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.'"
I can see it now:
=( (r)
* Disclaimer: "=(" is a registered Trademark of Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, WA. Used without permission.
(Please don't sue)
'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]
Well, they can kiss my ( | ).
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.
!-( 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
(=O=)
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.
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.
I saw where Microsoft has patented their new emoticon for their Linux strategy.
o
|\__o
Bastards.
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 END-
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
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus