Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patents 1826 Choropleth Map Technique
theodp writes "A newly-granted Microsoft patent for Variable Formatting of Cells covers the use of 'variable formatting for cells in computer spreadsheets, tables, and other documents', such as using the spectrum from a first color to a second color to represent the values in or associated with each cell. Which is really not a heck of a lot different from how Baron Pierre Charles Dupin created what's believed to be the first choropleth map way back in 1826, when he used shadings from black to white to illustrate the distribution and intensity of illiteracy in France. By the way, beginning in March, the U.S. will switch from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system of granting patents. Hey, what could go wrong?"
The patent is on how to do it with a computer; which is a different thing.
No, it isn't.
This is why we can't have nice things.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
When I was working on internal sales tools for a company that sold shoes, I created a heat map of their sizing grid: I colored each data cell a lighter or darker shade depending on the sales number in that cell. It was so exciting and original that I think a couple people said "thanks, that's neat" before we moved on.
How the hell did this get patented, and how can I submit my prior art to invalidate it?
We've been experiencing this corruption of the patent system for over a decade now. It costs our nation millions and millions of dollars. Is there any serious effort to fix it?
The patent system grants monopolies on machines in order to encourage people to put in the effort to invent. They are supposed to have time to earn back the money spent inventing.
This patent covers something which isn't new, and probably cost more to patent than to "invent" since it already existed.
It also doesn't achieve any if the original goals of the patent system.
And just because someone takes an existing method and patents executing it on a computer that doesn't make it new or novel or worthy of protection.
"If it worked for our founding fathers..." is a terrible argument. Even when you're trying to say that things get old faster so they same time period is effectively longer.
I take the opinion that most of the copyright-based industries are actually false economies. They have built up a business model based on the scarcity of a tangible object (vinyl or paper), and expect to continue that via artificial scarcity. It doesn't make any sense.
The duration argument has already been made. Optimum length for a copyright for both the owner and society as a whole is 14-17 years, depending on who you ask. It has nothing to do with the circumstances long ago. We adjust as times change.
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years/
Agreed, with the exception of the "Natural Person" language. "Person" should cover it quite nicely. And we can reinforce the point by sending anyone--particularly, but not exclusively, any judge or politician--who claims that corporations are people to labor camps in some American version of Siberia, say North Dakota, where they will be clothed in rags, housed in huts, fed on gruel, and worked to the edge of death. When their sentences are up, we can ask them if they understand the difference between corporations and people yet.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Both arguments work. But the insanity of continuing with our out of control system is just that - insanity.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The patent system is broken. Making 'first to file' is not going to fix the whole thing. It probably won't make any significant difference (other changes are needed as well), but it won't make it any worse or any more corrupt.
Start by throwing out business process patents, then software patents. That will fix a lot. I'm almost persuaded that we should just abolish patents altogether, because I don't see much economic justification for them. Are the big companies, at least the ones that actually make something, going to stop innovating because of a lack of patents? Really? REALLY?
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.