Microsoft's 911 Patent

The register is reporting "'Microsoft was today granted a patent for accessing data used by the emergency services.' They quote from the application 'In sum, what is needed is a way to provide users with access to needed emergency information. This should be simple from the user's perspective, so that even very emotional users can find what is needed in a straightforward, yet comprehensive process.' Apparently the patent was filed one month after 9/11."

Re:Hold on, I need to type a message to 911...

[TripMaster Monkey]

That's why you sit down with your children and educate them about the 911 system.

Re:Good and bad

[AviLazar]

Ok so if Bill adds Solitaire to this program will that make you happy? The fact that OnStar and cell phones do different things does not make a difference - they are patented products that deal with 911.

Re:I'm confused kinda

[gowen]

I sort of agree with you, with one massive proviso:

What's the non-obvious novel invention here? Answer (as far as I can tell): there isn't one. It's an IP land-grab that's an attempt to to gain a 20 year monopoly on computer-facilitated Emergency Service response.

Re:I'm confused kinda

[m50d]

Do you not think it's kinda wrong for them to be patenting and making money off an improved 911 system? I suppose the people who make fire engines etc. are also making money off the emergency services, but still, it feels like it shouldn't be subject to ruthless profiteering like everything else.

Re:seems valid

[cybermage]

I may have picked the wrong week to stop <verb> <noun>.

I think you mean <gerund noun> <noun> (e.g., smoking crack)

gerunds [commnet.edu]

Its broad, but...

[mikeborella]

There is only one set of independent claims. Usually that means that there were other sets ruled unpatentable by the PTO, which may later find their way (in a more limited form) to a continuation patent.

We're only bithcing because it's Microsoft

[stlhawkeye]

Other companies have proposed patents, also since 9/11, in an effort to improve the reliability of the emergency response system. Some have been extensions of existing technology, some have been replacements for existing technology, some have been efforts to bolster the reliability of existing technology.

One of the more well-known was the one that VoIP filed [techweb.com], meant to stabilize the usability of internet phones for emergency calls by rerouting VoIP calls to emergency numbers through the conventional phone system.

Microsoft's patent isn't quite like VoIPs but my point is that if this was, say, a patent being filed by Google, a number of you who decry this move would be celebrating their the foresight and genius.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Invention?

[sepluv]

It must be a slow news day.

Needless to say, this is yet another patent that does not cover an invention (which is supposed to be the point of patents), but (arguably) a discovery--although it is more like common knowledge than something only Microsoft have discovered.

Once again like most U.S. patents:

• there is no physical object
• it did not take time, money or effort to hone and eventually produce this pathetic `plan' [uspto.gov] of an `invention'--it is just an idea
• this actually impedes the "progress of science and the arts" [U.S. constitution] (and, in this case, the emergency services) and in no way gives anything back (e.g.: by actually including useful plans to help someone make such a system after the patent has expired)
• it would be trivial for someone to come up with this independently (without realising they were breaking the law)

...and U.S. politicians wonder why people think their patent system is so insane...

The reason why patents were invented was to stop people keeping the workings of their inventions trade secrets which would never be released to the public (whereas--the then new-fangled--patents actually run out) thereby impeding the "progress of the science and the arts", therefore patents are only supposed to cover something that a company might be able to keep a secret. In this case, the idea (which is what they are trying to patent; as opposed to the specific invention that Microsoft has or has not yet--as the case may be--produced) would not be coverable by a trade secret as once they produced such a product it would be common knowledge (and thefore no longer a secret) that such a product could be produced. Whereas, if Microsoft were patenting the specific workings of their invention, these would be harder for someone with one of their products to hand to work out--thereby potentially patentable as they are potentionally able to be kept secret (while Microsoft sell the product).

Making a (possibly poor) analogy with the field of consumer law, this is a bit like Microsoft trying to trademark the generic term for the class of their product as opposed to a name for a particular brand (e.g.: hypothetically, if Microsoft were in the automobile maunfacturing industry, trademarking the word, "car"; or, again hypothetically, if Microsoft were in the operating-system engineering industry trademarking the word "windows" for a windows system...o, nevermind...).

The patent is entitled "a method and system of providing emergency data"; however reading it one realises that (in common with most patents using those magic `method' and `system' words in their titles) it is not actually a patent on "a [particular] method and system of providing emergency data" but actually a patent that stops anyone else from producing any "method and system of providing emergency data".

This is backed up by the way that, throughout the patent, it says that "this invention [sic.] covers [foo], [bar] and [baz]" or similar language (where foo, bar and baz are sorts of inventions that might be made in the future by others) instead of describing the actual invention that Microsoft have produced (or, I suspect, have not actually produced) so that others can gain from this knowledge after the patent expires.

There are many other ways in which this, once again, goes against the basic principles of the patent system. However, as I suspect (hopefully) everyone will laugh at any (unlikely) attempts by Microsoft to enforce this patent, I will not spend more time analysing this drivel (that Microsoft and other large corporations produced by the dead-tree load on a daily basis).

No, I do not wanted the MS automated Emergency Sys

[WhiteWolf666]

No, Thank You.

Please do not install this is my schools, in public places, or government offices.

Please do not install this in my place of work. Please do not install this in my residence, or any of my relatives/friends residences.

If there is someone out there dumb enough to use a Microsoft designed system for their emergency response, go ahead. The day my town starts pushing the Microsoft Emergency Response system is the day I move for the hills.

Statistics be damned. Test results be damned. I don't care if they prove that this system is perfect. I do NOT trust them enough to run my emergency services (or even be involved at all), and YES, it is purely a corporate trust issue.

There is good reason Microsoft is not involved in the design of mission critical life support medical systems.

Similarly, we saw how the Microsoft "next generation" naval warship (in conjunction with the U.S. navy) worked out (if you don't know, go check google).

There is good reason Microsoft should NOT be involved in the design of mission critical emergency systems.

Re:New product in the works?

[xrobertcmx]

Yes, the National Gaurd is a branch of the US Military. But until the last few years it wasn't called up unless their was a state of emergency within the state. That role is now changing. I did three active in the Army as an 11M,C2 then went on to be an 11B in the Gaurd. And by the way I would take it as a personal insult if someone didn't speak their political opinion. Critizing that coward in the white house and the rest of his buddies who all failed to serve when the poorest American couldn't get out it is no insult to any American, especially those who have paid. They paid so that everyone of us could speak our mind, saying that someone is being disresptful to them when they are critical of Bush or his cabal is an insult to those men and women. An dif you need to know why go re-read the oath you swore.