Microsoft Frowned at for Smiley Patent 369
theodp writes "ZDNet UK reports on criticism of Microsoft's attempt to patent the creation of custom emoticons. 'I would have expected to see something like this suggested by one of our more immature community members as a joke on Slashdot,' quipped Mark Taylor of the Open Source Consortium. 'We now appear to be living in a world where even the most laughable paranoid fantasies about commercially controlling simple social concepts are being outdone in the real world by well-funded armies of lawyers on behalf of some of the most powerful companies on the planet.'"
Uhoh (Score:5, Funny)
=( (r)
* Disclaimer: "=(" is a registered Trademark of Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, WA. Used without permission.
(Please don't sue)
Re:Uhoh (Score:2)
Re:Uhoh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uhoh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uhoh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uhoh (Score:5, Informative)
This requires the source app/OS to "select pixels" from a font in order to display the emoticon.
(It happens that this is the same sequence that the user originally entered, but the patent does not disclaim this).
Another example is an email client that sends a picture of an emoticon using uuencode or base64.
I think that this patent covers more than I think that you think that it does.
Re:Uhoh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhoh answer (Score:3, Informative)
The reason patents are often written this way with insanely broad initial claims and then later more restricted claims is (1) they want the patent to cover as much as possible, and (2) the additional claims are there as fall back positions incase the first claim is later struck down for prior art or as nonobvious.
So Microsoft was in fact granted a patent on:
A method, comprising: selec
Re:Uhoh (Score:2)
Don't you mean their Korean division?
Re:Uhoh (Score:3, Funny)
immature community members? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know. These days it seems like the editors don't comment as much as they used to...
[rimshot]
All I have to say... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:All I have to say... (Score:3, Funny)
A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination.
Note that if you happen to use a 19x19 group of pixels it not only violates the primary patent but claims 2 and 3 as well (and maybe others). I will select a 19x19 emoticon and a 2 character sequence and I will transmit
They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop it, Bill!
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:4, Insightful)
Having the patent doesn't mean they're going to go sue AOL, Yahoo, etc. if their messengers have custom emoticons. Clue in, guys.
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides which, yes it's a dumb patent, but is that MS's fault, or the patent office's? If I ask you for a thousand dollars and you give it to me, thus ending up unable to pay bills, isn't that your fault for being stupid enough to do it?
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:2, Insightful)
Both.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:4, Interesting)
2. What this does mean is that someone wishing to create an instant messenger with custom smilies is in for trouble. No lawyer is going to advise possible infringement.
3. So with this Microsoft may be differentiating their products, making it impossible for other products to have the same feature.
4. Worse, there is no legal requirements (IIRC) on licensing. In other words, although the patent system was instigates to promote publishing ideas in such a way that more companies implemented them, there is no requirement for the patent holder to actually allow it (with or without a fee).
5. Is it MS's fault or the patent office's?
Abusing a broken system is immoral and unethical. Microsoft have shown themselves to be both, which is why I will never buy or recommend their products.
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft already makes tons of money off the Windows monopoly and that is what all of their actions are about. Since the early 1990's, Microsoft is more worried about protecting their monopoly than expanding in other areas. Expansion is secondary IMO. They spend a couple of $billion per year on losing markets outside the desktop/server but THAT is more about keeping budding technologies/companies from getting too much power and marketshare in the PC periphery sectors. Look at their recent earnings report. ~30% from MS Windows, ~30% from MS Office for Windows, ~20% from MS Windows Server/software, and until last year, EVERYTHING else was losing hundreds of millions each year. MSN advertising brought MSN into the black finally( popup ads maybe? ). Also, failing in the courtroom is not a big concern for MSFT since they'll be using much of this stuff as threats. It only has to LOOK like it has teeth in order to work as they intend it to. With $40 Billion in CASH, they can sue til the cows some home and not make a dent in that cash horde.
IMO, the current IP patent land grab is about protecting the Windows monopoly and very little about making money from new sectors or business markets. Never have I seen Microsoft support a none-Windows based product having over 50% marketshare. Even when Palm had 80% marketshare, every dbase vendor had a PalmOS based micro-dbase except MSFT. They came out with MS Access for WindowsCE when that only had 5% marketshare. The key to understanding Microsofts actions is to know their motivations and that is protecting the Windows monopoly. THAT is their business.
Everything else you wrote is right on target.
LoB
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:2)
That says that they look for things that aren't patented and patent them as a money-grab. Contrast that to how patents should be: coming up with a genius idea after years od development and protecting your investment.
It's not a genius idea, they didn't come up with it, and it's stupid to patent. In the same way that RollerBlade
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, MS took action, so yes it's their fault.
When the WTC was hit, was it America's fault or the terrorist's fault?
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:3, Informative)
Here you go: Microsoft patents ASF media file format, stops reverse engineering [advogato.org].
Microsoft is also demanding that people buy licenses to use their FAT file system: Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:2)
I remember using smilies as early as 1990 (could have been earlier).
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:2)
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/12/21332
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. You evidently don't know what a "defensive patent" actually is. To prevent another company from doing the same thing, they need merely to post the patent text in some public place- there's no need to actually officially file it. Once a concept has been published, it is unpatentable by others.
So-called "defensive patents" are actually retaliatory patents, which can be used to threaten some
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:5, Insightful)
Why mention that at all, except if on the offensive?
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:2)
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:3, Informative)
In the real world, people do connect the dots and interpret an indirect threat.
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:4, Insightful)
Patent violation is like robbery - it can happen regardless of whether or not a court has found that it happened. Sure, you can't say "legally" that the robbery occured, but you know it did. You don't have to wait for a judge to tell you that (but it isn't legally binding until he or she does).
I am morally certain that there are patent violations in practically every piece of software out there today, and I'm sure Linux has its fair share. All you have to do is look at the patent minefield even small developers have to wade through to understand how much the patent system is bogging us down in software development.
With that backdrop, all you have to do is add the piece about "selective enforcement" and it is easy to see why our system is deeply flawed. Essentially, there is a huge motive to patent everything in sight, to be used defensively, or offensively, which is a decision that can be made sometime in the future. Once you have the patents to use as weapons, you can then use them as bargaining chips, bullying some competitors and not others, at will. I think it would be very inteesting if companies were required to prosecute every violation of a patent issued to them. I think they would have to give a lot of thought to every patent they filed, both from a strategic perspective, as well as a resources perspective (who else does it hurt when I patent this? Are they my business partners? Do I have the legal and technical resources to hunt down every violator?)
In the case of MS, I think they would be perfectly willing to take Linux vendors to court. The main problem is that they wouldn't be able to change a whole lot by doing that, because you can just torrent the downloads and host them in a data haven like Sea Land. Sure, Red Hat would get litigated into oblivion, but then there'd be the next guy. Everyone moves to Debian, or Gentoo, or SuSE, or Mandriva, or whatever.
IBM saw the patent issue for what it is: a sword of Damocles over the head of open source software. So IBM responded by "donating" those patents to open source, i.e., promising not to sue if those patents were used in the Linux kernel (IIRC, not sure if it might have been other software as well).
Anyway, the point is that patents ARE a threat to open source, and one of the worst things you can do is ignore them or dismiss them. We can't afford to wait for a judge to rule about the violations, there needs to be some other plan.
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Patents and copyrights themselves only exist as artifacts of law. The violation of such cannot be any more "real" than the thing itself.
I agree with your general point, but likening patent violation to robbery, especially in the current ludicrous state of the patent system, is pure bollocks.
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:5, Insightful)
In some countries, like Japan for instance, the loser in a lawsuit has to compensate the winner for their expenses and may be assessed a fine. Some judges here in the US require a bond be placed to protect parties from frivolous lawsuits. IMO, the next needed steps in patent reform are, first, fines for filing frivolous patents, and second, clearer criteria for what is and is not patentable. These criteria need to be so clearly written that even government employees can determine if a patent application has merit.
A third reform step is to eliminate the limits on the time a patent can be challenged and overturned. For instance, if no one challenges a patent within two years, the patent holder can benefit from the de facto protection of the patent without recourse, until such time as that protection was determined to be erroneously granted and the patent overturned. My thinking is that a person erroneously granted patent rights should not be granted full patent protection just because someone didn't notice it within the challenge period. I wonder how many thousands of people are unproductively tied up spending anxious hours perusing published patent apps to protect themselves from trivial patent abuse.
Which brings me to the fourth reform: Patent apps need to be screenable by computer. (I wonder who is going to get the patent on that!)
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:2)
Another reason is to prevent anyone else from doing it. Even if you don't plan to actually use it.
Mine...all mine!
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:5, Interesting)
What about capping the number of patents a single company can own? What if, in order to gain a new patent, one must release an old patent into public domain?
It wouldn't be too much different than our current use of the judicial branch to regulate monopolies. Any thoughts?
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:5, Interesting)
No, people just don't like a company -- any company -- get a patent on something which (a) the company did not invent, (b) already existed more than a decade ago, (c) is really really obvious, (d) is in common use by nearly every computer user today.
It's like Microsoft said: "Hey, nobody got the idea to patent smileys yet! And everything should be patented by SOMEBODY! I mean, we can't have any concept not OWNED by someone, can we? So let's see if the patent office is stupid enough to grant us exclusive rights to something that is currently in the public domain! We can see what we do with such a patent later."
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:3, Insightful)
From The Little Prince, 1943, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (The Little Prince's conversation with a businessman who claimed to own the stars - emph. added):
"How is it possible for one to own the stars?"
"To whom do they belong?" the businessman retorted, peevishly.
"I don't know. To nobody."
"Then they belong to me, because I was the first pers
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:2)
Re:They want for us to hate them, it must be (Score:2)
however, I do believe there's prior art, here. Perhaps the patent is invalid!
Adium [adiumx.com] instant messenger for OSX has smiley plugins where you can design new smilies (ie: make +<:-) into a pope smiley) and use them in your IMs.
They've had that in there for quite some time... at least a year or 2. maybe longer? I never used theplugin system, as there haven't been anything I liked created and I like the defaults just fine.
People just enjoy jumpin
they want to patent emoticons, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Goatse version (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they want to patent emoticons, eh? (Score:2)
Re:they want to patent emoticons, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Oops :( (Score:2)
Re:Oops :( (Score:4, Informative)
(p.s. that is one awesome website. the posters are bloody hilarious [despair.com]
Patent THIS! (Score:5, Funny)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.
Re: (Score:2)
while you were all posting, i patented these :) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:while you were all posting, i patented these :) (Score:5, Funny)
Or did Microsoft beat you to it?
Despair.com (Score:2)
It was a joke, but a brilliant one - check out their site; their "demotivation" slogans and posters are classic.
One of my favorites:
Meetings - None of us are as dumb as all of us.
(Could be the
Of course, as an AFU'r, I do believe emoticons are for those who lack the skills to express themselves with words and the intelligence to understand what others have written.
Re:Despair.com (Score:2)
:-(
Re:Despair.com (Score:2)
Or Microsoft's...
Prior art? (Score:2)
Wan't the face... any face, smiley, frown or otherwise... a creation of the Almighty?
Ah, never mind...
Re:Prior art? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Prior art? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, "the Almighty" is a creation of man.
Ok, here's how I think it happened:
Big guy got all the chicks because he could provide and defend them. Little guy invented "the Almighty" (and the idea of priests) so he could instill fear in the big guy and be able to get some chicks, too.
Re:Prior art? (Score:2, Funny)
Big guy retaliates by enforcing celibacy on little guys who become priests, so they can't get any chicks?
Being a lwayer (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Being a lwayer (Score:2)
It's a patent application, not a patent (Score:2, Insightful)
Unusually specific, but still dangerous (Score:5, Informative)
It's still quite dangerous though. I don't think that any other IM client that implements MSN's custom emoticons would infringe it, because none of them use a web browser cache to store images. Every other claim is pretty much required to interoperate with Microsoft's client. So if you implemented a full MSN client as an extension to Firefox, for example, it almost certainly would infringe on this patent. Or if your operating system had some unified cache for storing any downloaded content that is used by both the web browser and IM client.
I certainly wouldn't consider it patentable. It's hardly complex, innovative, or non-obvious.
A good indicator is that the patent application probably took them far longer to write than it took to design and implement the thing in software.
Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous (Score:2)
So, they've patented an image size implemented in an open graphical standard and tied it into
Eventually, you have so many mutually (Score:2)
At some point in the commission of *any* act, you are either infringing (and somebody gets something unearned) or breaking a law (and somebody gets a cease and desist to stop you.)
At times like these, when only the criminal don't have to watch their steps, people head for the hills and watch in awe as civilization collapses into a festering dung heap.
Re:Unusually specific, but still dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
from the USPTO [uspto.gov]:
Something like this... (Score:2)
OMFG imagine if M$ patent3d teh emot1c0n5!!! th4t wud so SUXXORRZZZ SO B4D!!111!! LOLZZZ WHAT wa5 1 THinKING!!! M$ wudnt do that because that would p1ss of everybuddy and their AOL BUDDIE5 SO B4D!!!
Oh they really did? Never mind.
Re:Something like this... (Score:2)
It's not that simple. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version (Score:5, Informative)
"Methods and devices for creating and transferring custom emoticons allow a user to adopt an arbitrary image as an emoticon, which can then be represented by a character sequence in real-time communication. In one implementation, custom emoticons can be included in a message and transmitted to a receiver in the message. In another implementation, character sequences representing the custom emoticons can be transmitted in the message instead of the custom emoticons in order to preserve performance of text messaging. At the receiving end, the character sequences are replaced by their corresponding custom emoticons, which can be retrieved locally if they have been previously received, or can be retrieved from the sender in a separate communication from the text message if they have not been previously received."
The patent is not for smilies.
It is for having both ends having pre-set images displayed for certain character sequences in text mesages, be they
Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version (Score:2)
They shouldn't have a patent for that either. It's damned trivial and IM clients have been doing it for awhile.
Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version (Score:2)
No, that's not right either (Score:2)
As it says, it is for CUSTOM emoticons, ie an arbitary emoticon on Client1 being encoded, transferred, and reassembled, installed, and displayed on Client2.
Now I don't agree with this patent application either, but IF you're going to attack MS here, at least attack them for the right thing. Bitching at them for trying to patent emoticons is just wrong.
Re:No, that's not right either (Score:2)
When you add the word "arbitary" the situation changes completely. Using such innovative techniques as customizeable font sets, transfer of image files over a network and using a file cache.
Re:It's not ASCII :-) it's the image version (Score:2)
An image isn't embedded directly in the webpage, the html just includes a specific text reference to it. Then your browser goes and finds the image, and displays it instead of the text. Sure, the image might be on a server, instead of saved locally in a directory somewhere, but it's basically the same.
Don't most online video games do this? When I move my guy around in battlefield, my cable modem isn't sending video clips of my character animations to the other pl
See? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:See? (Score:2)
http://www.despair.com/frownies.html [despair.com]
2 things: (Score:2, Interesting)
yeah, but (Score:2)
oops.
Someone patent that quick. I don't have the money to do so!
Prior Art: ligatures (Score:5, Informative)
Typesetting already has well established prior art of having a special optimized representation for a sequence of characters.
It's called a ligature. "To" is an example of a sequence that is frequently optimized with an alternate image (that moves the 'o' closer to the 'T').
Er, won't this create a weird time paradox... (Score:2)
On the other hand maybe *I* can be the immature community member making the joke, and perhaps that way M$ will put out all their smileys under GPL...
Custom Smiley (Score:4, Funny)
Look, I can lick my nose!
"slashdot" owned (Score:2)
Unbelievable ... (Score:2)
There are book of smileys [amazon.com] which have been around for years (that one was '97).
Smileys appear in everything from ICQ, to AIM, to almost everything. Word has the annoying habit of turning my typed smileys into graphical ones.
The concept of smileys is so widespread they get used in advertising.
Except for creating a tool which allows you to create smileys, this sounds as if there is absolutely no merit to
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! (Score:4, Informative)
"OMG M$ have patented teh smilies!!!!1" - wrong
The patent APPLICATION is for encoding and transfer of CUSTOM smilies. ie an arbiary image or animation on one computer being transferred to another one automatically in a seamless manner via encoing, transmisson, reconstruction.
Not to say that this application is good - it's not. Just that 99% of people here have it so wrong that it's laughable.
From TFA:
""Thursday, covers selecting pixels to create an emoticon image, assigning a character sequence to these pixels and reconstructing the emoticon after transmission.""
*Note the key words such as CREATE and RECONSTRUCTING.
*Note the lack of the words "changing
Right Right Right (Score:2)
Can anybody say 'Microsoft now has a patent on video conferencing.'
Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! (Score:2)
Still, as has been said before, the key problem isn't the companies filing for these dumb patents (ok I make an exception for Amazon - it IS their fault, and they unlike most others try to enforce shitty patents). As long as the screwy patent office allows them, it's not unreasonable to expect
I just don't get this crap... (Score:2)
Emoticons are already trademarked... (Score:2)
I had a dream last night (Score:2, Funny)
"This is God, and I have already patented every thought you have ever thought, or ever will think
- and I've got one hell of a lawyer!"
Does this mean Microsoft has jumped the shark? (Score:2)
Um... (Score:2)
So where's he been living for the last 5 years?
Re:Um... (Score:2)
Isn't it time (Score:3, Insightful)
ANOTHER Patent MS can't defend (Score:3, Insightful)
But, again, they can't defend it.
Vioations: any image 19x19 or otherwise, is converted to characters when being transferred by email. And, the character sequence representing an icon (avatar) has been with us since FACES graced our email. The fact that MS doesn't render FACES is... well, not relevant.
The next step -- which is replacing a long sequence by a shorter sequence to be filled in by the receiver -- in a nutshell, that is gzip compression. And using pre-computed huffman tables has been with us forever as well.
The LAST step -- which is to tie this all to "emoticons" used for IM. If you can send pictures via IM (which is NOT something being patented here)... the emoticon is simply an interpretation of the picture.
Again, I am really happy for Microsoft for getting this patent, but don't sweat it -- they can't (and won't) defend it. May use it to threaten someone, though.
Ratboy
Reply from microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft Frowned at for Smiley Patent
Now you frown, till we patent thatRe:Prior ASCII Art??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Prior ASCII Art??? (Score:5, Informative)
then you have (*)(*) for pert, firm pointers
or you have (o)(o) and if you like them bigger, (O)(O)
and of course there's (0)(0) or if you frequent tiddy bars these might look familiar ($)($)
( O )( O ) and if you like them extra large..
Re:Prior ASCII Art??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prior ASCII Art??? (Score:2, Interesting)
(Q)(Q) - pasties/pierced
(@)(@) - clipped
(+)(+) - erect
(0)(0)(0) - Eccentrica Gallumbits
Re:What came first: Emoticons or Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure there will be many, probably thousands or tens of thousands, who will want to challenge it but who is going to pay for the challenge? As we know MS has more than enough cash to hire as many lawyers as it takes to defend their patents, it will take other lawyers ($$$) to challenge it.
Re:What came first: Emoticons or Microsoft? (Score:2)
But if you actually implement a system which is slightly different, Microsoft's lawyers will claim their patent covers it. In some cases, even if your system is exactly some piece of prior art. You might be able to win your case.... but with the court's pres
Re:And my opinion is... (Score:5, Funny)
I saw where Microsoft has patented their new emoticon for their Linux strategy.
o
|\__o
Bastards.