Microsoft's Bold Patent Move 571
theodp writes "On Thursday, the USPTO disclosed that Microsoft has a patent pending for displaying numbers in a box to make them stand out. " Check out the images to see the power of this breakthrough patent. That's almost impossible to do without patents.
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Now, whether Microsoft (or anyone) should be allowed to patent such thing... I don't know.
Re:Am I dumb? (Score:2, Informative)
like putting a box around it or underlining it or boldening it or making it a brighter color.
so if you have a document with an underlined word in it now you are infringing on microsofts patent. you better pay them your $699 or they will come after you.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Post Text Missing? (Score:5, Informative)
Not trying to be a grammar nazi, but there's a whole friggin' word missing there...
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you are misreading the patent. In a US patent, each claim stands on its own. If only have to reproduce one of them to infringe on the patent.
And claim 1 is: A method for emphasizing numerical data contained in an electronic document, the method comprising: determining whether a request to emphasize all of the numerical data in the electronic document has been received; and in response to receiving the request, locating all of the numerical data contained within the electronic document and emphasizing the located numerical data.
This is really as ridiculous as we beleive..
Re:How about patenting these images too? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nice summary. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How about patenting these images too? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Context highlighting? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
It's simple because it's completely table-driven... it doesn't require the complicated set of if/length/substr/== commands that you'd originally think it would.
More formally, so people don't try to ding me when they don't see the difference... finite state automata [wikipedia.org] are clearly simpler things than turing machines [wikipedia.org]. This clearly explains the "aren't they mutually exclusive?" issue. The first thing you think of when you think of implementing number-matching for human-languages is that it can't be expressed via DFA's. It's a little surprising that it can be. But the fact that you can wedge something that otherwise would more naturally be expressed as a full algorithm into a DFA, means that it's going to be messy as hell.
Re:CSS (Score:3, Informative)
Really? *cough*SmartSuite [lotus.com]*cough*StarOffice [sun.com]*cough*
I think its more likely that the patent is targeted at the various free word processing programs.
I don't think it's actually *targeted* at anything. Targeting something with a patent would imply that the feature exists. (Which would invalidate the patent.) Instead, Microsoft is simply building a large portfolio. The idea is that if they cast a large enough net, they can eventually threaten any would-be attacker with hundreds of vague claims. While none of them would probably hold up in court, the claims would tie things up for long enough to bankrupt or entirely block the attacker.
Re:How about patenting these images too? (Score:4, Informative)
Firefox's automatic plugin finder is unlikely to work because even though the patent images meet the TIFF standard their format is not recognized by most TIFF viewers.
Re:CSS (Score:3, Informative)
That's why patents usually have a long list of claims, starting with the first, most general claim and ending with the last, most specific claims.
It's a defensive technique: prior art can invalidate the most general claims, but not the later, specific claims. Competitors' design-around-patent efforts can avoid the later specific claims, but may still infringe on the earlier, general ones.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
The quoted regular expression in the GP was generated algorithmically. It was originally a word list from the Lingua::EN::Words2Nums [cpan.org] module (Check out the source if you want to see the list.) To generate the regex, the list was passed through the Regex::PreSuf [cpan.org] module, which creates fast-running regular expressions out of word lists.
Large regular expressions are simple and ugly... (Score:2, Informative)
For those who don't like Perl, the same regexp
is also valid for PHP, Python, Ruby, Java or JavaScript or Qt3.
Just get rid of the ?: which is just there to say
that the parenthesis should not be "tagging".
Basically, it's just a condensed enumeration of all possible numbering nouns with a bunch of -OR- operator all over the place with repetition where the language makes sense.
and the
of course, you could also rewrite it as a large sequence of small regexp if you prefer that...
Re:Prior art + obviousness (Score:4, Informative)