Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
X GUI

GraphOn Patents Remote Windows Apps Over X 248

Posted by CmdrTaco from the amazingly-lame-patents dept.
LocalLinuxLobbyist wrote in to point us to this clever patent that apparently says GraphOn owns what VNC has done forever: the displaying and using of Windows apps over X. Oh, don't forget that this is the same GraphOn that is making Linux the Official OS of China.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GraphOn Patents Remote Windows Apps Over X More

GraphOn Patents Remote Windows Apps Over X

Comments Filter:
  • Can anyone say 'prior art'?

  • This just in... (Score:4)

    by bconway ( 63464 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @08:43AM (#1527863) Homepage
    I've obtained a patent on the one-foot-followed-by-another walking method, as no one has yet to do so. Anyone seen using this method between the hours of 11:30 AM and 1 PM in a public area with be charged an exorbitant license fee, lest they be sued. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
  • Faralon was doing this for macs 10 years ago (not over X but the moral equivalent).

    Sundry PC emulators running on Suns have been doing this too over X - for at least 5 years. These bozos don't have a leg to stand on - other than having hoodwinked the patent examiner about the state of the art

    (OK - to be fair, they could have been incredibly ignorant of the state of the art when they filed their patent)

  • Not all Linux Companies nice guys (Score:3)

    by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @08:45AM (#1527867)
    Two Points

    - when exactly was VMC released? With any luck at all it can provide prior art to get this patent nullified

    - this looks like the first case I can think of where a Linux company (if it can be described as such) may have earned themselves a serious boycott of their product.

  • Heh, great timing (Score:3)

    by Kintanon ( 65528 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @08:45AM (#1527868) Homepage Journal
    I just decided on VNC as the remote admin solution for the 150+ users in our little company here. Will I now be sued into the ground? >:)
    Even though VNC isn't the fastest around (NetOP remote Admin is EXTREMELY Fast and Smooth) it was free, which was a blow in its favor. And since extreme high performance isn't really an issue it won out in the long run. I hope they beat the crap out of GraphOn in this and continue their excellent work.

    Kintanon
  • VNC doesn't display Windows apps using X. It transfers a dumb compressed framebuffer using VNC's own protocol. Windows apps displayed over X would be much (much!) faster than VNC.

    MJP
  • Ahem. Typical Slashdot Discussion:

    10% "I patented the obvious" jokes
    70% "Oh, isn't this exactly like this technical solution deployed years ago on this platform using this technology for that purpose"...

    Slashdot is probably one of the most effective places for prior art discovery ever found. The general rule is, if Slashdot sees your patent, nobody is going to respect you in the morning.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  • Re:typical slashdot patent discussion (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I patented that comment..pay up
  • I know, I read the summary and choked. I'm not even that big an X programmer, but even I know that it's been done before. Until I re-read the article:
    GraphOn Corporation ... has acquired a U.S. patent for the remote display of Microsoft Windows applications on UNIX(R) and Linux(R) desktops with X Windows(R).
    Formatting mine, of course. The only thing that's close to this that I can think of is WINE, and it's not exclusively for remote display. I won't say it's not obvious it could be done (it is, after all what the X protocol is for) but it's at least something that hasn't been done to a large extent.

  • Prior Art (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I believe that Network Computing Devices (Nasdaq:NCDI) developed software to do this in 1994 or thereabouts. AFAIK they never sold the software because they decided at the time that it was not practical, but they did write the software, and I imagine they probably beta tested it with various potential customers. If somebody wanted to pursue prior art in this case, they should probably contact NCD.

  • One problem .... (Score:5)

    by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @08:51AM (#1527878) Homepage Journal
    It seems that to get a bogus patent nullified you have to go to court ......

    I'd like to see

    • a division of the patent office that does post-facto reviews of patents as follow ups from public comment (so we can all email someone and have it actually have some effect) - maybe just a place where you can mail prior-art examples to
    • the ability for judges to require legal costs to be paid by someone who has such a bogus patent and then sues someone when obvious prior art is available - esp. if the defendant points it out at the very beginning of precedings - this might discourage people knuckling under just to save the legal bills (esp. important for us low paid open source people)
  • I've used VNC a little and afaik it just transmits the whole remote screen.

    Does this thing do something different and display one window without all the win32 interface junk?



  • Okay, so vnc is a bit slow, but it works! We've been using it here at out medium sized company for about a year now! That seems like proof enough to me that GrafOff or whatever LOSES (do not pass go, do not collect $200)!!

  • ... (Score:1)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 )
    Minneapolis,MN -- In a suprising show of force today, over 35,000 linux users in the Twin Cities turned out to protest what they believe is unfair use of intellectual property. Several members were arrested for indecency after, quote: "using a higher grade of toilet paper to show them we care". The situation has piqued several news sites, including a "nerds for news" site owned by bendover.net(NASDAQ: BOVR). However, not everybody is upset about it. The Montana Freemen, a radical right militia organization announced that they now had, quote: "plenty of things to do". Microsoft spokesmen were not available for comment, although several burned ties were found at the site of the demonstration, as well as a "crud puppy".

    --
  • Hummingbird's the other way around.

    Hummingbird displays X applications on a Windows box. This takes Windows apps, running "natively" on a Windows machine, and re-routes their display to an X server.

    Heck, talk about "Prior Art" -- www.x.org had a demo screen shot of this sort of thing back in 1992 when X11R6 was first being released.

  • Re:Prior Art (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Another prior art would be Desqview/X. This package basically translated Windows GDI calls in X calls. This was around way back in 92/93 or so.
  • that sounds like VMware does the same thing.... wine too for that matter...
  • Graphon doesn't use X11 per se, they use their own proprietary "RapidX" protocol. Their virtual framebuffer (GoGlobal) is nothing more than a Xvfb/Xfree86_VNC like X11 display. They haven't modified a darned thing. So what's so new here?

    Prior art? Citrix has been doing this since OS/2 days with their "ICA" protocol. WinFrame predates anything Graphon has. Anyone remember running "WinDD" sessions with Winframe? This was pure X11 XDM sessions directly from the Winframe server. So what is new?

    Graphon bought the "J-Bridge" technology from Corel, which seems to be little more than a heavily hooked standard NT Server distro (GDI hooks, etc). The big problem with their model: only supported applications than have been tested with J-Bridge will work. Sure you save that nasty Microsoft client license inherent to TSE, but the available applications are severely limited.

    Does this mean Microsoft needs to pay for their T.120 hack "RDP" protocol?

    Proprietary protocols are anti-OpenSource. If Citrix would open their ICA protocol to the public at large, they would reap HUGE rewards from the industry as a whole. Until something like this happens, the only "standard" seems to be RFB ala VNC.

  • Here's the patent. (Score:5)

    by curtisg ( 63391 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @09:00AM (#1527889) Homepage
    This appears to be the patent in question:

  • ...and 20% "First Post!"
  • IIRC that's a Windows X-server, to display Unix programs on a Windows desktop (the other direction from what these guys seem to be claiming).

    However, Insigina Solutions' "NTrigue" is a modified version of Citrix Winframe, which does send a remote Windows desktop over the X protocol (not ICA). Let me just pull it up... Copyright notices say 1996, and I think we've been using it since mid-1997.
  • I have done this in 1992 using deskview by
    quarterdeck, and windows 3.1 and it works.....

    OverLord

  • Whenever a stupid/nasty/annoying (and there do seem to be a lot of them!) article gets posted on /. there is usually discussion about Prior Art, so I have a question (being a dumb Canadian who knows nothing about the patent system, let alone the american one):

    If someone has a Prior Art case, is the patent null and void, or does the patent get passed to the folks who have the PA?

    Dana
  • "The general rule is, if Slashdot sees your patent, nobody is going to respect you in the
    morning."

    So .. is showing your `patent' to /. like sleeping around?



    Bad Mojo
  • Anyone have a link to the patent or the patent number? The only link patents.ibm.com [ibm.com] has for GraphOn is US5274794 [ibm.com] issued in 1993 titled "Method and apparatus for transferring coordinate data between a host computer and display device", which might or might not cover it. Certainly predates most popular acceptance of Linux, and the file date of Jan 22, 1991 seems a little early.
  • there is a company called cytrix or maybe that is the name of the software.
    Anyway we are using it at NCSU to use software like Word, Excel etc from a remove server...

    www.cytrix.com they should raise hell

  • It's not like VNC (Score:4)

    by Daffy Duck ( 17350 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @09:05AM (#1527898) Homepage
    I think this [ibm.com] is the patent in question. Graphon "acquired" it from Exodus.

    From what I can see, this system turns an individual Windows app into an actual X client, as opposed to VNC which simply gives you a virtual display of the whole Windows desktop in an X-window.

    Not sure about "prior art" considerations as they apply to VNC, though. The filing date on the patent is 1995.

  • Destruction of Computing (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Welcome to the inevitable destruction of computing as we know it. Also, welcome to a future where the U.S. is no longer the powerhouse of innovation and software development. Whether or not this patent would hold up in court, the fact remains that an independent software developer cannot typically afford the legal costs to defend himself, therefore "cease and desist" is usually the only option. Fortunately, US patents do not apply in other countries, so in nations where corporations do not control the government (not yet at least) you'll still be able to use/develop VNC. It is important that American linux enthusiasts become more active in protesting the US Patent Office, before it becomes illegal to use linux in the US.
  • So .. is showing your `patent' to /. like sleeping around?

    It's more like dropping the soap in a prison shower than sleeping around. ;)

  • First Claim:

    We claim:

    1. A method for running an application as an X-Client so as to enable the application to be displayed with an X-Windows manager, the method comprising the steps of:

    launching a "WINDOWS/NT" session;
    invoking an application from within the "WINDOWS/NT" session;
    monitoring output messages that are sent from the application; determining that one of the monitored output messages is a graphical user interface command; and when the monitored output message is a graphical user interface command, enabling an X-Windows manager program to act on the command, and informing the "WINDOWS/NT" device driver of results of the command that was acted on by the X-Windows manager program, wherein the enabling step includes converting the graphical user interface command from a "WINDOWS/NT" format into a format that is recognized by X-Windows manager program to enable the X-Windows manager program to act on the command.
  • Good point. ;)


    Bad Mojo
  • Yes, that's right these Jokers are at Comdex, why don't some of the Slashdotters drop on by to tell them what a bunch of twits you think they are.


    From the Graphon.com web page:


    > Join us November 15-19 Comdex Fall '99 Las Vegas, Nevada

    > Microsoft Partners Pavilion Booth # 121 in L5142

  • A search on IBM's patent server did not yield any results for this patent, but it revealed another patent that GraphOn holds. While I haven't bothered examining the algorithm in great depth, it looks very much as if they have a patent on using a generalized version of BASE64 encoding to transmit graphics coordinates. The core claim seems to cover a way to dynamically determine the optimal encoding. None of this looks very innovative or unique to me (I am actually quite sure I have used similar techniques before, only not to implement graphics coordinates but some completely different type of data); it yet again shows that the USPTO lacks the experience to really evaluate patent claims. GraphOn might even be right that there is no prior art for this very specific claim, but that is not so much because the solution is new and non-obvious, but rather because nobody else has bothered tackling this particular problem before. So effectively, the USPTO has now started granting patents on the merrit of being the first one to recognize a new problem/market niche. This gives a whole new twist to the evils of allowing software patents.
  • Lets see... Hasn't Cygnus been doing this since the 1980's?

    I was doing windows apps remotely using wine 5 years ago.

    vmware seems to do something like this too.

    Someone needs to march down to the Patent Office and take away those fuckers' crack pipes.

  • If most of the modes for transfering information across a network become patented, how much money will the USPTO have to pay to use one of the modes available. According to their site, email coorespondence is "not yet ready". I wonder if it will be a single click through, a redirect, or another application running across the network?

  • but it seems to me that prior art means squat if the patents aren't challenged in court. And most companies seem leery of the idea of a prolonged court battle and possible losses, so they just cough up their lunch money (cough) licensing fee...

    IANAL, but it seems to me what we need is something called, say, the "Free Concept Foundation" that challenges frivilous software patents in court. It's gotta be somebody (a) without much to lose in any particular case (ie not owning or marketing a technology based on an infringing concept) and (b) dedicated soley to the task, sort of like the EFF or the ACLU.

    Any deep pockets out there that are interested. Anyone? Anyone? Is that you, Bob Young? ESR, you're going on "So You Want To Be A Millionaire" to raise money for this project? Good for you!
  • If there is a patent on the Prior Art, that patent is upheld and the new patent is discarded.

    If there is no patent on the prior art, the patent becomes null and void and the concept can not be furthur patented in ANY FORM as far as I know. The knowledge effectively becomes unpatentable (though it may remain copyrightable).

    The problem is it is up to a victim of the patent (either the company/author of the prior art, or someone whose use of the prior art is restricted by the new patent) to file the lawsuit and challange the patent. Then they have to PROVE the prior art, which usually still requires the original author to submit why this new patent violates his prior art; the defendents then get to try to prove that it doesn't.

    fun stuff, 'eh?

    and note: the clerk who issued the patent stays out of the whole thing -- THAT'S the reason so many stupid patents are issued. If a clerk rejects one, HE has to appear in court to defend his rejection. You think a clerk is gonna waste his own time on something he gives less than a shit about? I don't think so. Issue the patent and stay out of the way is the only thing patent clerks can do, or THEY go to court.

    The biggest problem w/ the patent system is there is no recourse back to the PTO on invalid patents. And its too expensive in court and w/ attourneys to challange one on its own, much less get one high enough in the court system to get the PTO affected by anything.

  • IF any one wants to see another dumb patent case and a patent examiner's view of this check out the latest Kernel Traffic [linuxcare.com]

  • Hrm. (Score:1)

    by Lao-Tzu ( 12740 )
    Ignoring the absolute idiocy of this patent is difficult, but after doing so we see that it is somewhat threatening. I know several large coroporations that use X and this method of running applications.. for a home user such as myself, I don't think this would ever impact anything. Can you really see being sued because, say, you use a laptop that can't handle netscape itself but can run an X server? :) But what of the corporate world.. universities perhaps too? Lots of people have used this 'patented' technology for a long time.. technology that wasn't developed by the patenting company in this case. This is bogus. :)
  • The problem is that the people at the patent office seem to know so little about the subject matter that they are issuing patents on that they don't seem to be aware of what prior art is out there (even stuff covered by prior - sometimes expired - patents). They also don't seem to know enough about the subject matter even to be able to decide that certain patents should be disallowed because they are for something that is obvious.

    Unfortunately, the patent office's attitude seems to be to rubber stamp just about anything that crosses their desks these days that has the correct paperwork and $$$ attached to it, especially if it is for a big corporation. The assumption appears to be 'let the courts sort it out'.

  • Peer review for patents (Score:5)

    by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @09:20AM (#1527917)
    I mentioned this in a previous thread, but now I get a default score of 2 - so I'll mention it again and hope I get some more comments :)

    There really ought to be a formalized "peer review" system for patents. It doesn't necessarily have to model the scientific review process (although that's probably a place to start). Preferably, you should be able to take government out of the loop except for maybe the enforcement of the resultant patents.

    Anything that can pass the /. "laugh" or "scorn" test (using /. as a typical set of "peers" for software) would probably qualify as innovative - and anything that got a majority "COOL!" reaction would probably be REALLY innovative to the jaded eyes on this forum...
  • WINE may not be exclusively for remote display - but I personally have been using it for such for well over a year
    (I use Agent for my newsreader - and having it run under WINE off of my linux box means I can run it from anywhere I have access to X Windows)


    -Nick
  • This, along with a story about a patent on Y2K 'windowing' I heard last night on NPR [npr.org] (which was also reported earlier here on Slashdot [slashdot.org]) has got me completely disgusted.

    It's about time we get together as an angry mob with pitchforks and torches [pbs.org], and knock over and burn that damn patent office [uspto.gov]. Why hasn't there been any congressional lobbying or attention on this yet [house.gov]? (Because companies like being able to fence off almost brainlessly obvious solutions and hold other companies hostage? Hello Amazon [slashdot.org]? Hello Yahoo [slashdot.org]? Hello-- oh hell, just search for 'patent' on Slashdot [slashdot.org]!)

    I'd rather see no patents [freepatents.org] whatsoever on anything than this garbage [learner.org]!

  • Contact your senator (Score:5)

    by Joe_NoOne ( 48818 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @09:24AM (#1527920) Homepage
    I recently heard from my senator about patent issues -- they are revising the patent laws, and from what little I've read it's being rushed through. It's HR 1907 and S.1798. Find out and get involved

  • Another silly patent (Score:4)

    by GnrcMan ( 53534 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @09:24AM (#1527921) Homepage
    While searching for the patent in question (which someone else found here [ibm.com]) I ran across this [164.195.100.11] silly patent. What this fellow (from Intel) seems to be patenting is the remote triggering of a batch application. In other words: computer A sends a message over the network to computer B. Computer B executes a batch task in response. Computer B sends "I'm finished" response back to computer A. This seems to be angled as a way for a central computer(server) to use spare cycles on a client computer as directed by the server. I certainly wouldn't want some server to have the ability to start processes on my computer like that. Scary. Actually, the patent sums this up nicely (you'll want to sit down for this):

    Service providers, such as American Online.TM. ("AOL") and Compuserve increasingly must buy more powerful computers to service the additional members and the new content that is constantly being updated. These service providers could save on computer costs if some of the computational requirements of their system could be serviced by remote personal computers owned by private individuals and other independent entities who subscribe to the Internet provider services.



    --GnrcMan--
  • From the people who make the word "Linux" synonymous with a communist country comes Windows: Penguin Style!!! As Bill from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure would say: VNC in of itself is heinous, dude. Be decent to each other. Whooooaaa... Duuuuude... Cooooool... The fact that now we will have little wars over who owns it is even less rightous, dude! In other words: BLECH.


    If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
  • I believe desqview did the exact opposite. It let you view X applications in DOS, which this lets you run windows applications on X.
  • GraphOn is a company that's not even worth discussing here. They have some pretty lame remote computing tools (I evaluated them for our company), none of which was really better than VNC for our purposes. They have used Linux name to hype themselves since they showed up last year, and although all of their ads showed Linux as a platform they supported, none of their salespeople seemed to know about.

    Why doesn't the Linux community punish the right companies? I mean, companies like XiG which slams Xfree and in general the Open Source community which lets it live, and GraphOn which claims to take advantage of Linux by using it liberally in their adds to hype their product; are much more dangerous and harmful than Microsoft. I guess the combined buying power of Linux users should be significant. Let's assume GraphOn decides to enforce this patent and collect royalties (which is likely-check their site out, they have recently employed the former IBM intellectual property and licensing VP!)and if even ten percent of all working Linux users who are in a decision making position opt not to buy GraphOn products for remote connectivity, I think GraphOn can never take off.

    Just my two cents.
  • We've been seeing lots of absurd patents here in the last several months (since I've been here at least), but how many of these will actually stand up in court? While I have zero faith in our patent system, I have a shred of hope for our justice system, at least in issues like these (on social issues I have zero hope).

    The benefit of these patents for large corporations, of course, is that they can sue everyone to hell until their enemies go bankrupt, through the appeal process, similar to what the RIAA did to Diamond, and will probably do to Napster. I think this is where the real threat is.

    However GraphOn isn't that big of a company as far as I know, so I doubt they have enough money to beat anyone up with this patent anyway. Even when your patent is valid, patent lawsuits usually boil down to who has the most money. Hmm...perhaps I should rethink my shred of hope for the justice system...
  • As the AC who replied to me pointed out it is a patent that implements GUI emulation at the API call level. In fact the whole thing (other than the X/NT references) basicly describes Faralon's Timbuctu product from the late 80s. I'm also pretty certain I remember someone doing a Mac->X version of this at the API level.

    The fun part in the claims is " 3. The method of claim 2 wherein the remote graphical user interface is a graphical user interface known as X. " - that's right they've claimed something based on its name .... not its functionality - call it something else and it doesn't apply ..... I for example use a graphical system called "XFree86" ..... I don't think anyone uses a thing just called "X" - I'm sure lawyers would argue for a loser interpretation of this clause.

    Of other interest is Claim 9 where they make a claim over anyone working with an "operating system including X-Windows" - yup if you happen to have X in some form on your disk you may be covered

    Whats more important is that to anyone aware of Faralon's work and to the way that X works (ie to someone 'current in their field') this is an obvious thing to do and therefore not novel or patentable

  • If VNC is actually in violation of this patent (ad I doubt it is) it would be a really bad idea for GraphOn to sue the company that now owns VNC... AT&T. If anybody has deeper pockets than M$... :-)
  • The problem with peer review is that you'd need a huge number of experts. You're not just looking at prior art, you're looking at practicality. It's a nice idea, and it'd be seriously cool if it worked, but I can't see it happening any time soon.

    Anything that can pass the /. "laugh" or "scorn" test (using /. as a typical set of "peers" for software) would probably qualify as innovative
    If Klaatu were to return to Earth, send Gort out to destroy New York and then warn us all of impending doom, he still would't pass the slashdot 'scorn' test.
  • {Standard disclaimers, IANAL and all that}

    With all the ridiculous nuisance patents that are being issued these days, I have started wondering about US IP law viz-a-viz the US constitution (where the US goes, there goes the world...). We all know by now that the constitution explicitly permits patent and copyright legislation. It also clearly and unambiguously states the objective of such legislation. Something about encouraging invention and increasing the public good (exact quote, anyone?). Now, large companies get patents so that they can play trading games with everyone else and small companies are bullied out of markets by these nuisance patents, even when they are bogus, small companies being unable to afford a court challenge. Does this not inhibit invention/innovation and directly harm the public as a result? Is this not a violation of the constitution's stated (in the constitution itself) intent and as this is a direct consequence of current IP legislation, does that not make said IP legislation unconstitutional?

    If so, should the /. (or other concerned) community launch a collective challenge of the IP legislation - particularly as it applies to software.

    Even if a case can be made for software patents per se, is there any conceivable justification for their duration? It seems to me that any large organization can produce a product that works around and avoids any particular patent in at most 2 years. Should that not be the life of a software patent (if you accept that such a patent is justified at all)?

    Am I on to anything here, or am I just another poor/deluded/evil M$ propagandist fool?
  • IANAPO (I Am Not A Patent Officer) :)

    but... from what I understand the people reviewing patent claims have a quota to make.

    The quota being non-rejected and completed patent applications per month. In other words, it is in their best interest to let patents just 'go through' and let the courts fix anything later.

    Can anyone out there who works in the field either confirm or deny this?


    Uhg! (if its true)
  • I think there should be a huge fine for dumb patents that have prior art regardless of whether the applicant knew about it. ( They never will have known. ) That would encourage some real research. Or at the very least have a protected pre-patent period so someone can show evidence of prior art. The protected period would have the same protections as a patent for a specified period ( say 3 months ). It ends either in the approval of the patent or the discrediting of the claim. The USPTO is full of . . . um . . . uninformed . . . uh . . . people. The whole system needs an overhaul.
  • Mr. Phelps played a key role in assisting IBM with receiving the largest number of patents in the United States six years in a row."

    Looks like we got a celebrity here!

    IBM does a hell of a lot of high level hardware R&D. These are the guys whose technology is behind most of the increases in hard disk storage density, pictures of individual atoms in articles in Scientific American, copper chip connectors, and so on. Over the history of corporate R&D at IBM they have one the best records of REAL innovation there is. There patents are generally not two bit losers like Y2K windowing and one-click ordering. Why somebody like this Phelps dude would have anything to do with Graphon escapes me unless it's just because he's a sleezy lawyer type.

  • 1) Sorry, we don't even know how that happened.
    2) Sorry, it seemed like a good idea at first.

    and

    3) Doesn't count -- we didn't steal basketball. We just embraced and extended it into a circus of overpaid spoiled brats -- just like we do with most pro sports. You wouldn't want it back at this point, anyway.
  • Quick someone patent this idea:

    A computer:
    1. A fabricated device based on a finite automaton with associated storage media for data.
    2. The computer includes input and output apparatus for communicating between the storage media, the automaton, and the world.
    3. This computer will be capable of performing any conceptual abstract process based on a descriptive algorithm. The method of describing abstract processes for processing by the automaton is called programming.

    This revolutionary device will free our thoughts by making any conceivable process simple to capture and automate.

    I was going to carry on with this but it just hit me how close all these software patents come to thought and expression control. UUGGHGHH. Especially so when you consider that the mind is a form of finite automaton.

    What with companies getting patents for DNA, as soon as we get mind/computer interfaces are some forms of thought going to become illegal?
  • I knew it was something like that/
  • See: The latter might be the patent in question; GraphOn doesn't seem to be inclined to indicat what the patent is...
  • The JBridge product is probably more like Monoposoft's Terminal Server than VNC, in that it is multi-user. I'm not positive, but I don't think VNC can have multiple logins to the same NT box running different applications, etc. Winframe was great for this and somewhat better than WBTS, but NT 3.51 won't run all the apps you might need it to. I'm trying to deploy Linux desktops but server the have-to-have Windows app that we require, which will no longer run on Citrix Winframe, and I don't want to go with MS Terminal Server. It's down to JBridge and VMWare for me. Anyone do multi-user VNC?
  • Then what's this Exceed icon on my desktop for? It been said a million times, the patent system is over burdened. It's a combination of the sheer breadth of knowlage need to understand so many high tech fields, and a lack of experienced staff (with 5 years of experience one can double one's salary in the private sector). The strategy is to give out the patent and have the courts sort it out in litigation. A great deal of software patents don't qualify under the Previous Works rule: (paraphrased) If anyone, including you has done this before, it is assumed to be common knowlage in the field. Technically if you have an idea for a polymorphic variable decrypting code key block (I'll gpl it if it ever works), you have to patent the idea before you get it working. In practice this is usually not the case. But IMHO the open source model is beginning to show that ideas and information can only be kept by great effort. You stay ahead by getting the next big thing to market faster and better than the compition, by being the only or best ones to get the product to work, or by just selling the development not the software. It makes it hard to fathom for those of us that grew up under the assumption of intellectual property, but it is increasingly evident that those rights only go to those that can afford to defend them. It will cost millions for anyone to get that patent revoked even though it should have never been granted in the first place.
  • I used to work for a company called Tera Technologies [terainc.com] that made a product called EZ-Win that does this exact thing, and yes, it does use the X protocol. This prodcut was created at least two years ago. Someone should slap some sense into the Patent Office. It wouldn't take anyone very long to just do a web search for the appropriate keywords to discover that this was already done.

    If you need to point-and-click to administer a machine,

  • WABI? (Score:2)

    by pb ( 1020 )
    Didn't WABI (and now WINE, of course) basically do this? It's a necessary step in displaying the emulated Windows applications on top of X. I mean, *come on*.

    And what about Windows Terminal Server, there's a pretty similar product. Heck, Microsoft could just buy these guys, and have (or bury) X support...

    Watch everyone release the same thing, with fragmented X protocols to avoid patenting issues. Patents definitely serve to stifle innovation, not help it.
    ---
    pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.

  • Re:Peer review for patents (Score:3)

    by GnrcMan ( 53534 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @09:55AM (#1527953) Homepage
    Or at the very least have a protected pre-patent period so someone can show evidence of prior art. The protected period would have the same protections as a patent for a specified period ( say 3 months ). It ends either in the approval of the patent or the discrediting of the claim

    The problem with that sort of thing is that companies would just delay publicizing the patent until after the probabtionary period is up. Right now we find out about these things only after the patent is granted and the company sends out a press releae. It is very difficult and/or expensive to invalidate the patent at that point (even with prior art).

    --GnrcMan--
  • It looks to be basically a wrapper for a Windows based program, thus turning it into an X-Client. Thus, you can run the sucker anywhere. This, AFAIK, hasn't been done yet, mainly because no-one really cared to. However, You could probably say this is a natural extension of the X-clients in existance on other platforms. You can run an X-Client on a Windows system with an X-server running on that system, this is just reversing it.

    It is kinda cool, yet extremely annoying to patent.


    ---

  • Re:geez .... (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @09:58AM (#1527957)
    Too many posters on Slashdot shoot first, and don't bother even to investigate later. And for some reason the most salacious posts seem to get higher ratings than the calmer comments.

    Re the instant post I'm replying to, you might want to check Sun's web site for a clue on just how many years Graphon has been licensing its technology to Sun and serving as its primary contractor for thin-client systems. I know it's been quite a few years.

    The fact that folks don't like software patents (and I'm one of them) doesn't mean that every software patent lacks a good faith, legal basis. But that seems to be the automatic, knee jerk assumption here.

    As a lawyer, I know that it takes a heck of a lot of study and research to come to any kind of informed opinion on the validity of an intellectual property claim. And lawyers who do this kind of work tend to be up front with their clients both about the validity of their claim and the likelihood that the claim will embroil them in ruinously expensive litigation, which is one heck of a disincentive for making patent claims that are doubtful, particularly for small companies like Graphon.

    Check out their financials. Graphon isn't even profitable yet. Does anyone seriously believe they're going to make a patent claim that spits squarely in the eye of Microsoft's forthcoming Terminal Server without an iron-clad right they know will stand up? That would be akin to corporate suicide, and I don't think Graphon management is that dumb.

    For example, they also announced this morning that they just put on their board IBM's former VP in charge of intellectual property and licensing. I suspect that Graphon has done their homework both on their innovation and on their legal rights, or they would not be attracting a director with that kind of experience (I've checked; Graphon's directors get stock options).

    So why don't the hotheads simmer down until they have some facts to work with, or could the moderators at least rate them down to where I can read some useful information without wading through the crap? I'm about ready to stop reading Slashdot because of this problem, but I don't think the hotheads are representative of the vast majority of Slashdot's readers.

    pem@televar.com
    http://www.qwkscreen.com/WPLinuxLinks.html

  • Re:Peer review for patents (Score:3)

    by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @10:04AM (#1527960)
    Excellent concept! I would go further than removing government from the process, and remove lawyers from the process altogether. Scientific peer review. That which passes is given a patent, that which does not may be appealed to another group operating independently of the first.

    Why? To provide a check and balance against any one group of cronies gaining too much power over the patenting process. Right now its a former patent attourney running the patent office, but a group of scientists or engineers with their own agenda would be just as bad, possibly worse, unless some kind of check is in place.

    I would also argue that patenting as a whole needs to be revamped in terms of the period of validity (17 years is way too long for most technical patents these days, and I would argue software and algorithmic patents shouldn't be permissible at all).
  • Much of the problem is that the patent office has plenty of hooks for searching for prior art among prior patents, but essentially none for searching the open literature and state-of-the-art.

    Since software patents are new there's essentially no patented prior art, so everything looks new to them.

    What they need is twofold: Patent examiners with education and experience in the software field, and access to a database of unpatented prior art. There are some twitches in that direction from outside, but not enough yet to count on it happening.

    The patent office knows it's not doing well. But the system is designed to be driven (and funded) from outside. (They're largely reacting to court decisions and applicants at this point.) This will be an expensive fix. Congress probably won't just hand them the bux to do it themselves - especially if Congress doesn't have a lot of pressure from people wanting it fixed. Even if they do get the bux, how do they hire the skilled heads in competition with the private sector? How do they even hire skilled heads to IDENTIFY what skilled heads they need?

    Unfortunately, I don't recall exactly who, if anyone, is working on assembling a database of open prior-art.

    Such a database would also be useful to programmers, so they can find out what solutions are already available for their problems and not have to reinvent them constantly. B-) So good candidates for support would be industry associations, volunteers from the free software movement, and educational institutions.

  • This sounds a lot like how our backup scripts run. The AOL angle is a little scary though.
    --

  • Re:Contact your senator (Score:5)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @10:13AM (#1527969)
    S. 1798 contains an important clause requiring that the GAO do a study on the 'quality' of patents on business models. This is very important to slashdotters because a large fraction of these business model patents are being generated by internet startups. There was an article on slashdot about one of these recently.

    It would be a very good thing if a similar study be done on software patents. Writing your congressman would be a good idea.
  • read my "Let me add ...." followup above (I was originally responding to the original /. article which didn't include a link to the actual patent) in my follow up I beleive I make the point that there is enough prior art (from the late 80s prior to the patent's '94 date) to successfully argue that the GraphOn patent is obvious to anyone familiar with other work (ie Timbuctu and X) in the field (in 1994).

    I don't beleive that companies do as much research about prior art as they should - I think that for many companies the prevaling attitude is along the lines of "first we'll get the patent then we'll deal from a point of power" - and I don't beleive that the patent office has the resources or expertise to research prior art (esp. prior art that hasn't already been patented and isn't in the patent office's files) and to keep the companies honest.

  • Re:Can anyone say 'prior art'? (Score:4)

    by Daniel ( 1678 ) <dburrows&debian,org> on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @10:25AM (#1527979)
    No, I can't. As a matter of fact, I have a disability which prevents me from uttering the words. The doctor says there's no hope, but I could get a job for the USPTO.

    Daniel

  • I suppose it might work -- the real issue isn't "Prior Art" that we gripe about most (though this one seems reflective of it), its the issues of "Obvious", "Innovative", and the biggest issue of "Far Reaching".

    Obviousness is one that is a hard call. Some individuals can call things "obvious" willingly, like Ted Nelson and Xanadu who "discovered" (not invented, and he'll stick to that) Hypertext. He definitely feels its an "obvious" thing, once you have screens and words.

    Many things are "Obvious" in hindsight after they've been used for 3 years (before we found out somebody had filed a patent on them). "Plug-ins" and the patent that Bob Cringely [pbs.org] wrote about are those kind. We'd been using plug ins that interpret languages for years before somebody got a patent on them.

    Innovative is always an opinion, particular in its context. MS's use of "innovations" certainly isn't Slashdots...

    Far Reaching is the other factor. Just because your technique solves a problem doesn't mean you have the patent on ALL techniques to solve a problem. This is the big issue the PTO needs to be redressed for. The chap who has the "Patent" on "on line shopping", the chap who has the "Patent" on "web-based shopping carts". That's the kind of general garbage that needs to be done away with.

    Usually "Far Reaching" is just extending two "Obvious" things together to reach an "obvious" thing, then using legalize to make it sound "non-obvious". The shopping cart metafore is a big one. It takes "tracking a user" and "storing user data", both things done in EVERY web application, and adds a piece of vocabulary to make it sound "innovative and original", then extends that to cover ALL uses of things that match that vocabulary. Definitely the finest example of a piece of crap patent I've ever seen.

    but of course, that's just my opinion, and it might not even be my intellectual property...

  • Soo... (Score:2)

    by Daniel ( 1678 )
    X has been displaying programs remotely forever, kludges to do this in Windows are all over, (inferior >=) ) X servers for other operating systems are legion, the entire concept of remote display is blatantly obvious to anyone who knows anything about computers, and yet the extension of this concept to displaying Windows programs on X by rerouting API calls is patentable?

    Feh. Someone should patent a method of displaying CP/M programs on a BeOS machine :)

    Daniel
  • Rather, the US Patent Office has recognized that, given the funding they have from the Republican controlled Congress, they don't have the staff with sufficient expertise to review prior art in this area. They have consciously decided to let the courts sort it out.
  • Citrix did that with OS/2 back in the early 90's and started doing it with Windows in the Mid 90's.
  • GraphOn's patent (and most of their thin client product line) operate much differently than VNC. Where VNC and the like are devoted to making the desktop of a 'server' machine available, this would make a Windows application or an X-app TRANSPARENTLY available from a server. They look, feel, and smell like their local counterpart, regardless of platform. Normally stuff like this is done with several servers, and with significant overhead (an X-server for each user/app) and pain.

    Just a note: I don't approve of the USPO handing out software patents. Giving a 'lifetime' (technologically speaking) stranglehold on something is never a good idea.

    However, this one might just steal some of the Micros~1's Windows Terminal Server business, so why are we complaining?
  • sounds almost exactly like what they claim.
    It started by virtalizing DOS (text and graphics)
    apps into X11 by 1991 and virtualizing win 3.1
    apps by intercepting calls at the windows video/
    mouse/kbd call level. I recall seeing this
    at an internal demo level, could have been
    later than late 1992/ early 1993. Don't remember
    when we shipped it, certainly before 1995.

    garyr
  • I wonder if most moderators read the guidelines. Remember you're supposed to focus more on moderating up than down. You wasted two points moderating the replies to the first one down (which already wouldn't be visible to the usual user) instead of bringing forth useful information. (I would find it amusing if you did the same to this one)
  • You can make a killing by suing Honda [honda.co.jp]. They are trying to capitalize on your invention. Of course, the rest of us are using your method in a not-for-profit context.
    ---------------------------------------- ------------------

  • Re:Can anyone say 'prior art'? (Score:4)

    by ford42 ( 90100 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @11:12AM (#1528004)
    Unfortunately, the patent office's attitude seems to be to rubber stamp just about anything that crosses their desks these days that has the correct paperwork and $$$ attached to it, especially if it is for a big corporation.

    Well, it's not quite that simple. I actually know a patent examiner -- a friend of mine who has been working there for about 3 months now. Not too long ago, I asked him why there were so many clueless idiotic patents coming out of there. He gave me two reasons.

    The first reason is actually the reason that many of the people here have guessed: Lack of funding. The Patent Office cannot pay enough to attract real talent. Jobs examining computer-related patents start at $38K/year. So the people they do attract tend to be relatively clueles. (My friend is an exception, of course. :^) )

    By way of example of the above, consider the following: My friend spends nearly half of his time at work goofing off: Reading the web, playing games, etc. And he is getting nearly twice as much done as the average examiner in his group...

    The second reason, though, is actually the reason he gives more credence to. Quotas. Each patent examiner has to make a particular quota. Scoring goes roughly like this: One "point" for a first action on a patent application, one "point" for approving a patent, one "point" for denying a patent.

    First action means, well, the first thing any examiner does. Give it a once-over and make sure it isn't written too broadly, or that it doesn't have any gaping holes in it. Usually first action is (or should be) to turn it down... Patent writers are greedy, and are actively trying to get the patent to cover as much as possible, of course.

    However, turning it down at first is not a solid denial. If first action is to turn it away, when it comes back, it could be assigned to another examiner. Thus, there is actually motivation to approve an action on first action, thus scoring double, as it were. According to my friend, examiners who are hard-pressed to meet their quota will often do this. It is true that their manager has to look over the approved patent, but often this seems to be a rubber-stamp operation.

    So there you have it... It actually isn't financial motivation on the part of the PTO as a whole... but rather on the part of individual examiners, who would rather not lose their jobs. Until the Office either changes this system or increases their salaries, we are likely to see many more ludicrous patents being issued. There's no motivation to do the job right (aside from the examiner's own ethics).

    Note: I do not work for the Office, and my understanding of the procedures may be flawed; however, this is how it was explained to me.

  • Oh please. You want to blame incompetence and/or apathy on the part of the patent office on the Republicans? I don't see very many Democrats trying to make funding levels for the patent office into a campaign issue. I somehow doubt that we'd see much different action from the patent office if the Democrats controlled congress. And if the Democrats regain control of congress (which is a possibility) after the next elections, I will be surprised if we see a sudden increase in funding of the patent office. Even if there was a big increase in their budget, I am not at all convinced that it would make a big difference in the quality of research they seem to be doing.

    What makes you think that this is a partisan issue in the first place?

  • Well, whether or not they are a good company or not, is irrelevent. Whether or not anyone uses their software or not is also irrelevant. Whether or not said software is even useful is irrelevent. The only thing that is relevent is whether or not their patent is sound.

    Fortunately, groups like Slashdot don't make that decision -- courts do. And that's a good thing. As much as I agree with the concensus here about this patent, there are far too many people on /. who think they're lawyers :)

    Now, it's interesting to note that AT&T now owns Olivetti Labs, the makers of VNC, so it's not like these GraphOn people are just trampling over the free software community. They're not picking on anybody. We'll see how this plays out.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • On a quick look at that GraphOn patent I was reminded of the technique that the NAPLPS protocol specifies for transmitting coordinate information (both X,Y coordinates and R,G,B coordinates for color info), where the bits for each value are split up and reshuffled into bytes (most significant bits first) such that the receiving app can ignore all the coordinate bytes after it has received the max resolution it can handle. (That is, each byte includes a few bits of each coordinate.)

    The NAPLPS specification predates the patent by a good five or six years.
  • Well, from your description, it sounds more like the patent office is spending their money poorly rather than they are underfunded. If they paid half as many examiners twice as much money each as they do now, they should be able to get well qualified and dilligent people who should be able to get better than twice the work done.

    Unfortunately, this type of inefficiency seems epidemic in government.

  • I think there should be a huge fine for dumb patents that have prior art regardless of whether the applicant knew about it. (They never will have known.) That would encourage some real research. Or at the very least have a protected pre-patentperiod so someone can show evidence of prior art.

    I think this punitive technique will have the effect of preventing small companies & individuals w/o the resources to do this kind of research from filing patents - the only companies with the resources to do this will be large companies, or large "patent research" firms which will cost a lot of money. This would be bad, considering that much of the original motivation for patents was to protect the little guys from the big guys (although it doesn't seem to have worked out that way recently).

  • On the flip side, small companies & individuals will be that more hesitant to defend their patents because they won't be able to afford the upfront cost of the legal battle.

    I think that any solution has to treat the large & small equally when judging the "innovativeness" of an invention.
  • The problem with peer review is that you'd need a huge number of experts. You're not just looking at prior art, you're looking at practicality. It's a nice idea, and it'd be seriously cool if it worked, but I can't see it happening any time soon.

    How is this handled under scientific review? I think that the decision making is distributed over a large number of journals & panels of "peers", plus each discovery is further categorized by the various "specialties" of the scientific disciplines. This doesn't seem too unreasonable for a engineering "peer" review system - I'm sure that the various engineering societies for the different industries/disciplines could be instrumental in kickstarting a process like this.

    The major hump I could see in implementation would be those members of society who have a vested interest in maintaining the current system (companies with large portfolios & patent lawyers, since a peer-review system would invalidate large sections of the law which they use to declare tiny little changes in wording "innovative").

  • I hereby patent displaying any Windows program on an LCD screen on Tuesdays!

    The whole patent system is increasing resembling the Slashdot "First Post" phenomenon. It's not about ingenuity, invention or originality. It's just about being the first to submit something.

    --
    Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]

  • I've just aquired the patent on patently stupid patents.

    Pat me on the back and thank me later.

  • I wasn't meaning to slight your friend, if he can goof off 1/2 the time and still do double average, then more power to him. It is kinda a sad statement about some of the other people that work there. Either they are really bottom of the barrel or they are just totally unmotivated.

    It really sounds to me like their quota system is just incredibly poorly designed. That and the general lack of motivation sounds like they have poor management. Your point about their educational policies are another point in that direction. It is a good indication that they don't do enough to reward people _after_ they get the education to retain them. Unfortunately, bad management is too common in government.

  • VNC does not use the X protocol...it merely sends a remote view of the screen. It uses some algorithms to increase performance and decrease latency, etc., but it does not use X at all. Applications live entirely on the host, and only their graphic presentation on the screen is sent over the wire.
  • There is a quota, but it includes a requirement that no more than a certain percentage be accepted.
  • Perhaps they patented it to keep Microsoft from cloning it and driving them out of business? Regardless:

    Perhaps open source developers might want to try patenting their stuff and licensing the patent with the open source - payment is that you open-source anything that uses it (GPL model). Don't want to open your source? Negotiate a for-pay license with the patent holder. (If he doesn't want to play, like if you're Microsoft, you're S.O.L.)

    Analogs of the other open-source licenses are left as an exercise for the reader.

    Be sure to write your license so that if you've had to drag them into court (and thus incurred more cost) they can't just open the source to wiggle out, but have to settle for some bux first.

  • This one is pretty scary. Normally after all the uproar dies down and the claims are read it's not too bad. This one really is.

    Claim 1

    1. A method for running an application as an X-Client so as to enable the application to be displayed with an X-Windows manager, the method comprising the steps of:

    • launching a "WINDOWS/NT" session;

      I.e. starting a copy of Win98 inside VMware

    • invoking an application from within the "WINDOWS/NT" session;

      I.e. starting up MS-Word

    • monitoring output messages that are sent from the application;

      I.e. X-windows is constantly reading your mouse position

    • determining that one of the monitored output messages is a graphical user interface command;

      I.e. you've just clicked your mouse and dragged it over your typo

    • and when the monitored output message is a graphical user interface command, enabling an X-Windows manager program to act on the command, and informing the "WINDOWS/NT" device driver of results of the command that was acted on by the X-Windows manager program, wherein the enabling step includes converting the graphical user interface command from a "WINDOWS/NT" format into a format that is recognized by X-Windows manager program to enable the X-Windows manager program to act on the command.

      I.e. MS-Word now realizes that you've highlighted a selection of text.

    I have to say of all the dubious patents we've seen floating by recently, this one takes the cake. They just patented running Windows apps. inside X-Windows. Neato.

    However, if you don't launch an application from within Windows you're OK. And since IE is part of the operating system and not an application, you can freely browse the web in VMware without violating their patent. ;->

  • As a DOS multitasker, Desqview was indeed cool, but realize that it was intended to be a poor man's OS/2.

    Nowdays, if for some reason you are a power DOS user, you're probably better off with the real thing.
    --
  • Actually, the peer review board doesn't have to "leak" information to the competition - just like today's patents, when they've been granted, they get published for EVERYONE to look at. By law, though, if you use the idea described in the patent for non-personal reasons, you have to cut a license with the patent holder.

    Besides, there's nothing stopping somebody from publishing their idea w/o peer review - it just means that they won't get the patent & be able to monopolize the idea. You could probably argue that if there was SUCH a good idea, it probably shouldn't be patented anyway.

    If that person refuses to publish the idea because they can't get a patent, then we're no worse off than we were before (since we don't even know what the idea was) - and they don't get any benefit from their idea.

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close