Category: patents
February 29th, 2008
Should software be patented? This site would like the practice stopped
A new website entitled End Software Patents is attempting to galvanize public support to accomplish that goal.
Here’s the core of their argument:
Patents differ from copyright in one key manner: independent invention is a valid defense against claims of copyright infringement. That means that if you happen to write something that looks like the writing of somebody else, then you can’t be sued, unless the other author can prove that you directly copied his or her work.
Conversely, a patent holder can sue anybody who has written a composition similar to a patented composition. The holder of a software patent need only spend a few minutes with an Internet search engine to find somebody to sue—which is why “software companies” like the Green Bay Packers and Tire Kingdom are being sued: their web site evidently implements something that seems to match one out of the above-mentioned thousands of patents.
Is your company, school, or organization infringing any software patents? If it has a computer on hand, then the answer is almost certainly yes.
So software patents have created liability for everybody. But have they spurred innovation? Nobody can find any evidence that they have; see the Resources for economists page for the list of pro-software patent scholars who have searched for evidence of benefit and failed.
The site then tries to make the case that one of the key reasons why software patents have thrived despite their ineffectiveness is because of the self-perpetuating Patent bureaucracy- namely that of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Here’s what End Software Patents has to say about the USPTO and the software patent culture:
Imagine a government agency with the scope to inspect and grant a monopoly on every line of computer code written by anyone in any part of the economy, and you’ve got the US Patent and Trademark Office.
As you can imagine, granting so many monopolies requires a lot of resources: the PTO has grown out of its buildings and continues to expand, to the tune of 1,200 employees per year for the next five years. Even so, it will still have to stretch to catch up to its backlog of 1.3 million uninspected patents
1,200 new employees over five years equals 6,000 new hires. Coincidentally, the PTO in 2000 was about 6,000 people. So the PTO hopes to grow to more than double its size in 2000.
The irony of this effort to create a federal bureaucracy to oversee everybody’s computer code is that, as above, nobody has any proof that this computer code bureaucracy has spurred innovation. Even coders themselves oppose this government ‘service’—see the what practitioners are saying page.
I’m not sure all software Patents should be abolished, but I will grant that an unfortunate culture of patent trolls has been spawned by software patents.
What do you think?
Loading ...February 12th, 2008
VoIP, Inc. lawyering up for massive Click To Call Patent infringement suits
VoIP, Inc. says they have hired legal representation to defend its Patent # 6501837 against what it deems is infringement “by some of the nation’s leading Fortune 500 companies.
In a statement released today, VoIP, Inc. said Ball Law Firm would represent its Patent in a dispute involved with:
Protect(ing) innovations that enable “Pay-Per-Call” advertising and “Click to Call” technology, in addition to call connections between two parties initiated via a web browser. In the lawsuit, VoIP, Inc. seeks an injunction that would prevent these companies from further misappropriating VoIP, Inc.’s technology and infringing VoIP, Inc.’s patents.
Although specific dollar amounts for the suit are not specified at this time, the VoIP, Inc’s press release quoted attorney Byron T. Ball as saying he believes the current value of this Patent could exceed #1.25 billion dollars.
The lawsuit also seeks unspecified monetary damages arising from the companies’ unauthorized use of the patented technology and the continued willful infringement of VoIP, Inc.’s patents.
This from VoIP, Inc. CEO Anthony Cataldo, who is also quoted in today’s statement:
“We have identified over 100 companies that have willfully infringed on our patents. We intend to stop the infringement and defend our technology and the patents behind it. These patents and the business they represent will be utilized to provide the shareholders with the value they deserve and have long awaited,” stated CEO Anthony Cataldo. “Citing case studies, in reference to Click to Call, from Fortune 500 companies such as Continental Airlines, the ROI was 50x cost of service. The service showed a 35% lead conversion rate twice that of traditional leads and reduced website abandonment by over 25%.”
Now let’s look at the Patent, and the Abstract:
A telephone call connection architecture is disclosed which establishes a call connection between two parties. A caller at a caller location initiates a call request to an intermediate location over a first communication network requesting a call be connected to a callee at a callee location over a second communication network.
The caller location is connected to the callee location over the second communication network in response to the call request being made over the first communication network. In both a call back and call collect scenario, the caller initiates the call request to the intermediate location. However, in a call back situation, the caller is ultimately charged for the call, while in a call collect situation, the callee authorizes charges for the call.
OK, readers. What do you think? Does VoIP, Inc. have a legitimate point, or are you ready to start using the “”T” (as in troll) word?
January 31st, 2008
Microsoft Patent App would add "trust system" to some cut-and-paste operations
There’s a newly published Microsoft Patent application that - at least the way I read it- seems to both alter and add significant options to the way in which cut-and-paste is performed between various Windows-compatible documents and utilities.
That’s not to say you will have to reprogram your brain to c&p from say, Word into a PowerPoint presentation. That’s not going to need to happen.
Instead, the concept here seems to be that Microsoft is saying that under-the-hood coding can make cut-and-paste a messy affair- and here are some solutions for these issues.
The specific solutions described in this Patent app offer various “trust levels” for objects that can be cut and pasted. Examples would be secured documents that might need varied rules for what ought to be cut-and-pasteable.
The Patent Application we’re going to look at here is entitled, Copy-paste Trust System.
The Abstract gives us a sample of what’s being proposed:
Various embodiments are disclosed relating to performing a trusted copy and paste operations between a source application and a target application. For example, a trust system may receive a paste request for pasting copied source content, and may compare a source trust level associated with the source content to a target trust level associated with a target application. In this way, for example, harmful or disruptive code may be prevented from being pasted into the target application.
For a deeper understanding of the issue, I am going to show you Figures 2 and 3 from the Patent App, as well as its accompanying documentation.
January 30th, 2008
Can you believe it? Net2Phone sues Skype over 2000 Patent!
Net2Phone, the pioneering Internet phone company that was destined to become a subsidiary of IDT despite objectons from some shareholders, seemingly has figured out a way to strike back against their enduring irrelevance.
Now, they’re taking Skype to court for patent infringement.
The Patent that seems to be causing this ruckus is 6108704, Point-To-Point Internet Protocol.
The Abstract of this October 22, 2000 (yes, you read the year right) Patent reads:
A point-to-point Internet protocol exchanges Internet Protocol (IP) addresses between processing units to establish a point-to-point communication link between the processing units through the Internet.
A first point-to-point Internet protocol includes the steps of (a) storing in a database a respective IP address of a set of processing units that have an on-line status with respect to the Internet; (b) transmitting a query from a first processing unit to a connection server to determine the on-line status of a second processing unit; and (c) retrieving the IP address of the second unit from the database using the connection server, in response to the determination of a positive on-line status of the second processing unit, for establishing a point-to-point communication link between the first and second processing units through the Internet.
A second point-to-point Internet protocol includes the steps of (a) transmitting an E-mail signal, including a first IP address, from a first processing unit; (b) processing the E-mail signal through the Internet to deliver the E-mail signal to a second processing unit; and (c) transmitting a second IP address to the first processing unit for establishing a point-to-point communication link between the first and second processing units through the Internet
What’s this? A patent suit 7.5 years after the fact?
My theory is that if Net2Phone had listened to me a couple of years ago, and energetically sought out bids from major telecoms and service providers, maybe they wouldn’t have been so desperate.
But no, they decided to vector straight into the arms of an owner with an obscure profile in the VoIP space.
And so how is Net2Phone’s lack of such a profile Skype’s fault?
Most certainly is not. If anything, this is a matter of doing the wrong deal with the wrong company at the wrong time.
January 3rd, 2008
Secure ripping from "episodic DVDs" described in just-published Microsoft patent app
A major new Microsoft Patent application entitled DVD identification and managed copy authorization describes and illustrates a secure manner in which DVDs could be enabled for “ripping” of selected sections of media.
In other words, and as Paragraph 44 of this app describes:
For example, the use of Chapter Information enables specific television programming episodes from an episodic DVD to be identified and then copied using a managed copy process.
Readers, let us jump into this one by hitting this Patent’s Abstract:
A “managed copy” capability is provided that is both sanctioned and supervised by a service provider so that multimedia content distributed on optical media such as DVD can be copied and used by a client in a controlled manner.
In an illustrative example, a content provider generates a fingerprint using heuristics and/or other data that uniquely identifies a multimedia release, like a feature film, as being authorized for copying according to defined usage rules. A managed copy service authorizes the client to make a copy of a source DVD if that source is found to match a stored fingerprint.
An identification response, which may include encoding parameters and usage rules, provides confirmation to the client that content on the source DVD is authorized to be copied.
The client copies content from the source to another medium in compliance with the identification response.
Figures 9-12 from this Patent app’s literature describe what is being proposed here. I will now show you this art, and supply the descriptions for each.
December 28th, 2007
Number 4 Most-Read Post of 2007: Microsoft goes anti-phishing
Every time I post Patent news here, I draw guffaws from those readers who don’t seem to think there is a need for Patents. Yet other readers understand that quite often, Patent applications are a technology company’s markers toward specific innovations.
Of all the patent news I posted on this blog, as well as on my BlackBerry blog here in 2007, the one that received the most page views has been Microsoft files anti-phishing patent-but will this work?
The fourth most-read post on this blog during this past year, this entry got a popularity boost from what many may have seen as an obvious contradiction. That’d be Microsoft, not universally respected for the security of its operating systems and email utilities, coming up with a solution to detect and reducing such a common and seemingly solution-resistant malpractice such as phishing.
Then of course, this is the company with a Chairman- one Mr. Gates, who once said we’d stamp out spam in three years. And um, wasn’t that three years ago?
December 20th, 2007
If you hate Microsoft you'll really hate this: Patent app calls for "enforcing" ad playback within downloaded multimedia files
From my read of a Microsoft Patent application just published today, technology is being proposed that will make it impossible for users who download multimedia files to play these files unless advertising messages inserted within these files are viewed.
In other words, no circumvention, no skipping a la the TiVo model.
The title of the Patent application in question lays down the gauntlet of what is being proposed here: “Enforcing Advertising Playback For Downloaded Media Content.” If you want to look it up, it is
First, let us read the Abstract:
Enforcing rendering advertisements and other predetermined media content in connection with playback of downloaded selected media content. Playback of selected media content is made conditional on acquisition of a playback token that is generated in response to playback of the predetermined content.
The playback token may be implemented as a digital rights management (DRM) license acquired in response to playback of the predetermined content. Another aspect involves a content insertion engine for inserting ads or other predetermined content into the playback of downloaded content.
So why is Microsoft wanting to do this? Two telltale paragraphs from the Patent app’s literature focus in on the reasoning:
Although downloading video content can provide certain advantages over streaming video, it presents problems in the enforcement of ad delivery and insertion. In particular, ads that are inserted locally are much more vulnerable to circumvention by the user. Thus, the mechanism used to insert ads must be immune to circumvention by the user.
Embodiments of the invention overcome one or more deficiencies in known online video services and media player systems by enforcing the delivery of advertisements and other predetermined media content in connection with downloaded media content. Advantageously, aspects of the invention utilize tokens to enforce playback of advertisements in an online video service. In this manner, playback of selected media content may be made conditional on acquisition of a playback token that is generated in response to playback of the predetermined ad content. Another aspect of the invention involves a content insertion engine for inserting ads or other predetermined content into the playback of downloaded content.
But that’s just for starters. Follow along with me as I show you Figure 2 and accompanying documentation from this Patent app’s literature:
December 14th, 2007
Nortel sues Vonage for patent infringement
Telecommunications manufacturer Nortel has just filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Vonage.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, accuses Vonage of infringing on 12 Nortel patents related to telephone data management solutions.
Vonage is on record as having contested three of these patents. In August, Vonage sued Nortel on the basis three of these patents were involved.
Bloomberg News noted that Nortel denied the allegations in papers filed today in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware. It claimed in the filing that Vonage is violating the three patents and nine others. “Defending our intellectual property rights is a top priority for Nortel,” said Nortel spokesman Mohammed Nakhooda. “That’s why we are seeking damages and to put an injunction on the use of our technology with respect to Vonage.”
An injunction would prevent Vonage from using technology that relates to 911 and 411 calls, as well as its “click to call” feature, Nakhooda said.
“The litigation is ongoing and both parties have filed and will continue to file papers,” said Vonage spokesman Charles Sahner. Nortel’s filing “is a countersuit in defense.”
The Delaware case is Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Nortel Networks Inc., 07CV507, U.S. District Court, Delaware (Wilmington).
December 13th, 2007
Google Earth inner workings described in newly published Google Patent App
I’ve just come across a very recently published U.S. Patent application by Google that appears to explain the inner workings of Google Earth.
More specifically, the technology described in this Patent app deals with how mapping-related information within a database makes its way into a Google Earth display you request.
The Patent app is
Technology here is a bit complicated, but will be more easily understandable if you follow along with me. I’ll be showing you two Figures from the Application, and supporting those with accompanying text from the relevant sections of this App.
December 3rd, 2007
You won't believe these two Patents Apple iPhone is getting sued over
Klausner Technologies has just filed a $360 million patent infringement lawsuit against Apple for the Visual Voicemail 
feature in the iPhone.
As Apple notes on this page, Visual Voicemail allows you to go directly to any of your messages without listening to the prior messages. So you can quickly select the messages that are most important to you.
I’ve read both of the contested Patents, and I am getting back to you with details and my opinions.
Bearing the title of Telephone answering device linking displayed data with recorded audio message, Patent# 5,572,576 (granted in 1996) specifies:
A telephone answering device (TAD) which includes a means of intelligently organizing voice messages, associated entered codes such as personal IDs and home telephone numbers, and information stored in the memory of the TAD. These codes or numbers are decoded by means of the caller entering DTMF signals into the telephone which are recognized, recorded and processed by the TAD.
When processed with codes and personal information previously entered into the device’s memory, the TAD displays the identity of the callers for each message, thus providing a menu of choices, i.e., a list of callers.
This enables the user to access messages in a selective manner based on the identity of the caller.
The need to listen to the actual voice messages to determine the caller’s identity and the need to listen to the messages sequentially or chronologically is obviated, saving both time and effort.
Additionally, because the voice message is also linked to pre-stored additional data in the data base, when hearing a message, one also can view relevant associated information, such as a fax number, etc., that might not have been left in the audio message but might be important. A remote access device is also provided that allows the user to retrieve and display the callers’ identities and select a message to be played back from a remote location.
And now we move on to the older of these two contested patents. U.S. Patent #5,283,818, also with the title of title of Telephone answering device linking displayed data with recorded audio message.
The Abstract for this 1994 Patent says the technology covered under this patent is:
A telephone answering device (TAD) which includes a means of intelligently organizing voice messages, associated entered codes such as personal IDs and home telephone numbers, and information stored in the memory of the TAD.
These codes or numbers are decoded by means of the caller entering DTMF signals into the telephone which are recognized, recorded and processed by the TAD.
When processed with codes and personal information previously entered into the device’s memory, the TAD displays the identity of the callers for each message, thus providing a menu of choices, i.e., a list of callers.
This enables the user to access messages in a selective manner based on the identity of the caller. The need to listen to the actual voice messages to determine the caller’s identity and the need to listen to the messages sequentially or chronologically is obviated, saving both time and effort.
Additionally, because the voice message is also linked to pre-stored additional data in the data base, when hearing a message, one also can view relevant associated information, such as a fax number, etc., that might not have been left in the audio message but might be important.
I’m no patent attorney or judge, but these patents sound overly general to me.
To you?
November 1st, 2007
Sears for fears: I overhear Sears customer conversations with pass-the-buck customer "service"
Refrigerators are not part of my regular beat, but in the name of one more example about just how bad customer service is in our day and age, I just had to share this with you.
Last night while on a commuter train back from the Von show in Boston to my hotel room in Providence, Rhode Island, I overheard 20 minutes worth of one end of a frustrating series of cellphone conversations.
Man across the aisle from me calls his local Sears store and says his Kenmore refrigerator’s “transmission” conked out last weekend, and is there someone who can cut him some slack on service and installation of a new unit? After all, that’s quite pricey- and the warranty seems to have expired two months ago.
The guy then tried to discuss the fine print of the warranty, to see if there was any wiggle room.
From the sound of it, the store manager said he didn’t have the authority to offer a waiver, or maybe even just a discount off the service fees and parts. But then, apparently on the store manager’s suggestion, my fellow train rider called Sears customer support.
The train rider/customer went through Tier 1 “support.” He had to constantly repeat himself about what the problem was and what he wanted to get done. Exasperated, he called for a supervisor. Someone else came on to the call, but from overhearing this customer, it turned out the supervisor wasn’t a supervisor at all.
Then- to comply with the “supervisor’s” suggestion, the increasingly red-faced customer/passenger called Sears “marketing.” From what I overheard, it sounded like he was being read the riot act for not purchasing an “extended warranty.” Customer said something to the effect of “I didn’t choose an extended warranty because I had faith this product would work.”
Sears “marketing” person first suggests this guy call customer “support.” He tells him I did so, but “they told me to call you.” Then this marketing person asks for customer’s phone number- presumably for a callback.
Callback did come, but with customer asked to repeat the whole story over again- for the sixth time, according to my informal count.
Customer did so, but then was told to expect another callback.
At that point, most mercifully, the passenger/frustrated Sears customer’s stop came. He disembarked.
Overarching takeaways:
Why do so few businesses (including telecommunications firms) empower their customer support teams to make decisions?
Why do customer support people lie about the availability and identity of “supervisors?”
Why do supervisors hate to come to the phone even though the caller is asking about an issue that obviously needs to be escalated?
Why does one department of a services company not know what the other is doing, or even which department’s responsibilities are which?
Why don’t customer service, tech support, sales and marketing departments cross-share information about specific customers and their trouble tickets?
October 27th, 2007
Google Patent app describes efficient database storage of Google Maps, Google Earth objects
A new Google Patent application entitled Ranking and Clustering of Geo-Located Objects appears to describe a method in which geographical location objects of the type seen in Google Earth and Google Maps would be more efficiently classified in a database.
This is potentially very helpful for third-party licensors of Google mapping tools, and perhaps even for power mashers who work with these utilities.
From reading the Patent application Abstract and accompanying literature, the problem is more intense than you might think.
Unlike what I usually do with patents, I am going to skip over the Abstact’s arcane (what in the heck is a “leaf node,” anyway?- and go to the areas that are easier to understand.
The literature here notes:
GIS systems can provide particular challenges for proper database design. That is because GIS information does not fit nicely into a single data type that can be stored in one type of flat-file or relational database.
Rather, GIS systems often involve use a variety of data types, such as imagery, maps, and tables. GIS systems may also be very large, such as when they cover a large area and include expansive amounts of information about various points in an area, or cover a very large area like the entire world.
Addressing, topographical, or demographic data for various areas may be stored, and may be fairly large to store. In addition, GIS systems that provide graphical representations of data (such as on a map or a 3D representation of the globe) have even more challenges in organizing data, and storing massive amounts of data.
Graphical data, such as 3D structures to be placed on a geographic representation, such as on Google Maps or Google Earth, may be especially large and unwieldy.
Russell Shaw is an enterprise computing journalist, analyst and author based in Portland, Oregon. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads
- VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
- Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
- Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
Recent Entries
- Russell Shaw, rest in peace
- Sorry, Gizmodo, VoIP over iPhone isn’t going to be “huge”
- Over WiFi at DIA, free speech is DOA
- Exclusive: iPhone DevCamp’s Raven on iPhone SDK and what it means
- Is proprietary iPhone video player on the way?
Blogs From Our Sponsors
Top Rated
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
- Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online - Free Six-Month Trial for Eligible Organizations
-
Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online provides fast online access, simple contact management and better sales performance for a low monthly cost - the best value on the market today.
- Learn more about the free, six-month trial offer>>
- New Online Dashboard for IT Leaders
-
Read about top issues IT decision-makers face every day, plus get cost-effective solutions to real-life IT problems.
- Learn more >>
- Save time with automated shipping solutions
-
The Business Essentials Guide provides you useful tools and templates to help grow your business and save you time with automated shipping solutions.
- Visit the UPS Business Essentials Guide
Archives
ZDNet Blogs
- All About Microsoft
- The Apple Core
- Between the Lines
- BriefingsDirect
- Collaboration 2.0
- Dev Connection
- Digital Cameras & Camcorders
- Ed Bott's Microsoft Report
- Emerging Tech
- Enterprise Web 2.0
- Forrester Research
- Googling Google
- GreenTech Pastures
- Hardware 2.0
- Home Theater
- iGeneration
- Irregular Enterprise
- IT Project Failures
- Laptops & Desktops
- Lawgarithms
- Linux and Open Source
- Managing L'unix
- The Mobile Gadgeteer
- On Sustainability
- Rational Rants
- The Semantic Web
- Service Oriented
- Smartphones and Cell Phones
- Social Business
- Social CRM: The Conversation
- Software & Services Safari
- Software as Services
- Storage Bits
- Team Think
- Tech Broiler
- Technology and the Global Supply Chain
- Tom Foremski: IMHO
- The ToyBox
- Virtually Speaking
- The Web Life
- ZDNet Education
- ZDNet Government
- ZDNet Healthcare
- Zero Day
White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads
- Email Security and Archiving - Clearer in the Cloud Google The time is NOW for businesses and organizations of all sizes to implement ... Download Now
- Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
- Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
SmartPlanet
- Thought-provoking progressive ideas on diverse topics that intersect with technology, business, and life, and matter to the world at large. Visit SmartPlanet
- More from IBM
-
- Innovate your business' process model, play against the market, compete against others on our scoreboards and WIN! Try INNOV8 2.0: A BPM Simulator
- Enabling Real-World Business Transformation through IBM Service Management Read the EMA Analyst Report
