[Vince]

Originally Posted by Alexander Wolfe, EmbeddedWatch.com

Microsoft granted US patent for "interactive entertainment"

Has Redmond locked up rights to movies on demand?

By Alexander Wolfe, exclusive to EmbeddedWatch.com

May 31--If your company is thinking about delivering interactive video-on-demand cable-television programming or movies via satellite to consumers, maybe it'd better start thinking about paying royalties to Microsoft first. That's because Microsoft has just been granted exclusive United States patent rights to a "networked interactive entertainment system" which "allows viewers to create their own customized lists of preferred video content programs, such as movies, games, [and] TV shows."

Specifically, Microsoft on May 27, 2003 obtained patent number 6,571,390 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for their invention--that's their government-legitimized claim--entitled "Interactive entertainment network system and method for customizing operation thereof according to viewer preferences." [Vince - Patent filed in 1998]

Indeed, judging by the summary description included in the patent filing, it looks like Microsoft may have locked up rights to any system which offers up time-shifted movies or television programs over cable, broadband, or satellite systems. (The industry calls programming which customers can start up from the beginning at any time via their cable box "video on demand.)

That may be what Microsoft had in mind from the beginning. The patent's summary goes on to state: "An interactive entertainment network system has a video-on-demand application which allows viewers to create their own customized lists of preferred video content programs, such as movies, games, TV shows, and so forth. Lists of programs are provided in one or more scrollable lists. Once grouped, previews for the set of programs are displayed. The video-on-demand application allows the viewers to browse the previews at their own rate, skipping forward to the next preview or backward to the previous preview. During this automated browsing, the video-on-demand application enables the viewer to add any of the programs of interest to a customized list. The viewer can retrieve the customized list at any time. If the viewer orders a program from the customized list, the program remains available to the viewer for a rental period (which is adjustable). Upon expiration of the rental period, however, the program is no longer readily accessible until ordered again."

Originally Posted by Alexander Wolfe, EmbeddedWatch.com

A casual observer might question whether Microsoft's patent is anything original, especially since most cable systems offer movies on demand along with viewer program guides. However, the patent inspectors employed by the U.S. government apparently felt Microsoft's work was original. Regardless, under U.S. law, once a patent is granted, the assignee (in this case, Microsoft Corp. has legal control of the patent filed by two of their engineers, Matthew W. Dunn and Daniel J. Shoff) holds all rights to the ideas described in the patent filing.

However, patent rights aren't inviolable. If another company (either through their defense of an infringement suit filed by Microsoft, or by filing a suit of their own) can prove that the "inventions" claimed by Microsoft have in fact been done before or are "obvious" to someone with standard technical knowledge, then Microsoft's patent could be invalidated by a court. But since patent litigation is lengthy and expensive, oftentimes smaller outfits fit it cheaper to pay licensing fees or royalties than to go to court. However, large competitors with deep pockets often fight patents which they think might bar them from lucrative markets.

THE WHOLE SHEBANG?

Reading Microsoft's own document, an astute legal observer might opine that Microsoft is merely attempting to patent a program guide for an on-line video system, rather than the complete end-to-end concept of interactive entertainment. While indeed the patent summary does give that initial impression, a more detailed reading indicates that Microsoft may be using the programming guide as a wedge.

That's because, further down in the text, the patent appears to claim the invention of networked interactive entertainment. According to Microsoft's patent document, "The interactive entertainment network system of this invention has a headend [effectively, the tape machine connected to the transmitter at the cable company's facility-editor] connected to multiple user interface units in individual homes via a distribution network, such as cable, RF, and/or satellite network. The headend provides full-length video content programs to user "set-top boxes." The headend also supplies previews, which are known as "trailers" in the film industry, about the programs."

The video-on-demand feature, the patent says, enables cable customers "to order one or more video content programs from the headend." http://www.embeddedwatch.com/wolfemi...usivemay31.htm

So now 3/4ths the industry has to sue Microsoft to prove the obvious prior-art that the "understaffed" (or is that just "intelligence-lacking") USPO should have caught the first time. But, then again, the USPO has also granted patents to Perpetual Motion Machines http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewto...t=6254&start=0, Anti-gravity systems, the lazer cat toy, and the hyperlink.

Thanks to Fleming of the GAForum for posting this and letting me rip it off.

[Johnny Awesome]

What are the real implications here? Can this patent hold? If it does what might happen?

[marconelly!]

BT sure made tons of money on their hyperlink patent ;)


Anyways, this patent was filed in 1998:

Interactive entertainment network system and method for customizing operation thereof according to viewer preferences


Abstract

An interactive entertainment network system has a video-on-demand (VOD) application which allows viewers to create their own customized lists of preferred video content programs, such as movies, games, TV shows, and so forth. Viewers are permitted to select criteria for grouping various video content programs into manageable sets. Lists of programs are provided in one or more scrollable lists, the scrolling rates of which are programmable. Once grouped, previews for the set of programs are displayed. The VOD application allows the viewers to browse the previews at their own rate, skipping forward to the next preview or backward to the previous preview. During this automated browsing, the VOD application enables the viewer to add any of the programs of interest to a customized list. The viewer can retrieve the customized list at any time. If the viewer orders a program from the customized list, the program remains available to the viewer for a rental period (which is adjustable). Upon expiration of the rental period, however, the program is no longer readily accessible until ordered again.
Inventors:
Dunn; Matthew W. (Seattle, WA); Shoff; Daniel J. (Issaquah, WA)
Assignee:
Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Appl. No.:
179545
Filed:
October 26, 1998

[Vince]

Microsoft invented teh playlist and scroll feature!!!

[notAFanB]

Who the hell grants these ridiculous patents?

[wordsmyth]

I want to patent making left turns in motor vehicles. Each time someone makes a left turn while operating a motor vehicle, they must pay me a $0.25 royalty fee. Otherwise, they will have to learn to get where they are going by making right turns only. Until I patent that too.

[Simon F]

Originally Posted by wordsmyth

I want to patent making left turns in motor vehicles. Each time someone makes a left turn while operating a motor vehicle, they must pay me a $0.25 royalty fee. Otherwise, they will have to learn to get where they are going by making right turns only. Until I patent that too.

You can try, but I think there is ample prior art to stop you getting it granted.

[Panajev2001a]

Simon,

You are assuming that the monkeys at the USPTO will even check the prior art

But yes, that might help in litigations

[Simon F]

Originally Posted by Panajev2001a

Simon,

You are assuming that the monkeys at the USPTO will even check the prior art

Hmmm well they do keyword searches.... but, AFAICS, only of US patents - they seem to totally ignore the existence of other patent offices around the world. I must say, in my experience, that their UK and EPO counterparts are generally a lot more thorough in their searches.

[McFly]

An old one, but still one of my favs:

REDMOND, WA—In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.
With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones—the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs—unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.
"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."
A number of major Silicon Valley players, including Apple Computer, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, said they will challenge the Microsoft patent as monopolistic and anti-competitive, claiming that the 10-cent-per-digit licensing fee would bankrupt them instantly.
"While, technically, Java is a complex system of algorithms used to create a platform-independent programming environment, it is, at its core, just a string of trillions of ones and zeroes," said Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, whose company created the Java programming environment used in many Internet applications. "The licensing fees we'd have to pay Microsoft every day would be approximately 327,000 times the total net worth of this company."
"If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."
As a result of the Microsoft patent, many other companies have begun radically revising their product lines: Database manufacturer Oracle has embarked on a crash program to develop "an abacus for the next millennium." Novell, whose communications and networking systems are also subject to Microsoft licensing fees, is working with top animal trainers on a chimpanzee-based message-transmission system. Hewlett-Packard is developing a revolutionary new steam-powered printer.
Despite the swarm of protest, Gates is standing his ground, maintaining that ones and zeroes are the undisputed property of Microsoft.
"We will vigorously enforce our patents of these numbers, as they are legally ours," Gates said. "Among Microsoft's vast historical archives are Sanskrit cuneiform tablets from 1800 B.C. clearly showing ones and a symbol known as 'sunya,' or nothing. We also own: papyrus scrolls written by Pythagoras himself in which he explains the idea of singular notation, or 'one'; early tracts by Mohammed ibn Musa al Kwarizimi explaining the concept of al-sifr, or 'the cipher'; original mathematical manuscripts by Heisenberg, Einstein and Planck; and a signed first-edition copy of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being And Nothingness. Should the need arise, Microsoft will have no difficulty proving to the Justice Department or anyone else that we own the rights to these numbers."
Added Gates: "My salary also has lots of zeroes. I'm the richest man in the world."
According to experts, the full ramifications of Microsoft's patenting of one and zero have yet to be realized.
"Because all integers and natural numbers derive from one and zero, Microsoft may, by extension, lay claim to ownership of all mathematics and logic systems, including Euclidean geometry, pulleys and levers, gravity, and the basic Newtonian principles of motion, as well as the concepts of existence and nonexistence," Yale University theoretical mathematics professor J. Edmund Lattimore said. "In other words, pretty much everything."
Lattimore said that the only mathematical constructs of which Microsoft may not be able to claim ownership are infinity and transcendental numbers like pi. Microsoft lawyers are expected to file liens on infinity and pi this week.
Microsoft has not yet announced whether it will charge a user fee to individuals who wish to engage in such mathematically rooted motions as walking, stretching and smiling.
In an address beamed live to billions of people around the globe Monday, Gates expressed confidence that his company's latest move will, ultimately, benefit all humankind.
"Think of this as a partnership," Gates said. "Like the ones and zeroes of the binary code itself, we must all work together to make the promise of the computer revolution a reality. As the world's richest, most powerful software company, Microsoft is number one. And you, the millions of consumers who use our products, are the zeroes."

Fredi

[V3]

What if you use 69 instead 01, would that invalidate the patent ? But, if they can patent binary, that's scary.

[Evil_Cloud]

Indeed... scary
What if they would patent the eating of food

[3dcgi]

Originally Posted by wordsmyth

I want to patent making left turns in motor vehicles. Each time someone makes a left turn while operating a motor vehicle, they must pay me a $0.25 royalty fee. Otherwise, they will have to learn to get where they are going by making right turns only. Until I patent that too.

You'll have to fight Nascar and the IRL over left turns. Try patenting right turns instead.

[london-boy]

i could patent masturbation.....

that way everytime someone wanks off or someone wanks off someone else they have to pay me... i'd make loads of money just from some people posting on these boards.....

(that was my way of saying some people here are just wankers)

[wordsmyth]

Originally Posted by Simon F

You can try, but I think there is ample prior art to stop you getting it granted.

Hey, I didn't shoot your plan full of holes. :P

[arhra]

Well, if someone in australia can patent a "Circular Transportation Facilitation Device"...

[Simon F]

Originally Posted by arhra_

Well, if someone in australia can patent a "Circular Transportation Facilitation Device"...

Ahh but that is not a 'real' patent. I believe the application was done as a joke to show how ridiculous the "innovation patent" concept is. According that pdf, "innovation patents" are granted without examination but anyone can request an exam'. At that point, it would be thrown out.

Originally Posted by wordsmyth

Hey, I didn't shoot your plan full of holes. :P

Hey, I'm just trying to save you a lot of money