|
Authored by: BJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
... is something Apple seems to have a patent on.
They're really inventive in that regard.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
What is the date it should be before?
This sounds very much like:
quicksilver http://qsapp.com/
or google desktop.
or gnome-do
There is probably older prior art. Quicksilver appears to date back to 2003. I
don't know which version introduced search plugin behavior.
If I understand this the patent is sounds exactly like quicksilver.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- If I understand this the patent is sounds exactly like quicksilver - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - Authored by: darthaggie on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT
- Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- Prior Art = shell script +find + grep + NFS - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- Prior Art - Zilberstein 1993 - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 01:33 AM EDT
- Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - Authored by: SeismoGuy on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- Prospero and Gopher as prior art? - Authored by: SeismoGuy on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
Lots of technical buzzwords but absolutely no rational content. It is so
depressing to think that Rader and his clowns think *this* is innovation.
*sigh*
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
That's what the Abstract said to me. The claims are brief enough,
and when I untangle the circumlocution they seem to be claiming
what IMHO and under Bilski is non-patentable.
1. Go to your local library;
2. Look up a search term in their card index;
3. Retrieve the book, and place a marker in the relevant page;
4. walk/bus/internet across town to another libarary;
5. Rinse and repeat.
I confess I am at the disadvantage of not being able to view
the drawings on any of my current browsers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Internet - In Your Pocket - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Gopher, archie, jughead, veronica, and WAIS. n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- The Internet - In Your Pocket - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Can your brousers use google? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 09:11 PM EDT
- Its DEJA VU all over again. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT
|
Authored by: SeismoGuy on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
Not sure if I understand this patent, but it almost sounds
like something you can do with a meta-search engine such as
AskJeeves.com which was around in the mid 90's.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
Isn't there some new law upcoming in the US that essentially cripples the
meaning of prior art and instead proclaims the winner to be the first filer?
(If so -- expect a bonanza on the obviousest of obvious and the silliest of
silly).
I mean -- the prior art might never have been applied for ...
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Prior Art... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- Prior Art... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Prior Art... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 10:05 PM EDT
- Prior Art... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 11:52 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
Like most software patents, this application is obvious to
someone "skilled in the art" and should be rejected to that
basis. It is also too vague.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
...or does anyone else who has tried to parse this patent application
see some relation of it to the Ubuntu 12 Amazon suck feature?
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is it me... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 09:42 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
Specifically, that part that provides your search history.
For the earliest form, look at the "locate" UNIX utility - it creates
a database of files, and allows for searching the database for partial matches.
Now think about adding AFS (a distributed network filesystem with thousands of
hosts contributing public access) and having the locate database include entries
from all over the internet (don't do it... it will take weeks to fill the
database). It does contain the database with both system local files, and
internet servers (AFS servers at least). This was first created around 1985 (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locate_%28Unix%29 for a history)
What it doesn't have is a search history containing the users last search
query.
And browsers have been doing that ever since the first search option was entered
(wasn't that in Netscape 3?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: awildenberg on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
Since people are trying to throw out alternative situations that might apply,
I'll throw out the idea that this is equivalent to doing a search through
email on an IMAP server, say the way that Eudora did things in the mid
to late 90s. In that case, some of your email would have been stored
remotely and some of the email would have been stored locally, so
the search would have taken place at both locations.
Basically it would seem that any program that is doing a partial cache of data
stored on a server and searching that cache to obtain accelerated results
would qualify.
Not convinced it's a great fit, but maybe if somebody wants to pick apart the
analogy it'll be easier to articulate what would fit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
Isn't this effectively what WebFerret does?
www.webferret.com
This was developed in 1995-1996 by Vironix Software Laboratories, and copied by
Symantec with their FastFind product.
At very least Webferret should illustrate the obviousness of the patent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
"prior are should", art [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
Just that ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft suffers steep fall in profits... - Authored by: rsi on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- Display expert, Microsoft Surface RT - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 11:05 PM EDT
- Australian review of innovation patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 12:59 AM EDT
- Apple loses tablet copyright appeal against Samsung - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 07:53 AM EDT
- Minnesota Gives Coursera the Boot, Citing a Decades-Old Law - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- French media to Google: pay us for news searches - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, [Italian] court rules. - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- APPLE files response to juror misconduct claim: "Samsung missed their chance" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 04:32 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
ok [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How to detect and remove AGPL packages? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- Viewed from abroad - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- Well that was the simplest upgrade I have ever done :-) - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:49 PM EDT
- Ubuntu 12.10 “Quantal Quetzal” takes flight with a bag full of Juju - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- Dutch government gives itself the right to break into your computer and destroy it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 01:06 AM EDT
- Nokia Q3 Results: misery all around - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 08:34 AM EDT
- Minnesota BANS Coursera - unenforceable law cited - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- Apple forced to pull back curtain on iPhone secrets - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- Microsoft profit falls as pc sales shrink - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- The Long Reach Of US Extradition - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 07:29 AM EDT
- Early look at Windows 8 baffles consumers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
as usual [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
I haven't read the patent, but from what the other comments are saying, would
gopher, archie, jughead, or veronica be examples that would apply?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
Searching for stuff on a network?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
Alright, these are the claims:
1. A computerized method,
comprising: receiving
at least a partial search query; storing the at least
partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable
medium; searching a
first plurality of files for matches
with the at least partial search query,
wherein the first
plurality of files is located across an internet connection
coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium;
searching a second
plurality of files for matches with the
at least partial search query, wherein
the second plurality
of files is only available via local access from a
computer
that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium;
and
receiving a notification of at least one search result;
2. A computerized
method, comprising: receiving at least a
partial search query from an account;
storing the at least
partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable
medium; searching an internet resources that match for the
at least partial
search query; searching a datastore of at
least one of references to files the
account has recently
accessed, or files the account has recently accessed, that
match the at least partial search query; and receiving a
notification of at
least one search result.
Summary: In claim 1, we're doing a
search on a computer
connected to the internet. This "invention" searches
local
disks and the internet for results to that search. In claim
2, we're
searching for file access history, again, local and
internet. Not sure what
"account" refers to (email?), but
this is so damn broad and ambiguous that it
could probably
apply to Dropbox.
Reading this garbage reminds me of picking-your-
nose-with-a-fake-fi
nger patent [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "An internet connection" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- DJNS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120166477?pg=PA1&dq=2012/0166477&hl=en
&sa=X&ei=h3aAUOytNLSr0AHFooCAAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=2012
%2F0166477&f=false[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- the reason ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT
- the reason ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT
|
Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
I don't know if this is close enough, but it seems it may be of interest. I see
local and remote searches being aggregated, and I see searches based on
different types of index and therefore different algorithms.
When
indexing information is introduced into a server's
local database, the server
now knows not only answers based on the local dataset, but also answers based
on external indices. These
indices come from peer servers, via an indexing
protocol. ... Replies based on index information may not be the complete
answer.
After all, an index is not a replicated version of the remote
dataset, but a possibly reduced version of it. Thus, in addition to
giving
complete replies from the local dataset, the server may give
referrals to
other datasets. ... As useful as indices seem, the fact remains that not all
queries can
benefit from the same type of index. For example, say the index
consists of a simple list of keywords. With such an index, it is
impossible
to answer queries about whether two keywords were near one
another, or if a
keyword was present in a certain context (for
instance, in the title).
Because of the need for application domain specific indices, CIP
index
objects are abstract; they must be defined by a separate
specification.
-- RFC
2651 August 1999, which references RFC 1914 (WHOIS++) February 1996
in which a single query has a single answer, so it may not match the required
art.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
Gopher. Since your own host could be using a search node as well as remote
search nodes and the Veronica search hubs this should meet all the
requirements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29
"The master Gopherspace search engine is Veronica. Veronica offers a
keyword search of all the public Internet Gopher server menu titles. A Veronica
search produces a menu of Gopher items, each of which is a direct pointer to a
Gopher data source. Individual Gopher servers may also use localized search
engines specific to their content such as Jughead and Jugtail."
More particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine
Which could index a list of ftp servers including "localhost" and a
mix of servers within one's own firewall (the only meaningful definition of a
"local server")and publically accessible servers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
1. A computerized method, comprising:
receiving at
least a partial search query;
storing the at least partial search query
on a non-transitory computer
readable medium;
searching a first
plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search
query, wherein
the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection
coupled
to the non-transitory computer readable medium;
searching a second
plurality of files for matches with the at least partial
search query, wherein
the second plurality of files is only available via local
access from a
computer that includes the non-transitory computer readable
medium;
and
receiving a notification of at least one search
result;
1994 “find”
manual
receiving at least a partial search query;
Page 1 “This manual shows how to find files that meet
criteria you specify .
. .”
storing the at least partial
search query on a non-transitory
computer readable medium;
Using find from a bash command line would cause the
command, including
the search query, to be stored in the .history
file
searching a first plurality of files for matches with
the at
least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is
located across an
internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer
readable medium;
Page 25 “—netpaths=’path. . .’ Network
(NFS, AFS, RFS, etc.) directories to
put in the database. Default is
none.”
searching a second plurality of files for matches
with the at
least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files
is only available
via local access from a computer that includes the
non-transitory computer
readable medium; and
Page 25
“—localpaths=’path. . .’ Non-network directories to put in the
database.
Default is ‘/’”
receiving a notification of at least one
search result;
Page 2 “find searches for files in a
directory hierarchy and prints
information about the files it found.”
I
doubt that Apple really expected to get this claim as it is insanely broad.
It
is merely a place holder while Apple decides what it wants to do next. I would
expect to see claims similar to those that were at issue in the PI decision
from
the Federal Circuit, except Apple will like fix the issue that the Federal
Circuit
discussed. The application is currently rejected by the PTO. I
suspect that
Apple will significantly change the claims when it responds to the
PTO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- find(1) - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
- find - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- find - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- There is also AFS... - Authored by: jesse on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 08:11 AM EDT
- find - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- find - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- find - Authored by: Chromatix on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:35 AM EDT
- fixed link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:48 AM EDT
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Information_Server
It should be understood that _anything_ that can contact a remote resources can
contact a "local" one running the same protocol and server elements.
That is something that can attach and access (and thereby "Search", or
apply any other verb) to a system via IP address can _always_ use the
"localhost" [e.g. 127.0.0.1 in IPv4] address to talk to the same host
on which it is running. It is the presence of the program or agency on a given
machine that makes it a "server".
Therefore, by definition, there is no distinction between machines in a discrete
or menaningful continua from "local" to "remote".
Local has no particular meaning (though it does have a rule-of-thumb domain sort
of) since local could be "the same machine", "on the same network
segment", "behind the same firewall", "owned by the same
person or corporate entity", "geographically promimal" [such as
my and my neighbor's cable modems are "local" to each other even
though we cannot talk directly], or topographically proximal [I am in Renton,
WA, but I usually leave the comcast backbone for the net via a gateway 15 miles
away in Seattle, so the internet sees me as "local" with everyone in a
circle wiht an aproximately 25 mile radius], and so forth.
Remote and Local get even more obscure wiht Virtual Private Networks and IPv6
which includes mobility extensions most subtle.
So the patent should, by definitions of the art itself, be stripped of the words
"remote" and "local" as meaningful designators in favor of
"providers" and "consumers" of information. (Not that that
is going to happen.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
it occured to me that using find and grep with NFS would count, especially if
you logged in remotely. Searching for that on google before 2000/01/05 does
find lots of things. However this is particularly bingo:
The Gecko NFS
Web proxy.
Note for example
- The result is a seamless
integration of the Web
into the operating system. Applications name and
access
pages on the Web just as they would files,
eliminating the need to write custom
application
code to access the Web.
- Searching Web pages using grep. A simple
spider
and search engine are easily constructed from
grep and
find.
Note that a web spider is a program, thus will be stored on
disk. A web spider constructed from "grep and find" by definition must contain
a query and so matches the "storing the at least partial search query on a
non-transitory computer readable medium" clause. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: johndrinkwater on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
Copernic Desktop Search.
It would index your system and allow you to query for files and contents. pre
2000.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jimrandomh on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
Actually, I'd rather you just forgot about prior art, and
attacked this
patent on
other grounds. Pretending that it's all about prior art is a
big
part of the
problem with the patent system today. Somewhere, I'm not
sure
where, we started
acting as if "obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art" meant the same
thing as "has closely matching prior art". It's not
the same thing; allowing
"obviousness" to become legal jargon for "not done
before"
is what's allowed
patents to get all the way to trial, without any
person of
ordinary skill in the
art ever making a judgment of obviousness, as
per the lay
usage of the term.
There are three main reasons why
equating obviousness to
lack of prior art is a
terrible idea. First, the
patent office isn't requiring that
software patents
describe their inventions
in sufficient detail to prove that
they've actually
been invented at
all; patents don't ask for source
code, so it's much easier
to write a
patent than it is to create the invention for
real. This means that
patenters
have a big head start on creators. Second, there
are a lot of obvious
things
that are impossible or are bad ideas now, but will
become essential once
supporting technologies have developed. Under the current
rules, you can
patent
these (there can't be prior art while the invention's still
impossible), then
profit when someone else creates the supporting
technologies. And third, digging
through the past is unduly expensive for
everyone involved;
if the USPTO were
willing to accept the subjectivity that
the lay definition
of "obvious" carries,
they could hire a few people of
ordinary skill in the art
and reject the stupider
patents quickly, rather than
having to spend tons of time on
each and then forcing
others to spend
spectacularly large sums fighting in court.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:23 AM EDT |
A quick scan of the patent seems to show the use of the dictionary meaning of
heuristic.
heuristic
adj 1: of or relating to or
using a general formulation that serves to guide investigation [ant:
algorithmic]
n 1: a commonsense rule (or set of rules) intended
to increase the probability of solving some problem [syn: heuristic, heuristic
rule, heuristic program]
The language from the claims
is:universal interface in which user inputs are received and
provided to a plurality of separate heuristic algorithms to locate at least one
item of information
The Groklaw Search function is a universal
search interface which has a plurality of separate heuristic algorithms because
it provides different algorithms for Keywords plus Author, Type, Topic and Date
Range.
The patent does not narrow the claim to completely independent
algorithms and nor could it if the multiplicity of different algorithms is to
locate at least one item of information using search criteria provided by the
searcher.
Other prior art is every search service that provides an
'Advanced' search with a multiplicity of algorithms such as Google, Yahoo, Lycos
and the rest.
Unfortunately, Bing is not prior art because the
heuristics do not meet the dictionary definition of 'guiding the investigation'
or 'a commonsense rule (or set of rules) intended to increase the probability of
solving some problem'.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
There are only two claims in the patent.
Claim 1 is total crap. It claims a patent on searching both
"locally" and using an "internet connection". If one
interprets the claim broadly, things like "ls" and "find"
are prior art (when used with a network-mounted drive and
the ip protocol, introduced in the 1980s). If one
interprets the claim very narrowly (FIRST search the remote
storage), it's unlikely that anybody infringes. Either way,
it's a good illustration of an "invention" that teaches
nothing at all. It's bloody obvious under any
interpretation.
Claim 2 is slightly more interesting. It's similar to claim
one, but it also requires searching an activity history.
This sounds like the sort of thing you'd use in a desktop-
based search (e.g. as part of a windows-type operating
system) to highlight the search results that are also part
of your Recent Documents list. (You could also use this
kind of search in an online environment like Google Docs, if
one interprets the term "local search" a certain way.)
I don't know when operating systems began offering search
tools that highlighted recent documents in the results, but
I suspect it was after 2000. Does that mean that in the
year 2000 this was an actual invention and not just a
steaming pile of manure?
Well, for starters, I'm not familiar with the prior art.
There may have been an OS or application for sale that
searched "recent documents" in 2000. But let's assume there
wasn't any. Why not?
For one thing, the claim is useless without something like
a "recent documents" list. At what date were such things
widely available as part of operating systems?
Note that the patent in question doesn't teach anything
about "recent documents" lists. It just assumes that
somebody else has built a good one - along with an interface
that makes it possible for this "invention" to access the
contents of the list. Now why would the inventor of a
"recent documents" list provide such an interface? Could it
be that somebody INTENDED uses like this?
The patent is even more useless unless good searching is
available. The patent doesn't teach ANYTHING about
searching. Search engines are at least as old as the Web,
and were quite famous by the time of Yahoo's IPO in 1996. By
2000, everybody in software was talking about Google.
Desktop searching had been around since at least the
Macintosh, but it was slow and clumsy. By 2000, the
combination of improved hardware and some algorithmic
insights (partly influenced by the likes of Google) made
desktop search actually usable. It was obvious to everyone
in the industry that a more search-centric (Google-like)
user interface was now possible and was a likely future
direction of operating systems (i.e., had great commercial
potential).
I think this explains the timing of the "invention" in claim
two.
Maybe, claim 2 represents incremental progress over the
prior art. Is it patent-worthy? In other words, was a 20-
year monopoly a necessary incentive to get this invention
published? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Never mind that the "publication" is a joke. It's a two-
sentence description of a goal, not a teaching about how to
accomplish anything. It's a good example of why software
process patents in general are a bad idea.
But even if you believe that software process patents are
legitimate, this is not the kind of invention that should be
rewarded with a patent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
I just had a thought that might fix the patent system by blocking Patent Trolls:
require the company that owns the patent to produce a product that encompasses
the patent or else that patent becomes unenforceable. This would block Patent
Trolls, and provide the courts an example implementation to compare against when
determining any possible violations. Any thoughts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
IF I were in charge of a large multinational corporation, I'd have told my
R&D people to 'Try to Patent everything in sight' several years ago.
Why?
I'd be saying to myself,
"If my company didn't have a patent on something important to us and our
competitor does then we are up **** creek without a paddle."
Microsoft, Google, Apple and a gazillion other companies are going flat out to
do just that. Sure there will be a whole load of seemingly obvious ideas given
patents but the old saying, 'if we don't patent it someone else will' will allow
the various CEO's to sleep at night.
Therefore is is logical that requests like the one here will become increasingly
common. Many of us will spend a good deal of time trying to proove that
<insert idea here> is so blindingly obvious as to warrant the patent being
rescinded.
I thought long and hard about this whole thing a few months ago and came to the
conclusion that trying to defeat individual patents was a waste of time.(It is
amazing what 5 days of watching sea and more sea on a voyage from NY to
Southampton can do for the mind)
If we (the collective Groklaw team) turned our attention to getting the USPTO to
stop granting frankly stupid patents the sooner that PJ can properly retire and
I think that everyone here would like that to happen sooner rather than later.
This particular patent might be overturned but how long before another and
another are presented here for 'prior art investigations'?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
I don't know how it may apply, but it sounds very much like what people use in
bioinformatics and phylogenetics. To build a phylogeny we can use a
database of DNA, RNA, genes, physical characters, and can use multiple
heuristic methods of tree searching. I can do some searching, but any
computational phylogenetics that contain several species are NP-hard and
require heuristics. This is math that has been around a while.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pogson on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 01:56 AM EDT |
I usually use SWISH-e to index and search the index of a
directory or
directory tree of text or HTML files but
parsers can be used for almost any
kind of text file. The
files targeted can be in the file-system or out on the
web
or the LAN. It makes no difference. The file is read and
entries made in
the index for keywords.
When searching a rank is generated and the
results displayed
in descending order of rank. The resource is presented as a
path or URI which may be /somepath/file.txt for
local stuff and
http://someserver.somewhere/whatever/somepath/file.txt for
remote
stuff.
SWISH was developed around 1994 and became SWISH-e around
1996.
It's your very own search engine. So, it has key
features of being a single
point of access for searching
your universe and it does some
ranking.
The Query is "winter of our discontent"
Of 66hits, showing
25.
Rank File Size Description
1000 shaks12.txt
5582655 This is the 100th
Etext file presented by Project Gutenberg, and is
presented
in
941 00ws110.txt 4651867 Project Gutenberg's
Etext of
Shakespeare's First Folio/35 Plays This is our
3rd
...
That's
pretty good ranking and it's fast. --- http://mrpogson.com/, my blog, an
eclectic survey of topics: berries, mushrooms, teaching in N. Canada, GNU/Linux,
firearms and hunting... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 03:00 AM EDT |
Did I miss something, or did Apple decide to patent SQL
across database links? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 05:27 AM EDT |
35 USC § 100(b) - Definitions:The term “process” means process, art
or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture,
composition of matter, or material.
35 USC § 101 - Inventions
patentable:Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.
Bilski v. Kappos:The term
“method,” which is within §100(b)’s definition of “process,” at least as a
textual matter... See, e.g., Webster’s New International Dictionary (defining
“method” as “[a]n orderly procedure or process … regular way or manner of doing
anything; hence, a set form of procedure adopted in investigation or
instruction”).
Claims:1. A computerized method,
comprising: receiving at least a partial search query; storing the at least
partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; searching a
first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query,
wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection
coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium; searching a second
plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein
the second plurality of files is only available via local access from a computer
that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium; and receiving a
notification of at least one search result;
2. A computerized method,
comprising: receiving at least a partial search query from an account; storing
the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium;
searching an internet resources that match for the at least partial search
query; searching a datastore of at least one of references to files the account
has recently accessed, or files the account has recently accessed, that match
the at least partial search query; and receiving a notification of at least one
search result.
What is the 'orderly procedure or process' in the
claims? The claims, of themselves, are meaningless. Computerising a process or
method means, in plain English, doing something by programming a computer to
execute the process steps or the orderly procedure of the method. What does the
phrase 'receiving at least a partial search query' mean to a person using a
computer program? The only way to see any sense in the process or method claims
is to read the detailed description:DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE
INVENTION
[0021] The present invention will now be described with
reference to the accompanying drawings describing a universal interface in which
user inputs are received and provided to a plurality of separate heuristic
algorithms to locate at least one item of information. It will be appreciated
that the invention is not limited to only the embodiments set forth within this
disclosure. Rather, the particular heuristic algorithms described herein are
meant to be exemplary of many different heuristics that can be employed, for the
purpose of retrieving information through a simplified user interface.
[0022] Referring to FIG. 1, a general computer system 2, in which the
present invention can be implemented, is illustrated. Computer system 2
comprises a display device 4 and various input devices such as a keyboard 5,
microphone 7 and mouse 3 in operable connection with a memory 6, data processor
9 and local storage media 12 which can include one or more magnetic and/or
optical disk drives, for example. Additionally, the computer system 2 can be
connected via an Input/Output device 10 (e.g., a modem or cable connection) to a
Local Area Network (LAN) server 14. The LAN server 14 can also be connected to a
LAN storage volume 8 which stores files for use on the network served by the
LAN. The LAN server 14 can also include a Wide Area Network (WAN) router 13 and
an Internet router 11. The WAN router and the Internet router can be connected
to other servers (not shown) which access additional storage media containing
files, application programs, web pages, etc. While other elements and components
are normally attached to the computer system 2, only these elements are shown so
as not to obscure the invention.
[0023] In general, the present
invention provides a universal interface that enables the user to readily
retrieve an item of desired information located on any of the various storage
media that are accessible to the user's computer system, with minimal effort.
The desired information could be an application that is stored on the local
storage media 12, a file stored on the LAN storage volume 8, or a web page
available through the Internet router 11. Rather than require a separate search
mechanism to locate each of these different types of information, the present
invention facilitates the user's ability to easily retrieve the information by
means of a single universal interface which is capable of accessing files on all
of these various storage resources.
So, the process or method is
using a single computer user interface for the person executing the process, or
using the method, for 'searching a first plurality of files for matches with the
at least partial search query' where the files can be on the computer, on a
server connected via a LAN to the computer or on a server connected via the
internet to the computer.
What does 'In general, the present invention
provides a universal interface' mean? How does the method or process rely on a
universal interface and how does the universal interface differ from a specific
interface? What, in this part of the claim, makes the method or process a novel
and useful one as opposed to the same method or process using a specific
interface? In what way is the interface 'universal'?
If the search of
'a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query'
is carried out via the command line using raw SQL, does this meet the claim for
'receiving at least a partial search query' from the user of the process or
method? What attribute is being matched; a file name, a database record, text
file strings? Is a search for something undefined using an undefined search
method and merely claiming a 'multiplicity' of methods, an abstract
idea?
I could go on at length (you wouldn't like it if I went on at
length!) and decompose every part of the claim in the same way. The point I am
trying to make is that we can all recognise the features described as a general
purpose computer connected to a LAN and the Internet on which the computer user
can access other computers and search for file content, file names and database
records.
The patent is the equivalent of a system design outline for a
networked computer system. The programmer would be incapable of programming the
computer system because what the computer is supposed to achieve is impossibly
vaguely defined.
In Bilski, the Supreme Court said:As the
Court later explained, Flook stands for the proposition that the prohibition
against patenting abstract ideas “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit
the use of the formula to a particular technological environment” or adding
“insignificant postsolution activity.”(Diehr).
This patent
application does the converse. The abstract idea does not exist in isolation
without the technological environment. There is no method or process to be
computerised because, when you take away the computer system, there is no method
or process.
As Groklaw has demonstrated with the comments so far, there
is a never ending plurality of examples of how computer machines linked together
via networks can run software that appears to create the effect of the
descriptions and claims in the patent application. It is an artefact of system
design. I don't believe that a novel process or method can be deduced from the
claims that stands alone without the computer system and can be 'computerised'.
On second thoughts, there is just no process or method.
If there is no
useful and novel process or method, then the corollary to 35 USC § 101 applies
Whoever does not invent or discover any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may not obtain a patent
therefor.
Claims: --- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
I've been looking though old papers and poking around.
I've been thinking data mining, AI, ontologies did exactly this sort of thing.
These sort of tools were used in research libraries all the time and built as
needed.
I am not an expert in this area, however.
http://gate.ac.uk/ ..
Seems to be a good example of a advanced searching tool.
Dates back to 1995 and it has a lot of papers and implementations.
In chemistry and pharma tools to search by structure similarity and things like
that were used.
I believe there were some data mining software based around Cyc. I imagine in
general they way many users would use these systems would be through a front end
portal that submitted a query to N systems and displayed the results
collated together. This is generally what people want. :P
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
How does that work? I know the searching was automated to be able to find books
that were available for immediate loan. That would take searching multiple
databases at multiple libraries.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|