Slashdot Log In
More Microsoft Patents
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:27 AM
from the because-they-can dept.
from the because-they-can dept.
An anonymous reader writes "One of the editors of LinuxWorld Magazine has an entry in his blog detailing more patents that Microsoft recently acquired. No, this isn't a rehash of the sudo patent. The new patents include one that seems to patent the use of the keyboard to navigate a web page! See the article here."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
More Microsoft Patents
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 352 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers,
Erick
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 12 2005, @09:37AM)
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday November 27 2006, @04:43PM)
What do the major American CEOs care? They're moving it overseas anyway! Maybe that's what they want. They don't even have to worry if it costs them a few hundred million USD every now and then, they're still richer than the whole rest of the world combined(possibly an exaggeration, but maybe not...).
I predict that only until the U.S. itself becomes irrelevant, economically, nothing here will change.
Paranoid raving? Justified cynicism? Entirely right? I don't know...
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that another problem with this, too, is that patent disputes are often handled "incorrectly". Instead of disputing patent infringement through courts, I think that all patent-related disputes should be settled through a special (out-of-court) mediation system run by the patent office.
Perhaps I would suggest a system with 3 mediators per "settlement session" -- 2 who are highly-trained, skilled individuals with specific experience in the area of the patent dispute, and perhaps 1 who has some formal judicial experience.
Their jobs would basically consist, on a daily basis, of hearing patent-related complaints. Part of this effort could be funded through fees collected as a result of patent submission. (Hence, to fund this, I recommend that patent application fees be raised by some nominal amount.) That way, even "little guys" can go to this settlement session without having to have legal representation (and having to pay the large fees associated with them).
Of course, there are many other things that would have to be considered in order to implement such a system, but you get the point. I suspect that this "forced arbitrage" would render the patent system a bit "leaner" and less worrisome for the "little guy" who might be threatend by large, enormous patent-wielding multinationals.
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.nixnuts.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 01 2004, @01:43PM)
Call it what it really is.
Patent Spamming
Throw enough crap at the USPTO, and they're bound to approve some of it.
Raising fees for patents is a BAD idea (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://solprovider.com/)
I agree with your ideas, but the implementation would not work:
1. Moving patent complaints to "settlement sessions" would not remove the need for lawyers. Big companies would send their lawyers, and normal people would have little hope without their own lawyers. Patent applications are so complex that applying for one without an IP lawyer is a waste of money; defending a patent without a lawyer would be worse.
2. Raising the fees would exclude even more "normal people" from applying for patents. They already cost too much: the basic filing fee is $770, [uspto.gov] and most patents require additional fees. My IP lawyer requires $8000 before starting the process (and you do not want to file without a lawyer.) This means that the McD's worker who invents a better basket for frying fries has no hope of affording a patent.
Better would be to lower the fees, but add penalties based on your income. One percent of your yearly income (average the last 3 years) should work. If the minumum-wage worker files for $100, and could be penalized another $100, he may go for it. If MSFT files for $100, but could be penalized $74,000 (generously using the net income after taxes and all other deductions) [yahoo.com], they might stop filing these obviously bad patents.
Extra incentive: give a portion (10%?) of the penalty to whoever provides evidence that a patent is bad:
- MSFT proves Joe WageWorker's patent is bad: Joe is penalized $100; MSFT is given $10.
- Joe proves MSFT's patent is bad: MSFT is penalized $74,000; Joe gets $7,400, preferably tax-free for doing the government's work for it.
This could result in patents being filed by the lowest paid person involved in the process (like the janitor.) Any ideas about avoiding that problem?
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.icemark.net/~beh/)
(e.g. introduce a blocking period for a company/holding if they introduce an abusive patent; e.g. a patent that clearly violates obviousness restrictions, or patents that have lots of prior art, like the TAB-links patent seems to have; if a company were denied even filing additional patents for a year of so after trying patent abuse, it would definitely put more pressure on the companies to only submit sensible patents; because otherwise they might forfeit the possibility to patent something that might really warrant a patent).
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @06:02PM)
I'd argue that extending the block period to two years (more damaging to the false filers), as well as extending it to all daughter companies would be more effective. Personally I'd like to see a more vendictive clause put in: you file a false patent and three of your existing patents will be placed in the public domain. I don't see that happening, but I'll bet that'd stop this crap cold.
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.phoenix.edu/)
Perhaps there could be a law where any company whose patents have more than X amount of prior art then receives an audit of all its patents. Any with Y percent of junk patents are barred from registering patents for Z years.
Of course, any junk patents that are discovered in the Audit are placed in the Public Domain.
Lynx (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lynx (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider if you went down to city hall and filed paperwork transferring ownership of several dozen properties into your name, as well as the city park and other "public commons" properties. You then went out and notified the legitimate owners of the properties you just stole that they either pay rent to you or you're evicting them.
In this scenario, you're going to jail. But when Microsoft fraudulantly claims ownership to other persons property and public commons property, their only risk is having the paperwork undone and the application expense wasted.
It's time to pursue criminal penalties. Balmer's obviously perpetrating fraud and theft. Let's see him spend time with Bernie Ebbers. And if our government doesn't see it this way, then they should not be surprised when we come and close down the USPTO and other enablers of this crime. Certainly they know they're accessories to this crime by now? Either fix the problem folks, or we're going to lump you in with the other white collar criminals.
Re:Lynx (Score:4, Funny)
Well, it gets even better - some guy in Australia has patented the wheel [bbc.co.uk] (credit for that link goes to one of the comment posters on the article page).
I wasn't entirely sure if I should laugh or cry.
Old Patent (Score:5, Informative)
Quick, sombody please... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://fennecfoxen.org/)
On the contrary: Perhaps funding is the issue. If they make money for every patent filed, there's no incentive for them to throw out or even discourage bogus patents.
Re:Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.zocalo.uk.com/)
As the law stands now, companies try and remain ignorant of any patents filed by their competitors, thus (in theory) minimising their liability while enabling business as usual. The contingency plan in the event of being accused of patent infringement seems to be to be one of trying to fight the patent first, and if that looks like failing enter into a cross licensing deal with your own patent portfolio. Given that stance, even if patents are open for public review prior to approval, I doubt many companies would be willing to review and submit challenges if doing so might negate their claim to ignorance in the process. Sure, they might get patent application X annulled, but if they are found to be infringing upon approved patent application Y then they are going to find it much harder to show they were unaware if they are demonstrably reviewing patents.
The current situation with patents at the USPTO has gotten way too far out of hand, probably so much so that recovery isn't likely to happen no matter what is done. Even so, it's going to be better to at least make an attempt at reigning things back in than doing nothing at all, but I don't think that patent lawyers raking in the dollars are going to be too happy with that idea...
In other news . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Prior art found (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace the tab key with the cursor keys and you've got the Lynx browser. Jeez, what a pile of nonsense.
Re:"Self Defense" Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
There is such a thing as the Separation of Powers, and the President (Bush) has no power to dictate what the Judicial Branch does.
The grandparent said that Bush's Justice Department dropped the suit against Microsoft. The Justice department is not part of the Judiciary, it answers the the Attourney General of the United States of America. The grandparent is in fact correct that the Justice department under Bush caved on the Anti-trust suit. Whether Bush had anything to do with it is another question.
Re:Prior art found (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Prior art found (Score:4, Informative)
Actually IE 3 was the first browser that allowed keyboard Navigation, and was one of the 'new' features of IE3 that gave it a lead on all the existing browsers of the time.
Just because it is COMMON in all broswers today doesn't meant that microsoft isn't the first software company to implement the idea in a Browser.
Which I am sure will anger a lot people here, but they were the first browser to have keyboard navigation features.
Some of us that were here when IE3 was released, remember this, and how handy it was at the time.
Exactly when was that? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.offworldpress.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 31 2002, @12:57PM)
My part to end this foolishness (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony of the whole thing is that Linux is doing the same thing to Microsoft that they did to Netscape. Netscape should have run around patenting the browser I suppose...
If enough consumers give Microsoft the axe like me, maybe they will get the message.
The keyboard navigation patent (Score:3, Informative)
shoot itself in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shoot itself in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing to worry about there. It will never happen. If M$ were to actually file a suit over any of these stupid patents, it would only draw attention to how completely baseless they are and might even cause their patent hoarding spree to come to a halt.
Since MS has already bought off the DOJ (and apparently the USPTO), what makes you believe they'd lose? Most companies would simply give in rather than face an expensive legal battle with MS and its bottomless bank account. When MS starts enforcing its patents to restrain OSS, the only thing standing in their way is the EFF.
Sheesh! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://valinor.net/)
EU: Listen! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll say it again! Statute of Limitation! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://gpwiki.org/)
One of the major problem with patents (in my mind) is the fact that patent holders are permitted to sit on their patents and do nothing, even when they are aware of infringing acts. Then, 10 years down the road, they spring out of nowhere with the infringement suit. This is what Unisys did with GIFs [burnallgifs.org]. Unisys allowed the web to become addicted to GIFs, without filing any suits. No, no... they bided their time! Wait until everyone is dependent on GIFs, THEN spring the trap; that's the key! I find this behavior to be underhanded and repugnant. UNISYS HAD TO KNOW! As if they were not aware that GIF was the image format of choice on the web. It's impossible.
An infringement statute of limitation would prevent possible future evils, too. For example, how long has Microsoft known about SAMBA, and not done anything about it? Might they not enforce their IP at some point in the future, when Linux is finally becoming accepted on the desktop? To kill SAMBA at that point would severely cripple Linux desktop adpotion. A statute of limitations would prevent this.
I'd even go so far as to suggest that a similar statute of limitation be applied to copyright violation suits. If a copyright holder IS AWARE of an IP violation, then they must file suit within a specified amount of time (2 years?), or lose the right to do so, in that instance. It's easy to see how this would benefit society: SCO.
Kudos to Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
I mean just image how great it will be when those innovations are actually implemented and we can use them. Simply run a program as an other user, I mean, wow, just think of the possibilities.
Or simply navigating a browser with the tab key, can it get any better?
And in case you missed it, you can't only navigate with the tab key, it will also be visually indicated where in the hypertext document you are. I mean, talk about brilliance. They simply think about every little detail! whoa!
I just can't wait to see these new features on my desktop.
I love this company!!!!!!1111!!oneone!!1
Re:Remember when... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://cyberkinetica.homeunix.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 28 2004, @03:41PM)
IBM WebExplorer... It was fully keyboard navigable - used the Tab key and all the hyperlinks were also made available in the Links pull down menu.
IIRC, WebEx predated any MSFT browser. Unfortunately, only available for OS/2.
But it was excellent at rendering pages before they had completed loading... even giant HTML tables can be rendered before all the html was loaded.
This just in... (Score:4, Funny)
The USPTO has just granted Microsoft a patent for "novel method to foster innovation". Using this new method, inventors will submit an application describing their invention to an authority which will then search through all previous inventions and judge whether the application is indeed novel. All succesful applicants are given a legal monopoly for their invention. Microsoft hopes this novel method will motivate inventors 768.8% more than currently used methods.
I'm going to write to my congressman (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://bielefeldtpapers.blogspot.com/)
YATWSDNARTPA (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't patent "the use of a keyboard to navigate a web page." What it patents is, as far as I can tell, the use of the tab key to navigate to and to place a non-rectangular highlight over a weblink, or to place any-shaped highlight over an imagemap.
Re:YATWSDNARTPA (Score:4, Informative)
What is claimed is:
1. In a computer system having a video display, a keyboard device for providing a key input, a method of discovering each of a plurality of hyperlinks in a hypertext document, said input device having keys, comprising:
(a) displaying the hypertext document on the video display;
(b) organizing the plurality of the hyperlinks in the document into a sequence in an element list, wherein the sequence of the hyperlinks is based on the disposition of each hyperlink in the document, and wherein the element list comprises information describing a location of a next hyperlink and a type of the next hyperlink; and
(c) when a predefined key on the keyboard device is actuated, giving focus to the next hyperlink of the plurality of hyperlinks in the sequence.
Then follow the other claims. So they do patent "the use of a keyboard to navigate a web page."
One more nail in the Patent Office's coffin (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://jinxidoru.blogspot.com/)
U.S. Patent Office (Score:5, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/04/1825 22 7&tid=154&tid=1
We know that U.S Patent Office is notorious of issuing patents (particularly software patents) that are clearly unpatentable. But very few are aware that U.S. Patent Office is violating our constitutional right by promulgating and enforcing a Microsoft-IE-only policy.
This little-noticed law really makes me mad and feel like crying--why a government agency can be so stupid.
Basically, when you file a patent application, if the Patent Office thinks that your invention is not patentable because it is not novel or nonobvious, it will send you copies of prior art patents so you can rebut their rejection.
Now the Patent Office has changed its policy and will not send you those hard copies. Instead, it requires you to download those prior art reference on-line.
Under ordinary circumstances, this would not pose any problem, except that we are dealing with one of the most stupid government agencies in the history of mankind. The United States Patent Office, without much notice, now requires that, in order to download those references, you must register with the Patent Office, then the Patent Office will install a program ON YOUR MACHINE WHICH MUST BE RUNNING MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER UNDER MICROSOFT WINDOWS to allow you to communicate with the Patent Office before you can download those prior art patents that our government must furnish you as a matter of our constitution right and as part of the filing fees paid to the Patent Office.
Thus, basically it has boiled down to this stupid law: if you want to receive a patent, you are now REQUIRED BY LAW to have a machine with Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer in your office.
In other words, in order to exercise your constitutional rights, you must have a machine that runs Microsoft Windows and you must set Microsoft Internet Explorer as your default browser.
What kind of stupid government agency is this? I know many banks used to have the same requirement (i.e., using Microsoft IE running in Microsoft Windows), but they have got rid of this stupid policy because they have to compete in order to survive.
The United States Patent and Trademark can implement and insist such a stupid policy because it doesn't have to compete. But what about those 4000+ patent attorneys? How come all of them are so quiet? Are all of them idiots?
Even our HomeLand Security Department has changed its Microsoft-only policy. It appears that our Patent and Trademark Office is the only government agency in the whole world that requires its users to use Microsoft Windows. Unlike Homeland Security Department, the U.S. Patent Office has to account to no one!
Microsoft survives and propers exactly because our government agencies are unafraid to abuse their power and unashamed of being idiots.
and
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=120633&thres ho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=154&tid=1&mode=thread&pid=1 0160890#10163299
Article I, section 8, of the Constitutuion specifically provides that: "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Congress has the power to determine what can or cannot be patented (e.g., mathematical formulas cannot be patented, but mathematical formulas reduced to software code can, etc.)
Congress also vests in administrative agencies, e.g., the Patent Office, certain rule-making powers. Those rules, once promulgated, are equivalent to "laws", though they are much easier to be challenged in court. In order to exercise those rule-making powers, the agencies must follow certain well-defined procedure (e.g., publishing Official Gazette as Federal Register), AND
Ignorant patent critics (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @04:03AM)
When you are determining whether a patent is sane, the abstract content *does not matter*. That's just a tool to help you find a patent you're looking for. Same goes for the title. If you are saying "this patent has prior art", you should never, never, ever even *mention* the contents of the title or the abstract. They don't have legal force.
The thing to look at are the *claims*. The patent covers anything that uses one ore more of the listed claims (these are numbered). Each claim has to be invalidated on its own, so you can invalidate a bunch of claims and not invalidate the whole patent. If there are multiple sections to a claim (these are lettered), then *all* of the sections must apply to a device,system, or whatever before it is infringing.
So if you want to say "this patent has a claim that's bullshit", you need to cite an *entire claim*, including all the subsections of that claim, and show how those subsections already applied to an existing system *before* the claimed date of invention (there's another point; the date the patent is *issued* doesn't mean much). Furthermore, unless every claim is invalid, the patent still has strength on the valid claims.
I don't like Microsoft. I really don't like software patents. But claiming that Microsoft is coming up with bullshit patents based on totally ridiculous grounds doesn't do anyone any good -- it just spreads misinformation among the group of people that could be criticizing Microsoft for one of many legitimate reasons.
This patent applies to Image Maps (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone remember who came out with image maps first? It's possible that Microsoft did.
Anyway, everyone is jumping up and down about this tab thing, when the patent is actually for highliting parts of an image map with circles, rectangles, or polygons as the user tabs through a list of hyperlinks.
Easy to Fix all this.. (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.pobox.com/~rwhite)
With this in place, general software is effectively unpatentable, but the software components of specialty hardware (e.g. CPU microcode) is.
This creates a basic economic pressure. If you invent a brand-new form of (say) networking, then as long as you are manufacturing the network cards that your cusomers *must* use, then you are good to go. If, however, you "really want to cash in" the act of licensing your network cards for general manufacture, or manufacture your cards for general use, then your patent automagically goes away when a commodity threshold is passed.
Another side effect is that "eumlators" are automagically legal. This means that your real devices must "outperform" the general emulation to be worth it. So a good "encyrption chip" for instance would be patentable, but the OOS/competetive implementation (which would presumably be slower unless your product sucks) would be legal and automatically non-infringing.
That also means that the agregious abuse of the patent system could go on for a while but the "regular computers" out there would be exempt from the battle. If MS made a "special" keyboard for traversing links, the commodity keyboard I am using + Lynx would not be infringing under any intrepretation.
Problem solved.
Re:The reason... (Score:5, Informative)
Filed: March 6, 1997
Re:Debunking theories here... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.ffii.org/)
- a computing device, a display, some key-input device, an algorithm to discover all hyperlinks in an html document;
- a) a way to display to the html document on the display;
- b) a way to organise the links into a sequence in a list based on their disposition in the document (e.g. add them to a linked list as you encounter them), with the location of the next hyperlink (pointers!) and the description of the type of the next hyper link (typ: hyperlink_type_t);
- c) when a predefined key is pressed, shift focus to the next hyperlink.
Apart from that you have to keep track in your url list of the types of the links (regardless of the classification you use), all it does cover is indeed plain and pure going from one link to the next by pressing a key.