Slashdot Log In
EFF To Fight Dubious Patents
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Apr 20, 2004 06:25 AM
from the applause-applause dept.
from the applause-applause dept.
theodp writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation launched a campaign on Monday to overturn patents that it says are having a chilling effect on public and consumer interests. The ten patents initially cited as problematic by the EFF Patent Busting Project are: one-click online shopping, online shopping carts, hyperlinking, video streaming, internationalizing domain names, pop-up windows, targeted banner ads, paying with a credit card online, framed browsing, and affiliate linking. Maybe this will prompt former EFF Board Member Tim O'Reilly to share that killer piece of 1-click prior art that's sitting on his bookshelf!"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Here's my chance! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here's my chance! (Score:3, Funny)
that anonymous coward guy has A LOT of prior art...
Re:Here's my chance! (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations on your first post.
You are hereby granted patent no. 7,152,654; "Expression for totally useless posting at the top of a comment thread."
While some of your slashdot friends may complain that there was prior art for this, you do not have to worry. It's our word against theirs.
We don't bother to research this stuff out anyway, and quite frankly we don't care.
Sincerely,
The US patent office.
Parent
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned.. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Scary (Score:4, Interesting)
And then I re-read it and noticed it said 'pop-up windows'. Which doesn't limit itself to adverts.
Parent
Re:Scary (Score:2, Interesting)
> Yes to All
"Are you sure you want to move these folders?"
> Yes to All
"Are you sure you want to move these system files?"
> Yes to All
"Are you sure you want to move these hidden files?"
> Yes to All
"Are you sure you want to move these read-only files?"
> Yes to All
Yeah, I can do with less pop-up windows.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Scary (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook
Parent
Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. Strange that these ludicrous patents are not discussed more. I'm especially 'fond' of this one (taken from here) [uspto.gov]:
Method and system for internationalizing domain names
Abstract
A method and system for internationalizing domain names is provided which allows domain names to be entered in any language without having to modify the existing Internet domain name servers. When an [sic] user enters a domain name including non-English characters into an internet program, a domain name transformer intercepts the domain name prior to reaching the resolver. The domain name is converted to a standard format which can represent all language character sets, such as UNICODE. The UNICODE string is then transformed to be in RFC1035 compliant format. Redirector information is then appended to the compliant string which identifies the delegation of authoritative root servers and/or domain name servers responsible for the domain name. The compliant domain string is then resolved by the authoritative domain name server just as any English domain name.
If I understand this correctly (but hey - who can be sure), this is basically a patent for, um, a method for converting strings between different formats and then doing a DNS lookup or some such thing. Excuse me, but isn't that usually called a 'standard', not a 'patent' ?? This boggles the mind.
Oh, and by the way, the spelling and grammar generally sucks in these patent desciptions. Check it out for yourselves if you don't believe me ...
Parent
It's funny when the patent website... (Score:4, Funny)
one is missing (Score:4, Informative)
Shorter patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time a *software* patent was granted for something that is truly innovative? More than just about any industry, we take what already exists, extend it, then extend it again - each step has relatively little change, but cumulatively the rate of enhancement is huge. On that basis alone, I'd say software patents are a stupid idea - very little software development is truly innovative, and patenting it simply breaks the cycle of constant improvement.
Parent
More patents. (Score:3, Funny)
FFII (Score:5, Insightful)
FFII did similar action against a Amazon patent earlier this year in Europe. Unfortunately I believe that the patent system must be fixed on a policy basis. Let's fix the patent system rather than playing theior games. I think it should not be our job to help to hunt down patents that shouldn't be granted and pay the fees of the patent industry. Software patents shall rather be stopped before they are issued by proper laws.
http://swpat.ffii.org
Re:FFII (Score:4, Interesting)
1) rich company applies for patent
2) officer reads patent, thinks if he has ever seen it before.
3) if he has he might look it up
4) rubber stamp Patent granted move to next one.
the new system should be.
1) rich company applies for patent
2) if it is based on software should be denied and told to copyrigh the software.
3) if it is based on physical system then it most be carefuly looked over.
My way a huge section of patents get thrown out, work in the patent office declines.
Parent
Re:FFII (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd patent uninformed discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we need to force Tim to release this? (Score:4, Interesting)
If we all stopped buying O'Reilly books until he did the decent thing and knocks the '1-Click' patent off the face of the earth, it might help speed things along.
Would this work? Anyone?
Re:Perhaps we need to force Tim to release this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Perhaps we need to force Tim to release this? (Score:3, Insightful)
The 1-Click patent doesn't just affect Amazon, it also affects people who've paid Amazon to use it (Apple, for example) but also hinders other online stores who might want to add it to their store.
Its a good start..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Its a good start..... (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the details, the most important reform is a change in the incentive structure. It seems like it's easier to get a patent than a municipal parking permit, because the office
OK, fine, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for coroporate cash funding new hardware and software, but think where we might be today had IBM really clamped down on their PC systems.
No Slashdot for starters.... =)
Software patents: not all bad? (Score:5, Funny)
You mean the fuckheads who design websites full of this sort of garbage could be forced to cough up swingeing royalties for the privilege of polluting the internet? Almost makes me want to support software patents....
Maybe it would help ... (Score:5, Insightful)
1-click prior art? (Score:4, Interesting)
After reading the page this links to, I'm really wondering if there is any such prior art. Maybe my tin foil hat is on a bit too tight, but perhaps it's really a killer piece of 1-click bluff he's holding onto? He could be waiting for Bezos to make the next move in the patent poker game.
WHY you should Donate to EFF now! (Score:4, Insightful)
Donate now, because its CHEAPER than joining a defense fund later.
https://secure.eff.org/ [eff.org]
I just joined! Thankyou EFF for taking up this cause!
Sam
Sam
Re:WHY you should Donate to EFF now! (Score:2)
Hopefully when I graduate I'll have something worthy of protection by the EFF. Ha!
Real World Counterparts (Score:5, Interesting)
One-click online shopping: How about picking up the phone, calling the grocer, and having them deliver. If they already know you, you probably only need to give them your name. Not "one-click" but pretty damn close. Just slap the "online" part to it, and you have a new patent?
Online Shopping Carts: Oh for Christ's sake... shopping carts have been around forever. Again, they slapped the "online" part, and now it's a patent.
Hyperlinking: Hyperlinking may be a computer-specific item, but how about touch-tone phone systems, for example? "If you would like to make a claim, press 4..." You have a selection of items, and just press a button to get to it.
Video Streaming: TV. 'Nuff said.
Internationalizing Domain Names: Zip codes and country names, anyone?
Pop-up Windows: How about those annoying "Subscribe now! 80% off news stand prices!" cards in magazines? They seem to be the same thing.
Targetted Banner Ads: Targetted advertising of any sort. The crap you get in your physical mail box.
Paying with a Credit Card online: And you couldn't do this over the phone, prior to this patent?
Someone on
I think we could all come up with a bunch of ridiculous patents based on their real-world counterparts... such as "method to transfer electricity over computer networks". Ethernet (minus the fiber optic variety) does just this (however small the current) and the real world counterpart is the freakin' power grid. And so on so forth. What's scary is that half of them probably already to, or will soon, exist.
Patentablillity (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem:
1) People need to buy things.
2) Buying one thing at a time is slow/silly.
Solution.
Allow people to make a list of things to buy and buy them.
I can't think of another solution to that. And that solution is pretty much a shopping cart. If somebody was giving a question and came up with a truely original idea that no one else had thought of having had the same question given to them. That idea should be patentable. But, if there's only about one solution which isn't hard to find. The idea of even spending any time thinking about issuing a patent is a waste.
Re:Patentablillity (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that would be just marvellous wouldn't it?
1) Lawyer/amateur coder A has good idea for e-commerce software: Widget X, patents it, Returns to lawyering, hoping to cash in if anyone actually writes the Widget X software.
2) Student/amateur coder B thinks of clever way around Lawyer A's patent. Patents it.
3) Porn baron/amateur coder C discovers method of avoiding both A and B patents. Patents it.
4) Web designer/amateur coder D....
5) Large software company E hires one software patent expert per programmer to ensure nothing is missed and nothing is not patented.
6) Database designer F informs government that patent database is too large to be contained in any Earth based installation.
7) Professional coder G, with the assistance of his company's lawyer horde, searches the Lunar patent database in vain - looking for something, anything that isn't already patented. Gives up. Joins the Army. Company folds.
8) Free software coder H releases version 2.2 of his widely used package X-Tribble which contains an implementation of Widget X - and has done since before Lawyer A was born.
9) PanIP buys up all Widget X related patents, threatens X-Tribble, X-Tribble project is shut down.
Patents are for protecting innovators be they individuals or companies who put a great deal of time, money and effort into designing, testing and building material objects that they hope the consumer will want to buy. They're for protecting those who've already spent a lot of money on getting a prototype working and because they or someone else will need to spend yet more on the manufacturing of it. Patents are designed to ensure that the patentee can expect reasonable recompense for his efforts and contributions to society.
Patents were not designed so that people could cash in on abstract ideas that others can and will have independently and need never actually do anything with anyway.
Patents are not supposed to be granted in order that idle patentees can exact a tax from those that actually do put in the work of building a complete, working product.
They are not supposed to work so that transient monopolies can be transformed into permanent monopolies by deploying yet more patents designed to block interoperability.
Historically at least, the patent system did not exist in order that the patent-wealthy could bully the patent-poor into handing over what little they may already have had.
It did not exist to ensure that only the largest companies could afford the licensing of the myriad patents necessary to produce products of any size or sophistication and at the same time destroy the rights of everyone else to engage in the arts,sciences and free communication of ideas.
The fully fledged software application that actually does require all the time, expense and effort to create is and always has been, protected by copyright. Software patents are insane, in concept aswell as in practice.
Parent
Why fight it? (Score:3, Redundant)
Maybe it would be better if these were locked up by patents.
Apple. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the patent on mp3 player scroll wheels belonging to apple should be on that list.
A scroll wheel is the most sensible way to navigate a collection of mp3s and it really sucks that other players can't use it.
Prior art on a scroll wheel music player already exists... ie. almost every radio tuner ever created.
Counter productive? (Score:5, Insightful)
They should also find a good political party (Score:3, Interesting)
Libertarian candidates tend to be highly educated compared to their Republicrat counterparts. If you have a LP majority on your schoolboard, you have a much better chance that Little Johnny won't get kicked out for being a "hacker" for using the Windows Messenger Service to send a "hello" message around the network. Why? Because you'll have a well-educated, more rational schoolboard who is passionate about civil liberties. Members of the LP tend to embody the old saying "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Another thing to consider: a libertarian wouldn't pull either a Bush or Gore on IT and science. Bush wants people to back up his preconceived moral notions on biotech research and Gore wanted yes-men who would just confirm what was in his little world, his great and powerful intellect (in reality most of the last occupants of the whitehouse as P or VP had similar IQs). Harry Browne as I recall said that he'd have worked to repeal the DMCA if he were elected. Try hearing that from a Republicrat. They always want to just "fix something" rather than get rid of it.
Lastly consider this. In Eldred versus Ashcroft the geeks got a taste for what social conservatives decry as an out of control activist judiciary. That judiciary is reinforced by the Republicrats. If we were to work together to remove people like Tom Daschle and Trent Lott and replace them with members of the LP or CP we'd have a judiciary more on our side.
"One Size Fits All" patents are a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
To paraphrase Malibu Stacy, "Law is hard!" but to look at a single invention that is also a single product -- a drug for example -- we could:
a) Look at how long it took the person or company to develop the drug
and
b) Look at how expensive it was to test the drug for its patented use.
A drug company that spends a billion dollars to created and test a drug deserves a reasonable length of time to earn that money back, plus interest and enough profit to encourage future research. Amazon.com might spend a few thousand dollars and a couple of weeks thinking up the text for the "one click patent" and while I don't mind them making their money back plus interest and a tidy profit, they shouldn't be awarded the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars (if competitive advantage is taken into account) just because they filed a trivial patent first.
Which brings me to my question: What do other Slashdotters think would be the best way to ensure inventors benefit from their work, while preventing opportunists, lawyers, and the unscrupulous from screwing up the system?
Re:Too late? (Score:2)
And well, our fore-fore-fore-fathers probably thought the stone they used to make fire was fantastic, and that nobody could ever come up with a better invention, until the lighter was invented a "couple" of years later...
Not that I got any idea about what to invent next, but I'm sure that something will happen soon.
Re:Too late? (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty much everything that can be invented has been either invented or patented already
I was going to post that the commissioner of the USA Patent Office said that too. In 1899.
However, a quick Googling later, I have found that this quote is a myth [orbit.com].
Parent
Re:Too late? (Score:4, Interesting)
That reminds me:
- There is a prediction that was supposedly made by Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office Charles H. Duell. The words attributed to him were: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." The date given was 1899.
Now, in 2004 we have the ghost of Duell appearing as an anonymous coward to make the same prediction.Parent
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Post your prior art proof now! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Patents (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Anytime someone is able to patent a concept/idea we all lose out.
Drug patents are bad, too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps based upon superficial thinking, drug patents are good, but I think a very strong case can be made against them. They clearly warp the research, into looking for cures that can be monopolized instead of cures that work. Just because the research and development budget increases and the company spent lots of money does not mean that the market is better off with this sort of government-granted monopoly.
Certainly the people who cannot afford drugs because all the money has been splurged in trying t
EFF trying to do this I think (Score:3, Insightful)