Microsoft pay-as-you-go patent application rejected

Sorry folks -- we know that you were looking forward to a future of "pay to play" computing, but it seems that Microsoft's application has been soundly dissed by the patent office. Reasons for the decision include the company's "occasional use of fuzzy terminology" and the fact that much of this stuff has already been patented. Of course, the decision can be appealed -- but for the time being, if you still want to pay monthly for a computer AT&T has a netbook for you.

[Via Electronista]

[Zondajag @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:24PM]

thank god, that would have been another way for microsoft to tighten its stranglehold on the computing industry

[AVG @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:28PM]

To make a strangehold on the market (is there even a market for this?), they would need huge masses of people who WANTED to pay as they used. I think the demand for that is pretty low. One shitty patent does not a stranglehold create.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 2nd 2009 6:15PM]

I can think of over 10,000,000 people willing to pay-as-they-go for XBOX LIVE - myself included.

$50 a year for Xbox live
$80 a month for FIOS
$78 a month for con edison
$60 per game X the 23 games I own for 360

Someone's getting rich off of me.

[AVG @ Jan 2nd 2009 6:40PM]

There is a difference between an Xbox Live membership and basic computer use.

[lolec @ Jan 2nd 2009 7:19PM]

What if its not basic computing? You could buy a 13 or 15 inch laptop for casual use. it will cost you 300 dlls, if you want a gaming weekend you just pay for that. most people buy their computers a bit over powered just in case. well not anymore. This patent was about regulating the cloud.

[Mikeweezer @ Jan 2nd 2009 8:28PM]

@Flashpoint -

Now you know why they sell those consoles at a loss. (wii excluded)

[Ram @ Jan 3rd 2009 3:59PM]

A patent application reject does NOT indicate that Microsoft can't do it; simply that they can't patent it. I don't see how that precludes us from a future of pay-to-play computing; if anything it lowers the cost of entry, so it brings us all closer to that future.

[rickhamilton620 @ Jan 3rd 2009 2:02AM]

Apparently they've had something like this for quite a while in developing countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_FlexGo

[Blastar @ Jan 3rd 2009 5:00AM]

Another Microsoft Failure !!
Mo ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!... Said the Penguin to the Leopard.

[Patriks7 @ Jan 3rd 2009 6:10AM]

"Now you know why they sell those consoles at a loss. (wii excluded)"
I know the PS3 sells at a loss, but how the hell can a 360 be selling at a loss? The highend one is the price of a PS3, and the specs come nowhere close (bluray, wifi..)

[sndmn23 @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:25PM]

Patent Fail!!

[joueboy @ Jan 2nd 2009 8:59PM]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha!

[tom @ Jan 3rd 2009 12:47AM]

M$ got PWNED

[theapple @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:25PM]

GOOD

[coffee @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:25PM]

Oh, is the patent office actually doing their job now?

That was only 20 years too late. Now go back and scrub all the software patents again.

[Electromodo @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:38PM]

Wouldn't say it better! If USPTO started acting like that 20 years ago, we'd see fewer patent trolls.

[Charles @ Jan 2nd 2009 8:28PM]

"Now go back and scrub all the software patents again."

I think they already did:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/24/1713259&from=rss

[jupiterthunder @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:25PM]

Such a shame. /sarcasm

Less see if they use this reasoning when it's time to stamp REJECT on Apple's iPhone gloves.

[superhobo @ Jan 3rd 2009 5:56PM]

And Apple's attempt to patent the term "multi-touch" [1]

[1] Wikipedia

[AVG @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:27PM]

That's like a super ghetto Logitech UltraX on there.

[Jason @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:34PM]

Oh, hmm... I assumed it was the super ghetto mouse/keybd combo that came in the box with that Gateway.

[Charlie @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:32PM]

Was this just the first office action? If so, then its not that big of a deal, almost every patent application is rejected after filing. Microsoft can still file a response and all sorts of other stuff including continuations and requests for continued examination. This could go on for years.

[bioadam @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:49PM]

Charlie is right. The vast majority of new applications are initially rejected. Coffee is also right. The patent office let through overly broad software patents until about five years ago.

[Kenjis9965 @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:35PM]

I have no problem with this so long as this does not become the norm, ie like in the Satellite/Cable TV industry

I'm just the sort of person who owns anything he wants or needs and doesnt like other people dictating what he can and cannot do with something ^^

[ryan @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:38PM]

I'd use it.

It makes sense, just like cloud computing makes sense. In order for a computer to be useful to me it has to be able to do some really fast number crunching (solidworks, matlab, max/msp) a few times a month, more if i'm working on a project. the rest of the time it's just sitting there doing nothing (web browsing, playing music or at most a movie)

If it were still able to do all the computer-ish things i do now, and i could pay for a huge beast of a machine when i have use for one and a netbook when i don't, i'd be happy.

A computer i build now would be built for peak capacity, and would cost me a fair amount, if it were priced competitively it would make sense for a lot of people.

[conor @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:43PM]

you cant virtually change the hardware of something so it would be a waist of money to produce it if people will just scale it back.

[Jason @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:59PM]

Conor, VM, VM, conor.

[Boarderwoot @ Jan 2nd 2009 5:59PM]

That wasn't the point of the patent conor...

[conor @ Jan 2nd 2009 8:06PM]

Than what was?

[Boarderwoot @ Jan 2nd 2009 6:02PM]

I'd love for someone to start doing this, it'd be great if you could throw in a plotter there too for a simmilar price. Kinkos does the same damn thing and they rape you for and then laugh. It'd be great to have more options for high end pay as you go computing especially at the rates microsoft listed in their patent.

[He Hate Me @ Jan 2nd 2009 6:15PM]

Um, having the patent application rejected doesn't necessarily stop Microsoft from launching this product. For example, Microsoft could apply for a patent on a GUI, have it rejected, then launch a product featuring a GUI anyway. Am I right?

[iomr @ Jan 2nd 2009 6:34PM]

Yes, the patent just guarantees exclusivity.

[Allen @ Jan 2nd 2009 6:36PM]

That's right -- a patent simply allows Microsoft to prevent others from launching products that fall within the scope of the patent. By the way, the patent would not in and of itself give Microsoft the right to launch a product featuring the GUI. For example, if some other company had a patent on, say, some feature of the GUI, Microsoft could still run afoul of the other company's patent, even though Microsoft itself has a patent on the GUI.

Also, I would note that rejections of the type noted in this post are EXTREMELY common. In fact, at this stage in the patent process, it would arguably be newsworthy if Microsoft were to actually get the patent allowed during the first round of examination. Patent applications are typically rejected one or more times before they issue as patents. In my own experience (yes, I'm a patent lawyer), I can probably count the number of times a patent application is allowed on the first round of examination on one hand.

I would really not read too much into the USPTO's rejection of the patent claims at this point; it's par for the course.

[AmFuzzy @ Jan 2nd 2009 6:32PM]

Comments here just go to show me most of Engadget's readers, or at least those post the most, are ignorant to the computer industry and needs of the markets outside most major markets such as the US. I can tell you this was driven by companies (service providers) outside of the US. MS worked with them to accomplish a form of pay as you go computing specifically for their needs. It didn't take MS long to figure out there was a market for such a thing and the technology (HW and SW) to enable it. Open your minds a bit and figure out there are lots of people in the world that wouldn't mind getting their internet and computer from the same provider...especially with computers being upgraded every 12 months or so. Why not just pay for the usage of the computer rather than the HW itself? It's not like a computer is an investment and many wold rather just tag on the cost of the computer (rental) to their electric or internet bill.

[JaymeZ @ Jan 2nd 2009 6:46PM]

Microsoft will proceed anyway, just like US proceed to Iraq war without UN.

[conor @ Jan 2nd 2009 8:05PM]

their was a UN mandate...

[Rudolphe @ Jan 2nd 2009 8:54PM]

Did they really? I'm pretty sure the war was approved by the UN. No matter how wrong it was morally, it was at least gone about in a legal manner.

[Andrew @ Jan 3rd 2009 5:39AM]

The Iraq war breached UN charter. It was illegal, really who was going to stop America and the UK.

[pgpprotector @ Jan 2nd 2009 7:01PM]

Holy *#@^$^#@


The Patent Office Rejected Something ???

[Setnev @ Jan 2nd 2009 7:17PM]

I think that instead of doing it like a prepaid time card thing, i think it should be a Pay As You Use. Microsoft should develop it to where you buy a computer you will get the computer with a seriously dummied down version of Windows. Basically what Vista does in Limited Functionality Mode. Then if you want more features of the OS, you will have to pay for software packages to use the computer, up to the full cost of the whole license of the full version of the OS. That would make smarter sense instead of charge hourly rates to use the computer. Let me guess, they round up to the nearest hour too?

[pball_inuyaha @ Jan 2nd 2009 7:20PM]

I didn't notice any comments commenting on the fact the article says most of it is already copyrighted. I wonder if it's a couple patents that have a similar goal or just a bunch of random patents that are unrelated.

[Jim @ Jan 2nd 2009 7:26PM]

To anyone who actually knows anything about how the patent process works, this "news" is so trivial that it's laughable. So, Engadget, I'll make an offer - if any of your editors would like to learn about the patent system so that you can avoid posting silly stuff like this, I'll give you a half hour intro any time you want.

Here's the bullet point version:

- MS filed the application in 2007
- The application has received a first office action from the Patent Office, just like probably 99% of all applications.
- MS now gets to amend their claims to narrow them and avoid the prior art

So, this sort of thing happens with almost every application and it's a long way from the end of the road for this patent. A single issued patent may go through the process 3 or more times before the patent office allows it. So this post is about as exciting as "Man eats peanut butter and jelly sandwich".

[David @ Jan 2nd 2009 7:36PM]

Thank the lord that this didn't go through, why should I have to pay more when I build my computer and buy my software, WTF is microsoft thinking? I'm a fan of Win 7 tho, it's nice.

[Chad @ Jan 2nd 2009 8:10PM]

This is not really anything to get excited about. The application received a non-final rejection on the Examiner's initial examination. This is extremely common. In fact, I know patent attorneys who think that it is malpractice to write claims that are allowable as originally drafted. So, the mere fact that this application was rejected in its first office action says virtually nothing about whether it will eventually issue as a patent. Microsoft's patent counsel now has 6 months to respond by amending the claims to correct defects and/or distinguish over the cited art; by presenting evidence about the patentability of the claims; and/or by arguing about why the Examiner's rejections are improper. The Examiner can then come back with new grounds of rejection, and the whole thing starts all over again. Trust me, this can go on for years.

[J.C. @ Jan 2nd 2009 9:24PM]

Almost all applications for a patent are rejected initially. As a patent examiner I have never granted a patent in the first round and from my experience, most law firms are not looking for a quick allowance.

[Takahashi @ Jan 2nd 2009 10:09PM]

Yes!
So glad that did not pass, Microsoft stop trying to expand your market more, and working on all this junk. Just stick with what you do best, and fix up your OS's...

[Anonymous @ Jan 2nd 2009 10:30PM]

from what i understood of the patent is that they were trying to create a software bottleneck over the hardware, the only aplication i can see this being of any use at all would be where you are leasing the hardware, and the software also.

[James @ Jan 2nd 2009 10:34PM]

So, your very own Internet Café? This should be the PC you have for when friends come over and want to use your connection :)

[LocalToast @ Jan 2nd 2009 11:28PM]

That's not a logo used for paying cash, it's used for receiving it... I'm pretty sure they're on every ATM.

[BillStonedGates @ Jan 3rd 2009 8:34AM]

Well, Time for ol' Billy to buy out the patents office with some spare change !!