--> 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  6615 
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
Mike wrote: Rahul, reading a patent is more difficult than that. Claim 1 is an
independent claim; the following claims further specify the claim. Yes,
claim 1 is very general. That's the way it's supposed to be. In this case,
claims 2 through 9 further specify claim 1. Claim 10 is another independent
claim, which by itself is general, like claim 1. Claims 11 through 13 and
18 through 19 further specify claim 10, and claims 14 through 17 further
specify claim 13, and so on. The idea is to build a case such that the
final dependent claims are relatively independent of each other. That way,
any one of them could be found unenforceable without invalidating the
others.
Let's clarify a little. Dependent claims further LIMIT the claim on
which they depend, not SPECIFY. Thus, claim 2 specifies that the
first application is a game. Since claim 2 must further limit claim 1,
claim 1 must by necessity include other than games as the first
application. Otherwise, the two claims would be identical, and thus
not both be allowable. This, BTW, is a technique that many of us
use to broaden terms in the broader claims. First application in
claim 1 is broader than just games, since it is a game in claim 2.
Let's say you had invented the unicycle. In your first claim, you might
claim that it comprised a frame, a wheel, and a seat. That's hardly new,
but you'd add additional dependent claims to further specify what makes a
unicycle unique. In the end, your independent claim forms the foundation
for your unicycle - but the independent claims are the meat of the patent.
Except of course, that a frame, a wheel, and a seat reads on bicycles,
trycycles, etc.
That's not to say the independent claims aren't important. If someone else
comes along and invents a unicycle without a seat, then your first claim is
inapplicable, and all the dependent claims are also inapplicable. At the
same time, making it an overreaching claim isn't good either - sooner or
later you have to get specific, or you'll just be claiming something that
already exists, and your patent will be unenforceable.
The other problem is that if you have it too broad, such as your
independent unicycle claim, it reads on other things, such as here,
bicycles and tricycles, and if they are old art, then your claim would
be invalid through lack of novelty or obviousness.
So, you're looking at this patent the wrong way, and giving it far too much
scope in the process. The first claim is for a video game that includes a
game console, processor, two hard disks, and data. Other video game
consoles that do not include two hard disks or a console are _not_ covered.
Taken in that light, it's not so overreaching after all.
Two disk drives? I see only one:
1. A game console, comprising:
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.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Mike wrote: Rahul, reading a patent is more difficult than that. Claim 1 is an
independent claim; the following claims further specify the claim. Yes,
claim 1 is very general. That's the way it's supposed to be. In this case,
claims 2 through 9 further specify claim 1. Claim 10 is another independent
claim, which by itself is general, like claim 1. Claims 11 through 13 and
18 through 19 further specify claim 10, and claims 14 through 17 further
specify claim 13, and so on. The idea is to build a case such that the
final dependent claims are relatively independent of each other. That way,
any one of them could be found unenforceable without invalidating the
others.
Let's clarify a little. Dependent claims further LIMIT the claim on
which they depend, not SPECIFY. Thus, claim 2 specifies that the
first application is a game. Since claim 2 must further limit claim 1,
claim 1 must by necessity include other than games as the first
application. Otherwise, the two claims would be identical, and thus
not both be allowable. This, BTW, is a technique that many of us
use to broaden terms in the broader claims. First application in
claim 1 is broader than just games, since it is a game in claim 2.
Let's say you had invented the unicycle. In your first claim, you might
claim that it comprised a frame, a wheel, and a seat. That's hardly new,
but you'd add additional dependent claims to further specify what makes a
unicycle unique. In the end, your independent claim forms the foundation
for your unicycle - but the independent claims are the meat of the patent.
Except of course, that a frame, a wheel, and a seat reads on bicycles,
trycycles, etc.
That's not to say the independent claims aren't important. If someone else
comes along and invents a unicycle without a seat, then your first claim is
inapplicable, and all the dependent claims are also inapplicable. At the
same time, making it an overreaching claim isn't good either - sooner or
later you have to get specific, or you'll just be claiming something that
already exists, and your patent will be unenforceable.
The other problem is that if you have it too broad, such as your
independent unicycle claim, it reads on other things, such as here,
bicycles and tricycles, and if they are old art, then your claim would
be invalid through lack of novelty or obviousness.
So, you're looking at this patent the wrong way, and giving it far too much
scope in the process. The first claim is for a video game that includes a
game console, processor, two hard disks, and data. Other video game
consoles that do not include two hard disks or a console are _not_ covered.
Taken in that light, it's not so overreaching after all.
Two disk drives? I see only one:
1. A game console, comprising:
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.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes: BSD UNIX games in the eighties usually ran setuid to the user 'games',
and saved their data in a private directory owned by the 'games' user,
so the person playing the game could not directly tamper with saved game
scores. The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
Barry> The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the
Barry> files of another game. So if all the games ran setuid to
Barry> 'games', it's not the same as the method in the patent.
How to modify the above scheme to separate the various games is
*trivial* to anyone trained in the field. So, that patent claim fails
the novelty requirement.
--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm-(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: da****@informat ik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes: BSD UNIX games in the eighties usually ran setuid to the user 'games',
and saved their data in a private directory owned by the 'games' user,
so the person playing the game could not directly tamper with saved game
scores. The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
Barry> The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the
Barry> files of another game. So if all the games ran setuid to
Barry> 'games', it's not the same as the method in the patent.
How to modify the above scheme to separate the various games is
*trivial* to anyone trained in the field. So, that patent claim fails
the novelty requirement.
--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm-(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: da****@informat ik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:
Barry> Although it doesn't seem to have a precise enough
Barry> definition to satisfy the folks in this thread, maybe the
Barry> patent examiner took the phrase "game console" more
Barry> literally, to refer to a dedicated game-running device
Barry> rather than a general-purpose computer. If that's not the
Barry> intent, what's the point of saying "A game console,
Barry> comprising..." rather than "A computer, comprising..."?
What's then the difference between a game-console and a
general-purpose computer?
Dedicated for games? Is the PS/2 a game console, given that a Linux
toolkit is available? (If not, then this is a trick to make the
patent useless: a game-console vendor only need to design and sell a
trivial "game" that allows people to use the game console as a simple
calculator. Then that's not a "dedicated game-running device"
anymore!)
--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm-(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: da****@informat ik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:
Barry> Although it doesn't seem to have a precise enough
Barry> definition to satisfy the folks in this thread, maybe the
Barry> patent examiner took the phrase "game console" more
Barry> literally, to refer to a dedicated game-running device
Barry> rather than a general-purpose computer. If that's not the
Barry> intent, what's the point of saying "A game console,
Barry> comprising..." rather than "A computer, comprising..."?
What's then the difference between a game-console and a
general-purpose computer?
Dedicated for games? Is the PS/2 a game console, given that a Linux
toolkit is available? (If not, then this is a trick to make the
patent useless: a game-console vendor only need to design and sell a
trivial "game" that allows people to use the game console as a simple
calculator. Then that's not a "dedicated game-running device"
anymore!)
--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm-(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: da****@informat ik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:09:25 GMT, Bruce Hayden wrote: Mike wrote:
Rahul, reading a patent is more difficult than that. Claim 1 is an
independent claim; the following claims further specify the claim. Yes,
claim 1 is very general. That's the way it's supposed to be. In this case,
claims 2 through 9 further specify claim 1. Claim 10 is another independent
claim, which by itself is general, like claim 1. Claims 11 through 13 and
18 through 19 further specify claim 10, and claims 14 through 17 further
specify claim 13, and so on. The idea is to build a case such that the
final dependent claims are relatively independent of each other. That way,
any one of them could be found unenforceable without invalidating the
others.
Let's clarify a little. Dependent claims further LIMIT the claim on
which they depend, not SPECIFY. Thus, claim 2 specifies that the
first application is a game. Since claim 2 must further limit claim 1,
claim 1 must by necessity include other than games as the first
application. Otherwise, the two claims would be identical, and thus
not both be allowable. This, BTW, is a technique that many of us
use to broaden terms in the broader claims. First application in
claim 1 is broader than just games, since it is a game in claim 2.
Okay, limit it is. Specify was not the best choice on my part, since the
patent specification is a separate part of the patent. In this case, I used
specify in the sense of stating something in detail, with the dependent
claims providing additional detail.
Let's say you had invented the unicycle. In your first claim, you might
claim that it comprised a frame, a wheel, and a seat. That's hardly new,
but you'd add additional dependent claims to further specify what makes a
unicycle unique. In the end, your independent claim forms the foundation
for your unicycle - but the independent claims are the meat of the patent.
And, continuing my tradition of typographical errors, that sentence should
have been, "... but the _dependent_ claims are the meat of the patent."
Except of course, that a frame, a wheel, and a seat reads on bicycles,
trycycles, etc.
Hmmm... I can't resist: Is a trycycle a tricycle with flat tires?
-- Mike --
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:09:25 GMT, Bruce Hayden wrote: Mike wrote:
Rahul, reading a patent is more difficult than that. Claim 1 is an
independent claim; the following claims further specify the claim. Yes,
claim 1 is very general. That's the way it's supposed to be. In this case,
claims 2 through 9 further specify claim 1. Claim 10 is another independent
claim, which by itself is general, like claim 1. Claims 11 through 13 and
18 through 19 further specify claim 10, and claims 14 through 17 further
specify claim 13, and so on. The idea is to build a case such that the
final dependent claims are relatively independent of each other. That way,
any one of them could be found unenforceable without invalidating the
others.
Let's clarify a little. Dependent claims further LIMIT the claim on
which they depend, not SPECIFY. Thus, claim 2 specifies that the
first application is a game. Since claim 2 must further limit claim 1,
claim 1 must by necessity include other than games as the first
application. Otherwise, the two claims would be identical, and thus
not both be allowable. This, BTW, is a technique that many of us
use to broaden terms in the broader claims. First application in
claim 1 is broader than just games, since it is a game in claim 2.
Okay, limit it is. Specify was not the best choice on my part, since the
patent specification is a separate part of the patent. In this case, I used
specify in the sense of stating something in detail, with the dependent
claims providing additional detail.
Let's say you had invented the unicycle. In your first claim, you might
claim that it comprised a frame, a wheel, and a seat. That's hardly new,
but you'd add additional dependent claims to further specify what makes a
unicycle unique. In the end, your independent claim forms the foundation
for your unicycle - but the independent claims are the meat of the patent.
And, continuing my tradition of typographical errors, that sentence should
have been, "... but the _dependent_ claims are the meat of the patent."
Except of course, that a frame, a wheel, and a seat reads on bicycles,
trycycles, etc.
Hmmm... I can't resist: Is a trycycle a tricycle with flat tires?
-- Mike --
In article <m3************ @mika.informati k.uni-freiburg.de>,
LEE Sau Dan <da****@informa tik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes: >> BSD UNIX games in the eighties usually ran setuid to the user 'games',
>> and saved their data in a private directory owned by the 'games' user,
>> so the person playing the game could not directly tamper with saved
>> game
>> scores. The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
>> accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
Barry> The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the
Barry> files of another game. So if all the games ran setuid to
Barry> 'games', it's not the same as the method in the patent.
How to modify the above scheme to separate the various games is
*trivial* to anyone trained in the field. So, that patent claim fails
the novelty requirement.
Putting a game's files in its own subdirectory is certainly trivial.
*Preventing* other applications (including other games) from accessing
them takes a bit of work.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
