claim prior art? ;-)

Sad Mac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Mac
Happy Mac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Mac
Sad iPod http://www.peachpit.com/content/images/exr_0819ipo d/elementLinks/figure7.8.gif

Of course, this being Microsoft, the bomb might be more appropriate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_(symbol)

Patent Guide

[bsytko]

Are there any guids out there that explain the current Patent system and what qualifies as a violation? I dont know a whole lot about it specifically speaking in terms of what qualifies as breaking a patent or so.

Damn we Americans need these patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. Patents like this create jobs and make our country secure. Imagine if this patent got into the hands of terrorists. It might help them to make a dirty bomb and blow up our beloved national treasures like the internet or Paul Wolfowitz. We can trust Microsoft who are a great wholesome American family company.Damn. We need patents to support the American economy so we can go into arab countries like Iraq and Iran (which are both in Mexico) and smoke out terrorists John Wayne style.

Our founding fathers like John Wayne and Buffalo Bill who tamed the savage red indians who invaded America (and who were communists and terrorists), would turn in their graves if they thought American companies like Microsoft couldn't wield software patents for smilies. damn

You mean (_|_)

[antdude]

You meant (_|_) with underscores. :)

Re:You mean (_|_)

[Rick and Roll]

Hey, that's not a smiley, that's an operator :)

who you calling immature?

[sl4shd0rk]

You big fat stupid head!

Frown On This!

[dsands1]

Remember this?

DALLAS, TX - January 2nd, 2001 - In a move that has millions across the Internet community frowning, Despair, Inc. today announced that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had awarded them a registered trademark for the 'frowny' emoticon which serves as their logo.

At a press conference, Despair's COO, Dr. E.L.Kersten, announced his intentions to sue "anyone and everyone who uses the so-called 'frowny' emoticon, or our trademarked logo, in their written email correspondence. Ever."

Here's the full article.

Patent pending notifications?

[marcosdumay]

What happened to the obligation of companies to include the note "patent pending" on their products? There are lots of weard software patents this days about stuff that was already comercialized, how can companies do that? Shouldn't the company's products count as prior art to the patent?

Microsoft vs Walmart

[Capt. Fodder]

I say let THEM go at it with this "smiley" thing. Whatever damage they do to each other would simply *have* to benefit society somehow...

This must have been how the Indians felt

[Anonymous Coward]

when the white people wanted to claim things that they had always just used and shared as a group. Maybe there is some type of defective gene that makes some people want to take what other people obviously see as a shared resource.

Usurper_ii

OT but funny as hell

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Underrated

In Soviet Russia

[In_Sovjet_Russia]

Smileys frown at you!

Require public comment period

[blitz487]

There isn't any real way to codify whether an idea should be patentable or not. A better way would be to require, for each patent, a year of public comment on it. The patent examiners would be required to review and take public comments into account. The public could then comment on how absurd or obvious a patent is before it gets patented.

Evel Knievel

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say Microsoft first jumped the shark several years ago, when they chose not to play ball with Sun over Java. Regardless of how you feel about Java, Microsoft sent a clear message to the software industry that they would play by nobody else's rules but their own. Then they started the big push to DRM, sending a clear message that they don't care what their customers want either. Next, they introduced .NET, which sucked so badly, even Microsoft wouldn't use it in their own software. ISV's now know Microsoft won't commit to the future they are being sold on. And finally they abandoned VB6, showing the level of commitment Microsoft has for small-time developers. Hmm,.... quadruple shark jump? Actually, I could go on with more sharks, like the European SW patent push, the anti-trust hearings, etc... But the point is, after awhile, it's like adding one more bus. Who really cares anymore? Microsoft is past its glory days.

I'd kill to have first post on this one

[MikeSty]

:(

I have a book of smilies

[jurt1235]

So I do not think they really have a chance. If this patents makes it though, I am going to patent the use of creativity and images itself.

I am pretty sure what I wrote.

[fraxinus-tree]

We are either 8=======> or something completely different.
8=>, 8~~~~~> or even 8~> is just too microsoft.

Stop the insanity!

[Anonymous Coward]

No to IP.

Trillian already does this

[BillX]

"character sequences representing the custom emoticons can be transmitted in the message instead of the custom emoticons in order to preserve performance of text messaging. At the receiving end, the character sequences are replaced by their corresponding custom emoticons"

Trillian already does this, there are at least 50 builtin emoticons that can be selected with the mouse or typed; the sequence is sent as a characters and replaced with a graphic icon at the other end. It gets annoying sometimes as any 'complex' piece of communication (with symbols and nested parentheses, etc.) often comes out at the other end full of pigs or smiley faces wearing sunglasses...

Re:Trillian already does this

[AhBeeDoi]

A lot of message boards and other apps have similar facility. However, I doubt anybody has a patent on it yet. If MS has a patent, it can use it to intimidate the competition, despite all the prior art. As for the narrowness of the patent, that is an issue to be determined by the courts. If you have a patent for this technology then you have a legal basis for a lawsuit. It'll still cost beaucoup bux to overturn the patent. IBM could overturn it, but not a start-up company cannot.

Who wins? Innovation(tm) does. It's a blow for innovation(tm) which the Justice Department with its anachronistic concepts of anti-trust could never grasp. :) (tm)

Re:Trillian already does this

[FryGuy1013]

BZZt wrong. This patent is about *sending* your smileys to the other person, where it stores them in their browser cache.

The bird

[suttree.com]

Given the regularity with which I 'flip the bird' at my Windows box, I'm pretty sure they can trademark that one too. Cnuts.

Microsoft's hiring process

[otisg]

Who hires these people!???

The journey of a thousand miles...

[hullabalucination]

...sometimes ends very, very badly.

http://despair.com/ambition.html

My personal favorite.

Re:The journey of a thousand miles...

[msim]

ahhhh, i've seen some of those now and then. So that is where they originated from. Thanks for that b.t.w. :-)

oh shit, am i going to be sued now?

I'm more scared of small companies than large ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, it's not exactly smileys, but it's something that's still simple.

To be honest, I'd rather had Microsoft patent these things than some small company. Large companies don't have the time to chase after little people like us for crap like this. We can just as easily play the duck and reschedule game for years - that would cost MS millions. .. and for what? It's not like they'd make any money off of me. They simply don't have the time or energy.

Meanwhile, Take a look at the ridiculous patent disputes that they've lost over the last several years. $500 Million for plugins? stupid.

patent clerk standing up to lawyers

[John_Sauter]

If you were some overworked patent clerk facing an ARMY of well-paid, well-funded and determined MS lawyers are you so sure you'd be able to stand up to them?

Yes. If I couldn't I should resign or be fired. Standing up to lawyers is a patent clerk's job.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

X-Face?

[argent]

Sounds like crossing smileys and x-face.

...and someone else wrote a song about them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Over here. Cover your ears.

From the patent:

[mh101]

3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the pixels comprise a 19.times.19 pixel grid.

7. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein the data comprises a portable network graphics file.

So I assume as long as people don't use 19x19 px PNG files for emoticons, we'll be safe...?

MS Patents

[hisstory student]

Don't be too hard on Microsoft folks. They're actually doing us a favor by adding to the silly, superfluous, rediculous, asinine, outlandish, daft, ludicrous, nonsensical, cockamamie, absurd, outrageous, preposterous, senseless, and stupid patents that will cause the patent system to self-destruct at some point. Obviously, that point is rapidly approaching.

Isn't it time

[zappepcs]

That we, as a community ( not just /., but the community of computer users worldwide) begin writing letters and emails to our elected representatives, and to the USPTO et al with regard to how we feel that such blantantly obvious things cannot and should not be patented. If the govt. doesn't understand this, perhaps 255,000 emails will explain it to them? Anything with enough prior art to establish that this is not an innovation, is not unique, nor is it unobvious may not be obvious to the USPTO. Does anyone know where we can write the USPTO to let them know?

Re:Isn't it time

[rajafarian]

I think the USPTO won't care and Congress won't either unless the letters you speak of are accompanied by lots of $$. But I'd think you knew that already.

Re:Isn't it time

[Anonymous Coward]

Begin writing letters? You already should have been doing so for some time! And NOT just about IP reform.

well...

[eyegee88]

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=75502288 nothing new

please, jesus, make MS sue someone over smileys

[flacco]

the negative publicity alone would be worth the patent...

ANOTHER Patent MS can't defend

[ratboy666]

Well, golly, its nice Microsoft has this patent and all...

But, again, they can't defend it.

Vioations: any image 19x19 or otherwise, is converted to characters when being transferred by email. And, the character sequence representing an icon (avatar) has been with us since FACES graced our email. The fact that MS doesn't render FACES is... well, not relevant.

The next step -- which is replacing a long sequence by a shorter sequence to be filled in by the receiver -- in a nutshell, that is gzip compression. And using pre-computed huffman tables has been with us forever as well.

The LAST step -- which is to tie this all to "emoticons" used for IM. If you can send pictures via IM (which is NOT something being patented here)... the emoticon is simply an interpretation of the picture.

Again, I am really happy for Microsoft for getting this patent, but don't sweat it -- they can't (and won't) defend it. May use it to threaten someone, though.

Ratboy

patented smiley's

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF MS, who the fuck are you to ram this down the peoples patent system. The more actions you do like this loses the perception of any goodwill you may have. I think in your (MS) corporate culture, the individual is measured in some fashion, if your focus is on patents, the more you get out the door the better for you and the fatter your wallet.

I may count as a single person, single vote etc, but have influence over many purchasing decisions. I abhor this action, and now will heartily reccomend alternatives to your software at your peril.

That Mark Taylor

[blair1q]

He one funny guy...not.

Already copyrighted and claimed

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Didn't Despair.com already claim the "frownie" for their logo? http://www.despair.com/demotivators/frownonthis.ht ml

Smiley ads

[jdh41]

Finally. They can get rid of the bloody bouncing smiley flash ads! Thankyou MS!

stupid and specific

[aneroid]

from the patent link (no pun intended):

1. A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination.
2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the pixels comprise a pixel array of pre-determined dimensions.

3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the pixels comprise a 19.times.19 pixel grid.

from 2, the emoticon's size is pre-determined.
from 3, it's a 19x19 grid.

can MS spell redundant?

so don't use 19x19 images, well wtf, make it 20x20 with the last row and column being transparent/background (which any lawyer could argue is NOT a 19x19 image).

in the meanwhile, someone else can patent emoticon resizing (perhaps based on the font size) so MS can't use anything but 19x19s across source to destination.

curiously, in all the excitment of writing up this innovative patent, did the lawyers miss something i.e. destination/destinations. so the patent doesn't cover any conversation involving more than 2 ppl (or is that implicit: no such thing for MS lawyers).

An Excellent Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an excellent idea that would put an end to much of the abuse. How about they require the patented concept to be unobvious to an expert in the field?

Oh, wait...

large fixed width font sizes and a GUI

[aneroid]

if one person/entity (AI or alien or other) is using a console with fixed font size of 19x19 pixels and the other is using a GUI version of the same app that displays it as a 19x19 pixel emoticon OR (boolean) vice-versa, has one caused the other OR both to break the patent?

Someone PLEASE yell "Prior Art" and slap it ...

[aix tom]

.... in their faces.

Founding of Microsoft : 1975

First documented use of smileys on electronic systems : 1972 or even earlier.

http://www.platopeople.com/emoticons.html

Re:OMG

[SuperWebTech]

At least they aren't trying to patent ones and zeroes yet.

Reply from microsoft

[RedLaggedTeut]

Microsoft Frowned at for Smiley Patent

Now you frown, till we patent that

Your own fault, US!

[Anonymous Coward]

I said it long ago, and will repeat it until anybody comes up with a good reply (which has not
happened so far!!!):

It is your own fault!!!!

As long as you allow an indecent company to survive, or an incompetent president to be reelected,
it is your fault! After all, it is a DEMOCRACY (or at least you suggest it is) in your country!

You have the power. Until you use it, companies as Mickeysoft and Oracle will take it from you,
taking the power from you. They will decide what you do, what your work is, what you buy, what you
think.

If you want to change something, it's not enough to complain. You have to stand up for your rights.

Oh mods...

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent could've been constructed by a six year old. People should at least support their answers with some rationale for us to assume they have any idea what they're talking about. Besides, parent is forcing you to draw your own, potentially conflicting conclusion as to what "Both." means. So if you're modding this insightful, you're basing it off your insight triggered by one word put into a particular context. You're really saying "I'm insightful."

Re:Oh mods...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

yeah well...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, the custom emoticon creates YOU!

I, for one, welcome the absence

[Anonymous Coward]

of endless smiley images. Now maybe they can patent leet speak and poor language usage.

Oh crud

[interstellar_donkey]

I have really bad teeth (No, I'm not British; I'm just an American who's afraid of the orthodontist) and over the years I've conditioned myself so that when I smile my lips stay closed. The resulting smile looks pretty goofy (though not as bad as showing a mouth full of crooked teeth), and is a fairly unique facial expression.

Does this mean that the next time I hear something funny, or a pretty girl winks at me, and I reactively produce this unusual "smile" I'll have to throw a few bucks Microsoft's way? :?

Who Does He Think Is Running Microsoft?

[Master of Transhuman]

"suggested by one of our more immature community members as a joke on Slashdot"

Bill Gates is running Microsoft.

Has he ever read a biography of Gates?

"Immature" doesn't describe him adequately.

"Asshole" does pretty well, though.

Stop developing software in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

is simply the answer
there are 191 other countries to choose from
if you choose to live in a bubble then there is no sympathy

Only because frownies have already been patented

[clohman]

by despair.com

Definitive prior art:

[dr_labrat]

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=:-)&start=0 &scoring=d&hl=en&lr=&

Though the first link thrown up dates from 2011....

But fuck it... we all know time travel is possible, hence the prevalence of articles in usenet for spare parts...

open source

[WindowsWasher]

The following emoticon is strictly GPL and useful for pointing in Microsofts general direction. Its creation is dedicated to pin_gween (pez bro).

|
m|n/

CCCP

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, we all know that a Russian named Regus Patoff registered a patent on smileys decades ago...

reverse engineering at its best

[mike518]

luckily this will be easy to reverse engineer, followed by a change from :-) to |:-J... problem solved! wait is that a dunce cap... err... close enough.

USPTO: The system is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason the USPTO is so screwed up is that the reward system encourages it. Patent examiners are piece workers (i.e., they get paid for the number of patents they examine). As such, there is no incentive for them to be as careful as we would like them to be. Change the reward system and things will change. Don't and it will be the same crap now and forever.

not applicable

[YesIAmAScript]

I don't like this patent either.

But it covers creating the relationships on the fly, and communicating the image from end to end. A ligature (which To isn't) is communicated to the other end with a single representational symbol, but the actual data it represents is not communicated.

If when you sent a ligature over a connection the sender sent a pixmap representing the appearance of the ligature the first time it sent it across, then this might apply. But instead, the sender just assumes the recipient already knows how to render the symbol and just sends the symbol across.

So ligatures aren't prior art for this patent. At least, not the kind of prior art that busts the patent.

oh yeah?

[giantsfan89]

oh yeah? well... :-P

patenting their own product a decade late

[poptones]

I used to work quite a lot in the support forum for their comic chat back when it was actually COMIC chat. What they're describing is easily recognizable to anyone who used that program.

And yes, it actually was pretty innovative. The "leetsters" hated it because it sent a bunch of extra characters they didn't like to see, but it was a phenomenally cool program and I saw first hand how it empowered many disabled people. It's really too bad such a system didn't catch on.

Anyway, it seems like they are making this application pretty late in the game. If they don't already have a patent on a product they introduced a DECADE ago doesn't their own prior art make the technology unpatentable?

why is it

[suezz]

on articles like these microsoft could not be reached for comment.

I would like to hear from the wonderful patent attorney who filed it and provide his reasoning or better yet let's hear Bill Gates reasoning.

Anorexic version

[Anonymous Coward]

|*|

Re:Uhoh answer

[Alsee]

If you infringe claim 1 then you infringe the patent. Claims 2, 3, etc... are effectively additional and separate patents.

The reason patents are often written this way with insanely broad initial claims and then later more restricted claims is (1) they want the patent to cover as much as possible, and (2) the additional claims are there as fall back positions incase the first claim is later struck down for prior art or as nonobvious.

So Microsoft was in fact granted a patent on:
A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination.

-

Re:OMG! Well, it was just a matter of time really.

[Russellkhan]

I haven't seen one here yet. Is possible it was an OnUnload from whatever site you went to before?

Patenting fucking smileys

[hadaso]

I don't think they are patenting fucking smileys. That would be animated gifs. Doesn't the patent refers to 19x19 pngs?

Real Pryor Art.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a chat type application I wrote nearly 8 years ago that has this capablilty and more. The user is able to take any graphic (PNG format included) and assign a series of characters. When the user types those characters, they are replaced by their chosen graphic. Usually the image is transfered with the message, but if any client has the low-bandwith flag turned on, it will recieve only the text data, with an embeded code that will cause it to look into the cache for the graphic. If not found it will then request the image data.

Ob.

[Denny]

In Soviet Russia, smiley patents you!

SHUT UP MS ZEALOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so, because other companies do it, it's okay when the giant fucking MS hellhound does it... right....

And just because they don't use them offensively, it's okay too? God fucking damn it, you MS zealots need to learn your place. What are we supposed to do? Sit by and *wait* for them to use their army of patents against the common user? So if I live in Taiwan, and China's lining up a dozen or so nukes at my cities and hospitals and I go to the UN and say "Hey guys, could you step in and stop this?" they should say "Fuck off! What have they done to you? I haven't seen any nuke launched at you yet, what are you complaining about!", right?

Idiot.