1-Click, Short-Click, Long-Click, More-Clicks (New Microsoft Patent)

[theodp]

Not to be outdone by Amazon's 1-Click patent, Microsoft snagged a
patent from the USPTO Tuesday for a 'Time based hardware button for
application launch', which covers causing different actions to occur
depending upon whether a button is pressed for a short period of time,
a long period of time, or multiple times within a short period of
time. So does pressing car radio buttons for different periods of time
to change or set stations constitute patent infringement?

See the patent at:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...mber=6,727,830

[John W. Eaton]

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

The patent is very specific that it *only* applies to using the click
timing to vary the way an application is opened. It says nothing about
alternate actions within an application, nor about shutting down an
application or computer.

But shouldn't a patent application that only introduces some minor
incremental difference from some previous technology (i.e., the broader
sense of what action is performed based on the timings of the button
pushes, or whether the button is physical or simulated on a computer
screen, etc.) be rejected anyway, based on the idea that they would be
obvious to competent practitioners in the field?

jwe

--
www.octave.org | www.che.wisc.edu/~jwe | Peace would shock and awe me.

[John W. Eaton]

Philip Callan <ca******@shaw. ca> writes:

I guess you have to not only put things together, but do it in such a
way nobody else had, or 'reasonably' /could/ have in order to get a patent.

Maybe this is the way things are supposed to work, but to this
outsider, there seem to be many patents awarded for "inventions " that
are either obvious or have already been invented, or both.

jwe

--
www.octave.org | www.che.wisc.edu/~jwe | Peace would shock and awe me.

[Tim Jackson]

John W. Eaton wrote on 28 Apr 2004 13:46:00 -0500....

But shouldn't a patent application that only introduces some minor
incremental difference from some previous technology (i.e., the broader
sense of what action is performed based on the timings of the button
pushes, or whether the button is physical or simulated on a computer
screen, etc.) be rejected anyway, based on the idea that they would be
obvious to competent practitioners in the field?

If the minor incremental difference is indeed obvious to competent
practitioners, then yes. [1]

If it isn't obvious, then a patent can be granted, but it should only
be a minor incremental patent (commensurate with the inventor's
minor incremental contribution to the technology). That way, no-one
loses out. The patent will only prevent people doing things which
they wouldn't have thought of doing anyway, had the inventor not made
the invention.

The big issues, of course, are what's obvious and what's not, and
whether the patent is appropriately limited. That's down to how well
the Patent Office is able to do its job. Unfortunately, the US Patent
Office is seriously under-resourced, because for many years Congress
has been skimming off the fees paid by applicants and using them for
unrelated purposes. This has a detrimental effect on all areas of
tencnology, not just computer and software-related subjects.

[1] US patent law actually asks whether the invention "would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art...". So if the invention was made several years ago,
you have to be careful not to judge it as to whether it's obvious as
you read about it today. Most inventions seem obvious in hindsight.

--
Tim Jackson
ne**@winterbour ne.freeserve.in valid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk

[Rahul Dhesi]

Tim Jackson <ne**@winterbou rne.freeserve.i nvalid> writes:

The big issues, of course, are what's obvious and what's not, and
whether the patent is appropriately limited. That's down to how well
the Patent Office is able to do its job. Unfortunately, the US Patent
Office is seriously under-resourced, because for many years Congress
has been skimming off the fees paid by applicants and using them for
unrelated purposes. This has a detrimental effect on all areas of
tencnology, not just computer and software-related subjects.

But as we have discussed before, Tim, the USPTO being under-resourced
(is that even a word?) is not by itself the problem. Rather, the
problem is that, even knowing full well that the USPTO is under-
resourced and unable to properly determine whether or not a certain idea
is truly new, both the USPTO and the courts continue to treat published
and granted patents as if the USPTO was indeed doing thorough searches
of prior art. It would not be that hard for the USPTO to classify
published patents as "thoroughly investigated, almost certainly valid"
or "not thoroughly investigated, might not be valid"; though not
necessarily in those words -- they could be just classified as "prime",
"second-grade", etc., instead.

Right now every patent implicitly bears an undeserved "prime" rating.
--
Rahul

[Barry Margolin]

In article <c6**********@b lue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@1-ClickXXS.usenet .us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

Do you consider advancing the numbers to be "opening an application"? I
don't think anyone would seriously consider that to be the same thing as
the patented methods.

What does it mean to "open" an "applicatio n"?

Since the patent doesn't bother to define them, I assume they're being
used in their normal sense when discussing computer use.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Rahul Dhesi]

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

In article <c6**********@b lue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@1-ClickXXS.usenet .us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

>Do you consider advancing the numbers to be "opening an application"? I
>don't think anyone would seriously consider that to be the same thing as
>the patented methods.

What does it mean to "open" an "applicatio n"?

Since the patent doesn't bother to define them, I assume they're being
used in their normal sense when discussing computer use.

In other words, there is no clearly-defined meaning. Presumably whoever
drafted that patent carefully selected ambiguous terms that could later
be interpreted to mean lots of things.
--
Rahul

[Tim Jackson]

Rahul Dhesi wrote on Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:10:43 +0000 (UTC)....

But as we have discussed before, Tim, the USPTO being under-resourced
(is that even a word?) is not by itself the problem.
It's not the whole problem, but it's a significant part of it. To be
fair, it does seem as if the Bush administration is starting to try to
do something about this aspect.
Rather, the
problem is that, even knowing full well that the USPTO is under-
resourced and unable to properly determine whether or not a certain idea
is truly new, both the USPTO and the courts continue to treat published
and granted patents as if the USPTO was indeed doing thorough searches
of prior art. [snip] Right now every patent implicitly bears an undeserved "prime" rating.

Yes. In fact, it's explicit, not implicit. It stems from the
statutory presumption in US patent law that a patent, once granted, is
valid.

As I've argued before, I believe that presumption should be abolished.
No other country has such a presumption. They recognise that no
matter how good their patent offices are, there will always be prior
art that they are unable to find.

It would still be up to a challenger to show invalidity, but he would
only have to do so on the normal standard for civil litigation, by the
"prepondera nce of the evidence". He wouldn't have to climb the
mountain of showing "clear and convincing" evidence, which currently
makes it very difficult to overturn a bad patent in court.

In addition, as I've also argued in the past, the US needs more
effective procedures for third parties affected by bad patents to
oppose them. Again, many other countries do this rather better. At
present in the US, the only possibilities are to apply for re-
examination (a procedure with a built-in bias in favour of the
patentee, so few people use it). Or to wait until the patentee
sues you, or threatens to do so, so that you can take action in court.
That's not good enough (and court action is very expensive).

I noted a few months ago that a recent report by the FTC made similar
recommendations . See <http://tinyurl.com/3cg24>.

--
Tim Jackson
ne**@winterbour ne.freeserve.in valid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk

[Barry Margolin]

In article <c6**********@b lue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@1-ClickXXS.usenet .us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

In article <c6**********@b lue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@1-ClickXXS.usenet .us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

>Do you consider advancing the numbers to be "opening an application"? I
>don't think anyone would seriously consider that to be the same thing as
>the patented methods.

What does it mean to "open" an "applicatio n"?

Since the patent doesn't bother to define them, I assume they're being
used in their normal sense when discussing computer use.

In other words, there is no clearly-defined meaning. Presumably whoever
drafted that patent carefully selected ambiguous terms that could later
be interpreted to mean lots of things.

Does the information given in the Description section of the patent
count? It uses the verb "launch" rather than "open", but it's pretty
clear what common computer activity is referred to.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Rahul Dhesi]

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

>> What does it mean to "open" an "applicatio n"?

>....I assume...

In other words, there is no clearly-defined meaning....

Does the information given in the Description section of the patent
count? It uses the verb "launch" rather than "open", but it's pretty
clear what common computer activity is referred to.

But you haven't been able to define it or point to a definition.

Most Microsoft users use "open" to mean "whatever happens after I click".
--
Rahul

[Barry Margolin]

In article <c6**********@b lue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@1-ClickXXS.usenet .us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

>> What does it mean to "open" an "applicatio n"?

>....I assume...

In other words, there is no clearly-defined meaning....

Does the information given in the Description section of the patent
count? It uses the verb "launch" rather than "open", but it's pretty
clear what common computer activity is referred to.

But you haven't been able to define it or point to a definition.

Most Microsoft users use "open" to mean "whatever happens after I click".

I doubt anyone thinks that when they click on a link in a browser and it
goes to another page or submits a form that this is "launching an
application".

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***