LawGeek

Burst.com patents DVR time-shifting

Burst.com has just been issued an interesting patent on a System and Method for Time-shifted Program Viewing.  Here's Claim One:

1. A method for time-shifted viewing of audio/video programs comprising:

• receiving one or more audio/video programs from one or more sources, wherein the one or more audio/video programs are associated with data about the programs, the data about the programs provided over a network connection;

• storing each of the one or more audio/video programs as program data in one or more cyclic buffers, whereupon being filled the one or more cyclic buffers begin replacing the oldest of the program data with the newest program data; and

• simultaneously providing playback control of the program data independently from storing the one or more audio/video programs, wherein time-shifted viewing is delayed viewing of the one or more audio/video programs currently being received from the one or more sources, the viewing of which may be initiated and controlled simultaneously with the storing of the one or more audio/video programs, and wherein one or more device configuration settings may be configured via a user interface over the network connection, wherein the network connection comprises an Internet connection.

In other words:

• Receiving a TV program (and associated metadata) over a network;
• Storing the program in memory and deleting the oldest program first;
• Allowing the user to watch recorded programs while you store new ones; and
• Allowing a user to configure the device over a network/Internet connection.

Now, according the face of the patent, Burst filed this in 1998, so they are likely claiming to have invented it pretty early on in the DVR world.  But I can't believe that such basic technology wasn't around or obvious, even back then.

Should Yahoo! be able to patent "smart drag and drop"? How you can help the US Patent Office reject a bogus patent claim

The Peer-To-Patent Project is a new initiative by New York Law School's Do Tank in cooperation with the U.S. Patent Office to use open source and open knowledge techniques to help stop the deluge of bad software patents in America.  The project works by posting new software patent applications that have been voluntarily submitted by their inventors and asking the public to comment on them. It has been endorsed by such open source and Internet luminaries as Tim O'Reilly and PJ from Groklaw.

Participants can point out prior art, explain technological concepts, or even opine on whether a certain technique is obvious (and thus non-patentable) or not. After two months of commenting, the top submissions are sent off to the Patent Office to help them decide whether or not to grant the patent.

So what does this have to do with you? Well, there have been a series of new applications hitting the PtP site lately, some of which are pretty broad and outrageous.  For example, check out this one from Yahoo! claiming to have patented "smart" drag-and-drop technology.  Here's claim one:

A computer-implemented method for manipulating objects in a user interface, comprising:

• providing the user interface including a first interface object operable to be selected and moved within the user interface; and

• in response to selection and movement of the first interface object in the user interface, presenting at least one additional interface object in the user interface in proximity of the first interface object, each additional interface object representing a drop target with which the first interface object may be associated.

That's it.  You drag, you drop, you infringe.  Crazy, eh?  Well time to do something about it.  If you have examples of drag and drop interfaces that can invalidate this claim, go to the PtP site and submit them here (heads up: some registration required).  Your submissions could mean the difference between Yahoo! getting a bogus patent or not. So if you hate overbroad software patents, now is the time to act. There are only 36 DAYS LEFT to submit prior art to the PTO on this patent.

p.s .If you want to participate in PtP more broadly, there's a tutorial on how to do it here.

Cupid Com patents method of avoiding social awkwardness?

U.S. Patent No. 7,277,888

Method for minimizing reintroduction of participants at successive social events

  Issued: October 2, 2007
  Filed: November 4, 2003
  U.S. Class: 707/6

Abstract:  A method for minimizing the reintroduction of two people at a successive social event comprises the steps of assigning each person wishing to attend the successive social event a unique identifier, obtaining characteristic information about each person wishing to attend successive social events, the characteristic information having at least two potential values. An event identifier is assigned to at least said first social event and said successive social event. An event history associated with each unique identifier is created, the event history having elements corresponding to information about each event the person associated with the unique identifier has attended. A person is allowed to attend the successive social event dependent upon a rule for screening attendees, said rule being a function of said characteristic information and said event history.

(via GEN-ERIC)

Google sued on patent for "Enhancing Touch and Feel On The Internet"

Check out this complaint, just filed yesterday against Google by a company called Illinois Computer Research LLC.

Claim one is my favorite:

1. A method, comprising:

• in a server of a network, storing a plurality of images representing pages of a book, said images stored with a resolution effective to enable said book to be read;
• responsive to a request over the network, sending one of said images to a remote node; and
• determining if the request for pages exceeds a certain threshold, and sending said information only if said threshold is not exceeded.

So the supposed invention is storing high-res images of a book on a server and setting a limit on the number of pages that can be displayed?

Silly Internet Patent #26: Online search for used cars with clean titles

Here's a patent to ponder:

U.S. Patent No. 7,228,298
Apparatus and method for perusing selected vehicles having a clean title history
Assignee:  Carfax, Inc.
Issued: June 5, 2007
Filed:  September 3, 2002
Abstract:  A system and method for allowing a consumer to search a database containing used vehicles from a variety of sellers that can be queried to provide search results that include only vehicles having clean title histories.

Here's Claim 1:

1. A method for perusing and searching used vehicles comprising:

• analyzing vehicle identification numbers to determine title information indicative of whether each of a plurality of vehicles have at least one of a clean title in which the corresponding vehicle has no known title discrepancies, and a branded title in which the corresponding vehicle has a title discrepancy;

• providing a classifieds database that stores vehicle information and title information regarding at least a portion of said plurality of vehicles analyzed by said vehicle history management system;

• and remotely searching said classifieds database for vehicles based on search query criteria that includes whether vehicles have branded titles; wherein said classifieds database stores vehicle information and title information for vehicles that are determined not to have branded titles.

English translation:

A method of searching for used vehicles comprising:

• Using VIN numbers to look up the title status of a vehicle;
• Storing the title status of the vehicle in a database; and
• Providing a list of vehicles based on title status to users who search for them online.

Could this be any more obvious? Even the patent itself admits that methods of compiling title information on used cars have been around since 1991.  So what's the novel aspect of this invention? According to the patent:

While such systems and methods have been perfectly adequate for their intended use, they do not provide potential buyers with the opportunity to selectively search a database that includes a large selection of vehicles for sale that have been prescreened and found not to have any discrepancies in the vehicle title. Likewise, such systems did not provide sellers with the opportunity to offer a prescreened vehicle, that does not have any discrepancies in the vehicle title, from one seller along with prescreened vehicles from other sellers in a single searchable database.

Yup, that's right, according to the patent, the only novel aspect to this method is that it provides a single searchable database with the ability to prescreen for cars with clean titles. In other words, it allows you to adjust the results of any search based on pre-selected fields and criteria --- just like every other database ever invented in the last twenty years.

Sigh.  Can we please start rejecting these kinds of patents under KSR and common sense already?

(via GEN-ERIC Patent News )

Patent on predicting dangerous behavior from email or word docs?

GEN-ERIC just posted this beauty: System and method for computer analysis of computer generated communications to produce indications and warning of dangerous behavior.

Check out claim one:

1. A method of computer analysis of computer generated communications comprised of a group of words written by an author in order to determine a psychological state of the author which is reflected by the group of words comprising:

collecting at least one computer generated communication comprised of the group of words written by the author;

parsing the group of words of at least one computer generated communication to identify categories of information therein;

processing the categories of information with at least one analysis to quantify at least one type of information in each category;

and generating an output communication when a difference between the quantification of at least one type of information for at least one category and a reference for the at least one category is detected involving the psychological state of the author reflected by the group of words to which a responsive action should be taken with content of the output communication and the at least one category being programmable to define a psychological state in response to which an action should be taken and what the action is to be taken in response to the defined psychological state, and wherein the collected at least one computer generated communication comprises at least one of email, chat from a chat room arid website information collected from a website.

Scary or Silly? If you're reading this blog post and using this invention, you'd already know what I think.

Germans protest patents

In Berlin this week, they're holding a conference to discuss patents and whether or not they help or hinder innovation.  This is an important discussion; hopefully the conference will produce some useful results.

Video available from BU Software Patent Conference

Videos from Software Patents: A Time for Change? (a conference on software patent reform I attended back in November 2006) are now online.

There are a number of great presentations worth checking out, including one by Eric von Hippel on Free Software/Open Source user innovation as well as Bob Hunt from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia talking about the potential for patents to inhibit rather than enhance the efficiency of financial markets.  My own little talk on free speech and patents is here.

Dilbert on a patent-busting binge

Check out Dilbert's latest poke at patents and startup culture:

Silly Software Patent #25: Browser-embedded News Feed

Al Gore may not have invited the Internet, but Steve jobs is now claiming to have invented Browser-embedded news feeds. In a newly-published patent application, Jobs et al claim on April 13, 2005 that they invented:

A user interface for enabling a user to switch between displaying a file and displaying a feed related to the file, the user interface comprising:

1) a content area, and

2) wherein the user interface has a first state and a second state, and

3) wherein when the user interface is in the first state, the content area displays the file, and

4) wherein when the user interface is in the second state, the content area displays the feed.

So Apple believes it owns any software program that allows a user to switch between an HTML window and an XML feed.  Great.  And they really think no one else did this before April 2005?

(Thanks theodp!)