• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

U.S. Patent Insanity Thread:8-23-05 Congress to address Patent quality

dmcowen674

No Lifer
I can't find my Patent Insanity thread so had to start a new one.

The Republicans in here continue to laugh at my likening the spate of Corporate and Government control of everything including the Internet to the likes of China or 1930's Europe but the evidence gets more clear everyday supporting what I see.

I would use the sad smiley but Microsoft just got a Patent that they now own Emoticons so everyone will have to pay Microsoft to use them:

7-23-2005 Microsoft frowned at for smiley patent

A software patent filed by Microsoft in the US has been described as 'very dangerous'

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.

Mark Taylor, the executive director of the Open Source Consortium, said on Friday said this is such a basic concept that he would not have been surprised to see it posted as a fictional patent on a technology site.

"I would have expected to see something like this suggested by one of our more immature community members as a joke on Slashdot, and probably would have chuckled at the absurdity of the notion. We now appear to be living in a world where even the most laughable paranoid fantasies about commercially controlling simple social concepts are being outdone in the real world by well-funded armies of lawyers on behalf of some of the most powerful companies on the planet," said Taylor.

He said the patent could be particularly problematic as it covers basic human communication. "Emoticons are a form of language, and a precedent allowing patenting of language constructs is very dangerous indeed," said Taylor.

Microsoft was unable to comment in time for this article.

The Microsoft patent that organisations are concerned about is patent number 20050156873, which was filed in January 2004.

 
:frown:

<---- Opens checkbook to pay for the above usage! *bah*

That is a bullsh!t patent.

"It is unfortunately quite clear such patents have nothing to do with protecting investments nor R&D, and only with obtaining exclusion rights which can help them [Microsoft] maintain their dominant position in the market," said Maebe.



Such patents are in contradiction to the original purpose of the patent system, according to Maebe's colleague at the FFII, Felipe Wersen.



"Patents were ultimately designed to benefit society ? to have companies disclose things that benefit society which they wouldn't otherwise disclose. Who does this patent benefit?" said Wersen.

Uhh...yep!
 
Oh yeah, this is going to work. It wasn't granted, just filed, as far as I can tell. Anybody at the patent office with half a brain will look around and see that not only are emoticons in widespread use, part of language really, but that MS almost certainly didn't "invent" them.
 
Microsoft just got a Patent that they now own Emoticons

Dave, try to not just completely make up facts, mmmmkay? Microsoft FILED for a patent, Microsoft did not have a patent GRANTED. Heck, you could file a patent around the technique were to take any news story and spin it against Bush. Doesn't mean it would be GRANTED. Of course, I doubt you read the filing (has big words in it). Since you said you had to pay MS for the sad emoticon it's clear you have no idea what was actually filed.

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 one 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
 
Originally posted by: conjur
WTF? What about the ascii smilies? Those have been in use for YEARS.

See my response. The filing has nothing to do with those (or the smileys used here, etc). You should be proud of the post, Dave took a wrong position from the start and (like you and Comcast) I'm sure will defend it to the death.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: conjur
WTF? What about the ascii smilies? Those have been in use for YEARS.

See my response. The filing has nothing to do with those (or the smileys used here, etc). You should be proud of the post, Dave took a wrong position from the start and (like you and Comcast) I'm sure will defend it to the death.

He (and I in OT) took it from the Zdnet article. I guess we all need to do a research paper on every article written before posting. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: conjur
WTF?

What about the ascii smilies? Those have been in use for YEARS.

They shouldn't be affected but we would have to revert back to Text based BBS.

I'm sure the leagues of Lawyers would find ways to gain control over the Text based systems in short order anyway.


 
He (and I in OT) took it from the Zdnet article. I guess we all need to do a research paper on every article written before posting. :roll:

Like I said "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?"

 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: conjur
WTF? What about the ascii smilies? Those have been in use for YEARS.

See my response. The filing has nothing to do with those (or the smileys used here, etc). You should be proud of the post, Dave took a wrong position from the start and (like you and Comcast) I'm sure will defend it to the death.

It's pretty obvious you have a personal interest in Microsoft too.

Could the fact your name is Bill be not a coincidence?

Are you Bill Gates???
 
It's pretty obvious you have a personal interest in Microsoft too.

Microsoft is one of our biggest competitors. So, not sure (other than that) what my personal interest is (I don't own any stock in Microsoft or anything like that). I just don't lke it when people misrepresent the facts (you know, your hobby). In this case ZDnet (IMHO) really misinterpreted what was filed. Have you even read the filing? Do you really think it covers the sad emoticon you wanted to use?

Bill
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
He (and I in OT) took it from the Zdnet article. I guess we all need to do a research paper on every article written before posting. :roll:

Like I said "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?"

I hopped on the bandwagon of a respected technology newsource, ZDnet. I'll remove the fvcking thing if it makes you happy. I'm not anti M$ (as I think they do a good job overall on their products especially considering the choices of hardware and software required to mesh together in a typical PC). I'm anti Bullsh!t and this article made it sould like bullsh!t. Happy now?
 
I'll remove the fvcking thing if it makes you happy. I'm not anti M$ (as I think they do a good job overall on their products). I'm anti Bullsh!t and this article made it sould like bullsh!t. Happy now?

Engineer, sorry, I had construed that you were buying this hook-line-sinker based on your 'paying M$' comment. I probably also reflected my general annoyance at Dave (a guy you often finds interesting articles to discuss and then completely ruins them with his venom) towards you. I responded in the other post, my only request was to read the summary of the actual patent and tell me your thoughts. Maybe I'm reading it completely wrong, but I've worked with patents enough that this does seem like they are going after something 'different' from the prior art. As I stated in OT, I'm not saying they deserve to get the patent, I defer to the USPTO, I have alot of respect for the examiners over there.

Bill

 
Originally posted by: bsobel
I'll remove the fvcking thing if it makes you happy. I'm not anti M$ (as I think they do a good job overall on their products). I'm anti Bullsh!t and this article made it sould like bullsh!t. Happy now?

Engineer, sorry, I had construed that you were buying this hook-line-sinker based on your 'paying M$' comment. I probably also reflected my general annoyance at Dave (a guy you often finds interesting articles to discuss and then completely ruins them with his venom) towards you. I responded in the other post, my only request was to read the summary of the actual patent and tell me your thoughts. Maybe I'm reading it completely wrong,

but I've worked with patents enough that this does seem like they are going after something 'different' from the prior art.

As I stated in OT, I'm not saying they deserve to get the patent, I defer to the USPTO,
I have alot of respect for the examiners over there.
Bill

Why am I not surprised your love for the idiots at the USPTO.

They have been granting idiotic Patents since 2001. Coincidence, I think not.

Updated Thread Title, happy now?? Probably not.
 
Why am I not surprised your love for the idiots at the USPTO. They have been granting idiotic Patents since 2001. Coincidence, I think not.

Dave, I love how when your shown to be wrong all you can do is try to change the argument and attack the poster or something about the government. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Updated Thread Title, happy now?? Probably not.

What's differents it's still listed as "U.S. Patent Insanity Thread:7-23-05 Microsoft granted Patent for "Transmitable" Emoticons" Which is still false since there was no patent granted.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Why am I not surprised your love for the idiots at the USPTO. They have been granting idiotic Patents since 2001. Coincidence, I think not.

Dave, I love how when your shown to be wrong all you can do is try to change the argument and attack the poster or something about the government. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Updated Thread Title, happy now?? Probably not.

What's differents it's still listed as "U.S. Patent Insanity Thread:7-23-05 Microsoft granted Patent for "Transmitable" Emoticons" Which is still false since there was no patent granted.

Well as Steve Martin would say "Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me".

What differnce doies it make that it was filed? The way the USPTO Office has been granting the Patents it's as good as a done deal already and that is the point of my thread and the post on this.

Now who's attacking the poster and not the subject??? 😕

If you're not Bill Gates then you must be a Patent Examiner or you certainly beenfit personally from the Patent Examiners.


 
What differnce doies it make that it was filed? The way the USPTO Office has been granting the Patents it's as good as a done deal already and that is the point of my thread and the post on this.

That is completely false, the USPTO rejects a heck of a lot of patents. Your post is wrong, but all you can do is make excuses for it.

If you're not Bill Gates then you must be a Patent Examiner or you certainly beenfit personally from the Patent Examiners.

Lets see now... Your wrong, so the person pointing it out must have a vested interest somehow.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bsobel
Why am I not surprised your love for the idiots at the USPTO. They have been granting idiotic Patents since 2001. Coincidence, I think not.

Dave, I love how when your shown to be wrong all you can do is try to change the argument and attack the poster or something about the government. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Updated Thread Title, happy now?? Probably not.

What's differents it's still listed as "U.S. Patent Insanity Thread:7-23-05 Microsoft granted Patent for "Transmitable" Emoticons" Which is still false since there was no patent granted.

Well as Steve Martin would say "Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me".

What differnce doies it make that it was filed? The way the USPTO Office has been granting the Patents it's as good as a done deal already and that is the point of my thread and the post on this.

Now who's attacking the poster and not the subject??? 😕

If you're not Bill Gates then you must be a Patent Examiner or you certainly beenfit personally from the Patent Examiners.

You're obviosuly have no idea how patent process works. Not that I'm surprised.
 
Originally posted by: AnyMal
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bsobel
Why am I not surprised your love for the idiots at the USPTO. They have been granting idiotic Patents since 2001. Coincidence, I think not.

Dave, I love how when your shown to be wrong all you can do is try to change the argument and attack the poster or something about the government. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Updated Thread Title, happy now?? Probably not.

What's differents it's still listed as "U.S. Patent Insanity Thread:7-23-05 Microsoft granted Patent for "Transmitable" Emoticons" Which is still false since there was no patent granted.

Well as Steve Martin would say "Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me".

What differnce doies it make that it was filed? The way the USPTO Office has been granting the Patents it's as good as a done deal already and that is the point of my thread and the post on this.

Now who's attacking the poster and not the subject??? 😕

If you're not Bill Gates then you must be a Patent Examiner or you certainly beenfit personally from the Patent Examiners.

You're obviosuly have no idea how patent process works. Not that I'm surprised.

You are oblivious that the Patent process is broken and corrupt, why am I not surprised.
 
it's as good as a done deal already and that is the point of my thread and the post on this.

For a moment, let's say your belief is correct and this is as good as a done deal. The patent, even if granted, doesn't cover what your claiming. You see, you said "I would use the sad Emoticon but I would now have to pay Microsoft" The patent has nothing to do with that. So, what was the point of the thread again other than your usual ranting?

 
You're obviosuly have no idea how patent process works. Not that I'm surprised.
You are oblivious that the Patent process is broken and corrupt, why am I not surprised.

Wow, AnyMal, that gotta sting. You see how Dave cleverly took what you wrote, and then rerranged the words adding unsubstantiated claims and sprinkled a little ignorance on top. That verbal assault must make you want to cry.... :roll:


 
Originally posted by: bsobel
it's as good as a done deal already and that is the point of my thread and the post on this.

For a moment, let's say your belief is correct and this is as good as a done deal. The patent, even if granted, doesn't cover what your claiming. You see, you said "I would use the sad Emoticon but I would now have to pay Microsoft" The patent has nothing to do with that. So, what was the point of the thread again other than your usual ranting?

Shirley you have to be joking. This system takes characters like : and ) , put them together and on this end we see this 🙂

This system would have to pay Microsoft for said usage.
 
Shirley you have to be joking. This system takes characters like : and ) , put them together and on this end we see this 🙂

No, thats not what the system does. Since your carrying on, have you attempted to read the actual patent or my earlier post describing whats it's actually about?

This system would have to pay Microsoft for said usage.

That is a complete falsehood.

Bill

 
Originally posted by: bsobel
You're obviosuly have no idea how patent process works. Not that I'm surprised.
You are oblivious that the Patent process is broken and corrupt, why am I not surprised.

Wow, AnyMal, that gotta sting. You see how Dave cleverly took what you wrote, and then rerranged the words adding unsubstantiated claims and sprinkled a little ignorance on top. That verbal assault must make you want to cry.... :roll:

I had to weep in the corner for a few, but am better now, though still a bit shaken. Notice how he managed to squeeze a "Republican" in the OP :laugh: Sometimes I'm not sure whether to :laugh: or 🙁 at his comments. What's realy 🙁 is that some people take him seriously.
 
Notice how, even when proven wrong, he won't bother to update the thread description or revoke the misinformation he posted....
 
Back
Top