Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins Hyperlink TV Pause Battle
TripMaster Monkey writes "The Register is running an interesting story on a patent recently granted to Microsoft. This patent, which covers 'pausing television programming in response to selection of hypertext link', among other things, has been in contention for over twelve years, and the language used in the patent reveals its age ('The Internet has recently exploded in popularity,' and, 'a computer user with a modem can get on-line.'). Despite its age, however, this patent, which covers 35 claims in all, will be of major importance in the impending IPTV battle in the States."
The granting [of] patents 'inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just."
The Economist, 1851. As true then as it is today.
Simon
Even with the fact that it is an old patent, you can see this becoming a major issue with all the interactive TV services now. Say an ad (oh whoopee!) pops up, and you decide to click the link in the ad (HA!) ... obviously you want your show paused, but now no one but MS can do that.
Quite unfortunate, really. Such basic ideas making it through...
I'll just set up a network in India, Venezuela, Iran, etc. where you press a button on a remote control, which speed dials a number to an operator (standing by, of course) who clicks on a hyperlink on their screen which pauses, changes channels, adjusts volume, etc. for you on your PVR/TV/Media Center/WhatHaveYou!
And I'll base the headquarters in Cuba where they couldn't give a rat's patoot about IP laws.
Problem solved.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I thought I read that Microsoft won something. It has been a long, long time since they've won anything... contracts, legal disputes, customer trust.
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
Oh no, my brain!
This patent seems original and useful, but it also seems obvious and dated now. It argues for patent reform, although perhaps more along the line of reduced patent protection period than abolishment of software patents altogether.
...but how did it seem twelve years ago when the patent was filed? Nobody knew what the Internet was capable of, and it may well have been a unique insight. Hell if the patent office had just been granted twelve years ago, it would expire about 5 years from now. With IPTV probably still a few years out, it wouldn't make much difference to how things unfold.
Don't we all secretly wish that Microsoft were actually being innovative and that this made any sense at all? In what kind of world do we live that Microsoft might only be trying to figure out how to make more money based on the idea that it somehow owns and is entitled to compensation for many things we do all day long in a scheme that obligates us under the law to pay Microsoft for actually doing them, over and over again?
As an anti-patent, anti-copyright anarchocapitalist, I wonder if we should just support every patent that is applied for and see if the entire system can come crashing down. Eventually it will cost companies more to enforce their patents than they're receiving from the "protection" they get out of them, right?
I can not, for the life of me, see how patents give people reason to research and develop new ideas. If someone is going to capitalize on your idea, they'll modify the process and create a patent of their own. Look at every cell phone that is released with 5 new patents, and the "bootlegs" of those phones that are released just 6-12 months later. What the heck is the point of patenting something that isn't of value even a year down the line?
The typical slashdot response to my anti-patent opinion is that prescription drugs wouldn't be researched, but the majority of the people actually researching these drugs aren't the ones who gain billions in profits from the discovery. You may not see megacorps working on solutions, but the biggest medical developments in human history came originally from a few researchers, not megalabs that spend billions and release drugs that addict and kill their users.
Come on, people, don't you see that there is no solution to this legal racketeering other than dismantling the entire system? Competitition is good for consumers, anti-competitive government force is terrible. In the end, we all pay with our pocketbooks (to enforce these legal monopolies) and with our lives (when imperfect drugs/safety devices/whatever can not be perfected by competition). Let's start looking at what made this country great -- open competition.
Microsoft isn't the only patent abuser. Maybe its time for someone to research (and blog?) about every patent abusing lawsuit that hits the courts, and see how consumer choice is severely hampered by the ridiculous protection of ideas.
This patenting shit is getting to be ridiculous, to the point of absurdity.
Good thing it expires in another seven years. In the meantime, I'll continue timeshifting almost all of my TV with bittorrent and watching only the local news/weather and sometimes PBS via broadcast antenna (long live rabbit ears). Along with the hordes of others like me.
No more Sony Trinitron, instead use Azureus and VLC.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
What is a "hypertext link"? My definition of "hypertext" is a series of documents linked together by related words that can be navigated by clicking on highlighted words. As soon as a tag starts doing things like controlling a television the document stops being "hypertext". In purely academic terms, what Microsoft has patented as I understand it is actually impossible.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Why do the patents last 20 years? I think a generation is far too long.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
How much longer is this patent good for?
They do expire.
Why go this direction? Hasn't TV internet already pretty much flopped? WebTV sucks... I don't think they're going the right direction. They should try innovating online solutions like Google.
--
United Bimmer - BMW Enthusiast Community
You can easily work around this patent by slowing down the TV
stream by factor of 1000,0000,000 instead of just pausing it.
Who needs pause anyway?
During the last 12 years we all have improved our abilities
to multitask while surfing online. This is proven on a daily basis
by countless geeks masturbating *while* klicking hyperlinks (and
sometimes even while @ work). This is progress!
--- Eat my sig.
Like the fact that IIRC there were TV tuner cards back in the DOS/Apple II days, and applications that could write text onto the graphic screen at the same time. I personally wrote an app in Clipper that allowed a user to click on an image from a TV screen capture, and move to different places in the application based on "member data", and that was a not too difficult application by a solo programming newbie at the time. Authoring software anyone? Dragon's lair or Space Ace video games? do they apply?.
What think ye all?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I didn't look/read the patent but alot of this crap is getting passed that's really obvious. What's happening is that there's now a race to "think" about what might be handy to do and then patent that even though anybody else knowledgeable in the field, would come to the same conclusion if put the the task. What really sucks is that companies like Microsoft, with tons of cash, can afford to throw lawyers at anybody they want to in order to shut them down or steal/buy their technology.
Anyways, since Tivo already has the ability to pause and you can go to another information/data page/display while the video is still feeding the DVR buffer, there shouldn't be anything to this. A URL is no different than an onscreen or offscreen button IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Honestly there is no big loss on this one. If you think about it when have you really ever said "Hey, what I'd really like to do is stop watching this program I was in the middle of and go off for half an hour exploring an ad".
No, instead the better UI would be to queue that link somewhere where the user could get to it later - email the user the link, or share bookmarks from the box the users PC can see. Microsoft just hasn't discovered this yet.
All those ideas are free for public use BTW...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Patent debates are useless, and therefore make the Law more of a joke than it already is. Because the whole idea of patents are now abused, they are meaningless. Patents originally existed to protect ideas from being claimed away from the actual inventors, to give credit where credit is due. Now, they're primarily used competitively, to prevent progress. I wonder when people, corporations and lawmakers will wake up and declare that Patents can only exist as a register of ideas, not as a register of who owes money to whom, which is what it has become. Only when the Law associated with Patents has been stripped of its power can humans finally be flying around in personal spaceships, colonizing asteroids and such. Countries like China, that ignore patent law and which cannot be touched by lawyers, will reach the stars long before countries like America will. Personally, I scoff patent law in the name of social progress, but I will give credit where credit is due. So sue me.
Minus the chat rooms and such, doesn't this sound like TiVo? Now that he has the patent, perhaps BG is going to preempt TiVo from making their content more interactive? This may be a patent from antiqiuity but I suspect Microsoft was trying to anticipate where Web technology might go, in the hopes of filing patents to throw up roadblocks to progress and make sure they could cash in. Precognitive theft, to coin a phrase.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Competitition is good for consumers, anti-competitive government force is terrible. In the end, we all pay with our pocketbooks (to enforce these legal monopolies) and with our lives (when imperfect drugs/safety devices/whatever can not be perfected by competition). Let's start looking at what made this country great -- open competition.
You seem to be implying that government is the only thing that reduces competition. The bad old days of 100 years ago saw the rise of stifling monopoly powers in every industry.
So, sure, patents are broken, but don't think for a second that this country's history is all about "open competition." Quite the opposite. It is a history of constantly fighting the nature of capitalism to destroy competition or at least render it impotent.
I do not think that this gilded age of which you speak ever existed.
As a "little guy", I've just spent the last two years researching, developing, and filing a patent application.
While the system is flawed, there has to be some mechanism to allow creative people rewards from the market. Yes, there are a lot of junk patents, and a lot of patents filed by the big corps are completely bogus. It is in our best interests to foster true invention by as many people as possible. You'll get a lot more value from a million of us little guys working on problems than you will from a few dozen dinosaurs like Microsoft.
The problem I see here is that the patent has been contested for freaking 12 years. Like some other posters have said, at the TIME it was probably new, exciting, and innovative. By now it seems like old hat.
If anything is broken, it is that a) technology is moving very much faster than the U.S. Patent Office, and b)Big corporations can patent totally obvious inventions because they have large buildings full of eager litagators. These problems will get worse rather than better.
My Blog, My invention
At first I didn't care much about software patents.. but it seems that simplistic patents are being handed out left and right to every one who asks for them. This in turn will actually hinder innovation, well it already is actually. The easiest way out is to BAN software patents.. but is this really the answer? I think the USPTO has to be held more accountable.
It annoys me greatly how many people blindly post on here based on a news article with only half the information, or worse yet, on a brief synopsis of an already bad article, when it comes to patent related issues.
Half the posts are instantly finding ways to bash the PTO and a lot of those are people pulling quotes from their little text file they keep hand to copy and paste their "smart" words. The problem there is no real discussion. No real interest in talking about if the patent is valid, what issues may or may not arise from the patent, or how limited the patent may be.
There are far better places to argue about the patent system and how broken (or unbroken it may be), just don't codemn a single patent you have never read as being obvious or simple. If you really think a case went this long, through this many continuing applications without being effectively and properly researched for prior art, then closed-minded is where you stay.
It is important that people realize the patent system needs reform, but there is no motivation for the government to do so at this time. It is not an issue that many people in the government fully understand and there are two large lobbyist groups on opposite sides of a great many of the reforms that were proposed in the last Patent Reform Act.
I will admit the patent system could use a few tweaks to correct some issues, but the problems are not these end of the world, destruction of all innovation that people are continually making them out to be. I would like to hope that some of you have taken a view that is not alarmist and actually researched the current issues with the patent system and not just listened to the words from your "friends" here at slashdot. Trust me, some of these patents people are crying foul on are more patentable then they realize.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Why did Microsoft...?
Dude, you can't be that dumb: Revenue Growth Nearly $3 Billion in Fiscal 2005.
That's Billion and that's growth.
Having read the register article (I know, I'm an ac, I really shouldn't have) and noting it's use of vblank the first thing that came into my mind is Teletext, which is something we've had in the uk (and a myriad of other countries) since before 1985.. I can't remember when that started, but having live info simultaneous with tv broadcast is one of the things that can be done with it and now we have tv's that can display the tv broadcast and text in separate parts of the screen as well as the previous method of tv, text, or tv/text overlay which considering the size of tv's these days is a reasonably obvious way to add value to the way they work.
This patent is absolute nonsense, aside from the "but it's on the web so it's mystical and new" there is nothing original about this.
I just can't wait for this style of "innovation" to be forced down our throats by the "We'll keep repeating our need for stupid laws till they get past" eu.
The entire point of a hyperlink is to take you from one spot in a document to another. The fact that the document is video instead of text is irrelevant. This patent, along with ebay's online auction patent, are perfect examples of technology applied for it's intended purpose and patented because the Internet is involved. In ebay's case the madness is patenting the Interent to communicate auction information. What with the Internet being foremost a communications medium you'd think the content of the communications wouldn't be patentable. It's kind of like patenting hammering a nail in two strokes instead of three, that's what a hammer's for for God's sake. It couldn't be more obvious.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm? story_id=5300835
for a more recent opinion from that journal.
Works especially well when want to look informed. Some believe it adds an aura of authority to their writings. It is also very easy to use against people as they will nod their head and whatnot so as not to look ignorant.
A very good example, the housing market (stateside). Dropping terms/names like "granite", "stainless steel", and "Berbur" implies much more than what it means. By constant promotion of such people assume that it must be quality. Works well for organizations. First, have an important and official sounding name and then follow it with little excerpts from places people who think like you are inclined to favor.
I am sure there are much clearer explanations but so many people post here who drop a name as if that ends any discussion. Very common method employed by the Intelligentsia. (a bunch of self declared "smarter than you" people)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Quick, everyone who is against that patent pause your TiVo-s in protest.
large companies will protech themselves with their portfolios while crushing startups and innovation with patent litigation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I wouldn't think that IPTV has a vertical blanking interval so the patent wouldn't apply.
You'd have to look at the prosecution history to make sure that the patent holder can even use the doctrine of equivalence. If, during the prosecution of the patent, the patent was submitted and subsequently rejected by the examiner, and the company limits or changes its patent in response to the examiner, then the patent holder is precluded from using the doctrine of equivalence. This means that the only way to infringe the patent is by literal infringement, which requires that the infringing product infringe every single element of a patent's claim.
Microsoft Sued Over Patent Infringements
and compare them to the comments in this article.
I guess Microsoft is always wrong on Slashdot.
Why is it that when Microsoft wins a patent-related lawsuit, the Slashdot story's primary icon is the "patent pending on silverware" icon, and yet, when Microsoft loses a patent-related lawsuit, the Slashdot story's primary icon is the "justice" icon (example)?
This kind of journalistic prejudice implies that when Microsoft wins a patent lawsuit, patents are evil, but when Microsoft loses a patent lawsuit, justice is being served. The truth of the matter is that the patent system is being abused and needs to be changed regardless of whether Microsoft is winning or losing lawsuits.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
How can Dice.com, Monster.com, and CareerBuilder.com survive in a destroyed industry ?
Millions and millions of high-tech workers aren't feeling so destroyed these days- including ME.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/ --- way cool software development info. free - as in beer (whatever that means
Cogito Ergo Sum
The problem comes when the patent covers an abstract idea. In the hardware world you could patent a device to pause the TV while you went off to a web page. That would be fine. Someone else could come along and invent their own device to pause the TV and it wouldn't infringe because it's a different implementation. Hardware patents are like copyright in the software world.
Ever wondered how so many different corkscrew implementations can be patented - yet noone was ever able to take out a patent on the concept of "opening a bottle of wine"? The cog ones, the "Fish" and the ones with the big levers over the top are all covered by hardware patents. With a software patent you could patent the concept of "A device to open a bottle of wine".
With software patents it is possible to patent the abstract idea of pausing TV while viewing a hyperlink. Noone else can then approach that particular bit of problem domain. This is the problem with software patents. They are over-broad. They should be restricted to just the specific implementation, but then we'd be left with normal software copyright.
This becomes damaging when you consider that only one player can provide this service. One player owns the rights to email over wireless, even though that one player has not been the one that's taken the technology and done something with it. It becomes even worse when multiple patents are involved. What if someone patents "Viewing a hyperlink on the TV" as well?
Now you are getting a flavor for how much of the user-base of this site feels deep down.
Hopefully, like me, you'll enjoy the stories you like and let the icky parts run off your back like dirty rain water off a duck.
Cogito Ergo Sum
It's not all about money. M$ has made it OK to push anything out the door as long as you get there first. U.S no longer has a standard for high quality technology anywhere. That high quality title now belongs to Japan, if not India and China next.
If the patent is about pausing a television when a link embedded in a show is clicked, what about when instead of having a Weblink contained in a show, the show is contained in a Webpage? The patent certainly can't cover having a control in a Webpage that pauses a video stream. Can it cover having a link in a Webpage that pauses a video stream and also invokes some other change? Is this another idiotic "one-click" patent?
Will it become illegal to have two lights on a single switch?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I support the use of external sources to back up opinions and to add relevance to points of view. It worked in third grade and still does to this day. Those damn elitists, reading and sharing information yet again!
You make these insulting claims about folks on /. while denying observable facts. Well fuck you too, buddy. That's some brilliant fucking logic, dipshit.
Just when ARE we supposed to start complaining? People are ALREADY dying because of our patent laws. That's about as nigh end of the world as things can even approach on this issue, ie. it can't get much worse.
I can only assume you have a large stake in patents, somehow. If that's the case, you are greedy, bottom feeding, worthless human waste. Now FOAD.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Jealousy and Envy deny the merit or the novelty of your invention; but Vanity, when the novelty and merit are established, claims it for its own... One would not therefore, of all faculties, or qualities of the mind, wish for a friend, or a child, that he should have that of invention. For his attempts to benefit mankind in that way, however well imagined, if they do not succeed, expose him, though very unjustly, to general ridicule and contempt; and if they do succeed, to envy, robbery, and abuse.
-Ben Franklin, 1755
-- way cool software development info. free - as in beer (whatever that means ;-)
..uhhh.... Anyone want to get this one?
Often, when you listen to patent proponents/apologists, they will paint a picture suggesting that if there were no patents, there would be no pharmaceutical reserch at all carried out in the world. This is of course pure rubbish.
Just as you point out, the governments of the first world countries could just as well fund the research directly if they wanted. They have the power to decide if the want to have patents or not, and if they want to spend precious police resources on enforcing them. And it is the governments who are footing most of the pharmaceutical bill anyway, through Medicare/Medicaid in the US, and through universal medical coverage in Europe, Canada and Japan.
So there is no natural law that says that patents are the only way to get new drugs developed. If governments were to fund the research directly and make the results freely available, that would be at least as reasonable a model as the current one, with state enforced monopolies for the pharmaceutical companies.
The relevant question to ask is which model would provide the cheapest and most efficient way to fund pharmaceutical research. You are touching on this subject when you write:
This is no doubt true, as nobody has ever claimed that it is cheap to research new drugs.However, considering that it already is the governments that are providing most of the income for the pharmaceutical industry, a first step would be to examine how much of the money actually goes to research.
This is very easily done, since all the big pharma companies have their annual reports available on the web. As an example, I googled Novartis and had a look at their numbers.
They spend 15% of their revenue on research. The other 85% goes to other stuff, according to their own figures. The numbers are typical for the industry.
So the question is: is the patent system really giving us, the taxpayers, the maximum amount of medical research for the money we are spending on drugs? Or is there room for improvement, when even the pharma companies themselves admit to spending 85% of the money we give them on other things?
I'm not necessarily saying I have the answer, but I think it's a question well worth asking.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
The scariest thing is that MS has lowered the educational bar, so to speak, to the point where people believe that they were finally innovative in the creation and/or spread of the cash before quality business plan...
Whee signature.
The patent is for clicking on a hyperlink. Events triggered in javascript are not hyperlinks. You can get the same effect as clicking on a hyperlink but using javascript instead to respond to 'OnMouseDown'. That's enough of a technical difference to give you a fighting chance in court I'd think!