Patents

Blue Jeans v Goliath

This entry was posted in Patents on by

Patents that should not be are one of the great rent seeking devices of our time.
Reading this lengthy response to a patent infringement claim by Monster Cable against Blue Jeans Cable is a delicious experience. It starts with:

Dear Monster Lawyers,
Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster’s, in form or in function, the better.

and gets better and better.

Via Megan.

No prior art?

This entry was posted in Patents on by

Microsoft has just been awarded another stupid patent:

Microsoft has successfully patented using short, long or double clicks to launch different applications on “limited resource computing devices”
How long did it take you to think of a code that used short, long or multiple iterations of some symbol or activity to represent something or initiate an action?
All I can say is -… ..- .-.. .-.. … …. .. – (go here to translate).
Via the Apostropher.

Good News on the pretend Patent Front

This entry was posted in Economics Intellectual Property Internet Patents on by

The key here is not that M$ may be off a $521 million hook. No, it is simply that the patent office invalidated the Eolas patent (also known as the 906 patent):

A system allowing a user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia system to access and execute an embedded program object.

This patent should not have been awarded in the first place. Not only is there substantial prior art but this type of software process patent should not qualify for a patent. Yea, I know the patent office has been granting these types of patents but, come on, let’s restrict patents to things that take, say, a bit of originality and genius. Not things that your average programmer or system analyst knocks out routinely.
Via mozillaZine.

More Patent Crap

This entry was posted in Patents on by

Frank Weyer was awarded patent 6,671,714 which again shows the illiteracy (to be nice) of the folks at the US Patent Office.
As noted at geek.com this patent:

… describes what is essentially one of the most basic, most crucial underlying structures of the World Wide Web, namely the domain naming system.

And if not exactly the domain naming system then certainly RFC 1034 (1987) adequately demonstrates prior art (assuming stuff like this should even be allowed a patent).
It appears that this dude simply figured out how to create enough obfuscatory language to deceive the patent droids.
Via Catallarchy.