From the blurb: "envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards -- one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft -- mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts"
Huh?
From TFA: "envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards—short winglets mounted near the nose of the aircraft. “A turboshaft engine—one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft—mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts (4,000 horsepower) of electrical power"
Not likely to have especially broad implications. The factual question is whether the current standard of deference given to a patent should be maintained in the face of art submitted by a defendant, if that art was never considered by the patent office. Of course, 97% of patent cases never reach a jury, and relatively few of the remaining 3% turn on an invalidity analysis (as opposed to simple infringement/non-infringement).
There's a good analysis of the likely impact of any Microsoft-favoring ruling over at Patently-O.
- did the submitter actually read the claims, before asserting that it was obvious and/or anticipated?
Here's claim 1 (it's a monster):
1. A system for large-scale processing of data, comprising: a plurality of processes executing on a plurality of interconnected processors; the plurality of processes including a master process, for coordinating a data processing job for processing a set of input data, and worker processes; the master process, in response to a request to perform the data processing job, assigning input data blocks of the set of input data to respective ones of the worker processes; each of a first plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent map module for retrieving a respective input data block assigned to the worker process by the master process and applying an application-specific map operation to the respective input data block to produce intermediate data values, wherein at least a subset of the intermediate data values each comprises a key/value pair, and wherein at least two of the first plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific map operation in parallel on distinct, respective input data blocks; a partition operator for processing the produced intermediate data values to produce a plurality of intermediate data sets, wherein each respective intermediate data set includes all key/value pairs for a distinct set of respective keys, and wherein at least one of the respective intermediate data sets includes respective ones of the key/value pairs produced by a plurality of the first plurality of the worker processes; and each of a second plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent reduce module for retrieving data, the retrieved data comprising at least a subset of the key/value pairs from a respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets and applying an application-specific reduce operation to the retrieved data to produce final output data corresponding to the distinct set of respective keys in the respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets, and wherein at least two of the second plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific reduce operation in parallel on multiple respective subsets of the produced intermediate data values.
That's one heck of a detailed claim. Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely.
First, the linked article doesn't render properly in Opera. Grrr.
Second, here's the actual claim:
1. A system comprising: a processor; a memory; an email application maintained in the memory and executed on the processor to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving an email message having an associated emotiflag specified by the composer of the email message to indicate an emotion the composer intends to be associated with the email message as a whole wherein: the email message comprises: a message body; and header data, the header data comprising an email subject; the emotiflag is separate from the message body and the email subject; and the emotiflag comprises: a graphical icon; and a text tag; and a display device for rendering a representation of the received email message such that the emotiflag is rendered as part of the representation, wherein rendering the emotiflag comprises rendering the graphical icon and the text tag.
Looking at the (brief) summary of "Mood Stamps" linked by TFA, I don't see the emotiflag comprises: a graphical icon; and a text tag;, and I don't see wherein rendering the emotiflag comprises rendering the graphical icon and the text tag.
New article summary: "Microsoft receives a very narrow patent on an incremental improvement over Mood Stamps."
Why do these articles always quote from the abstract or summary?
Here's Claim 1, with some bonus white space to make it readable:
1. A portable electronic device comprising:
a housing; and
a touch-sensitive surface mounted on the housing,
the portable electronic device controlled by a user tracing a command pattern on the touch-sensitive surface with a finger,
the command pattern matching one of a plurality of preset patterns,
each of the plurality of the present patterns corresponding to a predefined function of the portable electronic device,
the command pattern being traced without requiring the user to view the portable electronic device,
wherein at least one of the plurality of patterns corresponds to a predefined function that is performed only for so long as contact is maintained with the touch-sensitive surface,
wherein the command pattern is composed of one of more motions of the finger on the touch-sensitive surface,
the one or more motions selected from a group of motions consisting of a left-to-right motion, a right-to-left motion, an upward motion, a downward motion, a clockwise circular motion, a counterclockwise circular motion, a diagonal motion, a tapping motion, and holding the pointing device against the touch-sensitive surface.
Did you ever play Eternal Darkness? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_darkness) Gamecube exclusive, M-rated, and an absolutely lovely entry into the Horror genre. And it's MUCH more disturbing than the casual violence & theft beloved of the GTA franchise.
Nintendo does not have to equal kid-friendly. I'm glad developers remember this from time to time.
The flowchart is irrelevant; the question is what do the CLAIMS say. Here, the claims are directed to bringing separate refrigerated sandwich makings up to temperature in very short order. Take a look, for example, at claim 1:
A method of filling an order for a sandwich comprising: toasting a bread component for the sandwich for less than about 1 minute in response to the order in a first heating device; and initiating and completing the heating of a sandwich filling for the sandwich from about 4OF or less to about 120F or more in a second heating device, while the bread component is heating, in response to the order.
Now, I CAN do that with my toaster & my microwave. But we don't need to resort to hyperbole to do that, do we?
Moreover, this is a PCT application, based on US application 11/018,989. The US application has been abandoned, for failure to respond to the most basic of office actions.
And seriously, is this news-worthy? If/. wants to publish EVERY bad patent application, it's going to get crowded here pretty quick. There's a lot of chaff out there.
Fee schedule as of this year: 3.5 year fee: $930 7.5 year fee: $2360 11.5 year fee: $3910
Considering that the overwhelmingly vast majority of patents are never used in litigation, and that many companies will end up with large numbers of (related) patents, maintenance fees become non-trivial with time.
There are fees associated with maintaining patents (due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years), and failure to pay them on schedule results in cancellation of the patent.
I am not a lawyer, but my take on this is: I am, but (of course) none of this is legal advice; get your own damned lawyer in your own jurisdiction if you want legal advice.
a) your inventor comes up with a new way of extending his invention (continuation in part); That sounds to me like it should be a completely new patent application. Can't be, and here's why. If you file an application, your own disclosures in that application can still be used as prior art against you in other applications. Say, for example, I invent the chair. A little later, I realize I can put wheels on my chair. If I didn't file as a continuation in part, my original disclosure of a chair could be used as a portion of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, finding a chair-with-wheels to be obvious. (Also, my new application would not get any of the benefit of the filing date of the original chair application, meaning any chair-related prior art which appeared after my initial chair, but before my chair-with-wheels, could be used against me.)
b) you disclosed multiple distinct inventions in the original application, but only filed claims at one of them (continuation); That too sounds like you should have to file a new application for the new inventions. Again, you can't. Anything you disclosed in your original application needs to be claimed in that application, or in a continuation of that application. If I filed my parent application and disclosed two inventions in the specification, but only claimed one of them, my own application will block me from later filing an unrelated application claiming that second invention.
The continuation system was put in place to allow an inventor to make improvements and refinements on his invention, e.g., as continued testing or development further defined the parameters of the invention. An inventor, via continuation, can get a patent on a development of his idea that someone else would be barred from patenting as being obvious over the original invention (e.g., invent chair, CIP for chair with wheels, whereas a second party may be barred from chair-with-wheels as being obvious over chair). In most cases, such refinements ADD limitations to the initial invention, meaning CIPs ofter have narrower claims.
RCEs, so far as I can tell, are there to let the PTO bill you every other office action. Often, the first two office actions are spent educating the examiner, who has completely missed the novel feature of your invention, and sent you a rejection based on inapplicable prior art. Examiners are scored based on accomplishing certain goals: the first office action in a case and FINAL office actions are among them. Non-final subsequent actions aren't, which gives them an incentive to issue final rejections whenever they can. Unfortunately, not all final rejections are of the highest-possible quality.
so basically the argument that is being made is that if company A patents a technology/drug whatever and finds a new use for it they can extend the patent to include that finding? To what end?
Here's the 10 cent version: continuations are used when: a) your inventor comes up with a new way of extending his invention (continuation in part); b) you disclosed multiple distinct inventions in the original application, but only filed claims at one of them (continuation); c) the patent office is being dense, and you have to argue your claims repeatedly (request for continuing examination); or d) the patent office grants some of your claims, and you want to get an issued patent AND continue to argue about the others (continuation).
For $200 (in the US), you can file a provisional patent application. It will never be examined, and will expire in one year, but it is an unambiguous date stamp. (If you're a "small entity", you may be able to cut the fee by 50%.)
If you want it published with that date, you'll need to file an actual utility application ($1000, same small entity options). In 18 months or so, it'll be published, with the filing date clearly indicated. No one says you have to prosecute the application after filing it.
Actually, yes. I am in the happy position of being price-insensitive on my hobbies. Likely, owning the system would inspire further game purchases, as it opens up options.
I had one requirement for Halo 3 (and XBox360 purchase): I had to be able to play with my buddy, with whom I started the series. He now lives an untenable distance away. So, I don't need the game, nor their console, nor their pay-to-play Live service, I guess.
The standard of proof in obtaining a search warrant is "probable cause" (see wikipedia for a longish article thereon).
Judges do indeed have to sign off on search warrants. The usual process, e.g., for a single suspected criminal, is that an officer swears out an affidavit, saying he has probable cause to believe that evidence of a specified crime can be found such-and-where, and summarizing the reasons for probable cause. And yes, reliable informant information is often sufficient.
Here, I'd suspect rather more evidence was readily available. In the case of the open markets, for example, I strongly suspect someone went through, bought a couple pirated/copied discs, and swore out an affidavit of their own that they were infringing works. Given that the RIAA has access to the copyright holders, it's fairly compelling.
As an aside: one of the "perqs" of a finding of copyright infringement is that (in some states) the injured party gets to destroy the infringing materials. I'd like to drive a steamroller over a giant stack of CDs someday; who wouldn't?
Look, RIAA bashing is fun and all, but that article has some fairly significant bias to it.
What's the problem with the police being involved? Mass commercial copyright infringement? Yeah, that's a CRIME. Those FBI warnings at the front of the movie aren't just for show. And criminal law enforcement is the job of the police.
Would we prefer that the RIAA could arrest people? They might.
From TFA: "The two patents at issue are the '523 patent and the '686 patent, both of which involve server-group messaging."
I read every comment that was posted prior to starting to write this. Lots of babble about "Oh, Battle.net predates this" and "it must be about voice over Live". Read, people!
The '523 patent, from a cursory reading of the one independent claim, looks to involve transmissions from a collection of host computers (think individual Xboxen), back to a central server, where the data is aggregated, and then returned to one of the host computers. Interesting bit is that it's dealing with a unicast network and payloads, which doesn't sound like packet-based transmission. See the long, boring words of the patent for more details.
The '686 is an extremely narrow-looking patent, addressing the creation of a "group" of computers for messaging purposes. See Claim 1 - there are 6 ennumerated elements, each with subconditions, and a final non-ennumerated element; infringement would have to touch each and every one of these elements.
The "1992 Cable Act" is actually the "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992". It is public law PL 102-385, October 5, 1992, 106 Stat 1460.
I click on the comments, for to see what all you insightful people have to say today. And I get one of the (occasional) ads that shows up between the text of the story & the comments.
Michigan State, at least, has been using such a program in their computer science program for more than 5 years.
It was always interesting, when multiple students used an example of code out of the book for part of their projects, and then were accused of cheating as a result....
Heinlein introduced the waterbed before it was available. In fact, his work put the idea in the public domain, and prevented the first company making one from getting a patent on the idea.:)
...just a year ago. My solution: I went to law school. Law is pretty easy for anyone w/a hard science/engineering background, and the law schools love having such students - makes them more "diverse." Add to that the starting salary of an IP lawyer is HUGE, and you can still put that technical education to work for you.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Is this right?? 2' x 2' chip?
No, it's not right.
600mm^2 is a chip just under 25mm on a side.
From the blurb:
"envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards -- one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft -- mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts"
Huh?
From TFA:
"envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards—short winglets mounted near the nose of the aircraft. “A turboshaft engine—one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft—mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts (4,000 horsepower) of electrical power"
Oh.
Not likely to have especially broad implications. The factual question is whether the current standard of deference given to a patent should be maintained in the face of art submitted by a defendant, if that art was never considered by the patent office. Of course, 97% of patent cases never reach a jury, and relatively few of the remaining 3% turn on an invalidity analysis (as opposed to simple infringement/non-infringement).
There's a good analysis of the likely impact of any Microsoft-favoring ruling over at Patently-O.
Not much else to say, really.
- did the submitter actually read the claims, before asserting that it was obvious and/or anticipated?
Here's claim 1 (it's a monster): 1. A system for large-scale processing of data, comprising:
a plurality of processes executing on a plurality of interconnected processors;
the plurality of processes including a master process, for coordinating a data processing job for processing a set of input data, and worker processes;
the master process, in response to a request to perform the data processing job, assigning input data blocks of the set of input data to respective ones of the worker processes;
each of a first plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent map module for retrieving a respective input data block assigned to the worker process by the master process and applying an application-specific map operation to the respective input data block to produce intermediate data values, wherein at least a subset of the intermediate data values each comprises a key/value pair, and wherein at least two of the first plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific map operation in parallel on distinct, respective input data blocks; a partition operator for processing the produced intermediate data values to produce a plurality of intermediate data sets, wherein each respective intermediate data set includes all key/value pairs for a distinct set of respective keys, and wherein at least one of the respective intermediate data sets includes respective ones of the key/value pairs produced by a plurality of the first plurality of the worker processes; and
each of a second plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent reduce module for retrieving data, the retrieved data comprising at least a subset of the key/value pairs from a respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets and applying an application-specific reduce operation to the retrieved data to produce final output data corresponding to the distinct set of respective keys in the respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets, and wherein at least two of the second plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific reduce operation in parallel on multiple respective subsets of the produced intermediate data values.
That's one heck of a detailed claim. Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely.
1. A system comprising:
a processor;
a memory;
an email application maintained in the memory and executed on the processor to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving an email message having an associated emotiflag specified by the composer of the email message to indicate an emotion the composer intends to be associated with the email message as a whole wherein:
the email message comprises: a message body;
and header data, the header data comprising an email subject;
the emotiflag is separate from the message body and the email subject;
and the emotiflag comprises: a graphical icon;
and a text tag;
and a display device for rendering a representation of the received email message such that the emotiflag is rendered as part of the representation, wherein rendering the emotiflag comprises rendering the graphical icon and the text tag.
Looking at the (brief) summary of "Mood Stamps" linked by TFA, I don't see the emotiflag comprises: a graphical icon; and a text tag;, and I don't see wherein rendering the emotiflag comprises rendering the graphical icon and the text tag.
New article summary: "Microsoft receives a very narrow patent on an incremental improvement over Mood Stamps."
1. A portable electronic device comprising: a housing; and a touch-sensitive surface mounted on the housing, the portable electronic device controlled by a user tracing a command pattern on the touch-sensitive surface with a finger, the command pattern matching one of a plurality of preset patterns, each of the plurality of the present patterns corresponding to a predefined function of the portable electronic device, the command pattern being traced without requiring the user to view the portable electronic device, wherein at least one of the plurality of patterns corresponds to a predefined function that is performed only for so long as contact is maintained with the touch-sensitive surface, wherein the command pattern is composed of one of more motions of the finger on the touch-sensitive surface, the one or more motions selected from a group of motions consisting of a left-to-right motion, a right-to-left motion, an upward motion, a downward motion, a clockwise circular motion, a counterclockwise circular motion, a diagonal motion, a tapping motion, and holding the pointing device against the touch-sensitive surface.
Did you ever play Eternal Darkness? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_darkness) Gamecube exclusive, M-rated, and an absolutely lovely entry into the Horror genre. And it's MUCH more disturbing than the casual violence & theft beloved of the GTA franchise.
Nintendo does not have to equal kid-friendly. I'm glad developers remember this from time to time.
The flowchart is irrelevant; the question is what do the CLAIMS say. Here, the claims are directed to bringing separate refrigerated sandwich makings up to temperature in very short order. Take a look, for example, at claim 1:
A method of filling an order for a sandwich comprising: toasting a bread component for the sandwich for less than about 1 minute in response to the order in a first heating device; and initiating and completing the heating of a sandwich filling for the sandwich from about 4OF or less to about 120F or more in a second heating device, while the bread component is heating, in response to the order.
Now, I CAN do that with my toaster & my microwave. But we don't need to resort to hyperbole to do that, do we?
Moreover, this is a PCT application, based on US application 11/018,989. The US application has been abandoned, for failure to respond to the most basic of office actions.
And seriously, is this news-worthy? If /. wants to publish EVERY bad patent application, it's going to get crowded here pretty quick. There's a lot of chaff out there.
Fee schedule as of this year:
3.5 year fee: $930
7.5 year fee: $2360
11.5 year fee: $3910
Considering that the overwhelmingly vast majority of patents are never used in litigation, and that many companies will end up with large numbers of (related) patents, maintenance fees become non-trivial with time.
There are fees associated with maintaining patents (due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years), and failure to pay them on schedule results in cancellation of the patent.
The continuation system was put in place to allow an inventor to make improvements and refinements on his invention, e.g., as continued testing or development further defined the parameters of the invention. An inventor, via continuation, can get a patent on a development of his idea that someone else would be barred from patenting as being obvious over the original invention (e.g., invent chair, CIP for chair with wheels, whereas a second party may be barred from chair-with-wheels as being obvious over chair). In most cases, such refinements ADD limitations to the initial invention, meaning CIPs ofter have narrower claims.
RCEs, so far as I can tell, are there to let the PTO bill you every other office action. Often, the first two office actions are spent educating the examiner, who has completely missed the novel feature of your invention, and sent you a rejection based on inapplicable prior art. Examiners are scored based on accomplishing certain goals: the first office action in a case and FINAL office actions are among them. Non-final subsequent actions aren't, which gives them an incentive to issue final rejections whenever they can. Unfortunately, not all final rejections are of the highest-possible quality.
so basically the argument that is being made is that if company A patents a technology/drug whatever and finds a new use for it they can extend the patent to include that finding? To what end?
Here's the 10 cent version: continuations are used when:
a) your inventor comes up with a new way of extending his invention (continuation in part);
b) you disclosed multiple distinct inventions in the original application, but only filed claims at one of them (continuation);
c) the patent office is being dense, and you have to argue your claims repeatedly (request for continuing examination); or
d) the patent office grants some of your claims, and you want to get an issued patent AND continue to argue about the others (continuation).
For $200 (in the US), you can file a provisional patent application. It will never be examined, and will expire in one year, but it is an unambiguous date stamp. (If you're a "small entity", you may be able to cut the fee by 50%.)
If you want it published with that date, you'll need to file an actual utility application ($1000, same small entity options). In 18 months or so, it'll be published, with the filing date clearly indicated. No one says you have to prosecute the application after filing it.
(Someone modded that insightful?)
Actually, yes. I am in the happy position of being price-insensitive on my hobbies. Likely, owning the system would inspire further game purchases, as it opens up options.
I had one requirement for Halo 3 (and XBox360 purchase): I had to be able to play with my buddy, with whom I started the series. He now lives an untenable distance away. So, I don't need the game, nor their console, nor their pay-to-play Live service, I guess.
The standard of proof in obtaining a search warrant is "probable cause" (see wikipedia for a longish article thereon).
Judges do indeed have to sign off on search warrants. The usual process, e.g., for a single suspected criminal, is that an officer swears out an affidavit, saying he has probable cause to believe that evidence of a specified crime can be found such-and-where, and summarizing the reasons for probable cause. And yes, reliable informant information is often sufficient.
Here, I'd suspect rather more evidence was readily available. In the case of the open markets, for example, I strongly suspect someone went through, bought a couple pirated/copied discs, and swore out an affidavit of their own that they were infringing works. Given that the RIAA has access to the copyright holders, it's fairly compelling.
As an aside: one of the "perqs" of a finding of copyright infringement is that (in some states) the injured party gets to destroy the infringing materials. I'd like to drive a steamroller over a giant stack of CDs someday; who wouldn't?
Look, RIAA bashing is fun and all, but that article has some fairly significant bias to it.
What's the problem with the police being involved? Mass commercial copyright infringement? Yeah, that's a CRIME. Those FBI warnings at the front of the movie aren't just for show. And criminal law enforcement is the job of the police.
Would we prefer that the RIAA could arrest people? They might.
From TFA: "The two patents at issue are the '523 patent and the '686 patent, both of which involve server-group messaging."
I read every comment that was posted prior to starting to write this. Lots of babble about "Oh, Battle.net predates this" and "it must be about voice over Live". Read, people!
The '523 patent, from a cursory reading of the one independent claim, looks to involve transmissions from a collection of host computers (think individual Xboxen), back to a central server, where the data is aggregated, and then returned to one of the host computers. Interesting bit is that it's dealing with a unicast network and payloads, which doesn't sound like packet-based transmission. See the long, boring words of the patent for more details.
The '686 is an extremely narrow-looking patent, addressing the creation of a "group" of computers for messaging purposes. See Claim 1 - there are 6 ennumerated elements, each with subconditions, and a final non-ennumerated element; infringement would have to touch each and every one of these elements.
The "1992 Cable Act" is actually the "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992". It is public law PL 102-385, October 5, 1992, 106 Stat 1460.
Mostly it affects 47 USC. See 47 USC, sections 609, 521, 522, 543, 534, 535, 325, 541, 555, 552, 532, 531, 558, 533, 536, 537, 542, 544, 544a, 546, 548, 551, 553, 554, 334, 555, 555a, 335, and 521.
US Code may be viewed at The Government Printing Office (www.access.gpo.gov).
I click on the comments, for to see what all you insightful people have to say today. And I get one of the (occasional) ads that shows up between the text of the story & the comments.
It's for MS Visual Studio.net
*sigh*
Michigan State, at least, has been using such a program in their computer science program for more than 5 years.
It was always interesting, when multiple students used an example of code out of the book for part of their projects, and then were accused of cheating as a result....
Heinlein introduced the waterbed before it was available. In fact, his work put the idea in the public domain, and prevented the first company making one from getting a patent on the idea. :)
...just a year ago. My solution: I went to law school. Law is pretty easy for anyone w/a hard science/engineering background, and the law schools love having such students - makes them more "diverse." Add to that the starting salary of an IP lawyer is HUGE, and you can still put that technical education to work for you. :)
Hmmm...a "happy" atmosphere, eh? Could well end up w/r- or x-rated pictures that way.... ;)