Slashdot Log In
Interwoven Patents Code Versioning
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:56 PM
from the prior-artfulness dept.
from the prior-artfulness dept.
webengr writes "It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents. CVS has been around for a long time, but now Interwoven has been awarded a new patent covering version control of web assets. The claims include, 'The use of a hierarchical file system and an object repository for representing and hosting content and its structure,' and 'The combined concepts of file history, versioning, comparison, and merging as it relates to content, provide an archive of all individual changes as well as collections of changes so they can be versioned and audited.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Lenient? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that in the time between the dumb patent being granted, and the courts sorting it out, severe damage can be done to people's freedom to innovate.
Recall that over the past 100 years (and beyond), significant advances in technology have almost always been despite IP laws, not because of them*
*Some examples:
Parent
a real technological lynchpin (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the worlds fastest growing operating systems, Linux, explicitly rejects the concept of intellectual property in its license
Unfortunately, no it doesn't. Indeed, Linux (and GNU) explicitly relies on IP to make the GPL binding. This is the problem, even the answer to IP, Free Software, requires IP in order to live because of the existence of IP in the first place. It is a classic Catch 22 situation
Parent
That is incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is no "copyright", then why would you need a "copyleft"?
GPL is supposed to spit in the face of copyright law. The beauty of it is that it does this by depending upon it.
If there were no copyright, then closed source would still be inviable: because anyone could copy it around. The difference would be that the BSD, LGPL, and GPL licenses would be effectively compatible, and I could finally see goddam SVG enabled in mozilla by default, etc.
The reason the GPL does not need copyright, is that eliminating copyright would eliminate the incentive to violate the GPL. Thats a catch 22.
Parent
To be fair you last item isn't true (Score:5, Informative)
If the GPL rejected the concept of intellectual property it would called "public domain."
The GPL is very much *not* the same as the public domain, since it forces contractual obligations. It can only do this because the code is *someone's intellectual property.* You use the code under license. Not right.
This is why we have BSD/GPL/Aritistic license religious wars.
The power of the GPL ( whether you think it's good or bad is up to you. Please note I'm only bringing up facts here, not making value judgements) is that with no concept of intellectual property you would have *no* rights to obtain source code. The GPL uses intellectual property law to force the code "free."
KFG
Parent
Can the USPO be sued? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wrong incentive (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent is incorrect.
It's a non-refundable fee -- this fee is actually meant to compensate for the USPTO guys doing a prior art search.
-Tomaj
Parent
Re:Ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Over 90% of the serving members of the 3 branches of government were lawyers. Lawyers and old-money own the government(now more than ever). Do you think they will regulate themselves?
Where did that come from? Even *appointed* officials aren't 90% lawyers, and rank and file government employees sure as hell even aren't *mostly* lawyers. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the total government work force.
USPTO sucks, but let's not get carried away here.
Parent
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Informative)
Tons of prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't the VMS filesystem have versioning in it?
Didn't the original ISO-9660 spec also talk about that as well?
Re:Tons of prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess they figure it's up to the courts to invalidate patents based on prior art??
Parent
Anyone remember VMS? (Score:4, Interesting)
I quit, I'm going to go farm some llamas or something. All this patent crap is starting to wear me down.
article in case of server meltdown (Score:4, Informative)
Interwoven's U.S. patent (#6505212)
A system for asset management comprised of multiple workareas, each configured to maintain a virtual copy of content as it would appear when published;
A staging area to which content is submitted from multiple work areas and where any conflicts between content can be resolved;
Branches and sub-branches (for different projects or initiatives) that contain individual workareas, staging areas, and editions which allows for massively parallel development on a single platform;
The use of a hierarchical file system and an object repository for representing and hosting content and its structure;
Virtualization of all content regardless of location as well as Web and application servers - this allows contributors to make changes "in context" of the entire site;
The combined concepts of file history, versioning, comparison, and merging as it relates to content, provide an archive of all individual changes as well as collections of changes so they can be versioned and audited.
Re:article in case of server meltdown (Score:5, Informative)
The point to remember, gentle reader, is to put zero stock in the company-paraphrased/sweeping language on their website. To quote (or at least paraphrase) a famous patent law scholar and judge, "The name of the game is the claim." IAAL, a patent one at that.
1. A system for file management for files containing website content comprising:
a work area configured to allow a user to create and maintain web content to be displayed on a website, the work area being a file system having read and write operations to enable a user to edit virtual representations of files having web content that is located in the work area; and
a staging area adapted to receive and integrate the web content submitted from the work area when the web content of the work area does not conflict with other web content submitted to the staging area and configured to retain versions of web content submitted from the work area.
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of work areas configured to allow different users to create and maintain web content to be displayed on a website, wherein the staging area is adapted to receive web content changes of files modified in the work areas and is configured to check for conflicts in web content received from two or more work areas.
3. In a system having a plurality of file systems containing web content, for use in a system for developing virtual copies of web content to be displayed on a website, a method for maintaining the history and ancestry of the web content of an item in each of the file systems in which the item is included, the method comprising:
associating a history object with a first item containing information related to the revision history of the item web content;
associating information related to the ancestry of the item web content; and
maintaining an entry in the history object for each file system in which the item is included that identifies the web content associated with the first item in that file system so that conflicts with other items and their associated web content may be ascertained.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
associating new web content in one of the plurality of file systems with the item;
modifying an entry in the history object corresponding to that file system to indicate that the item is associated with the new web content; and
adding a reference to the previous web content in the new web content.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:
determining whether a second item is in conflict with the first item by determining whether web content in the second item are previous web content of the first item.
6. A method for developing a website by resolving potential conflicts in web content submitted to a web content staging area by a work area where virtual copies of web content are developed, comprising:
modifying data associated with a selected object in a work area that is related to web content to be published on a website;
determining whether other web content is in conflict with web content developed by the work area;
resolving the any conflicts among the different web content; and
submitting web Content from the work area to the staging area where web content is staged before being published on a website.
7. A system for developing a website comprising:
a work area defined within a memory location and configured to enable a user to edit virtual copies of web content by editing files containing web content within the work area and to submit web content to be staged for publication on a website; and
a staging area defined within a memory location and configured to receive web content submitted by a work area, to determine whether conflicts exist between web content submitted by any one work area and other content to be staged in the staging area, and to integrate web content submitted from a work area when the web content of the work area does not conflict with other content submitted to the staging area and to maintain versions of web content sent from a work area.
8. A system according to claim 7, wherein the work area may be characterized as a file system stored within memory and having read and write operations to enable a user to edit files containing web content in the work area; and
wherein the staging area may be characterized as a file system for staging web content developed in a plurality of work areas and stored within memory and capable of receiving web content from a work area, the staging area including a versioning mechanism configured to maintain versions of web content received from a work area and an integration mechanism configured to integrate web content received from a plurality of work areas when the web content does not have conflicts.
9. A method for modifying website content, wherein the method is configured for use in a web content modification system having at least one. work area for modifying virtual copies of web content and a staging area for integrating web content submitted by one or more work areas, the method comprising:
modifying virtual copies of web content of a selected object in a work area;
analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other web content submitted to the sting area; and
in response to said other web content not being in conflict with the web content of the work area, submitting the web content modified in the work area to the staging area; and
in response to said other web content being in conflict with the web content submitted by the work area, not submitting the web content to the staging area.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to said other web content submitted to the staging area being in conflict with the web content of the work area, rejecting the web content from being submitted to the staging area.
11. The method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to the other web content submitted to the staging area being in conflict with the web content submitted to the staging area by the work area, refraining from submitting the web content of the working area to the staging area for integration with other web content.
12. The method of claim 9, wherein analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other web content submitted to the staging area further includes analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area by a work area, wherein if the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with the other web content, no conflict exists, and wherein if the web content of the work area does not share a common ancestry with the other web content, a conflict exists.
13. The method of claim wherein analyzing the content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other content submitted to the staging area further includes:
analyzing the content of the work area to determine whether it is the same content as and whether the content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other content submitted to the staging area;
if the web content of the work area is not the same as the other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict exists and the web content from the work area may not be submitted to the staging area;
if the web content of the work area is the same as the other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict does not exist and the web content from the work area may be submitted to the staging area;
if web the content of the work area does not share a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict exists and the web content from the work area may not be submitted to the staging area; and
if the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict does not exist and the web content from the work area may be submitted to the staging area.
Parent
Re:article in case of server meltdown (Score:5, Funny)
2.) ???
3.) Karma
Parent
I'd pay for this. (Score:3, Interesting)
We have a small prepublishing company, and it really would be ideal to let the authors request their changes right on the web, and then submit them. Then have a system that would send an alarm to my people, who would get on the job immediately, update the info, and then send an email ['Your work is ready'] to the authors.
But that isn't all I want. I want
(1) Secure password encoded, 128-bit at least
(2) Dating and timing of requests, backup of all previous versions
(3) Dating and timing of our new documents
(4) Access to Mac systems
And then what I'd really like:
(5) Online web-native/Postscript-native document manager that can handle templates [like equations], read postscript *FROM OTHER WORD PROCESSORS INCLUDING MS WORD*, reformat it into template-format work, do all the things that Quark XPress can do, allow mass updates with individual checks [so words and formulas must be stored in tree format].
I suppose this could be done with Acrobat files initially, including their form submission.
But the fact is, we don't have it done. Now, I'm not about to spend money to develop something that isn't mine, especially when I don't have a lot of money. But if they got a really good system going, there's an excellent chance that I would buy in, so long as the license was permanent. [I won't be held hostage, but I *will* pay money for the system].
So I really hope they do develop a halfway decent working model.
But if they don't develop it themselves, I'm not going to have a problem doing an artwork search and then developing what I wanted anyhow. Or if they have a hostage-data situation.
I won't pay money to put a noose around my neck voluntarily.
Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that there's no technical difference between version control on an HTML file and version control on a 'C' file seems to be the sort of thing that's lost on the patent office.
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:3, Funny)
Ha. This will have no effect on me! (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, I knew my slackerly habits would pay off eventually!
Send us your Linux Sysadmin [librenix.com] articles
Lost work at the patent office (Score:5, Funny)
And in a related story... (Score:5, Funny)
And in our next story, Microsoft is now widely perceived to be the playground bully of computer software.
lenient ? are you kidding ? (Score:5, Insightful)
New Rules (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Submit the patent idea to the patent office- as a "pending patent".
2. Patent office does a search (web or otherwise) on prior art, billing the individual/corporation that submits the patent at a standard rate. If no prior art is found, the patent office does not bill. The company is able to challenge any claims to prior art. Each challenge to a claim at prior art costs a certain fee.
3. Patent is awarded to the individual/corporation.
Basically the idea behind this is that companies will be charged for their stupidity. It will discourage patents on ideas that are already "out there" (patented or not). At the same time, it will *not* discourage individuals from ligitimate patents as they will be reimbursed for the "prior art search fee".
In addition, the Patent Office still gets its money and they begin providing real value.
Until something like this happens, we will all have to groan as the patent office continues to do stupid stuff and lawyers get richer.
Re:New Rules (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that these web searches and other techniques aren't really very fruitful. Patents are *complicated*.
I should know. I've written two, and read many.
C//
Re:New Rules (Score:5, Funny)
Or, conversely
I don't think that I've seen patents go through /. and not read examples of prior art in the commentary.
Parent
Maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always like this. Some Slahdot people would get hired, and then be presented with 1,500 applications for medical devices. People on medical discussion sites would be like "I can't believe they let that patent through.. its a syringe! We've had those for three hundred years!"
Parent
jeez (Score:5, Funny)
I just patented the process of "using organic photoreceptors to relay electronic signals via sheathed sodium channels to a core carbon based processing unit to elicit saturation of iron-rich fluids in nether regions of humanoid body, and further organic electrical manipulation of calcium mechanics to stimulate fluid-engorged region." I'm willing to settle for $20,000 per license violation.
Clearcase is prior art -it was their prior company (Score:3, Informative)
Clearcase has all of this stuff including staging and work-areas.
They are basically patenting "Clearcase as applied to the web".
Suing the patent office (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough of these cases and the patent office may begin to reforem itself in when and where it grants a patent.
- Serge Wroclawski
Link to patent (Score:5, Informative)
This Move is Ironically Anti-Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the fallacy of the first part of that self-serving statement is that history demonstrates the contrary: Innovation, especially in the area of software innovation, has been most successful in an atmosphere of sharing, openness, mutual support and peer-recognition. This is well-documented by Manuel Castells, Lawrence Lessig and others. Patents impede the advance of innovation by preventing potential competitors from innovating. With patent protection, innovation is limited to those who can afford the overhead of traaversing the patent minefield (as Stallman puts it). Those who choose to share innovation with the restriction that those who benefit also share their follow-on innovations - even when innovations pertain to other than software disciplines, accelerate the innovation process, and thereby support the development of a sustainably expanding economic infrastructure.
I do agree with the company's second statement: Patents are "most effective and powerful way to ensure that a company protects" its stuff. It just does very little for the rest of society, and for the economy in general.
Here's how to fix the patent process (Score:3, Funny)
Next on Fox: "Leave it to Beaver, thePatent Clerk" (Score:5, Funny)
Wally: "Well, you remember what the memo said, if it's got the the word 'web' in it then you should accept it, otherwise you're gonna get it when the commisioner gets back."
Beaver: "Not only does it have 'web' it's got 'web assets' and 'version control', what the heck is that?"
Wally: "No idea, but it sounds good. Hey just stamp the thing with the 'ACCEPTED' stamp and let the lawyers sort it out; we're gonna be late for beer at The Prior Art tavern."
Beaver: "Yeah, wouldn't want them lawyers to be outta work, now would we. Well, that's ten I've accepted before lunch, let's get to The Prior Art, pronto!"
Only way to sort this out... (Score:4, Funny)
"A system to allow full disclosure of innovative techniques or technologies, while permitting the applicant exclusive license to said technologies for a certain period."
They're bound to grant it, and once they do, you sue them into oblivion for infringing it.
Open Source Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is everyone overreacting? (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, read the actual patent [uspto.gov], not the press release.
The patent does indeed include version control elements, but further defines exactly what their product does. See section 2, for example:
"The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of work areas configured to allow different users to create and maintain web content to be displayed on a website, wherein the staging area is adapted to receive web content changes of files modified in the work areas and is configured to check for conflicts in web content received from two or more work areas. "
There are very many products out there that do version control. But, there are very few that provide robust Content Management, which includes version control, but also includes a system to quickly and directly retrieve content for a web site/application and other such ammenities described in the patent. You would never do such a thing with CVS, unless you're insane.
What this does endanger is projects like Zope with it's CMS framework, which does alot of what is described in this patent. Versioning, browsable "file system" (html browsable, not unix mountable
So, having said all this, I don't see why everyone is freaking out. The patent obviously addresses a complex Content Management system, not a simple version control system. I'm sure a simple-minded judge would be able to tell the difference once given the facts.
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? (Score:4, Insightful)
The historically interesting aspect of licenses such as the GPL lies in the possibility that some people would forego the monetary profits for the greater good of both the inventor and the community. If you want to make a buck, fine. If you want to share with and among others, fine too.
Unfortunately, the USPTO is becoming less able to function as the arbiter of the rules, and this is what causes the system to degrade. In fairness to those poor schmucks, it is not realistic to expect young, underpaid, undertrained, inexperienced patent examiners (or even not so old or inexperienced) to be able to consistently and without errors or omissions spot all issues relating to obviousness and prior art. The volume of patent submissions also thwarts the system, at least as it pertains to high tech patents.
Parent
dont get panties in uproar (Score:5, Informative)
This is what they're pantenting. TeamSite was actually built on top of CVS when the project started, but the standard content manageement scheme is not what's being patented here..
I've got a solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Patents out of control (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
This will never work (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait...
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever used Interwoven's TeamSite?
"branches" are just directories, "workareas" is like just one person's slice of the CVS, "staging areas" are just a stand-alone 'workarea' that you copy your workarea files into when you want to push, and "editions" are self-explanatory. This shit is not revolutionary. It's good product, but none of these things are "innovations".
This is another example of a poorly awarded patent.
Parent
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're 100% wrong. Where did you get your law degree?
Here are some patent facts [gatech.edu]
Re:PTO Link (Score:3, Informative)
here is a clickable link [uspto.gov] to the patent at the USPTO.
Re:Total troll... (Score:5, Interesting)
I read all 13 claims of the patent (go to the Patent and trademark office [uspto.gov] and do a "Quick Search" for patent #6505212, and saw an exact description of all the features CVS and Clear Case users have enjoyed for years. Six years ago I built a system using PVCS to manage source code and a 7 platform build system, and three years ago I adapted it to CVS for management of a website managed by 45 writers and programmers. It included a staging area, individual or team work areas, and the ability to search versions by content.
Following the 13 claims are the details of the patent; there is nothing there that cannot be done with CVS and some perl or python scripts. The "virtualization module" is similar to perl I wrote to run the site. The user typed in the URL with the CVS label and they would get the site in their browser as it appeared when labeled. Clear Case did the same thing with a file system view.
Nothing personal against Interwoven; if their product works it's worth the money, but it does not deserve a patent.
Parent