--> 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  6605 
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.*******@Micr osoftX.usenet.u s.com> wrote Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> writes:Patent attorneys are
not cheap, even when on staff in a corporation....
How expensive are they? The web site mentioned below says that patent
attorneys in the USA with 5-8 years experience earn in the range of
$105,000 - $127,000 annually. Presumably one would add around 30% for
the employer's cost in overhead/benefits/taxes.
Assuming that a Msft patent lawyer could investigate a patent
and send a dozen letters relating to that patent in a week, then
I figure a cost of about $250 per letter.
Roger Schlafly wrote: "Rahul Dhesi" <c.*******@Micr osoftX.usenet.u s.com> wrotePatent attorneys are
not cheap, even when on staff in a corporation....
How expensive are they? The web site mentioned below says that patent
attorneys in the USA with 5-8 years experience earn in the range of
$105,000 - $127,000 annually. Presumably one would add around 30% for
the employer's cost in overhead/benefits/taxes.
Assuming that a Msft patent lawyer could investigate a patent
and send a dozen letters relating to that patent in a week, then
I figure a cost of about $250 per letter.
Doesn't work that way, at least in my experience in the real world.
A $250 infringement investigation and letter is not going to be
sufficient to overcome being frivilous. Also, why should they
bother? Where is the monetary return to MSFT?
One problem with hiring patent attorneys for this, whether inside
or outside, is that you need to be able to justify their cost.
Something as nebulous as slightly reducing competition from
mom and pop operations will not be easy to financially justify.
It is just too hard to quantify.
Regardless of the company, patent attorneys have to justify
their existance in order to get funded. How many do you hire?
Depends on how many you can financially justify. It is much
easier to financially justify asserting patents against big
companies, like IBM, Sun, etc., than against mom-and-pop
operations because of the revenue streams involved. Building
a patent portfolio is also relatively easy to justify, given
either the costs and/or the revenues from cross-licensing.
MSFT of course has the added problem that they are already viewed
as an ogre. If they started actively beating up on mom-and-pop
operations just for the fun of it, their sales are likely to
suffer more than any potential revenues - plus the possibility
that they may again get sued by some government.
My view, having worked in a couple of corporate patent departments,
is that your fears are unwarrented and unfounded. However,
should you be able to provide instances where MSFT actually
asserted its patents against mom-and-pop companies, I would
be willing to reconsider my position. Until then, I will continue
to assume that those panicking here are uninformed as to the real
world of patent assertion and corporate patent work.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 2004 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bh*****@ieee.or g
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdow n.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatla w.com
Roger Schlafly wrote: "Rahul Dhesi" <c.*******@Micr osoftX.usenet.u s.com> wrotePatent attorneys are
not cheap, even when on staff in a corporation....
How expensive are they? The web site mentioned below says that patent
attorneys in the USA with 5-8 years experience earn in the range of
$105,000 - $127,000 annually. Presumably one would add around 30% for
the employer's cost in overhead/benefits/taxes.
Assuming that a Msft patent lawyer could investigate a patent
and send a dozen letters relating to that patent in a week, then
I figure a cost of about $250 per letter.
Doesn't work that way, at least in my experience in the real world.
A $250 infringement investigation and letter is not going to be
sufficient to overcome being frivilous. Also, why should they
bother? Where is the monetary return to MSFT?
One problem with hiring patent attorneys for this, whether inside
or outside, is that you need to be able to justify their cost.
Something as nebulous as slightly reducing competition from
mom and pop operations will not be easy to financially justify.
It is just too hard to quantify.
Regardless of the company, patent attorneys have to justify
their existance in order to get funded. How many do you hire?
Depends on how many you can financially justify. It is much
easier to financially justify asserting patents against big
companies, like IBM, Sun, etc., than against mom-and-pop
operations because of the revenue streams involved. Building
a patent portfolio is also relatively easy to justify, given
either the costs and/or the revenues from cross-licensing.
MSFT of course has the added problem that they are already viewed
as an ogre. If they started actively beating up on mom-and-pop
operations just for the fun of it, their sales are likely to
suffer more than any potential revenues - plus the possibility
that they may again get sued by some government.
My view, having worked in a couple of corporate patent departments,
is that your fears are unwarrented and unfounded. However,
should you be able to provide instances where MSFT actually
asserted its patents against mom-and-pop companies, I would
be willing to reconsider my position. Until then, I will continue
to assume that those panicking here are uninformed as to the real
world of patent assertion and corporate patent work.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 2004 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bh*****@ieee.or g
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdow n.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatla w.com
Emma Anne wrote: Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> wrote:1. A game console, comprising:
Is "game console" defined in the patent, by chance? I know, I could
look it up myself . . .
Not specifically, by function, as far as I can remember,
but rather by construction. As far as I can tell, it
is virtually indistinguishab le from a general purpose PC
in construction. The closest I see in function is the
first line of the Background that states that "Gaming
systems currently available on the market are capable
of playing game discs, music CDs, and movie DVDs from
a disc drive". Nothing I can't do on my PC. Gaming
systems are then defined to include a game console,
game controller(s), and display unit. If you view the
game console as the computer box, the game controller(s)
as PC game controller(s), and the display unit as a monitor,
you have a standard computer system. Yes, they talk about
Sony PS2 and MSFT XBox as game systems, but there
is nothing apparent to me limiting the patent to such
standalone boxes. But putting everything in a standalone
box is merely an engineering/design decision, and has
nothing really to do with functionality.
The question must come up, why shouldn't the claims read on
general purpose computers capable of playing games, as they
typically are? I saw little in the specification that
would prevent such, and even less in the claims.
Worse, the XBox appears to be primarily constructed using
commodity PC parts. That leaves you with a PC that is not
a PC only because of the way that it is packaged - which
is not really mentioned in the patent, and again is merely
an engineering/design decision.
Theoretically, they might have been able to distinguish
their invention from general purpose computers by pointing
out that game controllers are special purpose systems that
are not capable of, for example, running word processing,
spreadsheet, and/or web browsing software. But, they didn't,
and if they had, non-infringement would have been simple
by merely providing such capabilities - which is probably not
that hard, given their apparent use of commodity processors.
The problem with claims reading on general purpose computers
is that the claims would then either be not novel, and/or
be obvious. But as I originally noted, there may be something
in the actual prosecution history that does distinguish their
invention from the prior art.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 2004 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bh*****@ieee.or g
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdow n.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatla w.com
Emma Anne wrote: Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> wrote:1. A game console, comprising:
Is "game console" defined in the patent, by chance? I know, I could
look it up myself . . .
Not specifically, by function, as far as I can remember,
but rather by construction. As far as I can tell, it
is virtually indistinguishab le from a general purpose PC
in construction. The closest I see in function is the
first line of the Background that states that "Gaming
systems currently available on the market are capable
of playing game discs, music CDs, and movie DVDs from
a disc drive". Nothing I can't do on my PC. Gaming
systems are then defined to include a game console,
game controller(s), and display unit. If you view the
game console as the computer box, the game controller(s)
as PC game controller(s), and the display unit as a monitor,
you have a standard computer system. Yes, they talk about
Sony PS2 and MSFT XBox as game systems, but there
is nothing apparent to me limiting the patent to such
standalone boxes. But putting everything in a standalone
box is merely an engineering/design decision, and has
nothing really to do with functionality.
The question must come up, why shouldn't the claims read on
general purpose computers capable of playing games, as they
typically are? I saw little in the specification that
would prevent such, and even less in the claims.
Worse, the XBox appears to be primarily constructed using
commodity PC parts. That leaves you with a PC that is not
a PC only because of the way that it is packaged - which
is not really mentioned in the patent, and again is merely
an engineering/design decision.
Theoretically, they might have been able to distinguish
their invention from general purpose computers by pointing
out that game controllers are special purpose systems that
are not capable of, for example, running word processing,
spreadsheet, and/or web browsing software. But, they didn't,
and if they had, non-infringement would have been simple
by merely providing such capabilities - which is probably not
that hard, given their apparent use of commodity processors.
The problem with claims reading on general purpose computers
is that the claims would then either be not novel, and/or
be obvious. But as I originally noted, there may be something
in the actual prosecution history that does distinguish their
invention from the prior art.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 2004 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bh*****@ieee.or g
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdow n.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatla w.com
In article <40******@news. peakpeak.com>,
Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> 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.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
Rahul Dhesi wrote: "Milo T." <fa*********@ma laprop.net> writes:
Microsoft Patents Saving The Name Of A Game
...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...mber=6,716,102
As with most patents, the important part is not the abstract.
Try reading the claims and the summary.
The essence of Claim 1 in its entirety is: a game console, a processor;
two hard disks, and on each hard disk, data associated with a program.
Since processors, hard disks, data, and program, are very generic terms,
how much this patent will cover will likely hinge on what 'game console'
means. And, from reading some of the patent, it seems to me that pretty
much any machine that lets you play games is a game console.
The closest thing I find to a definition of 'game console' in the patent
is:
The gaming system includes a game console and one or more controllers.
The game console is equipped with a processor and a non-removable hard
disk drive coupled to the processor. The game console may also include
a memory, a portable media drive configured to communicate with a
storage disc, one or more portable memory units, and broadband
connectivity. In other implementations , the hard disk drive is
configured to store game data, audio data, and video data
The 'may also' and 'other implementations ' parts are optional, so the
essential elements of a game console are:
processor
non-removable hard disk
Claim 1 would thus appear to cover almost every game-capable computer
system that has two hard disks; presumably including high-end TRS-80 and
Apple-II models from the 1970s.
We used to play games on an IBM mainframe in the 60's -- I guess that
would be prior art.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy. net.
In article <40******@news. peakpeak.com>,
Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> 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.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
Rahul Dhesi wrote: "Milo T." <fa*********@ma laprop.net> writes:
Microsoft Patents Saving The Name Of A Game
...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...mber=6,716,102
As with most patents, the important part is not the abstract.
Try reading the claims and the summary.
The essence of Claim 1 in its entirety is: a game console, a processor;
two hard disks, and on each hard disk, data associated with a program.
Since processors, hard disks, data, and program, are very generic terms,
how much this patent will cover will likely hinge on what 'game console'
means. And, from reading some of the patent, it seems to me that pretty
much any machine that lets you play games is a game console.
The closest thing I find to a definition of 'game console' in the patent
is:
The gaming system includes a game console and one or more controllers.
The game console is equipped with a processor and a non-removable hard
disk drive coupled to the processor. The game console may also include
a memory, a portable media drive configured to communicate with a
storage disc, one or more portable memory units, and broadband
connectivity. In other implementations , the hard disk drive is
configured to store game data, audio data, and video data
The 'may also' and 'other implementations ' parts are optional, so the
essential elements of a game console are:
processor
non-removable hard disk
Claim 1 would thus appear to cover almost every game-capable computer
system that has two hard disks; presumably including high-end TRS-80 and
Apple-II models from the 1970s.
We used to play games on an IBM mainframe in the 60's -- I guess that
would be prior art.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy. net.
In article <40************ **@prodigy.net> , CJT <ab******@prodi gy.net>
wrote: We used to play games on an IBM mainframe in the 60's -- I guess that
would be prior art.
Did the games prevent other applications from being able to read saved
game files? If not, then it's not prior art for this patent.
Did the saved game files include an image of the game state? If not,
then it's not prior art for this patent.
How long were filenames on the 60's IBM mainframes? I suspect they
weren't even long enough to contain a description of the game state, so
it wasn't prior art for this patent.
Your statement makes me think that you haven't read the patent, except
perhaps for the one paragraph from the summary that the OP excerpted.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
