Microsoft makes patent claim for sparklines(edwardtufte.com)
edwardtufte.com
Microsoft makes patent claim for sparklines
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0003Y1&topic_id=1
31 comments
Not a spreadsheet but any kind of document, if I understand it correctly.
ADDED: So, they applied a patent for embedding "small graphics" in a document. Oh well...
ADDED: So, they applied a patent for embedding "small graphics" in a document. Oh well...
So, they applied a patent for embedding "small graphics" in a document.
Small graphics that depend on other data in the document and are updated when that data is changed, to be a bit more precise. Still pretty obvious, of course.
Small graphics that depend on other data in the document and are updated when that data is changed, to be a bit more precise. Still pretty obvious, of course.
The US also allows implementation patents so you can take any existing patent and add "using a computer" to the end.
For instance, placing a small dot to mark the end of a sentance - on a computer, is a new patent.
For instance, placing a small dot to mark the end of a sentance - on a computer, is a new patent.
IANAL, but this seems ludicrous on its face. The patent app was filed in 2008, and Bissantz has prior art back to at least 2006 (see, e.g., http://www.juiceanalytics.com/writing/sparklines-in-excel-si...).
However, my half-assed OpenOffice version (http://joeganley.com/2008/10/sparklines-in-openoffice-calc.h...) postdates the patent app. It would amuse me if I were in violation of a Microsoft patent.
However, my half-assed OpenOffice version (http://joeganley.com/2008/10/sparklines-in-openoffice-calc.h...) postdates the patent app. It would amuse me if I were in violation of a Microsoft patent.
The reason that the link is to Tufte’s mention of this is that he coined the term and explored the idea at least as far back as 2004. See http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
(I have submitted this to Tufte's site, but it is awaiting moderation. I figured I would post here as well)
Under 35 U.S.C. 301, you may submit proof of prior art to the patent office for any patent. To quote:
"Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential."
In short, call the patent office, and tell them that you wish to submit prior art under 35 U.S.C. 301. Given that you have a published book with a clear description of the subject matter, it is a very strong case.
Alternatively, you could ignore it. It may not issue, and even if it does, it may not be defensible.
Under 35 U.S.C. 301, you may submit proof of prior art to the patent office for any patent. To quote:
"Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential."
In short, call the patent office, and tell them that you wish to submit prior art under 35 U.S.C. 301. Given that you have a published book with a clear description of the subject matter, it is a very strong case.
Alternatively, you could ignore it. It may not issue, and even if it does, it may not be defensible.
"Given that you have a published book with a clear description of the subject matter, it is a very strong case."
Does he actually have a description of the subject matter? I haven't read Beautiful Evidence, but Tufte's descriptions of sparklines that I've read don't say anything about auto-generating sparklines in electronic documents based on data in the document, which is what is claimed in the patent. And claims 16-20 specifically cite embedding in a spreadsheet.
[Update] It seems he does, in fact. Tufte himself wrote a comment called "ET brief history of sparklines" on March 21, 2006 on this page: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
"My first sparkline sketches were made some 15 years ago when I reviewed an HP medical interface for monitoring hospital patients (which involved, I recall, a Unix box for every ICU patient, or maybe a Unix box on a cart wheeled around the hospital). The idea was to put sparklines on the margin of a big spreadsheet recording all patient data (event by time), thereby summarizing the time-series history of each event category. My conclusion was that the medical staff would rarely look at the original spreadsheet and would instead just look down the column of sparklines showing the events time-series. And then the original medical event spreadsheet could then be down-screen if a user wanted details."
Does he actually have a description of the subject matter? I haven't read Beautiful Evidence, but Tufte's descriptions of sparklines that I've read don't say anything about auto-generating sparklines in electronic documents based on data in the document, which is what is claimed in the patent. And claims 16-20 specifically cite embedding in a spreadsheet.
[Update] It seems he does, in fact. Tufte himself wrote a comment called "ET brief history of sparklines" on March 21, 2006 on this page: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
"My first sparkline sketches were made some 15 years ago when I reviewed an HP medical interface for monitoring hospital patients (which involved, I recall, a Unix box for every ICU patient, or maybe a Unix box on a cart wheeled around the hospital). The idea was to put sparklines on the margin of a big spreadsheet recording all patient data (event by time), thereby summarizing the time-series history of each event category. My conclusion was that the medical staff would rarely look at the original spreadsheet and would instead just look down the column of sparklines showing the events time-series. And then the original medical event spreadsheet could then be down-screen if a user wanted details."
This is from 2004:
http://ctan.org/tex-archive/graphics/sparklines/
http://ctan.org/tex-archive/graphics/sparklines/
Does that have any effect? I thought you also had to pay them thousands of dollars for a re-exam, with no refund even if you win.
the author states "look at what Microsoft just PATENTED today under a United States Patent Application 20090282325"
Its not patented....It just an application. It is a very important distinction.
Anyone can file a appication, claiming to invent anything: for example http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0035812.html
Its not patented....It just an application. It is a very important distinction.
Anyone can file a appication, claiming to invent anything: for example http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0035812.html
That is the funniest patent I have ever seen!
Oh well, the Excel team itself credits Tufte with the invention :
http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in...
What's more it's by the Patent applicant himself - Sam Radakovitz! Something is missing here.
http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in...
What's more it's by the Patent applicant himself - Sam Radakovitz! Something is missing here.
On the face of it - amazing gall! Given that Microsoft are using the name "Sparklines" it demonstrates that they are aware they are not the inventor - and that they know who is.
Plus there looks to be 'prior art' here http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/eurooffice...
Plus there looks to be 'prior art' here http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/eurooffice...
Yahoo Store (formerly PG's ViaWeb) has used sparklines since at least 2004 and I think well before that. I'm sure there's plenty of other art prior to that as well.
As much as I despise Microsoft and everything they stand for, I'm having trouble faulting them for things like this. The patent system in our country is so insane and out-of-control, it's unwise for a corporation to act as if it isn't.
There are lawsuits flying every which way over absurd things the patent office has granted patents for - so if you hold the patent for something ridiculous and widespread, you not only prevent someone else from getting it and suing you, but it's a bargaining chip when someone comes at you with another patent violation. They say "we'll sue you because we hold the patent on 'an electronic way to display text'" and you say "if you do that, we'll sue you because we hold a patent on 'a tactile alphanumeric input device.'" And so instead of a costly legal battle, you've won yourself a stalemate, with only the price of a few patent applications.
Not to say that this is an appropriate way for the system to function, and not that big companies shouldn't be lobbying to fix the patent system (I believe some of them are), but I feel like M$ is just playing the hardball they need to play to protect themselves.
There are lawsuits flying every which way over absurd things the patent office has granted patents for - so if you hold the patent for something ridiculous and widespread, you not only prevent someone else from getting it and suing you, but it's a bargaining chip when someone comes at you with another patent violation. They say "we'll sue you because we hold the patent on 'an electronic way to display text'" and you say "if you do that, we'll sue you because we hold a patent on 'a tactile alphanumeric input device.'" And so instead of a costly legal battle, you've won yourself a stalemate, with only the price of a few patent applications.
Not to say that this is an appropriate way for the system to function, and not that big companies shouldn't be lobbying to fix the patent system (I believe some of them are), but I feel like M$ is just playing the hardball they need to play to protect themselves.
The problem is that lots of these large companies claim that they are building their patent portfolio purely as a defensive tactic. But then as soon as they have this huge portfolio of bogus patents, they will immediately set about finding ways to stifle competition with it.
So really the 'we only intent our patent portfolio to be defensive' claim applies only to cases where the other company has such a portfolio. And they have no trouble being the bully in cases where the other company can't fire any shots back at them.
This applies to Microsoft specifically, but also to other large corps. So trying to claim that 'Microsoft is just playing that game' and that I should "hate the game, not the player" is ridiculous. Microsoft will perpetuate the "game" whenever it will be financially advantageous for them to do so. They are not filing such patents to 'protect themselves from someone else that might file a similar patent, then turn around and sue them.' They are filing them to serve a dual-purpose. A 'sword' to defend and attack with.
So really the 'we only intent our patent portfolio to be defensive' claim applies only to cases where the other company has such a portfolio. And they have no trouble being the bully in cases where the other company can't fire any shots back at them.
This applies to Microsoft specifically, but also to other large corps. So trying to claim that 'Microsoft is just playing that game' and that I should "hate the game, not the player" is ridiculous. Microsoft will perpetuate the "game" whenever it will be financially advantageous for them to do so. They are not filing such patents to 'protect themselves from someone else that might file a similar patent, then turn around and sue them.' They are filing them to serve a dual-purpose. A 'sword' to defend and attack with.
You're right - there's no doubt M$ would be happy to use these for offensive purposes. They are evil, after all. But our patent system encourages this behavior whether or not you're evil. If you aren't able to throw your weight around in this arena, there are other evil corporations who are, and they will use it to put you at a competitive disadvantage.
My opinion is that focussing our hatred on M$ in this case is treating a symptom. Let's fix the patent system so that this kind of idiocy isn't possible or necessary.
My opinion is that focussing our hatred on M$ in this case is treating a symptom. Let's fix the patent system so that this kind of idiocy isn't possible or necessary.
First of all, I would have expected better from Microsoft given all of the goodwill they've built up (with me at least). I actually use some of their better products (Xbox360 for example) and I really like them.
Secondly, sparklines are content that would fit into a cell - nothing unique here. So why go patent it other than to be predatory?
Secondly, sparklines are content that would fit into a cell - nothing unique here. So why go patent it other than to be predatory?
Because owning the patent protects you from predatory companies. Any technology you use that conceivably could be patented, but isn't yet, is a legal risk - and "conceivably" includes things that are obvious, absurd patents from a developer's point of view but that the Patent Office might approve anyway.
It doesn't matter whether or not you plan to do predatory lawsuits. The current nature of patent law means that the incentive is to get away with as much as you can, as soon as you can - or else somebody else will get away with it and earn a chance to sue YOU.
It doesn't matter whether or not you plan to do predatory lawsuits. The current nature of patent law means that the incentive is to get away with as much as you can, as soon as you can - or else somebody else will get away with it and earn a chance to sue YOU.
> Any technology you use that conceivably could be patented, but isn't yet, is a legal risk
No it isn't. It is prior art that should invalidate the patent.
No it isn't. It is prior art that should invalidate the patent.
Moreover, if you want to get that prior art on record with the USPTO, one way to do it is to file for a patent then let the application lapse before issuance. It'll then show up on subsequent searches.
We used to do that as a standard procedure.
Before a meeting with a client we would write a bogus patent listing everything we could think of about the subject. Then if there was an arguement about an NDA we could prove we were already working on the idea.
You can file a PCT application for almost nothing (used to be $20) and never bother taking it to a full patent - cheaper than having a lawyer minute it.
And establishing that is is, in fact, prior-art would require significant legal work which would be expensive.
The risk isn't that somebody else could patent the technology. The risk is that somebody else already has a patent that could be applied to your technology. If you can get a patent for your technology, that makes it much harder for somebody to stretch their patent to cover your technology, because the presumption of competence on the part of the USPTO leads to the conclusion that the two patents cover different things.
the presumption of competence on the part of the USPTO leads to the conclusion that the two patents cover different things.
Someone needs to challenge thi stuff in court. "Presumption of competence" is a very funny phrase applied to the USPTO.
Someone needs to challenge thi stuff in court. "Presumption of competence" is a very funny phrase applied to the USPTO.
It's just as (in)accurate applied to the courts unfortunately.
> It doesn't matter whether or not you plan to do predatory lawsuits.
So because Patent Law encourages Microsoft to get away with as much as they can, as soon as they can, they are not longer 'at fault' for predatory lawsuits? We can absolve them of their crimes then? That somehow seems wrong.
The 'War on Drugs' might encourage drug dealers to be ruthless in an attempt to evade the law, but I'm certainly not going to forgive them for any crimes that they commit as a result of trying to evade the law just because 'the system encourages it.'
So because Patent Law encourages Microsoft to get away with as much as they can, as soon as they can, they are not longer 'at fault' for predatory lawsuits? We can absolve them of their crimes then? That somehow seems wrong.
The 'War on Drugs' might encourage drug dealers to be ruthless in an attempt to evade the law, but I'm certainly not going to forgive them for any crimes that they commit as a result of trying to evade the law just because 'the system encourages it.'
Microsoft, amongst several other companies, is a profit oriented corporation that has an history of predatory behavior.
You don't ask why a snake bites you, because it is its nature to do so.
You don't ask why a snake bites you, because it is its nature to do so.
Tufte's online description of sparklines, an additional reference to the helpful references provided in comments in this thread:
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
FWIW: Googling 'sparklines' right now gives me a first Sponsored Link of:
Microsoft.com/Office2010 Microsoft Excel 2010 Beta: Explore the New Features. Get it for Free!
¿Apparently it's going to be a highly touted feature... so they figured they'd might as well try to get a patent?
Microsoft.com/Office2010 Microsoft Excel 2010 Beta: Explore the New Features. Get it for Free!
¿Apparently it's going to be a highly touted feature... so they figured they'd might as well try to get a patent?
The patent itself: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0282325.html
[Update] Having read the claims more closely, it seems the patent might be misnamed. Claims 1-12 and 14-15 make no mention of a spreadsheet at all, only the embedding of sparklines in an electronic document and autogenerating them based on data in the document. Claims 13 and 16-20 are the only ones that cite a spreadsheet.