
Microsoft makes patent claim for sparklines - nirmal
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0003Y1&topic_id=1
======
decode
To be fair, they're not claiming sparklines itself, rather the integration of
sparklines into a spreadsheet. That still doesn't seem useful and nonobvious
to me, and on top of that there seems to be prior art, but don't
mischaracterize what they've patented.

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.

~~~
raquo
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...

~~~
m_eiman
_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.

~~~
iuyhgbn
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.

------
ganley
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...](http://www.juiceanalytics.com/writing/sparklines-in-excel-simplicity-
itself/)).

However, my half-assed OpenOffice version
([http://joeganley.com/2008/10/sparklines-in-openoffice-
calc.h...](http://joeganley.com/2008/10/sparklines-in-openoffice-calc.html))
postdates the patent app. It would amuse me if I were in violation of a
Microsoft patent.

~~~
jacobolus
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...](http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-
msg?msg_id=0001OR&topic_id=1)

------
elecengin
(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.

~~~
decode
"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...](http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-
msg?msg_id=0001OR)

"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."

~~~
fhars
This is from 2004:

<http://ctan.org/tex-archive/graphics/sparklines/>

------
js3309
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>

~~~
jxcole
That is the funniest patent I have ever seen!

------
balakk
Oh well, the Excel team itself credits Tufte with the invention :

[http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-
in...](http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-
excel.aspx)

What's more it's by the Patent applicant himself - Sam Radakovitz! Something
is missing here.

------
bdfh42
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...](http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/eurooffice-
sparkline)

------
ratsbane
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.

------
youngian
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.

~~~
pyre
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.

~~~
youngian
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.

------
fiaz
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?

~~~
ejames
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.

~~~
stonemetal
> 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.

~~~
nroach
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.

~~~
iuyhgbn
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.

------
peoplerock
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?

------
tokenadult
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=0001OR)

