5 ms·

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-patents-vs-android http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-patents-vs-... -- Here are the details abo

by b0sk 16y ago

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-patents-vs-android http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-patents-vs-... -- Here are the details about the patents. It's pretty childish stuff. Anyone with half a brain can innovate and come up with inventions. This is just bullying.

kenjackson 16y ago
Lets look at these patents. Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images -- this patent actually falls in the ballpark that it might be reasonable. It was granted in 1998 and filed in 1996. I don't know if there was prior art on this. Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area -- This is called a splash screen. Sure its a mobile device and getting data from the network rather than disk, but same concept. This shouldn't have passed the obviousness test. System provided child window controls -- This one was filed in 1994, prior to the launch of Win95. This seems borderline, but in 1994 this might have been innovative. Selection handles in editing electronic documents -- This one seems like maybe the only realy legit patent if limited to just text. But I think it has been well-established for graphsics. The odd thing is they didn't use this for Windows Mobile through 6.5. Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content -- This one doesn't pass the non-obviousness test to me. I can't think of another way to do what they described. A little disappointing since Thacker is on the patent. One problem with patents is that it's hard to really get back to the mental state of 17 years ago, when at least one of these patents was filed. At the very least I do think that the current bar of "clear and convincing" may be too high, since I think that makes it very difficult for BN to put together a strong case unless they can just outright find prior art.
- llimllib 16y ago
  > Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images -- this patent actually falls in the ballpark that it might be reasonable. It was granted in 1998 and filed in 1996. I don't know if there was prior art on this. How about this: > Portable Document Format (PDF) is an open standard for document exchange. The file format created by Adobe Systems in 1993 is used for representing documents in a manner independent of the application software, hardware, and operating system.[2] Each PDF file encapsulates a complete description of a fixed-layout 2D document that includes the text, fonts, images, and 2D vector graphics which compose the documents.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    The part of the patent that is interesting is that they optimize downloading of the electronic document by first ignoring the background image (if there is one). And if there are embedded images in the document they first download those that would be visible on the screen. And it also creates additional connections to the server to download other resources in the document in the background on these additional connections. AFAIK, PDF doesn't specify these things. And to be clear the patent isn't about a file format. It's about the method one uses to retrieve and display the document.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      I am quite sure pre-98 Netscape did that.
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        The filing was April '96, so it would have to be before that. Netscape may have. In which case, this will be easy to invalidate. If Netscape didn't, I think it will be a lot tougher as the current bar for invalidating patents in court is pretty high.
    - muhfuhkuh 16y ago
      I'm quite sure that somehow, there was a web server or email system that has transferred, stored, and otherwise "managed" a PDF with graphics in it in 1995 or before. How on earth is that not prior art?
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        What does managing a PDF with graphics have to do with it? Is there something inherent in PDF files that capture this behavior?
      - bmelton 16y ago
        I'm pretty sure a PDF is served as a single file. The 'parts' of a PDF aren't loaded seperately, and hence aren't streamed individually of the entire document.

by b0sk 16y ago

kenjackson 16y ago

Lets look at these patents. Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images -- this patent actually falls in the ballpark that it might be reasonable. It was granted in 1998 and filed in 1996. I don't know if there was prior art on this. Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area -- This is called a splash screen. Sure its a mobile device and getting data from the network rather than disk, but same concept. This shouldn't have passed the obviousness test. System provided child window controls -- This one was filed in 1994, prior to the launch of Win95. This seems borderline, but in 1994 this might have been innovative. Selection handles in editing electronic documents -- This one seems like maybe the only realy legit patent if limited to just text. But I think it has been well-established for graphsics. The odd thing is they didn't use this for Windows Mobile through 6.5. Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content -- This one doesn't pass the non-obviousness test to me. I can't think of another way to do what they described. A little disappointing since Thacker is on the patent. One problem with patents is that it's hard to really get back to the mental state of 17 years ago, when at least one of these patents was filed. At the very least I do think that the current bar of "clear and convincing" may be too high, since I think that makes it very difficult for BN to put together a strong case unless they can just outright find prior art.

llimllib 16y ago
> Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images -- this patent actually falls in the ballpark that it might be reasonable. It was granted in 1998 and filed in 1996. I don't know if there was prior art on this. How about this: > Portable Document Format (PDF) is an open standard for document exchange. The file format created by Adobe Systems in 1993 is used for representing documents in a manner independent of the application software, hardware, and operating system.[2] Each PDF file encapsulates a complete description of a fixed-layout 2D document that includes the text, fonts, images, and 2D vector graphics which compose the documents.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  The part of the patent that is interesting is that they optimize downloading of the electronic document by first ignoring the background image (if there is one). And if there are embedded images in the document they first download those that would be visible on the screen. And it also creates additional connections to the server to download other resources in the document in the background on these additional connections. AFAIK, PDF doesn't specify these things. And to be clear the patent isn't about a file format. It's about the method one uses to retrieve and display the document.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    I am quite sure pre-98 Netscape did that.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      The filing was April '96, so it would have to be before that. Netscape may have. In which case, this will be easy to invalidate. If Netscape didn't, I think it will be a lot tougher as the current bar for invalidating patents in court is pretty high.
  - muhfuhkuh 16y ago
    I'm quite sure that somehow, there was a web server or email system that has transferred, stored, and otherwise "managed" a PDF with graphics in it in 1995 or before. How on earth is that not prior art?
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      What does managing a PDF with graphics have to do with it? Is there something inherent in PDF files that capture this behavior?
    - bmelton 16y ago
      I'm pretty sure a PDF is served as a single file. The 'parts' of a PDF aren't loaded seperately, and hence aren't streamed individually of the entire document.