Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw)
Groklaw
examines a recent patent application by Microsoft.
"Microsoft has filed for a patent on the smiley face. No. Really. Literally, they have applied for this: "A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination.""
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 15:45 UTC (Mon) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] <sigh> I wish groklaw would be a little less hysterical sometimes. This isn't a patent on emoticons; it is a patent on creating custom emoticons, tying them to custom strings, and conveying them to other users. So, if I did something like this:
(1) made up a string like '>8-O-(&)' (to steal from dave barry)
That's what got patented. Is it trite and probably useless? Yes, though hard to know what will catch on with teenagers these days :) Is it fairly novel? Well, I've never seen or heard of anything like this, though I'm not exactly a heavy user of IM. So possibly, yeah, quite. Bottom line: this is the kind of thing most people think the patent system was designed to protect, and we don't do ourselves any favors by exagerrating and distorting reasonably good patents like this one when there are so many bad ones out there to criticize.
Deadpan Posted Jul 25, 2005 16:00 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] If I didn't know better I'd be certain you were serious. Steve Martin look out!
The Jeopardy answer is, "What is a ligature?"
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 16:16 UTC (Mon) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] I wouldn't call that a reasonably good patent.
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 19:15 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] By the standards of software patents, it is.For an example of the perils of automatic emoticon conversion, see this thread on bly.com.
Automatic conversion considered evil Posted Jul 26, 2005 8:29 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Funny, but not easy to spot inside the thread (the main post is completely irrelevant). The gist of it is: a guy was writing "(4 or maybe 8)" in a comment, and the blog software converted the "8)" bit to an emoticon: smiley with sunglasses. The guy was accordingly pissed off.Look for the smiley to locate the relevant posts.
But they're just trying to help Posted Jul 28, 2005 17:35 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Like ``smart quotes'' and whatever they call changing hyperlinks to point somewhere they think you'd rather go. It's all to serve you better. [See also Jack Williamson's short story ``With Folded Hands''. Remember, it's not paranoia if they are out to get you.]
But they're just trying to help Posted Jul 28, 2005 18:36 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Dude, someone out there must like smart quotes and the like; otherwise it would not be there, right? At least PHBs or some such individuals.Not me, it makes me sick -- in fact some evil entity possesses my body when I'm forced to use the word processor. For those blissful souls who have forgotten, let's bring on the painful memories: It looks like you are writing a letter; would you like to...
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 16:17 UTC (Mon) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] What you are saying is that this particular instance of tying A) to B) across a network is *a reasonably good patent* ? That's amazing. And, with due respect, ridiculous.
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 16:31 UTC (Mon) by gilb (subscriber, #11728) [Link] Mozilla already does this with email. :) showes up as a smiley icond in my incoming emails.
I would expect that many IM clients already to the same thing.
This is clearly not novel, this is what we do with HTML now, a string is associated with bitmap (e.g., an href string points to a picture) and both are sent together to display the picture.
This is the sort of thing that a good patent system would catch and throw out. The US, unfortunately, does not have a good patent system.
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 18:30 UTC (Mon) by pbardet (subscriber, #22762) [Link] Not exactly. Mozilla does only 50% of what the patent application is about. It only translates a string into an image. The patent covers both the translation of an image into a string, and the string back to the image, or another one that is similar to the initial one. Unfortunately, it is very likely that this patent will be granted even though they're just picking up stuff that has been done before, but never patented.
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 16:42 UTC (Mon) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] I agree with you that Groklaw makes this out to be something that it's not, and that this is not good either for Groklaw or the rest of us.
I strongly disagree with you that this is in any way a reasonable patent. After all, the concept of attaching a picture to a message and having it sent to another party and having it be unpacked and displayed into the body of a message has been around for at least 15 years and maybe longer.
All this patent does is apply the same principle to IM that has been used for years and years in email. What's unique about that?
Reasonable in the eyes of patent law != reasonable to an ordinary engineer Posted Jul 25, 2005 18:07 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link] The problem is that the patent may well be granted, if the specific process of assigning a shortcut string to an image that is sent over an instant-messaging system does not have any prior art that matches those particulars precisely. I agree that it is not reasonable that people can patent things like this, but it may be perfectly "reasonable" in the eyes of current US patent law. (My understanding is that it's extremely difficult for a patent examiner to reject something on the grounds of obviousness, without absurdly close prior art. IANAL, though.)
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 16:42 UTC (Mon) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] So, if I did something like this:(1) made up a string like € (2) found an emoticon-sized image a bit like an "e" (3) loaded that image into a financiel program (4) in the financiel program, linked € and the image of the "e" etc. That would create *a reasonably good patent* ?
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 22:17 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Obviously. Even if it was done back in 1983 by TeX (remember: TeX is not using ligatures just for things like ff or ffi. You can use ?` to enter ¿ (inverted question mark). Information about ligatures is not hard-wired in TeX - it's stored in .TFM file. You can send this .TFM file to other user - and he'll see the same "emoticon". In fact russian fonts are using different set of emoticons: << and >> are converted to « and » (double angle quotation marks). The system is used by god knows how many peoples out there for more the 20 years. Of course information about emoticons if transferred from one computer to another via ftp and alike programs. Still "it's innovation if you'll use the same technology in different program". Gosh.
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 25, 2005 22:44 UTC (Mon) by lenov (guest, #15428) [Link] > Obviously. Even if it was done back in 1983 by TeX
You meant 1978 (first TeX public release)
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 26, 2005 7:06 UTC (Tue) by hensema (guest, #980) [Link] The process described by the parent already works in MSN Messenger 7. You can import any small picture and assign any string to it for use as an emoticon. When used, the custom emoticon will be transmitted automatically to the chat partner.
It can get quite annoying when your chat partner decides to assign an animated gif of a question mark to the ? character.
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 26, 2005 9:51 UTC (Tue) by penguinroar (guest, #14460) [Link] A reasonably good patent has a fair bit of hight above the things it builds on. Sadly today you can easily take an old method and just use that exact method in a slightly different concept and be granted a patent. This patent takes a couple of very old and well used concepts and slaps them togheter in an novel way.
I could just as well just put an image on any webserver and include a link to that image in my IM program. Then i just link a smiley to that image in the client. The one i chat with gets the link instead of the smiley. Wow, what an invention right?
As to Groklaw exaggerating, ever read Get The Facts and all the other disinformation sites around the world lying through their teeth? It seems to me they are the ones getting their message through. Groklaw is a shining beacon of light compared to most news sites in existance. Why hold them to an extremely higher standard than say Zdnet?
Why hold Groklaw to a higher standard? Posted Jul 26, 2005 13:49 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Because PJ claims to have higher standards than say ZDNet. Also because exaggerating creates an opportunity for the other side to point this out as part of its efforts to discredit the entire Groklaw site. The most effective lie is the one that contains a grain of truth.
Why hold Groklaw to a higher standard? Posted Jul 26, 2005 15:01 UTC (Tue) by penguinroar (guest, #14460) [Link] She has much higher standards than any other publication i know and she has been more than willing to correct things she has gotten wrong. She did infact change the title when someone pointed this error out to her. Other than the title i cant see anything to really complain about in the article.
I think the conclusions in her opinion based upon the notion that software patents is bad and that you dont have to trample directly on a patent to be toast. It suffice with a mere touch for the opponent to be able to sue you into oblivion. Thus even if this isnt really a patent on Smileys on it will be a big roadblock if its granted, even in totally unrelated implementations of smileys.
Still Exaggerated Posted Jul 26, 2005 17:17 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] All of that is essentially true but does not speak to the points I made. Yes, there are many positive things to be said about PJ. Yes, she often corrects errors. Yes, she did partially correct the story in question. Yes, software patents -- including the one that is at issue here -- are a serious problem. But no, Microsoft is not trying to patent the emoticon. What they are actually attemping to patent is only slightly less obvious and there is plenty of prior art, but the story on Groklaw was exaggerated when it was published and remains so at the time of this writing.
PJ has made many important contributions but that doesn't make it wrong to critice her in a constructive way.
Also, it's not a patent at all Posted Jul 25, 2005 16:54 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] It is a patent application, not a patent! Groklaw is doubly wrong, first for calling it a patent, second for claiming it patents emoticons.
Also, it's not a patent at all Posted Jul 25, 2005 17:24 UTC (Mon) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Given the crap nature and dunderheads at the Patent Office, it makes little to no different if it is a patent application. The POS system we have, the mere application itself is a 99% surety that it will be granted.
Also, it's not a patent at all Posted Jul 25, 2005 17:32 UTC (Mon) by rcbixler (guest, #11917) [Link] Note that PJ has changed the title of her article to reflect yourcriticism which has also been made by others. The new title is "Microsoft files to patent emoticon method."
That's not a bug, that's a feature! Posted Jul 25, 2005 17:48 UTC (Mon) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] We can all use emoticons in all directions as a dare-you-to-sue-us-all attack.I love my country, but I fear my government, its ignorance, and the legal/patent systems preying thereon.
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 25, 2005 18:42 UTC (Mon) by scripter (subscriber, #2654) [Link] Here's an idea: Come up with a technique to mitigate some type of vulnerability, and patent the technique. Better yet, discover a new type of vulnerability and patent the mitigation. Then announce vulnerabilities in several products, and note that for the vendors to fix it, they will need to license the mitigating technique.
Maybe I should patent the idea of patenting vulnerability mitigations.
With patents, I'm reminded of school bullies. They were annoying, and most of the time, it was possible to avoid them. With patents, we have legal enforcement of the ability to bully.
One of my pet peeves: Application windows that steal the focus when I'm typing. This can be a security problem when typing in confidential information such as privacy data or authentication credentials, or even when accidentally pressing ENTER to say "Okay" to a security-related dialog box. Why doesn't someone create an app that prevents keyboard input from being redirected to a new "focus" window until a certain delay in activity? I sure hope no one has patented this idea yet. I suppose the stealing-the-focus problem goes away when using POTS (plain old terminal software :), so perhaphs that could be considered prior art.
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 25, 2005 19:51 UTC (Mon) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] > Why doesn't someone create an app that prevents keyboard input from being redirected to a new "focus" window until a certain delay in activity?This is the window manager's job. It's easy for a window manager to intercept and discard a client request to raise and focus a window, but it's not so easy to determine what are valid requests and what are not. It's interesting that Windows XP does a better job of this than most X11 window managers. XP will not map a new appliction window over the top of a window that already has input focus - the new window is inserted in the stacking order just below the window that already has focus. Most popular X11 window managers map new windows right over the top of the currently active window and give input focus to the new window. This is why half of your root password can end up in a new Abiword document...
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 26, 2005 17:44 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] XP will not map a new appliction window over the top of a window that already has input focusBullshit. Or perhaps you're taking the very narrow view that a "new application window" just means the application (vs dialog) window of a newly launched application. XP will certainly happily throw up a new input-expecting dialog window (possibly from an app executing in the background) over top of everything else, stealing the focus from whatever window (or dialog) you were typing into. That's really annoying when it's a dialog with a default button selection you don't want and you're just hitting "enter" on the keyboard. Then the dialog disappears before you've had a chance to read it and you're left wondering what you just did.
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 26, 2005 18:36 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] > Or perhaps you're taking the very narrow view that a "new application window" just means the application (vs dialog) window of a newly launched application.Yes. I believe that is the correct term for a top-level application window. I could be wrong. Dialog windows are certainly a problem in any windowing system that I have ever used, but the point I am trying to make is that mapping new application windows is handled better by Windows XP than by most X11 window managers.
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 26, 2005 22:57 UTC (Tue) by newren (subscriber, #5160) [Link] Really? Windows XP screws that up? I'm not doubting you (I haven't used it for more than a minute or two total; Windows 98 was the last version I used more than trivially), I just thought that it would have gotten that right, especially since recent versions of KWin and Metacity do (well, modulo apps that don't support the _NET_WM_USER_TIME portion of the EWMH spec from freedesktop.org yet *sigh*).
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 26, 2005 23:22 UTC (Tue) by newren (subscriber, #5160) [Link] >> Why doesn't someone create an app that prevents keyboard input from>> being redirected to a new "focus" window until a certain delay in >> activity?
> This is the window manager's job. It's easy for a window manager to
Mostly correct. It is basically the WM's job, the WM is given the opportunity to intercept and reject a client request to raise a window, but it is not given the opportunity to intercept and reject a client request to focus a window--X does that unconditionally (which I believe is a bug in the design, and others do too; see e.g. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-Fe...; however, the WM is notified of the change and could potentially try to force the input elsewhere though it gets really hairy trying to figure out when this is safe...)
However, for new windows that are mapped, it isn't the client that is requesting focus, it is the window manager that is explicitly telling X that the client should have input focus (and note that there are window managers that decide to never focus new windows, or at least ones that have an option to do this). For WMs that want smart focus-the-window-if-the-user-isn't-busy-in-another-window behavior, you are right that it is somewhat difficult to determine which times those are. But, it is possible. It has been worked out in the EWMH spec on freedesktop.org and recent versions of KDE and Gnome have implemented it and benefit from this behavior (though apps which don't support _NET_WM_USER_TIME prevent it from working correctly in all cases, some app authors are learning how to cheat and force their window to steal focus anyway *sigh*, and there may still be bugs to be worked out)
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 26, 2005 23:57 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Good points; thanks for the info.I too am in the camp that thinks the WM should be able to intercept input focus events. It really annoys me when Mozilla finally finishes downloading and rendering a page and then grabs the focus away from whatever window I was typing in. Is there ever a situation where this type of behavior is desirable? I can't think of one. _NET_WM_USER_TIME is a nice addition, but I really think that the window manager should have complete control over which window gets the input focus and when. I don't think it should depend on a well-written program for this too work right.
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 25, 2005 21:17 UTC (Mon) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] This almost happened recently. See the discussions on the ICMP vulnerabilities.If you think that doing this would cause a change in the U.S. patenting process, guess again. As far as the patent office is concerned, this is exactly the point of patents: to give a monopoly to someone for a "new idea". Thousands of people die daily from diseases such as AIDS because the medicines are patented and only available at monopoly prices. The patent office's argument is that the medicines would never have been created at all except that patents gave people an incentive to create the medicine. The U.S. patent office would not be horrified if a much less important thing, such as more vulnerable computer systems, were a side-effect of the patent process. They will just pretend that the patenting process encouraged you to create the defensive measure, and treat this as a "success" of the patent process. Whether or not this is actually true is not their problem; they get paid for every patent.
Off-topic: Patent vulnerability mitigation techniques Posted Jul 25, 2005 22:44 UTC (Mon) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] It is an interesting mental excercise to imagine how things we take for granted today could have possibly happened under the current patent system. Add in the fact that the pace of technical change is so much faster today both in the world in general and the computer field specifically and the picture gets grim very quickly.
Of course the only way this will change is if the people with the money and power decide it is in their best interest.
patents as incentive to invent Posted Jul 30, 2005 0:43 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] The patent office's argument is that the medicines would never have been created at all except that patents gave people an incentive to create the medicine.Be careful about whom you villify for the patent mess. I believe the patent office's argument would actually be that it is following the law. The law doesn't give the patent office discretion to choose what to patent based on societal good. So you'd have to say that it's the members of Congress who argue that patents gave people an incentive to create the medicine. Frankly, I can't see how anyone could disagree with that. We know it costs many millions of dollars to develop some of these drugs and a small fraction of that to copy one that's already been developed. I just can't picture an economy where a company would spend 10 million dollars developing a drug, just to have a competitor set the price at a level that generates 1 million dollars of revenue. Software patents are a different matter. There you don't have the wide difference between cost to invent and cost to copy.
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 26, 2005 1:56 UTC (Tue) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link] I've seen it suggested that X-Face as used on USENET for over 15 years is basically the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Face
X-Face itself is an outgrowth of Vismon which was used by Bell Labs in the early eighties to display a picture of whoever sent you an an email
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vismon
Both systems look at a textual header pattern and display a graphic in response.
Microsoft Patents Emoticon (Groklaw) Posted Jul 27, 2005 10:02 UTC (Wed) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] However you send the complete bitmap every time, whereas the idea here is to send the full bitmap only the first time, and later just send a very short text sequence.
|
|||||||||||