About This Blog
Automating Invention is Robert Plotkin's blog on the impact of computer-automated inventing on the law (primarily patent law). The blog also explores the implications of computer-automated inventing for creativity, ethics, and high-tech industry.
News Feeds
RSS
Receive E-mail Updates through Bot-A-Blog
Categories
Links
Blogs
- 271 Patent Blog
- BLOG@IP::JUR
- Boalt IP Blawg
- Epistasis Blog
- Evolutionary Computation
- Genetic Argonaut
- IlliGAL Blog
- Invent Blog
- The Long Tail
- IP Newsflash
- The Open Road
- Patent Pending
- Peer to Patent
- The Singularity Institute
- Promote the Progress Blawg
Technology & Policy
- Berkman Center for Internet and Society
- Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- MIT STS Program
- Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic
- Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
- U.S. Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery
Resources (Law)
- Bitlaw
- European Patent Office
- Software Patent Institute
- Software Patents vs. Parliamentary Democracy
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
- World Intellectual Property Organization
Resources (Technology)
- Genetic-Programming.org (John Koza)
- Introduction to Genetic Algorithms
- Genetic Algorithms Archive
- Genetic Algorithms and Artificial Life Resources
- Genetic Programming FAQ
- Genetic Programming Bibliography
- Generative Programming
- HDL Page
- NASA Evolvable Systems Group
- Evolvable Hardware (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
- Evolvable Hardware (University of Oslo)
Commercial Applications
- Affinnova, Inc.
- Icosystem Corporation
- Imagination Engines, Inc.
- Matrix Advanced Solutions Ltd.
- Natural Selection, Inc.
- NuTech Solutions
- Quantum Leap Innovations
- Red Cedar Technology
- TenFold Corporation
People
- Sion Balass
- Peter J. Bentley
- Hans-Georg Beyer
- Eric Bonabeau
- Ralph Clifford
- David Davis
- David Fogel
- James Foster
- David Goldberg
- Erik Goodman
- J. Storrs Hall
- Andrew Hodges’ Alan Turing Site
- John Holland
- Gregory Hornby
- Lorenz Huelsbergen
- John Koza
- Ray Kurzweil
- Hod Lipson
- Jason Lohn
- Julian Miller
- James Moor
- Daniel H. Pink
- Jordan Pollack
- Joe Rothermich
- Karl Sims
- Daniel H. Pink
- Lee Spector
- Stephen Thaler
- Adrian Thompson
- Marcel Thuerk
- Christof Teuscher
- Andy Tyrell
- Tina Yu
Philosophy
Search
Recent Entries
- Patents vs. Prizes
- Your Genome for $399
- Outsourcing Manufacturing Isn't Just for Large Companies Anymore
- My Book on Invention Automation to be Published by Stanford in Spring 2009
- Gamers Solve Problems in Science and Computing
- Software Improvises Musical Accompaniments
- Computer Simulation Uncovers Evidence of Biological Evolution
- Has Microsoft Really Patented Page Up and Page Down?
- Breaking the Software Development Speed Limit with Agile Programming
- Complexity: Computers Come to the Rescue
- Calculator Dates Back Two Millenia
- Does Google Make Us Dumber or Smarter?
Archives
« Breaking the Software Development Speed Limit with Agile Programming | Main | Computer Simulation Uncovers Evidence of Biological Evolution »
October 9, 2008
Has Microsoft Really Patented Page Up and Page Down?
A ZDNet UK article claims that Microsoft has obtained a U.S. patent on the use of "page up" and "page down" keystrokes. The article points to the fact that computer keyboards have had "page up" and "page down" keys for over two decades to imply that the patent was wrongly granted to Microsoft.
Even a cursory glance at the claims of the patent itself, however, reveals that those claims do not appear to cover the mere use of "page up" and "page down" keys, but rather some particular technique for using those keys to scroll through content. (The claims are a numbered list beginning right after the text which reads, "What is claimed is:"). My point is not that this particular technique is entitled to a patent; maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Rather, my point is that press coverage of software patents often implies that individual software patents grant their owners much more sweeping rights than they actually grant. Such coverage isn't a helpful way to promote an informed public debate over the merits and demerits of software patents generally.
Posted by Robert at October 9, 2008 8:29 PM
category:
Intellectual Property Law
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)