decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS
Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 01:00 AM EDT

Heads up! Some new patent applications have just been posted on the Peer to Patent Project website, including one from Microsoft, its first entry in the project, on a kind of system I think of as a DRM'd computerized bean counter which tracks all the media clips bought and sold in the offline system of the invention, and then pays copyright holders and their ex-filesharing pirate distributors.

No. Really.

I admit I'm sleepy, so maybe I'm oversimplifying or missing something essential, but that's how I understand it so far. The overview makes it sound like a Bluetooth thing, where you buy something without going on the Internet, and the system tracks your every move so copyright holders get paid. The goal, I gather on a quick look, is to get around what they view as the filesharing problem and the analog hole. They suggest paying "pirates" an incentive cut if they will quit filesharing for free and participate for money in this offline media economy so copyright holders can get paid.

Businesses keep thinking there *must* be a way to turn back the clock and get that total chokehold they dream about. It's like searching for the fountain of youth in Florida. I know. There is no fountain of youth in Florida.

I ask you, does it get more inspiring than this? Maybe if SCO filed a patent application on a billing method for threatening Linux end users.

A patent on a system to coopt filesharers and make them work for Hollywood? Microsoft deserves a patent just for thinking it up. Just kidding around, folks. [Update: It seems this is not a unique concept. Someone left a comment pointing to Grooveshark's business model, and if you add wireless, you get this patent application, it seems. Now the question: which was first? Another question, does it pass the nonobvious test?]

Here is how Microsoft's application is described in the Peer to Patent press release:

Microsoft’s application (#20070136608) is for an invention that will allow copyright owners and media sellers to profit from the off-line transfer of media between buyers and sellers. According to the application, the invention is intended to create an off-line economy for digital media that will store proof and details for off-line transactions. This record will then be used to allot portions of the transaction to the copyright owner, and also to the seller, as an incentive for creating the transaction. The off-line economy will equip copyright owners with a tool to aid them in profiting from their properties, while simultaneously creating an inexpensive channel for media distribution that is accessible to buyers.

A system for selling media clips in an offline economy. Catchy. Well, Microsoft always did grok the Internet. Snark.

At last! The iTunes killer. I surely hope you guys can deep six this one with prior art. Although, I must admit I find it appealing to think of a world where Microsoft and Hollywood hopped off the Internet and played in their own separate offline playground.

So far, there have been 1,000 reviewers signed up to participate in the Peer to Patent Project, by the way, and I'm happy to say we are richly represented. So have at it, by all means. It would be good if one of you would volunteer this time to collect the best comments left here on Groklaw and then submit the group's findings on prior art on our behalf. If you have signed up already, and you prefer to input directly, that's fine too, but I think it would be best for someone with more tech skills than I have to coordinate, so you will know which comments really matter. So if you wish to volunteer, email me please.

Intel and IBM have posted new patent applications again too. Here's the P2P press release with more details, including about some improvements to the P2P site.

***************************************

Patent Applications From Microsoft, IBM and Intel
Now Open for Public Review

Peer-to-Patent Exceeds 1000 Public Peer Reviewers;
Eight applications now available for open review at http://www.peertopatent.org

Monday, July 09, 2007—Today Peer-to-Patent, an initiative of New York Law School and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, announced that an application from Microsoft has joined applications posted by GE, HP, Intel, IBM and Red Hat available for public review.

Peer to Patent also announced that more than 1000 active contributors have signed up to aid US patent reviewers at http://www.peertopatent.org.

Peer-to-Patent opens up the patent examination process for the first time, enabling the public to contribute prior art and commentary relevant to the examination of pending software patent applications at http://www.peertopatent.org.

“We’re thrilled with the support and open approach shown by Microsoft, Intel, and so many other companies,” said Beth Noveck, director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School. “In particular, we expect significant interest in Microsoft’s application, as it relates to an important topic in the online world, digital rights management.”

The three new patent applications now available for public participation on the Peer-to-Patent site include Microsoft’s first submission to the pilot (on Digital Rights Management), and a second submission from each of Intel (on computer processor efficiency), and IBM (on moving databases).

• Microsoft’s application (#20070136608) is for an invention that will allow copyright owners and media sellers to profit from the off-line transfer of media between buyers and sellers. According to the application, the invention is intended to create an off-line economy for digital media that will store proof and details for off-line transactions. This record will then be used to allot portions of the transaction to the copyright owner, and also to the seller, as an incentive for creating the transaction. The off-line economy will equip copyright owners with a tool to aid them in profiting from their properties, while simultaneously creating an inexpensive channel for media distribution that is accessible to buyers. http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/27/activity

• Intel’s application (# 20070130448) deals with increasing computer processor efficiency. Computer processors predict where certain information is stored after it has been used so that it can be retrieved as directly as possible; an incorrect prediction by the processor significantly slows down performance. Intel’s patent application describes a stack tracker that generates a distance value corresponding to a relative distance between a load instruction and a previous store instruction. According to the application, the distance value generated by the stack tracker can then be used to help minimize incorrect predictions so that the processor can perform more efficiently. http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/26/activity

• IBM’s application (#20070150488) addresses the problem of moving a database from its current source system to a new target system that often has different characteristics from the source system. According to the application, the invention describes a method for optimizing the migration of a database by collecting details (parameters) about the source system and the target system in order to generate configuration information that can be used to fine tune the database’s operation on the target system. http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/28/activity

Reviewing patent applications is free and open to all via the Peer-to-Patent Web site at www.peertopatent.org. Bloggers are also invited and encouraged to host their own conversations about pending patent applications and then submit prior art via the Peer-to-Patent website.

The Peer-to-Patent Web site enables those who sign up to:

• review and discuss posted patent applications
• share research to locate references to relevant earlier publications
• submit these prior art references with an explanation of relevance
• annotate and evaluate submitted prior art
• winnow the top ten prior art references, which, together with commentary, will be forwarded directly to the USPTO

Enhancements have also been made to the Peer-to-Patent Web site this week to facilitate participation. The improvements include support for email and RSS (Really Simple Syndication) alerts for new applications, allowing subscribers to be notified when a new application of interest has been posted to the site. These features can be found on the list of patent applications at http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/list. Participants can already sign up to receive notifications about new postings for each specific application via RSS and email.

All patent applications are posted in an easy-to-read format on the site. References and Citations from the original patent application are also now included.

Other features include:

• Longer discussion comments now allowed
• Improved display of special characters in comments
• URLs in comments are now automatically hyperlinked (as are claims and prior art references already)
• Enhanced display of instructional and informational videos

Sign up to participate in public review on http://www.peertopatent.org. For more information about the Peer-to-Patent project, please also visit http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent.

Peer-to-Patent Press Read recent news stories about the pilot at
http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/press.html

About Peer-to-Patent

Peer-to-Patent is an initiative of New York Law School’s Institute for Information Law and Policy in cooperation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The pilot program allows for public participation in the patent examination process and will run for one year. The Peer-to-Patent software and pilot program have been developed with the sponsorship of CA, GE, HP, IBM, Intellectual Ventures, the MacArthur Foundation, Microsoft, Omidyar Network, and Red Hat.


  


New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS | 281 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 01:07 AM EDT
Please make any links clickable.

BTW, all of you Microsoft trolls and astroturfers, you need to report to duty here.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: entre on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 01:10 AM EDT
Where needed...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bluetooth File Transfer
Authored by: marty_one on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 01:14 AM EDT
Highly likely that they are going to try and cash in on sharing of mp3 or other
media files via wireless (read bluetooth) technology between mobile devices.
pheww!!! bit of a mouthfull.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why do QA for Microsoft?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 01:43 AM EDT
Could someone please explain, why someone should help Microsoft perfect their
patents?

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 01:45 AM EDT
Microsoft's proposal is for what is called "Market making", and is
equivalent to the 'after-hours' market for stocks and shares. Stocks and shares
only exists electronically, are transferred uniquely, and the transfer price is
reported to 'the exchange' when it comes online the next day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't this endorse software patents?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 02:56 AM EDT
Regardless of whether Microsoft has done some amount of innovation, supporting
software patents seems wrong when:
1) Software patents are not necessary for innovation in the field of software.
2) Software patents stifles the commons of free software.
3) Software is math.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The community would be better employed targeting only threats to them.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 04:02 AM EDT
The community's time would be better spent targeting Microsoft and other patents
that are the most likely to be used against Linux or other open source projects.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps this is what they are up to.
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 05:42 AM EDT
There was a scheme a while ago whereby you could go to the highstreet shop and
have your own mix of music burned to a CD. Perhaps what MS want to do is to
update that principle and provide support for a digital music file standard and
the transfer from the shop's server to an MP3 player using bluetooth or USB.

The patent would be part technical and part business process to pass the fees
back to the copyright holder automatically when the file is sold or leased onto
a player.

This would be about the only licenced way to compete with on-line digital
distribution of music. I suspect that the only evil thing about it is the
company seeking the patents. Oh, and the DRM. Oh, and the restriction of the
music distribution chain to the major music publishers. Oh, and... OK, it's
evil!

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBMs database migration
Authored by: zr on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 06:15 AM EDT
To me, the IBM application for database migration (#20070150488) looks like it
has been filed and presented here with the expectation of being caught by prior
art. A good example of a bad patent. Really, I can't believe the filers believed
they had an 'invention'.

---
Don't follow leaders, watch the parkin' meters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 07:03 AM EDT
The Microsoft patent does not appear to be "new technology", meaning that all of the individual pieces exist as prior art. They have taken a bunch of individual pieces of existing technology and combined them:
1. media players
2. off-line communications
3. cryptography using public & private keys
4. multiple payment methods (purchase, gift cert, loss-leader, etc.)
This is just a quick list of existing technology that I saw. There are probably others involved as well.

The real question should be:
Is the idea obvious to someone faced with the same problem
The answer to that is:
It depends on how you define the "problem".
Once the idea of coopting pirates to charge money and share the profit with the copyright holder has been decided upon as the best logical method to solve the "problem", then applying the listed technology to "solve" the problem becomes pretty obvious.

Microsoft's own Zune device already combines the media player with the off-line communications to allow sharing of files, they merely expire after a few days so they no longer play on the target system. So their own product shows prior art on the combination of a couple of the technology pieces already.

Anyone thinking of designing such a system would obviously decide that it had to be secure, so adding the public & private key cryptography would be an obvious next step.

Both on-line (internet based) and off-line (traditional brick & mortar) retailing have provided for multiple payment methods for years, so adding that piese to the new system is fairly obvious as well if you want to take advantage of the consumer's desire to provide payment by different means at different times.

So you see, as long as the "problem" is defined correctly, and the best solution to the problem becomes "coopt pirates to become resellers", then the technology itself, and piecing it together to form the final system is obvious.

Perhaps they should have applied for a patent on human engineering, as to how they would convince the pirates to go along with this whole thing in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS
Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 07:04 AM EDT
Businesses keep thinking there *must* be a way to turn back the clock and get that total chokehold they dream about. It's like searching for the fountain of youth in Florida.

It isn't even new. When sheet music first became a popular way to spread new tunes the publishers had endless problems which people duplicating the content and selling it.

If you can play it, you can copy it.

Even if the music companies owned and controlled the server, the cable, the player hardware and the speakers they still could not prevent people copying the song. I remember one executive seriously suggesting that the sales of tape recorders be restricted to professionals because they could be used to "steal" music.

---
If you love some code, set it free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Be careful what you wish for. . .
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 07:31 AM EDT
For the patent haters of the World, the Peer to Patent Project may become a
Sword of Damocles. The Project could certainly expose weak patent claims. It
could also reveal a dearth of prior art thereby strengthening some patent
claims.

The Project could become an example of the "be careful what you wish
for" conundrum. It may reveal stronger patent claims for Microsoft as well
as exposing their weaker claims. Does anyone realistically think the Peer to
Patent Project will invalidate 100% of the examined patents?

Is it a good thing to assist Microsoft's IP department with their prior art
reasearch? Publicly handing Microsoft a strengthed patent claim doesn't make
much sense to me.

The Peer to Patent Project seems to be bad defensive strategy for open source
advocates and Microsoft haters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 07:35 AM EDT

Microsoft’s application (#20070136608) is for an invention that will allow copyright owners and media sellers to profit from the off-line transfer of media between buyers and sellers. According to the application, the invention is intended to create an off-line economy for digital media that will store proof and details for off-line transactions. This record will then be used to allot portions of the transaction to the copyright owner, and also to the seller, as an incentive for creating the transaction. The off-line economy will equip copyright owners with a tool to aid them in profiting from their properties, while simultaneously creating an inexpensive channel for media distribution that is accessible to buyers.

Okay, PJ, perhaps I'm sleepy as well, but could someone please explain to me how this does not describe the process by which I walk into a bricks-and-mortar outlet such as Best Buy and purchase a CD or DVD?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

What am I looking for?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 08:07 AM EDT
In MICROSOFT CORP. v. AT&T CORP. the Supreme Court stated:

"[n13] We need not address whether software in the abstract, or any other
intangible, can ever be a component under §271(f). If an intangible method or
process, for instance, qualifies as a “patented invention” under §271(f) (a
question as to which we express no opinion), the combinable components of that
invention might be intangible as well. The invention before us, however,
AT&T’s speech-processing computer, is a tangible thing."

Can someone please give me the legal definition of a "software patent"
so that I can identify the elements that I am looking for in the Peer to Patent
Project?

CLUELESS

[ Reply to This | # ]

How did musicians make a living centuries ago?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 08:12 AM EDT

Right. They toured.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Zune + Grooveshark
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 08:14 AM EDT
Sounds like a combination of the wireless transfer capabilities of the Zune and the model of Grooveshark. Grooveshark doesn't do a good job of describing its service on its website, this describes it better. This "pay to share" ieda for the Zune was even rumored a while ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A thought....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 08:34 AM EDT
The RIAA/MPAA has met with active resistance to their methods of identifying
'pirates'.
Could this be part of a system to better identify file sharing individuals?
Just a thought....

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 09:11 AM EDT
Why not patent the business model of "filing patents for obvious extensions
to current practice in order to threaten legitimate and otherwise viable
enterprises with claims for damages".
Yes, there's plenty of prior art, but it would be good to see the Patent Office
admit to this.

Any candidate?

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 09:13 AM EDT
"Microsoft’s application (#20070136608) is for an invention that will allow
copyright owners and media sellers to profit from the off-line transfer of media
between buyers and sellers. According to the application, the invention is
intended to create an off-line economy for digital media that will store proof
and details for off-line transactions. This record will then be used to allot
portions of the transaction to the copyright owner, and also to the seller, as
an incentive for creating the transaction. The off-line economy will equip
copyright owners with a tool to aid them in profiting from their properties,
while simultaneously creating an inexpensive channel for media distribution that
is accessible to buyers. http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/27/activity"


so is this like when save a receipt from on-line transaction to my usb thumb
drive. I have an off-line receipt - to me that is what this sounds like.
Pretty obvious.

so when I sell my cousin billy my cd they want to make sure the proper people
get paid from that transaction even though I bought the cd at a store properly
and even though I sell him my cd for one dollar - mmm - what's next when I give
a gift of a cd they want me to pay them for that too and treat it like a
transaction. sounds like somebody is getting in good with the mpaa and riaa.

mmm - also sounds like somebody wants to get double-payment for something that
they already received payment for. seems like that should be against the law.
but this is america where corporations make the law.

strange

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS's Patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 09:20 AM EDT
Are we overthinking this a tad?

Zune - remember the ability to share a song or
two?

Combine this ability with an online account tied to your Zune (or other
media player), that the next time you sync, charges the sharee for the sharing
of said file or files?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM's application
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 09:22 AM EDT
Is nothing more than the automation of standard systems analysis and database
configuration / tuning.

While it might be a first automated system (which I
doubt), it's a totally obvious approach given the number of books and
white-papers devoted to database tuning and optimization based on system
configuration parameters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Zune - New Patent Applications Up For Public Review on Peer to Patent - One From MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT
I would think this is part of their Zune. Where a Zune user can share a song
with another Zune user, (This is off line.) then the second user can
"buy" it if they want to be able to keep listening to it and sharing
with others.

Sounds like it could be a pyramid scheme to me. Each Zune user that sells a
copy, part of the money they keep, and part they allocate back to the person who
provided it in the first place, and on up the chain. What happens when a piece
of music has been distributed to every Zune player in existance. Then the last
person to buy the song has no one to sell it to.

If each person sells ten copies of a song, then by the time you get to the
eleventh person to pass it on, you ought to have sold a copy to every person on
earth.

Ahh, Dreams of unimaginable wealth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My reading of the patent application
Authored by: kyfung on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 01:54 PM EDT

This is my read of the application. Nothing about prior art, unfortunately, because I don't work in this field at all.

I don't think for one minute that I am the best person to do this, and indeed I am not even sure this is useful for other people. But this is how I work to understand a document like this: remove the details, understand the high-level concepts, and then go back to the details to get the complete picture. So, here are some of the high-level concepts (minus the accounting stuff).

Purpose of the application

The patent application describes an "economy" and the systems and methods that can be used to create and maintain that economy. The purpose of the economy is to ensure that an entity (the "service provider") is notified of transactions performed "off-line" for the purpose of accounting. This accounting can then be used to pay the owners of copyrighted media involved in the transactions.

The flow of the system is as follows. A media file is downloaded from the "service provider", with DRM information, to a device with a "distribution engine". From then on, devices with the distribution engine can transmit the file from one device to another. The distribution engine transmits the media file in a secure way. The transactions are reported to the service provider later (through the Internet?) to be used for accounting purposes. The service provider can calculate the amount to pay the owner of the copyrighted materials in the media file, and the sellers of the media file; and it is also used to charge the buyers of the media file.

Existing problems

The problems with the existing "economy", according to the claim are two: 1. that media files are encrypted by secret keys that, once revealed, can be used to modify the DRM information of the media files encrypted using the secret keys. 2. that the media, when played, can be captured and recorded without the DRM information.

The claims

  1. The application claims a method to send a media file from one device to another device securely, with the transaction record stored.
  2. The device-to-device transaction is done with a sales protocol using encryption.
  3. The steps of the protocol involved in the device-to-device transmission are as follows: buying device sends a purchase request to the selling device; the selling device sends a receipt to the buying device; and the buying device sends a receipt acknowledgment back to the selling device.
  4. The purchase request has the date, time, location, license, and the price.
  5. The buying device uses the public key of the selling device to verify the request.
  6. The two devices authenticate each other by exchanging certificates and then a session key; establish each other's encryption and compression capabilities; and also a session identifier.
  7. The transaction can be one of many kinds: promotion, preview, bartering, etc.
  8. The buying device can then become a selling device to another device.
  9. A device or devices send a notification of the transaction to the service provider.
  10. Either device can notify the service provider of the transaction, and the service provider debits the account of the second user.
  11. The selling device can transmit the preview of the content of the media file to the buying device for verification of identities (of what?) and quality of the content.
  12. The selling device can transmit the preview of the content of the media file without informing the buying device of the title and author of the content.
  13. The selling device can sell an advertisement of the content to the buying device. The buying device can sell the advertisement to subsequence buying devices as well.(So, the advertisement is not free?)
  14. The selling device has "pirated media content", and advertisement is applied to the content, and the content is re-sold. (How does the "pirate media content" get into the selling device? How do you know it is pirated?)
  15. (I am lost about this claim. It seems to say that the two devices can detect whether the media file has been transmitted completely for accounting purposes)
  16. When the user of the buying device does not acknowledge the receipt of the media file, then the reputation of the buying device suffers.
  17. A device has the storage for media content, communication protocol stack for device-to-device communication, and a distribution engine that can negotiate prices(!), selling and buying media content.
  18. The device also has an authenticator to provide secure communication between devices. (Authenticators for secure communication? Somebody confuses the security of communication between devices and the authentication of identities of users of the devices.)
  19. The distribution engine has a transaction engine that negotiates prices, and handles the transaction between a selling and a buying device.
  20. The application claims a system that can do all of the features enumerated above, and the accounting too.
  21. The application claims a system that has all the above features, accounting, and also be able to somehow knows how much a media file is being charged by other devices, and optimize the price of the media file.

My Observations

I don't think there is a fool-proof way to closing the "analog gap": I can think of a device that can capture analog signals and record it back into DRM-free media. Until they implant a distribution engine in our ears and eyes, there is no fool-proof way for that.

There is also a simple way to defeat the purpose of the patent: devices with the distribution engine that don't ever connect to the Internet and thus their transactions are never reported back to the service provider. Again, every device must have a temper-proof distribution engine to make this economy possible. On the other hand, if they can monitor 80% of the transactions, they might be satisfied.

Another thing too: when you sell a song to another person, in many places, you need to charge sales tax, etc., etc., all the normal commercial stuff. How is that aspect of the "economy" handled? Unless it is not buying-and-selling in the normal sense?

How do you verify the public keys of the devices is not explained. If the buying device must connect to the Internet to verify the key, then it is not off-line. If it does not, the identity of the selling device can't be verified. I guess this is where "pirating" can happen.

How do you handle the reputation of users? Does this imply the acknowledgment of a receipt is manual, not done automatically by the buying device? Also, somewhere else on the Internet there is a place where you can check the reputation of a user? How do you use that reputation? Like the way they do it in eBay? How do you do that with an off-line device?

The transaction engine must know the optimized price of a media file through multiple other transactions of the same media file. How is that done with a portable media player?

From my untrained eyes, the quality of this application is not very high. Is this level of quality normal for patent applications? Or this is indeed the preferred quality?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Achilles heel
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2007 @ 08:02 PM EDT
The Achilles heel of the open source community is the failure to fully
acknowledge the fact that software related patents are *not* going to "just
go away". This leaves open source proponents on the defense, always trying
to "neutralize" software related patents. It's like a disarmed
pacifist trying to win a war against an armed aggressor.

Take a lesson from Microsoft -- embrace and extend. Steve Ballmer has nightmares
triggered by five letter words --like "E-O-L-A-S". Open source
advocates expend enormous resources and energy crafting defensive schemes
against software related patents. Why not expend those resources by teaching
open sourcers to properly apply for process patents to aim at Microsoft? The
very thought of offensive patents in the hands of open source advocates and
aimed at them terrifies Microsoft. You can't hate Microsoft to death -- you have
to assault Microsoft with the same IP weapons of war that they are willing to
use against you. That is the *only* thing Microsoft will *ever* respect.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Pay to play patent. Is it obvious form this?
Authored by: tqft on Wednesday, July 11 2007 @ 07:20 AM EDT
Still time poor so help me flesh it out.

Every transaction cryptographically signed to enable <action>.

1) How is this different from a certificate authority chain of trust on an
electronically signed document - the fact that the "right" to play the
tune as opposed to to being able to say x, y & z so it is this person said
that?

2) digital cash has been studied deeply over the years - both untraceable (cf
chaum patents) and traceable (it is a very similar concept to 1) above).

Is saying money has been/will be paid an "obvious" extension?

---
anyone got a job good in Brisbane Australia for a problem solver? Currently
over employed in one job.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trivialities!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 04:24 PM EDT
All these patent applications -- none of them remotely innovative, let alone
patent-worthy.

It's too bad they can't be fined for submitting frivolous patent applications.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds