| |
While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.
--> Link to Microsoft's Patent Application http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20040088709 | |
Share:
| |
theodp wrote: While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.
--> Link to Microsoft's Patent Application
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20040088709
Haven't looked at the application, but I would be surprised that
if just that much was new and nonobvious. Seems like Mac
and UNIX have had such for awhile.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 | | | |
In article <40******@news.peakpeak.com>,
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> wrote: theodp wrote:
While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.
--> Link to Microsoft's Patent Application
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...TOFF&d=PG01&p=
1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50& s1=%2220040088709%22.PGNR.
&OS=DN/20040088709&RS=DN/20040088709
Haven't looked at the application, but I would be surprised that
if just that much was new and nonobvious. Seems like Mac
and UNIX have had such for awhile.
The part about fast switching between users has been in MacOS for a
couple of years, but I don't think Unix has it at all (su changes the
userid, but it doesn't bring up the new user's desktop environment).
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA | | | |
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> writes: The part about fast switching between users has been in MacOS for a
couple of years, but I don't think Unix has it at all (su changes
the userid, but it doesn't bring up the new user's desktop
environment).
gdmflexiserver
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum | | | |
cross posting reduced and f'up set for cola... change it back to
misc.int-property if that's where you think it belongs :)
Barry Margolin wrote: In article <40******@news.peakpeak.com>,
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> wrote:
theodp wrote:
> While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
> Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
> each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
> Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
> providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
> computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.
>
> --> Link to Microsoft's Patent Application
>
>
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...TOFF&d=PG01&p= >
1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50& s1=%2220040088709%22.PGNR. > &OS=DN/20040088709&RS=DN/20040088709
Haven't looked at the application, but I would be surprised that
if just that much was new and nonobvious. Seems like Mac
and UNIX have had such for awhile.
The part about fast switching between users has been in MacOS for a
couple of years, but I don't think Unix has it at all (su changes the
userid, but it doesn't bring up the new user's desktop environment).
right click on the desktop... choose the "Start New Session" option... log
into the new session as the other user... and you can happily swap between
sessions using CTRL ALT F7 or CTRl ALT F8 whatever for each session's
window...
With SuSE/Mandrake et al, first session uses ctrl alt F7, second F8 and so
on up the scale until you hit whatever limit has been set in the config
files...
switching sessions with Linux is a heck of a lot faster than Microsoft's
paltry fast user switching alternative...
I won't give you any links as it my personal experience on exactly the same
hardware when booted into either Mandrake 10 or XP HE...
--
Use Linux - Computer power for the people: Down with cybercrud... | | | |
>>>>> "theodp" == theodp <th****@aol.com> writes:
theodp> While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it
theodp> novel that Windows XP allows several family members to
theodp> share a PC while enabling each to have personalized
theodp> settings and folders, that's not stopping Microsoft from
theodp> seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
theodp> providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a
theodp> shared computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed
theodp> Thursday.
If this paragraph is really disclosed by the USPTO, then that clearly
indicates that the USPTO is aware that there are plentiful prior art.
Why are they still entertaining M$?
--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm- ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: da****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee | | | |
LEE Sau Dan wrote: >> "theodp" == theodp <th****@aol.com> writes:
theodp> While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it
theodp> novel that Windows XP allows several family members to
theodp> share a PC while enabling each to have personalized
theodp> settings and folders, that's not stopping Microsoft from
theodp> seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
theodp> providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a
theodp> shared computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed
theodp> Thursday.
If this paragraph is really disclosed by the USPTO, then that clearly
indicates that the USPTO is aware that there are plentiful prior art.
Why are they still entertaining M$?
That paragraph was written by the original poster. Its not necessarily
part of the application.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa**@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. | | | |
theodp wrote:
While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.
--> Link to Microsoft's Patent Application
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20040088709
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be an application, not a
granted patent. With that in mind, lets see if the USPTO actually grants
them one.
This could be an interesting tactic on the part of various companies
with too much cash and not enough actual work to do. Swamp the patent
office with crap. If the reviewers are buried in garbage, maybe they'll
just start rubber stamping them to clear out their in baskets.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa**@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Time's fun when you're having flies. -- Kermit the Frog | | | |
In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com> Barry
Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote: In article <40******@news.peakpeak.com>,
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> wrote: Haven't looked at the application, but I would be surprised that
if just that much was new and nonobvious. Seems like Mac
and UNIX have had such for awhile.
The part about fast switching between users has been in MacOS for a
couple of years, but I don't think Unix has it at all (su changes the
userid, but it doesn't bring up the new user's desktop environment).
Linux + XFree86:
Ctrl+Alt+F1/F2/F3...
-- http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (f1084a555d2098411cff4cefd41d2e2a1c85d18c)
I've generally found that the fastest way to get the right answer on the net
is to confidently assert the answer you believe to be right; those who know
will immediately correct you, while if you just ask, often no answers arrive.
All it requires is a willingness to look bad on occasion.
- Joe Buck on gc*@gcc.gnu.org | | | |
According to Paul Hovnanian P.E. <Pa**@Hovnanian.com>:
This could be an interesting tactic on the part of various
companies with too much cash and not enough actual work to
do. Swamp the patent office with crap. If the reviewers are
buried in garbage, maybe they'll just start rubber stamping
them to clear out their in baskets.
Australia has an "innovation patent" that is just like this.
You submit an idea, say for a "circular transportation
facilitation device", and they automatically register your
submission. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1418165.stm
A really crappy patent is IBM's US patent 6,329,919:
"System and method for providing reservations for restroom use
"The present invention is an apparatus, system, and method for
providing reservations for restroom use. In one embodiment, a
passenger on an airplane may submit a reservation request to
the system for restroom use. The reservation system determines
when the request can be accommodated and notifies the
passenger when a restroom becomes available. The system
improves airline safety by minimizing the time passengers
spent standing while an airplane is in flight."
They later dedicated the patent to the public.
------------------------
Wm Randolph Franklin
The email address in the header is invalid. To write me,
search my web site. http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/wrf/ | | | | th****@aol.com (theodp) wrote in message news:<e7**************************@posting.google. com>... While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.
Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces".
--
Dan | | | | da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) writes: Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces".
But implementing this in a Microsoft operating system is a "new use",
don't you think?
--
Rahul | | | |
In article <c7**********@penguin.wetton.example.org>,
"Bernd Jendrissek" <be****@prism.co.za> wrote: In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com> Barry
Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote:In article <40******@news.peakpeak.com>,
Bruce Hayden <no************@ieee.org> wrote: Haven't looked at the application, but I would be surprised that
if just that much was new and nonobvious. Seems like Mac
and UNIX have had such for awhile.
The part about fast switching between users has been in MacOS for a
couple of years, but I don't think Unix has it at all (su changes the
userid, but it doesn't bring up the new user's desktop environment).
Linux + XFree86:
Ctrl+Alt+F1/F2/F3...
In any case, a patent doesn't just cover the end result, it covers the
*method* used to obtain that result. So unless the techniques used in
Linux or MacOS render the technique used in Windows obvious, the patent
may indeed be reasonable. I haven't read the patent application, and
I'm not familiar with the internal workings of the Linux and MacOS
implementations, so I can't tell how similar they are.
As an analogy, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting other ways of fastening papers together.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA | | | |
In article <aa**************************@posting.google.com >, da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) wrote: th****@aol.com (theodp) wrote in message
news:<e7**************************@posting.google. com>... While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.
Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces".
30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
they could be considered prior art.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA | | | |
Rahul Dhesi wrote: But implementing this in a Microsoft operating system is a "new use",
don't you think?
Unix and Vaxes have been around for about twenty years and multi
tasking. Context switching I believe they called it. Yet this method
Micros~1 has suddenly decided they own.
Notice how he refers to 'most operating system' not being able to
multitask. Most Windows systems not being able to multitask that is.
It's as if the last twenty years of computing did not happen.
"The present invention provides improved methods and arrangements for
use in multiple user computing environments"
As usual they co-opt a standard methodology and pollute it enough with
feetures so as to claim ownership. Lying crooked bastards - all of them.
"Certain solutions, such as, for example, the "Identity Manager"
available in Microsoft Outlook Express .." - *SNORT*
They're obviously relying on the Patent examiner being as dumb as a door
post. (Gee wizz you can log in to a computer and get your own
personalized work space) | | | |
Barry Margolin wrote: Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces".
30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
they could be considered prior art.
The 'desktop' being a metaphor for processes running in a particular
context. The said processes also being restricted as to what they could
access. Nowadays three, at least, of those process controll the mouse,
keyboard and screen. Nothing new here. | | | |
In article <2g************@uni-berlin.de>, Daeron <da****@demon.net>
wrote: Barry Margolin wrote:
Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces".
30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
they could be considered prior art.
The 'desktop' being a metaphor for processes running in a particular
context. The said processes also being restricted as to what they could
access. Nowadays three, at least, of those process controll the mouse,
keyboard and screen. Nothing new here.
I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA | | | |
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> writes: As an analogy, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting other ways of fastening papers together.
And also, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting the use of staplers for stapling Microsoft stuff together.
--
Rahul | | | |
Daeron wrote: Rahul Dhesi wrote:
But implementing this in a Microsoft operating system is a "new use",
don't you think?
Unix and Vaxes have been around for about twenty years and multi
tasking. Context switching I believe they called it. Yet this method
Micros~1 has suddenly decided they own.
Notice how he refers to 'most operating system' not being able to
multitask. Most Windows systems not being able to multitask that is.
It's as if the last twenty years of computing did not happen.
"The present invention provides improved methods and arrangements for
use in multiple user computing environments"
As usual they co-opt a standard methodology and pollute it enough with
feetures so as to claim ownership. Lying crooked bastards - all of them.
"Certain solutions, such as, for example, the "Identity Manager"
available in Microsoft Outlook Express .." - *SNORT*
They're obviously relying on the Patent examiner being as dumb as a door
post. (Gee wizz you can log in to a computer and get your own
personalized work space)
Then, perhaps, we should contest this patent. Maybe if a few of us stand up
to this kind of abuse, Microsoft will think twice about patenting
everything they allegedly "invented" that was, in fact, prior art. | | | |
On 07 May 2004 18:35:44 +0200, LEE Sau Dan <da****@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote: .... that's not stopping Microsoft from
theodp> seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
theodp> providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a
theodp> shared computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed
theodp> Thursday.
If this paragraph is really disclosed by the USPTO, then that clearly
indicates that the USPTO is aware that there are plentiful prior art.
Why are they still entertaining M$?
The meat of a patent is the claims. They are what may be issued or denied. They
are what is contestable in court.
To evaluate the scope of this application, you need to analyze the claims very
carefully, with particular emphasis on the term "concurrent."
All the discussion here thus far is pointless, politically-correct hot air.
-- Larry | | | |
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<ba**************************@comcast.ash.gig anews.com>... I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.
Didn't Xerox PARC have something along those lines over 30 years ago?
--
Dan | | | |
Barry Margolin wrote: In article <2g************@uni-berlin.de>, Daeron <da****@demon.net>
wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces".
30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
they could be considered prior art.
The 'desktop' being a metaphor for processes running in a particular
context. The said processes also being restricted as to what they could
access. Nowadays three, at least, of those process controll the mouse,
keyboard and screen. Nothing new here.
I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.
Can you Xerox Parc? By the mid-70's they were well into GUI's.
Bravo, Smalltalk, etc. The first commercial system was the PERQ
circa 1978. Xerox's Star came out soon after. Followed by Apple.
Of course, some of us would say that the PDP-1 had the first GUI.
(circa 1962?) It was the platform for the first computer game -Starwars.
Also the first timesharing system.
/dan
/dan | | | | da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) writes: Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<ba**************************@comcast.ash.gig anews.com>... I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.
Didn't Xerox PARC have something along those lines over 30 years ago?
Maybe, but implementing this on a Microsoft Windows machine was
not obvious to anybody at that time. In fact I believe it wasn't
obvious even to Microsoft until recently. :-)
--
Rahul | | | |
In article <aa**************************@posting.google.com > (Fri, 07 May
2004 20:03:16 -0700), Daniel R. Tobias wrote: Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<ba**************************@comcast.ash.gig anews.com>... I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.
Didn't Xerox PARC have something along those lines over 30 years ago?
Yes. Smalltalk-72 had a "desktop" but I'm nearly 100% certain it didn't
have the concepts of "user" or "switching" or whatever Microsoft's claims
involve. | | | |
In article <aa**************************@posting.google.com >, da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) wrote: Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:<ba**************************@comcast.ash.gig anews.com>... I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.
Didn't Xerox PARC have something along those lines over 30 years ago?
The Alto came out in 1980. That was one of their first systems with a
desktop metaphor.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA | | | |
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa**@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message This could be an interesting tactic on the part of various companies
with too much cash and not enough actual work to do. Swamp the patent
office with crap. If the reviewers are buried in garbage, maybe they'll
just start rubber stamping them to clear out their in baskets.
Another tactic that an indicted illegal monopolist would do
is to grease the wheels of bureaucracy at the Patent Office,
i.e. bribing federal employees to fast track patent applications
that come from Seattle, Washington, in order to process them
without much delay or scrutiny.
That would explain the patent erroneously issued to
Microsoft for an apple: http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5205574.html
-Ramon | | | |
Dan Ganek wrote:
< snip > Of course, some of us would say that the PDP-1 had the first GUI.
(circa 1962?) It was the platform for the first computer game -Starwars.
Also the first timesharing system.
No, it was not the first timesharing system. Not by a wide margin
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. | | | |
>>>>> On Sat, 08 May 2004 03:21:58 GMT, Dan Ganek ("Dan") writes:
Dan> The first commercial system was the PERQ circa 1978.
Are you sure about that date?
I think you might be off by 4 or 5 years.
| | | |
Christopher C. Stacy wrote: >>On Sat, 08 May 2004 03:21:58 GMT, Dan Ganek ("Dan") writes:
Dan> The first commercial system was the PERQ circa 1978.
Are you sure about that date?
I think you might be off by 4 or 5 years.
Hmm I did more googling and you may be right.
(One should always double check their facts :-)
I was doing R&D in GUI's and graphic workstations
at DEC during that time (78-84) and it's all a big
a blur now. It was a very exciting time - Smalltalk,
Star, Perq, Lisa, Apollo, the Mac, etc.
/dan | | | |
W Randolph Franklin wrote: According to Paul Hovnanian P.E. <Pa**@Hovnanian.com>:
This could be an interesting tactic on the part of various
companies with too much cash and not enough actual work to
do. Swamp the patent office with crap. If the reviewers are
buried in garbage, maybe they'll just start rubber stamping
them to clear out their in baskets.
Australia has an "innovation patent" that is just like this.
You submit an idea, say for a "circular transportation
facilitation device", and they automatically register your
submission.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1418165.stm
A really crappy patent is IBM's US patent 6,329,919:
"System and method for providing reservations for restroom use
"The present invention is an apparatus, system, and method for
providing reservations for restroom use. In one embodiment, a
passenger on an airplane may submit a reservation request to
the system for restroom use. The reservation system determines
when the request can be accommodated and notifies the
passenger when a restroom becomes available. The system
improves airline safety by minimizing the time passengers
spent standing while an airplane is in flight."
They later dedicated the patent to the public.
Could it be that IBM dislike the current patent system's trend of allowing
the obvious to be patented as much as many of the open-source community so
wanted to apply for the dumbest idea they could think of to show the system
up for what it was - then chickened out of publicising the facts once their
bogus patent actually passed? | | | |
In article <c9*************************@posting.google.com> , ra***@conexus.net (Ramon F Herrera) wrote: Another tactic that an indicted illegal monopolist would do
is to grease the wheels of bureaucracy at the Patent Office,
i.e. bribing federal employees to fast track patent applications
that come from Seattle, Washington, in order to process them
without much delay or scrutiny.
1) I suppose it's always possible that MS is patenting this not because
they genuinely believe it merits patenting, and not with any intentions
of enforcing the patent, but simply as a protective measure against
someone else patenting something similar and coming after them. I
believe Jeff Bezos has indicated that he follows more or less the same
tactic with amazon.com business patents.
2) We all know that a sizable fraction of currently issued patents --
most likely a large majority of them -- are somewhere between dubious
and total garbage, on grounds of any reasonable interpretations of
obviousness, prior art, and nontriviality. Devising a realistic system
that would do substantially better in judging patent applications is,
however, really hard.
3) My bottom line continues to be that there needs to be some kind of
very substantial potential *downside* for an applicant who applies for
and is granted a (subsequently shown to be) undeserved patent, such that
potential patent applicants will think much harder about the balance of
benefits, the balance between potential upsides and potential downsides,
before seeking a patent rather than protecting their "invention" in some
other fashion.
In applying for a patent an inventor is asking society (in the form of
the Federal government, with all its legal powers) to give him/her a
license which will potentially damage other innocent third parties (and
in practice without these parties having much if any opportunity to
protest against this before the patent is issued). .
The initial investment required of the applicant in obtaining this
license is quite small, whereas the costs to the damaged innocent third
parties to try to regain their lost rights are very much larger. And,
these costs to said third parties are all "downside": even if they win
(i.e., manage to get the garbage patent declared invalid), at best they
are simply back where they should have been so far as rights are
concerned, and are out the large amounts of legal costs they will have
to have invested.
The balance of upsides and downsides in the whole system needs to be
radically altered. | | | |
AES/newspost wrote:
[snip] 1) I suppose it's always possible that MS is patenting this not
because they genuinely believe it merits patenting, and not with any
intentions of enforcing the patent, but simply as a protective
measure against someone else patenting something similar and coming
after them. I believe Jeff Bezos has indicated that he follows more
or less the same tactic with amazon.com business patents.
[snip]
What used to happen, and perhaps still does, is that companies would use
patents as bargaining chips. "We have these patents, and they will screw you
up for years. You have those, and they will screw us up for years. Let's come
to a mutual agreement not to fight about this. Then we can both screw up all
the others for years".
Does this still happen?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/ | | | |
Dan Ganek wrote: Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>>On Sat, 08 May 2004 03:21:58 GMT, Dan Ganek ("Dan") writes:
Dan> The first commercial system was the PERQ circa 1978.
Are you sure about that date?
I think you might be off by 4 or 5 years.
Hmm I did more googling and you may be right.
(One should always double check their facts :-)
I was doing R&D in GUI's and graphic workstations
at DEC during that time (78-84) and it's all a big
a blur now. It was a very exciting time - Smalltalk,
Star, Perq, Lisa, Apollo, the Mac, etc.
/dan
It definitely was, Dan. Ah, the good old days! Hey, didn't the Pro have a
GUI? I recall seeing it run something like VisiOn, which it booted into. | | | |
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in
news:Lx***************@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net: AES/newspost wrote:
[snip] 1) I suppose it's always possible that MS is patenting this not
because they genuinely believe it merits patenting, and not with any
intentions of enforcing the patent, but simply as a protective
measure against someone else patenting something similar and coming
after them. I believe Jeff Bezos has indicated that he follows more
or less the same tactic with amazon.com business patents.
[snip]
What used to happen, and perhaps still does, is that companies would
use patents as bargaining chips. "We have these patents, and they will
screw you up for years. You have those, and they will screw us up for
years. Let's come to a mutual agreement not to fight about this. Then
we can both screw up all the others for years".
Does this still happen?
Yes, it's called cross-licencing | | | |
Alun wrote: "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in
news:Lx***************@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net:
[snip] What used to happen, and perhaps still does, is that companies would
use patents as bargaining chips. "We have these patents, and they
will screw you up for years. You have those, and they will screw us
up for years. Let's come to a mutual agreement not to fight about
this. Then we can both screw up all the others for years".
Does this still happen?
Yes, it's called cross-licencing
Ouch! I should have remembered that term!
Is this possibly behind some of these rather strange patent application
attempts - they are there to increase the company's cross-licensing power?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/ | | | |
In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote: ...
In any case, a patent doesn't just cover the end result, it covers the
*method* used to obtain that result.
I've read a number of patents which claimed the end result, and then
included any method of accomplishing it giving one method as an example,
and then saying that this was only an example and that there could be
other methods.
So unless the techniques used in Linux or MacOS render the technique
used in Windows obvious, the patent may indeed be reasonable. ...
For the method, but IMHO not for the end result. I agree that one
would have to carefully review the claims to determine whether or not
the previously-achieved end result was being claimed.
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu | | | |
In article <c7**********@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu>, he*@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) wrote: In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote: ...
In any case, a patent doesn't just cover the end result, it covers the
*method* used to obtain that result.
I've read a number of patents which claimed the end result, and then
included any method of accomplishing it giving one method as an example,
and then saying that this was only an example and that there could be
other methods.
Is that really a valid patent? Can an IP professional comment on this?
I didn't think you could patent a general idea, it has to be a
particular method or device.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA | | | |
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote in news:barmar- 4F*******************@comcast.ash.giganews.com: In article <c7**********@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu>,
he*@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) wrote:
In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > ...
>In any case, a patent doesn't just cover the end result, it covers the
>*method* used to obtain that result.
I've read a number of patents which claimed the end result, and then
included any method of accomplishing it giving one method as an example,
and then saying that this was only an example and that there could be
other methods.
Is that really a valid patent? Can an IP professional comment on this?
I didn't think you could patent a general idea, it has to be a
particular method or device.
Certainly. You can do this provided you give the best mode of practicing
the invention.
Alun Palmer, US Patent Agent, Registration No. 47,838 | | | |
A patent is a government action -- certainly not a law or an agency
regulation in the usual sense, but a government action with the force of
law and enforceable through the judicial system, that grants rights to
some, takes away rights from others. Each issued patent is, in effect
and to most intents and purposes, a mini piece of legislation, or a mini
regulation.
Can anyone think of any other legislative or regulatory processes in
which a law or government regulation is issued at the request of and for
the benefit of an interested individual and:
* The content of the proposed legislation or regulation is kept more or
less absolutely secret from all other potentially interested parties for
as much as the first18 months of its consideration; and
* Other interested parties are not allowed to comment at all on the
proposed legislation in any event until after it has issued and taken on
the force of law (no public hearings, no requests for public comment of
any kind); and
* The issuing agency will not consider any comments or relevant
information that any other interested party may try to supply before
issuance; and
* Even after issuance any interested party has to pay a substantial fee
($8000) just to offer comment or information regarding the already
issued law or regulation; and
* Doing so may have significant negative impact on the judicial rights
of any individual who offers such comment and is subsequently accused of
infringing the same law or regulation?
--------------
[Off-topic postscript: I suppose many of the Bush administration's
energy, environmental, defense and other legislative and regulatory
policies fall under the first and third of the items above, but not the
others.]
| | | |
AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu> wrote: Can anyone think of any other legislative or regulatory processes in
which a law or government regulation is issued at the request of and for
the benefit of an interested individual and:
* The content of the proposed legislation or regulation is kept more or
less absolutely secret from all other potentially interested parties for
as much as the first18 months of its consideration; and
* Other interested parties are not allowed to comment at all on the
proposed legislation in any event until after it has issued and taken on
the force of law (no public hearings, no requests for public comment of
any kind); and
You may comment after publication.
* The issuing agency will not consider any comments or relevant
information that any other interested party may try to supply before
issuance; and
* Even after issuance any interested party has to pay a substantial fee
($8000) just to offer comment or information regarding the already
issued law or regulation; and
You should have commented after publication.
* Doing so may have significant negative impact on the judicial rights
of any individual who offers such comment and is subsequently accused of
infringing the same law or regulation?
Not if you're not an infringer.
Can you think of any other process in which private entities are
enticed to give up their secret technology, and have it published for
all the world to copy, starting only 20 years after they gave up the
secret?
Can you think of any other instance in which the term "right" or
"rights" is used in the Original US Constitution as ratified, other
than protecting IP rights? | | | |
AES/newspost wrote: Can anyone think of any other legislative or regulatory processes in
which a law or government regulation is issued at the request of and for
the benefit of an interested individual and:
Farming Subsidies
Government Small Business Contracts
Welfare
Social Security
Aid to Dependent Children
....
The rest of your points are spurious because they rest on your assertion
that a Patent is a 'law' therefore you re-iterate statements about
'legislation' in order to effect a comparison. But a Patent is not a
Law -- it is more what would be called an Entitlement. The items listed
above are Entitlement -- and the law that *entitles* the recipient is
always subject to debate and revocation -- however, the process of
/entitling/ someone is usually always left to an empowered body and
therefore not subject to detailed public scrutity.
That is -- you can vote for Congressment who may be anti-farming
subsidies, but you can't personally interfere with the awarding of
subsidies to Con-Agra. You have to fight the process in toto -- the
whole idea of Farming subsidies ( or Patents ).
Again, Patents are not *laws*, they are entitlements.
* The content of the proposed legislation or regulation is kept more or
less absolutely secret from all other potentially interested parties for
as much as the first18 months of its consideration; and
* Other interested parties are not allowed to comment at all on the
proposed legislation in any event until after it has issued and taken on
the force of law (no public hearings, no requests for public comment of
any kind); and
* The issuing agency will not consider any comments or relevant
information that any other interested party may try to supply before
issuance; and
* Even after issuance any interested party has to pay a substantial fee
($8000) just to offer comment or information regarding the already
issued law or regulation; and
* Doing so may have significant negative impact on the judicial rights
of any individual who offers such comment and is subsequently accused of
infringing the same law or regulation?
--------------
[Off-topic postscript: I suppose many of the Bush administration's
energy, environmental, defense and other legislative and regulatory
policies fall under the first and third of the items above, but not the
others.] | | | |
Al Dente <ja*****@earthlink.net> writes: The rest of your points are spurious because they rest on your assertion
that a Patent is a 'law' therefore you re-iterate statements about
'legislation' in order to effect a comparison. But a Patent is not a
Law -- it is more what would be called an Entitlement.
The above is a pretty stupid comment, given that the original poster was
quite careful and precise in his wording:
A patent is a government action -- certainly not a law or an agency
regulation in the usual sense, but a government action with the force
of law and enforceable through the judicial system, that grants rights
to some, takes away rights from others.
--
Rahul | | | |
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Al Dente <ja*****@earthlink.net> writes:
The rest of your points are spurious because they rest on your assertion
that a Patent is a 'law' therefore you re-iterate statements about
'legislation' in order to effect a comparison. But a Patent is not a
Law -- it is more what would be called an Entitlement.
The above is a pretty stupid comment, given that the original poster was
quite careful and precise in his wording:
A patent is a government action -- certainly not a law or an agency
regulation in the usual sense, but a government action with the force
of law and enforceable through the judicial system, that grants rights
to some, takes away rights from others.
My point stands. The patent is not the 'law' or an 'action' -- the law
is the intellectual structure that makes the patent possible. Patent
is a property 'right', yes. But the original poster was saying
something like 'my acre of land is a *law*'
To phrase it in computer terms, the Patent is a program in which certain
rules are codified.
The Law is a compiler that allows the executable to be created.
The program is not the compiler. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...ral/whatis.htm
<quote
source="U.S. Patent Office">
Some people confuse patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Although there
may be some similarities among these kinds of intellectual property
protection, they are different and serve different purposes.
What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the
inventor, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. The term of a new
patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent
was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an
earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of
maintenance fees. US patent grants are effective only within the US, US
territories, and US possessions.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the
statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from
making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the
United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What
is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or
import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for
sale, selling or importing the invention.
What Is a Trademark or Servicemark?
A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade
with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them
from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark
except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service
rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly
used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly
similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or
from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark.
Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be
registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration
procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks
is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks".
What Is a Copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original
works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic,
and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished.
The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the
exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative
works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to
perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted
work publicly.
The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject
matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be
copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the
description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of
their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are
registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.
</quote> | | | |
In article <jb********************************@4ax.com>,
Just Another Alias <st********@comcast.net> wrote: * Doing so may have significant negative impact on the judicial rights
of any individual who offers such comment and is subsequently accused of
infringing the same law or regulation?
Not if you're not an infringer.
An ALLEGED infringer, of an possibly -- if not probably -- invalid
patent (keeping in mind that roughly HALF of all litigated patents are
found to be, in fact, invalid).
It's when you're an alleged infringer that you NEED the maximum possible
judicial rights -- and it's when you're having to resort to litigation
to get back rights you should possibly (or again, probably) never have
lost that you *deserve* the maximum judicial rights.
Can you think of any other instance in which the term "right" or
"rights" is used in the Original US Constitution as ratified, other
than protecting IP rights?
I read Art. 1, Sect. 8, as *granting* a special and temporary right, for
a public purpose -- not as protecting a pre-existing or in any way
"unalienable right", as that term is used in the Declaration of
Independence.
Moreover, the essence of a patent is not to give the inventor the right
to use his idea; he already has that. It's to *take away* the right of
anyone else who independently comes up with the same idea to use that
idea.
And in any event, it's the *process* involved in judging patent
applications and granting the patents that I'm severely criticizing, not
necessarily the valid patents that might still be granted with a better,
fairer, more useful process. | | | |
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> writes:
As an analogy, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting other ways of fastening papers together.
And also, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting the use of staplers for stapling Microsoft stuff together.
But if a bird were drawn to a firefly,
is that not the same as Percival Lovell ?
--
W '04 <:> Open | | | |
In article <0a******************************@news.teranews.co m>,
A Waterfall That Barks <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote:
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the
statute and of the grant itself, ³the right to exclude others from
making, using, offering for sale, or selling² the invention in the
United States or ³importing² the invention into the United States. What
is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or
import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for
sale, selling or importing the invention.
Glad to see this basic character of patents so clearly stated. Seems to
me it rather dramatically emphasizes the nature of a patent -- and the
misconceptions as to the "rights" of an inventor in his invention that
are perpetuated by much of the conventional discussion of patents.
In brief, obtaining a patent grants the inventor no new rights of any
kind with respect to using, making, selling, or otherwise explointing
his invention, that he would not already have without obtaining a
patent. It only *takes away* rights from *others* that these others
would have had, had the patent not been granted (including in particular
their rights to use, make, sell, or exploit the same invention should
they themselves independently make exactly the same invention). | | | |
AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu> wrote: It only *takes away* rights from *others* that these others
would have had, had the patent not been granted
But think this through to the next stage. Because the opportunity
exists for a temporary monopoly, the patent process CAUSES things to
be invented that would not have been invented. Therefore, your poor
hypothetical person who is denied the "right" to practice the
invention of others would not have had that right without a patent
system, because the invention very well may not have been invented in
the first place.
What gives you or anyone the "right" to enjoy the creations of others?
Create your own stuff. | | | |
> That is -- you can vote for Congressment who may be anti-farming subsidies, but you can't personally interfere with the awarding of subsidies to
Con-Agra. You have to fight the process in toto -- the whole idea of
Farming subsidies ( or Patents ).
But that sucks too. It suffers from the same problem: the process is
closed so you only get to react/complain/pressure after the fact.
I think the idea of opening up the review process to external comments is
the way to go for patents, subsidies, ...
Stefan | | | |
On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:26:26 GMT, Just Another Alias <st********@comcast.net>
wrote: .... Because the opportunity
exists for a temporary monopoly, the patent process CAUSES things to
be invented that would not have been invented.
Care to explain that magical process?
Many of the great inventions and discoveries of mankind ocurred nearly
simultaneously in different parts of the world. Many of today's technological
advances are made independently by multiple inventors. It seesm pretty arbitrary
that patent protection is available according to different criteria depending on
where the patent is sought: either first to file, or first to invent.
-- Larry | | | |
In article <sg********************************@4ax.com>,
Just Another Alias <st********@comcast.net> wrote: AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu> wrote:
It only *takes away* rights from *others* that these others
would have had, had the patent not been granted
But think this through to the next stage. Because the opportunity
exists for a temporary monopoly, the patent process CAUSES things to
be invented that would not have been invented. Therefore, your poor
hypothetical person who is denied the "right" to practice the
invention of others would not have had that right without a patent
system, because the invention very well may not have been invented in
the first place.
What gives you or anyone the "right" to enjoy the creations of others?
I don't believe that, in all too large large majority of cases, patent
protection plays much or any role in causing things to be invented.
I believe a more accurate description is that in a large majority of
cases a technically competent person or engineering group is presented
with a need or a technical problem or a product opportunity of some sort
and, using their technical skills, they solve the problem in essentially
the same fashion as would any other comparably competent group of
professionals faced with the same problem later on -- and then patent
the solution.
Evidence for this is the widespread reaction to many patents among
technically competent people -- note: "technically competent people"
meaning informed and practicing professionals in the field of the
invention, not patent professionals -- that, "Hey, that's trivial", or
"It's obvious", or "It's been done before" or similar.
Where this is the case -- and I'm asserting it's all to often the case
-- the patent system just operates to protect someone who does something
obvious or ordinary (to a competent professional) but just happens to do
it *first* (and has a patent department behind him) -- and that's not
the intention of Art. I, Sect. 8, and does not "promote progress".
In my opinion and experience, the number of practicing professionals who
copy ideas from issued patents is very limited in part because the
number of practicing professionals who even *read* patents for
information (as contrasted to reading technical journals or attending
professional meetings) is limited. They may read patents to see what
legal hassles they're likely to encounter, or to get a handle on what
the competition is up to, but not to learn things -- in part because
many patents are so undescriptive, unclear, poorly written, or
incomplete that they're useless for this purpose (and deliberately so,
in many cases).
Create your own stuff.
Exactly. | | This discussion thread is closed Replies have been disabled for this discussion. Similar topics
reply
views
Thread by Lane Friesen |
last post: by
|
reply
views
Thread by Lane Friesen |
last post: by
|
32 posts
views
Thread by theodp |
last post: by
|
13 posts
views
Thread by nospam |
last post: by
|
9 posts
views
Thread by Mickey Segal |
last post: by
|
28 posts
views
Thread by Grant Robertson |
last post: by
|
8 posts
views
Thread by mc |
last post: by
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
