Patent Insanity thread:11-19-06 Patent Office gives Microsoft Patent for PC based Telephone interface

[magomago]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CPA
That damn Bush and the Republican Adminstration........

I actually do blame them.

The past 5 years by the USPTO Office under their watch has been beyond words.

They are Pro-Business at all costs and this is further proof.

No...they are not inherently pro business.
Patent lawyers working for the USPO are notiriously the crappiest ones out there simply because they have loads of work and don't get paid much. The Patent office is one of the only parts of government that actually makes a profit, but they really don't get to enjoy the revenue that they do bring in so they are always hurting for cash...which is why they still are in that same building that you would NEVER think is something as important as the patent office. They tried to attract better people by introducing the idea that the more patents you can process, the more money you make in an attempt to promote effiency. However, all it led to was patent officers doing an even more sloppy job and trying to split up patents into 2-3 parts just to make money on what otherwise is simply one patent.
On top of it, they never really analyze a claim. Standard protocol now is to run a quick search, and then without really analyzing each patent, bring up 5-6 patents that LOOK to contradict your application and make a paragraph on BS for each. My boss has had to go through this many times, and I've had to search through his junk and read it when he was too lazy to Its amazing how in certain instances it doesn't even look they gave a damn.

My guess is cisco worked like that: they got a standard "sorry this patent violates everything" letter, and resubmitted stating WHY it didn't violate...and the guy gave them a pass without really thinking about it.

Besides, the Japanese have patented essentially patented water earth and fire a million times in the US, why can't cisco patent the transmission of everything

 

[Rainsford]

Either I'm the only person in this thread who knows how to read a patent, or I'm the only person in this thread who DOESN'T know how the read a patent. In any case, reading Cisco's patent does not leave me with the impression that they are patenting "everything transmitted". What the patent appears to be for is a specific way to set up an integrated IP network that does voice, video and data over a common protocol, described in a fair amount of detail below the abstract. This is becoming a HUGE development sector, many companies have many competing ideas on how to set this sort of thing up. Reading it at the very broadest, Cisco's patent is for the "common protocol" idea, and even that is rather questionable. I did not give the patent a comprehensive read, but it really looks like just a specific way to set up the common IP framework, it's too specific to cover other frameworks and protocols being developed by many, MANY other companies.

I'm not saying the patent system is perfect, I think some truly stupid patents are granted...but I'm not sure this is one of them.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Either I'm the only person in this thread who knows how to read a patent, or I'm the only person in this thread who DOESN'T know how the read a patent. In any case, reading Cisco's patent does not leave me with the impression that they are patenting "everything transmitted". What the patent appears to be for is a specific way to set up an integrated IP network that does voice, video and data over a common protocol, described in a fair amount of detail below the abstract. This is becoming a HUGE development sector, many companies have many competing ideas on how to set this sort of thing up. Reading it at the very broadest, Cisco's patent is for the "common protocol" idea, and even that is rather questionable. I did not give the patent a comprehensive read, but it really looks like just a specific way to set up the common IP framework, it's too specific to cover other frameworks and protocols being developed by many, MANY other companies.

I'm not saying the patent system is perfect, I think some truly stupid patents are granted...but I'm not sure this is one of them.

SOME?

To be onest, I didn't read the patent...but was just commenting on Dave's comment in general. I don't think I actually replied on topic to the Cisco issue itself

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who thinks that the Patent Office has gotten worse in the past decade or so must be completely ignorant of the patent frauds and fortunes of Jerome Lemelson.

Lemelson is certainly a noteworthy INDIVIDUAL. I think the larger discussion is about the general dysfunction at the USPTO that not only allows extraordinary individuals to cause problems but corporations as well.

Further, Lemelson has been dead for nearly a decade. The USPTO BS about genes, one-clicks, and light beams in urine are amongst the flood of patents (many international) that have come in the past decade . . . and curiously NOT rejected.

His surviving family still receives considerable income from his "patents."

 

[Snooper]

Originally posted by: HarveyI can tell you that the requirements for obtaining a patent are that the invention must be new, useful and UNOBVIOUS.

And that is exactly the problem Harvey. While the REQUIREMENTS might be all well and good, the USPTO has gone totally freaking nuts with granting patents on the stupidest, most obvious things imaginable. Heck, just the IDEA of patening software is absurb by definition: If the person(s) that created the instruction set didn't have the "stuff" in there that you need to use to create your software, you couldn't do it. And that goes right up the chain through APIs and compilers/IDE as well. So almost by definition, NOTHING created in software is unobvious.

Save copyright for software and patent for hardware. The way it was meant to be.

 

[sandmanwake]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Either I'm the only person in this thread who knows how to read a patent, or I'm the only person in this thread who DOESN'T know how the read a patent. In any case, reading Cisco's patent does not leave me with the impression that they are patenting "everything transmitted". What the patent appears to be for is a specific way to set up an integrated IP network that does voice, video and data over a common protocol, described in a fair amount of detail below the abstract. This is becoming a HUGE development sector, many companies have many competing ideas on how to set this sort of thing up. Reading it at the very broadest, Cisco's patent is for the "common protocol" idea, and even that is rather questionable. I did not give the patent a comprehensive read, but it really looks like just a specific way to set up the common IP framework, it's too specific to cover other frameworks and protocols being developed by many, MANY other companies.

I'm not saying the patent system is perfect, I think some truly stupid patents are granted...but I'm not sure this is one of them.

Lets just say that you're closer to knowing how to read a patent than the OP is.

Oh, I found this: http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/14/cisco-patents-the-triple-play/

Dave, you should try reading some of the comments by Pete L on the site I posted above.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who thinks that the Patent Office has gotten worse in the past decade or so must be completely ignorant of the patent frauds and fortunes of Jerome Lemelson.

Lemelson is certainly a noteworthy INDIVIDUAL. I think the larger discussion is about the general dysfunction at the USPTO that not only allows extraordinary individuals to cause problems but corporations as well.

Further, Lemelson has been dead for nearly a decade. The USPTO BS about genes, one-clicks, and light beams in urine are amongst the flood of patents (many international) that have come in the past decade . . . and curiously NOT rejected.

His surviving family still receives considerable income from his "patents."

And the Hilton's are extremely wealthy despite the fact the old man wanted virtually all of his fortune to go to charity. Crappy people do crappy things and the government rarely stands up for the best interests of the public . . . just those with money and connections. Welcome to America . . . it sux.

 

[dmcowen674]

More insanity on the part of the U.S. Patent whackos:

11-19-2006 MS Patents the "Digital Browser Phone"

"This sounds like an invention that has been invented many times before (e.g. Skype). Yet on October 10, 2006 MS was granted a patent for a 'digital browser phone.'

The patent was filed on Feb. 25, 2000. Here's the abstract:

'A telephone system wherein all the functions of a digital telephone can be accessed and implemented on a personal computer alone, thereby eliminating the need for a telephone set.

By means of the computer display and mouse, keyboard or other input/output command devices, a user accesses and implement all digital telephone functions without the physical telephone set, the personal computer also providing the audio function.

A graphical representation of a telephone set or other telephone-related form is provided on the computer display and accessed by the mouse, keyboard or other command device, this being accomplished by a computer program providing graphical interface implementation.

A significant advantage of the system is computer access to and utilization of digital telephone functions from a remote location with communication via Internet, LAN, WAN, RAS or other mediums.'"
=================================================
In other words, Microsoft now own the rights to all communications via PC.

First they give Cisco all rights to all packets transmitted and now this.

The USPTO needs a serious kick in the ass and yesterday.

 

[sandmanwake]

Once again dmcowen674 re-enforces my belief that he is in actuality a Republican agent paid to pose as a liberal on the Internet.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Once again dmcowen674 re-enforces my belief that he is in actuality a Republican agent paid to pose as a liberal on the Internet.

Really? How much am I supposed to be getting paid???

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Once again dmcowen674 re-enforces my belief that he is in actuality a Republican agent paid to pose as a liberal on the Internet.

Really? How much am I supposed to be getting paid???

Posts per gallon

 

[conjur]

<--- still kicking his own ass for not patenting instant messaging back in 1994

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur


<--- still kicking his own ass for not patenting instant messaging back in 1994

It's OK - I lost out on the Bingo computers 1992 - I had the application & the displays - could not come up with the connection to the main system. Indian bingo halls did not think people would want to give up the paper markers.

 

[WiseOldDude]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Blackboard sucks btw.

It sucks, and it blows, and it smells really bad.

I teach at a community college which updated to the latest and so called greatest version of Blackboard, v7.1. Gawd this is awful, to be as version is it like a beta with features not working yet, buggy as hell (dumps test answers when the student clicks "save" to save their answers, and is a total pain in the ass to maintain from an instructors point of view. When I agreed to use it this semester I expected a mature and sophisticated product, and ended up with buggy, limited, and clumsy piece of crap.

I'm going back to doing it all on my webpage next semester, as while not as easy I can do more and do it a hell of a lot quicker.

 

[blackangst1]

LOL at Microsoft title and reading about Cisco LOL