17 comments

• 

  wow, another great patent

  3 years ago

  First, it's hard to feel sorry for Microsoft. But before some readers assume that I'm "anti-Microsoft", I should say that I use Microsoft products on a daily basis, I like some of their products, and I even recommend them on occasion.
  
  

  At any rate. I examined this patent and I can't find anything that seems novel. Certainly the chaining of systems or the inter-operability of systems isn't novel. I gather that this IDIOT from Guatemala for some reason thinks he's figured out something that no one else can grasp; that's why his patent includes so much noise and general by-product of food eaten by a bull.
  
  

  These novelties are called features. They're obvious to any developer worth his or her salt. This Guatemalan Pusbag and/or his attornies obviously blinded the judge with jargon. I think this happens a lot in patent filings and during patent litigation.
  
  

  My pretend patent description.
  
  

  When stored in hardware, such as a CDROM or hard disk drive, the resources are in a storage context. When the human operator activates the user agent, these resources are loaded into memory on the playback device.
  

  There, I just created a completely jargonized description of a file stored on a CDROM or hard disk and what might happen when the user loads the file from storage memory into RAM. Wow! Isn't that a super-neato-technical description. This certainly "sounds" novel to someone who is not significantly computer literate, but then again, it might sound novel to the programmer in the cubicle next to mine. It depends on whether or not the neighboring programmer understands the jargon. And remember ... I wrote my example in two minutes. If I spent a year or more, I'm sure I could decompose this into utter nonsense and be granted a patent.
  
  

  And perhaps if I were a Mr. Bull Fecal Matter from Guatemala, and/or any other holder of a software patent, I might decide that using jargon makes me sound smarter than I really am and certainly looks better on a patent application. Therefore, if I were a Mr. Puke Vomit from Guatemala, I would use as much jargon as possible. That way I could describe basic, boring, and non-unique ideas in a way that sounded unique.
  
  

  Has anyone ever seen the movie Brokedown Palace? There is a scene where the two female characters are asked to provide statements. Later, they are asked to sign these statements, and ... SURPRISE ... the statements have been transcribed in Thai. Of course, neither of the women speaks or reads Thai and they have no idea what they are signing. Trouble ensues. Etc, etc, etc.
  
  

  That's what's going on in the patent office. These patents contain so much jargon that they might as well be written in Thai. So Mr. Bull Fecal Matter Vomit Puke from Guatemala was obviously granted this patent because the reviewer simply didn't understand the jargon.
  
  

  I've said it before. Software patents are going to seriously damage the software industry. While I might seem to treat Mr. Bull Fecal Matter Vomit Puke with unnecessary disdain, I would invite the audience to remember that their jobs are on the line. And not just the programmers in the audience. This patent noise, and we're only seeing the opening volleys in what is sure to be an INSANE war, is going to wreck havoc on the industry.
  
  

  It's basic economics. While vigorous head-to-head competition actually destroys some value in any given industry, consumers benefit and markets are opened. These new markets open additional markets and so forth. In addition to the chilling effect on innovation, software patents are going to damage competition. I think software patent holders like Mr. Bull Fecal Matter Vomit Puke are simply afraid to compete. Competition is scary, I'll give you that, but a market with reduced competition...that's even scarier. It's really interesting to think about what the word "free market" means when framed in the patent debate. Software patents will destroy the free market, and give us instead a market regulated by judges and government officials who know a lot about the law and nothing about software.
  
  
• 

  Steve R.

  3 years ago

  I am still left with a fundamental problem of what was theoretically patented. If the "product" description was simply a schematic of linked "black boxes" backed up by excruciating abstract narrative, then I fail to see how any patent could have been granted as the product would constitute "vaporware" since it only exists as a concept.
  
  Now if Mr. Amada actually wrote real code for that successfully integrated a spreadsheet and database there may be an excuse for Mr. Amada to receive a royalty based copyright law provided that Microsoft "borrowed" his code. However, if Microsoft simply reversed engineered this concept, Mr. Amada would not be entitled to anything.
• 

  Steve R.

  3 years ago

  PS: You are correct to say that assemblying existing features into a package would not be worthy of a patent.
• 

  Anonymous

  3 years ago

  In response to your comment, where you said "I am still left with a fundamental problem of what was theoretically patented."
  
  

  That is basically my entire point. The patent is so full of jargon that certainly a patent examiner is going to have trouble determining what it means. I think many/most patents rely on the use of obfuscation via jargon, in an attempt to purposefully create the mistaken impression that their "ideas are unique".
  
  

  I also agree with your point about "borrowed code". Code borrowing would qualify for a royalty. I wonder what's going to happen if/when people start patenting more medical procedures. Does that mean that only certain hospital would be allowed to perform certain combinations of life-saving treatments? I wonder if this is aleady a problem.
  
  

  By the logic of most software patent holders, combination therapy for illnesses can be patented. Scary.com.
  
  

  More vomit, more vomit, more vomit.
• 

  fishbane

  3 years ago

  Don't most computing devices operate more efficiently than a Turing machine?
  
  Depends on whether your referent is an actual replication of the device Turing imagined (physical tapes and all), or more generally a member of the class of devices which are functionally indentical to a Turing machine.
  
  In the first place, yes, in the second, no.
  
  Sorry to be pendantic, but you did say is was an aside for geeks...
• 

  ted

  3 years ago

  The comment in the patent about Turing Equivalence is actually quite damning.
  
  Practically every modern programming language/paradigm is "turing complete." And thus, technically, there is no more powerful computer than a Turing Computer -- it can compute anything that is computable. This isn't a performance claim, it's an expressability claim.
  
  The reason this is somewhat damning, is because of the so-called doctrine of equivalence. The doctrine of equivalence is usually used by a patent holder to broaden the scope of infringement, giving patent holders the right to claim not only inventions that work as described, but ones that work in an 'equivalent' manner.
  
  The problem here is that Amado is claiming he has invented a turing machine equivalent, and Turing machines have been around since when, about 1930? So not only is this a prima facie admittal that he knew he wasn't doing something new, but also an insanely broad description of the "full power" of his invention.
  
  The fact that the examiner didn't reject a patent with such obviously bad claims (any 2nd year CS student understands this garbage) is a damning statement of how expert USPTO examiners really are.
• 

  Bruce

  3 years ago

  The Supreme Court just granted cert. on the very issue you discuss in this post.
• 

  Bruce

  3 years ago

  Drat, bad link, this is where I was trying to send you: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/06/supreme_court_g.html
• 

  angry dude

  2 years ago

  Idiots !
  
  If you can't read and understand the patent in question just say so...
  
  Mr. Amado is not some poor peasant from Guatemala trying to blackmail MShit.
  he was a Stanford Ph.D. student when he came up with his very clever way of linking spreadsheet and database progams.
  
  You are just complete morons, leave Mr. Amado alone ...
• 

  gay monster cocks

  2 years ago

  1edb79f8cc5c Hello! http://tjek.nu/l- gay monster cocks
  http://tiny2go.com/5dk?go playboy centerfolds
  http://tiny2go.com/5du?go teen pussy fucking
  http://tiny2go.com/5df?go sexy asses
  http://sexmovies.I89.us free gay sex movies
  http://tjek.nu/lo double dildo
  http://tjek.nu/m1 sexy horny moms
  http://tjek.nu/lq hairy vagina
  http://www.whak.com/off/?337 blow jobs
  http://hotchicks.I89.us naked hot chicks
• 

  tramadol

  2 years ago

  81e31de21f46 My homepage http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol
• 

  Sten63980

  2 years ago

  I haven't been up to anything these days. So it goes. I can't be bothered with anything these days.
• 

  Sten85225

  2 years ago

  I just don't have much to say these days, but so it goes. Today was a total loss. I guess it doesn't bother me.
• 

  Sten92020

  2 years ago

  I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven't gotten much done today.
• 

  Sten42105

  2 years ago

  I haven't gotten anything done recently. I've just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven't been up to anything these days, but it's not important. Today was a total loss.
• 

  Sten40418

  2 years ago

  I just don't have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can't be bothered with anything recently.
• 

  Sten38573

  2 years ago

  retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life's been completely dull , not that it matters. I've just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.