Comment Mass murder of chairs in Redmond soon to follow (Score 1) 785
Witnesses saw suspect screaming "developers, developers, developers!"
Witnesses saw suspect screaming "developers, developers, developers!"
From the patent itself: Related U.S. Application Data
(63) Continuation of application No. 08/747,420, filed on Nov. 12, 1996, now Pat. No. 6,219,045.
Now educate yourself on continuing patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application
Now look at the dates for release of Ultima Online and Everquest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everquest
Also if you look at the claims for the patent it requires CLIENT software that does considerably more client-state tracking than Telnet ever did for text muds.
From the patent itself: Related U.S. Application Data
(63) Continuation of application No. 08/747,420, filed on Nov. 12, 1996, now Pat. No. 6,219,045.
Now educate yourself on continuing patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application
Now look at the dates for release of Ultima Online and Everquest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everquest
People on Slashdot discussing the Law sound as informed as your average senior citizen would sound on here discussing tech. "I PUT THE ETHERNET INTO THE HARD DRIVE WHY DOESN'T MY AOL WORK?!"
There's a reason why people spend three years of their life in law school. It's not for their health.
... and you'll need to wade your way through 35 USC s102 and related case law to know whether alleged prior art defeated the novelty of this patent.
It's a crappy patent -- I hate it, it's lame, and I think it is pretty damn obvious and does not advance the art -- but as to whether there is prior art, that's another story.
[*Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student.]
Because many patent attorneys are not entirely sure WTF Bilski has actually done to software patents. And "invalidate this extremely quickly" rarely happens in patent law after a patent has been granted. There are many levels of appeals, etc.
The Bilski decision invalidated a business method patent that was so abstract it could be done in a person's head. The dicta [nonbinding precedent -- stuff unnecessary for the specific holding] of Bilski said some soothing things that made certain computer algorithms appear vulnerable.
But really, do not overestimate Bilski. And don't forget the Supreme Court hasn't yet weighed in on whether it will deny cert to Bilski
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol