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?
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
I'd like to see
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.
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?
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--
Too many posters on Slashdot shoot first, and don't bother even to investigate later. And for some reason the most salacious posts seem to get higher ratings than the calmer comments.
Re the instant post I'm replying to, you might want to check Sun's web site for a clue on just how many years Graphon has been licensing its technology to Sun and serving as its primary contractor for thin-client systems. I know it's been quite a few years.
The fact that folks don't like software patents (and I'm one of them) doesn't mean that every software patent lacks a good faith, legal basis. But that seems to be the automatic, knee jerk assumption here.
As a lawyer, I know that it takes a heck of a lot of study and research to come to any kind of informed opinion on the validity of an intellectual property claim. And lawyers who do this kind of work tend to be up front with their clients both about the validity of their claim and the likelihood that the claim will embroil them in ruinously expensive litigation, which is one heck of a disincentive for making patent claims that are doubtful, particularly for small companies like Graphon.
Check out their financials. Graphon isn't even profitable yet. Does anyone seriously believe they're going to make a patent claim that spits squarely in the eye of Microsoft's forthcoming Terminal Server without an iron-clad right they know will stand up? That would be akin to corporate suicide, and I don't think Graphon management is that dumb.
For example, they also announced this morning that they just put on their board IBM's former VP in charge of intellectual property and licensing. I suspect that Graphon has done their homework both on their innovation and on their legal rights, or they would not be attracting a director with that kind of experience (I've checked; Graphon's directors get stock options).
So why don't the hotheads simmer down until they have some facts to work with, or could the moderators at least rate them down to where I can read some useful information without wading through the crap? I'm about ready to stop reading Slashdot because of this problem, but I don't think the hotheads are representative of the vast majority of Slashdot's readers.
pem@televar.com
http://www.qwkscreen.com/WPLinuxLinks.html
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!
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.