02.17.08
Data and Signals Seen as Patentable in the USPTO
Several days ago, a couple of OOXML patent issues were brought back to the surface. Then first was incompatibility of Microsoft’s promise with the GNU GPL. The second was its incompatibility with small and lesser-known developers. OOXML was made by the rich, to serve the rich (Microsoft Office) and be caught up by the rich (e.g. Apple).
Here is a timely news story which teaches us (yet again) why software patent encumbrances can totally ruin a protocol or a standard. These encumbrances shatter to pieces competitors.
A suburban Philadelphia firm whose sole business is to buy up technology patents is trying to force large cable operators and major broadcasters to pay substantial license fees on the transmission of digital TV signals and Internet services.
What is the ownership here? Signals. Yes, signals can be an ownership of a person, at least based on the USPTO’s definition, as was confirmed very recently.
USPTO calling data ‘tangible’ result
I want to see how data processing is producing tangible result. Mere processing a data produces new data. And data is not tangible.
By no stretch of imagination can this be seen as acceptable. What’s next? Patenting a song? Patenting a singer’s voice? █
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.