Microsoft Patents Saving The Name Of A Game

"Milo T." <fa*********@malaprop.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.
--
Rahul

Jul 20 '05 #6

LEE Sau Dan

>>>>> "Rahul" == Rahul Dhesi <c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.com> writes:

Rahul> Since processors, hard disks, data, and program, are very
Rahul> generic terms, how much this patent will cover will likely
Rahul> hinge on what 'game console' means. And, from reading some
Rahul> of the patent, it seems to me that pretty much any machine
Rahul> that lets you play games is a game console.

Then, you need to define "game". Is life (not the game of life) not a
game? Then, why would using a computer to make a calculation not be
considered just a subgame of that grand game? Any calculation is
nothing but a number game, isn't it?
Rahul> The gaming system includes a game console and one or more
Rahul> controllers. The game console is equipped with a processor
Rahul> and a non-removable hard disk drive coupled to the
Rahul> processor. The game console may also include a memory, a
Rahul> portable media drive configured to communicate with a
Rahul> storage disc, one or more portable memory units, and
Rahul> broadband connectivity. In other implementations, the hard
Rahul> disk drive is configured to store game data, audio data,
Rahul> and video data

Any PC-type computer nowadays satisfy these "requirements". So,
they're all suddenly "game consoles"?
Rahul> The 'may also' and 'other implementations' parts are
Rahul> optional, so the essential elements of a game console are:

Rahul> processor non-removable hard disk

So, we have to make harddisks removable so as to escape this prison.
Good! USB cases for harddisks are in production and can be quite
cheap!
--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm-(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)

E-mail: da****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee

Jul 20 '05 #7

theodp wrote:

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

Well, it is (IMHO) even a bit dodgier than from the abstract.
The first claim reads:
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.

At one level, you have a game machine with a hard drive. At another,
you could argue that it applies to general purpose computers being
used (sometimes?) as a gaming console. The detailed description
has the game console hooked to a display and controller(s), connected
via for example USB or wireless. There is little in the console
that would differenciate it from a general purpose computer.
It uses preferably industry standard busses (ISA, MCA, EISA, VESA,
PCI), has a two level cache with DDR SDRAM, etc. It preferably
has a 3D graphics processing unit, etc.

The problem here is that general purpose computers have been used
as "game consoles" for years, with almost identical hardware
configurations. Gaming controls have been in use with them for
years too. I remember using a flight simulator controller at
least a decade ago - and I am not a gamer. Add to this that
different games would logically store their own data in their
own subdirectories (arguably "conguration").

One of the things that condemns the patent to me are claims 2 and 11,
which add the restriction that the first application is a game.
This implies (since dependent claims must narrow) that applications
need not be games.

The detailed description talks about different types of data in
different regions of a disk - such as settings versus user data.
It talks about placing settings in a part of the disk only
accessably via API (note - ever hear of the Registry? I know
that MSFT is a big company, but come on). Some hardware games
here are mentioned, but then negated, as it is then generalized.

Arguably, the "configure" could refer to OS or firmware implemented
restrictions limiting a given application to a given subdirectory.
But note that even though at one point, different applications are
limited to different areas of the disk, this is negated as far as
the claims are concerned when generalized and mention is made that
this may result in running out of room in one area while there is
room elsewhere on the disk (shades of IBM mainframe architectures).
It is also somewhat negated when it is noted that some applications
could access (delete) data from multiple subdirectories.

All in all, a patent in which at least some, if not most, of the
claims should have been rejected (IMHO) due to either lack of
novelty, or more likely, obviousness. IMHO, every time I saw
something that I thought could be novel and nonobvious, it was
broadened into something that wasn't. I think that if they had
concentrated on what probably was novel and nonobvious, and
hadn't gotten greedy (through their broadening), a decent patent
might have resulted.

It should be noted that though I read the patent, that I did not do
more than peruse the list of actions in the prosecution history.
In order to truly determine the scope of the patent, it would be
necessary to review the actual documentation in that history,
most notably the contents of the office actions and their responses.
For example, during prosecution, it is possible that
MSFT made admissions therein that might have limited the meaning
of terms in the patent to the extent that a truly novel and
nonobvious invention was ultimately patented.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #8

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

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.
Actually, a processor coupled to one hard drive with two subdirectories.
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.
Such as, for example, a general purpose (personal) computer.
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.

I think that you would also arguably have to add in the implied
ability to connect to and communicate with a gaming controller.
But of course, these have also been available for general purpose
computer systems for a long time. But of course, this is only
implied, and the only two hardware requirements are a processor
coupled to a hard 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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #9

Martha H Adams

Well, you take this wonderfully generic patent, throw in Microsoft's
gigabux cash in hand and a busy legal department, and then you never
attack anyone who can defend themselves against the legal thrust
Microsoft can afford, and what does that do to the market? What was
that *meant* to do to the market?

It looks to me like Microsoft thinks Bush and the Republicans win the
coming election.

Not so cheers -- Martha Adams

Jul 20 '05 #10

Martha H Adams wrote:

Well, you take this wonderfully generic patent, throw in Microsoft's
gigabux cash in hand and a busy legal department, and then you never
attack anyone who can defend themselves against the legal thrust
Microsoft can afford, and what does that do to the market? What was
that *meant* to do to the market?
Arguably spoken like someone who has never spent much time working
in the area of asserting intellectual property rights.

One obvious problem is that if they can't defend themselves, then
first they aren't a threat to MSFT, and secondly, it would cost too
much for MSFT to assert it against them in the first place, as
compared to the cost thereof.

You seem to imply that asserting patents is free. It isn't.
It had better be done by a licensed patent attorney - otherwise
MSFT would face the charge of making frivilouse claims (almost
per se) and open them to sanctions and penalties. (A patent attorney
need not actually file the suit of course, but they had better have
had an opinion by such that you infringe, etc., and any demand
letters preceding suit should come from such). Patent attorneys are
not cheap, even when on staff in a corporation. Having been
in-house patent counsel at a couple of companies, I can assure you
that they are almost invariably swamped by work that has a higher
return than asserting patents against mom and pop operations.
It looks to me like Microsoft thinks Bush and the Republicans win the
coming election.

I would suggest that there is little basis for this statement
other than political paranoi. The only real difference I see
is that the Clinton USPTO head was totally incompetent (having
been appointed solely because he was gay, and not having any
patent experience whatsoever), and the Bush USPTO head being
just somewhat incompetent.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #11

LEE Sau Dan wrote:

Rahul> Since processors, hard disks, data, and program, are very
Rahul> generic terms, how much this patent will cover will likely
Rahul> hinge on what 'game console' means. And, from reading some
Rahul> of the patent, it seems to me that pretty much any machine
Rahul> that lets you play games is a game console.

Then, you need to define "game". Is life (not the game of life) not a
game? Then, why would using a computer to make a calculation not be
considered just a subgame of that grand game? Any calculation is
nothing but a number game, isn't it?
You really aren't disagreeing with Rahul.
Rahul> The gaming system includes a game console and one or more
Rahul> controllers. The game console is equipped with a processor
Rahul> and a non-removable hard disk drive coupled to the
Rahul> processor. The game console may also include a memory, a
Rahul> portable media drive configured to communicate with a
Rahul> storage disc, one or more portable memory units, and
Rahul> broadband connectivity. In other implementations, the hard
Rahul> disk drive is configured to store game data, audio data,
Rahul> and video data

Any PC-type computer nowadays satisfy these "requirements". So,
they're all suddenly "game consoles"?
That is one of the big problems with this patent.
Rahul> The 'may also' and 'other implementations' parts are
Rahul> optional, so the essential elements of a game console are:

Rahul> processor non-removable hard disk

So, we have to make harddisks removable so as to escape this prison.
Good! USB cases for harddisks are in production and can be quite
cheap!

Actually, no that won't help either. Removable media are
mentioned - it is just that the preferred embodiment arguably
requires a non-removable hard drive. Besides, you get back to
the original problem, that a general purpose PC is arguably
indistinguishable from a "game console". They use the same parts.
The only real difference is the packaging, which is barely
mentioned in the patent, and is arguably irrelevant.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #12

Alan Balmer

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

Jul 20 '05 #13

Isaac

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:18:33 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams <mh*@TheWorld.com>
wrote:

Well, you take this wonderfully generic patent, throw in Microsoft's
gigabux cash in hand and a busy legal department, and then you never
attack anyone who can defend themselves against the legal thrust
Microsoft can afford, and what does that do to the market? What was
that *meant* to do to the market?

It looks to me like Microsoft thinks Bush and the Republicans win the
coming election.

I don't see the connection. Why would Microsoft consider who was
in the White House when drafting a patent application? What would
a Democratic Congress or administration do about this patent?

Isaac

Jul 20 '05 #14

Isaac

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:18:33 +0000 (UTC), Martha H Adams <mh*@TheWorld.com>
wrote:

Well, you take this wonderfully generic patent, throw in Microsoft's
gigabux cash in hand and a busy legal department, and then you never
attack anyone who can defend themselves against the legal thrust
Microsoft can afford, and what does that do to the market? What was
that *meant* to do to the market?

It looks to me like Microsoft thinks Bush and the Republicans win the
coming election.

I don't see the connection. Why would Microsoft consider who was
in the White House when drafting a patent application? What would
a Democratic Congress or administration do about this patent?

Isaac

Jul 20 '05 #15

Dr. Bill

Alan Balmer wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

Hi Steve,
I watch that fuckers medical condition close, he once had to cope with
*Synapse* Syndrome and he was succesful on that.
Cheers dr. Bill

Jul 20 '05 #16

Dr. Bill

Alan Balmer wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

Hi Steve,
I watch that fuckers medical condition close, he once had to cope with
*Synapse* Syndrome and he was succesful on that.
Cheers dr. Bill

Jul 20 '05 #17

Emma Anne

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

Jul 20 '05 #18

Emma Anne

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

Jul 20 '05 #19

Emma Anne

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 . . .

Jul 20 '05 #20

Emma Anne

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 . . .

Jul 20 '05 #21

Alan Balmer

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:02:46 GMT, mb**@earthlink.net (Emma Anne)
wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

Actually, it's called by both names ;-) It was named for Dr. Georges
Gilles de la Tourette, who described it in 1885. Take a look at
http://www.neurobc.com/conditions/tourette.htm .

As you mention, not all Tourette's sufferers exhibit coprolalia, and
obviously not all those who appear to exhibit coprolalia actually have
Tourette's. Most have other problems.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

Jul 20 '05 #22

Alan Balmer

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:02:46 GMT, mb**@earthlink.net (Emma Anne)
wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

Jul 20 '05 #23

Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> writes:

processor
non-removable hard disk

...But of course, this is only
implied, and the only two hardware requirements are a processor
coupled to a hard drive.

And, under the Doctrine of Equivalents, arguabley non-removable disk
drives are equivalent to removable disk drives, for two reasons. First,
non-removable disk driver are removable -- otherwise you could not replace
a defective non-removable disk drive. Second, both types of disk
drives function in exactly the same way.
--
Rahul

Jul 20 '05 #24

Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> writes:

processor
non-removable hard disk

...But of course, this is only
implied, and the only two hardware requirements are a processor
coupled to a hard drive.

Jul 20 '05 #25

PuddleNuts

Emma Anne wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

--
Your proctologist called, they found your head.

Jul 20 '05 #26

PuddleNuts

Emma Anne wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:41 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
<no****@kadaitcha.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.

Jul 20 '05 #27

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.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/l...E11000027.html
--
Rahul

Jul 20 '05 #28

Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> writes:

Patent attorneys are
not cheap, even when on staff in a corporation....

Jul 20 '05 #29

Roger Schlafly

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.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.

Jul 20 '05 #30

Roger Schlafly

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.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.

Jul 20 '05 #31

Roger Schlafly wrote:

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.com> wrote
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.

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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #32

Roger Schlafly wrote:

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.com> wrote
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.

Jul 20 '05 #33

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 indistinguishable 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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #34

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 . . .

Jul 20 '05 #35

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

Jul 20 '05 #36

CJT

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

"Milo T." <fa*********@malaprop.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.

Jul 20 '05 #37

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?

Jul 20 '05 #38

CJT

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

"Milo T." <fa*********@malaprop.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.

Jul 20 '05 #39

In article <40**************@prodigy.net>, CJT <ab******@prodigy.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

Jul 20 '05 #40

In article <40**************@prodigy.net>, CJT <ab******@prodigy.net>
wrote:

We used to play games on an IBM mainframe in the 60's -- I guess that
would be prior art.

Jul 20 '05 #41

Barry Margolin wrote:

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.

I admit some fault here. I was concentrating on invalidating
some of the claims, in particular, the first couple of independent
claims. But of course, the reason for utilizing dependent claims
is that if the independent claims are invalidated, you may still
have the dependent claims. I agree that there are probably some
of the independent claims that will probably stand, making the
patent still valid, though some of the main claims are invalid.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #42

Barry Margolin wrote:

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.

Jul 20 '05 #43

Barry Margolin wrote:

In article <40**************@prodigy.net>, CJT <ab******@prodigy.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.

I would suggest that you are mistaking invalidating, through prior
art, some of the broader claims, versus invalidating some of the
narrower claims. I think that an argument could be made that
the IBM mainframes of the 60's, and probably more likely, some
of the other mainframes of that era (with more sophisticated file
systems) might indeed invalidate some of the broader claims.

For example, claim 1:
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.

As I noted before, claim 2 specifies that the first application is
a game, and thus claim 1 must include other types of applications.

You definately had processors and hard drives in that era. The
problem with IBM mainframes of that era was their disk organization -
you tended to have one directory per volume, or multi-volume set.
Regardless of the ultimate appearance of having multiple directories
on a volume - which I don't think came with IBM until the 1970's,
the actual storage was typically fairly flat. (

Of course, IBM wasn't the only computer architecture of that era.
Multics, Exec 8, and GCOS all had more sophisticated file system
organizations during that time, and probably at least one of them
could support multiple subdirectories on a given hard drive.

The one proviso though might be that at that time, disk drives
were typically so large physically that they were typically
not integrated in the same box as a processor. But then,
the processors, along with their memories, were quite large
themselves. I can remember seeing our engineers making logic
corrections to processors by soldering wires. The problem is
that one could argue that a game console implies integration
of processor and disk drive in the same box, which really
didn't come until a bit later. But again, this was an engineering
decision, etc., and arguably again, is not significant.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #44

Barry Margolin wrote:

In article <40**************@prodigy.net>, CJT <ab******@prodigy.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.

Jul 20 '05 #45

Barry Margolin 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.

And if you have the professional version of Windows, such
as Windows 2000 that I am running here, you can do something
very similar. You could set up different groups for different
games, and restrict both execution of a given game and storage
into a specified subdirectory to a given group.

But technically speaking, I would suggest that this does differ
from restricting access to specific programs.

But there is verbage in the detailed description that first of all
provides for utilities being able to delete any files, and secondly
for some of the protection being done by utilizing an API to
access settings data - which is really akin to Windows' Registry.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #46

Barry Margolin 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.

Jul 20 '05 #47

Mike

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Rahul Dhesi wrote:

"Milo T." <fa*********@malaprop.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.

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 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.

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.

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.

-- Mike --

Jul 20 '05 #48

Mike

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Rahul Dhesi wrote:

"Milo T." <fa*********@malaprop.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.

Jul 20 '05 #49