It's not like any of these patent threads are any different from one another, really. If we don't just get rid of the "Patent Pending" category (please, CmdrTaco/Hemos/anyone, please do it), I propose a standard response that we can all just paste into Slashdot:
This company got a patent on foo! I can't believe it! Stupid patent office--don't the examiners check to see if anything is obvious? I thought of foo in 1983 and then three times before lunch today! Companies should compete and not sue each other. People should have to pay a fine or go to jail for getting patents like this! Now the Internet will collapse! I haven't read the patent or the claims, but I know that it will stop me from doing foo and bar, and that violates my freedom of speech!
Kind of like the "show codes" feature of WordPerfect, where you work in a GUI environment unless you want to get in the guts of a document for some unknown reason.
The USPTO uses an extensive categorization system, using classes and subclasses. I commend you to their website for more detail, should you need trouble sleeping, or need information on the appropriate category for inventions relating to the preparation of hot grits. US Patent Office Home Page
As an aside, expired patents are in fact searched, because they are still prior art. I have had art cited against me from the 19th century. So far the champion is from Reconstruction. I am eagerly awaiting my first antebellum prior art citation.
Yes. And they had to call it J++,.NET, or something else that you the consumer can identify as being not Java, otherwise they are infringing the Java mark. So, you the consumer can tell the difference between hot, flavorful Java and the weak imitation from Seattle.
Companies use trademarks to defend thier interests. Saying trademarks are for the citizens protection is a little like saying patents are consumer protection. Even if the laws are written such that trademark law is as above, that is certainly *not* the case in the real world. Trademarks protect identity, product names and differentiate companies and they are viciously defended to increase revenue. They don't give a hoot about citizen protection as long as the citizens are shopping with them.
I can understand how you might feel that way. However, I want to give an example that might illustrate how trademarks protect consumers. Imagine that Microsoft came out tomorrow with Microsoft Java, except it wasn't compatible with Java, and had many differences from Java that made it more unstable and harder to use. By allowing Sun to claim Java as a trademark and maintain standards of quality and compatibility, consumers aren't taken advantage of by another company claiming to offer Java that instead is selling something completely different.
In my previous life as an aerospace engineer, no one was looked at for a management position until at least 35, and usually 40, except for literally a handful of alleged "stars" who were picked early on for grooming. I had no management skills at all, but I saw others my age who were talented get passed over. That's what happens in a lot of organizations, and that's when it's time to walk.
Then I stand corrected. I would delete my prior post in shame, but instead I will likely watch my precious karma decrease by 1. Penance enough, I suppose.
Ah, yes, another great story broken on CNN, the same network that allowed US Army psyops officers to work in the newsroom during the Serbian War. CNN wouldn't have any ties to the government, or any interest in policy, would they?
The law aside, the courts tend to look unkindly at gamblers. The judge will find some way to say "tough luck" and throw you out on the street. In the same way, courts aren't going to help you collect on a gambling debt, even for a legal wager.
The right to the pursuit of happiness is not equal to happiness itself. As far as boredom goes, what about all those people who migrated west 100+ years ago, and lived in dirt huts and shacks when they finally made it to their destinations? They didn't have mass media, other than a bible and a few reading primers, and got along OK for themselves. They certainly had a culture, even though they had no movies or recorded music.
Are you contending that mass media define our culture? I would hate to think that "Battlefield Earth" may be viewed by future denizens of our planet as representative of our 2000-ish culture. Culture is what we make it, not just what gets spit out by the mass media machine.
Did you ever stop to think that the only reason you don't beleive we have those rights is because someone trained you to think that way?
Please do not characterize my beliefs about rights. You don't even know me. Further, your characterization is irrelevant to our discussion.
So we won't have to be subjected to the 2005 equivalent of the Backstreet Boys? Hallelujah! Seriously, though, on the one hand this sucks. On the other hand, we have no right to be entertained. If we don't like how our mass media is packaged, we don't have to buy it. Perhaps we'll be better off without it.
When you are a startup company, you only have two assets: your people and your intellectual property. These are also the only two things that differentiate you from your competition. If you want funding, you need both. That's just the way it is. Those startup companies, and the young companies they become, pay the salaries of a large number of slashdotters, I bet.
Your point is well taken, but (a) read the spec to see what the _patent_ means by "protocol handlers" and "content handlers", and (b) what the prosecution history says. Granted, neither one of us wants to pay for (b). However, if "protocol handlers" and "content handlers" are as broad as you state, and were not limited during prosecution, there's no way this patent would have issued. I have dealt with a lot of examiners, and even the dimmer ones weren't that dim. I will bet that the patentee had to make some kind of statement during prosecution that narrows the claims significantly. If not, this patent actually has negative value, since it will be knocked out on summary judgment if GeoWorks tries to sue on it, and they'll be out a huge chunk of $ on legal fees.
Doctrine of equivalents doesn't apply to amended claims anymore, and virtually all claims are amended in response to office actions from the PTO. Check the recent Festo case--but since you are familiar with the DoE, I figure you're probably aware of Festo too.
Patents are defined by the claims, and the claims only. What the abstract or title says is irrelevant. Typically, the broadest claim is claim 1. Let's look at claim 1.
1. A computer program product for use on a wireless communication device, the wireless communication device including a memory, a screen display, a processor for executing the computer program product, and controls for operating the wireless communication device, the computer program product comprising:
a shell for receiving a URL having a protocol component and a data component, the data specifying a command to be executed or content to be fetched, the shell providing the data component to a protocol handler according to the protocol component, and the fetched content to a content handler for processing;
a plurality of protocol handlers, each protocol handler communicatively coupled to the shell to receive a URL and either fetch content specified by the data component and provide the fetched content to the shell, or execute the command specified by the data component; and
a plurality of content handlers, each content handler communicatively coupled to the shell to receive fetched content and process the fetched content to output the content to the screen display of the wireless communication device.
Only the stuff after "comprising" is the invention (don't ask), and to infringe you have to have all of the elements described after "comprising." So, you have to have at least one shell, multiple protocol handlers, and multiple content handlers. You look at the body of the application to find out what is meant by "shell," "protocol handler" and "content handler." You also look at the prosecution history to see if the terms were limited by anything the patentee said during the patent process. Then, you compare a particular device or method you're concerned about to that claim to see if you infringe. Because you have to have multiple protocol handlers and content handlers to infringe, I would tend to think this is a pretty narrow patent. I'll let you guys take it from here.
The ACLU is more a group of local organizations than an overarching national organization. The local organizations each tend to focus on different things from one another, and vary in ideology from uber-left to kinda semi-conservative. You should go to a meeting of your local chapter & see what you think.
Please note that Despair's trademark for the:-( mark is limited to "greeting cards, posters and art prints." Thus, anyone can use the:-( symbol in casual conversation, email, on food products such as cans of grits, on Britney Spears albums, or anything that is _not_ greeting cards, posters and art prints, without infringing that trademark. What you _can't_ do is sell greeting cards, posters and art prints under the:-( brand. That's all this means. A trademark on "x" does not mean that you can't use "x" at all. No need to overreact.
Drudge had a link this morning to an Australian paper that printed a story about recent findings that Earth has cooled 10 degrees C in the past 3 million years. Adding 10 degrees F should get us about 2/3 of the way back to Earth normal temps.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
on
Crusoe As Server CPU
·
· Score: 1
"And they are controlled by money. If you have tons of money you can have any patent you want. Just slightly "improve" on a patent pending and they will give you the patent instead..."
Really? That has not been my experience in prosecuting 50+ patents through the patent office. Perhaps you would care to share your practice tips.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like any of these patent threads are any different from one another, really. If we don't just get rid of the "Patent Pending" category (please, CmdrTaco/Hemos/anyone, please do it), I propose a standard response that we can all just paste into Slashdot:
This company got a patent on foo! I can't believe it! Stupid patent office--don't the examiners check to see if anything is obvious? I thought of foo in 1983 and then three times before lunch today! Companies should compete and not sue each other. People should have to pay a fine or go to jail for getting patents like this! Now the Internet will collapse! I haven't read the patent or the claims, but I know that it will stop me from doing foo and bar, and that violates my freedom of speech!
Did I leave anything out?
Kind of like the "show codes" feature of WordPerfect, where you work in a GUI environment unless you want to get in the guts of a document for some unknown reason.
The USPTO uses an extensive categorization system, using classes and subclasses. I commend you to their website for more detail, should you need trouble sleeping, or need information on the appropriate category for inventions relating to the preparation of hot grits. US Patent Office Home Page
As an aside, expired patents are in fact searched, because they are still prior art. I have had art cited against me from the 19th century. So far the champion is from Reconstruction. I am eagerly awaiting my first antebellum prior art citation.
You participated in the development of intellectual property? Admitting that around here is like drawing a target on your forehead.
Yes. And they had to call it J++, .NET, or something else that you the consumer can identify as being not Java, otherwise they are infringing the Java mark. So, you the consumer can tell the difference between hot, flavorful Java and the weak imitation from Seattle.
Companies use trademarks to defend thier interests. Saying trademarks are for the citizens protection is a little like saying patents are consumer protection. Even if the laws are written such that trademark law is as above, that is certainly *not* the case in the real world. Trademarks protect identity, product names and differentiate companies and they are viciously defended to increase revenue. They don't give a hoot about citizen protection as long as the citizens are shopping with them.
I can understand how you might feel that way. However, I want to give an example that might illustrate how trademarks protect consumers. Imagine that Microsoft came out tomorrow with Microsoft Java, except it wasn't compatible with Java, and had many differences from Java that made it more unstable and harder to use. By allowing Sun to claim Java as a trademark and maintain standards of quality and compatibility, consumers aren't taken advantage of by another company claiming to offer Java that instead is selling something completely different.
In my previous life as an aerospace engineer, no one was looked at for a management position until at least 35, and usually 40, except for literally a handful of alleged "stars" who were picked early on for grooming. I had no management skills at all, but I saw others my age who were talented get passed over. That's what happens in a lot of organizations, and that's when it's time to walk.
Then I stand corrected. I would delete my prior post in shame, but instead I will likely watch my precious karma decrease by 1. Penance enough, I suppose.
Ah, yes, another great story broken on CNN, the same network that allowed US Army psyops officers to work in the newsroom during the Serbian War. CNN wouldn't have any ties to the government, or any interest in policy, would they?
The law aside, the courts tend to look unkindly at gamblers. The judge will find some way to say "tough luck" and throw you out on the street. In the same way, courts aren't going to help you collect on a gambling debt, even for a legal wager.
The right to the pursuit of happiness is not equal to happiness itself. As far as boredom goes, what about all those people who migrated west 100+ years ago, and lived in dirt huts and shacks when they finally made it to their destinations? They didn't have mass media, other than a bible and a few reading primers, and got along OK for themselves. They certainly had a culture, even though they had no movies or recorded music.
Are you contending that mass media define our culture? I would hate to think that "Battlefield Earth" may be viewed by future denizens of our planet as representative of our 2000-ish culture. Culture is what we make it, not just what gets spit out by the mass media machine.
Did you ever stop to think that the only reason you don't beleive we have those rights is because someone trained you to think that way?
Please do not characterize my beliefs about rights. You don't even know me. Further, your characterization is irrelevant to our discussion.
So we won't have to be subjected to the 2005 equivalent of the Backstreet Boys? Hallelujah! Seriously, though, on the one hand this sucks. On the other hand, we have no right to be entertained. If we don't like how our mass media is packaged, we don't have to buy it. Perhaps we'll be better off without it.
Isn't Xinu that Scientology guy who was the Emperor of the 90 Worlds?
When you are a startup company, you only have two assets: your people and your intellectual property. These are also the only two things that differentiate you from your competition. If you want funding, you need both. That's just the way it is. Those startup companies, and the young companies they become, pay the salaries of a large number of slashdotters, I bet.
Your point is well taken, but (a) read the spec to see what the _patent_ means by "protocol handlers" and "content handlers", and (b) what the prosecution history says. Granted, neither one of us wants to pay for (b). However, if "protocol handlers" and "content handlers" are as broad as you state, and were not limited during prosecution, there's no way this patent would have issued. I have dealt with a lot of examiners, and even the dimmer ones weren't that dim. I will bet that the patentee had to make some kind of statement during prosecution that narrows the claims significantly. If not, this patent actually has negative value, since it will be knocked out on summary judgment if GeoWorks tries to sue on it, and they'll be out a huge chunk of $ on legal fees.
Doctrine of equivalents doesn't apply to amended claims anymore, and virtually all claims are amended in response to office actions from the PTO. Check the recent Festo case--but since you are familiar with the DoE, I figure you're probably aware of Festo too.
Patents are defined by the claims, and the claims only. What the abstract or title says is irrelevant. Typically, the broadest claim is claim 1. Let's look at claim 1.
1. A computer program product for use on a wireless communication device, the wireless communication device including a memory, a screen display, a processor for executing the computer program product, and controls for operating the wireless communication device, the computer program product comprising:
a shell for receiving a URL having a protocol component and a data component, the data specifying a command to be executed or content to be fetched, the shell providing the data component to a protocol handler according to the protocol component, and the fetched content to a content handler for processing;
a plurality of protocol handlers, each protocol handler communicatively coupled to the shell to receive a URL and either fetch content specified by the data component and provide the fetched content to the shell, or execute the command specified by the data component; and
a plurality of content handlers, each content handler communicatively coupled to the shell to receive fetched content and process the fetched content to output the content to the screen display of the wireless communication device.
Only the stuff after "comprising" is the invention (don't ask), and to infringe you have to have all of the elements described after "comprising." So, you have to have at least one shell, multiple protocol handlers, and multiple content handlers. You look at the body of the application to find out what is meant by "shell," "protocol handler" and "content handler." You also look at the prosecution history to see if the terms were limited by anything the patentee said during the patent process. Then, you compare a particular device or method you're concerned about to that claim to see if you infringe. Because you have to have multiple protocol handlers and content handlers to infringe, I would tend to think this is a pretty narrow patent. I'll let you guys take it from here.
The ACLU is more a group of local organizations than an overarching national organization. The local organizations each tend to focus on different things from one another, and vary in ideology from uber-left to kinda semi-conservative. You should go to a meeting of your local chapter & see what you think.
Dammit--you beat me!
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of the posts that ask if you can imagine a Beowulf cluster of something?
Please note that Despair's trademark for the :-( mark is limited to "greeting cards, posters and art prints." Thus, anyone can use the :-( symbol in casual conversation, email, on food products such as cans of grits, on Britney Spears albums, or anything that is _not_ greeting cards, posters and art prints, without infringing that trademark. What you _can't_ do is sell greeting cards, posters and art prints under the :-( brand. That's all this means. A trademark on "x" does not mean that you can't use "x" at all. No need to overreact.
Drudge had a link this morning to an Australian paper that printed a story about recent findings that Earth has cooled 10 degrees C in the past 3 million years. Adding 10 degrees F should get us about 2/3 of the way back to Earth normal temps.
I couldn't resist...
I don't know about suing, but dumping on any and all forms of IP has become a cliche on the Slashdot system.
Try http://www.ustpo.gov.
"And they are controlled by money. If you have tons of money you can have any patent you want. Just slightly "improve" on a patent pending and they will give you the patent instead..."
Really? That has not been my experience in prosecuting 50+ patents through the patent office. Perhaps you would care to share your practice tips.