The USPTO ACTUALLY granted Paul Allen patents based on "recommending similar items" really!?!?!? Every salesman in the WORLD does that every single day. It's perhaps of THE most obvious and easiest uses to get a computer to perform. Either using key-words (meta data) OR slightly more difficult having the computer identify the 'type' of story the person is reading and then find other stories with similar 'type'.
Either way.... this is done on every news related website since.... FOREVER.
When have you NOT seen a 'related stories' at the bottom of some story that you're reading. Also with the latest Twitter, Digg and Facebook enhancements they ALL do a similar thing. Is PA really gonna sue AP, News Corp, The Times, The WSJ, etc etc etc...
Boy I can't wait for the day when software patents get the KICK IN THE ASS they deserve. You can't patent a recipe, you can't patent the design of a car, you can't patent a dress and the same should go for software.... It's little more then a recipe when you think about it.
Think of what you are saying, wouldn't that mean no licensing needed ever to use a technology? Radical!
Patenting a feature to me is silly, you can only truly copyright a software method, and even then you better have the math to back it up. Describing a method shouldn't be enough, working prototypes need to start being a must to obtain a copyright. A lot of these patents only describe a method or result based on said factors, what is that crap.
I don't think patent office is to blame here though, bad patent laws are.
Think of what you are saying, wouldn't that mean no licensing needed ever to use a technology? Radical!
Patenting a feature to me is silly, you can only truly copyright a software method, and even then you better have the math to back it up. Describing a method shouldn't be enough, working prototypes need to start being a must to obtain a copyright. A lot of these patents only describe a method or result based on said factors, what is that crap.
I don't think patent office is to blame here though, bad patent laws are.
I've seen that some of patent reform would include peer review, which seems like a good idea.
1. A system for engaging the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device of an apparatus, comprising: a communication device; and a content display system associated with the display device, the content display system including:
Unfortunately this patent clearly covered by prior art... Too bad and ONLY 76 years too late ... SO CLOSE! Sorry Paul lets hope the other 3 have more staying power.
Quote:
The most famous news ticker display is the "zipper" that circles One Times Square in New York City. The New York Times erected the first such display in 1928, and now several buildings in midtown Manhattan feature such a display. A similar display appears on the exterior of the Fox News/News Corporation headquarters in the west extension of Manhattan's Rockefeller Center. Another ticker, displaying the latest stock details, is also located in Times Square.
Also a TV placed in a store front window would also fit the bill...
I don't think patent office is to blame here though, bad patent laws are.
They're certainly an easy target, but no... They're just following the rules as they were handed down to them. It's certainly not in their power to dismiss something indiscriminately (except for perpetual motion patents --- those are weeded out to the best of their ability)...
Why? Well you know (grabbing my tinfoil hat)... its a big government conspiracy and 'big oil' is at the heart of it all...
When I read the patent's description, the first thought to cross my mind was, "Boy, Amazon is getting some much needed pushback for the whole 1-click deal. Karma is a b***h".
Imagine my disappointment when it is explicitly mentioned that Amazon isn't on there!
Ex-Microsoft. How come Microsoft is not being sued?
I have a proposed solution to submarine patents and patent litigation abuse:
The amount of the award should be commensurate to the patent owner's demonstrated efforts to commercialize the technology. If he just sits and waits for somebody to deploy the technology then he gets compensation but just a token amount. But if he can show that he devoted time, effort and resources into trying to commercialize the patent then he gets more and punitive damages go into effect. This would get rid of the firms who have no intention at all of commercializing the patents and whose existence is devoted solely to litigation. Those people do not contribute anything of value to society.
Because Amazon is the largest tenant of his commercial properties in the Seattle Area? Those deals have to be worth many millions and Jeff Bezos is the type who'd move out if he thought Allen was trying to screw him.
maybe he has already licensed the technology to ms and amazon. that may be why they aren't named.
Think of what you are saying, wouldn't that mean no licensing needed ever to use a technology? Radical!
Patenting a feature to me is silly, you can only truly copyright a software method, and even then you better have the math to back it up. Describing a method shouldn't be enough, working prototypes need to start being a must to obtain a copyright. A lot of these patents only describe a method or result based on said factors, what is that crap.
I don't think patent office is to blame here though, bad patent laws are.
i say do away with all software patents. they are evil.
Boy, this could be one of the largest patent lawsuits of the modern age. Sounds like there is practically no limit to the damages that could be claimed. Billions? Trillions?
I hope you're joking and don't really think he stands a snow balls chance in hell of winning this total bullshit of a lawsuit...
This is what keeps lawyers filling their swimming pools with $100 bills: nuisance patent lawsuits. Seriously, was Allen ever going to ever do anything with his __life__?
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652, U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314:
Enables ads, stock quotes, news updates or video images to flash on a computer screen, peripherally to a user's main activity. (AOL, Apple, Google, Yahoo) (filed Mar 22, 1996)
Really? I worked on an app for a bank back in 1994/1995 that did just this - as stock quotes changed, we did real-time up/down arrows to bring attention to it. Like, you know, peripherally, so you could be looking at other things and just look when there was a change. Or "in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus, an image or images generated from a set of content data" as the patent puts it.
I would assume there was never any filing since it would have fallen into the 'trade secrets' side of things from the bank's perspective since live updates weren't common yet, though within trading companies they more likely were and just not publicly discussed - not that the live updates were even the main purpose of the app. But... so can this patent now be dismissed? There's certainly prior art, or did it have to be public?
What a load of crap these patents are. And no, I don't think that you should be able to patent 'scroll through a list with a finger flick' either. \
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652, U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314:
Enables ads, stock quotes, news updates or video images to flash on a computer screen, peripherally to a user's main activity. (AOL, Apple, Google, Yahoo) (filed Mar 22, 1996)
Really? I worked on an app for a bank back in 1994/1995 that did just this - as stock quotes changed, we did real-time up/down arrows to bring attention to it. Like, you know, peripherally, so you could be looking at other things and just look when there was a change. Or "in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus, an image or images generated from a set of content data" as the patent puts it.
I would assume there was never any filing since it would have fallen into the 'trade secrets' side of things from the bank's perspective since live updates weren't common yet, though within trading companies they more likely were and just not publicly discussed - not that the live updates were even the main purpose of the app. But... so can this patent now be dismissed? There's certainly prior art, or did it have to be public?
What a load of crap these patents are. And no, I don't think that you should be able to patent 'scroll through a list with a finger flick' either. \
When are software patents just going to die? Honestly, this is the biggest load of innovation stifling nonsense I have ever heard. All these big companies are just building up their arsenals of incredibly obvious patents so in the end, no one will be able to do anything without their go ahead.
Comments
Really!!!?!
The USPTO ACTUALLY granted Paul Allen patents based on "recommending similar items" really!?!?!? Every salesman in the WORLD does that every single day. It's perhaps of THE most obvious and easiest uses to get a computer to perform. Either using key-words (meta data) OR slightly more difficult having the computer identify the 'type' of story the person is reading and then find other stories with similar 'type'.
Either way.... this is done on every news related website since.... FOREVER.
When have you NOT seen a 'related stories' at the bottom of some story that you're reading. Also with the latest Twitter, Digg and Facebook enhancements they ALL do a similar thing. Is PA really gonna sue AP, News Corp, The Times, The WSJ, etc etc etc...
Boy I can't wait for the day when software patents get the KICK IN THE ASS they deserve. You can't patent a recipe, you can't patent the design of a car, you can't patent a dress and the same should go for software.... It's little more then a recipe when you think about it.
Think of what you are saying, wouldn't that mean no licensing needed ever to use a technology? Radical!
Patenting a feature to me is silly, you can only truly copyright a software method, and even then you better have the math to back it up. Describing a method shouldn't be enough, working prototypes need to start being a must to obtain a copyright. A lot of these patents only describe a method or result based on said factors, what is that crap.
I don't think patent office is to blame here though, bad patent laws are.
Think of what you are saying, wouldn't that mean no licensing needed ever to use a technology? Radical!
Patenting a feature to me is silly, you can only truly copyright a software method, and even then you better have the math to back it up. Describing a method shouldn't be enough, working prototypes need to start being a must to obtain a copyright. A lot of these patents only describe a method or result based on said factors, what is that crap.
I don't think patent office is to blame here though, bad patent laws are.
I've seen that some of patent reform would include peer review, which seems like a good idea.
Patent number: 7348935
Filing date: May 5, 2004
Issue date: Mar 25, 2008
Application number: 10/840,670
1. A system for engaging the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device of an apparatus, comprising: a communication device; and a content display system associated with the display device, the content display system including:
Unfortunately this patent clearly covered by prior art... Too bad and ONLY 76 years too late ... SO CLOSE! Sorry Paul lets hope the other 3 have more staying power.
The most famous news ticker display is the "zipper" that circles One Times Square in New York City. The New York Times erected the first such display in 1928, and now several buildings in midtown Manhattan feature such a display. A similar display appears on the exterior of the Fox News/News Corporation headquarters in the west extension of Manhattan's Rockefeller Center. Another ticker, displaying the latest stock details, is also located in Times Square.
Also a TV placed in a store front window would also fit the bill...
I don't think patent office is to blame here though, bad patent laws are.
They're certainly an easy target, but no... They're just following the rules as they were handed down to them. It's certainly not in their power to dismiss something indiscriminately (except for perpetual motion patents --- those are weeded out to the best of their ability)...
Why? Well you know (grabbing my tinfoil hat)... its a big government conspiracy and 'big oil' is at the heart of it all...
How in the world is Amazon absent from the suit?
When I read the patent's description, the first thought to cross my mind was, "Boy, Amazon is getting some much needed pushback for the whole 1-click deal. Karma is a b***h".
Imagine my disappointment when it is explicitly mentioned that Amazon isn't on there!
Ex-Microsoft. How come Microsoft is not being sued?
The amount of the award should be commensurate to the patent owner's demonstrated efforts to commercialize the technology. If he just sits and waits for somebody to deploy the technology then he gets compensation but just a token amount. But if he can show that he devoted time, effort and resources into trying to commercialize the patent then he gets more and punitive damages go into effect. This would get rid of the firms who have no intention at all of commercializing the patents and whose existence is devoted solely to litigation. Those people do not contribute anything of value to society.
Because Amazon is the largest tenant of his commercial properties in the Seattle Area? Those deals have to be worth many millions and Jeff Bezos is the type who'd move out if he thought Allen was trying to screw him.
maybe he has already licensed the technology to ms and amazon. that may be why they aren't named.
Think of what you are saying, wouldn't that mean no licensing needed ever to use a technology? Radical!
Patenting a feature to me is silly, you can only truly copyright a software method, and even then you better have the math to back it up. Describing a method shouldn't be enough, working prototypes need to start being a must to obtain a copyright. A lot of these patents only describe a method or result based on said factors, what is that crap.
I don't think patent office is to blame here though, bad patent laws are.
i say do away with all software patents. they are evil.
Boy, this could be one of the largest patent lawsuits of the modern age. Sounds like there is practically no limit to the damages that could be claimed. Billions? Trillions?
I hope you're joking and don't really think he stands a snow balls chance in hell of winning this total bullshit of a lawsuit...
This is what keeps lawyers filling their swimming pools with $100 bills: nuisance patent lawsuits. Seriously, was Allen ever going to ever do anything with his __life__?
Fixed that for you.
Too funny from the guy behind a company that would not exist but for ripping off everything Apple ever did. I think this is a man in need of therapy.
funny how when its not apple doing the legal attack how attitudes change....
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652, U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314:
Enables ads, stock quotes, news updates or video images to flash on a computer screen, peripherally to a user's main activity. (AOL, Apple, Google, Yahoo) (filed Mar 22, 1996)
Really? I worked on an app for a bank back in 1994/1995 that did just this - as stock quotes changed, we did real-time up/down arrows to bring attention to it. Like, you know, peripherally, so you could be looking at other things and just look when there was a change. Or "in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus, an image or images generated from a set of content data" as the patent puts it.
I would assume there was never any filing since it would have fallen into the 'trade secrets' side of things from the bank's perspective since live updates weren't common yet, though within trading companies they more likely were and just not publicly discussed - not that the live updates were even the main purpose of the app. But... so can this patent now be dismissed? There's certainly prior art, or did it have to be public?
What a load of crap these patents are. And no, I don't think that you should be able to patent 'scroll through a list with a finger flick' either.
OK, so:
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652, U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314:
Enables ads, stock quotes, news updates or video images to flash on a computer screen, peripherally to a user's main activity. (AOL, Apple, Google, Yahoo) (filed Mar 22, 1996)
Really? I worked on an app for a bank back in 1994/1995 that did just this - as stock quotes changed, we did real-time up/down arrows to bring attention to it. Like, you know, peripherally, so you could be looking at other things and just look when there was a change. Or "in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus, an image or images generated from a set of content data" as the patent puts it.
I would assume there was never any filing since it would have fallen into the 'trade secrets' side of things from the bank's perspective since live updates weren't common yet, though within trading companies they more likely were and just not publicly discussed - not that the live updates were even the main purpose of the app. But... so can this patent now be dismissed? There's certainly prior art, or did it have to be public?
What a load of crap these patents are. And no, I don't think that you should be able to patent 'scroll through a list with a finger flick' either.
You should have patented it...
Was this suit filed in Texas?
Is any counting the number of these that have been filed since Jan. 1, 2010??
At least it's not in East Texas.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Seattle.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/...sp?source=mypi
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/document...3-f38d8a42521d
thanks paul. maybe all of us should suit you for breach of privacy.