BT Pushing Hyperlink Patent

There's been a lot of new publicity lately about the British Telecom trying to defend a patent that they claim means they invented hyperlinking. Currently they are going after Prodigy for using hyperlinking back in the early eighties. We've mentioned this one before, but it really looks like they are going to push it. Insane.

Might have merit...

[gamgee5273]

BT might have an argument with merit, but I'm doubting it.

HTML's roots are in SGML, the markup language primarily used by tech writers to create modular documents from multiple sources (ie, a car manual and related sales material would pull from the same source). A hyperlink is a logical extension once you place a markup language in a networked environment - by jumping from page to page you're, in essence, creating a modular "book" just as a tech writer could create a car manual.

Again, there may be some merit, but precious little, IMHO...

Re:Patent filed in 1980?...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not that lucky; the text of the BBC article says in the UK the patent expired, but they're pursuing this in the US, where it doesn't expire for another four years.

Prior rights to hyperlinks - from old /. articles

[jgaynor]

1968 [slashdot.org] - includes MOVIES of working links

1965 [slashdot.org]

1940's [slashdot.org]

And alot more [slashdot.org]

The list goes on and on. Let them squander their money. To quote a recent game - "If theyre deadset on squandering prescious resources sabotaging their own [] efforts, I say we let em do it."

Along the same vein I cant believe Xerox hasnt made a stink about this. You think they would have learned their lesson after not screaming about the mouse, GUI, etc . . .

prior art 1968

[martin]

Well looks like the US PO wasn't that brilliant even in 1980. This [slashdot.org] Slashdot article shows MIT demonstrating the idea back on Dec 9 1968.
Given BT's cash problems I think they are trying it just in case they can get some money.

Re:Techno/Industrial Wars?

[iainl]

Liam sampled the engaged tone to use as the backing on the 12" single of Charley all those years ago. Since they have only just realised, they now want royalties for everything, since its that sample-fest that launched his (and his drug dealing mate's) career.

n.b. Some, all or none of the above is complete bollocks.

Re:Patent filed in 1980?...

[NickV]

The article says "BT is determined to prove that a patent lodged with the US patent office back in 1980". That's 22 years ago. Doesn't that mean it's already expired even if it were valid (which I doubt)?

Nothing pisses me off more on /. than people who don't read the article. Hell, I'd expect better from someone with a UID > 20000.


From the actual article, (you know... what you didn't read)...
"The UK patent has already expired so ISPs in the UK would escape having to pay anything. But in the US, the patent does not expire until 2006. "

Also, to answer your second question (which is also IN the article you didn't read,) BT used to be a part of the Post Office, but it no longer is so.

Re:Not an expert in patent law.

[bourne]

Can I do this legally? Patent something, hope someone else develops a similar technology, say nothing for 20 years until the patent is about to expire and economies depend on my product, then just raise my hand one day and say, "Excuse me! You have to pay me now".

Yes, they can do that - trademarks have to be actively defended, patents do not. Consider Unisys and the gif (lzw?) patent.

Hypertext was invented in 1945

[Scaba]

I thought everybody knew Vannevar Bush invented the concept of hypertext & hyperlinks with the introduction of Memex [virginia.edu] in 1945. Read the full article here [theatlantic.com]. Maybe someone should mention this to BT before they waste a lot of time with this nonsense?

Those fools.

[dmaxwell]

The obvious thing for Prodigy to do is to call Douglas Englebart as a star witness. You can watch video of a point and click hypertext system he was demoing back in 1968. One place that can be seen is here:

http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.htm l

He even demoed a shared display system between two geographically separated terminals. If I was BT and saw Englebart on the defence's witness list, I would sue for peace immediately. 1968 for Pete's sake! Those guys need to be slapped upside the head with a wet mackeral.

these people are desperate.

[laserjet]

Here are my favorite parts of the article:

"BT stumbled upon the patent during a routine update of its 15,000 global patents in the summer of 2000."

They didn't even know they had it, first of all. Their patent expires in the year 2006 in the US. What happens if you don't defend a patent (I am not a lawyer, I am curious if anything changes if you don't defend a patent)

Plus, this patent is so general. And here is their evidence:

Prodigy's unlikely saviour comes in the form of a fuzzy black and white video which shows a 1968 demonstration by Stanford computer researcher Douglas Engelbart apparently demonstrating hypertext linking.

I would like to see this video... Seriously, though, I think this is going to be a huge PR disaster when this blows up in their face. Not only do they look like desperate bastards, but also like idiots trying to claim a patent like "the flying machine" entitles them to the royalties of airplanes, helicopters, gliders, etc. (Ana analogy the article pointed out.

how low cna you go?

Re:Patent filed in 1980?...

[markmoss]

US patents used to run for 17 years from the time a patent was granted, vs. 20 years from the time of application in the rest of the world. So if it expires in 2006, then it must have been granted in 1989 -- that's a rather long delay if the UK application was in 1980. Or, the article seems to say that the suit now is over patent infringement in the 80's -- which makes this a remarkably long time to wait, and isn't there an applicable statute of limitations?

Also, US courts are just now beginning to consider that failure to enforce a patent for an unreasonably long time (like while the patented technique becomes industry standard practice, with no royalties), may constitute "prosecution laches" and make the patent unenforceable. See this. [law.com]

Re:Not an expert in patent law.

[SirSlud]

Here's a neat article on this stuff, and the entrenchemnt of the patent enforcement industry (still relatively new 'visible' industry):

here [techsearch-llc.com]

Interesting stuff - kinda shows how the current patent climate actually causes people to focus more on exploiting patents and their lucrative pay-offs rather than focus on actually inventing shit.

Re:quite within their rights

[drzhivago]

You are thinking of trademarks. With trademarks, if you do not vigorously pursue infringing marks, then your trademark is no longer valid.

Patents do not work like this. They do not have to be actively defended to be kept valid. In this case, though, Prodigy has an even earlier prior art video which shows the technology BT is suing Prodigy for using. If the patent system were more effective in finding prior art, this hyperlinking technology patent would've never been awarded to BT in the first place.

Greg

Re:Not an expert in patent law.

[King_TJ]

Hmm... yeah, I tend to agree with you. As someone who currently has a patentable idea that we (my wife and I) would like to bring to market as a product in the next year or so, the whole issue interests me considerably.

From the research we did already to see if previous patents existed for our product idea, I could tell that most people filing patents are "fishing for lawsuits", as opposed to having a real interest in selling a product.

We didn't find anything that was exactly like our idea, but we found close to 10 patents for various methods of accomplishing pieces of what we needed to do in our product. Most made a vague mention of having a possible application in the general area of what we're trying to do. All of these patents were apparently thrown out there by tinkerers who made a single, crude attempt at performing a function with parts taken from the basement or garage - and then nothing more was ever done with them. Considering the cost of filing patents on them, I can only assume that they're hoping someone comes along and builds a successful product using a basic concept similar enough to theirs, so they can come out of the woodwork screaming "I have a lawyer! You owe me!"

It's depressing, really....

Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Between Xanadu and other hyperlinking systems of the 60s and 70s, I can't see this as enforceable. And it's an obvious product of the combination of markup and references (you know, like footnotes). I seem to remember something in patent law that blindingly obvious things can't be patented (don't remember the exact description of this, and too lazy to look it up).

Re:Patent filed in 1980?...

[alcibiades]

The laws have changed since 1980, but the assesment given above -- that the patent must have been issued in 1989 if expires in 2006 -- is correct since the changes were made subsequent to that date (in 1995).

The long delay could have been caused by the filing of a series of continuation or divisional applications that depend on an original application filed in 1980. In such a situation, the later filed applications are often entitled to the earlier filing date for their shared subject matter.

You can't do this kind of thing anymore because no patent terms are determined from the date of filing rather than from the date of issue.

Re:Harassment as a business model...

[iainf]

> They are a government inforced monopoly, what do they care about PR?

Um, no, they are a private corporation. They certainly do have a dominant position in the UK market, but they are no more a government enforced monopoly than AT&T are.

BT have substantial competion, in both the domestic and business sectors, both from the cable operators (NTL, TeleWest), and several long-haul providers (Thus, Energis, C&W).

Re:Not an expert in patent law.

[bourne]

I think you should add the IANAL eh?

Well, sure - IANAL. This isn't a legal forum, either. Deal.

Trademarks do NOT have to be actively defended. They should be actively defended, especially if you have the resources. However they do NOT have to be actively defended.

Copyright does not have to be actively defended. Trademark does. Consider:

- Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the use of the trademark (unlike, for example, copyright law, where the copyright owner is the copyright owner, always is, and always will be unless he willingly relinquishes ownership, and even THEN he ends up having rights).

This is nasty, because it means, for example, that a trademark owner has to be shown as caring about even small infringements, because otherwise the really bad guys can use as their defense that "hey, we may have misused it, but look at those other cases that they didn't go after, they obviously don't care.."

(Linus Explains Linux Trademark Issues [slashdot.org])

Go ask a lawyer, I did. In fact, I asked 3 of them on this exact topic.

Sorry. You probably asked the wrong question. Among other things, you're probably confusing prior art (a patent issue) with unopposed infringement (a trademark issue).