MS Seeks To Patent Education-Feedback Software

theodp writes "The USPTO disclosed Thursday that Microsoft is seeking an early childhood education-related patent for Providing instructional feedback to a user, which the software giant says covers the use of computers to teach little tykes to form the letter 'b', make a 'ch' sound, and divide 321 by 17. Let's hope LeapPad-toting preschoolers are indemnified against Microsoft lawsuits." "Unstructured" is the key word in this patent, which (like most) is written in language that does more to obscure than illuminate. Just how structured was Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing? How about GCompris?

What a Downer!

[by Anonymous Coward]

This may be the big one folks. There is so much prior art for this that its not even funny. Not only that, this is the backbone of the world's economy and its rigorous enforcement may well wake up the world to the problem of broad software patents and bring about quick change to the patent system.

May it be rigorously enforced for the good of humanity.

Re:What a Downer!

[k4_pacific (736911)]

I claim prior art on that first post. [slashdot.org]

What prior art?

[lastberserker (465707)]

Everything mentioned in the original post is structured. What the patent covers (to the best of my understanding of the legal mumbo-jumbo) is kind of software parent-teacher-clippy: "Oh, that looks like 'B'! Let me help you to write that again! @"

Oh great!

[MeatBlast (834728)]

Oh great now Microsoft is making crappy kids software. I'm waiting for the Mozzila version.

Now?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Did you forget Microsoft Barney [geekchic.com]?

Re:Oh great!

[meburke (736645)]

OK, I read the patent app and came to the following conclusions:

First, the biggest threat is to "simulation" education, not regular teaching systems, and it looks like they are trying to patent a simulator. As the world becomes more complex, many things will be better taught by simulation than rote learning. The images didn't work well in Mozilla, but I get the impression that MS is proposing a stand alone unit over the broad scope of the early claims. IBM and Control Data may have the "prior art" for s

Re:Oh great!

[NoTheory (580275)]

You are very very wrong.

Microsoft is attempting to patent all intelligent systems. Their patent would essentially given them rights to any system that has a robust linguistic system and some sort of task oriented backend that explains things to people.

As a computational linguist who's interesting in making peoples lives better (through things that would fall under this patent), i think this would be a really horrible stifling idea. As a result i'm glad that the patent is so stupid, because i'm sure i

Good move!

[EEBaum (520514)]

I hope they get the patent and litigate heavily. Then perhaps parents will spend time with their children, rather than plopping them in front of various boxes that they believe will do the work for them.

If only...

Sleazy, dispicable, under-handed, and cheap...

[eeg3 (785382)]

But, no reason for them to stop if they can get away with it and make money off of it.

Write your congressman and plead for reform.

Re:Sleazy, dispicable, under-handed, and cheap...

[killjoe (766577)]

"Write your congressman and plead for reform."

I hate to break it to you but it won't help. Your congressperson doesn't give a shit about you. Read this [usatoday.com] article. Here is a quote.

While all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election in November, the truth is that only about 25 to 40 seats are truly contested

So unless you live in one of those 24 t0 40 districts your congressmen gets re-elected automatically. As they say their only risk is to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy.

MS is bribing them, they know they will get re-elected no matter what.

When push comes to shove they will simply say that if you vote for their opponent gays will marry and terrorists will kill you and voila! They will get re-elected. Your neighbors are dumb and are much more concerned with preventing gays from being married then patents.

Re:Sleazy, dispicable, under-handed, and cheap...

[js7a (579872)]

How do you expect them to be able to fix the patent system when they don't even know that burning radioactive metal produces more nitrates than extrapolation from light elements would imply?

Re:The worst of it is...

[reality-bytes (119275)]

Having read a lot about patentability in the UK recently, the damages caused by US patents can be far more real in the UK than the rest of Europe. For this we have largely to thank President....er....I mean Primeminister Blair.

It is also of note that the current UK government is all-for patent reform. ie: adopting the US standards.

Next thing you know...

[kzinti (9651)]

...Microsoft will be trying to patent the see-n-say. Is nothing obvious?

Re:Next thing you know...

[EEBaum (520514)]

The horse saying "neigh" was not obvious. It's not even close to how I would've spelled/pronounced it.

Another one

[FiReaNGeL (312636)]

Another stupid software patent. Its an everexpanding mess which shouldn't have existed in the first place... can you really qualify software as an 'innovative invention'? Should it be protected for 20 (or whatever) years so no one can duplicate your code?

In my opinion, it should be protected like books (and such) by copyright law only. If I can recreate the same effect without seeing your code, I can't see how your patented software is innovative. 'Normal' inventions are a different story altogether; they can be disassembled, reverse engineered, etc. (Ok, Java code too).

Its not about ' code duplication'

[nurb432 (527695)]

It is so much broader then that : Its about 'concept duplication' and prohibiting that..

Should simple concepts be patentable? I donno, but should people be able to profit off their ideas, yes....

No Way

[pbooktebo (699003)]

I can't believe that this could possibly withstand any attack. Education literature is filled with feedback technologies for learning, from B.F. Skinner's "Technology of Teaching" to attempts to teach vocalists with biofeedback.

I know little about patent law, but as an educator, the world is filled with many prior attempts (some very successful).

Anyhow...

Re:No Way

[Haydn Fenton (752330)]

Yes, literally hundreds of M$ patents probably have prior art, does the patent office know/care? No.
Does Microsoft care? No.
Should anyone else care? No.
If you are ever threatened over it, refuse to pay for the right to do whatever it is (or pay, if you feel it isn't worth the hassle), and if you get taken to court over it, go ahead, prove prior art (and complete absurdity.. come on, patenting feedback / double-click / to-do-list / tab to swap between hyperlinks in a brwoser, etc... Piss off MS) and their pa

This patent is horseshit.

[mizhi (186984)]

My PhD research centers around a system that provides pronunciation feedback in response to a task-oriented dialogue situation. Assuming that MS considers speech to be unstructured input, I can cite several instances of systems similar to what microsoft is describing. Some of them are a couple DECADES old.

Their patent is bullshit.

This is really funny

[oexeo (816786)]

In a few decades when books have been practically replaced by software, the only education available will be from Microsoft. *Everyone* will be retarded!

Re:This is really funny

[over_exposed (623791)]

Obligatory Southpark-Inspired Quote: "Microsoft is pat'nting ev'rything, Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb..."

Post dept

[ZZeta (743322)]

Shold have been: "Posted by timothy on Saturday November 27, @08:11PM from the patent-system-could-use-some-learning-soft dept."

what about tachers

[l3v1 (787564)]

[...]education-related patent for Providing instructional feedback to a user, which the software giant says[...]

And I thought parents and teachers were the ones to provide instructional feedback to the us... uhm, sorry child.

As regarding MS & patenting: nothing to say here, /. has already expressed the opinion most os uf have regarding the matter: crapheap.

Prior Art - The Graffiti Tutor

[RPayne (122707)]

The PalmOS Graffiti tutor - very structured, obviously it's not prior art!

And, these much older teaching tools are also obviously too structured and not prior art!

Madlibs, a game from the Apple II days! - Obviously too structured.

Lemonade stand - Apple II

. . . Other examples, too numerous to waste time on! There is so much prior art on this, that maybe it will wake someone at the US Patent Office up!

Very Prior Art

[JohnPerkins (243021)]

I know there's going to be a raft of prior art examples, but what leaps to mind first is the use of email back in the days when there were only a few universities connected together. Would using email to ask one of your professors fit as prior art in this case? What about using email to ask a question of a fellow student or anyone at another university? For that matter, how old is email itself? How old is the oldest know student-to-professor email?

Speak and Spell?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Speak and Spell [mac.com] came out in 1978. This is about as plain an example of "prompt user, wait for reply, respond" as you can get. Is MS claiming they came up with this concept before 78?

Re:Speak and Spell?

[bigberk (547360)]

Speak and Spell came out in 1978

That thing is still gold, if you can get your hands on one. I used to sample the robotic audio into techno music. Then I started hearing it in the clubs, and I'd be like, damn is that a Speak n Spell? "D. F. F." anyone?

Re:Speak and Spell?

[mdfst13 (664665)]

"unfortunately that patent (if exists) ran out..."

Once a patent runs out, it's supposed to be in the public domain. Further, a patent isn't necessary. Simple publication is enough to get it into the public domain. Patenting *delays* that process. Public domain prior art is supposed to be as useful against a patent as patent prior art.

Of course, in practice, the system does not always work that way.

Yawn...

[nwbvt (768631)]

Another evil MS patent story.

Wake me up when one of these is upheld in court. That will be news. The patent office still hasn't even approved this one (and with its current rate, it will likely take a few years before it is).

I can apply for a patent for starting a fire with two sticks. Its even possible the patent office will rubber stamp it a few years later. But it is meaningless because there is no way a judge would accept it.

Re:Yawn...

[HiThere (15173)]

Unfortunately, even a totally bogus patent is a stick with which to beat someone. You have to spend a lot of money to defend against it, even if you do eventually win. And it can cost so much that you drop your case because of bankruptcy.

And if the patent is ruled invalid, I doubt that MS would end up paying court costs, because you couldn't show malice. If the USPTO said that they had a good patent, then they have a perfectly legal right to act as if it really IS a valid patent. Even if what they pate

Re:Yawn...

[nwbvt (768631)]

Except it will cost MS money to defend it. Whats more, after they lose they no longer have the patent which defeats the point of getting it in the first place.

I believe the common practice is to use these patents as bargining tools with other companies. Such as "I want your patent for really cool item, so I'll trade you rights for really cool item for the rights to all this crap that I got through the patent system." It really isn't going to be worth it to go after small companies, especially when the patent is such that even a novice lawyer could defeat you. Also they can point to their long list of patents for pride reasons.

I can tell that while I was working at a certain large company with an extensive patent portfolio (not MS, BTW), they encourage their employees to seek patents for anything they think might be novel. Otherwise someone would likely come up with a real patentable idea but fail to report it thinking that it isn't worth it.

Re:Yawn...

[Waffle Iron (339739)]

Do you seriously think MS became the world's largest software company by throwing money into lawsuits they know they will lose?

Why not? That's been their basic strategy until recently, and it has served them well. See the Stacker case for example. They have ultimately lost many expensive lawsuits. However, for each case they lost, they have undoubtedly intimidated or financially drained into submission many other legal opponents. By showing their willingness to dump a lot of money even into losing cases,

Re:Yawn...

[legirons (809082)]

"Wake me up when one of these is upheld in court. That will be news. The patent office still hasn't even approved this one"

I think the "news" is that Microsoft are trying to get as many patents as possible, as quickly as possible.

The apparent stupidity of some of the ideas they've come up with (patenting the comparaison of numbers?) implies that they're not trying to pretend that any innovation is happening at the company, they just want lots of patents.

Notice the timing though. Europe is in the middle

It's Clippy!

[Ptraci (584179)]

The patent is for the computer responding to "unstructured input" with an instructional response.

"It looks like you're trying to..."

Hello, Speak & Spell, Lil Professor, DataMan,

[artifex2004 (766107)]

and a bunch of other Texas Instruments instructional toys from the last century.

No prior art....

[by Anonymous Coward]

next up on the microsoft patent list:

"Utilization of circular object to limit friction"

(the wheel)

Soon to be followed by a public pronouncement by Steve Ballmer that "The governments of many nations should be wary that they may be infringing on MS patents and could be sued".

Re:No prior art....

[Haydn Fenton (752330)]

I have pretty high confidence that MS would probably get it too, I mean.. just because it has prior art, it's already been patenteded [cnn.com], and it's clearly obvious to everybody except the patent office doesn't normally stop Microsoft, right?

Lite version is called LearnPad

[MavEtJu (241979)]

There will also be a lite version of this patent freely available to everybody, limited to the letters needed to say "open source damages innovation" and "intellectual properties are an essential part of the economy".

A.CDEFG.I..LMNOP.RSTUV..Y.

Well, not so lite but the joke is there.

Microsoft can go and...

[laughingcoyote (762272)]

I wrote a program that did this for my daughter in my own voice. If Microsoft wants to come sue me, they're welcome to go ahead and try.

Example Lesson:

[Saeger (456549)]

Q: 1 + 1 = ?
A: 2?
## We've got a bright bulb here! fork to college-level section.
Q: In the following sentence, fill in the blank with the word that makes the most sense: "Software patents _________ innovation."
A: kill
## Oh dear, it seems we've got an open source communist on our hands. silently fork to MS re-education section.
Q: True americans believe in the Constitution, baseball, apple pie, capitalism, private property, and a healthy ecosystem of private intellectual property which promotes progress.
A: fuck this propaganda!
## profanity detected. lost cause. BlueScreenOfDeath(WITH_A_VENGENCE);

--

I claim prior art

[bigberk (547360)]

I wrote a typing tutor-esque program at least a decade ago, using GW-Basic no less. It provided educational feedback of various kinds to both students and teachers.

This is not Speak n Spell

[xigxag (167441)]

This patent app is referring to a (possibly networked) pen and tablet type device used as an educational tool. As this person [slashdot.org] points out, one can think of possible prior art here. But really, this is just an ordinary straightforward patent. It's not any more evil than any other patent application.

If anything, it looks to me like MS is trying to end-run some of the Nintendo DS's possible functionality.

Re:This is not Speak n Spell

[xigxag (167441)]

And furthermore, referring to Mavis Beacon in the summary just goes to show that the submitter didn't even bother to read his own fripping sources. The patent application specifically refers to prior art using keyboard charaters as input and claims that it is an improvement to that kind of method. So no, MS is clearly not going after typing programs. At least, not here.

Useful comments please.

[northcat (827059)]

I looked at the slashdot comments for useful information and opinion on the patent, but found some worthless posts meant to better the poster's karma and some humourless funny posts. I don't know how to read patents, so can anyone please make a useful comment about what the patent actually says? Please don't make funny replies to this with posts like "you must be new here".

Re:Useful comments please.

[pjt33 (739471)]

There's plenty of opinion. As the summary points out, the important word is "unstructured". Unless it has a technical meaning in the context of patents, it will surely require interpretation by the courts eventually, because anyone sued for infringement will be able to make a good case that all computer IO is structured.

I will admit one thing...

[cloudkj (685320)]

As I grew up using Microsoft software, one thing I have learned is how to get my computer screen to turn all blue.

Prior art: 1968

[sakusha (441986)]

Jeebus, this is basic stuff that's been done in CAI for decades. The firmest prior art is probably IBM CourseWriter [murdoch.edu.au] which dates back to 1968, maybe even farther. I worked porting some CourseWriter programs back in the early 70s, they did exactly what the MS patent describes. In fact, that was the whole POINT of CourseWriter, to branch to extended instructional material depending on user input.
IBM even had a little "voice unit" for synthesized speech output from the old Coursewriter machines, but I forget the model number of the CPUs, I think they were 1401s. I have a nameplate from one of the old voice units somewhere, I found it lying on the floor when the old machines were decommissioned and the new DECs were installed.

No prior art.

[rice_burners_suck (243660)]

I am going to patent taking a shit. I'll title the patent: Method and Apparatus for Removing Human Feces from the Human Body and Placing Same in Feces Collection and Disposal Apparatus.

Then, I'll install a money collector, along with a credit card machine, on every toilet sold in the U.S. I'll make millions!!!! Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahah!

I'd bet you that the USPTO employees won't EVER figure out that some amount of prior art (though I won't tell you where it is) already exists.

Re:Education? Feedback ? and Software ?

[EEBaum (520514)]

Education: "No, don't push that button right after pushing this one. Bad things will happen."

Feedback: "You just pushed those two buttons in order. Your system will now crash."

Software: "The system that is now crashing."

Re:Experimental Psychology

[shis-ka-bob (595298)]

That reminds me of Emacs and Eliza, the software 'psychoanalyst' module. That accepts very unstructured text and formulates a response. That certainly seems to meet the criteria of Claim 1 in this POS patent application. It would do my heart good to have RMS's software be the prior art that overturns this application.