Microsoft Patents A Modular PC With Stackable Components (venturebeat.com)

Microsoft has patented a "modular computing device" that would enable people to put together the exact PC components they want, allowing for replacement of certain parts rather than forcing people to buy entire new computers when they want upgrades. Microsoft applied for the patent in July 2015, and it was published earlier this week, on February 11.

Comments

Where's the patent?

[CajunArson]

I see a patent publication, which occurs automatically for practically any U.S. patent unless the patentee expressly requests that the patent not be published and relinquishes the right to file the patent in any country other than the U.S.

As for the rest of the article, I'm not overly interested in the analysis of somebody who doesn't actually know what a patent is.

Re:Where's the patent?

[davester666]

Really, Project Ara + a practitioner skilled in the field should == invalid patent.

For the the US patent office, they will likely assign someone who has never used a computer before, and will believe MS has described some kind of magic machine.

Re:Where's the patent?

[gweihir]

Sounds like a rip-off of PC-104, i.e. they are a few decades late.

Re:prior art?

[Sarten-X]

None of those are actually prior art for this patent. They're similar in concept, but don't actually come close to the implementation that Microsoft is patenting. A closer instance would be Project Ara, but even that's quite the stretch to say it would invalidate this patent, as Ara involves multiple components attached to a single surface, and this patent describes stacking components.

Remember, folks: Patents are specific. Just naming a bunch of similar ideas is not "prior art".

Re:prior art?

[Sarten-X]

It doesn't need to be revolutionary to be patented. It just needs to advance the state of the art.

Re:prior art?

[Scoth]

I wish more Slashdotters understood this. Patents are ridiculously, specifically specific. I worked for a company that was known for owning several patents in a very specific, niche market and got to take part in writing up some proposals for new ones. I learned a lot about how to make the verbiage both specific enough to fit the idea, but also general enough to try to prevent someone from tacking on "on a mobile device" or "with a specific enclosure" and doing the same. There was also a lot of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what stuck. I didn't work there long enough to have anything granted in my name, but it may still happen.

All this patent has to do is be sufficiently different from anything else patented to be granted. Doesn't matter that there's something else logically very similar, or even functionally the same, as long as the implementation and specifics are unique. Even if it comes down to "Exactly the same as previous modular computers, BUT WITH MAGNETS!"

Re:prior art?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I mentioned before that Slashdot has spent years breeding ignorance about how patents work. This +5, Informative is such a great example.

I know there's a LOT I've missed out, but you get the point. I've been building my own PCs since 1988. All using modular components.

This person replied believing that Microsoft had patented any and all modular configurations, as opposed to a very specific implementation that will only apply to its own standard. It's not his fault, either. Typically when Slashdot posts a patent story the headline reads something like this: "Apple Patents Page Turn Animation", leading to a discussion thread where people cry 'prior art!' and rattle off all the zillions of times they've seen any old page turn animation. It should read: "Apple Patents a Specific Page Turn Animation", which would have lead to a much more fruitful discussion. But, nah, waving pitchforks over patents spins the ad-counter. Anyway, this article did at least add the word 'a' to the title, but it's so similar to the sensationalist bullshit we've seen before that it's not very noticeable. I don't blame anyone for missing the distinction.

So, to answer his question: No, none of what he you described is prior art. But since the article didn't bother to link to the patent, and I'm too lazy to dig it up, the critical bit of information about what you WOULD need to find isn't going to turn up in this post. If the patent says that the modular PC requires a green Cabbage Patch Doll wearing suspenders, then you have to find previous PCs with green Cabbage Patch Dolls wearing suspenders. A PC with a red Cabbage Patch doll wouldn't count.