473,326 Members | 2,111 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,326 software developers and data experts.

Microsoft Patents Saving The Name Of A Game

--> 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 6362
Mike <mi**@nospam.com> writes:
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.


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?
--
Rahul

Jul 20 '05 #51
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:
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.


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.
--
Rahul

Jul 20 '05 #52
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:
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.


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.
--
Rahul

Jul 20 '05 #53
In article <c5**********@blue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:

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.


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.


The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.

I'm not sure why Microsoft considers this an important feature of the
invention. Even if one game can access the saved game files of another,
they're not likely to make sense to it. It hardly seems necessary to
take special steps to prevent the access. Maybe this narrowing of the
patent's scope was necessary for them to get the patent approved.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Jul 20 '05 #54
In article <c5**********@blue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:

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.


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.


The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.

I'm not sure why Microsoft considers this an important feature of the
invention. Even if one game can access the saved game files of another,
they're not likely to make sense to it. It hardly seems necessary to
take special steps to prevent the access. Maybe this narrowing of the
patent's scope was necessary for them to get the patent approved.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Jul 20 '05 #55
In article <c5**********@blue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Mike <mi**@nospam.com> writes:
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.


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?


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..."?

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Jul 20 '05 #56
In article <c5**********@blue.rahul.net>,
c.*******@MicrosoftX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Mike <mi**@nospam.com> writes:
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.


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?


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..."?

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Jul 20 '05 #57
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> writes:
...The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.


The idea of different applications having their own data files, that
other applications cannot read, is quite ancient. That's one reason why
the setuid bit was invented.
--
Rahul

Jul 20 '05 #58
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> writes:
...The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.


The idea of different applications having their own data files, that
other applications cannot read, is quite ancient. That's one reason why
the setuid bit was invented.
--
Rahul

Jul 20 '05 #59
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.
The idea of different applications having their own data files, that
other applications cannot read, is quite ancient. That's one reason why
the setuid bit was invented.


First, I don't think that this concept was novel with UNIX,
but rather with at a minimum with the early timesharing
mainframes. You had to segregate access to data by user
or groups. It was clearly present with my first timesharing
system in the late 1960's. Remember, UNIX was essentially
a port of MULTICS from a mainframe to a minicomputer.

But there is a subtle distinction here that may have some
relevance. In those systems (including UNIX), access control
is/was by user or group of users. As noted, this is essential
for effective multiuser or timesharing systems. But in the
MSFT system, access control can be by application. It was not
clear from the patent why that was that overly useful, but there
it was, logically somewhat orthogonal to the typical practice.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 #60
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.
The idea of different applications having their own data files, that
other applications cannot read, is quite ancient. That's one reason why
the setuid bit was invented.


First, I don't think that this concept was novel with UNIX,
but rather with at a minimum with the early timesharing
mainframes. You had to segregate access to data by user
or groups. It was clearly present with my first timesharing
system in the late 1960's. Remember, UNIX was essentially
a port of MULTICS from a mainframe to a minicomputer.

But there is a subtle distinction here that may have some
relevance. In those systems (including UNIX), access control
is/was by user or group of users. As noted, this is essential
for effective multiuser or timesharing systems. But in the
MSFT system, access control can be by application. It was not
clear from the patent why that was that overly useful, but there
it was, logically somewhat orthogonal to the typical practice.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 #61
In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>, Barry
Margolin wrote:
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
TOPS-10 could have done it, though, if I recall correctly. One of the cool
things you could specify in access list rules was the program that they
applied to.
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.


You could do it with just one game user and/or group. When a game wants to
access a file, it would run a program that is setuid and/or setgid to the
game user and/or group, and then request access from that program. That
program could then open the file, and pass the file descriptor to the game,
after doing the necessary permission checks.

--
--Tim Smith
Jul 20 '05 #62
In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>, Barry
Margolin wrote:
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
TOPS-10 could have done it, though, if I recall correctly. One of the cool
things you could specify in access list rules was the program that they
applied to.
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.


You could do it with just one game user and/or group. When a game wants to
access a file, it would run a program that is setuid and/or setgid to the
game user and/or group, and then request access from that program. That
program could then open the file, and pass the file descriptor to the game,
after doing the necessary permission checks.

--
--Tim Smith
Jul 20 '05 #63
In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>, Barry
Margolin wrote:
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.

I'm not sure why Microsoft considers this an important feature of the
invention. Even if one game can access the saved game files of another,
they're not likely to make sense to it. It hardly seems necessary to take
special steps to prevent the access. Maybe this narrowing of the patent's
scope was necessary for them to get the patent approved.


It could be an anti-cheating measure. Game consoles nowadays do support
network play, so it's somewhat more important to prevent cheating than it
was when the games were all non-networked.

--
--Tim Smith
Jul 20 '05 #64
In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>, Barry
Margolin wrote:
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.

I'm not sure why Microsoft considers this an important feature of the
invention. Even if one game can access the saved game files of another,
they're not likely to make sense to it. It hardly seems necessary to take
special steps to prevent the access. Maybe this narrowing of the patent's
scope was necessary for them to get the patent approved.


It could be an anti-cheating measure. Game consoles nowadays do support
network play, so it's somewhat more important to prevent cheating than it
was when the games were all non-networked.

--
--Tim Smith
Jul 20 '05 #65
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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?
Perhaps they weren't able to get the patent approved with such a broad
claim.


They have enough other broad claims, and still got it approved ...
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.
That's a bad patent examiner, then. What, exactly, sets apart a
game-running device and a general-purpose computer? Something like that
needs to be *specifically* defined, and *not* up to interpretation, or
the patent could be misused.
If that's not the intent, what's the point of saying "A game console,
comprising..." rather than "A computer, comprising..."?


If they are vague enough, they might get the patent approved because the
examiner interprets game console in the way it's *probably* meant to be
used, but Microsoft could still attempt to apply the patent to all
computers. It wouldn't be beneath them to try such tricks.

At any rate, the patent should have never been approved, as it doesn't
cover anything really new or innovative. At least nothing non-trivial.

[Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAdRp4d1ZThqotgfgRAk85AKC64wlYfmb64mBBkHf3Ug 6WpoyiWQCeOckB
4DUzH4ICBrtT7cz2bxv5cjU=
=t9lq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

Men use thought only to justify their wrong doings, and speech only to
conceal their thoughts. -- Voltaire
Jul 20 '05 #66
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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?
Perhaps they weren't able to get the patent approved with such a broad
claim.


They have enough other broad claims, and still got it approved ...
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.
That's a bad patent examiner, then. What, exactly, sets apart a
game-running device and a general-purpose computer? Something like that
needs to be *specifically* defined, and *not* up to interpretation, or
the patent could be misused.
If that's not the intent, what's the point of saying "A game console,
comprising..." rather than "A computer, comprising..."?


If they are vague enough, they might get the patent approved because the
examiner interprets game console in the way it's *probably* meant to be
used, but Microsoft could still attempt to apply the patent to all
computers. It wouldn't be beneath them to try such tricks.

At any rate, the patent should have never been approved, as it doesn't
cover anything really new or innovative. At least nothing non-trivial.

[Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAdRp4d1ZThqotgfgRAk85AKC64wlYfmb64mBBkHf3Ug 6WpoyiWQCeOckB
4DUzH4ICBrtT7cz2bxv5cjU=
=t9lq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

Men use thought only to justify their wrong doings, and speech only to
conceal their thoughts. -- Voltaire
Jul 20 '05 #67
In article <1g******************************@40tude.net>, Mike wrote:
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.


Except it does not say anything about two disks in the first claim. It says
two subdirectories.

--
--Tim Smith
Jul 20 '05 #68
In article <1g******************************@40tude.net>, Mike wrote:
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.


Except it does not say anything about two disks in the first claim. It says
two subdirectories.

--
--Tim Smith
Jul 20 '05 #69
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\BEHSYSD.BEHSYSD\Application Data\Mozilla
While Phoenix uses:
E:\Documents and Settings\BEHSYSD.BEHSYSD\Application Data\Phoenix
and Adobe Acrobat uses:
E:\Documents and Settings\BEHSYSD.BEHSYSD\Application Data\Adobe\Acrobat

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

Jul 20 '05 #70
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\BEHSYSD.BEHSYSD\Application Data\Mozilla
While Phoenix uses:
E:\Documents and Settings\BEHSYSD.BEHSYSD\Application Data\Phoenix
and Adobe Acrobat uses:
E:\Documents and Settings\BEHSYSD.BEHSYSD\Application Data\Adobe\Acrobat

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

Jul 20 '05 #71
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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #72
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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #73
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Jul 20 '05 #74
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Jul 20 '05 #75
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Jul 20 '05 #76
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Jul 20 '05 #77
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 --
Jul 20 '05 #78
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 --
Jul 20 '05 #79
In article <m3************@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
LEE Sau Dan <da****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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
Jul 20 '05 #80
In article <m3************@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
LEE Sau Dan <da****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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
Jul 20 '05 #81
-----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)

iD8DBQFAdXPud1ZThqotgfgRAk13AKCml+bJvSJWA1vtqvv+8e viP6z/CQCfWYZi
1KGChwLKWRuLM5AUr++gTuA=
=AkHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

"This generation may be the one that will face Armageddon."
-- Ronald Reagan, "People" magazine, December 26, 1985
Jul 20 '05 #82
-----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)

iD8DBQFAdXPud1ZThqotgfgRAk13AKCml+bJvSJWA1vtqvv+8e viP6z/CQCfWYZi
1KGChwLKWRuLM5AUr++gTuA=
=AkHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

"This generation may be the one that will face Armageddon."
-- Ronald Reagan, "People" magazine, December 26, 1985
Jul 20 '05 #83
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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

Jul 20 '05 #84
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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

Jul 20 '05 #85
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:51:59 -0400,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
In article <m3************@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
LEE Sau Dan <da****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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/d90bcYOAWPYRAsR7AKDFMAPvP99GhXAlMKFZGfrwGf+1kgCgyw e8
OSHZvxxIjrTSkuwZ+bJDExY=
=30lj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks,
for your passwords are.....available
Jul 20 '05 #86
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:51:59 -0400,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
In article <m3************@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
LEE Sau Dan <da****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.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/d90bcYOAWPYRAsR7AKDFMAPvP99GhXAlMKFZGfrwGf+1kgCgyw e8
OSHZvxxIjrTSkuwZ+bJDExY=
=30lj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks,
for your passwords are.....available
Jul 20 '05 #87
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 "applications" 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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #88
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 "applications" 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.org
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdown.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatlaw.com

Jul 20 '05 #89
PuddleNuts <ne*******@adelphia.nospam.net> wrote:
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.


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.
Jul 20 '05 #90
PuddleNuts <ne*******@adelphia.nospam.net> wrote:
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.


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.
Jul 20 '05 #91
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> wrote:
But as I originally noted, there may be something
in the actual prosecution history that does distinguish their
invention from the prior art.


That's my guess, but obviously I'm not motivated to go analyze it. :-)
Jul 20 '05 #92
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> wrote:
But as I originally noted, there may be something
in the actual prosecution history that does distinguish their
invention from the prior art.


That's my guess, but obviously I'm not motivated to go analyze it. :-)
Jul 20 '05 #93
Emma Anne:
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.


No, no. You've got it all wrong. The name of the syndrome is called
Tourette. There's no other way about it.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Jul 20 '05 #94
Emma Anne:
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.


No, no. You've got it all wrong. The name of the syndrome is called
Tourette. There's no other way about it.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Jul 20 '05 #95
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:21:48 GMT, Bruce Hayden ("Bruce") writes:

Bruce> For example, claim 1:
Bruce> 1. A game console, comprising:
Bruce> a processor; and
Bruce> a non-removable hard disk drive coupled to the processor, the hard
Bruce> disk drive including a first subdirectory configured to store data

Bruce> Regardless of the ultimate appearance of having multiple directories
Bruce> on a volume - which I don't think came with IBM until the 1970's,
Bruce> the actual storage was typically fairly flat. (

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

Just FYI on this technology art point: You're off by a decade there,
because disk directory systems like you are describing. were on some
computer systems in the early 1960s (certainly no later than 1963).

Jul 20 '05 #96
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:21:48 GMT, Bruce Hayden ("Bruce") writes:

Bruce> For example, claim 1:
Bruce> 1. A game console, comprising:
Bruce> a processor; and
Bruce> a non-removable hard disk drive coupled to the processor, the hard
Bruce> disk drive including a first subdirectory configured to store data

Bruce> Regardless of the ultimate appearance of having multiple directories
Bruce> on a volume - which I don't think came with IBM until the 1970's,
Bruce> the actual storage was typically fairly flat. (

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

Just FYI on this technology art point: You're off by a decade there,
because disk directory systems like you are describing. were on some
computer systems in the early 1960s (certainly no later than 1963).

Jul 20 '05 #97
Bruce Hayden wrote:

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.


I recall a File Daemon system for a PDP-10 operating system
which DID have the option of the owner of a directory limiting
access of files in that directory to specific programs (not
necessarily controlled by that user).

Not having read (or desiring to read) the patent in question,
I can't tell whether that is prior art for a critical section
of the patent.
Jul 20 '05 #98
Bruce Hayden wrote:

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.


I recall a File Daemon system for a PDP-10 operating system
which DID have the option of the owner of a directory limiting
access of files in that directory to specific programs (not
necessarily controlled by that user).

Not having read (or desiring to read) the patent in question,
I can't tell whether that is prior art for a critical section
of the patent.
Jul 20 '05 #99
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 09:06:06 GMT, Bruce Hayden ("Bruce") writes:
Bruce> Remember, UNIX was essentially a port of MULTICS from a
Bruce> mainframe to a minicomputer.

That is not at all accurate: Multics and UNIX have almost nothing in
common; UNIX was a reaction against the directions that Multics went.
They do not share any programs whatsoever; no "porting" was involved.
Jul 20 '05 #100

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.