Read Claim #1 - it clearly states that this invention pertains to a bot that must sign into IM using a screen name and that screen name must be an authorized user on the buddy list of another user. Any system that doesn't do any part of that isn't covered by that claim, period. IRC, Ask jeeves - they don't do that do they?
Here's claim 1 of the patent in question:
1. A method for interactively responding to queries from a user logged in to an instant messaging network, comprising the steps of:
logging a message processor in to the instant messaging network under a first screen-name
Many IRC networks have NickServ, which lets users "log in" to a screen-name.
the user having the first screen-name as an authorized partner and being advised by the instant messaging network of the presence of the message processor;
A bot could require that a user have a name from NickServ. IRC implements "advised by the IM network of the bot" as the "whois" command.
receiving a query addressed to the first screen-name from the user via the instant messaging network in an instant messaging protocol; parsing the query to extract the request; evaluating the request in the message processor formulating an answer to the user's query on the basis of the evaluated request; generating an output message containing the answer; and sending the output message to the user via the instant messaging network.
Every single command line interface does this.
Thus, claim 1 covers all IRC bots. Now, I analyze some of the other claims to give readers a taste of what kind of prior art could be used to attack this patent:
Claim 2 covers a slight technicality.
Claim 3 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database.
Claim 4 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database containing user profiles.
Claim 5 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database containing user profiles, which automatically creates profiles for new users.
Claim 6 is claim 5 where the user specifies personal information in registering for an account with the bot.
Claims 7 and 8 are claim 6 where such information is specified on a web form.
Claims 9 and 10 are claim 3 where the bot asks the user for information.
Claim 11 is claim 3 where the query response information is JOINed with a profile.
Claim 12 is claim 11 where the bot asks the user for such information.
Claim 13 covers an IRC bot that generates encoded URLs.
Claim 14 covers parsing encoded URLs generated by an IRC bot.
Claims 15 and 16 cover minor technicalities in claim 14.
Claim 17 is claim 14 where the encoded URLs expire.
But depending on the definition of "instant messaging network", techniques already in use on hundreds of Apache servers would infringe at least claims 1-17, invalidating most of the patent.
If I invent something, creating prototypes along the way, are the prototypes samples of prior art that invalidates my patent?
It depends. Only the individual inventor(s) can file for a U.S. patent. The usual procedure is that the inventor agrees to immediately assign the patent as he or she receives it. In this case, some fellows at AOL should have got the patent, and the contract may have stipulated that all such patents would be assigned to ActiveBuddy.
There is a law, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), that provides blanket authorization to sue the government. However, the FTCA only allows suits based on "operational" aspects of government duties. "Discretionary" decisions are not actionable.
In general, if a fellow wants to sue the government over a "discretionary" action, he sues the persons in charge of enforcing the regulation, such as the Attorney General, the head of the USPTO, the examiner who approved the patent, etc. in their official capacities. Hence, ACLU v. Janet Reno in her official capacity as AG, Eldred et al. v. John Ashcroft in his official capacity as AG.
I'm afraid that it is far easier to prove that extraterrestrial life exists than to prove that it doesn't
I'd figure that most human beings really don't care whether or not intelligent E.T.s exist somewhere in the universe; they care only about the area within a 40 light year radius of Earth, close enough for round trip communication within the lifetime of a human being.
We will discover other beings (or more likely, evidence of their existense) or we won't. At some point, our we will have explored enough of the universe to know one way or the other.
To Leonardo da Vinci, the electric lightbulb never exist because he obviously did not live long enough to hear the news of Thomas A. Edison's invention. Likewise, do you think that human civilization at large will find intelligent E.T.s within your lifetime plus 70 years?
Then why hasn't Microsoft paid out dividends to its shareholders in its entire corporate existence? I'd imagine, 21 years after MS-DOS was shipped to IBM, that I'd see something. No, Microsoft had to go and blow its earnings on fulfilling stock options.
It has been said a million times already... there is no substitute for proper diet and exercise
I try to eat right, but my body's cooling system won't really let me go outside and exercise when it's 90F (32C) or hotter out, and I don't have the ca$h for a health club membership.
I imagine they use the same technology, if my memory serves me, the copyright notice says its licenced in the PS2 version. I don't think it would be economical to use a differant compression technology for the same game on a differant platform.
Yes it would. If Sony is willing to license its ATRAC3 codec (used in MiniDisc LP decks) to PS2 game developers cheaper than Thomson Multimedia is willing to license MP3 technology for a video game, but Sony is not willing to license ATRAC3 for use in PC software, then you bet developers will re-encode their wav files into ATRAC3 for the PS2 version and MP3 for the PC version.
In addition, platform limitations may come into play. The NES supported only one codec for samples, a simple predictive codec, at a few specific bitrates. The GBA is more flexible (with ability to play PCM from RAM; thus, ability to decompress in real time), but it still has only a 16 MHz processor. I've read that ATRAC and ATRAC3 are less complex to decode than MP3, which could conceivably free the PS2's vector units to process more triangles instead of audio samples.
What we seriously need is one common language that borrows terms and ideas from a variety of languages, which could (in theory) assist people in learning that language...
For basic communication, try Toki Pona. 120 words, no hard inflections to memorize; however, it doesn't work well for technical material.
Exactly which Linux file system are you refering to?
Grandparent referred to ext2fs, ext3fs, and reiserfs, which are thought of the "Linux filesystems" because most GNU/Linux distributions default to creating one of those filesystems for/ during installation.
Two different languages can have the same accented characters, but different rules about case conversion.
And conceivably, changing the locale can cause files whose names had not clashed before to begin to clash. Thus, the locale for files in a particular folder must be stored as an attribute of that folder.
Some filesystems implement case insensitive filenames, so it can't be that hard.
Quick! You write efficient filesystem-level code to handle upcasing Unicode filenames for collation on non-Latin writing systems. It'd be easy to map [A-Z] to [a-z], but what about German, where a lowercase ß (1 char) becomes uppercase SS (2 chars)? What about Turkish, where dotted i upcases to dotted I, and dotless I downcases to dotless i? What about Greek, Cyrillic, Armenian, Georgian, and other writing systems that have upper- and lowercase letters? Can you really handle localized Unicode processing in the kernel?
That means Windows is out the window because it is not POSIX compliant and certified
Microsoft has a simple POSIX layer built into Windows NT operating systems (including 2000 and XP). It's not very good (e.g. it can't run networking or graphics; thus, no X), but Microsoft does supply an upgraded POSIX layer called Interix. If you don't really need "certified", then Red Hat Cygwin might work; it implements (most of) POSIX on top of Win32.
so is Linux, *BSD, and Mac OS X.
Linux not POSIX certified? Then what's this "POSIX conformance testing by Unifix" message I see every time I start Red Hat?
Just as the FreeDOS disk will be useless to most people who buy these Dell PCs.
FreeDOS might be just what the doctor ordered. There's still a lot of legacy custom software for DOS that some corporations need to run. And until the company's IT team gets around to putting FreeBSD on the machines, the developers can still write and test code using DJGPP (GCC for DOS) and spend time playing games such as Doom Legacy, Quake 1, or Tetanus On Drugs.
The fact that creators of new works cannot merely re-use the expression contained in copyrighted work of others without permission forces them to be creative. Composers cannot rehash the melodies created by earlier composers, they must create their own new original melodies.
How is this possible? Case law states that copying four notes of another song's "hook" is enough to get a songwriter in trouble with copyright law, and that the standard for copying is not an exact match but merely substantial similarity. Another case that I've read somewhere states that there is no unprotected "idea" in music, only "expression".
Melodies are determined by the distances between adjacent notes in frequency (intervals) and in time (note duration). Four notes will contain three (interval, duration) distance vectors. Assume that the scale contains twelve distinct intervals and that a judge will distinguish three distinct note durations (eighth, quarter, and half); thus, there are 36 possible distance vectors from one note to the next, and 36 to the third power equals 46,656 distinct melodies. No other melodies are possible in the Western musical scale. If only one hundred songwriters in the world were to create one melody each week, they would run out of melodies within nine years.
Once you destroy your copy of the Software, you can't borrow a friend's copy because you have terminated your right to use the Software. The 17 USC 117 backup rights may not apply because you waived those when clicking the Install button. And you certainly can't install patches, as those have a "Supplemental EULA", which considers installation on an unlicensed system to constitute fraud.
Even the best cared for discs will bit rot, especially in the case of a disaster. If a disc is copy protected, and you try to store it off-site, it costs big bucks to transport it to the office whenever you need to use it.
Only a total dumbass would pay for a CD more than once.
Then what about the millions of CDs sold to people who already had a legit copy of the music on vinyl?
Slashdot Mirror
Read Claim #1 - it clearly states that this invention pertains to a bot that must sign into IM using a screen name and that screen name must be an authorized user on the buddy list of another user. Any system that doesn't do any part of that isn't covered by that claim, period. IRC, Ask jeeves - they don't do that do they?
Here's claim 1 of the patent in question: 1. A method for interactively responding to queries from a user logged in to an instant messaging network, comprising the steps of:
logging a message processor in to the instant messaging network under a first screen-name
Many IRC networks have NickServ, which lets users "log in" to a screen-name.
the user having the first screen-name as an authorized partner and being advised by the instant messaging network of the presence of the message processor;
A bot could require that a user have a name from NickServ. IRC implements "advised by the IM network of the bot" as the "whois" command.
receiving a query addressed to the first screen-name from the user via the instant messaging network in an instant messaging protocol; parsing the query to extract the request; evaluating the request in the message processor formulating an answer to the user's query on the basis of the evaluated request; generating an output message containing the answer; and sending the output message to the user via the instant messaging network.
Every single command line interface does this.
Thus, claim 1 covers all IRC bots. Now, I analyze some of the other claims to give readers a taste of what kind of prior art could be used to attack this patent:
Claim 2 covers a slight technicality.
Claim 3 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database.
Claim 4 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database containing user profiles.
Claim 5 covers an IRC bot that accesses a database containing user profiles, which automatically creates profiles for new users.
Claim 6 is claim 5 where the user specifies personal information in registering for an account with the bot.
Claims 7 and 8 are claim 6 where such information is specified on a web form.
Claims 9 and 10 are claim 3 where the bot asks the user for information.
Claim 11 is claim 3 where the query response information is JOINed with a profile.
Claim 12 is claim 11 where the bot asks the user for such information.
Claim 13 covers an IRC bot that generates encoded URLs.
Claim 14 covers parsing encoded URLs generated by an IRC bot.
Claims 15 and 16 cover minor technicalities in claim 14.
Claim 17 is claim 14 where the encoded URLs expire.
But depending on the definition of "instant messaging network", techniques already in use on hundreds of Apache servers would infringe at least claims 1-17, invalidating most of the patent.
If I invent something, creating prototypes along the way, are the prototypes samples of prior art that invalidates my patent?
It depends. Only the individual inventor(s) can file for a U.S. patent. The usual procedure is that the inventor agrees to immediately assign the patent as he or she receives it. In this case, some fellows at AOL should have got the patent, and the contract may have stipulated that all such patents would be assigned to ActiveBuddy.
But those are bots on IRC, not IM.
I'll assume parent comment was sarcastic.
But for the record, what's the fundamental difference between Internet Relay Chat and AIM or MSN messaging, other than trivial protocol syntax?
There is a law, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), that provides blanket authorization to sue the government. However, the FTCA only allows suits based on "operational" aspects of government duties. "Discretionary" decisions are not actionable.
Really? Then what's ACLU v. Reno? What's Eldred v. Ashcroft? (I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the Bono Act that Eldred et al. seek to overturn, except that in some fields such as songwriting, there exist only a limited number of possible original works, and it's possible to run out of them.)
In general, if a fellow wants to sue the government over a "discretionary" action, he sues the persons in charge of enforcing the regulation, such as the Attorney General, the head of the USPTO, the examiner who approved the patent, etc. in their official capacities. Hence, ACLU v. Janet Reno in her official capacity as AG, Eldred et al. v. John Ashcroft in his official capacity as AG.
to restore functionality ... Install Mozilla.
Yes, but if you uninstall NS7 and install Mozilla, you lose Netscape Instant Messenger. (That is, until you discover the AIM Express applet.)
I'm afraid that it is far easier to prove that extraterrestrial life exists than to prove that it doesn't
I'd figure that most human beings really don't care whether or not intelligent E.T.s exist somewhere in the universe; they care only about the area within a 40 light year radius of Earth, close enough for round trip communication within the lifetime of a human being.
(I could be wrong.)
We will discover other beings (or more likely, evidence of their existense) or we won't. At some point, our we will have explored enough of the universe to know one way or the other.
To Leonardo da Vinci, the electric lightbulb never exist because he obviously did not live long enough to hear the news of Thomas A. Edison's invention. Likewise, do you think that human civilization at large will find intelligent E.T.s within your lifetime plus 70 years?
Like it or not, they ARE profitable
Then why hasn't Microsoft paid out dividends to its shareholders in its entire corporate existence? I'd imagine, 21 years after MS-DOS was shipped to IBM, that I'd see something. No, Microsoft had to go and blow its earnings on fulfilling stock options.
It has been said a million times already... there is no substitute for proper diet and exercise
I try to eat right, but my body's cooling system won't really let me go outside and exercise when it's 90F (32C) or hotter out, and I don't have the ca$h for a health club membership.
I imagine they use the same technology, if my memory serves me, the copyright notice says its licenced in the PS2 version. I don't think it would be economical to use a differant compression technology for the same game on a differant platform.
Yes it would. If Sony is willing to license its ATRAC3 codec (used in MiniDisc LP decks) to PS2 game developers cheaper than Thomson Multimedia is willing to license MP3 technology for a video game, but Sony is not willing to license ATRAC3 for use in PC software, then you bet developers will re-encode their wav files into ATRAC3 for the PS2 version and MP3 for the PC version.
In addition, platform limitations may come into play. The NES supported only one codec for samples, a simple predictive codec, at a few specific bitrates. The GBA is more flexible (with ability to play PCM from RAM; thus, ability to decompress in real time), but it still has only a 16 MHz processor. I've read that ATRAC and ATRAC3 are less complex to decode than MP3, which could conceivably free the PS2's vector units to process more triangles instead of audio samples.
You do know that the GTA3 radio stations are just MP3 files to begin with, right?
Is this true of the PlayStation 2 version as well?
Check out your GTA3 sounds directory.
Can you do this with the PS2 version?
What we seriously need is one common language that borrows terms and ideas from a variety of languages, which could (in theory) assist people in learning that language...
For basic communication, try Toki Pona. 120 words, no hard inflections to memorize; however, it doesn't work well for technical material.
Or take a step up and learn Esperanto.
Exactly which Linux file system are you refering to?
Grandparent referred to ext2fs, ext3fs, and reiserfs, which are thought of the "Linux filesystems" because most GNU/Linux distributions default to creating one of those filesystems for / during installation.
Two different languages can have the same accented characters, but different rules about case conversion.
And conceivably, changing the locale can cause files whose names had not clashed before to begin to clash. Thus, the locale for files in a particular folder must be stored as an attribute of that folder.
Poor Granny's fingers get tired too. Better limit us to 8.3 filenames
That's why a good GUI should include tab completion or something similar in its file picker control.
Granny also has trouble with her password. Sometimes she has the capslock key on and can't login. Better make all passwords case insensitive
No, better have the password dialog box wait for caps lock to be turned off.
what's an 8-bit zero terminated string exactly?
For the record, an 8-bit NUL-terminated string is a sequence of octets, containing a 0x00 as the final octet and no other instance of 0x00.
A 16-bit NUL-terminated string is a sequence of 16-bit integers, containing a 0x0000 as the final entry and no other instance of 0x0000.
A 32-bit NUL-terminated string is a sequence of 32-bit integers, containing a 0x00000000 as the final entry and no other instance of 0x00000000.
Some filesystems implement case insensitive filenames, so it can't be that hard.
Quick! You write efficient filesystem-level code to handle upcasing Unicode filenames for collation on non-Latin writing systems. It'd be easy to map [A-Z] to [a-z], but what about German, where a lowercase ß (1 char) becomes uppercase SS (2 chars)? What about Turkish, where dotted i upcases to dotted I, and dotless I downcases to dotless i? What about Greek, Cyrillic, Armenian, Georgian, and other writing systems that have upper- and lowercase letters? Can you really handle localized Unicode processing in the kernel?
That means Windows is out the window because it is not POSIX compliant and certified
Microsoft has a simple POSIX layer built into Windows NT operating systems (including 2000 and XP). It's not very good (e.g. it can't run networking or graphics; thus, no X), but Microsoft does supply an upgraded POSIX layer called Interix. If you don't really need "certified", then Red Hat Cygwin might work; it implements (most of) POSIX on top of Win32.
so is Linux, *BSD, and Mac OS X.
Linux not POSIX certified? Then what's this "POSIX conformance testing by Unifix" message I see every time I start Red Hat?
Just as the FreeDOS disk will be useless to most people who buy these Dell PCs.
FreeDOS might be just what the doctor ordered. There's still a lot of legacy custom software for DOS that some corporations need to run. And until the company's IT team gets around to putting FreeBSD on the machines, the developers can still write and test code using DJGPP (GCC for DOS) and spend time playing games such as Doom Legacy, Quake 1, or Tetanus On Drugs.
DOS will never die.
MySQL is not yet an acceptable replacement for a well done installation of Oracle ... I want something others of used
You want this or this.
Konqueror displays in just about any alphabet you want except Elvish
OK, everybody with a bugzilla.mozilla.org account go vote for Bugzilla Bug 52746 - Mozilla does not support dynamic fonts and Bugzilla Bug 59611 - Add TrueDoc (or like) support to Mozilla. Without a solution to those bugs, there's no way to write text in a script that Microsoft or Apple doesn't recognize, such as the Tengwar of Feanor.
From http://llr.lls.edu/eldred/martin-original1.pdf:
The fact that creators of new works cannot merely re-use the expression contained in copyrighted work of others without permission forces them to be creative. Composers cannot rehash the melodies created by earlier composers, they must create their own new original melodies.
How is this possible? Case law states that copying four notes of another song's "hook" is enough to get a songwriter in trouble with copyright law, and that the standard for copying is not an exact match but merely substantial similarity. Another case that I've read somewhere states that there is no unprotected "idea" in music, only "expression".
Melodies are determined by the distances between adjacent notes in frequency (intervals) and in time (note duration). Four notes will contain three (interval, duration) distance vectors. Assume that the scale contains twelve distinct intervals and that a judge will distinguish three distinct note durations (eighth, quarter, and half); thus, there are 36 possible distance vectors from one note to the next, and 36 to the third power equals 46,656 distinct melodies. No other melodies are possible in the Western musical scale. If only one hundred songwriters in the world were to create one melody each week, they would run out of melodies within nine years.
"Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson details the dire consequences of literally running out of new ideas.
"The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman is another interesting short story.
Sorry, don't see the relevance.
Once you destroy your copy of the Software, you can't borrow a friend's copy because you have terminated your right to use the Software. The 17 USC 117 backup rights may not apply because you waived those when clicking the Install button. And you certainly can't install patches, as those have a "Supplemental EULA", which considers installation on an unlicensed system to constitute fraud.
Ever heard of 'backups'
Ever heard of SafeDisc 2?
or 'taking care of your CDs'?
Even the best cared for discs will bit rot, especially in the case of a disaster. If a disc is copy protected, and you try to store it off-site, it costs big bucks to transport it to the office whenever you need to use it.
Only a total dumbass would pay for a CD more than once.
Then what about the millions of CDs sold to people who already had a legit copy of the music on vinyl?
As long as I have the original CD (working or not) to prove I have a copy, I'm not doing anything wrong.
Then what's this in the EULA? "You may terminate this License at any time by destroying all copies of the Software."