Slashdot Mirror
GraphOn Patents Remote Windows Apps Over X
LocalLinuxLobbyist wrote in to point us to this clever patent that apparently says GraphOn owns what VNC has done forever: the displaying and using of Windows apps over X. Oh, don't forget that this is the same GraphOn that is making Linux the Official OS of China.
I've obtained a patent on the one-foot-followed-by-another walking method, as no one has yet to do so. Anyone seen using this method between the hours of 11:30 AM and 1 PM in a public area with be charged an exorbitant license fee, lest they be sued. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Sundry PC emulators running on Suns have been doing this too over X - for at least 5 years. These bozos don't have a leg to stand on - other than having hoodwinked the patent examiner about the state of the art
(OK - to be fair, they could have been incredibly ignorant of the state of the art when they filed their patent)
Two Points
- when exactly was VMC released? With any luck at all it can provide prior art to get this patent nullified
- this looks like the first case I can think of where a Linux company (if it can be described as such) may have earned themselves a serious boycott of their product.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I just decided on VNC as the remote admin solution for the 150+ users in our little company here. Will I now be sued into the ground? >:)
Even though VNC isn't the fastest around (NetOP remote Admin is EXTREMELY Fast and Smooth) it was free, which was a blow in its favor. And since extreme high performance isn't really an issue it won out in the long run. I hope they beat the crap out of GraphOn in this and continue their excellent work.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
VNC doesn't display Windows apps using X. It transfers a dumb compressed framebuffer using VNC's own protocol. Windows apps displayed over X would be much (much!) faster than VNC.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Ahem. Typical Slashdot Discussion:
10% "I patented the obvious" jokes
70% "Oh, isn't this exactly like this technical solution deployed years ago on this platform using this technology for that purpose"...
Slashdot is probably one of the most effective places for prior art discovery ever found. The general rule is, if Slashdot sees your patent, nobody is going to respect you in the morning.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I'd like to see
Prior art? Citrix has been doing this since OS/2 days with their "ICA" protocol. WinFrame predates anything Graphon has. Anyone remember running "WinDD" sessions with Winframe? This was pure X11 XDM sessions directly from the Winframe server. So what is new?
Graphon bought the "J-Bridge" technology from Corel, which seems to be little more than a heavily hooked standard NT Server distro (GDI hooks, etc). The big problem with their model: only supported applications than have been tested with J-Bridge will work. Sure you save that nasty Microsoft client license inherent to TSE, but the available applications are severely limited.
Does this mean Microsoft needs to pay for their T.120 hack "RDP" protocol?
Proprietary protocols are anti-OpenSource. If Citrix would open their ICA protocol to the public at large, they would reap HUGE rewards from the industry as a whole. Until something like this happens, the only "standard" seems to be RFB ala VNC.
...and 20% "First Post!"
IIRC that's a Windows X-server, to display Unix programs on a Windows desktop (the other direction from what these guys seem to be claiming).
However, Insigina Solutions' "NTrigue" is a modified version of Citrix Winframe, which does send a remote Windows desktop over the X protocol (not ICA). Let me just pull it up... Copyright notices say 1996, and I think we've been using it since mid-1997.
From what I can see, this system turns an individual Windows app into an actual X client, as opposed to VNC which simply gives you a virtual display of the whole Windows desktop in an X-window.
Not sure about "prior art" considerations as they apply to VNC, though. The filing date on the patent is 1995.
First Claim:
We claim:
1. A method for running an application as an X-Client so as to enable the application to be displayed with an X-Windows manager, the method comprising the steps of:
launching a "WINDOWS/NT" session;
invoking an application from within the "WINDOWS/NT" session;
monitoring output messages that are sent from the application; determining that one of the monitored output messages is a graphical user interface command; and when the monitored output message is a graphical user interface command, enabling an X-Windows manager program to act on the command, and informing the "WINDOWS/NT" device driver of results of the command that was acted on by the X-Windows manager program, wherein the enabling step includes converting the graphical user interface command from a "WINDOWS/NT" format into a format that is recognized by X-Windows manager program to enable the X-Windows manager program to act on the command.
A search on IBM's patent server did not yield any results for this patent, but it revealed another patent that GraphOn holds. While I haven't bothered examining the algorithm in great depth, it looks very much as if they have a patent on using a generalized version of BASE64 encoding to transmit graphics coordinates. The core claim seems to cover a way to dynamically determine the optimal encoding. None of this looks very innovative or unique to me (I am actually quite sure I have used similar techniques before, only not to implement graphics coordinates but some completely different type of data); it yet again shows that the USPTO lacks the experience to really evaluate patent claims. GraphOn might even be right that there is no prior art for this very specific claim, but that is not so much because the solution is new and non-obvious, but rather because nobody else has bothered tackling this particular problem before. So effectively, the USPTO has now started granting patents on the merrit of being the first one to recognize a new problem/market niche. This gives a whole new twist to the evils of allowing software patents.
I was doing windows apps remotely using wine 5 years ago.
vmware seems to do something like this too.
Someone needs to march down to the Patent Office and take away those fuckers' crack pipes.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The problem is that the people at the patent office seem to know so little about the subject matter that they are issuing patents on that they don't seem to be aware of what prior art is out there (even stuff covered by prior - sometimes expired - patents). They also don't seem to know enough about the subject matter even to be able to decide that certain patents should be disallowed because they are for something that is obvious.
Unfortunately, the patent office's attitude seems to be to rubber stamp just about anything that crosses their desks these days that has the correct paperwork and $$$ attached to it, especially if it is for a big corporation. The assumption appears to be 'let the courts sort it out'.
I mentioned this in a previous thread, but now I get a default score of 2 - so I'll mention it again and hope I get some more comments :)
/. "laugh" or "scorn" test (using /. as a typical set of "peers" for software) would probably qualify as innovative - and anything that got a majority "COOL!" reaction would probably be REALLY innovative to the jaded eyes on this forum...
There really ought to be a formalized "peer review" system for patents. It doesn't necessarily have to model the scientific review process (although that's probably a place to start). Preferably, you should be able to take government out of the loop except for maybe the enforcement of the resultant patents.
Anything that can pass the
I recently heard from my senator about patent issues -- they are revising the patent laws, and from what little I've read it's being rushed through. It's HR 1907 and S.1798. Find out and get involved
While searching for the patent in question (which someone else found here) I ran across this silly patent. What this fellow (from Intel) seems to be patenting is the remote triggering of a batch application. In other words: computer A sends a message over the network to computer B. Computer B executes a batch task in response. Computer B sends "I'm finished" response back to computer A. This seems to be angled as a way for a central computer(server) to use spare cycles on a client computer as directed by the server. I certainly wouldn't want some server to have the ability to start processes on my computer like that. Scary. Actually, the patent sums this up nicely (you'll want to sit down for this):
Service providers, such as American Online.TM. ("AOL") and Compuserve increasingly must buy more powerful computers to service the additional members and the new content that is constantly being updated. These service providers could save on computer costs if some of the computational requirements of their system could be serviced by remote personal computers owned by private individuals and other independent entities who subscribe to the Internet provider services.
--GnrcMan--
We've been seeing lots of absurd patents here in the last several months (since I've been here at least), but how many of these will actually stand up in court? While I have zero faith in our patent system, I have a shred of hope for our justice system, at least in issues like these (on social issues I have zero hope).
The benefit of these patents for large corporations, of course, is that they can sue everyone to hell until their enemies go bankrupt, through the appeal process, similar to what the RIAA did to Diamond, and will probably do to Napster. I think this is where the real threat is.
However GraphOn isn't that big of a company as far as I know, so I doubt they have enough money to beat anyone up with this patent anyway. Even when your patent is valid, patent lawsuits usually boil down to who has the most money. Hmm...perhaps I should rethink my shred of hope for the justice system...
The fun part in the claims is " 3. The method of claim 2 wherein the remote graphical user interface is a graphical user interface known as X. " - that's right they've claimed something based on its name .... not its functionality - call it something else and it doesn't apply ..... I for example use a graphical system called "XFree86" ..... I don't think anyone uses a thing just called "X" - I'm sure lawyers would argue for a loser interpretation of this clause.
Of other interest is Claim 9 where they make a claim over anyone working with an "operating system including X-Windows" - yup if you happen to have X in some form on your disk you may be covered
Whats more important is that to anyone aware of Faralon's work and to the way that X works (ie to someone 'current in their field') this is an obvious thing to do and therefore not novel or patentable
Mr. Phelps played a key role in assisting IBM with receiving the largest number of patents in the United States six years in a row."
Looks like we got a celebrity here!
IBM does a hell of a lot of high level hardware R&D. These are the guys whose technology is behind most of the increases in hard disk storage density, pictures of individual atoms in articles in Scientific American, copper chip connectors, and so on. Over the history of corporate R&D at IBM they have one the best records of REAL innovation there is. There patents are generally not two bit losers like Y2K windowing and one-click ordering. Why somebody like this Phelps dude would have anything to do with Graphon escapes me unless it's just because he's a sleezy lawyer type.
- System for dynamic sharing of local and remote displays by maintaining a list of best-match resources - HP
- Method and system for on demand downloading of module to enable remote control of an application program over a network - Tridia Corporation, Atlanta, GA
The latter might be the patent in question; GraphOn doesn't seem to be inclined to indicat what the patent is...If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I used to work for a company called Tera Technologies that made a product called EZ-Win that does this exact thing, and yes, it does use the X protocol. This prodcut was created at least two years ago. Someone should slap some sense into the Patent Office. It wouldn't take anyone very long to just do a web search for the appropriate keywords to discover that this was already done.
If you need to point-and-click to administer a machine,
Didn't WABI (and now WINE, of course) basically do this? It's a necessary step in displaying the emulated Windows applications on top of X. I mean, *come on*.
And what about Windows Terminal Server, there's a pretty similar product. Heck, Microsoft could just buy these guys, and have (or bury) X support...
Watch everyone release the same thing, with fragmented X protocols to avoid patenting issues. Patents definitely serve to stifle innovation, not help it.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It looks to be basically a wrapper for a Windows based program, thus turning it into an X-Client. Thus, you can run the sucker anywhere. This, AFAIK, hasn't been done yet, mainly because no-one really cared to. However, You could probably say this is a natural extension of the X-clients in existance on other platforms. You can run an X-Client on a Windows system with an X-server running on that system, this is just reversing it.
It is kinda cool, yet extremely annoying to patent.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Since software patents are new there's essentially no patented prior art, so everything looks new to them.
What they need is twofold: Patent examiners with education and experience in the software field, and access to a database of unpatented prior art. There are some twitches in that direction from outside, but not enough yet to count on it happening.
The patent office knows it's not doing well. But the system is designed to be driven (and funded) from outside. (They're largely reacting to court decisions and applicants at this point.) This will be an expensive fix. Congress probably won't just hand them the bux to do it themselves - especially if Congress doesn't have a lot of pressure from people wanting it fixed. Even if they do get the bux, how do they hire the skilled heads in competition with the private sector? How do they even hire skilled heads to IDENTIFY what skilled heads they need?
Unfortunately, I don't recall exactly who, if anyone, is working on assembling a database of open prior-art.
Such a database would also be useful to programmers, so they can find out what solutions are already available for their problems and not have to reinvent them constantly. B-) So good candidates for support would be industry associations, volunteers from the free software movement, and educational institutions.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
No, I can't. As a matter of fact, I have a disability which prevents me from uttering the words. The doctor says there's no hope, but I could get a job for the USPTO.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
X has been displaying programs remotely forever, kludges to do this in Windows are all over, (inferior >=) ) X servers for other operating systems are legion, the entire concept of remote display is blatantly obvious to anyone who knows anything about computers, and yet the extension of this concept to displaying Windows programs on X by rerouting API calls is patentable?
:)
Feh. Someone should patent a method of displaying CP/M programs on a BeOS machine
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Rather, the US Patent Office has recognized that, given the funding they have from the Republican controlled Congress, they don't have the staff with sufficient expertise to review prior art in this area. They have consciously decided to let the courts sort it out.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Citrix did that with OS/2 back in the early 90's and started doing it with Windows in the Mid 90's.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
GraphOn's patent (and most of their thin client product line) operate much differently than VNC. Where VNC and the like are devoted to making the desktop of a 'server' machine available, this would make a Windows application or an X-app TRANSPARENTLY available from a server. They look, feel, and smell like their local counterpart, regardless of platform. Normally stuff like this is done with several servers, and with significant overhead (an X-server for each user/app) and pain.
Just a note: I don't approve of the USPO handing out software patents. Giving a 'lifetime' (technologically speaking) stranglehold on something is never a good idea.
However, this one might just steal some of the Micros~1's Windows Terminal Server business, so why are we complaining?
.sig: Now legally binding!
sounds almost exactly like what they claim.
It started by virtalizing DOS (text and graphics)
apps into X11 by 1991 and virtualizing win 3.1
apps by intercepting calls at the windows video/
mouse/kbd call level. I recall seeing this
at an internal demo level, could have been
later than late 1992/ early 1993. Don't remember
when we shipped it, certainly before 1995.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
I wonder if most moderators read the guidelines. Remember you're supposed to focus more on moderating up than down. You wasted two points moderating the replies to the first one down (which already wouldn't be visible to the usual user) instead of bringing forth useful information. (I would find it amusing if you did the same to this one)
Well, it's not quite that simple. I actually know a patent examiner -- a friend of mine who has been working there for about 3 months now. Not too long ago, I asked him why there were so many clueless idiotic patents coming out of there. He gave me two reasons.
The first reason is actually the reason that many of the people here have guessed: Lack of funding. The Patent Office cannot pay enough to attract real talent. Jobs examining computer-related patents start at $38K/year. So the people they do attract tend to be relatively clueles. (My friend is an exception, of course. :^) )
By way of example of the above, consider the following: My friend spends nearly half of his time at work goofing off: Reading the web, playing games, etc. And he is getting nearly twice as much done as the average examiner in his group...
The second reason, though, is actually the reason he gives more credence to. Quotas. Each patent examiner has to make a particular quota. Scoring goes roughly like this: One "point" for a first action on a patent application, one "point" for approving a patent, one "point" for denying a patent.
First action means, well, the first thing any examiner does. Give it a once-over and make sure it isn't written too broadly, or that it doesn't have any gaping holes in it. Usually first action is (or should be) to turn it down... Patent writers are greedy, and are actively trying to get the patent to cover as much as possible, of course.
However, turning it down at first is not a solid denial. If first action is to turn it away, when it comes back, it could be assigned to another examiner. Thus, there is actually motivation to approve an action on first action, thus scoring double, as it were. According to my friend, examiners who are hard-pressed to meet their quota will often do this. It is true that their manager has to look over the approved patent, but often this seems to be a rubber-stamp operation.
So there you have it... It actually isn't financial motivation on the part of the PTO as a whole... but rather on the part of individual examiners, who would rather not lose their jobs. Until the Office either changes this system or increases their salaries, we are likely to see many more ludicrous patents being issued. There's no motivation to do the job right (aside from the examiner's own ethics).
Note: I do not work for the Office, and my understanding of the procedures may be flawed; however, this is how it was explained to me.
Oh please. You want to blame incompetence and/or apathy on the part of the patent office on the Republicans? I don't see very many Democrats trying to make funding levels for the patent office into a campaign issue. I somehow doubt that we'd see much different action from the patent office if the Democrats controlled congress. And if the Democrats regain control of congress (which is a possibility) after the next elections, I will be surprised if we see a sudden increase in funding of the patent office. Even if there was a big increase in their budget, I am not at all convinced that it would make a big difference in the quality of research they seem to be doing.
What makes you think that this is a partisan issue in the first place?
Fortunately, groups like Slashdot don't make that decision -- courts do. And that's a good thing. As much as I agree with the concensus here about this patent, there are far too many people on /. who think they're lawyers :)
Now, it's interesting to note that AT&T now owns Olivetti Labs, the makers of VNC, so it's not like these GraphOn people are just trampling over the free software community. They're not picking on anybody. We'll see how this plays out.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well, from your description, it sounds more like the patent office is spending their money poorly rather than they are underfunded. If they paid half as many examiners twice as much money each as they do now, they should be able to get well qualified and dilligent people who should be able to get better than twice the work done.
Unfortunately, this type of inefficiency seems epidemic in government.
On the flip side, small companies & individuals will be that more hesitant to defend their patents because they won't be able to afford the upfront cost of the legal battle.
I think that any solution has to treat the large & small equally when judging the "innovativeness" of an invention.
The whole patent system is increasing resembling the Slashdot "First Post" phenomenon. It's not about ingenuity, invention or originality. It's just about being the first to submit something.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I've just aquired the patent on patently stupid patents.
Pat me on the back and thank me later.
I wasn't meaning to slight your friend, if he can goof off 1/2 the time and still do double average, then more power to him. It is kinda a sad statement about some of the other people that work there. Either they are really bottom of the barrel or they are just totally unmotivated.
It really sounds to me like their quota system is just incredibly poorly designed. That and the general lack of motivation sounds like they have poor management. Your point about their educational policies are another point in that direction. It is a good indication that they don't do enough to reward people _after_ they get the education to retain them. Unfortunately, bad management is too common in government.
VNC does not use the X protocol...it merely sends a remote view of the screen. It uses some algorithms to increase performance and decrease latency, etc., but it does not use X at all. Applications live entirely on the host, and only their graphic presentation on the screen is sent over the wire.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
There is a quota, but it includes a requirement that no more than a certain percentage be accepted.
Perhaps open source developers might want to try patenting their stuff and licensing the patent with the open source - payment is that you open-source anything that uses it (GPL model). Don't want to open your source? Negotiate a for-pay license with the patent holder. (If he doesn't want to play, like if you're Microsoft, you're S.O.L.)
Analogs of the other open-source licenses are left as an exercise for the reader.
Be sure to write your license so that if you've had to drag them into court (and thus incurred more cost) they can't just open the source to wiggle out, but have to settle for some bux first.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This one is pretty scary. Normally after all the uproar dies down and the claims are read it's not too bad. This one really is.
Claim 1
1. A method for running an application as an X-Client so as to enable the application to be displayed with an X-Windows manager, the method comprising the steps of:
I.e. starting a copy of Win98 inside VMware
I.e. starting up MS-Word
I.e. X-windows is constantly reading your mouse position
I.e. you've just clicked your mouse and dragged it over your typo
I.e. MS-Word now realizes that you've highlighted a selection of text.
I have to say of all the dubious patents we've seen floating by recently, this one takes the cake. They just patented running Windows apps. inside X-Windows. Neato.
However, if you don't launch an application from within Windows you're OK. And since IE is part of the operating system and not an application, you can freely browse the web in VMware without violating their patent. ;->
As a DOS multitasker, Desqview was indeed cool, but realize that it was intended to be a poor man's OS/2.
Nowdays, if for some reason you are a power DOS user, you're probably better off with the real thing.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.