On Sep 10, 12:58 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Patent: Application-Specific Windows Colourisation
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The US patent might be a bit daft, especially when it comes to software, but
> | it does offer some interesting insights into what crazy things the big
> | companies might be working on for future products. One such patent emerged
> | today: Microsoft applied in 2005 (and was granted in 2008) a patent which
> | describes how different windows may be coloured differently, or that they may
> | have different transparency settings.
> `----
What's amusing is that X11 had transparency back in 1990, when Windows
3.0 was still trying to figure out how to do 16 colors. Furthermore,
X11 could determine the color map available and adjust the color
settings based on the mode of the display. For example, if it was a
Monochrome display, X11 could use shades of grey. There was support
for 16 colors, 256 colors, 16 bit colors, and 32 bit colors. 8 of the
"color" bits were for transperancy or "layers".
FrameMaker also had support for Layers and transparency.
Of course, it's possible that Microsoft's implementation is so
radically different from that of X11, that it merits a patent, but it
would be hard to tell without seeing the source code to both
implementations.
> http://www.osnews.com/story/20266/Patent_Application-Specific_Windows...
> Related:
> Microsoft Deems Emotiflags Patent-Worthy
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft said you could count on them to improve patent quality.
> | For an example of how they're raising the bar on innovation, check
> | out this just-published patent application for Emotiflags, which
> | Microsoft explains solves the problem of indicating an emotion
> | associated with an email message. At the risk of infringing on the
> | patent, this one Makes Me Mad!"
> `----
Patent Quality referrs to the depth and breadth of research into prior
art.
The patent office requires that any prior patents be listed in the
patent
application, but you are supposed to list ALL prior applicable art,
and
especially any prior art known to the inventor prior to his filing of
the
application.
For example, a minimal poor quality patent for a spell checker would
require that any patents for similar spell checkers be listed, along
with
why your spell checker is different. A high quality patent
application
would list all spell checkers, including those not known to the
inventor
at the time of his invention, along with explanations as to why the
device
being patented is different from the others.
With a poor quality patent, there is a risk that your patent could be
nullified, that an inventor who can prove prior publication of the
same invention is entitled to the patent, or that the patent was
fraudulently obtained. At minimum, it could nullify the patent since
it could be intuitively derived based on existing publicly available
knowledge.
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/16/038207&from=rss
> Microsoft patent hints at pay-as-you-go OS
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A Microsoft patent application from June 2005, published only today,
> | titled "System and method for delivery of a modular operating system"
> | may signal a fundamental change for what an operating systems stands
> | for and how it is sold.
> `----
Sounds like a Linux distribution to me
This type of packaging was also used by AT&T as early as 1985.
> http://www.istartedsomething.com.nyud.net:8080/20061215/pay-as-you-go...
> Big businesses boast of patent benefits, for small businesses
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A report published by an EU task force on intellectual property claims
> | that small businesses benefit from a patent system, despite lacking
> | almost any participation by the small business community.
Supposedly, the patent office has made it easier for individuals and
small businesses to file for patents. The problem is that a good
patent search can cost several thousand dollars, and a thorough search
for ALL prior art can cost as much as a quarter million.
At minimum, the inventor should search Google for similar technology
after filing the initial application, as part of the search process.
And if Google comes up with 1 million listings, you'd probably better
take a look at every one of them, because missing just one would be
enough to nullify your patent.
> | Instead, the report, titled IPR (intellectual property rights) for
> | competitiveness and innovation, was written up almost entirely by
> | large corporations and the patent industry.
Not surprising. Remember, big corporations seek to protect themselves
from lawsuits by smaller companies or slightly unethical lawyers. The
two best protections are Open Source, and Patents. Open Source pretty
much assures the company that if there were anyone who had prior art,
they would have spoken up, and if they haven't applied for a patent,
they won't be able to.
Patents are a bit dicier. You have to publish your code when you file
for the patent, and the patent application now comes under the
scrutiny of anyone looking for infringements.
Large companies try to create a big "umbrella" of patents by cross-
licensing patents with lots of other companies on a "barter" basis.
Essentially, "I let you use any of my patent if you let me use any of
yours. Since no one knows when a new patent might just be the "next
big thing", most large companies prefer the umbrella approach.
> | [...]
> | Jean-Pierre Laisne, of ObjectWeb, an open source software community,
> | said that he found the report useless: participants were told that
> | all their contributions would be recorded but at the end only
> | those of Business Software Alliance and Microsoft were used.
Aren't BSA and Microsoft pretty much the same thing? Has anyone done
an audit of BSA to see how the money they collect is actually
distributed. The Software Publisher's Association (SPA) used to raid
companies, even seize their PCs, and
claim that the company was using pirated software. After an extensive
audit, they
would demand huge sums of money, based on an alternative of $10,000
and/or 5 years in prison for each title pirated times the number of
machines getting copies.
But it turned out that about 99% of the money went to Microsoft even
though 90% of the actual piracy was unregistered shareware. The
shareware companies were lucky if they got anything at all.
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/99155/big-businesses-boast-of-patent-bene...
Rex
|
|
