You Might Be a Microsoft Patent Infringer 102
theodp writes "Do you use drop-down menus, alphanumerical input boxes, check boxes, radio buttons or sliders to allow client side-processing of data? Utilize SQL, HTML, ActiveX, Java, Perl, JavaScript or JScript to do so? Employ arrays, stacks, queues, linked lists, or decision trees to organize things? Well Bunky, you might be infringing on Microsoft's new patent for Dynamically adjusting data values and enforcing valid combinations of the data in response to remote user input, which the USPTO granted Tuesday after 6+ years and two rejections."
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Microsofting for dummies... (Score:3, Insightful)
1- If you can't patent oxygen, patent its use. If you can't patent its use, patent its use at a remote location - deny any prior art.
2- Get a restraining order for astronauts on Mars not to use oxygen in remote locations without being owned by MS first; the patent will be invalidated in less than 5 minutes. If the astronauts manage to survive, patent their heating system for the next 5 minutes after that. If that doesn't work, patent Mars rock analysis to make the
As if prior art...... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As if prior art...... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course not, silly! You can't patent a thing... But do keep your eyes out for my patent on my new process for "using oxygen in a reaction with hydrocarbon compounds via enzymatic biological processes to generate energy to perpetuate living tissue."
God will have to license my patent, or I'll sue...
- Peter
Re:As if prior art...... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:As if prior art...... (Score:1)
I'll bet the US Patent Office would issue it, too. After all, it would be too much work for them to find prior art...
Re:As if prior art...... (Score:2)
Suing me for infringing on your patent infringes on my business process patent
Re:As if prior art...... (Score:1)
wow (Score:4, Funny)
Re:wow (Score:1, Funny)
Funny but...... (Score:1)
It may seem that there's loads of prior art against this patent but I don't think Microsoft's goal is to actually win a patent lawsuit against FOSS. They would get just as good results by making sure that FOSS organizations are buried in legal battles for a very long time. For that reason alone, I'm still scared for Free/Open Source software...
Re: (Score:1)
Re:wow (Score:2)
Don't worry, Willy Wagglestick didn't write Romeo and Juliet himself either (he was illiterate) so there's prior art. :-)
Prior Art? (Score:4, Insightful)
And look at this quote from the abstract: As such, the user can dynamically adjust the set of results and sub-items from a remote location. The system and method of the present invention preferably utilizes client-side processing to achieve real time interaction.
How can it be from a remote location if it is happening on the client-side? That would seem very local to me. But what do I know?
Re:Prior Art? (Score:2)
Bright side: Free mod points (Score:4, Funny)
After all, Slashdot "[d]ynamically adjust[s] data values and enforc[es] valid combinations of the data in response to remote user input."
Re:Bright side: Free mod points (Score:2)
Re:Bright side: Free mod points (Score:1)
Doesn't Slashdot adjust the mod points available to me dynamically on the server based on my remote input when I use one?
Re:Bright side: Free mod points (Score:1)
Re:Bright side: Free mod points (Score:1)
1. A method for dynamically displaying pricing data on a client display device comprising:
establishing a communications interface between a client computer and a server computer;
requesting pricing data from the client to the server for at least one object;
generating pricing data with associated options and rules for selection and combination
Re:Prior Art? (Score:2)
Because not everyone can afford to go to court? (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is that I should even need a patent attorney in this case - it should be so cut and deied that you could represent yourself! But alas, that is rarely so.
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:1)
This is incorrect. The burden of proof is on the owner of the patent to show infringement exists. I do agree that defending a patent case is costly, but you have the burdens of proof backward.
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:2, Informative)
The problem for open source developers is defending their work against bogus patents like this. Getting the patent invalidated costs real money.
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:1)
The reason that patent issuance is such a big thing in cases such as this one is that Microsoft can do a lot of damage with bad patents. Let's say you write some code and Microsoft decides that it infringes on their shiny new patent and sends you a cease and desist letter. You can either a) cease and desist, or b) try to fight it in court. If you choose option b yo
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:2)
Yes. I'm sure the judge wants to read all about the GNAA, the goatse guy, and whatever fool(s) thought they got first post, but didn't.
That'll go over REAL well.
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:2)
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this could lead to "not distributable in the US" clauses...
Hope y'all like living in a ghetto!
Re:Oh God Not Again (Score:1)
Good thing there'll always be someone in Eastern Europe ready to step up with a download site plastered with a "DO NOT DOWNLOAD FROM THE U.S. (wink, wink; nudge, nudge" disclaimer.
Because .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Constructs mentioned in the summarly like stacks and queues are fundamental computer data structures. All programmers have used them at one time in their lives, and will probably need to again.
Do you really think that any developer (or most companies) can afford to actually survive long enough to dispute it in court once Microsoft rolls out a fleet of high-priced
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Because .... (Score:1)
This is not exactly right. If they try to enforce a bogus patent that would affect others in the market, like, say, IBM or someone with their own massive patent portfolio, those other amici would submit briefs in order to defend their own
Wow, the USPTO is worthless (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, perhaps there isn't prior art for this specific implementation but I remember learning about the concept of checking for valid user input and adjusting things accordingly
Re:Wow, the USPTO is worthless (Score:1)
Re:Wow, the USPTO is worthless (Score:2)
Topic overrated, flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
What is claimed is:
1. A method for dynamically displaying pricing data on a client display device...
Note that that's a 1, meaning that's the patent request at its broadest. Once you get past the abstract, according to claim 1 there is required to be client-server communication, a price list, and rules for combining them.
This patent would likely apply to a typical linux distro installation package manager (handling dependencies etc) that was (a) run online, (b) charged prices, and (c) did dependency checking on the form itself before submission.
Hell, I doubt that even Linspire's Click'n'Run violates it...
Slash FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Still a crappy thing to patent, I totally agree, but hardly every damned control widget in every damned language in the known fucking universe as the author hints at.
FUD sucks, no matter who spews it.
Re:Slash FUD (Score:2)
Remember, for years and years and years, SUN communication was based on : "The network is the computer".
With such a commun slogan, how o
Re:Slash FUD (Score:2)
If so, great, that works. Honestly, I hope there i
Re:Slash FUD (Score:2)
you say the patent cover when the client is trusted to control the data. What does it mean when the patent cover bad practice ? Aren't patent suposed to be for the advancement of the arts and sciences ?
I say it is great news for OSS. Let have Microsoft patent this and be the only one to use it. They can also patent and be the only one to use all other bad practices.
Re:Slash FUD (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Slash FUD (Score:2)
I'll paraphrase the result of (7):
Claim (7) is independent of claim (1), and pertains to "data values" not just to "pricing information".
I've Just Read the Patent In Question; Amazing... (Score:1)
Or in the wording of the Patent, "...enforcing valid combinations of the data in response to remote user input...,
Now if Microsoft is NOT impling "Editing", then maybe if a User errors, Microsoft will come over and use some type of, 'violence'? To "'Enforce'
Re:Slash FUD (Score:1)
"Very popular these days, but not so much in 1998 when this was filed."
I say the following with all due respect: Baloney.
I agree that the write-up for this article is pure fabrication, but it doesn't follow that Microsoft is making a claim that is even remotely valid.
This behaviour was blindingly obvious to web application developers well before 1998. The very first question you ask when you're developing a stateless, client-server application is, 'How do I divide the work?' Updating onscreen informat
Re:You are truely clueless (Score:1)
If MS's and the PTO's history has taught anyone anything, it's that the PTO will grant any coporation a monopoly on any wild ideas they can come up with a complex definition for a patent application, no matter how invalid it might be, and let everyone else clean up the mess they create by granting that application at everyone else's expense.
And MS, well, everyone (but you, it seems) already know they're a monopoly.
The man made a valid point
The example they use in the patent application (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The example they use in the patent application (Score:2)
Congrats to the USPTO (Score:5, Funny)
They've successfully reduced Patent Examiner incompetence to 1 out of 3
Prior art for claim 1 (Score:5, Informative)
Seems to cover most any use of a thick client ... (Score:2)
Send a 'large' chunk of data down to the client -- more than what will be displayed currently, including the navigation rules (graph edges) between blocks of the chunk of data, so that the client itself can enable / remove available pathways (i.e. screen controls) to navigate through the data. This saves having to perform a server round trip per each choice the user makes.
The example use of such a novelty is their online car shopping site use. B
Re:Seems to cover most any use of a thick client . (Score:1)
bu**sh** (Score:3, Insightful)
Good news (Score:5, Funny)
Employ arrays, stacks, queues, linked lists, or decision trees to organize things?
Finally some gain for not learning anything at school.
Everyone loses I gain.
Not learning anything at school? (Score:2)
I can see that by "not learning anything" you mean also spelling. It's "Everyone loses again."
Fascinating... (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple idea... worked well (we only had 2400 baud modems, 9600 baud was the upper end; sending only entry rules and the PROLOG was a reasonable choice).
Took a 512K machine (at the time, a very big micro).
This was *never* used for "pricing" -- it was used to specify typographic instruction (a slightly more advanced task, IMNSHO).
Obviously, can be used for "pricing", "estimating", &etc. (estimating would have been the next logical use).
Still stands as my only commercial PROLOG program.
And the wheel goes around...
I would think that there are other examples -- the IBM 3270 field control protocol is almost there (and I bet that it has been extended to cover this use as well). Other interesting conflicts are with Smalltalk/Squeak, and even the TCL/TK toolkit.
So I don't think that Microsoft will dare enforce this one.
Ratboy.
You ARE an IBM patent infringer (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You ARE an IBM patent infringer (Score:2)
And in other news.. (Score:1)
Re:And in other news.. (Score:2)
Why not patent a DDOS? (Score:2)
Making lemonade... 1 lemon at a time (Score:1)
Sombody should start a petition or something (Score:2, Informative)
Misintepreted? (Score:3, Informative)
2."Utilize SQL, HTML, ActiveX, Java, Perl, JavaScript or JScript to do so" As above, none of these are being patented by microsoft
3."Employ arrays, stacks, queues, linked lists, or decision trees to organize things" Again this is not what is being patented here.
4."Microsoft's new patent for Dynamically adjusting data values and enforcing valid combinations of the data in response to remote user input Oooh, so close, but you missed again.
The patent refers to items 1, 2 and 3, imlicitly or explicitly in their patent as things that are used to achieve the 'invention' they have 'created'
However number 4 is the opposite. They dont adjust data values and enforce valid combinations "in response" to remote user input. They use a process that causes the remote user to apply the rules themselves in an effort to decrease the load on the server to improve the speed of access to the page.
Also, although items 1, 2 and 3 are implicitly or explicitly mentioned in the patent, the use of them is only restricted by this patent if you do the following:
-Use them in such a way that the infrastructure of rules and options you are interacting with is WHOLLY RUN on the client side.
-Use them in a system that is used in relation to pricing for one or more items.
-Returns the result to the server After the client has validated it.
This is my interpretation of the patent after reading it. I assume that someone will soon read it even more carefully than I and debunk what I have said, but it would be nice to see the people posting articles read what they are posting about.
Dont get me wrong, its still too broad and overreaching, but its not as broad as it has been made out to be
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice. Nor will I accept responsibility if you are caught infringing on this patent after reading what I have typed here.
Re:Misintepreted? (Score:1)
Its finally happened, Microsoft has patented shitty coding practices.
Misintepreted ^ 2? (Score:1)
Actually paying attention to the claim statement indicates that the patent only specifies a system that assists in the selection of the data, not in returning the selected options to the server.
For Example:
Lets say There are a group of drop-down boxes on my page, the first is the TYPE, second is SUB-TYPE, third is SUB-TYPE2, and the fourth is OPTIONS. below these drop down boxes is a field for the display of a
Post is misleading (Score:1)
Ultimate Patent? (Score:1)
2. Method of using process outlined in 1 to develop additional methods and or processes to create new, or expand upon existing methods and or processes.
There.
That should cover the basic premise of thought, thinking.
All your IDEAS are belong
Biggest Infringer: IE (Score:2)
From What I Can Gather (Score:2)
Adjusting data values? Dynamically? Isn't that what all of our computers are doing right now!!
Enforcing valid combinations? If else anyone. Sounds like input checking to me.
Don't let all that remote stuff fool you. Remember teletypes. Remember how far away they were.
And of course user input. Well I think MOST programs have SOME kind of user input.
I mean what happens in 3482 when some archeologist digs this trash up and asserts that Micro
Re:From What I Can Gather (Score:1)
Re:I would like to note... (Score:1)
Bravo,
Re:I would like to note... (Score:2)