--> 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 
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Barry Margolin wrote: 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.
Hell yeah ... It took me the better part of 5 minutes to test a scheme
that worked ... But that's because I work on an OS with a good
permission system to begin with.
So, please explain how this is *not* trivial to anyone trained in the
field.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAdXPud1Z ThqotgfgRAk13AK Cml+bJvSJWA1vtq vv+8eviP6z/CQCfWYZi
1KGChwLKWRuLM5A Ur++gTuA=
=AkHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
"This generation may be the one that will face Armageddon."
-- Ronald Reagan, "People" magazine, December 26, 1985
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Barry Margolin wrote: 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.
Hell yeah ... It took me the better part of 5 minutes to test a scheme
that worked ... But that's because I work on an OS with a good
permission system to begin with.
So, please explain how this is *not* trivial to anyone trained in the
field.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAdXPud1Z ThqotgfgRAk13AK Cml+bJvSJWA1vtq vv+8eviP6z/CQCfWYZi
1KGChwLKWRuLM5A Ur++gTuA=
=AkHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
"This generation may be the one that will face Armageddon."
-- Ronald Reagan, "People" magazine, December 26, 1985
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes: 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.
By now you should have figured out what setuid bits are all about. I
have been using setuid bits to protect application-specific data for a
few decades now. How much work does it take to type 'chmod u+s gameprog'?
--
Rahul
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes: 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.
By now you should have figured out what setuid bits are all about. I
have been using setuid bits to protect application-specific data for a
few decades now. How much work does it take to type 'chmod u+s gameprog'?
--
Rahul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:51:59 -0400,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> wrote: 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.
No, just give the games their own uid, and chmod the files 700, no-one
without that uid can read the game (except root)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAdYS/d90bcYOAWPYRAsR 7AKDFMAPvP99GhX AlMKFZGfrwGf+1k gCgywe8
OSHZvxxIjrTSkuw Z+bJDExY=
=30lj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks,
for your passwords are.....availab le
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:51:59 -0400,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> wrote: 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.
No, just give the games their own uid, and chmod the files 700, no-one
without that uid can read the game (except root)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAdYS/d90bcYOAWPYRAsR 7AKDFMAPvP99GhX AlMKFZGfrwGf+1k gCgywe8
OSHZvxxIjrTSkuw Z+bJDExY=
=30lj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks,
for your passwords are.....availab le
Mike wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:09:25 GMT, Bruce Hayden wrote:
Let's clarify a little. Dependent claims further LIMIT the claim on
which they depend, not SPECIFY. ...
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.
At one level you are right. But the reason we (patent attys and agents)
put the detail in the dependent claims is to try to broaden the claims
upon which they depend. Otherwise, we would just write what we call
"picture" claims - that include all of the detail in the first place.
As noted, by the very action of including claim 2, claim 1 is
essentially broadened to include more than just games. MSFT cannot
now go back and try to limit "applicatio ns" to games. This of course
works both offensively (which is why we do it) and defensively
(which is where I am coming from).
As an obvious note, the reason that I picked claim 2 was that an
argument could be made that a game console is limited to a box that
plays games. That won't fly, based on the interaction between
claims 1 and 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.
And, continuing my tradition of typographical errors, that sentence should
have been, "... but the _dependent_ claims are the meat of the patent."
I am not sure that I agree with this. It depends on how you are going
to assert a patent. If you sue someone, then infringing dependent
claims is preferable to infringing just independent claims, since it
is likely that you will still have valid claims after the other side
gets done trying to invalidatte them. But when doing cross-licensing,
you look more at the independent claims, and only fall back on the
dependent claims if a 102 bar can be found to the broader claims.
The basic difference here is that, in my experience, you can use
both 102 (lack of novelty) and 103 (obviousness) in a patent suit,
but are typically limited to 102 in cross-licensing, since you could
argue until the cows come home about obviousness. Novelty tends to
be a lot more black and white than obviousness - during prosecution,
litigation, and cross-licensing.
I tend to look at the indepedent and other broader claims first.
This often works, but led me astray here, as my (unofficial, not
sufficiently researched) opinion is that some of the broader
claims are probably invalid, but many of the narrower ones are not.
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?
Ok, got this right once (I think) and wrong once. I don't
know why I kept thinking bycycle and trycycle when typing
this. One problem that I have is that I am currently using
Mozilla, instead of Netscape. One of the few value addeds that
Netscape provides is a spelling checker. But Mozilla has much
better popup controls and the like. For example, I can tell
it to block images from certain sites (like doubleclick.net ).
Netscape appears to honor the Mozilla programming, but cannot
itself do much of it (they are built on the same code base,
and share the same configuration files, mail boxes, cache, etc.)
Long way of saying sorry, and good joke.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:09:25 GMT, Bruce Hayden wrote:
Let's clarify a little. Dependent claims further LIMIT the claim on
which they depend, not SPECIFY. ...
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.
At one level you are right. But the reason we (patent attys and agents)
put the detail in the dependent claims is to try to broaden the claims
upon which they depend. Otherwise, we would just write what we call
"picture" claims - that include all of the detail in the first place.
As noted, by the very action of including claim 2, claim 1 is
essentially broadened to include more than just games. MSFT cannot
now go back and try to limit "applicatio ns" to games. This of course
works both offensively (which is why we do it) and defensively
(which is where I am coming from).
As an obvious note, the reason that I picked claim 2 was that an
argument could be made that a game console is limited to a box that
plays games. That won't fly, based on the interaction between
claims 1 and 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.
And, continuing my tradition of typographical errors, that sentence should
have been, "... but the _dependent_ claims are the meat of the patent."
I am not sure that I agree with this. It depends on how you are going
to assert a patent. If you sue someone, then infringing dependent
claims is preferable to infringing just independent claims, since it
is likely that you will still have valid claims after the other side
gets done trying to invalidatte them. But when doing cross-licensing,
you look more at the independent claims, and only fall back on the
dependent claims if a 102 bar can be found to the broader claims.
The basic difference here is that, in my experience, you can use
both 102 (lack of novelty) and 103 (obviousness) in a patent suit,
but are typically limited to 102 in cross-licensing, since you could
argue until the cows come home about obviousness. Novelty tends to
be a lot more black and white than obviousness - during prosecution,
litigation, and cross-licensing.
I tend to look at the indepedent and other broader claims first.
This often works, but led me astray here, as my (unofficial, not
sufficiently researched) opinion is that some of the broader
claims are probably invalid, but many of the narrower ones are not.
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?
Ok, got this right once (I think) and wrong once. I don't
know why I kept thinking bycycle and trycycle when typing
this. One problem that I have is that I am currently using
Mozilla, instead of Netscape. One of the few value addeds that
Netscape provides is a spelling checker. But Mozilla has much
better popup controls and the like. For example, I can tell
it to block images from certain sites (like doubleclick.net ).
Netscape appears to honor the Mozilla programming, but cannot
itself do much of it (they are built on the same code base,
and share the same configuration files, mail boxes, cache, etc.)
Long way of saying sorry, and good joke.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
