
A patent lawsuit against GNOME - globuous
https://lwn.net/Articles/800516/
======
thaumaturgy
Rothschild Patent Imaging appears to be the company holding the rights to a
number of dubious patents filed by Leigh M. Rothschild, who appears to have a
well-deserved reputation as a patent troll [1][2].

I hope Gnome is able to take a Newegg approach here and kill the patent.

[1]: [http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/qr-code-patent-troll-
sues-d...](http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/qr-code-patent-troll-sues-dickeys-
barbecue/)

[2]: "A Florida inventor named Leigh M. Rothschild is the largest single NPE
based on the number of defendants who have been added to patent lawsuits he
filed, according to the the report."
[https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0106/Despite-
crack...](https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0106/Despite-crackdown-
from-courts-patent-suits-still-battered-tech-companies-in-2015)

~~~
mcherm
> I hope Gnome is able to take a Newegg approach here and kill the patent.

How do you propose paying for that? It is fantastically expensive.

~~~
tombert
If anyone from the Gnome team is listening, if you guys started a GoFundMe or
something to help with legal fees to challenge this, I would throw twenty
bucks your way.

I'd be happy if someone held me to that.

~~~
hipsterstal1n
It cost Newegg $60,000 to fight their patent troll. Gnome team is going to
need a lot more then $20.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _It cost Newegg $60,000 to fight their patent troll. Gnome team is going to
> need a lot more then $20._

Wow, that's all? That's actually really encouraging, if true. I would have
assumed it was millions.

~~~
sjwright
Even if that is correct, you still need to have a couple hundred grand in
reserve in case the judge is a dumbass and you lose.

------
akersten
I don't understand why software patents are allowed to exist. There's
_nothing_ novel about software. Every software patent I've ever read is "a
system for X" where X is something generic like "taking photos with multiple
cameras and sharing them over the internet." You haven't made anything novel
there, you've taken a logical product of interoperable building blocks and put
an artificial legal barricade around it.

It would be like Target patenting "a system for selling goods to consumers"
and suing any other retailer with a checkout.

~~~
oconnor663
My (layman) impression is that the "non-obviousness" requirement is supposed
to deal with this problem. But it seems like the patent office is (was?)
poorly calibrated for obviousness. I'm sure the lawyers writing patents
intentionally make it hard on the PTO, but that must be true in every other
field too, and I assume the PTO can solve that problem.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
The problem is that so many brilliant inventions are obvious once they've been
explained. Because of this, it's very hard to describe what is and isn't
obvious.

The closest analogue I could imagine would be a test in which your patent
includes a problem statement and a solution which solves that problem, and the
test for obviousness is to present the problem statement to a group of skilled
professionals and see if the solution they craft for that problem statement
matches the patent, and strike any claims they propose.

This is a very unreliable test and a lousy and expensive standard, but it's
the best I've got.

~~~
jammygit
Can’t work if the patented solution has become common knowledge within the
profession

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Drat, that's a good point. The patent office could use the test as part of the
review, though.

------
callahad
That complaint
([https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13472237](https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13472237))
is wild. Paragraph 19 states:

> _The Product practices transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a
> second image capturing device, the filtered plurality of photographic
> images. For example, the Product offers a number of ways to wirelessly share
> photos online such as through social media._

It then specifically calls out a screenshot of
[http://yorba.org/shotwell/help/](http://yorba.org/shotwell/help/) with scary
red lines highlighting how you can "export photos" and "publish to the Web"
and "send photos via email, instant messaging, or in other ways."

...which just use whatever network interface the system has. And sure, that
could be wireless... but it's not like Shotwell has any say (or necessarily
any knowledge) of that, right?

How does patent law deal with that, where the wholly circumstantial and
independent properties of a product's operating environment could result in a
system with emergent properties that violate the patent, and which are wholly
outside of the control of the original software?

E.g., if I'm using Shotwell on a home computer plugged into an Ethernet cable,
but there's a radio link somewhere on the route between me and Facebook...
would that instance of Shotwell suddenly be in violation of the patent?

~~~
Iv
It doesn't. Software patents are an absurdity that people have fought for
ages. They are basically invalid in most of EU.

~~~
redwall_hp
You can't patent math, as per patent law. Software is just abstracted math.
Therefore, software should not be patentable.

~~~
Iv
But somehow, you can copyright it...

------
jcranmer
Reading patents is hard, but the patent in question is easy because it's so
short, and the lawsuit is explicitly saying which claim they believe is in
violation. Here is the claim in full:

> A method performed by an image-capturing mobile device, comprising:

> receiving a plurality of photographic images;

> filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria
> wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective
> photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the
> subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the
> respective photographic image;

> and transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a second image capturing
> device, the filtered plurality of photographic images.

IANAL, and I am not sufficiently well-versed in patent law to know precisely
how the terminology is to be interpreted in court, but that last element of
the claim is really hard to substantiate. First, there's no evidence that it's
transmitting via a wireless transmitter (if it doesn't, it can't violate the
claim by definition!). Second, there is strong evidence that the destination
is not a "second image capturing device." If that last clause is not violated,
then the claim is not violated, and the patent is not violated.

From the way the patent claims are constructed, it feels like the patent
examiner narrowed the patent to cover specifically wireless point-to-point
transmission of images. I don't think the court will look kindly on the broad
interpretation being used here.

~~~
KibbutzDalia
> Reading patents is hard

You’d think that would keep all the brilliant legal minds on HN from
commenting on it!

I appreciate your analysis of it. You’re one of the few here who did read it.

~~~
Spivak
Patents are written in an intentionally obtuse and difficult to parse way.
They're pretty much written in the style of an 11th grader who is overdoing
the thesaurus to try and sound smart while conveying as little actual meaning
as possible. It's not like you actually want your competitors to be able to
reproduce your idea -- you just want the protections.

------
messe
Abstract of the patent in question:

"A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image
is presented, the system and method comprising at least one capturing device
and at least one receiving device disposed in a communicative relation with
one another via at least one wireless network. In particular, the capturing
device is structured to capture the at least one digital photographic image
via, for example, a capture assembly, whereas the receiving device is
cooperatively structured to receive the digital photographic image via, for
example, the at least one wireless network. In addition, the capturing
device(s) and receiving device(s) may be disposed in a selectively paired
relationship via one or more common pre-defined pairing criteria. Further, the
at least one digital photographic image may be filtered via at least one pre-
defined transfer criteria disposed on the capturing device and/or receiving
device."

~~~
lazyguy2
What a bunch of assholes. Federal government really needs to stop enabling
these people.

~~~
giancarlostoro
These kind of claims should yield further investigations into the rest of the
patents of the companies that have too many patents. Especially if their only
source of income is patents. If found that they hold invalid patents to things
that have prior "art" or implementations, those specific patents should be
revoked.

~~~
lazyguy2
At the very least the company must show damages to sales or something like
that.

The whole patent system in general is a massive drag on innovation and the
economy. Sure it's supposed to do the opposite, but that the difference
between theory and practice.

The way it is now it's harms technological progress with this sort of
nonsense.

~~~
giancarlostoro
Whats worse yet is does GNOME even generate any revenue from Shotwell? If
not... this is such a low blow.

~~~
CameronNemo
From what I remember, they only picked it up once the Yorba Foundation folded.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorba_Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorba_Foundation)

------
Benjamin_Dobell
Wow, going after GNOME is such an incredibly stupid thing for a patent troll
to do. Once EFF get involved they can kiss their patent good-bye.

~~~
sounds
Part of the stupidity of filing a lawsuit against GNOME is that the awards are
either statutory damages (pay what you should have paid before) or punitive
damages (pay a higher price because you are willfully violating the patent).

If the court invalidates the patent, which is likely, GNOME and other free
software projects can use that as a precedent in the future, which makes it
harder for trolls to operate. The smart troll picks "soft targets" who will
just roll over and pay.

If the court awards statutory damages, GNOME made no money because they sold
no software, so it's possible the statutory damages ends up being less than
the cost to litigate. The smart troll does _not_ pick "zero-value targets"
like GNOME.

If the court awards punitive damages, GNOME has very little revenue and may
not be able to pay all the damages. The smart troll does _not_ pick "poor
targets" like GNOME.

This feels like a poorly-paid paralegal just shotgunned a bunch of suits and
really, really screwed up.

~~~
Nemo_bis
Statutory damages are not related to how much money you made out of the
violation.

~~~
desertrider12
But if GNOME has no tangible assets to go after, the patent troll won't
actually get any reward for this.

------
leafo
Serial patent troll: [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/garmin-sued-
in-e...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/garmin-sued-in-east-
texas-over-patents-on-an-internet-drink-mixer-seeks-legal-fees/)

------
michaelmrose
Registering a patent for things that plainly pre existing isn't merely
improper it isn't much different than taking a crowbar to your door while you
are away to steal away with your valuables.

If you should happen to chase the thief away this time it isn't much of a
victory if the thief and his compatriots faces little to no consequences.

Firstly software patents are a net negative and shouldn't be a thing. Next
plainly frivolous patents should subject the owner to a fine at time of
application. Make the seeker pay an additional bond forfeit for frivolous
patents.

Next make granting bad patents expensive for the government. Let anyone read
patents in process and by proving them void claim the aforementioned bond.

~~~
nefitty
These sound like really good ideas. It sets up the incentives in the right way
to facilitate innovation.

Have you studied these propositions in the past, or are these ideas you came
up with after researching?

------
synthmeat
[https://www.gnome.org/support-gnome/donate/](https://www.gnome.org/support-
gnome/donate/)

Let's use up the news momentum to give GNOME (more) resources to bury these
fuckers.

~~~
twobat
I always thought of Gnome as a Redhat product.

~~~
madrix999
Isn't KDE maintained by RedHat? There was news a while back about them killing
off KDE in the near future

~~~
zaat
You are confusing KDE with X11, which is maintained by Red Hat and was
announced as going into maintenance mode in favor of Wayland.

~~~
Arnavion
They weren't confusing it with X, though they were misremembering RH's role -
[https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-
us/red_hat_enterp...](https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-
us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-
single/7.6_release_notes/index#idm139718396587376)

------
dragonsh
This is the results of software patents, do not entertain software and
algorithm patents and this will not happen. Hopefully USA can reform to follow
Europe and rest of the work in this.

Even if the patent is invalidated, it has already created a lot of unnecessary
work and no innovation.

I am just thinking Gnome foundation can fight, think of a small firm who
doesn’t have money to fight and represent in court.

This seems to be right opposite of patents to protect innovation. It looks
like patents to litigate and make money and hamper any innovation.

After so many frivolous patents like amazon single click, oracle java and many
more I don’t see any innovation but attack on innovation and waste of time and
money on not required debate in court.

I believe this system is in place to generate jobs for lawyers who will not be
able to earn otherwise. Lawyers promote strict patent laws and many non
sensible, as many politicians are lawyers not innovators.

------
hiccuphippo
Would it be feasible for someone to form a non-profit organization who's only
goal is to find prior art for patent applications and kill them before they
become one? Maybe as a branch of the EFF or something? Would the patent system
allow for such thing to exist with the current rules or do the rules need to
be changed in the first place?

~~~
loeg
USPTO is now first to file, not first to invent. Prior art becomes less and
less useful over time.

~~~
chris5745
According to my understanding, the current US patent system is often
summarized as “first inventor to file” meaning the named inventor must believe
herself to be the original inventor.

Prior art is still relevant WRT patent prosecution. The AIA made several
changes to patent law, perhaps most notably making the effective filing date
the determining factor for purposes of applying prior art, instead of the
invention date. This means interferences no longer occur. There are also now
different post-grant procedures for challenging patent validity.

Source: am a patent agent Disclaimer: this is not legal advice

~~~
loeg
Thanks, I definitely misunderstood the change.

------
lol768
GNOME should consider a call for prior art, similar to Cloudflare's Project
Jengo. It would be a concrete way to crowdsource help to fight back against
what looks like a patent troll.

------
looperhacks
This patent went active today. The patent seems very basic. This looks like a
patent troll, doesn't it? The described idea wasn't really novel when they
applied for the patent

~~~
barbegal
The patent didn't go active today (Google Patents just shows it is currently
active today) and has already been used in other lawsuits that were dismissed
by a court
[https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern...](https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A16-cv-01382)

~~~
lwf
For clarity, though, this case was dismissed without prejudice on the basis of
an improper venue.

The patent still looks bogus, but don't draw any premature conclusions from
the above-cited case.

------
Signez
They are patent-trolling a non-profit. _facepalm_

~~~
wyldfire
The fact that they're a nonprofit makes them a great target.

~~~
wtfrmyinitials
Why? There isn't much for a troll to plunder

~~~
wyldfire
The business of patent trolls is to find targets too small to have counsel on
staff. The cost of sending a letter is negligible so even very "small" amounts
(a few thousand USD) is a huge win.

Non-profits can easily make their benefit calculation to send off a few
thousand and/or hire counsel just to cover a cheap settlement. Much less
expensive than the cost of litigation.

------
wyqydsyq
Even more incredible, this guy has a patent on recharging mobile devices?
Filed in 2012?! Does the US patent office even read submissions before
approving them? Or are they just dinosaurs who have never even used a mobile
phone up to 2012?

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9448603B2/en?inventor=Le...](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9448603B2/en?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild)

------
gnud
Now, of course, IANAL. But in these discussions, I always hear 'ignore the
abstract, look at the claims'.

The claims describe "An image-capturing mobile device".

GNOME makes software that could be used on such a device, but surely no-one
can claim that software _is_ a mobile device?

Claim 4 _could_ apply to the software, except it still says "mobile device" in
that claim as well.

This is all without even considering how ludicrous the "invention" being
claimed is. I'm pretty sure I could choose to transmit only some photos, based
on date, from my phone way before 2008.

------
qwerty456127
> Patent was filed in 2008 and is about wirelessly (wifi/bluetooth/etc)
> connecting an "image capturing device" (webcam/phone) with a "receiving
> device" (computer) and selectively (date, location, image recognition...)
> transmitting them.

Funny. Can I patent whatever I can imagine (without actually building a
working prototype) and sue everybody once the technology emerges making this
possible and practical? Can science fiction writings be used as "prior art" to
disqualify patents?

~~~
tensor
You have to explain how to build it in "sufficient detail", but you don't
actually have to provide a working prototype.

~~~
anticensor
Not required, but you need to be able to provide one if patent office
requests.

------
linuxftw
An interesting thing about patents in the US is that this company could also
sue any organization using the infringing software (eg, a Linux distro that
uses GNOME, and it's customers).

Red Hat offers to fight and protect end-users of their software that might get
caught up in a patent fight like this one:
[https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-assurance-
faq](https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-assurance-faq)

------
gertrunde
A group of companies that has form as well...

A previous recipient of the FSF 'Stupid Patent of the Month' award...

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/stupid-patent-
of...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/stupid-patent-of-the-month-
internet-drink-mixer-vs-everyone/)

------
cjhanks
He started BarPoint.com which at one point lost $3.53 mil on $23,185 revenue
[1]. What a joke. [1]
[https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2002/08/12/...](https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2002/08/12/daily90.html)

------
cestith
IANAL but the claims appear to be about one device filtering which photos it
sends to other devices based on identifying the photographic subjects (people,
buildings, or animals) and forwarding photographs that contain certain
subjects to particular other devices wirelessly. Shotwell is just an
application which supports filtering based on manually applied labels, not an
image-classifying AI with a wireless network stack.

Setting aside prior art for a moment, it seems like a pretty far stretch to
say that classifying files according to metadata and uploading them to Flickr
or Pinterest is equivalent to identifying the subject of a photograph and
making it wirelessly accessible to another local device.

Is anyone, I mean anyone, here unaware of software prior to 1998 that would
filter files into different folders based on, say, ID3 tags, EXIF data, or
file timestamps?

------
GenghisSean
This looks like a patent troll. The functionality they have patented is quite
basic for a modern photo program.

~~~
arathore
The inventor has about 134 patents [1] and many of which seem (to me) very
generic. I am not very familiar with patent jargon so I can't definitively say
if those patents have enough substance to them. Maybe someone with experience
could expand on this?

[1]
[https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild&sor...](https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild&sort=new)

~~~
anticensor
Patent applications are usually not written by inventors themselves. Hence,
they have vague and/or prolonged language to cover the invention more.

------
LameRubberDucky
After reading through the patent and the suit, their comparison to Shotwell is
ridiculous. In the patent, they even describe how Shotwell and other similar
photo gallery programs that can share to social medial work and further go on
to explain how their patent is different from these. The patent essentially is
for a group of wireless devices to be linked together at say a wedding, when
one person takes a picture, the picture is transmitted wirelessly and
automatically to the paired devices, digital cameras, smartphones, computers,
etc.

So, everyone's smartphones or digital cameras pair together and anyone that
takes a photo has that photo distributed to the other devices. How is that
anything like Shotwell?

~~~
dylan-m
Someone pointed out that the patent became active _today_. I wonder if they
filed other lawsuits based on this patent as well? Would make sense that they
target a bunch of small software developers who can't defend themselves in
hopes of some easy settlements, but they rather miscalculated on GNOME.

------
droithomme
> Patent was filed in 2008 and is about wirelessly (wifi/bluetooth/etc)
> connecting an "image capturing device" (webcam/phone) with a "receiving
> device" (computer) and selectively (date, location, image recognition...)
> transmitting them.

Pfffft. Primitive animals destroying civilization at this Rothschild troll
plantation.

We need patent reform that involves criminal felony penalties for trolls on
the basis that their actions greviously harm civilization. Get these parasites
off the street and away from harming the people doing actual useful work.

------
mrandish
Here are the specific independent claims of the patent 9,936,086 by Leigh M.
Rothschild of Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC. Obviously, Shotwell does not
violate this patent. Can you think of any prior art that might invalidate the
patent? All elements must be present prior to 2008.

1\. An image-capturing mobile device, comprising

a wireless receiver;

a wireless transmitter;

and a processor operably connected to the wireless receiver and the wireless
transmitter, wherein the processor is configured to:

receive a plurality of photographic images;

filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein
the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic
image within the plurality of photographic images,

wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual
shown in the respective photographic image;

and transmit, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the
filtered plurality of photographic images.

4\. A method performed by an image-capturing mobile device, comprising:

receiving a plurality of photographic images;

filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria
wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective
photographic image within the plurality of photographic images,

wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual
shown in the respective photographic image;

and transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a second image capturing
device, the filtered plurality of photographic images.

Imglorp posted elsewhere in this thread suggesting perhaps the Mars Viking
spacecraft would serve as prior art which I thought was clever. The only
challenge might be whether any spacecraft prior to 2008 had a "filter"
function that had a "transfer criteria" of "subject identification" that was
"based on a topic, theme or individual shown".

I think the final element of transmitting to a "second mobile device" or a
"second image capturing device" would be met by any lander that relayed
through an orbiter that also had a camera.

~~~
Mathnerd314
They only claim #4 in the filing.

------
ulucs
If only GNOME was part of a foundation which worked to advance software
freedom... Oh well, I hope the #cancelstallman team will be of more help than
the FSF.

------
nickodell
Here's an interesting sentence from the complaint filed by Rothschild:

>On information and belief, Defendant sells, offers to sell, and/or uses
network storage systems and methods including, without limitation, the Gnome
Shotwell platform, and any similar products (“Product”), which infringe at
least Claim 4 of the ‘086 Patent.

Does Gnome Foundation sell Shotwell?

------
arianvanp
What if they just ignored it? Isn't Gnome foundation Europe based? Software
patents are void here in most cases.

------
zadokshi
Could we update our open source licenses to have a clause that the software
can not be licensed to (or used by employees of a company) on a patent troll
register. (With a clear definitions of what gets a company on a patent troll
register)

This type of company would soon not even be able to keep a website online.

~~~
flukus
Then it wouldn't be free software ([https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
sw.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)). Freedom 0 is the most
critical item:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

------
jacquesm
Note the Leigh M. Rotschild Intellectual Ventures link:

[https://www.intellectualventures.com/buzz/insights/inventor-...](https://www.intellectualventures.com/buzz/insights/inventor-
spotlight-leigh-rothschild)

Birds of a feather.

------
Sephr
Shotwell doesn't support the wireless transmission of images, the supporting
WiFi/LTE/etc firmware stack (if applicable) does.

I'm not sure how it could be argued that the Shotwell codebase contains
anything specifically related to supporting wireless data transfer.

------
blue_devil
How about nipping this nonsense at the source, and crowdsourcing patent
applications processing? With the backlog there is in the US, it's not so
surprising that ridiculously generic patents were granted (and probably being
granted).

------
fourier_mode
Looks like the patent
assignee([https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild](https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild))
has filed a lot of similarly vague patents.

------
musicale
I think we need a better "obviousness" hurdle for patents.

And we need to get rid of "do something we already do, but wirelessly!"
patents and "do something we already do, but using a computer or network!"
patents.

------
ww520
Patents that are too broad are routinely invalidated in courts. It's just
going to trial is expensive so the patent trolls are hoping people would
settle long before it goes to trial.

------
paulcarroty
The lawsuit is laughable for 2019, especially section with importing photos.

I'll donate for easy, but hope IBM can defend their investments.

------
unnouinceput
Muhahahaha, best joke this week. GNOME gonna trample all over them in court
and not only.

------
ent101
What's in it for a patent troll to sue GNOME?!

------
proc0
Suing anything GNU or Linux related is pretty low.

------
signa11
SNR is quite low...

------
shmerl
Parent sounds trivial and should be busted as having prior art.

------
ineedasername
tldr: patent on wireless transfer of photos. Earliest filing appears to be
2008.

Prior art abounds, perhaps most notably the EyeFi product line that came to
market around 2006[0]

[0]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20060805175034/http://www.eye.fi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20060805175034/http://www.eye.fi/)

------
adamnemecek
"Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC"

Best company name.

~~~
misterdoubt
At least there's self-awareness here.

------
sbhn
Software patents ensure that every major software supplier in the world is an
American controlled company. Not awarding the patent claim would be a threat
against American national security.

------
peter_retief
Patents are supposedly designed to protect inventors with limited resources.
Dont rail against patents rather than the abusers

~~~
ehvatum
Has there ever been an instance where an inventor with limited resources used
a software patent to protect significant innovation?

Has anyone, anywhere, ever once faced a coding challenge, searched through
software patents, and found a useful solution?

I'm laughing as I try to imagine either of these things happening.

A friend of mine recently earned good money serving as an expert witness
against a patent claiming to cover the concept of transmitting a zero over a
carrier wave. You see, the patent holder never actually produced a device
taking advantage of this great idea, and then he "hurt his back and couldn't
work anymore", so he sued his insurance company for the billions of potential
dollars he could have earned if he ever did get around to transmitting a
zero...

~~~
peter_retief
Quite a bizarre story, what on earth is "transmitting a zero"?

