More Microsoft Patents 352
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."
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)
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Insightful)
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:3, Interesting)
There is some hope -- the current generation of young people can't get jobs except at Walmart or McDonalds -- they're just not out there. People are starting to clue into this.
The problem is that the US (a
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:3)
One of the problems is that we have marketing people for industry that attemps to convince lots of kids to train in certain areas by stating all the saleries that people get paid and shit like that. Now were there was a downfall of workers in a cert
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:3, Insightful)
And the US will not become irrelevant until the rest of the world stops buying pepsi, nike and britney spears CDs.
it just amazes me that millions of people protest US foreign policy but go see an americna movie or buy american cigarettes.
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? The following people need our help desparately.
Liberians, Somalians, Sudanese, Chechnians, Palestenians, North koreans, Chinese, taiwanese, and billions more. Only if they had something we wanted...
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:3, Insightful)
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:3, Interesting)
Its a good idea but I think that in reality it probably wouldn't work. The problem with arbitration is that there is NO guarantee of a solution. The parties involved must come to some agreement, and the arbitrators have no real power over them. While the arbitrators can try and help the parties to see sense, there is often a big difference between legal/moral/ethical sense and the economic sense that large companies have in mind. When things can't be resolved then the case just goes back to the court room.
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Insightful)
Call it what it really is.
Patent Spamming
Throw enough crap at the USPTO, and they're bound to approve some of it.
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:3, Insightful)
Raising fees for patents is a BAD idea (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Raising fees for patents is a BAD idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming the plan *COULD* work (it would never be imposed), simply add a rule that if the patent is filed in the janitor's name, then the janitor owns it, not the company. If the company lays claim to the patent (via a w"e own everything you do" employment contract), then the company owns the patent not the janitor even though he filed it.
The problem i
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Interesting)
(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)
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:3, Insightful)
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
good ole fashion bribery (Score:3, Interesting)
The other is obvious, just BAN IP patents. Eliminate thew whole shooting match, and invalidate all past IP patents. Patents should be reserved for TANGIBLES. Copyright-OK, patent, nyetski! We had intangibles before, when the patent office was se
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:2)
It would be unfair to bar employees of a barred company from filing for patents, because its entirely possible that they came up with ideas on their own time that have no relation to the company (although, that hasn't stopped companies from claiming they own all thoughts of their own employies before).
As long as patents are t
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Publish all patent applications immediately.
2) Require that the patent application identify anyone against whom an action may be brought or anyone that the applicant may want to put on formal notice about the patent. Under this scheme, I would think that any company filing a patent would provide formal notice to all known competitors from the very beginning.
2a) If an alleged infringement is identified after the patent is filed, but not issued, ammend the paten
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:2)
Techology patents?.. As opposed to what?
But, seriously, don't kid yourself. The "silliness" as you so eloquently put it (I would have outright called it corruption or sabotage) will only end when the conflict is resolved by means of confrontation.
The only reason for them to mend their ways would be a giant smack on the head by the society - something on the scale of Enron. Unfortunately, the pub
Re:It ends when they get some tech folks in there (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, we create an insentive for public review, maybe even create a cottage industry, while at the same time creating a penalty for abusing the system or failing to do basic research.
Have a public review period (Score:3, Insightful)
Lynx (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lynx (Score:2)
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)
Re:Old Patent (Score:2, Insightful)
Navigate with keyboard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Navigate with keyboard? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) voice opinion
2) read article (optional)
Quick, sombody please... (Score:3, Funny)
Patents (Score:2)
We need to a have a period of public review before patents are issued. Then again, after the first couple months people will lose interest.
I suppose it's better than nothign. Does the US PTO have a permanent staff of patnet reviewers or do they consult out some of the work?
Re:Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
The more patents they approve is the more people and corporations that will apply for patents. The more applications they get, the more money they receive.
The system promotes a cycle in which they approve patents easily because they don't have the staff to do sufficient reviews, and the increased approval rates attract more patent applications, which makes it even more difficult to do sufficient reviews.
There needs to be an incentive to r
Re:Patents (Score:2)
Re:Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
I'm rich (Score:2, Funny)
better still (Score:3, Funny)
Windows become unusable instantly!
p.s. if I decided to be nice and license my patent to MS my estimated royalties are:
1 cent per use (I'm a kind soul)
1 login, per day, per user = 1.8 billion per year, nice pocket money.
approx 10000 reboots per day, per user = 18 teradollars per year! Hooray, I'm so rich I don't even know what the units are called to describe how rich I am!
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.
"Self Defense" Patents (Score:2)
Many people like to use the excuse that such patents are for "self defense".
It's also said the best defense is a good offense, so I really don't trust any company that keeps trying to patent the obvious. Instead of wasting money "defending" against bogus patents, how about investing in fixing the patent system?
Re:"Self Defense" Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Two questions:
1) How exactly does a company do that? Sure, they can lobby, but despite common opinion here that often comes to nothing, and they wouldn't be lobbying unopposed. Also, given that this is MS we're talking about, the company that everyone loves to hate, the politicos may well be wary of being seen to be too cooperative.
2) In the meantime, they're still just as vulnerable to attack, w
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)
Reminds me of an old story... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prior art found (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:My part to end this foolishness (Score:2)
I say that we should start doing this sort of thing in retaliation. Let's patent everything in sight, but allow for general use of the idea.
Re:My part to end this foolishness (Score:2, Insightful)
I like to be idealistic too, but not when it interferes with the livelihood of me and my family. The whole Linux-vs-Windows thing simply isn't importan
Re:My part to end this foolishness (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think people switching to linux is really going to stop them.
People switching to Linux, and then convincing their friends and relatives to switch to Linux, is exactly what will stop Microsoft - in the end.
You're going to need to get Linux to over 50% market share before we find any type of interest from Microsoft to maybe stop doing the crap they're doing.
That's backwards. Microsoft is already scared by Linux, which is why they talk about viral licensing, TCO, and cut special deals to keep
The keyboard navigation patent (Score:3, Informative)
Does anyone wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that what Microsoft really wants, to bring it all down so that it can get MSIP (Microsoft Intellectual Property) 1.0 codified into law, where everything is backed instead purely by contract law and the terms they put into all sorts of "implied by viewing", "implied by re
Re:Does anyone wonder... (Score:2)
shoot itself in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shoot itself in the foot (Score:2, 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. Besides, there are too many people to sue. There were doubtless hundreds of infringers of this one the
Re:shoot itself in the foot (Score:2)
Am I the only person to have noticed that this "patent hoarding spree" only started (or at least, started to be publicised) since they were sued by Eolas?
Looks to me like someone's taken a major disliking to that, and is making sure it never happens again.
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)
EU: Listen! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say it again! Statute of Limitation! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'll say it again! Statute of Limitation! (Score:2)
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
I think ..... (Score:2)
SO IT WAS A PREMONITION!!!!
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:2, Funny)
-Homer Simpson
Seriously though, this is ridiculous and scary. How can anyone in their right mind not see the faults of the US Patent system? And better yet, why is nothing being done to rectify this?
-01
This is pretty lame (Score:2)
How the system works. (Score:2)
Apparently, the US patent system is quite loose with issuing patents. Yes, it asks for unobviousness and prior art, etc., but basically anyone can get a patent.
However, patents are as worthless as the paper they are on until they are defended against infringement. Because of the precedent doctrines, once you lose a patent defense, you effectively lose the patent. So while this may seem scary, MS probably will not prevail in a lawsuit.
The question is whether MS will sue someone poor and can't def
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)
Re:I'm going to write to my congressman (Score:3, Informative)
Prior Patents == Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:Prior Patents == Prior Art (Score:2)
Untrue. Any published document with a provable date or product with a provable date of first sale or public use is considered prior art. Hell, if you look at the art cited in the 6,785,865 patent you will see a few web pages and books listed along with prior patents.
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."
Re:YATWSDNARTPA (Score:3, Informative)
Regarding that first claim, Microsoft is claiming to have come up with a different (unique?) method for doing what Lynx and other browsers already did. It is commonplace to patent a distinct method of achieving something wh
Re:YATWSDNARTPA (Score:2, Insightful)
and you think it's better? You are crazy, sorry.
And the dummies that modded you up too.
MS and patents.... when will the nightmare end? (Score:2)
The entire world of browsers risks severe consequences if this patent is left into being.
Someone please do thi
One more nail in the Patent Office's coffin (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't tabbing part of the HTML specification? (Score:2)
accountability.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well.. (Score:2)
fast forward a decade or so..
am a diehard debian fan. hate MS. (i'm using the word 'hate' here.)
what drove me to it? nobody on either side paid me.
i think the post partially answers it. blatent rip-offs, redefining the meaning of 'innovation' to be 'predetory compitition squashing and conveniently swallowing up them whole'. disgusting. just plain disgusting. a two bit company that was at the right place at the right time.
i still use links and lynx occ
Next, let's offshore INNOVATION to the third world (Score:2, Interesting)
Make it easy for big, slow corporations to own all of the ideas in the world, and that's exactly what will happen... innovation will shift to areas of the world that aren't covered by the patents, and unfortunately that's only going to be Russia, the Orient, and Africa soon. (hell, those people do need SOMETHING though)
However, as many others here have pointed out, regulation is a swinging pendulum and it will most likely swing back toward something
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
Re:U.S. Patent Office (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is so much of a problem for you, why not just use pat2pdf [tothink.com] which is a "script [which] fetches the pages of a U.S. patent document from the USPTO patent database and converts them into a single PDF file." which "is reported to run on Linux, FreeBSD, IRIX and Mac OS/X." (according to the homepage).
If you wish you can complain to the USPTO about no having a linux/mozilla version of whatever software it is you are talk
Ignorant patent critics (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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:Easy to Fix all this.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Since customers won't stand for having to buy new hardware for each application, once a piece of hardware becomes multi-functional it starts the long descent into "commodity".
Remember that "this software requires that dongle" isnt' enough. The dongle isn't the computer.
The actual model you should look at is "Pro-Tools" (for
Re:The reason... (Score:5, Informative)
Filed: March 6, 1997
Re:The reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which makes one wonder: how on earth can a patent that was filed in 1997 be granted seven years later in 2004 and still be valid? Especially when the basic techonology had been around since at least the early 80's (Text-based menus any one?).
Re:The reason... (Score:2)
Today is September 10th. The "year of Linux" is ticking away fast, while SP2 is being pushed out in numbers that will ultimately reach around 200 million.
Re:The reason... (Score:2)
Microsoft is filing all these patents recently is that they see themselves losing market share to Linux.
Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that Bill Gates stepped down as CEO and has become the head of Research and Development at Microsoft, the branch dealing with intellectual property and patents. Gates has always seemed to bring a law-based approach to the computer industry in whatever role he played. He seemed to have an proficiency in that area possibly because his dad was a lawyer, as
Re:Debunking theories here... (Score:5, Informative)
- 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.News in the discovery, not in the application (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you aware of every single patent application in the past 30 days? Yeah, me neither. There are so many patent applications, even those who are being paid to keep track of it all seem unable to accomplish that feat. Thus, patents get into the system without much notice. When someone runs across an "interesting" one and brings it to light, it is that "shedding of light" that makes it "news."
To use an overly-blunt analogy, it's not the death of a dinosaur that makes the news, it's the discovery of its
Re:News? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Remember when... (Score:5, Informative)
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.