BT Pushing Hyperlink Patent 458
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.
Already set to die on arrival (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't get too worried about this.
Not an expert in patent law. (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
I know the patent holder can selectively choose to license that patent for no charge and they coudlnt' come back later and change their minds retroactively. What about in this situation, where they've said nothing. Done nothing to enforce it. Didn't even realize they HAD the patent. Its almost as if they were purchasing patents for the sole purpose of hoping one of them would be a huge breadwinner in the future.
However, at least they had an actual product tied to the patent. Its not as bad as the idiot who patented "downloading music off the internet" as an idea with no product to back it up and trying to extort money out of companies as a result.
-Restil
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the whole patent thing, I've no idea when the patent runs out, and I'm not even going near the question of if its defendable. Let the lawyers argue that one out.
Re:Harassment as a business model... (Score:2, Interesting)
BT started off from a monopoly several years ago, and have maintained this position though bullying and attacking the rest of the marketplace. BT are terribly complacient and it shows though thier buisness stratagy. From their failure to recognise the burden their debts have placed on the company (which worried the city no end) right though to the running battles they've had with other service providers over local loop unbundling (i.e. giving flat rate charges to other competitors to access last mile)
Oftel (the UK offical telecoms regulator) have been having running battles with them ever since thier creation.
I don't think BT really give a damn about getting this kind of bad press. Those people that listen already know their aggressive buisness tactics, though that don't care...well, don't care.
They forgot about the mice... (Score:1, Interesting)
So, if there is a literal interpretation, all you need to beat the patent is a mouse.
Now we just have to get the entire computer world to use these 'mice' things...
Pulp Fiction (Score:0, Interesting)
You'll dig it the most. But you know what the funniest thing about Europe is?
JULES
What?
VINCENT
It's the little differences. A lotta the same shit we got here, they got there, but there they're a little different.
that may not be prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
CompuServe to the rescue ? (Score:2, Interesting)
(for the guy that invented
a "free" algorithm found in an ACM journal
that later turned out to be patented) and
keep in touch with people over there (CompuServe/AOL) from time to time.
At one point, AOL had retained the ex-Compuserve CTO to do historical research into patentable
things that the company had done. I would lay money that CompuServe/AOL will challenge this
if it goes very far.
specific to keyboards? (Score:5, Interesting)
But yeah, this is really insane. Also, so many patents like this seem like they don't pass the "not obvious to a practitioner of the field" test.
Are they suing the right people? (Score:1, Interesting)
Those who produce html web content follow the html markup guidelines. Markup tags simply indicate structure or meaning to some text on a page. So something like
<a href="http://goatse.cx/"> check out this reference </a> is merely an indicator to a reader or parser. There is no linking inherent in such a markup syntax.
Even web server authors or those using web servers are not infringing since (at least on a very basic level) http servers simply comply to the requests of a browser: give me this page, then that page, and then this next one. Like an ftp server, there is no concept of linking, at least as described by the article.
The only ones I can think of who are implementing hyperlinks are web browser authors. It is the browser that adds semantics to the markup, which it attempts to display on your monitor. It is the browser that actually highlights the linked text, and it is the browser that "connect[s] text, images, and other data on the Internet in such a way as to allow a user to click on a highlighted object on a Web page in order to bring up an associated item contained elsewhere on the Web".
So BT should lose this suit, not just by way of the unwholesomeness of the patent, but also because they're trying to sue a company which isn't even infringing their patent.
If only... (Score:1, Interesting)
The answer is clearly no. (They discovered that they had the patent...)
Please, pretty please, if in the distant future any of you come across someone who was involved in deciding to move ahead with actions like this, whether they are former managers, lawers, etc etc, please, give them a F****NG earful!
It's too bad big companies weren't lead by real leaders. Real leaders would see this for what it is, gang up, and drive BT into the ground.
Re:Brits... (Score:2, Interesting)
The companies providing these "services" have been the subject of numerous documentaries and consumer affairs programs on UK TV, and regularly exposed for the rogue outfits they so obviously are. Most of the "victims" only recieve a tiny amount of compensation, while the law firms reap the real rewards.
It is absolutely pathetic; people seem to want to take no responsibility for their own lives any more. I still don't believe the UK has decended to the level of litigeousness of the States as yet, but some of the bottom feeders are slowly but surely crawling their way there...
I have no other problems with America, by the way, just its legal system, patent system and Bill Gates
Re:Brits... (Score:1, Interesting)
You must have been watching one of the really crappy commercial channels during the day time, I must apologise for that, stick to the BBC, they don't carry any commercials.
Anyway, these adverts are highly irritating and didn't even exist until 3-4 years ago, the New Labour government wanted to cut the Legal Aid [legalservices.gov.uk] bill so they removed a regulation banning layers, solicitors, etc from advertising on TV, and consequently these vultures started up. This is hardly surprising, the US removed such restrictions in the 60's and the ambulance chasers started up.
I have such distain for these companies, fortunately one of the main firms is on the verge of bankruptcy, has been delisted from the stock market and has fleeced the investors stupid enough to invest in such a company.
Hopefully they will all disappear, it can't happen soon enough.
Prior Art - Ted Nelson/Xanadu Vannevar Bush/Memex (Score:2, Interesting)
Althought it may be an urban legend, there's supposed to be a patent for playing with a cat with a laser - all things are possible. The patent office hasn't *exactly* had enough cycles to deal with the issue of bona-fide new inventions versus poorly researched claims.
But given a lot of other history, BT is probably safe from worstening its public relations image with this boner
OT but Related: Patenting Salted Fries (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:that may not be prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
I, probably like many /.'ers, watched a few of those videos and thought something along the lines of "man, those guys were so far ahead of their time, they had everything already done back then! Screw BT and their specious patents!". But go back and watch the demo [stanford.edu] again. Then scan the patent [164.195.100.11] again. Doublas Engelbart's demo kept referencing hypertext within the same information store (computer). I couldn't find a reference to a local reference to remote information. Networking and even remote sessions are mentioned but never the context of a local link to a remote chunk of data. BT's patent appears to focus on hyperlinking menus being included with each chunk of data to allow easy access to further information.
Now, having said that, there are some key differences between the hyperlinks we know and love today and the system described in BT's patent. Links in the form of http://, ftp://, etc are known as URLs because they abstract away the differences in local and network locations and various protocols used for transmitting the data. It may be argued that hyperlinks are abstractions of a local data store, not a remote menuing system. Also of interest in BT's patent is the reference to the VIEWDATA system, some quick internet searching reveals [demon.co.uk] systems that used color coded links that may qualify as prior art. Another major factor is the use of a mouse. BT's patent doesn't seem to mention anything besides keypad input methods while today's interaction with hypertext is primarily with some sort of pointing device.
Another thing to consider is BT's first major target in this. While other reports mention up to 17 ISPs being asked to pay royalties, Prodigy has gotten the majority of the attention. Wasn't Prodigy one of the larger online services back in the '80s? Might they have had an early interface system that consisted of numeric menus linking to additional information? Is BT going after one of the only true violators of the patent, hoping to scare the rest of the world into paying royalties? Are they deliberately setting up smokescreens, hoping to distract from the real issues in the case?
So, after a closer look, I still think that Mr. Englebart and his peers were way ahead of their time and I still say "Screw BT and their specious patents!", just for slightly different reasons.
Hmm... vague patent descriptions... (Score:2, Interesting)
Looking at the text of the Patent itself... for item #5, where they describe terminals as apparatuses for providing access via telephone lines. Doesn't that then negate the "terminals" which don't use telephone lines?
So my PC which uses EtherNet via wireless networking or via Cat-5 cabling which I wired myself is then not inclusive in the patent's description of a "Terminal" and can thus use hyper text linking without stepping on the patent in question.
Or line-of-sight from building to building IR/Laser data transmission which is not provided for or maintained by a Telco and so is not a "telephone line".
As the patent doesn't go into details of what they mean by "telephone line", I think that provides a pretty big hole in their coverage. I can see how it might cover dial-up users, but for other line/wireless/etc users, it becomes exceedingly grey/black.
I do find one interesting thing about the description of the invention in the Abstract:
If anything, I would say that implementing the click-links/HTML/etc protocols has made the operating protocols of the computer even more complex, not any easier.
Pot-Shot-Summary:
What I got out of the patent text was that:
Any terminal/computer/etc connected not through telephony lines is exempt from the Patents.
Any terminal system which does not show the various charges and/or accumulation of charges is exempt from this patent as the patent covers systems which primarily deals with listing charges for services and the accumulation of them.
Guess another question would be: How would BT enforce this? The technology is so prevelant on the web that to remove it all, would not be financially sound to BT itself.
But then again, it doesn't seem like they really care about what people think about them or who they shove out of the way or trample on so long as they get their money.
Though I do wonder... some more text taken from the patents text:
What does it mean that this is a continuation application? And what does it mean when for the child patent when the parent patent has been abandoned?
Hmm...
Re:Harassment as a business model... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course they don't. But suddenly things like this have a MUCH bigger impact when their ISP sends them a bill that looks like something they might receive from the telephone company, listing every link they've clicked on with its itemized cost. When at the end they have to pay $249 for the month instead of $14.99, they'll really start caring. Not to mention the fact that somebody was invading their privacy and actively tracking their links to pr0n. Yeah, I think PR is going to be a big big issue. If BT loses this, I really hope that our courts issue a rather acid remark about frivilous lawsuits. Maybe somebody at BT will be looking for a new job soon, although not likely.