Microsoft [to patent] Verb Conjugation 382
streepje writes "Here [to be] the latest egregious patent application. Microsoft [to be] [to apply] for a patent for [to conjugate] verbs. Future postings [to look] like this."
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin
Misleading headline.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a method patent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a method patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowhere in this patent do they describe the method in anything but the broadest generality - they are not patenting a specific implementation (which is what covers programs under copyright law).
As you imply - it's not unusual but it's still a bad idea to allow method patents like this.
Re:Misleading headline.... (Score:3, Insightful)
MICROSOFT BAD!
PATENTS BAD!
SNARKY ATTENTION GRABBING HEADLINES GOOD!
I mean, seriously... how are we supposed to engage in shouting down the unpopular kids if you don't help out and raise your voice?
US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading headline.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The "specific method" is not very specific, it covers just about any way of doing it. So MS has a big club to beat any small company who makes a widget that achieves the same result, because they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a patent lawyer to defend themselves, even if it's "obvious" their work was original. Ultimately, it just scares anyone away from even trying.
Not so misleading headline.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That specific method here is "on a computer." This is exactly the type of patent that slashdot people get up in arms about. The patent application requests that they be the only ones allowed to conjugate verbs on a computer.
Though, I for one [to welcome] our new language [to own] overlords. (btw, way to go article submitter. you've made something dull into something interesting.)
Re:Misleading headline.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so misleading headline.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Misleading headline.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that "patenting a method or system for performing X != patenting X", but does this really qualify? Both paper and computer dictionaries already contain references like "Inflected Form(s): saw
To illustrate, my mom may have a perfect method for scrambling eggs. She can say it is her method, but she cannot claim that she invented scrambled eggs, and she is not claiming that she invented the egg. The implementation of fork, bowl, egg, and milk are not new. She could not exclusively patent and sell Mom's Eggs as a new thing, just because she was the first to think of patenting it.
With today's pantent office, however, I would not be surprised if she could.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that is true, but that doesn't make it any less straightforward and simple.
>"which is something I, for one, haven't seen before and think could be pretty useful..."
I, for one, have created a simple Perl-module which conjugates a given Latin verb in all tenses and forms. Let me tell you: conjugating a verb "on the fly" is trivial. Exceptions to every rule do, however, mess things up a little, but the exceptions themselves build up very simple and trivial rules.
Prior art? Hell, yeah!
Non-obvious? Hell, no!
Le Conjugueur (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Verbix (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows XP supports 92 languages (had to count) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/292246/ [microsoft.com]. Do we really want a company like Microsoft patenting this so-called method?
Re:Misleading headline.... (Score:3, Insightful)
At best, a method of doing integrals by software qualifies as a trade secret.
Re:Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)
You very likely don't work in natural language processing. People have been generating whole paradigms for a long time. For a set of published examples, check out the Xerox Finite State Morphology [fsmbook.com] software and textbook. The software provides ways of describing the morphology and lexicon of a language and compiling it into an efficient finite state transducer. Once you've got the transducer, you can run it in either direction, that is, you can parse, or you can generate. A common test, and exercise in courses on doing this, is to generate the entire paradigm of a particular word or set of words.
Mod parent up (list prior art) (Score:1, Insightful)
Pretty accurate headline (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it isn't.
That's correct. In fact, you can just disregard the entire abstract, because what defines the scope of the patent are the claims. Each independent claim (a claim which does not refer to another claim) is an independent patent monopoly. Claim 1 is usually the broadest, so let's have a look at it:
So the "method" they want to patent consists of asking a computer to translate the verb. That's it. The other claims simply add other words or different forms of the verb as input when translating, and allow for a user to select a different verb.
Re:First to File (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, there is a big change.
I have made a couple of inventions, which I did NOT want patents for. I want the general public to benefit from them (besides, filing for a patent is too expensive for my meagre budget).
Now Microsoft (or another evil big company) reads about my research, and files for a patent. The consequence is that they will get a patent for my work, which I did not allow them to get. And the main reason is that there is NO WAY to apply for NOT getting a patent. The only thing I can do is to publish my invention, and hope that it takes Microsoft more than one year to discover that publication. One year after first publication a patent cannot be applied for anymore, so that would make my invention safe.
It happens quite often that I present research at conferences, and someone in the audience gets up and asks with a gleam in his eye, "Did you apply for a patent yet?" I know what that guy is thinking.
Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Whoop? So What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already been invented. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:prior art? (Score:1, Insightful)
Everytime there's a patent everyone thinks they have prior art. And their even more of a super-genius if they can draw parallels between the new way and the old. Whoop-dee-doo. Read more than the title and the summary.