Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents Microsoft Your Rights Online

TVI to Sue Over MS Autoplay Feature 408

scubacuda links to this Infoworld article, which reads in part "TVI charges Microsoft's autoplay feature infringes on four of its U.S. patents. TV Interactive Data Corp. (TVI) of Los Gatos, California, claims that Microsoft infringes on four of its U.S. patents, three entitled 'host device equipped with means for starting a process in response to detecting insertion of a storage media' and one entitled 'method for starting up a process automatically on insertion of a storage media into a host device.", writing "I hope no one has a patent on the shift key, because that's what I hit when I insert a CD. (That is, when I haven't already edited the registry)" Wouldn't automount / autofs fall under the same shadow?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TVI to Sue Over MS Autoplay Feature

Comments Filter:
  • Why stop with M$? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Matey-O ( 518004 ) * <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:09PM (#8250790) Homepage Journal
    The Mac has a 'detect on auto insert' for as long as it's had a floppy drive! (IIRC, the Amiga did too.)
    • Re:Why stop with M$? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:12PM (#8250838)
      Yup, the amiga would automatically load the 'disk-validator' executable from a floppy when it was inserted. Some pesky viruses took advantage of this mechanism too.
      • by leonbrooks ( 8043 ) <SentByMSBlast-No ... .brooks.fdns.net> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:20PM (#8254715) Homepage
        In... let me see... 1982? I dealt with a PDP-11/23 running RSX-11-M-PLUS which autostarted backups and things when you inserted media (e.g. 1600BPI magtape into a Cypher F880(?) tape drive). We also had monstrous great two megabyte removable hard disks the size of a sombrero, and the system would auto-start things when the correct one of those was inserted. It had been doing these things for many years before I arrived on the scene.

        A local Fight'o'net BBS operator I know, back in the same era, had a process auto-start when you inserted a tape cartridge (snail-mailed from the 'states) full of downloadables in your '286.

        So they're just being SCOlets, pump-n-dump barratrous assholes. It seems to be trendy these days.
        • Yes, that would be prior art!

          I seem to remember that in the early days of MessyDOS, small TSR programs could be loaded which would do that when a floppy was inserted. Don't know the exact year they would have been first used, but it was pre-286 IIRC.

          What about other computers? The microprocessor dates from about 1972, realistically about 1975 before they were much used, but computers with removable storage date from (very approximately) 1950. Maybe some of the early ones started a process on inserting a pun

    • Re:Why stop with M$? (Score:5, Informative)

      by cbreaker ( 561297 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:15PM (#8250893) Journal
      That's what I was thinking.

      I really hope lawsuits like this don't get upheld... but sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.

      Auto-insert notification is such a simple thing, it's been in computers forever (and in microsoft land since '95) and just now the lawsuit?

      The worst part is that these patents keep being passed, over and over.. we need some technical people in the patent offices, not temps making $7 an hour.

      Whatever. It's just another case of "let people use it until it becomes vital and you can make a bundle of money, then sue."
      • by robslimo ( 587196 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:25PM (#8251041) Homepage Journal
        There's enough prior art here to toss in out, IMO.

        While it's a common practice for these patent vultures to prey on the small, cash poor "infringers", counting on a quick settlement, I don't understand why they'd tackle microsoft. MSFT has the legal guns to back this thing all the way to invalidation of the patent, if they want. I guess they might just figure it's cheaper to fork over a pay-off, but I wouldn't and I doubt Mssr. Gates will, either.

        • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:48PM (#8252030) Homepage Journal
          Suing microsoft is like entering the lottery. The odds are strongly against you, but if you win, the payout is usually pretty big.
      • by junklight ( 183583 ) <(mark) (at) (junklight.com)> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:55PM (#8252116) Homepage
        Its a shame you can't patent business processes - because you could patent getting an obvious patent. Sitting on it for a while until the practice had become widespread and then sueing everyone.

      • by Xebikr ( 591462 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:59PM (#8252158)
        The worst part is that these patents keep being passed, over and over.. we need some technical people in the patent offices, not temps making $7 an hour.

        No, we need to ban software patents. Software patents have done absolutely nothing for innovation. Everyone getting sued is not someone who saw the idea and said "Hey! Great idea! I think I'll integrate that with my product." They've all been developers who come up with the idea independently, and then years (and years) later the company who was successful in marketing the product gets sued. All it has done is increase the amount of patent barratry.

        And software is already protected by an insane amount of IP laws anyway. Not only is it protected for 90 years by copyright (if owned by a corp.) but trade secret law, and still for some unfathomable reason, you can patent it as well.

        Oh well. Sucks to be us, I guess.
    • by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:16PM (#8250910) Homepage Journal
      How the 8-track? It starts playing when the tapes are inserted.

      Didn't SCSI have the cd-inserted data signal long ago? What was SCSI doing with it? or does MAC use SCSI?
    • by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@tr u 7 h . o rg> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:18PM (#8250933) Homepage
      > IIRC, the Amiga did too.

      Yes, it did. That rhythmic clicking as it probed for a disk haunts me to this day.

      On the A500 it wasn't too bad but on the big boxy 2000 it was like someone kicking off a bass drum every few seconds. ;)

    • Re:Why stop with M$? (Score:5, Informative)

      by R.Caley ( 126968 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:32PM (#8251128)
      They are claiming a specific way of aranging auto-run, so it may be that (one of) Windows methods infringes, but Apple's doesn't.

      5,597,307 [uspto.gov]
      6,418,532 [uspto.gov]

      Of course, it fails the obviousness test, but since the USPO has aparently interpereted this test to be `obvious to somoene who doesn't know what a computer is and has no problem solving ability at all'...

      • The rule the USPO uses for obviousness is "Could a person with mediocre talent, and completely lacking in creativity, come up with the same thing?" So yes, you are more or less right. And that has ALWAYS been the rule, since patents were first instituted.
        • by R.Caley ( 126968 )
          The rule the USPO uses for obviousness is "Could a person with mediocre talent, and completely lacking in creativity, come up with the same thing?"

          Clearly they are applying lower test than that in IT, presumably due to lack of staff with clues about this area.

          Eg, the Amazon one-click patent was awarded for what anyone who knew the technology involved would have suggested as the first idea which came to mind: the IT equivalent of giving a patent for `using screws to attach things to the wall'.

          In the c

    • by Omega ( 1602 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:38PM (#8251207) Homepage
      Wouldn't automount / autofs fall under the same shadow?
      Hey that's right! Someone should tell TVI they're entitled to royalties on 5% of free!
    • by ivanmarsh ( 634711 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:08PM (#8251571)
      Doesn't a toaster have the same functionality?
    • Re:Why stop with M$? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @03:08PM (#8252257) Homepage
      The Mac didn't always have an "AutoPlay" type of feature.

      But there was a tricky cleaver way to get code to execute upon mere insertion of a floppy disk! (Yes, I mean even back in the old days, like 1984.)

      Write a new WDEF. (A window defProc.) Put it into the resource of the Desktop file on the floppy disk. Make it have the same wdef ID as the standard system wdef, that is zero. Write your WDEF so that the window borders, title bar, frame, etc. that it draws looks pixel-perfect clone of the standard wdef.

      Now insert the floppy disk. The Finder puts the floppy disks Desktop file on the resource chain ahead of the System file. When it tries to access wdef 0 to display a new window on the screen, it finds and executes your wdef code. Yours displays window borders and controls like normal, but can optionally have a payload that executes as well.

      Of course, when you ejected your floppy disks, you needed to leave the window open so that when the next user inserts the floppy, it opens the same window in the same position on the screen. The act of drawing the window is what triggers your wdef, simply by virtue of it being on the resource chain.

      It has been a long, looooong time. But I believe that this mechanism was the basis of the very first Macintosh virus, the WDEF virus.

      Anyway, a nice way to "AutoPlay" code of your choice. Before Apple closed the loophole.
  • Back in my DOS days (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:09PM (#8250793)
    I had 4DOS batch files do things when the floppy drive was accessed.
  • Prior Art (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:10PM (#8250798)
    Bootable floppies.
    Take that!
    • Re:Prior Art (Score:2, Insightful)

      by infochuck ( 468115 )
      Most regular CD players? Tape decks? 8-tracks? I'm pretty sure my old 8-track would auto-start playing the tape when it was inserted...
    • Re:Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)

      by supersam ( 466783 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:16PM (#8250902) Homepage
      I'm afraid that isn't a valid comparison and won't count as prior art in this case. Bootable floppies do not autostart when inserted into the floppy drive. It is only during the boot-up process that these floppies would be accessed and read without human interaction.
    • Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Insightful)

      by viking099 ( 70446 )
      I don't think a bootable floppy would count.

      The computer has to actively seek the drive and look for an appropriate filesystem to boot from.

      In order for a boot disk to "violate" this patent, the computer would have to turn on and automatically boot from that floppy upon insertion, or something of that sort.

      I'm not trying to say it's not yet another stupid patent, but just that I'm not sure your example would apply. :-)
  • Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:10PM (#8250799)
    wouldn't the Mac be considered prior art since it has been auto responding for quite a while
  • by mgrassi99 ( 514152 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:10PM (#8250801)
    Patents are supposed to be "novel" and unique. I don't see anything special about auto playing or mounting media when it is inserted.
    • tarting a process in response to detecting insertion of a storage media

      Hell, your average CD player does this... it starts a play process when a disc is inserted. Ditto for various media player all the way back to 8-track-tapes and earlier.

      And that's besides the fact. Autoplay isn't really about detecting media insertion is it... since that's been around forever (you don't have to "mount /cdrom" in windows, or even DOS, do you?), it's about checking for the presence of and running a dumb little "autor
      • Re:No kidding (Score:5, Informative)

        by bhtooefr ( 649901 ) <bhtooefr@bhtoo[ ].org ['efr' in gap]> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:34PM (#8251155) Homepage Journal
        Actually, Windows (and DOS) always assumes that a disk is inserted whenever the drive is mounted. It does check to be sure that it's the SAME disk, and it only does this on an access attempt. The only hardware that can autodetect mounting of a floppy disk is the Mac, and it's done it since 1984.

        Here are the dates on the patents:
        5,597,307: January 28, 1997 (filed May 11, 1995)
        5,795,156: August 18, 1998 (filed November 1, 1995)
        6,249,863: June 19, 2001 (filed May 3, 1999)
        6,418,532: July 9, 2002 (filed March 22, 2001)

        Also, here's the date on the Microsoft Autorun patent:
        6,366,966: April 2, 2002 (filed December 13, 1994)

        So, while three of the TVI patents are OLDER than the Autorun patent, the Autorun patent was filed six months earlier than the first TVI patent.
        • Re:No kidding (Score:5, Informative)

          by Archfeld ( 6757 ) * <treboreel@live.com> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:03PM (#8251508) Journal
          still think unix automounting FS's predates all of this. When a NFS system is initialized my system detects the mounted media and mounts it for me without any user interference or action. But I do remember the MAC chunking away on the floppy upon insertion as well. IBM Mainframe machines required the controller to let the machine know new media or devices had been attached as far back as 3081's, based on my admittedly flawed memory...
  • by NinjaPablo ( 246765 ) <jimolding13NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:10PM (#8250811) Homepage Journal
    How about your car CD player, home console, digital camera, DVD player, etc etc etc? What's next, someone claiming a patent on reading magnetic or optical storage?
    • Every VCR I've ever owned has auto-played movies as soon as you insert them. If you knock out the "write-prevent" tab on a blank tape, they will try to play it, too.

      I've even got VCR head cleaner tapes that use this feature and the "auto-rewind at the end" and "auto-eject after rewind" features. You just put the head cleaner in and let the machine clean its own heads. When the tape pops back out, you're done.

    • by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:19PM (#8250954)
      VHS players, Laserdisc players, Betamax players, MiniDisc players...

      no joke, but my shlong too. It has DNA data that gets accessed upon insertion.
  • the patents are.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by bpland ( 529369 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:10PM (#8250815)
    The patent numbers are 5,597,307; 5,795,156; 6,249,863 and 6,418,532.
  • Is it plausible that towards the end of this lawsuit flinging, people will eventually realize that by Occom's (sp incorect, sorry) razor, code will trend towards the most logical and efficient, and that for two people working on the same thing, the code will maybe, possibally, be identical?

  • Priot art (Amiga) (Score:5, Informative)

    by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:11PM (#8250824) Homepage
    My Amiga would detect when a floppy was inserted and start automaticaly and this was back in 1988.
    • DVD players too - they have 'scripting' UIs that are triggered by disk insertion
  • new tag (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rootofevil ( 188401 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:12PM (#8250845) Homepage Journal
    slashdot needs an asinine tag, like fark.

    this is ridiculous.
    • Re:new tag (Score:2, Insightful)

      by HeX314 ( 570571 )
      That's what the Fork, Spoon, Knife = Patent Pending label is about. Seems like there is a crapload of IP "theft" going on now that SCO has brought to the limelight the ability to sue over completely -- for lack of a better word -- asinine things. Most of these suits should be thrown out as frivolous, but the companies backing them have tons of money.
  • by DarkFencer ( 260473 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:13PM (#8250852)
    I really would love to see a Slashdot interview with someone in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that can explain the process and how things like this happen. They probably cannot comment on a specific case like this, but typically we get two of these ridiculous patent claims a week mentioned on slashdot.

    Are they overworked and understaffed and forced to just rubberstamp things?

    Are they untrained in technology to recognize things like this?

    Are they in need of being hit over the head with a clue by four?

    Something is seriously wrong at the USPTO (now more then ever seemingly).
  • Amiga 500 (Score:3, Informative)

    by MullerMn ( 526350 ) <andy@an[ ]warbon.co.uk ['dre' in gap]> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:13PM (#8250862) Homepage
    The Commodore Amiga had this from atleast the Amiga 500, possibly earlier and that was in 1986 [gregdonner.org].
  • by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:16PM (#8250906) Homepage Journal

    IIRC, Autoplay has been shipped in MS operating systems since 1996. TVI has been sitting on this for eight years. Which means, of course, that if the statute of limitations hasn't expired, they will be severely limited in the remedies they are allowed to seek. It's not like this escaped their attention for 8 years.

    Of course, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that even if TVI wins the case, they won't be able to collect damages for past infringement because they clearly did not demonstrate "due diligence" in protecting their patent. They might end up with a compulsory license agreement; or to avoid infringement, Microsoft OS's may end up simply popping up a dialog box ("Would you like to play this CD?") when a disk is inserted.

    Yeah, I'd put TVI at net loss on this one. Their lawyers are going to make more money than they will.

    • by Oliver Wendell Jones ( 158103 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:21PM (#8250979)
      Their lawyers are going to make more money than they will.

      And this differs from every other lawsuit in the world in what way?...
    • It looks like at least one of the patents issued within the last 2 years. So not only is the USPTO clueless, they are also slow.
    • It's not the statute of limitations, although your point is valid. Look up "Laches" in a law dictionary.

      Bruce

    • Microsoft OS's may end up simply popping up a dialog box ("Would you like to play this CD?") when a disk is inserted.
      Regardless of this patent, that is a great idea! And we all know why.
    • Microsoft OS's may end up simply popping up a dialog box ("Would you like to play this CD?") when a disk is inserted.

      Well, first of all, XP does this already, and secondly, that would still be a "method for starting up a process automatically on insertion of a storage media into a host device."

      The only solution would be to not even recognize the media. The user would have to do it manually, which I do anyway.

      NO, I DON'T WANT WiMP TO PLAY THIS CD!
    • because they clearly did not demonstrate "due diligence" in protecting their patent

      I thought that you only had to proctect a trademark, not a patent? As far as I know, from a legal point of view, you can just sit on something for a while. It's definitely slimy and I'm sure that any reasonable judge would look unfavorably, but I *think* it is legal. Comments?

  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:16PM (#8250908) Journal
    is that it's growing among companies. Companies litigating the little guy out of business over patents is relatively straightforward.

    Hopefully when enough 800, 1200 and 1600 pound gorillas start beating up on each other then there will be some reform. (Hopefully)
    • by ZoneGray ( 168419 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:15PM (#8251632) Homepage
      When the big gorillas have patent fights, they just sign cross-licensing agreements, effectively forming a cartel. This is actually a case of the little guy suing the big guy, which seems to be more the norm for ridiculous patents like this one.

      What strikes me on this one is that it was filed in 1995, and the filing specifically mentions CD-ROMs and Wintel PC's. How could this have escaped notice until now? It's not as if it was hiding in some dusty filing cabinet for years, it was filed by the same company that currently holds it, while Windows 95 was in beta!

      I dunno, maybe the USPTO is right, maybe this stuff isn't so obvious. Even the people who filed the damned patent couldn't figure it out.
  • What about VCRs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by enosys ( 705759 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:16PM (#8250911) Homepage
    All the VCRs I've seen start playing write protected tapes after they're inserted (with no need to press play).

    (Okay, they just output analog stuff from tape, but they do have microcontrollers, and some can even digitize the signal eg. for better pause and slow motion image quality.)

  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crlf ( 131465 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:17PM (#8250917)
    Automount and autofs trigger filesystem mounts on directory traversals, not on media insertion.

    Maybe you were thinking about vold [sourceforge.net] or some other similar project.
  • by kwiqsilver ( 585008 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:18PM (#8250926)
    A method of applying for vague patents on simple concepts (rather than inventions) and using those patents to hinder a business competitor or extort money from patent violators.
  • by n()_cHIEFz ( 203036 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {sfeihcon}> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:19PM (#8250947) Homepage
    ...about these recent patent cases is I find myself on the side of Microsoft.. yuck! I need to shower!
    • yea, but nevertheless MS has taken the AutoPlay feature too far IMO. If you insert a CD that autostarts the program or installer, that's okay.

      Whenever I have to use an XP box at the university, any data CD, zip, or key-drive thats loaded into the computer which has a directory of picures brings up a "this media has pictures...how do you want to open it?" prompt. I always end up hitting cancel, but whatever happened to "let me put the media in and don't get in my way"
  • Patently absurd? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BitRandom ( 751150 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:19PM (#8250956)
    Evidently the new idea is that even the product your suing shouldn't be considered prior art. The first patent, 5,597,307 [uspto.gov], was filed in May 1995. The last Beta of Windows 95 was in March 1995 and the Microsoft DRG people were talking about it in 1994 (Auto-play was evangelized to ISVs - "Mr ISV you need to make sure that your application uses Auto-play"). What it looks like here is that the current patent strategy is to wait until someone releases a product then patent the features that aren't covered. Hopefully this is yet another nail in the stuipidity of patent issuing.
  • by pararox ( 706523 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:22PM (#8250986)
    "...detecting insertion of a storage media..."

    I suspect it's only a matter of time until someone draws up a patent claim of the nature:

    Patent 3,012,238,021...(ad infinitum) --- A method of inserting and pumping a large tubular or cylindrical item into a foes rectum, with the assistance of well studied lawyers...

    Just watch, man, I'm telling the day is well nigh!
  • autofs etc. (Score:4, Informative)

    by tubabeat ( 605286 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:22PM (#8250997)
    Wouldn't automount / autofs fall under the same shadow?

    No, autofs/ automount automatically mount media (be that an NFS share or whatever) when they detect it is needed (so the process is demand driven rather than media driven).

    Perhaps you're thinking of supermount [sourceforge.net]
  • So what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ridgelift ( 228977 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:24PM (#8251023)
    My 8-Track player would automatically start playing music upon insertion of the audio storage media. I guess that either qualifies as prior art, or 70's electronic manufacturers better start ponying up their licensing fees.
  • Patent Dates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ripsnorta ( 697485 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:25PM (#8251024)
    I did a quick search on the patent numbers in the Patent Office database. The earliest patents was filed in November 1995, and others were filed in 1999 and 2001. Strangely, the wording on all of them seemed to be very similar. (5,597,307; 5,795,156; 6,249,863 and 6,418,532)

    November 1995 was around the time Windows 95 was released IIRC. It almost seems opportunistic. Maybe the patent holder quickly came up with a patent after seeing Win95, and filed it hoping that with a long enough gap he would be able to sue for patent infringement.

    Cheers
  • by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:25PM (#8251033)
    prior art...

    a man and a women have intercourse. data is transfered from the man to the woman. womans host process upon recieving data begins the process of creating life. details left out for as excercise for the student

    yada yada.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      details left out for as excercise for the student

      I study computer science, you insensitive clod!
  • By suing M$, we will get a huge company's resources (M$) fighting this; surely this will add case law against rediculous software patents!

    With any luck, this will be a step in the right direction.
  • by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:29PM (#8251084) Homepage Journal
    Seems every lawyer I meet these days is into IP law and living in downtown SF, I meet quite a few every week. Most of these lawyers also tells me with a very satisfied smile on their face what a complete and utter scam it all is. None of them want to see it changed. Hell, I can't blame them, it's like one big swollen tit from which to feed.

    And no, it's not cases like this that will cause anything to change. For that will need to be done by tax paying citizens taking up torches and pitchforks and decending upon Washington in an orgy of blood lust. Then maybe we might see Congress decide to "review" the patent application process.
    • what about HR 1561 (Score:3, Informative)

      by ProfBooty ( 172603 )
      Slashdot posters aren't exactly on top of USPTO related news.

      Congress is already reviewing the patent process via HR 1561 being voted on today?
      United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003 is important as it allows for inventors to submit their own searches from an outside source, such as the european patent office or a private search firm.

      On a side note, tax payers don't pay patent examiners. The USPTO is a fully fee funded agency.
    • "For that will need to be done by tax paying citizens taking up torches and pitchforks and decending upon Washington in an orgy of blood lust. Then maybe we might see Congress decide to "review" the patent application process."

      That won't happen. For the average citizen to revolt against Congress, some severe problem must exist that directly and adversely affects the citizen.

      Patent problems only affect inventors, not consumers. The United States predominately consists of consumers who are not directly af
  • Why is it that it has taken X Company 15-20 years for people to think about suing over what is now considered accepted practices?

    SCO and a handful of questionable Linux, every little thing in MS-DOS/Windows, 1-Click shopping.

    I need to duct my head to together so that when it finally does explode all the little bits will be there.
  • by clusterix ( 606570 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:52PM (#8251364)
    5,597,307 [uspto.gov] appears to be a 1995 filed patent on booting from a removable storage media according to the claims. ie. The prior art that invalidates this is from the actual origins of computers depending on when storage media could be determined removable.

    5,795,156 [uspto.gov] is a 1995 filed patent claiming to have invented using a hardware based "output lead" on a peripheral in a computer to detect media. I a, confused here. Assuming they were not developing a computer from scratch(and had never seen a removable media before 1995). I am not sure how they can patent a feature of components they did not develop themselves.

    6,249,863 [uspto.gov] is a claim modified from the above patent of checking for a specific file (ie. like reading a VCD or IO.SYS, COMMAND.COM as in old MSDOS) to make sure the correct or specific media is inserted.

    6,418,532 [uspto.gov] filed in 2001, claims to have invented the play button.

    The USPTO is not mandated to verify the novelty of patents. However, patent law must be changed so that the burden of prior art falls on plaintiff in these cases(ie. pay for third party patent researchers).

    I would be ashamed to consider myself the inventor of these. They are obviously wanting a small payoff from MS. IANAL

  • by ectoraige ( 123390 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:53PM (#8251379) Homepage
    Additionally, TVI charges that Microsoft patent 6,366,966, entitled "method and system for automatically running a program" interferes with the TVI patents as it covers a TVI invention.

    Funny, that patent was filed on December 13, 1994.
    The earliest of the TVI patents was filed on May 11, 1995. Now maybe their "invention" was developed prior to MS's patent application.

    I just find it funny that, on one hand, they'll be trying to use their products as prior art, while at the same time hoping nobody else's products are used against them...
  • by dmomo ( 256005 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:58PM (#8251448)
    1)Is a CD Rom "Storage Media" if it is read only?

    2)What about a toilet that 'knows' to flush automatically when I insert 'media'?

    3)My trash compactor will start up when I close the door, but only if there is a bag in it. Isn't this miracle of modern science 'prior art', thus invalidating that patent?
  • No autorun (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:03PM (#8251506)
    I hope no one has a patent on the shift key, because that's what I hit when I insert a CD. (That is, when I haven't already edited the registry)

    You don't always have to edit the registry. Sometimes its a simple point and click job. Details are here [annoyances.org].

  • by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:05PM (#8251531)
    Wouldn't automount / autofs fall under the same shadow?

    Heck, wouldn't starting to play the pre-recorded tape when I insert it into my old VHS VCR also fit the discription? I've had VCRs that do that for 20 years.

  • Need a new category (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:10PM (#8251589) Journal
    Stupid patents.
  • by Digital_Quartz ( 75366 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:39PM (#8251904) Homepage
    Does my toaster qualify as prior art? It's from the 70s, but it's smart enough to "start a process" (I.E. toasting) whenever I insert bread. My toaster is a fancy one (well, by 1970s standards), where I don't have to press down a lever to start it toasting.

    I suppose the question is, does bread qualify as a storage media?

    Fortunately my toaster toasts floppies and CDs equally well (although they are not nearly as tasty).
  • Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @03:30PM (#8252518) Homepage Journal
    Someone should really tell Nintendo and Sony! Hell, Nintendo has been violating this patent for decades!
  • Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)

    by sbaker ( 47485 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @03:50PM (#8252740) Homepage
    I'm fairly sure the IBM mainframe I used back in 1975 would auto-load and execute a deck of punched cards if you just dumped them into the input hopper.

    Oh - wait...they're suing Microsoft. Ah. In that case:

    Those evil Microsoft guys - always stealing other people's technology. Bastards!
  • by eagl ( 86459 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @05:45PM (#8253988) Journal
    The original patent is invalid because it interferes with my own previous patent. I have whimsically called my own patent "cause and effect", which describes the process where when something is done, something else happens. This patent has been recently strengthened by the scientific works of Stephen Hawking, which not only clarifies my patent, but describes exactly when, where, and how exceptions to the process described may occur. To protect my patent, I am bypassing the lawyers and proceeding directly to locusts and plague.

    --god

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Working...