Microsoft's Bold Patent Move

theodp writes "On Thursday, the USPTO disclosed that Microsoft has a patent pending for displaying numbers in a box to make them stand out. " Check out the images to see the power of this breakthrough patent. That's almost impossible to do without patents.

Comments

Well...

[Lord Grey]

OK, I like bashing Microsoft just as much as the next guy. But I just skimmed through the application and they're not simply trying to patent "displaying numbers in a box." The application is for dynamically highlighting (or whatever) all numeric elements within a document, even if the numerics are expressed in words (e.g., "one thousand") in any supported language. While possibly of limited use, this does seem to be a unique feature.

Now, whether Microsoft (or anyone) should be allowed to patent such thing... I don't know.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO they POSSIBLY could patent their search algorithim to find such numbers, but not the display method of placing a box around them, since that could be considered 'obvious'.

Re:Well...

[Tester]

OK, I like bashing Microsoft just as much as the next guy. But I just skimmed through the application and they're not simply trying to patent "displaying numbers in a box." The application is for dynamically highlighting (or whatever) all numeric elements within a document, even if the numerics are expressed in words (e.g., "one thousand") in any supported language. While possibly of limited use, this does seem to be a unique feature.

Actually, you are misreading the patent. In a US patent, each claim stands on its own. If only have to reproduce one of them to infringe on the patent.

And claim 1 is: A method for emphasizing numerical data contained in an electronic document, the method comprising: determining whether a request to emphasize all of the numerical data in the electronic document has been received; and in response to receiving the request, locating all of the numerical data contained within the electronic document and emphasizing the located numerical data.

This is really as ridiculous as we beleive..

Re:Well...

[thing12]

Of course it can -- take a look at Perl's Lingua::EN::FindNumber.

qr/((?:b(?:akers?dozen|illi(?:ard|on))|centillion| d(?:ecilli(?:ard|on)|ozen|u(?:o(?:decilli(?:ard|on )|vigintillion)|vigintillion))|e(?:ight(?:een|ieth |[yh])?|leven(?:ty(?:first|one))?|s)|f(?:i(?:ft(?: een|ieth|[yh])|rst|ve)|o(?:rt(?:ieth|y)|ur(?:t(?:i eth|[yh]))?))|g(?:oogol(?:plex)?|ross)|hundred|mi( ?:l(?:ion|li(?:ard|on))|nus)|n(?:aught|egative|in( ?:et(?:ieth|y)|t(?:een|[yh])|e)|o(?:nilli(?:ard|on )|ught|vem(?:dec|vigint)illion))|o(?:ct(?:illi(?:a rd|on)|o(?:dec|vigint)illion)|ne)|qu(?:a(?:drilli( ?:ard|on)|ttuor(?:decilli(?:ard|on)|vigintillion)) |in(?:decilli(?:ard|on)|tilli(?:ard|on)|vigintilli on))|s(?:core|e(?:cond|pt(?:en(?:dec|vigint)illion |illi(?:ard|on))|ven(?:t(?:ieth|y))?|x(?:decillion |tilli(?:ard|on)|vigintillion))|ix(?:t(?:ieth|y))? )|t(?:ee?n|h(?:ir(?:t(?:een|ieth|y)|d)|ousand|ree) |r(?:e(?:decilli(?:ard|on)|vigintillion)|i(?:ginti llion|lli(?:ard|on)))|w(?:e(?:l(?:fth|ve)|nt(?:iet h|y))|o)|h)|un(?:decilli(?:ard|on)|vigintillion)|v igintillion|zero|s))/i;

It may look ugly but it's quite simple.

Re:Well...

[interiot]

It may look ugly but it's quite simple. Aren't the two mutually exclusive?

No...

It's simple because it's completely table-driven... it doesn't require the complicated set of if/length/substr/== commands that you'd originally think it would.

More formally, so people don't try to ding me when they don't see the difference... finite state automata are clearly simpler things than turing machines. This clearly explains the "aren't they mutually exclusive?" issue. The first thing you think of when you think of implementing number-matching for human-languages is that it can't be expressed via DFA's. It's a little surprising that it can be. But the fact that you can wedge something that otherwise would more naturally be expressed as a full algorithm into a DFA, means that it's going to be messy as hell.

Post Text Missing?

[SwornPacifist]

Shouldn't the link text be Microsoft has a patent pending for displaying numbers in a box?

Not trying to be a grammar nazi, but there's a whole friggin' word missing there...

Re:How about patenting these images too?

[bunratty]

Firefox can't show the images because of Bugzilla bug 160261. There's nothing wrong with the images on the web site, it's just that Firefox can't display TIFF images.

Re:How about patenting these images too?

[srleffler]

The problem is that the patent office uses a relatively odd TIFF structure, that they are bound to by international agreements. You can get a free viewer for Windows here. Choose option 3: standard web browser plug-in (Netscape style). It works fine in Firefox (although older versions failed to install automagically and had to be manually moved fo Firefox's plugins directory.)

Firefox's automatic plugin finder is unlikely to work because even though the patent images meet the TIFF standard their format is not recognized by most TIFF viewers.

Re:Prior art + obviousness

[thebdj]

All I can say is to hell with that. I work at the patent office. We all have a minimum BS in our field, and to be quite honest we do not simply rubberstamp anything. You realize that if anyone thinks a case is allowed on first action they have to consult like 5 different people, do more searching and most cannot get anyone to sign off on the work until it has been beaten to death for nearly weeks. Quota or not we reject, reject, reject. The quota isn't for patents issued, first rejections and abandoments or RCE (request for continued examination), along with some other things also count towards quota. So before you express to know what goes on at the patent office, go do it, and if you did and left cause you didn't like it, don't complain that the rest of us don't do our damn job, cause we do.