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

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...

From the patent application:

[Stanistani]

One of the inventors is named -

Thiti Wang-Aryattawanich

I'd just like to know his nickname, is all...

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...

[JavaTHut]

I can't really tell if the purpose of this post was actually to bash Microsoft, or an elaborate DDOS plot to take out the Patent system by putting a link to its website labeled "microsoft bad" on slashdot.

Re:Well...

[dilute]

That's right. However, it is only an APPLICATION - it may not be granted, but you never know. It would be an infringement of this "patent" - if it ever issues - to perform the claimed "method" by hand - manually bolding (say) all the numbers in a document. In fact, this process is perfomed in the usual process of writing a patent application - by convention, in a patent application, all of the numeric references to the drawings are put in bold face. So, someone revising a draft patent application so as to bold all of the figure references would infringe this patent (assuming there were no other numbers in the document, which is quite possible). Absurd.

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.

bad news/good news

[moosesocks]

I've got some bad news and some good news.

The bad news is that the USPTO granted Microsoft assanine patent.

The good news is that we slashdotted the USPTO (and I just saved a bundle on my car insurance)

Re:Uh oh!

[mtdenial]

Heh. A close friend of mine is a Canadian patent examiner. A month or two ago, I got an email basically complaining about how the USPTO site was slow. Coincidentally, there was a /. story on patents on the front page. A couple of weeks later, same thing happened. I mentioned it this time and /. gained a new casual reader.

Not 5 minutes ago, I recieved an email consisting of, and I quote, "Goddamned slashdot linked the USPTO again during work hours, guess I'm staying late today..."

Re:CSS

[egriebel]

In any case, I seriously doubt that you'd see this applied to any cases except as a defense.

Biggest lies ever told (apologies for off-color reference):
1. The check is in the mail
2. Don't worry, I won't come in your mouth
3. We're from the government and we're here to help
4. This patent is only for defense

Re:Obviousness criteria no longer applies

[Misanthropy]

if it was THAT obvious, somebody would have patented it already

I don't think so. The idea being that if something is obvious a person wouldn't bother to patent it.
I can think of many things that I've "invented" but would never bother pursuing a patent on because it IS obvious.

What they are trying to patent is basically a document search with the search crtiteria predefined (i.e. highlight numbers).

It's gotten to the point where companies are no longer trying to patent unique or original ideas; they are trying to patent ALL ideas.