You Might Be a Microsoft Patent Infringer

theodp writes "Do you use drop-down menus, alphanumerical input boxes, check boxes, radio buttons or sliders to allow client side-processing of data? Utilize SQL, HTML, ActiveX, Java, Perl, JavaScript or JScript to do so? Employ arrays, stacks, queues, linked lists, or decision trees to organize things? Well Bunky, you might be infringing on Microsoft's new patent for Dynamically adjusting data values and enforcing valid combinations of the data in response to remote user input, which the USPTO granted Tuesday after 6+ years and two rejections."

Prior Art?

[Bonewalker]

Isn't there a plethora of prior art out there to disprove that this is a "new" idea that Microsoft, of all companies, came up with?

And look at this quote from the abstract: As such, the user can dynamically adjust the set of results and sub-items from a remote location. The system and method of the present invention preferably utilizes client-side processing to achieve real time interaction.

How can it be from a remote location if it is happening on the client-side? That would seem very local to me. But what do I know?

Wow, the USPTO is worthless

[multiplexo]

So the idea behind this password is basically input checking over the web, the twist on it appears to be that in order to get around bandwidth limitations the input checking code is downloaded to the client, this way the client can change the options around without having to communicate with the server every time an option is changed.

OK, perhaps there isn't prior art for this specific implementation but I remember learning about the concept of checking for valid user input and adjusting things accordingly back when I started to program in BASIC on a Vic 20. The fact that this got through is further proof that no one at the USPTO has a clue about computers, software, programming or indeed any piece of technology more complicated than a doorknob.

Topic overrated, flamebait

[Vaevictis666]

from the patent application:

What is claimed is:
1. A method for dynamically displaying pricing data on a client display device...

Note that that's a 1, meaning that's the patent request at its broadest. Once you get past the abstract, according to claim 1 there is required to be client-server communication, a price list, and rules for combining them.

This patent would likely apply to a typical linux distro installation package manager (handling dependencies etc) that was (a) run online, (b) charged prices, and (c) did dependency checking on the form itself before submission.

Hell, I doubt that even Linspire's Click'n'Run violates it...

Because not everyone can afford to go to court?

[brunes69]

If MS decided to send me, or anyone of millions of small companies, a letter saying "pay us 10,000 in royalties or we will sue you for 10 million in damages", guess what? I can't afford the patent attorney for the 8+ months of litigation, and I sure as hell can't afford the 10 million.

The sad thing is that I should even need a patent attorney in this case - it should be so cut and deied that you could represent yourself! But alas, that is rarely so.

Re:Oh God Not Again

[forsetti]

IANAL, but once the patent is granted, the process becomes "guilty until proven innocent". If the patent holder goes after an "infringer", it is now up to the infringer to prove they are not, which can be a costly endeavor.

Slash FUD

[ahknight]

That's just a stupid, stupid interpretation of the patent. After reading the patent you will notice that it's about using client-side scripting to enable or disable conflicting form component values based on the current values of other components all specifically in the context of "pricing information" retrieved from the server. After reading the full description it's basically something they thought of when designing Carpoint (now http://autos.msn.com/ [msn.com]) so that after each selection (year, model, etc.) you didn't hit the server for the values for the next item. Very popular these days, but not so much in 1998 when this was filed.

One such system is a server database with a used car price guide for access by a remote user. First, the remote user makes an initial request to access results, such as pricing information for a particular car. After the remote user makes the initial request, the server collects sub-items, such as options relating to the particular car, and transmits the options to the remote user. The remote user is then required to select options for building an option configuration. If the option selections are invalid or conflict, the server notifies the user that the selections are invalid and then retransmits the options to the user. This validation step is repeated until the remote user submits valid option selections and an option configuration without conflicts. When the selection is valid, the server collects pricing information based on the option selections and overall configuration. The pricing information built from the selected options is then transmitted to the remote user.

...

Specifically, first, a user requests information from a remote computer and then results of the requested information are collected at a host computer. Second, the results, sub-items and rules of enforcement of the sub-items relating to the request are transmitted from the host to the remote computer in a format that is preferably encoded and transparent to the remote user. Third, the results are remotely processed in response to user interaction of the results and sub-item selection and configuration. The processed results are dynamically adjusted and displayed as the user interacts with the results and the sub-items. Sub-item conflicts are prevented by enforcement of the transmitted rules of sub-item combinations and predefined interactive options. Graphical user interface control devices are used to allow user interaction and adjustment of the results. For example, alphanumerical boxes, drop-down menus, check boxes, radio buttons or the like can be used. The system and method of the present invention preferably utilizes client side-processing of the results instead of server-side processing. This enables the user to quickly access and adjust information dynamically and in real time without server delays.

Still a crappy thing to patent, I totally agree, but hardly every damned control widget in every damned language in the known fucking universe as the author hints at.

FUD sucks, no matter who spews it.

Re:Oh God Not Again

[lunadog]

...But the mere threat of court action could be enough to close down many free software open source projects.

I think this could lead to "not distributable in the US" clauses...

Hope y'all like living in a ghetto!

bu**sh**

[dtfinch]

They've patented using client side script for what exactly it was designed to be used for. Like purchasing a bicycle and then patenting the act of riding it in the normal, intended fashion.

Fascinating...

[ratboy666]

Back in the mid-80's, I wrote a program in PROLOG. Rule sets for a character based "GUI" entry screen components were sent, based on the current task to be performed. Data validation, control layout and control enabling was done by executing the PROLOG predicates.

Simple idea... worked well (we only had 2400 baud modems, 9600 baud was the upper end; sending only entry rules and the PROLOG was a reasonable choice).

Took a 512K machine (at the time, a very big micro).

This was *never* used for "pricing" -- it was used to specify typographic instruction (a slightly more advanced task, IMNSHO).

Obviously, can be used for "pricing", "estimating", &etc. (estimating would have been the next logical use).

Still stands as my only commercial PROLOG program.

And the wheel goes around...

I would think that there are other examples -- the IBM 3270 field control protocol is almost there (and I bet that it has been extended to cover this use as well). Other interesting conflicts are with Smalltalk/Squeak, and even the TCL/TK toolkit.

So I don't think that Microsoft will dare enforce this one.

Ratboy.

Microsofting for dummies...

[relaxrelax]

MS's 5 steps plan, (c) 1984 by Bill Gates:

1- If you can't patent oxygen, patent its use. If you can't patent its use, patent its use at a remote location - deny any prior art.

2- Get a restraining order for astronauts on Mars not to use oxygen in remote locations without being owned by MS first; the patent will be invalidated in less than 5 minutes. If the astronauts manage to survive, patent their heating system for the next 5 minutes after that. If that doesn't work, patent Mars rock analysis to make the whole mission is pointless.

3- Take over Mars. Rename it Microsoft RedPlanet (tm). Make sure MS manuals and college books don't mention the existence of alternatives, such as other planets. Use 18 front organisation to deny the existence of other planets.

4- Claim innovation, good faith, and take over a niche market unethically as punishment if caught taking over a niche market illegally.

5- Repeat until monopoly on everyone else's innovations!

I refuse to be modded funny. That's truly how MS operates!!