Microsoft, Apple Sued Over Software Update Patent 532
mark_wilkins writes "Microsoft and Apple have been sued by Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC, alleging that their online software updating technology infringes a patent on providing online updates to software with a menuing system to permit the user to pick the updates. Apparently the work on which the patent is based supposedly goes back to 1990."
Menuing system (Score:5, Funny)
At least we don't have to worry about "apt-get update" :-)
Re:Menuing system (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Menuing system (Score:3, Funny)
Is there an ASCII representation of a coffee spew all over ones keyboard and monitors?
I've been in IT for 15 years and if there is one thing for certain, it is that there are no professionals. The only "Professionals" are MCSE's who got suckered by M$ hype. Everyone else is just a geek, although the ego's of some CCIE's and CCNA's I know could use some taming, but they're just plain crazy.
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Menuing system (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Menuing system (Score:4, Informative)
And, then... does the RedHat server send a customized list of software based on the uploaded list back down?
That is my reading of claim # 1 of the patent.
And, both MS and Apple update do just this very thing.
I've not used RedHat since 6.0... but, I am familiar with Mandrake and Debian update systems. And, while IANAL, I don't see them in violation of at least claim # 1.
These systems send a generic list of available software to any computer requesting the list... and the client determines what to download.
Never is a list of installed software sent to the "update server".
Re:Menuing system (Score:2)
Re:Menuing system (Score:3, Informative)
Not in its entirety, eh?
Well, the title is "Method and system for distributing updates by presenting directory of software available for user installation that is not already installed on user station".[emphasis added] Certainly implies new software, but my eyes started crossing trying to decipher the "multiplicities" and "plural
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Funny)
Phew.
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Menuing system (Score:3, Funny)
Gah, I had this image of Beavis/Butthead in a thinkgeek type shirt screaming: "I am PORTHOLIO".
Uh-huh-huh...huhuhuh.
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Funny)
"I am PORTHOLIO! I need GZ for my tarball!" (damn the lameness filter from hell for not letting me use caps...)
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Menuing system (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry, it will, on the basis that Microsoft is likely to have more money than TT. There is no firmer legal defense than deep pockets nowadays.
Well, if you define "server" and "local station" loosely enough, you could use the table of contents in almost any book as prior art. If you don't define them loosely, then most web pages would be prior art, by the virtue of having links that can be used to download more data.
Better question is, does it matter ? I gave up hope on USPO after realizing that yes, swinging sideways in a swing is really patented in the US.
Based on all those messages that claim to be important updates from Microsoft that keep floating around the binary newsgroups, and the fact that Outlook is capable of viewing said newsgroups, I'd say that yes, Usenet can automatically install software...
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed ... from RFC977 [faqs.org],
Brian Kantor (U.C. San Diego), Phil Lapsley (U.C. Berkeley)
February 1986
"NNTP specifies a protocol for the distribution, inquiry, retrieval, and posting of news articles using a reliable stream-based transmission of news among the ARPA-Internet community."
Note: Usenet was not limited to TCP/IP. Before the internet was deployed we used modems, 800 numbers and uucp to transfer the article streams. The protocol allowed the receiving system to specify which newsgroups to fetch articles and updates from. Each server only fetched what it didn't have. And one shouldn't forget about the NNRP protocol used between server and clients which uses many of the same principles.
B.T.W. In unix land we used CRON to automatically schedule NNTP/UUCP updates.
Also from the RFC.."Such news provides for the rapid dissemination of items of interest such as software bug fixes,"
As for menu based stuff.. Virtually all of the old text clients RN, Tin, NN news readers had curses driven menus (text of course). Xn and large [newsreaders.com] number of other news readers cover the GUI arena. Heck, I've been using the Agent [forteinc.com] since 1995.
The patent appears to have been filed in Apr 20, 2000.
Microsoft had their windows 98 update feature deployed long before that date.
I think that just about covers most of the Method and Apparatus claims.
As usual, the USPTO has once again demonstrated it's gross incompetence.
Re:Menuing system (Score:4, Interesting)
The "HTML Viewer" claims apply to implementations. You don't have to violate all the claims -- any one will do.
For example, Claims 2 through 15 are dependent on Claim 1. Claim 11 (and other claims that depend on other independent claims) concerns the HTML Viewer.
There are also independent Claims 16, 31, 46, 61, 76, 91, 106, 121, 136, 151, 166, 181, 196,
As I understand it, the reason for the dependent claims is in case the an independent claim gets shot down in court, they have the dependent claim to fall back on.
Thus, if claim 1 gets tossed, but the infringer is using an HTML viewer, they may still have a case with claim 11.
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Informative)
Two things can happen, either the patent can be invalid, or the patent can be too broad. if an independent claim is invalid, all dependent claims are invalid as well. If the judge decides the scope is too broad, then the independent claim is restricted to only be valid with one or more of the dependent claims.
In this case, if the judge finds that software updates aren't patentable, then none of the dependent claims matter. But, the judge can find that claim 1 is too broad, (perhaps theres prior art for that claim) in which case he may find that the addition of an HTML viewer is novel and patentable.
Re:Menuing system (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose you had a patent for a hard drive, the first claim might merely state that it is a device comprised of one or more platters, one or more read/write heads, and electronic components that is used to record and read information on the platter.
Then when it goes to court because of an infringement, the court might find the first claim too broad because it might also arguably cover the old LP record players and so claim 1 would be struck out.
But if you had a dependent claim, for the sake of argument, say claim 2, that claimed the invention of claim 1 in which the platter is made of a magnetic material, then you would still have a chance. Claim 1 may be gone for being overly broad, but claim 2 would still cover the invention.
Another claim could be the device of claim 1 in which the platter is made out of paper and the read/write heads punch holes in the paper and/or read the punched holes. Yet another claim might be for the device of claim 1 with the platter made out of an optical material and the read/write heads using laser to read and write from the platter.
In other words, the independent claims are the broadest claims and the dependent claims necessarily restrict the areas covered by the independent claims. They cannot broaden the independent claims.
This also brings up an important point. You could have a patent on a device without the rights to build it if there were underlying patents on the previous devices.
Suppose I had a patent on the hard drive but with only the one independent claim of it being comprised of one or more platters and one or more read/write heads and the necessary electronics. Suppose that you saw the advantages of having the platter made out of a magnetic media and patented that.
Then assuming you couldn't get my patent overturned, since I had the patent on the hard drive, you couldn't build a hard drive using magnetic media without paying me royalties. On the other hand, while I could build hard drives with non-magnetic media, if I were to build one with magnetic media, I would infringe on your patent and would have to pay you royalties.
I thought it a bit strange to find out that you could own a patent and not have the right to build, market, or sell the device in the patent.
Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:4, Funny)
Are you mad? You've just revealed Step 2!
Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:2)
That's because you don't patent the software technology itself -- you patent the business process for using the software. Yes, this means you can have a patent that covers use of software owned by someone else, and written by them long before your patent, so long as your use is "non-obvious and novel" or some such. The technology itself is irrelevant to the patent, as is the implementation or lack
Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:3, Informative)
One of the things you explicitly CANNOT patent is a business process. A business process is not considered a device or invention. To patent something, you must describe a physical device (which software has been redefined to be) that performs a specific, non-obvious task.
Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:5, Funny)
How do you tell if software is patentable, or an implementation of an unpatentable algorithm? You put all your money in a pile. Someone who wants the decision to go the other way puts all their money in a pile. The taller pile wins, and then the lawyers take both piles for themselves.
Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:5, Insightful)
Computers need updates. Obvious. There needs to be a way to display these updates. Obvious. This can be done in a moronic way: play an animation of all the products scrolling along on a conveyer belt, or sensibly: in a list. Also. Obvious.
The computer doesn't need software it already has. Don't display it. Obvious.
The list has to get from the remote machine to the local one. Obvious.
The updates also have to be sent. Obvious.
Claim 4 means an "Are you sure?" Dialog.
I think I've justified what I'm going to cry in a few moments.
...
...
BULLSHIT!
Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:2)
Pretty much describes 90% of the technology patents out there... And anyway, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you think Microsoft (on any other major corp.) would think twice about jumping all over someone for a patent like this that they held? Sure the whole thing stinks and it doesn't make it right just because they are suing T
Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:2)
Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear. (Score:5, Informative)
With non-software patents (i.e., where the invention/innovation lies in a novel way of using physical forces/material), how far exactly you are allowed to abstract is mainly limited by three things:
Patent system is messed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patent system is messed up (Score:2, Interesting)
Technically, I don't think you even need the model, just the blueprints. You basically have to give a good enough description that someone with a reasonable understanding of the technology could produce a working model.
Re:Patent system is messed up (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember reading of a patent granted for an "invisibility cloak" that would refract light around you so you couldnt be seen.
I highly doubt anyone on earth has a reasonable understanding of the "technology" which doesn't exist, and I'm damn sure noone could produce a working model.
One day in the future perhaps some brilliant technician will actually invent this device, only to be sued into oblivion by the patent holder.
The systems busted, which is sad, because the original intent of patent
Re:Patent system is messed up (Score:5, Insightful)
don't even need that. (Score:2)
"A vehicle which will transport passengers and cargo trough via a non-proprietary air. It includes steps for providing a distribution service that distributes people and cargo for a plurality of different destinations"
That's it, I own the flying car. All you bitches pay up.
Re:The lightning rod (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it did. You forget that Franklin was British. The British patent system dates from the first quarter of the 17th century, and before that the King could grant them directly.
He actually had a patent on the Franklin stove, but did not enforce it.
KFG
Re:The lightning rod (Score:3, Informative)
A military brat friend of mine was born in Osaka, Japan. He is not Japanese. He has no right to Japanese citizenship. He is American.
In some cases, and in some times and places, parantage is as, or more, important than place of birth.
On that April night of 1775 no one yelled "The British are coming." That would have been nonsensical. They were all British. The yell was "The regulars are coming."
At the ti
Soooo (Score:5, Insightful)
lots of people will be royally f*cked...
Re:Soooo (Score:2)
(a) Cheer?
(b) Hope Microsoft wins?
(c) None of the above?
Personally, while I don't use Windows, I vote for (b).
Re:Soooo (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, but RedHat at least has an equivalent tool to the Windows automatic updates tool, at least as far as I can tell from looking over a coworker's shoulder (I'm a Mandrake guy myself,
Re:Soooo (Score:2)
Re:Soooo (Score:3, Funny)
RIGHT??
US Patent Office! (Score:5, Funny)
Seems sudden... (Score:2)
Either way, they must believe they have a really strong case to go up against two of the biggest cash reserves in the entire Western hemisphere at the same time.
Here's the patent in question... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Here's the patent in question... (Score:2)
Well, it's nice and overbroad, as the above example shows. I'm wondering if it's a valid tactic to make the document so repetitive and boring that someone just rubberstamps it and sends it out.
Isn't there a defense of laches that protects against this?
Um, this is a decent patent (Score:4, Interesting)
My only thought is that maybe we could kill it with the obviousness clause.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um, this is a decent patent (Score:5, Insightful)
No one would have EVER thought of doing updates over a network if these guys hadn't shown the way.
Just like I'm very grateful to the nice gentleman who explained I could mow the lawn with a kind of back and forth motion...I was on the verge of turning off my lawnmower, bringing it on my back to the other side, and then starting it up again.
Obvious-ness clause (Score:2)
(Obviousity?)
At the time the patent was filed the idea probably was not as obvious as it seems to be now. In 1990 connectivity (and the resulting security issues) were present on a much smaller scale than they are today. (Note that I did not say the issues did not exist.)
Re:Obvious-ness clause (Score:2)
Except that the patent in question [uspto.gov] was filed in 2000 and cites a 1994 paper titled "Automatic Patch Retrieval & Installation."
Re:Obvious-ness clause (Score:2)
Re:Um, this is a decent patent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Um, this is a decent patent (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Um, this is a decent patent (Score:2)
Does updating my copy of Commander Keen when I was 4 count?
Re:Um, this is a decent patent (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the filing date is April, 2000... the 1996 filing that this is a continuance of doesn't mention any of the relevant claims, aside from the selection of updates (hello, anyone remember the pre-web info-mac archives?!), so the actual claims they are saying Apple and Microsoft violated were filed after the first beta versions of their respective update technologies shipped!!!
Sounds like someone got greedy...
Re:decent patent - NOT (Score:5, Informative)
376 Claims (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a disease which afflicts the patent system. People are not patenting brilliant, innovative, inobvious ideas, but just "staking out territory".
Also, this patent was filed in 2000. If this work dates from the 1980's, as is stated in the post, then an enabling disclosure or marketing of the technology may have occurred before 1999, and the patent will be questionable.
It may be that Applie and Microsoft think they can attack this patent, which is why they didn't cut a deal.
Re:Um, this is a decent patent (Score:3, Interesting)
pre scheduled
unscheduled
user scheduled
server scheduled
etc
and for devices they list:
computer
cable television controller
video game player
information kiosk
wired personal communicator
wireless personal communicator
personal information communicator
personal digital assistant
information appliance
and system controller
How the heck c
Prior Art (Score:3, Funny)
Patents and open source (Score:5, Insightful)
With all the hubub over software patents being a danger to open source software, you have to wonder whether or not they're a bigger danger to commercial companies. After all, if you're going to sue someone you're going to go after a company with money. Even better if they're public, as you might be able to extort them into settling behind the scenes since a lawsuit might hurt their share prices.
Re:Patents and open source (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this applies here... (Score:3, Funny)
Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Mundane Concept Online = Patent
Shakespear was right (Score:2, Informative)
Just like every other tort or liability lawsuit, the lawyers on both side will get more money out of this than anyone else. Lawyers don't file suits about right and wrong, just about their bank accounts.
Great Side Effect, Lousy Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
only automatic updates covered? (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
this might stop some software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
In the meantime congress should simply ban new software patents until the USPTO can be fixed.
Re:this might stop some software patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-starter. Programming language creators don't have the power to dictate how their language is used after the fact, and if they try to make people sign a contract before giving them a compiler, no one will use their language.
Re:this might stop some software patents (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, patents don't last as long as copyrights.
Filing date (Score:2)
how novel... (Score:2)
I wish they would get rid of patents that merge two things that have already been invented. i.e., the fork with the fork on one side and knife on the other. Forks and knives have already been invented. Welding them together is not an invention.
Menus have existed for a long time, downloading software has existed for a long time. Using a menu to download software has existed since the 300baud BBSs I used to call.
Could someone explain this? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if I write a piece of software, and include a function that someone has already patented, even if I write my code from scratch, I can be sued?
Isn't this the same as patenting an idea? Isn't there something in the patent law against this? Am I Missing something?
You are missing something (Score:3, Informative)
You've completely confused patents vs. copyright. Copyrights protect the expression of an idea, and your arguments are more-or-less correct w.r.t. copyrights.
Patents exist to protect an idea. And yes, you can come up with the idea completely independently, and express it differently, but still be in violation of a patent. That's pretty much a requirement for patents to be useful. Otherwise you could just look at the patent but claim you hadn't.
Could you please be more abstract? (Score:3, Interesting)
"A method for distributing information to a plurality of uncoordinated user stations each of which is configured for communications with a multiplicity of independently-operated servers via a non-proprietary network includes steps for providing a distribution service that distributes updates for a plurality of different products, and providing a transporter software component to each of the plurality of uncoordinated user stations, wherein the transporter software component at each user station automatically effects communication sessions with the distribution service via the non-proprietary network for the purpose of obtaining updates for each of at least a subset of the plurality of different products that are installed on that user station."
It sounds awfully complicated, and that's only the first sentence. They could probably claim they own pretty much every updating technology with that...
Seriously though, providing "updates to software with a menuing system to permit the user to pick the updates" has been in every system I used, and I don't believe that adding the word "online" in front of it makes it a new super-innovative technology.
Even if it's Microsoft, if they were to lose on this one, it would be a shame.
Re:Could you please be more abstract? (Score:3, Interesting)
Work on the patent goes back to 1990? (Score:2)
And then there are some wonderful bits of drivel in the summary, which pretty much screams "utter bullshit". Prime example is the following
Patents for Dot-coms: Fool's Gold or Mother Lode? (Score:2)
"This work draws on a decades of thinking about new media combined with diversified practical information technology and business experience - and on a visionary mind-set tempered by a sense for effectiveness honed by training in analytical methods for optimization. (see bio). Reisman also has a broad interest in the creative process and the business of innovation - and organized and moderated a symposium on "Patents for Dot-coms [teleshuttle.com]" for the
Hoist! (Score:2)
I wish I could patent complaining about patents (Score:2, Funny)
That's tough (Score:2, Insightful)
So I think MS and Apple would just have to show they started using this tech before 1999 - i.e. it was public IP before the patent was filed.
Lesson: Patent early, patent often.
Does this one qualify as a submarine? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a combined Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/641,010, filed on Apr. 29, 1996, and entitled "COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED TRANSPORT OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION OBJECTS," which is a Continuation-in-Part of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/251,824, filed on May 31, 1994, and entitled "SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATIC UNATTENDED ELECTRONIC INFORMATION TRANSPORT BETWEEN A SERVER AND A CLIENT BY A VENDOR PROVIDED TRANSPORT SOFTWARE WITH A MANIFEST LIST," which as U.S. Pat. No. 5,420,820 on May 30, 1995
EVERYTHING is obvious in hindsight. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate software-related patents as much as the next guy, but the continual cry of "That's obvious" is getting tiring. If it was so obvious, why was there such a long period of time between the patent and when MS and Apple started using a similar system? Clearly, it took them years before they "saw the light."
Past damages? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ludicrous. BTG shouldn't be allowed to wait for ten years to enforce their patent, and then sue for past damages. If BTG were being damaged, BTG should have filed suit earlier. This is nothing but a shakedown.
The good thing about it is that if Microsoft gets pissed off about submarine patents, they have the money and political influence to do something about it, like lobby Congress to reform patents. Unless, of course, the perceived benefits of their patent arsenal outweigh the occasional nuisance lawsuit.
Patent wasnt awarded til 2003 (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm defending them or anything
Prior art. (Score:4, Informative)
HelixCode (then Ximian, then acquired by Novell) produced an installer and updater that shipped in March 2000 and pre-dates the patent applications and did what is described there:
* tracking existing software.
* identifying new software packages.
* identify software updates available.
* install those, resolve dependencies.
* communicated with a server to fetch this information.
* Worked for Debian and RPM systems.
* It used HTML to render the information (like
this patent claim says).
This patent contains 376 claims, most of them
regurgitations of the previous one, and most of
them were done.
I remember that MandrakeSoft had something
similar, but I can not remember if they had it
before or after, I remember thinking that this
was a significant value added over the Red Hat
distribution (back in the day when Mandrake
was a relatively small fork).
Miguel
Re:Prior art. (Score:5, Interesting)
This "iteration" of the application was filed in 2000, but to show prior art you probably have to untangle all of that crap, and show something that existed back before May of '94.
Oh, and go fix mono, it's broken. Thx.
BTG (Score:3, Insightful)
"BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and ... " blah blah blah
Translation: We sue people.
In case you're wondering who they are... (Score:3, Interesting)
About BTG
BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and in early stage ventures. We realize value through technology licensing, patent assertion and sale of equity investments. Through a multidisciplinary approach, we apply intellectual property and commercial expertise, together with specialist skills in science and technology, to create major product opportunities in the health and high tech sectors. BTG has commercialized important innovations, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging, working closely with Professor Sir Peter Mansfield, who was jointly awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine, and others who made contributory inventions to MRI. BTG has also commercialized Multilevel Cell Memory, Campath(R) (alemtuzumab), the first monoclonal antibody treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and recombinant Factor IX blood clotting protein. BTG operates through wholly owned subsidiaries BTG International Ltd. and BTG International Inc. in the UK and USA, respectively.
Or, to summarise, they do nothing.
If you're searching for prior art... (Score:3, Interesting)
In an 1980 article about Bulletin Board systems (which are more or less "menu driven" by selecting from the few commands available, displayed at start-up), there was already the idea of swapping files - a way to do software updates: "We also are considering a function that would allow swapping complete programs."
Here's the full article:
http://www.portcommodore.com/commodore/bbs/cbbs.h
Here's even more information on early BBS and even the invention of the XModem-Protocol:
http://www.portcommodore.com/commodore/bbs/bbshis
As even some of the earliest implementations of XModem-capable programs showed you a list of downloadable files that you could select with your cursor keys and download by pressing a key - presumable "d" - you could speak of speak of "menu driven downloads". And as this was used by developers to share patches and updated programs it was certainly "menu driven updates over a network".
Given the above facts, they can put their patent where the sun doesn't shine - if there's still space left, that is.
Apple II software update system (Score:3)
The machines were networked with twisted pair cable and used an AppleTalk protocol to communicate with an AppleShare server. When booted from a (slightly customized) floppy the machines ran a startup program that pulled a list of software from the server and compared to what was on the floppy. This wasn't commercial software, these were programs and docs the teachers had written and were capable of being downloaded to the boot disk. The idea was that since this wasn't copyrighted software, the students could take home their floppy if they had access to a home computer. Because floppy disks couldn't hold much information, the system only downloaded or updated the particular files the user chose from a menu (it was too small to mirror everything from the Mac II hard disk). The ability to update already downloaded programs and docs was absolutely a necessity since teacher written code would often have bugs and need to be re-distributed multiple times per week. (These were teachers NOT programmers.)
Was this a commercial utility? Was this a facility of AppleShare? Was this something that one of the smarter teachers just cooked up on his own? I have absolutely no idea. It was just a very simple, obvious, menu-driven, networkable, software-update system that was in use in the eighties.
Would this pre-date the claim made in this patent? If more information could be tracked down about this, it sounds like it might destroy the patentability of a 1990 claim to the idea. But I'm not a lawyer so this may very well not meet the legal standards to call into question the patent.
Re:Too old (Score:2)
Re:WWIII (Score:4, Funny)
If I recall correctly, WWI and WWII were both caused by patents. Sorry, theres prior art to your statement.
HOWEVER, just throw "online" in there. WWIII will be triggered by ONLINE patents --- new idea!
Re:Did they have a product? (Score:2)
Now you're starting to catch on to the trap of patents over software and business practices... shortly, very shortly IMO, most innovation in computing will be pretty much boxed out by patents, and that which isn't may be restrained by pending legislation over P2P, DRM, etc...
Re:SuSE, RedHat sued next (Score:2)
Isn't there something in patent law that says you have to sue in a timely manner? These things have been going for years.
Re:Blood sucking vultures (Score:2)
But there's a world of difference between companies that follow your steps 1-4 and SCO. SCO is claiming to have authorship of code that is in Linux they (probably) didn't write.
On the other hand, you're describing professional inventors. This is, in my opinion, a legitimate profession/business. And patents are literally the only thing (other than the good will of companies, which fro
Re:Blood sucking vultures (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the Dyson vacuum cleaner. Dyson invented the bagless vacuum, patented it, and approached other vacuum companies to see if they were interested. Only after he was turned down did he actually start his own company. And after his vacuums took off, other companies copied his patent, were sued, and lost. That, to me, is perfectly desirable and just.
Granted, I can't tell if the company in question here approached MS and friends (and enemies) to see if they wanted to license their patent, but if they had and were refused, I have to stand on their side.
Re:Plural (Score:3, Funny)
(I call this method 'e-mailing a patent att
Re:Patented in 1990? (Score:3, Interesting)
An applicant gets the benefit of the the earliest aplication if later patents granted are a continuation of the earlier patents. THis is supposed to be an incentive to file early, with as much information as possible.
If you look at the sheer volume of prior art, it looks like the applicant and the USPTO went round and round on this one. The PTO