Some sort of patent application on emoticon transportation

[Engineer]

.
Original article (relinked)

 

[Anubis]

how is that even legal

 

[x04d DaY]

They can't win that...
It's something that anyone could have come up with at any given time. And if I recall correctly, you can't patent such a thing.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Check the google ads out on this page, lmao

 

[mchammer187]

they were not granted a patent 20050156873 means it is a Publication of a Patent Application not a Patent that was granted

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: mchammer187
they were not granted a patent 20050156873 means it is a Publication of a Patent Application not a Patent that was granted

Exactly, it's not even a patent yet. It will probably be rejected accordingly.

Information here Notice the Status of the case

 

[Engineer]

Edited to reflect. The following quote

The patent, which was published by the US patent office on Thursday, covers selecting pixels to create an emoticon image, assigning a character sequence to these pixels and reconstructing the emoticon after transmission.

led me to believe that it was a true patent (since it was publihsed).

Let's hope this burns in flames! :evil:

 

[11thHour]

Microsoft is doing its best to show everyone they are like an out of control disease, and must be avoided whenever possible. Great for business, huh?

 

[state 08]

:disgust::|:Q:frown::heart::brokenheart::beer::music::wine::lips::camera::gift:

:evil::clock::light::sun::moon::roll::laugh::shocked::thumbsup::thumbsdown:

 

[MisterJackson]

In other news, Bill Gates was reported as saying: " "

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: state 08
:disgust::|:Q:frown::heart::brokenheart::beer::music::wine::lips::camera::gift:

:evil::clock::light::sun::moon::roll::laugh::shocked::thumbsup::thumbsdown:

Better get it out of your system now before the real bill arrives! ;-)

 

[Lonyo]

I don't see how they can patent it. Don't they have to have invented it or something?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I don't see how they can patent it. Don't they have to have invented it or something?

Actually, copyright would be more appropriate, but did microshaft create them to begin with?

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I don't see how they can patent it. Don't they have to have invented it or something?

Actually, copyright would be more appropriate, but did microshaft create them to begin with?

it doesnt matter if they did or not but most likely they didn't

since it was filed in January 04

if they were in Public Use or sale prior to January 03 (1 year before filing)

it will be rejected on that basis

 

[bsobel]

You folks in OT like the smilies? I guess we'll all have to pony up to M$ if we want to continue. A fvcked up patent if I've ever saw one. *bah*

The actual patent, if you read it, is about a technique to transfer and use custom user made emoticons from place to another. In existing IM systems (and here) all of the emoticons are pre-defined by the system, you can't add your own. The MS scheme is a way to allow users to define their own and then transfer them over a text based system.

Saying they are trying to patent the smiley is a downright lie and just done to hype up the anti-ms rhetoric.

For you prior art folks, anyone know of a system for user defined emoticons from prior to 2004?

I'm not saying if I think they should recieve this patent or not, but if your going to complain, at least try to understand what it is your complaining about.

Bill

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: state 08
:disgust::|:Q:frown::heart::brokenheart::beer::music::wine::lips::camera::gift:

:evil::clock::light::sun::moon::roll::laugh::shocked::thumbsup::thumbsdown:

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: 11thHour
Microsoft is doing its best to show everyone they are like an out of control disease, and must be avoided whenever possible. Great for business, huh?

I don't think they're hurting.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I don't see how they can patent it. Don't they have to have invented it or something?

Well, you should read the actualy filing. Not the lies being told here. The patent doesn't cover the 'smiley' as the simple folks want you to believe.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I don't see how they can patent it. Don't they have to have invented it or something?

Well, you should read the actualy filing. Not the lies being told here. The patent doesn't cover the 'smiley' as the simple folks want you to believe.

The "lies" here (as you call them) are from the Zdnet article, not me. I didn't take the time to search for a petent. Sorry if I don't do a research paper on every article I read!

I guess the simple folks are at ZDnet!

:roll:

 

[david46675]

i dont think u can really patent the use of a little picture...

 

[bsobel]

I didn't take the time to search for a petent. Sorry if I don't do a research paper on every article I read!

Really, then how do you decide it's worth crossposting?

Originally posted by dmcowen674 in P&N but worth posting here!

I mean, if it's worth posting here, we'd like to think it would be true. I mean, why would Dave posting something that isn't factually correct?

Since you posted it, why don't you go read it and draw your own conclusions. ZDnet may have posted the original acticle, but your the one telling people "Don't post that smiley unless you want to pay M$?". Are you saying you just hopped on the bandwagon and had no idea what you were chearleading against?

Bill

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I didn't take the time to search for a petent. Sorry if I don't do a research paper on every article I read!

Really, then how do you decide it's worth crossposting?

Originally posted by dmcowen674 in P&N but worth posting here!

I mean, if it's worth posting here, we'd like to think it would be true. I mean, why would Dave posting something that isn't factually correct?

Since you posted it, why don't you go read it and draw your own conclusions. ZDnet may have posted the original acticle, but your the one telling people "Don't post that smiley unless you want to pay M$?". Are you saying you just hopped on the bandwagon and had no idea what you were chearleading against?

Bill

Like I said, sorry for not keeping your high standards on researching ZDnet articles, a well known technology and PC source.

My "worth" of posting it was the ZDnet name, nothing to do with dmcowen in P&N.

 

[bsobel]

ZDnet articles, a well known technology and PC source.

It was ZDNet.UK after all

Serously, did you click thru and read the patent (at least the summary). I think you'll see what MS is doing is different from what we have here and in IM clients. (Again, not saying this should be granted, but the debate should be over the merits and novelty of the invention [if any] not from the claims made in the article).

 

[sonz70]

Why did you clear the OP?

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I didn't take the time to search for a petent. Sorry if I don't do a research paper on every article I read!

Really, then how do you decide it's worth crossposting?

Originally posted by dmcowen674 in P&N but worth posting here!

I mean, if it's worth posting here, we'd like to think it would be true. I mean, why would Dave posting something that isn't factually correct?

Since you posted it, why don't you go read it and draw your own conclusions. ZDnet may have posted the original acticle, but your the one telling people "Don't post that smiley unless you want to pay M$?". Are you saying you just hopped on the bandwagon and had no idea what you were chearleading against?

Bill

i am looking at the patent right now and there are at least claiming an emoticon

and they claim the system you speak of as well

so there application may not be completely bogus but this part definitely is

claim 1:

a method comprising selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon
assigning a character sequence to the pixels;
transmitting the character sequence toa llow for reconstructino of the pixels at the destination



claims are what an applicant is trying to protect