UK Firm Patents Software Downloads 56
spike1 writes "The Register has a story about BTG (British Technology Group) acquiring a patent on software downloads ... If this is one area of tech that's not covered by prior art, I don't know what is.
Although, the Reg doesn't include a link to the actual patents, out-law.com is also carrying the story and contains links to the patents, and looking at some of their patent synopses, it looks like it's a pretty broad brush."
Don't Look NOW!!! (Score:2)
Your web-broser is dowinloading SOFTWARE:
HERE IT IS:
10 PRINT "BILL GATES MAKES 3L33T PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES";
20 RUN
Re:Don't Look NOW!!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Don't Look NOW!!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Don't Look NOW!!! (Score:4, Funny)
10 PRINT "|31LL G4T35 15 4 31373 |-|4X0|2 |)00|)"
20 GOTO 10
Re:Don't Look NOW!!! (Score:2)
Hit Control-C at any time and you get a command prompt!
This has been verified on my Tandy 102. Beware!
No effect (Score:2, Insightful)
BTG's past record (Score:2, Informative)
Because Dr Isaacs and Dr Lindenmann published their findings before any patent applications were filed, it was not possible for BTG to secure patents except in countries whose patent laws offered a 'grace period', namely USA, Canada and Germany.
BTG applied for
Re:BTG's past record (Score:1)
Hang on... so BTG didn;t have anything to do with the development of Interferon, but they still got the patent? How did that work?
They discovered the molecule but couldn't produce it in large enough quantities for it to be commercially viable until recombinant DNA techniques became available. Their "long struggle" with the patent office probably consisted in getting eno
These are the same people (Score:2)
Further, isn't a patent supposed to present something that isn't just common sense? I can remember diagramming such a system as this on a whiteboard for a fellow programmer - in 1981! Can you say prior art?
Re: (Score:2)
Global (Score:2)
> monopolist telephone company. A phone company that makes you pay by the
> second for local calls.
Almost every phone company outside of North America makes you pay by the second for local calls, and most of them are monopolists.
Re:These are the same people (Score:3, Insightful)
Telephony is something I consider a natural monopoly, that should be either state-run or under strict state governance.
Same for energy supply. Phones, gas and electricity in the UK are a disaster now that the artificial market has been created. Everyone tries to cover up the true cost by introducing bonuses for taking two services from one company, "friends and family" discounts, cheap inte
Re:These are the same people (Score:2)
Competition drives prices down and innovation up. That's why monopolies are so bad - no competition.
Re:These are the same people (Score:2)
For most people, the savings to be made are not worth the time and effort involved in keeping up with changes to calling plans and actually changing suppliers.
Over 70% of the UK are still with BT, in spite of the artifical market.
I don't love BT at all. It's simply that the ec
Re:These are the same people (Score:2)
There are many natual monopolies, rail infrastructure, sewers, roads, the local loop. A phone company is not one.
The cost is substantially less in privatised companies as theres a motive.
Re:These are the same people (Score:2)
Remember that BT is still the monopoly network provider. If a service isn't supported on BTs network then NO-ONE can sell it. Most of their competitors are just glorified sales, marketing and customer service congolomerates.
I remember the last company I worked for, we moved to Thus from BT
Re: (Score:2)
Re:These are the same people (Score:3, Informative)
BT, Britain's monopolist telephone company. A phone company that makes you pay by the second for local calls.
Ok, I have family that works for BT so I'll bite on this one. BT used to be a part of the post office, it was then split off as a private company and I believe it had a monopoly for a number of years. I think in about the last 10 years or so competition has been introduced (NTL, various others - I don't pay much attention) and the industry regulated by oftel (I believe a name change has happen rec
Re:These are the same people (Score:2)
Sure, you pay more monthly fixed charges to get free calls, but then same goes everywhere - "free local calls" normally means you don't get charged any _extra_ for the calls over and above fixed monthly charges, not that you don't pay anything at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:These are the same people (Score:1)
I guess you're from the USA, the country we still own. Or have things changed since then?
BT is no longer a monopoly. Well, not as much of a monopoly as it was. There are various bits of BT that I've given up keeping up with, but some company with BT in the name still owns the wires from your house to the exchange. That makes sense - a monoploy in wires and pipes from houses to some central point
Re: (Score:2)
Re:These are the same people (Score:1)
Re:These are the same people (Score:1)
24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:1)
It's about automatic updates. The headline is misleading.
Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:1)
Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:2)
From the Article:A British company with a history of taking on larger rivals says it owns six patents affecting software downloads. The claim comes from British Technology Group (BTG), which is in the business of turning inventors' ideas into commercial products. If true, it could mean that dozens of software firms that use the Web to deliver certain kinds of software - including security updates and patches - could be forced to pay royalties to BT
Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:1)
to be fair I haven't read the patent either, but both of the articles imply that this is limited to automatic updates / patches.
Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:2)
Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:2, Informative)
Patent 5,694,546: System for automatic unattended electronic information transport between a server and a client by a vendor provided transport software with a manifest list
Patent 6,594,692: Methods for transacting electronic commerce
Patent 6,125,388: System for transporting information objects between a user station and multiple remote sources based upon user modifiable object manifest stored in the user station
Patent 6,658,464: User
Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:2)
Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience (Score:2)
Actually, my full 24 years of experience applies to these two- it's completely rediculous to hand out a patent on either one of these NOW.
RTFC ... (Score:2)
Patent monopolies are only as broad as the area defined by the claims. I only looked at the eldest patent via Outlaw (http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=1087 3 19985&area=news) to the USPTO (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.ht m&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,694,546.WKU.&OS=PN/5,694,546&R S=PN/5,694,546).
The claim 1 (which is usually the broadest) specifies automatic dow
Re:RTFC ... (Score:2)
Law of (Un)Intended consequences -Akamai is toast! (Score:1)
Not just patenting software downloads... (Score:2)
Re:Not just patenting software downloads... (Score:1)
Though I wonder... if that happens, could we cite those other five as prior art?
Re:Not just patenting software downloads... (Score:2)
IIRC, this stupid patent has already been patented (Score:4, Interesting)
Who'd have thought ... (Score:3, Funny)
But now that these guys have shown us the way, we can all start doing it. It oughta be a lot faster than those punch cards that I'd been using.
apt-get (Score:4, Funny)
back in the day (Score:2)
Re:back in the day (Score:1)
Re:back in the day (Score:3, Informative)
The old tape recorder next to the tv while we play you the loading sound was the first (I tried that with the ZX81 one they broadcast... didn't work, they also did vic 20 and later, spectrum, iirc). Later, they tried a direct connection to the computer via a light sensor stuck to the screen, and a flashing black and white square. (Think that one was only for the BBC
Off-topic: Off-line browsing patent as well? (Score:1)
me too .... (Score:2, Funny)
Investor: We decided to invest in Company 1 due to the unique Download patent they had.
Company 2: oh
1. upLoading 2. leftLoading 3.rightLoading 4. omniLoading
ofcourse with "download" as an old prior art.
microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Since Microsoft is involved, I see 3 possible outcomes to this:
1) Microsoft challenges the patent and wins
2) Microsoft buys BTG and does not enforce the patent. Everyone lives happily ever after.
3) Microsoft buys BTG and milks the patents for all they are worth. Everyone looses.
If microsoft is f
Re:microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft challenges the patent and eventually wins, but uses its courtroom manipulation mojo to make the trial last as long as possible, thus causing BTG to collapse into bankruptcy under the weight of its own idiocy. Maybe that will be a bit of incentive to stop further patent stupidity from other firms.
Sensational Slashdot headlines as always (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sensational Slashdot headlines as always (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:1)
They did *not* patent, they *licensed*! (Score:3, Insightful)
These are *pre-existing* US patents which they have *licensed*. They, themselves, have *not* patented these, they have paid money to the people who *did* patent them.
The real controversy here is their application of these patents: their business plan is that they will sue the pants off the largest corporations they can find that they can plausibly attest is violating "their" patent. This has been their modus operandi for awhile.
Ironically, they were originally set up by the government of Great Britain in 1948 to commercialize "publicly funded research". It seems that they have gotten a little off track, and should probably be reined it a little.