MS Patents IM Feature Used Since At Least 1996 524
splorp! writes "Once again, a company is patenting a feature that another company implemented years before. C|Net's News.com reports that patent no. 6,631,412 grants Microsoft the rights to 'an instant messaging feature that notifies users when the person they are communicating with is typing a message.' Excuse me? Does anyone remember Powwow (now defunct)? I remember using that one back in '96 and it alerted the other people to whom you were chatting that you were typing. Or, alternately, it allowed you to SEE the other people typing in real time. Yeah, Powwow is gone, now, but that doesn't mean those features never existed."
Gar (Score:-1, Informative)
Nothing insightful in my post, just a chance to gripe about how absurd this is.
BBS! (Score:2, Informative)
I spent a year working for patent attourneys. What did I learn? If I ever go rogue and start taking out government buildings, the patent office is first on my list.
HO
Re:Don't forget (Score:3, Informative)
patent (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's the application date that matters (Score:5, Informative)
Link to patent (Score:5, Informative)
It should be noted that UNIX talk is specifically talked about in the patent and the advantages of this system over it are mentioned. This does not get around the apparant prior art of POWWOW. Remember that it is the claims of a patent that are important, not the abstract. It appears from quickly looking at the claims, that the broadest requirements are for client A to send a message to client B that client A is typing. Then client B must indicate that client A is typing. Finally, that message is turned off when client A sends another message that it is done typing. The initial typing message must be based upon typing within a predefined period of time.
Any prior art asserted against this patent would need to have been in use on or before July 21, 1998.
Available since at least 1986... (Score:3, Informative)
The DOS-based Lambda software was replaced years ago with the Unix-based Mu clone, but it's still got the idle indicator in the 'F'ull who listing.
History of "talk" (Score:4, Informative)
In short, this goes back to at least 1967. I'm sure there is no way our esteemed patent office could possibly have found prior art back that far, let alone what happened last week. Someone should alert them to the existence of google.
Re:Even older prior art (Score:5, Informative)
RTFP. From this week's "great innovation for customers":
As far as I can see from a quick reading, the idea is not that you see what people are typing, but that you have an indicator which lets you know that they are typing.
Re:Microsoft screwed itself (reference to US code) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unix talk (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Informative)
The pow-wow website is still up and dated 1997 so you can still download it and check the features.
Thousands of Minitel services did it (Score:4, Informative)
Including real-time chat that let you see every key stroke of other users.
Ah-HAH (Score:5, Informative)
So the claimed innovation here is simplifying real-time, continuous updates by just sending activity updates. Hmm. I'm not sure that really passes the tests for either "obvious" or actually "innovative", but at least they address talk.
Xentax
Re:Are you sure? (Score:2, Informative)
It is ralely used however, unless the patent office takes signiciant notice of the problem, the patent is likely to be asserted, lawsuits to determine the patents validity are unlikely, and the patent is blatantly invalid. In short, the PTO would rather the courts and affected parties handle the issue, and keep their own hands clean.
Even OLDER older prior art (Score:3, Informative)
RTFP (Score:5, Informative)
While I think that it is absurd that this was granted, it is not any of the things being thrown around on
Quake 3 is prior art... (Score:5, Informative)
What about Ddial? (Score:1, Informative)
An Apple II loaded with AppleCat 300 Baud modems.
I spent much of my afterschool time "chatting" online with friends (yes Slahsdotters - I had friends back then!)
More info:
www.ddial.com
Priority Date, not Filing Date (Score:1, Informative)
This is the date to beat for prior art.
Re:Even older prior art (Score:2, Informative)
A request for reexamination (Score:3, Informative)
A request for reexamination is commenced by filing a reexamination request along with a modest filing fee. In the request, the requestor cites the patents and other printed publications which purport to establish that the patented inven- tion is not new or unobvious as of the date of its invention. The Patent Office will then decide if the requestor has made out a prima facie case of invalidity. If so, the patent will be subjected to reexamination. Reexamination is between the patentee and the Patent Office. The requestor has no involvement after filing the request for reexamination.
if you have any interest at all on the workings of the us patent system, go here [uspto.gov], read up.
The fee for "requesting an reexamination was 2520.00 in 1999.
Perhaps we should start a fund to have this patent reexamined?
This exact feature was in wide use at MIT in '89 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:History of "talk" (Score:3, Informative)
Some people believe that the people checking for prior art is the court system. However, as seen in the Eolas case against Microsoft, Microsoft was NOT allowed to present proof of prior art to the court!
--jeff++
Re:History of "talk" (Score:5, Informative)
The PTO just automatically assumes that anything one person feels worthy of patenting is something that everybody else should have felt it worthy.
That's it. No google, no interviews with field experts, nothing. If a patent's been filed, there's prior art. If not, then it passes the "new" test.
Re:It's the application date that matters (Score:3, Informative)
The filing date on the patent is December 20, 2002.
SAMETIME chat (Score:2, Informative)
-Steve
incorrect it is July 21,1999 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:History of "talk" (Score:5, Informative)
He did nontrivial outside research in the field, much of it directed by the reference materials I included in the patent. At one point he stated that a particular claim was "obvious" after you've read five different sources in different domains which he only knew about because we referenced all five in the application. None of them were patented.
From the Slashdot "IP is bad" standpoint you'd have to give him credit for the effort. He worked very hard to ensure that my patent was in fact non-obvious and not prior art. You really want a patent examiner that hard.
Except I don't. If patents are being given out like candy, why should I have to fight for mine?
Re:History of "talk" (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the role of the patent office is to determine if a patent application is valid before handing out a patent. If you read the Patent Officer's rulebooks and the associated laws regarding patents in the US legal code, you will indeed find that they have to do a reasonably exhaustive search for prior art in both the public domain and the patent catalogue.
(All of these laws and guidelines, by the way, are available for you to read on the USPTO website).
Simon
(note: IANAL)