Barry Margolin wrote:
Why limit Claim 1 to covering only half the computer systems in
existence? Wouldn't it be better if Claim 1 covered all computer
systems?
I really don't see from just the patent why it shouldn't.
Perhaps they weren't able to get the patent approved with such a broad
claim.
Although it doesn't seem to have a precise enough definition to satisfy
the folks in this thread, maybe the patent examiner took the phrase
"game console" more literally, to refer to a dedicated game-running
device rather than a general-purpose computer. If that's not the
intent, what's the point of saying "A game console, comprising..."
rather than "A computer, comprising..."?
I am trying to find something on which to hang my hat as far as
validating the broader claims, such as the notorious claim 1.
The problem is that in the patent, a game console is defined as
part of a game system, and a game system is defined as something
that could arguably include a general purpose computer. You
seem to be arguing for a definition based on the term itself,
or maybe on the few examples (PS2, XBox) given in the patent.
But there are two problems with that. First, a patent applicant
(or his attorney/agent) is his own lexographer. Here, one could
argue that the applicant defined game systems as being "capable of
playing game discs, music CDs, and movie DVDs from a disc drive",
game systems having a game console, controller(s), and a display,
and game consoles having a processor, memory, and a hard drive.
What was startling somewhat was the XBox description as
essentially a slightly stripped down PC, built with commodity
PC parts, repackaged, but, never the less, from a hardware
point of view, a PC.
Secondly, we don't know where technology is going to be in 2023
when this patent will potentially expire. Early game machiines
were truly custom built and provided minimumal functionality.
The difference between them and computers was fairly evident.
But when they essentially become repackaged PCs, the gap has
closed almost all the way, and I will suggest that it is likely
that the gap will close the rest of the way in the very near
future.
Where do you draw the line? I don't think that it is clear
from the patent. Is it when you can't do word processing
on the game console? Is it when you can't do spreadsheets?
Is it when the purpose of the item is primarily game playing?
But how do you characterize a living room appliance that
provides TiVo capabilities, allows surfing the Web using your
HDTV as a monitor, and, by the way, can play all of those XBox
games? After all, why do you think MSFT got into this business
in the first place? If they control both the office environment
and a good percentage of the gaming environment, they have a
good chance at controlling the room appliance business.
As to why not say a "computer", etc.? We have had any number
of examples where a computer comprises:
a processor; and
a non-removable hard disk drive coupled to the processor, the hard disk
drive including a first subdirectory configured to store data associated
with a first application, and the hard disk drive including a second
subdirectory configured to store data associated with a second application.
Most notably, MSFT's own NT Windows operating systems. In
particular, this Windows 2000 system stores the configuration
parameters for each different application in its own subdirectory.
Thus, Netscape/Mozilla uses here:
E:\Documents and Settings\BEHSYS D.BEHSYSD\Appli cation Data\Mozilla
While Phoenix uses:
E:\Documents and Settings\BEHSYS D.BEHSYSD\Appli cation Data\Phoenix
and Adobe Acrobat uses:
E:\Documents and Settings\BEHSYS D.BEHSYSD\Appli cation Data\Adobe\Acro bat
Clearly subdirectories associated with different applications.
Note BTW that if you don't turn your MSFT Windows sytem into a
multiuser system, it really won't be. My laptop, as shipped from HP,
had one user, "Owner". In older versions (Win98), turning a system
into a multiuser system required a major reconfiguration of files.
NT versions just start with the above setup. Most people leave
their Windows running as single user systems, and thus, there is
only one subdirectory in which to store, for example, your Netscape
application data, such as your mailbox, cache, etc., as opposed
to the one per user in a multiuser system.
Thus, you have "a first subdirectory configured to store data associated
with a first application", and "a second subdirectory configured to
store data associated with a second application", all typically
on the same disk drive.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
