--> From http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040406/1349225.shtml
Microsoft Patents Saving The Name Of A Game
Contributed by Mike on Tuesday, April 6th, 2004 @ 01:49PM
from the yeah,-that's-non-obvious dept.
theodp writes "As if there weren't enough dodgy patents, here's an
excerpt from one granted to Microsoft Tuesday for a 'Method and
apparatus for displaying information regarding stored data in a gaming
system': 'When saving a game, the saved game data may include a
descriptive name of the saved game, a graphic representation of the
state of the game when the game was saved, a description of the game
state when the game was saved, and a date and time that the game was
saved.'" I'm trying to figure out if there's more to this patent, but
the more I read, the worse it seems. How is this possibly
"non-obvious"?
--> Link to Patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...mber=6,716,102
--> Link to Patent File History (Shows Two Earlier Rejections) http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/...mber=6,716,102
Jul 20 '05
138  6609 
PuddleNuts <ne*******@adel phia.nospam.net > wrote: Emma Anne wrote:
Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadai tcha.cx> wrote:
If you actually bothered to read and understand it, you total fucktard, it
relates to XBox games over broadband. All it means is that developers will
have to agree to a license in order to save extensive game data in XBox
format. You stupid, pillocking linuxfuck.
I'm sure Bill Gates is overjoyed to have you as a friend and
supporter. Did you know that Tourette's Syndrome is treatable? See
your doctor.
It's called Tourette Syndrome, actually (not Tourette's Syndrome). I
know someone who has it, though he doesn't swear, just tics.
That was actually a postulation on Emma Anne's part. According to
http://www.tourettesyndrome.net/ it IS commonly referred to as
Tourette's Syndrome/Disorder.
Not trying to be a jerk or anything, just making a point.
You are right. It is commonly called Tourette's. I should have said
the name of the syndrome is Tourette, not that it is called Tourette.
Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> wrote: But as I originally noted, there may be something
in the actual prosecution history that does distinguish their
invention from the prior art.
That's my guess, but obviously I'm not motivated to go analyze it. :-)
Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> wrote: But as I originally noted, there may be something
in the actual prosecution history that does distinguish their
invention from the prior art.
That's my guess, but obviously I'm not motivated to go analyze it. :-)
Emma Anne: You are right. It is commonly called Tourette's. I should have said
the name of the syndrome is Tourette, not that it is called Tourette.
No, no. You've got it all wrong. The name of the syndrome is called
Tourette. There's no other way about it.
--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.n et> <http://www.bertilow.co m>
Emma Anne: You are right. It is commonly called Tourette's. I should have said
the name of the syndrome is Tourette, not that it is called Tourette.
No, no. You've got it all wrong. The name of the syndrome is called
Tourette. There's no other way about it.
--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.n et> <http://www.bertilow.co m>
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:21:48 GMT, Bruce Hayden ("Bruce") writes:
Bruce> For example, claim 1:
Bruce> 1. A game console, comprising:
Bruce> a processor; and
Bruce> a non-removable hard disk drive coupled to the processor, the hard
Bruce> disk drive including a first subdirectory configured to store data
Bruce> Regardless of the ultimate appearance of having multiple directories
Bruce> on a volume - which I don't think came with IBM until the 1970's,
Bruce> the actual storage was typically fairly flat. (
Bruce> Of course, IBM wasn't the only computer architecture of that era.
Bruce> Multics, Exec 8, and GCOS all had more sophisticated file system
Bruce> organizations during that time, and probably at least one of them
Bruce> could support multiple subdirectories on a given hard drive.
Just FYI on this technology art point: You're off by a decade there,
because disk directory systems like you are describing. were on some
computer systems in the early 1960s (certainly no later than 1963).
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:21:48 GMT, Bruce Hayden ("Bruce") writes:
Bruce> For example, claim 1:
Bruce> 1. A game console, comprising:
Bruce> a processor; and
Bruce> a non-removable hard disk drive coupled to the processor, the hard
Bruce> disk drive including a first subdirectory configured to store data
Bruce> Regardless of the ultimate appearance of having multiple directories
Bruce> on a volume - which I don't think came with IBM until the 1970's,
Bruce> the actual storage was typically fairly flat. (
Bruce> Of course, IBM wasn't the only computer architecture of that era.
Bruce> Multics, Exec 8, and GCOS all had more sophisticated file system
Bruce> organizations during that time, and probably at least one of them
Bruce> could support multiple subdirectories on a given hard drive.
Just FYI on this technology art point: You're off by a decade there,
because disk directory systems like you are describing. were on some
computer systems in the early 1960s (certainly no later than 1963).
Bruce Hayden wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
The question must come up, why shouldn't the claims read on
general purpose computers capable of playing games, as they
typically are?
Although this may be possible, I think most current operating systems
would make it difficult to implement some of the claims. In particular,
this excerpt from claim 39: "preventing , other than with the
application, access to data in the first storage area or the second
storage area."
I don't think Windows or Unix can easily implement a mechanism where a
normal user can create a file that can only be accessed when running a
specific game. I suppose on Unix you could do it by making each game
setuid or setgid to an game-specific user/group, but there wouldn't be
anything preventing the administrator from assigning the same user/group
ID to multiple games.
And if you have the professional version of Windows, such
as Windows 2000 that I am running here, you can do something
very similar. You could set up different groups for different
games, and restrict both execution of a given game and storage
into a specified subdirectory to a given group.
But technically speaking, I would suggest that this does differ
from restricting access to specific programs.
I recall a File Daemon system for a PDP-10 operating system
which DID have the option of the owner of a directory limiting
access of files in that directory to specific programs (not
necessarily controlled by that user).
Not having read (or desiring to read) the patent in question,
I can't tell whether that is prior art for a critical section
of the patent.
Bruce Hayden wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
The question must come up, why shouldn't the claims read on
general purpose computers capable of playing games, as they
typically are?
Although this may be possible, I think most current operating systems
would make it difficult to implement some of the claims. In particular,
this excerpt from claim 39: "preventing , other than with the
application, access to data in the first storage area or the second
storage area."
I don't think Windows or Unix can easily implement a mechanism where a
normal user can create a file that can only be accessed when running a
specific game. I suppose on Unix you could do it by making each game
setuid or setgid to an game-specific user/group, but there wouldn't be
anything preventing the administrator from assigning the same user/group
ID to multiple games.
And if you have the professional version of Windows, such
as Windows 2000 that I am running here, you can do something
very similar. You could set up different groups for different
games, and restrict both execution of a given game and storage
into a specified subdirectory to a given group.
But technically speaking, I would suggest that this does differ
from restricting access to specific programs.
I recall a File Daemon system for a PDP-10 operating system
which DID have the option of the owner of a directory limiting
access of files in that directory to specific programs (not
necessarily controlled by that user).
Not having read (or desiring to read) the patent in question,
I can't tell whether that is prior art for a critical section
of the patent.
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 09:06:06 GMT, Bruce Hayden ("Bruce") writes:
Bruce> Remember, UNIX was essentially a port of MULTICS from a
Bruce> mainframe to a minicomputer.
That is not at all accurate: Multics and UNIX have almost nothing in
common; UNIX was a reaction against the directions that Multics went.
They do not share any programs whatsoever; no "porting" was involved.
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
