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...
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.
The core idea is countries which are either hopelessly bureaucratic of less than likely to cooperate with the United States in it's efforts to shackle the world by it's way of thinking regarding IP.
In the future of the internet and technology, can't you see as hot prospect, countries which disregard such demands?
Where there's a need, there's often someone entrepenureal enough to fill it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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."
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?
Er, this journalistic prejudice is not about Microsoft, but about patents themselves. The justice icon you mentioned refers to the fact that there is one less patent to worry about when doing our daily work. This is not limited to MS stories alone.
Bashing Slashdot for bashing MS is getting pretty cliche... ;)
http://zero-to-enterprise.blogspot.com/