Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government Software The Courts Linux News

Prior Art In Barracuda-Trend Micro Lawsuit 110

Posted by kdawson from the who-you-callin-a-gateway dept.
Joe Barr writes "Bruce Byfield reports at Linux.com that a Swedish developer, Goran Fransson, has 'given a deposition in the Barracuda-Trend Micro case that appears to seriously undermine Trend Micro's patent on gateway virus scanning.' Gransson has resurrected a product (still in its shrinkwrap) sold by Ten Four, the company he worked for at the time, to prove that it provided gateway virus scanning in January 1995. Trend Micro's patent application was filed in September of that year. If you were — or worked for — a Ten Four customer during 1995, you might be able to help Barracuda prove that Trend Micro's patent omits prior art." We discussed this important patent case when it was filed in January. (Slashdot and Linux.com share a corporate overlord.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prior Art In Barracuda-Trend Micro Lawsuit More

Prior Art In Barracuda-Trend Micro Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • Gransson... (Score:4, Funny)

    by JordanL ( 886154 ) <jordan,ledoux&gmail,com> on Monday June 23, 2008 @08:25PM (#23911427) Homepage
    I like how Goran Fransson was shortened to Gransson. Very economical of our editors.

  • Why it's important for customers to come forward (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Monday June 23, 2008 @08:27PM (#23911445) Homepage Journal

    For those who didn't RTFA:

    Fransson's deposition may be enough in itself to torpedo Trend Micro's case and patent. However, he suggests that the next move is to find the remnants of TenFour's American customers.

    "I could give general information about how the product was used," he says, "But the details I can't recall. I can't say that this customer used it in this way in 1995. I remember some of the customers I was talking to, but I can't place those phone calls to a specific date or anything like that."

    The problem, as he says, is that many of those companies no longer exist, and that many of his contacts have probably moved on in the past 13 years. Still, he remains optimistic. "Anybody who bought the product from the first of January 1995 to September 26th, 1995, and started using the product then -- those are the ones we're interested in getting a hold of."

    His testimony alone might well be enough to kill this patent, but it would really be helpful for people who actually used the software to come forward. I'm just not sure there's much incentive for people, so hopefully someone will see the buzz about this case and come forward on principle to stop what Trend Micro has been trying to pull.

    Posting to Slashdot was certainly a good way to get attention though. I never used the product, but hopefully one of you out there did!

    • Re:Why it's important for customers to come forwar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by don depresor ( 1152631 ) on Monday June 23, 2008 @08:34PM (#23911499)
      Ok correct me if i'm too dense but...

      What the article means is that even if the software was suited to do gateway virus scaning, since there is no proof that no one used it that way, then it doesn't count as prior art??

      That's like someone using a car to demolish houses by smashing it at high speed against them and claiming that you have patented it as a new device, and since no one used it that way, you have a legit patent.

      (complimentary car analogy included for the ease of understanding, i had a better one with a hammer used as a new "masage" device, but you know, cars are so much better)

      • Re:Why it's important for customers to come forwar (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Monday June 23, 2008 @08:37PM (#23911525) Homepage Journal

        IANAPL (I Am Not A Patent Lawyer) so someone else might be able to answer you specifically. I just would like to see as much testimony as possible because I don't necessarily trust the courts to make informed decisions in these cases, as we've seen so many times. Basically, the more the merrier! It doesn't hurt to provide a huge preponderance of evidence.

        • Re:Why it's important for customers to come forwar (Score:4, Funny)

          by Barsteward ( 969998 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @09:53AM (#23916087)
          ILTUAATSIOIFATNTTS (i love to use acronyms and then spell it out in full anyway therefore negating the time saved) :o)

        • Well, if everyone posts this on their facebook and other pages, and a firestorm starts, a Trend could be reversed. I don't recall using the T4 software, but the name is somehow familiar.

          The fact that the box and contents can be forensically examined is a plus. That the software SOLD is another plus. The court has VERY LITTLE wiggle room, and Trend, if forensically wrong/mis-speaking, needs to STFU, grin and bear it. If Goran Fransson is fibbing, then he'll be punished. But, I don't see why T4 has to have so

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by nanday ( 935437 )
        If I understand correctly, it's not that Fransson's evidence may not be enough so much as that, the more evidence, the better. Considering the time, effort and money put into such cases, you can't blame Barracuda for taking no chances. - nanday (Bruce Byfield)

      • It used to be the case that "obvious" was considered to mean "somebody did it or talked about it already" instead of meaning, well, "obvious". Before this was corrected (fairly recently, I believe there were a couple of articles here), what you're saying would have been correct. Now, they can argue about obviousness and probably win. But there's a second requirement where you can't patent something that someone else invented long enough previously. Determining this is much more clear-cut that determining wh

        • In my opinion, if you really want to encourage innovation, patents should only be granted if you can be certain that if the invention was kept secret nobody else is likely to come up with it in the next X years where X is say half the length (10 years?) of the patent monopoly (20+ years?).

          In other words - if you want to encourage innovation by giving monopolies, you should only give monopolies for really hard/nonobvious stuff, stuff that other people would have taken many more years to come up with. If you

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jimicus ( 737525 )

            In my opinion, if you really want to encourage innovation, patents should only be granted if you can be certain that if the invention was kept secret nobody else is likely to come up with it in the next X years where X is say half the length (10 years?) of the patent monopoly (20+ years?).

            Some of the best ideas in history have been simple ones which, as soon as you hear them, you think "Now why didn't I think of that?".

            Even if you put that to one side, how the devil do you demonstrate that your specific innovation is unlikely to be thought up independently by anyone else at some point in the next 10 years?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by TheLink ( 130905 )
              "Some of the best ideas in history have been simple ones which, as soon as you hear them, you think "Now why didn't I think of that?"."

              Because most people are stupid (or not innovative). And all these stupid people apply for patents which are approved by equally stupid patent examiners.

              "Even if you put that to one side, how the devil do you demonstrate that your specific innovation is unlikely to be thought up independently by anyone else at some point in the next 10 years?"

              As I said, that's why prizes are

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by jimicus ( 737525 )

                As I said, that's why prizes are better than patents for rewarding and encouraging inventors.
                If I understand you correctly, that this is essentially promoting a system of patronage - and it was the drawbacks in that system which copyrights and patents are intended to overcome.


                Not that I think patents as they stand are OK, I just think there's a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

                • The baby is dead, drowned under tons of filthy bathwater. So why care?

                  1) The last I checked patents don't speed progress at all. It's all about anticompetitive tactics (and "if you don't patent obvious stuff, other people might and stop you from using it").
                  2) The real innovators would be decades ahead (e.g. Douglas Engelbart and gang[1]), so much so that 20+ year patents wouldn't help them. They do stuff people only get 30 years later (if at all).

                  More than 99% of the patents are for obvious crap. Awarding 2

      • Right now, they have proof that there was software back then that could have been used in the same way as the later patent claims was original. They'd like to be able to make the stronger claim that there was software back then that was used that way. At present, Trend Micro could argue that this wasn't an intended use of the software and that just because somebody could have used it that way doesn't make it prior art. Having somebody stand up and say, "I used this software that way before the patent was

      • no proof that no one used it that way, then it doesn't count as prior art??

        I am confused by your wording a little, but assuming I understand correctly, my answer is no, if the product existed prior, then we don't need proof that anyone used it. There are tons of patents of things people haven't or will ever use, so I think it's safe to say usage is not a factor.

        I think the problem though is in determining the exact date, and if they have issues proving the date of their invention (missing documents, lack of evidence), then maybe they are resorting to finding those who purchased t

      • Did anyone else read that Barracuda and Trend products should both be smashed at high speed?

    • I didn't know it was necessary to prove usage in a particular way to kill a patent. The logic seems off to me, if he can prove he has a certain product that did a specific thing before 1995 (and I'm certain he can resurrect a few 1995-era computer boxes and operating systems (Windows 95 or NT 3.5, DR-DOS 7, Novell Netware 4)).

      If you really have to prove usage, the patent system would be really off (well it already is, but further than you can imagine) since to get a patent and file a lawsuit you only need t

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) *

        I don't think that it is necessary to prove usage. However the filing date is not the same thing as the priority date. The filing date is a 'default' value for the priority date; if the inventor kept a good notebook on when his idea occurred it may well be possible to establish a priority date early enough to eliminate this prior art candidate.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jank1887 ( 815982 )
          very true. first to conceive in the US, not first to patent. If they can show a signed, dated notebook detailing the invention (because we all know software developers keep bound laboratory notebooks) that sets the invention date before the release of the software, then things could differ. At least, that's with infringing patent suits. Not sure if it works the same with regard to prior art and single patent validation.

          also, international laws differ, but i believe in the US you have 1 year from the da

          • Well, when I was actively patenting things I used keep such a notebook. But my understanding is that it is not the actual notebook that is important, but rather the existence of corroborating evidence outside the inventor's own testimony. The notebook is simply a means of establishing this evidence as a routine process that companies frequently inflict on their technical people.

            So if Trend has evidence prior to the filing, such as a lawyer's record of starting the application process it should not be hard t

            • agreed. our patent lawyers always push the notebook (signed and dated regularly of course) not because it's a slam dunk evidentiary piece, but because it's the one most likely to be accepted as convincing proof by a jury. It's not a matter of having the earliest date. It's a matter of having the earliest date that you can convince the jury to be valid.

              We had some email discussions and and emailed a digitally signed version to our patent lawyer's paralegal for recording. According to the lawyer, he said

            • But my understanding is that it is not the actual notebook that is important, but rather the existence of corroborating evidence outside the inventor's own testimony. The notebook is simply a means of establishing this evidence as a routine process that companies frequently inflict on their technical people.
              How difficult is it to backdate/fake such a notebook? I mean, are they notarised at the time or something?

    • Beware!
      your website will be slashdotted!

      (OTOH,
      you could make it to linux.com front page and possibly every other opensource frontpage (pun not intended... ;-))

    • I worked for TenFour at the time, doing tech support and documentation. I'll see if I have any relevant stuff left in my archives.
      • Damn, I remembered wrong, I didn't start working there until 1996. I did work with the TFS Gateway 2.1 in 1995, but we did not use the virus scanning feature as far as I can recall (just SMTP to MS Mail). TFA refers to the support database, it should contain information about which customers used which features. It was a custom design in Notes running on Novell.

        • I was a reseller for TFS Gateway in 1995. We used it to help companies add Internet mail to their existing proprietary systems like Novell GroupWise or MS Mail. We would install TFS on a computer with a modem at the client's site, then configure its internal mail system to send Internet traffic through the gateway. The gateway would call our Internet-connected server and exchange mail via UUCP.

          Lo and behold, I still have a copy of TFS Gateway, but sadly it's version 2.22 with a copyright date of 1996. H

    • Posting to Slashdot was certainly a good way to get attention though. I never used the product, but hopefully one of you out there did!

      It may have even been what got this started. Based on the first Slashdot article, I sent Barracuda a link about TenFour's product and told them about foxT. They sent a quick 'thanks!' at the time but I never heard anything more until just now.

  • Fine the bastards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hackerlish ( 1308763 ) on Monday June 23, 2008 @08:35PM (#23911507)
    Know what would stop these nonsensical patent claims? Massive punitive damages. Hit trend with a $30M fine if they are found to have made a patent claim that turned out to be obviously bogus. But I'm kidding myself. Congress who could stop this tomorrow doesn't give a damn. What do McCain, Hillary or Obama say about runaway patents. Not a damned thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 )

      Hit trend with a $30M fine if they are found to have made a patent claim that turned out to be obviously bogus.

      "Obviously bogus" is a standard legal test. Fact is, you have no way of knowning if it is a nonsensical patent claim or not. At least, you haven't given any indication of knowing. If by "nonsensical" you mean predated by prior art, it would seem hard to prove that they should/did know of the prior art's existence.

      Fact is, litegation between two parties who care reduces the cost of patent appro

      • > If by "nonsensical" you mean predated by prior art, it would seem hard to prove that they should/did know of the prior art's existence. So put the onus on them. Whether they did it through malice or neglect would influence the severity of the fine, but not committing the offense in the first place. Patents are supposed to be novel, useful and not obvious, but it's clear many patents esp. software are a lottery. Patents have ceased to be about protecting intellectual property, and all about trying to
        • actually, the ENTIRE POINT of a patent is to get a (temporary) monopoly advantage over competition by protecting intellectual property. It's property you plan to use to kick everyone else's butt in the marketplace because only you have it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bit01 ( 644603 )

        Fact is, you have no way of knowning if it is a nonsensical patent claim or not.

        Yes he does if he is an expert in the field. In fact this is the only group which can say whether a patent is obvious, despite what self-serving patent parasites might like to claim.

        A large part of the patent problem are completely unproductive patent lawyers and bureaucrats claiming to act as gatekeepers for all of technology. Parasitic middlemen in other words. I'd like to use stronger language.

        ---

        A neurotic is the

        • patents and obviousness (Score:4, Insightful)

          by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_2000.yahoo@com> on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @02:47AM (#23913565)

          Fact is, you have no way of knowning if it is a nonsensical patent claim or not.

          Yes he does if he is an expert in the field. In fact this is the only group which can say whether a patent is obvious

          Having experts review patents would help, the problem with this though is the costs. An expert in the field would make more money working in the field than they would as an examiner. Patent application fees could be raised but this could have the adverse effect of preventing people from patenting. There is a solution though. First disallow software patents, software is already protected by copyright. Secondly have patents terms last only a short tyme, say 5 to 7 years. After that if the patent holder wants to keep the patent then require them to pay a royalty, the first five year extension would cost say 5% of the average of revenue the product had generated the first five years. For a second five year extension they'd have to pay say a 15% royalty. Patent holders can then decide whether it's worthwhile to keep a patent or release it.

          Another way to reform the patent system is to require patent holders to release a product utilizing the patents within a couple of years of the issue of them. They could either release the product themselves or license the patent to someone else who has released a product. If within 2 years if a product is not released the patent is released to the public, ie put in the public domain.

          Notice when talking about keeping a patent I said a royalty on the revenue the product made not on the profit. By using revenue instead of profit, they couldn't use Hollywood accounting [wikipedia.org]. Then with a product needing to be released you avoid patent trolls.

          Falcon
          • Mod parent insightful

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Sique ( 173459 )

            But this system still won't help to sink patent trolls, moreso it would actually give an incentive to patent trolls:

            File or buy Patent A, but then don't have any revenue on it, because this is taxed. Better wait for another one to get successful with an infringing product and then demand $$$ for infringment. Taxes on patents related to revenue are a boon to submarine patents.

            (On the other hand taxes which aren't related to revenue are a problem for small companies with minimal revenue because they wouldn't

            • But this system still won't help to sink patent trolls, moreso it would actually give an incentive to patent trolls:

              File or buy Patent A, but then don't have any revenue on it, because this is taxed.

              I covered this when I said "require patent holders to release a product utilizing the patents within a couple of years of the issue of them." If they don't sell a product using a patent then they loose that patent. Then a proper financial analysis should show they'd make more money by selling as much as they c

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bit01 ( 644603 )

            An expert in the field would make more money working in the field than they would as an examiner.

            Yes, it's generally a more productive use of an expert's time to create something rather than assess/control some other expert's something, hence they're paid more.

            First disallow software patents, software is already protected by copyright.

            I'd take it further. Disallow patents (ie. interference by the government in the citizen's business) for all areas where it cannot be scientifically justified that p

            • First disallow software patents, software is already protected by copyright.

              I'd take it further. Disallow patents (ie. interference by the government in the citizen's business) for all areas where it cannot be scientifically justified that patents are a clear net win for society. In other words the onus is on the patent office to justify their costly existence, not on us to justify that they shouldn't.

              I don't know whether patents are needed or not but that's why I came up with my proposal. Adam Smith [adamsmithslostlegacy.com] call

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            I'm not so sure it would raise the costs that much, especially not when compared to the costs of navigating a patent minefield caused by less competent examiners.

            While it is possible to draft and file a penent yourself, typically it is done with the help of a patent attorney who costs more than the USPTO filing fees. I've commonly seen cost estimates of 8-10K to file of which 0.5-1K is filing fees. Doubling the fees (to allow for doubling the examiner's salary) would make the cost 8.5-11K to file.

            Doubli

          • How is "revenue the product had generated" calculated? For example if I'm sony and I have a patent on some small part of the PS3, how do you calculate the "revenue" from the item? Sony could argue that they receive no revenue since the PS3 is sold at a loss and part of that loss is the components they aren't even charging for. Meanwhile they're keeping anyone from building something similar.

            Another example would be Microsoft having a patent on some small software device used in Windows. I'm fairly

            • How is "revenue the product had generated" calculated? For example if I'm sony and I have a patent on some small part of the PS3, how do you calculate the "revenue" from the item? Sony could argue that they receive no revenue since the PS3 is sold at a loss and part of that loss is the components they aren't even charging for. Meanwhile they're keeping anyone from building something similar.

              I hadn't thought about companies selling at a loss.

              Another example would be Microsoft having a patent on some small so

              • I agree with getting rid of software patents. In fact, I don't like the idea of having exclusive rights to an idea at all. I don't necessarily have a great solution, but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing flaws in a suggested one. I'm not sure why it's considered a valid argument to say, "well, do you have a better idea?" Sometimes doing nothing is better than implementing a bad idea, after all.
    • Except I think this case is an illustration of exactly how the patent system is supposed to work. Company A thought it had a case so it sued, then Company B found exculpatory evidence in the form of prior art. The companies will probably decide to settle now that this new fact has come to light. It would have been better if the prior art had been found sooner so that the trial could have been avoided, but that's not always possible.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        A virus is a virus. Scanning for one happens on a computer of sorts. What does it matter if I scan my files, your files, or files I have yet to send to you?

        It doesn't deserve a patent because it's like patenting "X... on a computer", "X... on the internet", or "Virus Scanning... on a gateway".

        The idea that anyone thinks this is patentable, in any form, is such a major joke.

        • X + (0.0000001)X is also a recognized patent unless it's disproved by a case wherein the lawyers try to get probably the reciprocal of the incremental fraction mentioned above in USD.
          That's the problem.
          The sytem is run by lawyers, not even by greedy techies.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Max Littlemore ( 1001285 )

      Hit trend with a $30M fine if they are found to have made a patent claim that turned out to be obviously bogus.

      Yeah, that'd fix the patent system.

      So if I come up with something in my shed at home, apply for a patent and succeed, then "Big $ Patent Trolls R Us" find some prior art in their extensive portfolio, they could sue me into oblivion, tear down my workshop, spit in my breakfast cereal and have me locked up for failure to pay punitive damages. I would of course feel that to be entirely justified bec

    • There are a variety of patent fraud statutes already.

    • I think you will find that this isnt because government doesnt care. Its just that this isnt the kind of issue which attracts the majority of votors. The availablity of porn and beer is more important to most voters.

    • Know what would stop these nonsensical patent claims? Massive punitive damages.

      A better way to stop them is to bar software patents.

      Falcon

    • Not sure that's such a great idea.

      I patent a clever widget. Hyper-mega-global Corp rips it off. I sue, they unleash the multi-million dollar hounds on my ass. Naturally, I lose.

      Now I owe them $30M? :(

  • always been curious....

    What kernel does the Barracuda run, anyway? What is the core filtering technology built on?

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Linux 2.4 kernel tree. The OS and userland (if you can ever get a shell) are all from an old version of Mandrake (before they changed to mandrivia) linux.

  • This is absurd. BBS anyone? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Any BBS system worth its salt back in the late 80's (!) had virus scanning of uploaded files. That's *exactly* the same thing as an e-mail server scanning incoming mails.

    If anything, this just puts another nail in the coffin for the USPTO.

    • Re:This is absurd. BBS anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <qg@biodome.org> on Monday June 23, 2008 @09:01PM (#23911683) Homepage Journal

      That's not the way prior art works. Patents cover methods, not ideas. So a method that applies an old idea to a new situation can indeed be patentable. If you work for IBM, or some other company that has a bonus scheme for patent filing, one way to come up with shit to get patented is simply to make a list of all the new technologies out there and figure out how to apply old ideas using them.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Daengbo ( 523424 )
        That's sick. By extrapolation, radios in a house, in a car, on a boat, and in a plane would all be separately patentable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by QuantumG ( 50515 ) *

          Welcome to the broken patent system.

          Why do you think so many things have clocks in them?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rabtech ( 223758 )

        IIRC, the recent KSR v Teleflex decision by SCOTUS has nullified these kinds of patents (cell + email = we can sue the pants off RIM!)

        In a unanimous decision (a rarity these days), SCOTUS said that if an ordinary person skilled in the area set out to solve the same problem and would immediately come up with the same solution, then that is not patentable. In other words if the combination results from nothing more than "ordinary innovation" and "does no more than yield predictable results" then the idea is n

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rabtech ( 223758 )

          ... and I forgot to add that it takes *time* for things like this to work their way through the legal system. It will probably be 10 years after the SCOTUS decision before most judges are aware and everyone is more properly applying the standard SCOTUS set down. In that time period you can expect patent trolls to continue attempting to operate and companies continue attempting to enforce bogus patents.

          As more and more of these cases are dismissed in summary judgement and the patent office reviews more and m

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by QuantumG ( 50515 ) *

          Yes, you're right. The thing that makes it patentable or not is the method. If it is trivial to combine X with Y, then it is trivial and may not receive patent protection. If, however, you need to invent something to combine X with Y, as you most always do, then it likely is patentable.

  • Please don't blame the patent examiner (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2008 @08:57PM (#23911653)

    Don't blame the patent examiner on this one there is only between 8 hrs (most experienced) to 16 hrs (least experienced) to find prior art and then reject all the claims (time is not adjusted for extra claims). The largest source of prior art for an examiner is prior patents which for software/business methods it is lacking. The secondary source is non-patent literature or anything else you can find and I doubt there is barely even a trace of the program existing on the internet today. In fact based on the issue date (1997) the patent examiner may have only had old patents available in filing cabinets and whatever books he had! I mean 1997 I was still in HS logging onto the internet on 28.8, and surfing the web through lynx and there was no google.

    Think of examiners as gate-keepers. Some things may slip through, but the bad patents will get mowed down by companies that can hire 5 people to search for 5 weeks.

    • Re:Please don't blame the patent examiner (Score:5, Informative)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday June 23, 2008 @09:11PM (#23911753) Journal

      Perhaps if software patents were immediately outlawed, we'd solve this particular problem. Because the US and some other countries have so stupidly decided to allow the patenting of this sort of thing, we have absurd cases like this.

      As it stands, I knew a number of BBSs back in the late 1980s and early 1990s who were doing virus scans on files uploaded. Pretty much had to do. The only difference was that the transport protocol was X, Y, or Zmodem or Kermit. For all intents and purposes, TCP/IP is not really all that different than Zmodem, so there we have it, a gateway to a private network with virus scanning, probably at least four or five years prior to this.

      I'll even go further and say that Trend Micro likely knew this, unless their software engineers were mental retards, so the company should be fined a few million bucks and banned for a decade from even calling the US Patent Office. They're intentionally trying to claim a patent on a concept that was years older than their crappy software.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RedK ( 112790 )

      I was still in HS logging onto the internet on 28.8, and surfing the web through lynx and there was no google.

      In 1997, I was in college, had a Cable Modem and surfed the Web using a graphical browser which had already been the norm for quite a couple of years (I remember being on the net in 95 with Trumpet Winsock, Windows 3.1 and Netscape 2.XX). I used Yahoo or Altavista as a search engine and while there were others (hotbot comes to mind), those were the principal ones.

      You make it sound as if there barely was an Internet at that time while the Internet was already a very rich network by 1997.

      • Re:Please don't blame the patent examiner (Score:5, Funny)

        by mixmatch ( 957776 ) on Monday June 23, 2008 @10:40PM (#23912199) Homepage
        I used Compuserve as an ISP and had a GeoCities page. What great times!

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by xtracto ( 837672 ) *

        In 1997, I was in college, had a Cable Modem and surfed the Web using a graphical browser which had already been the norm for quite a couple of years (I remember being on the net in 95 with Trumpet Winsock, Windows 3.1 and Netscape 2.XX). I used Yahoo or Altavista as a search engine and while there were others (hotbot comes to mind), those were the principal ones.

        Aaahh the memories!. I used to browse the internet usnig Gopher, in my father's office in a research centre (CINVESTAV) in Mexico. That was around

    • The problem with that theory is (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Those 5 people who could whack it down would all have to pay thousands of dollars to challenge the patent.

      There are at least two ways to fix this dilemna.

      1) Allow anyone, at anytime, to submit prior art on any given patent, for a nominal fee, or if the prior art is the brinchild of the submitter, for free. It shouldn't take long to look at prior art and determine if it has merit or not. If it has merit then a process is begun to re-evaluate the patent at issue. This way, plausible deniability goes out the w

    • Don't blame the patent examiner on this one there is only between 8 hrs (most experienced) to 16 hrs (least experienced) to find prior art and then reject all the claims (time is not adjusted for extra claims).

      If poor college undergrads constantly call you on the phone just to sell you crap you wouldn't blame them? They're just doing their job.

      The system is broken at every level. Blaming everyone involved in it at every level is a good first step to getting it shut down entirely.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bit01 ( 644603 )

      Don't blame the patent examiner on this one

      Why not? He's taking home a paycheck on what is basically a fraudulent activity, claiming to assess prior art when it's humanly impossible with the resources he has at his disposal.

      His negligence has directly created a multi-million (?) dollar lawsuit. At the very least he should be fired. With a rational legal system it would've been possible to sue him for damages as well so that he does not have a perverse incentive to abuse the system.

      The whole idea of

  • You mean that companies can come up with the same idea independently? Like without sharing people or ideas? Imposterous! There is no way that two people on the planet can come up with the same idea, especially right around the same time. Statistically speaking, that's like a monkey speaking French. It's pure frivolity to even suggest.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 6Yankee ( 597075 )

      Statistically speaking, that's like a monkey speaking French. It's pure frivolity to even suggest.

      Unless it's a cheese-eating surrender-monkey, of course.

  • I'm just curious... Where is the 'art'? Maybe there is a form of 'art' that I am unaware of, or maybe the term is being loosely applied for convenience. Whats the definition and what the hell are we talking about here?

  • Wayback machine and linkedin might give some hints (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I checked the Wayback machine, http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tenfour.se

    Unfortunately the oldest saved page is from 1997, but there are some press releases and stuff and they mention a gentleman named Ken Hetzer. I looked him up on linkedin and it looks like he was the President of TenFour US from may 1995. Somebody should contact him, he probably remember some reference customer.

    -S

  • be a little more compassionate toward Barracuda if they didn't default their stupid boxes to perpetuate so much damn backscatter. I know they're stopping spam getting to the target, but by default, they do it at the cost of the "Joe" getting "jobbed". It got to where I had to start flagging anything from a barracuda as spam and even set up an automatic filter. I mean jeez, 30 bloody blowbacks from various Barracudas in one day is just stupid. How is that different from the guy sending the crap they're f

    • If they were really concerned about the damage caused by spam, they'd make this configuration manual, and include a very clear explanation of the consequences part of the process.

      To enable spam bounces to foreign hosts, please insert both testicles into the Barracuda Nutcracker DRM device and press the "big red button".

      Seriously, every time I see Barracuda backscatter, I hate them a tiny bit more. Incompetence should be punishable by castration!

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close