Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Patents 1826 Choropleth Map Technique

Posted by Soulskill on from the right-click-add-to-dictionary dept.

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?"

6 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. I reject your patent, M$. by Yuff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can We The People put an end to this nonsense? They are not patenting, so much as stealing. How can we petition the US PTO to have a patent re-examined and to have the a$$wipe who accepted the patent application be fired for incompetence?

    1. Re:I reject your patent, M$. by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...
    2. Re:I reject your patent, M$. by tolkienfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is time to go back to a 13 year patent and 17 year copyright cycle, with a renewal of patent available only to a Natural Person (e.g. not a fictional Corporation) holding a patent for one period, and with copyright renewable only by the Natural Person who authored the work, in 17 year periods, assignable to one spouse, children or heirs (other than Fictional Persons such as Corporations), until said person is deceased for three years.

    If it worked for our founding fathers, who didn't have the Internet, and thus had longer lag times, it should work for America.

    Exisiting patent and copyright grants should be allowed to conclude their grant cycle, provided it is less than or equal to said period, with the holder reverting to the Natural Person at the expiry of such lease. But not created and renewed.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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/

  3. Why first to file crap in summary by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why bring up first to file in the summary? it is completely irrelevant, first to file doesn't mean prior art is ignored or that you can just go patent someone else's ideas. It merely means if 2 people/organisations are working in secret on their invention then it is whoever patents it first that gets the patent not whoever can spend huge amounts of lawyers and paperwork to try and show they had the idea 5 minutes before the other person.