By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft patents drop-in split-screen

Rob6021 on 22 July 2009

Let me get this straight because 'Project Eden' presents this exact feature well before brute force was ever made, but let you 'give commands to the extra characters' instead of controlled by AI they don't count? So this patent only apply to a 'shooter game where you can't command the other squad members around'??? Seriously.. because when you lose control of the player it is taken over by AI Microsoft gets a patent? Have any of you guys played 'project eden' on PS2? How can Microsoft lay claim to this patent when Core/Eidos did it 2 years before them?



 

Around the Network
Words Of Wisdom on 22 July 2009
Mendicate Bias said:

Well I just asked my friend that is in his 3rd year at the university of chicago law school to be a a patent lawyer and according to him your wrong. The original inventor must make an attempt to patent his invention within 5 to 6 months of invention. Under almost no circumstances can the original inventor not patent his invention for a year and then file a case against a competitor that patents his invention. So in your frisbee case yes if I did not patent the frisbee within those 5 years someone else can come and patent the design and I will lose my product.

Also making money off of a invention you have not pattented and then trying to patent it later severely weakens your case in a court of law. So basically every thing I have been saying is correct. Your clearly a bright individual but in this instance your just wrong, I'm sorry.

First, "my friend says" is never a good argument in any way, shape, or form.  Your "friend" can be an imaginary talking hamster for all I know.  Second, your "friend" apparently hasn't learned the difference between Constructive Reduction to Practice and Actual Reduction to Practice.  You should tell your "friend" that's he either has been very lax in his studies or needs to find another imaginary hamster to play with instead of jumping into forum arguments.  Third, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agrees with me and has an example that follows the scenario I listed above.

>II.    < PRIORITY TIME CHARTS

The following priority time charts illustrate the award of invention priority in several situations. The time charts apply to interference proceedings and are also applicable to declarations or affidavits filed under  37 CFR 1.131 to antedate references which are available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(e). Note, however, in the context of 37 CFR 1.131, an applicant does not have to show that the invention was not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed from the time of an actual reduction to practice to a constructive reduction to practice because the length of time taken to file a patent application after an actual reduction to practice is generally of no consequence except in an interference proceeding. Paulik v. Rizkalla, 760 F.2d 1270, 226 USPQ 224 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See the discussion of abandonment, suppression, and concealment in MPEP § 2138.03.

For purposes of analysis under 37 CFR 1.131, the conception and reduction to practice of the reference to be antedated are both considered to be on the effective filing date of domestic patent or foreign patent or the date of printed publication.

In the charts, C = conception, R = reduction to practice (either actual or constructive), Ra = actual reduction to practice, Rc = constructive reduction to practice, and TD = commencement of diligence.

 

A is awarded priority in an interference in the absence of abandonment, suppression, or concealment from Ra to Rc, because A conceived the invention before B, actually reduced the invention to practice before B reduced the invention to practice, and did not abandon, suppress, or conceal the invention after actually reducing the invention to practice and before constructively reducing the invention to practice.

A antedates B as a reference in the context of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 because A conceived the invention before B and actually reduced the invention to practice before B reduced the invention to practice.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2138_01.htm#sect2138.01



Show this to your "friend."


(For those who have trouble following the above chart:  A is you.  Ra is when you start making frizbees.  B is the patent troll.  R is when the patent troll files its patent (or copies your product).  Rc when you file your partent.  The paragraph below the picture is showing that you get priority over the patent troll.)



Reasonable on 22 July 2009
Mendicate Bias said:
said:
Mendicate Bias said:

I did not say the inventor has to file a patent but that they have to work to make a statement directly or soon after the invention. They can not make the invention, make money off the invention for years and then file a patent after their competitor figures out how to make their product. There is a law against that, I'll look it up and post it when I find it. So basicaly the inventor has to show proof of a statement towards a patent application soon after invention but do not neccesarily require the patent its self.

But they can!

They can do exactly that. That's exactly what first-to-invent protects. They don't demonstrate "prior art" by patenting, they demonstrate it by producing the invention.

For an actual reduction to practice, the invention must have been sufficiently tested to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose, but it need not be in a commercially satisfactory stage of development.

First-to-invent protects individuals from the patent system. Consider that example I made above. Say you made the first Frizbee in 2000. Say you became the Frizbee King and made your fortune selling Frizbees. You have a multi-billion dollar Frizbee empire by 2005. Now imagine someone little patent troll files a patent on Frizbees and sues you trying to take all your hard-earned Frizbee wealth away. First-to-invent says "Knock it off you little patent troll, he was here first." That's why it's so great.

Well I just asked my friend that is in his 3rd year at the university of chicago law school to be a a patent lawyer and according to him your wrong. The original inventor must make an attempt to patent his invention within 5 to 6 months of invention. Under almost no circumstances can the original inventor not patent his invention for a year and then file a case against a competitor that patents his invention. So in your frisbee case yes if I did not patent the frisbee within those 5 years someone else can come and patent the design and I will lose my product.

Also making money off of a invention you have not pattented and then trying to patent it later severely weakens your case in a court of law. So basically every thing I have been saying is correct. Your clearly a bright individual but in this instance your just wrong, I'm sorry.

The 'Grace Period' is 12 months I think, maybe longer, but I'm sure its not 5 to 6 months.  'First to invent' is US only I believe, most other countries use 'First to file' for patents - although I believe they also have some form of 'prior use or invention' as a safety catch.  Again though I think a grace period is involved.

Personally I'm with John Carmack, who has always argued patenting SW is bad for the industry and has sought as much as possible to release source code to the internet community.  Patenting something like this to me is pretty silly.  Patent Natal, sure, or the Wii Mote, but a gameplay mechanic?  Get out of here.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Mendicate Bias on 22 July 2009
Words Of Wisdom said:
Mendicate Bias said:

Well I just asked my friend that is in his 3rd year at the university of chicago law school to be a a patent lawyer and according to him your wrong. The original inventor must make an attempt to patent his invention within 5 to 6 months of invention. Under almost no circumstances can the original inventor not patent his invention for a year and then file a case against a competitor that patents his invention. So in your frisbee case yes if I did not patent the frisbee within those 5 years someone else can come and patent the design and I will lose my product.

Also making money off of a invention you have not pattented and then trying to patent it later severely weakens your case in a court of law. So basically every thing I have been saying is correct. Your clearly a bright individual but in this instance your just wrong, I'm sorry.

First, "my friend says" is never a good argument in any way, shape, or form.  Your "friend" can be an imaginary talking hamster for all I know.  Second, your "friend" apparently hasn't learned the difference between Constructive Reduction to Practice and Actual Reduction to Practice.  You should tell your "friend" that's he either has been very lax in his studies or needs to find another imaginary hamster to play with instead of jumping into forum arguments.  Third, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agrees with me and has an example that follows the scenario I listed above.

>II.    < PRIORITY TIME CHARTS

The following priority time charts illustrate the award of invention priority in several situations. The time charts apply to interference proceedings and are also applicable to declarations or affidavits filed under  37 CFR 1.131 to antedate references which are available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(e). Note, however, in the context of 37 CFR 1.131, an applicant does not have to show that the invention was not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed from the time of an actual reduction to practice to a constructive reduction to practice because the length of time taken to file a patent application after an actual reduction to practice is generally of no consequence except in an interference proceeding. Paulik v. Rizkalla, 760 F.2d 1270, 226 USPQ 224 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See the discussion of abandonment, suppression, and concealment in MPEP § 2138.03.

For purposes of analysis under 37 CFR 1.131, the conception and reduction to practice of the reference to be antedated are both considered to be on the effective filing date of domestic patent or foreign patent or the date of printed publication.

In the charts, C = conception, R = reduction to practice (either actual or constructive), Ra = actual reduction to practice, Rc = constructive reduction to practice, and TD = commencement of diligence.

 

A is awarded priority in an interference in the absence of abandonment, suppression, or concealment from Ra to Rc, because A conceived the invention before B, actually reduced the invention to practice before B reduced the invention to practice, and did not abandon, suppress, or conceal the invention after actually reducing the invention to practice and before constructively reducing the invention to practice.

A antedates B as a reference in the context of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 because A conceived the invention before B and actually reduced the invention to practice before B reduced the invention to practice.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2138_01.htm#sect2138.01



Show this to your "friend."


(For those who have trouble following the above chart:  A is you.  Ra is when you start making frizbees.  B is the patent troll.  R is when the patent troll files its patent (or copies your product).  Rc when you file your partent.  The paragraph below the picture is showing that you get priority over the patent troll.)

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing what first to invent is I'm arguing the time period for which that argument is viable. Like I have been saying before after reducing to practice you must file for a patent within at least a year after going to market. I don't really care if you think my friend exists or not but your arguing something else entirely.

I'll repeat it one more time and maybe you will understand what I'm saying. First to Invent is only applicable if the invention is reduced to practice and then filed for a patent in a reasonable amount of time (around a year). Hence no you can not sell frisbees for 5 years without applying for a patent and expect to win an interference hearing.

@Reasonable

yea I already talked about that before you just need to read higher up in the thread.

 



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Words Of Wisdom on 23 July 2009
Mendicate Bias said:

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing what first to invent is I'm arguing the time period for which that argument is viable. Like I have been saying before after reducing to practice you must file for a patent within at least a year after going to market. I don't really care if you think my friend exists or not but your arguing something else entirely.

I'll repeat it one more time and maybe you will understand what I'm saying. First to Invent is only applicable if the invention is reduced to practice and then filed for a patent in a reasonable amount of time (around a year). Hence no you can not sell frisbees for 5 years without applying for a patent and expect to win an interference hearing.

It would have been so much easier if you had been clear about your position from the start.  Then I could have said "duh, my example was an exaggeration" and not wasted time on this.

Oh well.  Please be more specific about your points next time.  Spending my time convincing you of something you already know is disappointing.



Around the Network
Mendicate Bias on 23 July 2009

Well considering the software were talking about patenting is over 4 years old I thought you would realise the point I was arguing. The fact that no company has moved to patent the software in this large time span would indicate that they do not care to do so hence saying Microsoft could easily patent the software which was the entire premise of the argument to begin with.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers