Page 1 of 1

Stupid patents

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:05 am
by alex.barylski
Likely the most popular example of a "bad" patent:

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/ar ... hp/3406551

We have all likely heard about this one in the past, but I figured I would post it again...give it more bad publicity...

I can't believe they'd grant a patent for that...where is the scientifc validity?

Encryption/compression, etc...sure I could understand...but something as obvious, trivial and silly as tabbed browsing...WTF...so stupid...

I've heard Photoshop or dreamweaver...maybe it was 3DSMAX...one of them actually patented a GUI widget they designed... :?

Something to do with tabs as well if I remember correctly...

Wow...that is stupid...like Netflix and it's business model...what a shame

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:09 am
by RobertGonzalez
Just to clarify, the 'Tabbed Browsing' reference in that article is not the event of opening new windows within the browser as a tab, it is talking about the user being able to tab from one link to another within a single web page.

Still a stupid patent, but that is Microsoft for you.

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:02 am
by matthijs
Microsoft (Quote, Chart) has been granted a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on a process known as tabbing through a Web page in order to find links.
Huh? A patent on using the tab-key to go through the links on a page? Do I understand it correctly? Well, sorry everyone who's using his keyboard to navigate through webpages (screenreaders, people not using a mouse, etc): you'll have to start paying for license fees. I say, each tab 10ct. A keylogger will be installed with the next windows update, next week. O wait, maybe even not necessary, we use the ones already there..:)

What I find most interesting: this is no joke. There must be people in the management in microsoft who are seriously busy doing stuff like this.

8O 8O

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:35 am
by feyd
I hate to say it, but patents aren't about scientific endevours. I will agree that most software patents are ridiculous, but you also have to remember that the USPTO for the longest time didn't have any experts in software to understand the applications. Hopefully they go with the open tribunal format that was mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago.

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:39 pm
by alex.barylski
Everah wrote:Just to clarify, the 'Tabbed Browsing' reference in that article is not the event of opening new windows within the browser as a tab, it is talking about the user being able to tab from one link to another within a single web page.

Still a stupid patent, but that is Microsoft for you.
I know, but how silly? Windows has allowed you to tab between controls almost since it's introduction...

So what, if I use the ctrl+tab key it's not patented???

Stupid patent...but it's not even M$'s fault it's the patent office getting lazy or falling victim to big $$$ :P

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:57 pm
by alex.barylski
feyd wrote:I hate to say it, but patents aren't about scientific endevours. I will agree that most software patents are ridiculous, but you also have to remember that the USPTO for the longest time didn't have any experts in software to understand the applications. Hopefully they go with the open tribunal format that was mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago.
It's about protecting a invention, giving the original author X number of years to exclusive rights...

Nothing wrong with that...and please don't say "there is" unless you can prove you've introduced some technology that was patentable but made it completely open source...

Unless you've done that you do not have the right to say patents are silly or worthless...IMHO anyways... :)

Hopefully they go with the open tribunal format that was mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago

If that is how I understand it, whereby a group of development professionals review the idea and grant it a patent...

Well, that almost defeats the purpose...as no problem is difficult once you understand it...

A small group could quickly conclude that an idea isn't patentable, based on the fact the answer is so obvious...it's onlt obvious because the answer has already been supplied...

The best and only way to conduct patent validity would be to propose a problem to a small group of experts and ask for several different solutions, one from each...if they cannot think outside the box and make their solution "different" and only 3 solutions are given and those three solutions are not anything like the patent request.

Under that condition, the patent should be granted as it's clearly a genuine invention...

Thats how I'd do it anyways...

The plaintiff makes a claim he/she has solved a problem...describes the problem and asks a small panel to develop a solution...in a generous period of time (2-3 weeks).

The problem with this approach, is we all know half the problem to problem solving is recognizing there is a problem and then diagnosing the problem...this is often where patents start. So the author could not give many details about the problem...

Anyways...my point is...patents are not bad their just to easily acquired... :P

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:11 pm
by feyd
Hockey wrote:Anyways...my point is...patents are not bad their just to easily acquired... :P
Too easily acquired? I can only assume you've submitted patents then? I haven't myself, but my father submits many patents every year and works on many many more. It's not a simple process by any means and takes a lot of money and a lot of time. Looking for prior art alone takes a VERY long time.

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:18 pm
by alex.barylski
I'm aware the process is time consuming...but it can be reduced by hiring a patent agent or whatever their called, to search for existing patents, etc...

What I meant, was not the process itself but the grounds on which some patents are given are silly...

Business processes, such as Netflix, are not examples of patentable material...it's just silly...I had that exact same idea way before netflix, but I didn't have the contacts, connections, resources, finances to make it a reality... :P

I had an identical idea to mySpace years ago...the point is...i'm sure 100,000 other people did too, they just never acted on it or didn't have the resources to get it off the ground...

Tabbing through hyerlinks, etc...such a petty patent request, but they still got it - so clearly the grounds on which they are granted need some serious landscaping :P

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:29 pm
by feyd
Patent agents don't help too much, they just do the search instead of you. The only bonus is they know how to read the patents and weed out the similar ones faster than you or I could due to experience in doing just that.

Someone having an idea does not constitute prior art. You have to act on it and get it documented with credible certainty. That in itself isn't difficult, but making the art known to others of authority is more difficult.

Many companies practice in what's called defensive patenting. They will pursue patentable ideas and solutions they come up with even if it has no similarity to their core business, they will also get patents that they do not intend to use just to control it and divert their competitors attention (a fake-out as it were.)

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:44 pm
by RobertGonzalez
I think in Microsofts case they gather patents because: 1) they can afford to, and 2) might actually have a plan in place for years and years down the road. They think long term and they think globally. This could very well be part of a bigger thing for them years from now.