BT To Enforce Patent On Hyperlinking? 441
Bazzargh writes: "This article
at nothingventured (annoying but free registration required) says that British Telecom have hired Scipher to enforce (in the US) an old patent -- predating the WWW -- that they hold on the concept of hyperlinking! Apparently they'll be seeking compensation from all ISPs. I've had a look on the IBM Patents Database but I can't see the patent referred to."
Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:2)
Interesting. I do not have my copy of the constitution handy (it's at home), but I vaguely recall verbiage about "promoting" progress. In any event, pro-patent arguments almost always revolve around the mistaken notion that without patents there would be no progress, ie we need patents to promote progress. The argument usually goes something like this:
1. No one will invent anything or share their ideas with others unless there is a financial reward. (This is demonstrably wrong, as many "inventors" on the internet have demonstrated, only to have their "inventions" hijacked and patented by others. Such hijackings would be impossible without the US patent office).
2. There can be no financial reward for an invention without the patenting system (this is obviously wrong, inventing and selling a better product will result in financial gain, whether or not you have competition).
3. The patenting system defends the little guy from having his idea "stolen" by a bigger company. (There are two errors in this assumption: one, that ideas are natural property like physical objects and can be "owned", and two, that the system favors the little guy over the large corporate interest. This is demonstrably false: there are numerous historical incidents in which the patent system was used by corporations to "steal" ideas from the inventor -- many of Thomas Edison's patents were thus obtained, as are most corporate patents today. In addition, it can be trivially shown that, when an individual must face off against a corporation in a patent dispute, the corporation has much deeper pockets with which to persue litigation. In a system of justice like that of the US, where justice is basically cash flow, the individual is at a severe disadvantage and will, on average, lose their claim.)
Conclusion: Without the patenting system we would have no progress, and the small inventor whould be at the mercy of the big corporate interest.
The first conclusion is demonstrably false, as can be shown by the rapid progress in computer science which predated software patents, not to mention the numerous inventions which predated the patent system altogether.
The second conclusion is misdirection at its worst: the sad fact is, the individual is as much, if not more, at the mercy of large corporate interests under the existing patent system than they would be without it.
Congratulations (Score:2)
Now that just leaves Canada...
Re:A bit 'O prior art? - 1945! (Score:2)
When has not having a working prototype ever stopped a patent filer?
Ah... but even if not, then we only need to look to the Stanford Research Institute from the 60's when Englebart et al. showed off their system that included the mouse, and the "gui" with features that were very hypertext like. Now if I could only find the damn link to a description of it. Anyone?
Searching google, I came up with this [utexas.edu]...
Your Working Boy,
Cease and Desist (Score:3)
Re:OK Cool, close but no cigar.... (Score:4)
Why wouldn't they? A webserver is a server, a browser is a way to display stuff on the client.
I just read the patent three times and cannot believe it. It's a real patent filed for in 1980 long before Tim-Berners-Lee proposed the world wide web [w3.org]. To put it simply British Telecom came up with the idea of hyperlinks first, simply not in the context of HTML, but this does not change the fact that they did. To all those claiming this is a sign that patent reform is forthcoming are probably right but for the wrong reasons, in 1980 this was probably an original idea.
Fascistic registration form (Score:2)
I've never seen such a fascistic registration form; it requires your address, phone numberS, SMS email, and what else? It's ridiculous. So i you dont want to go through the hassle, use mine, login:noneofyourbusiness, password:whatever.
Anyway, that being said, this just shows how ridiculous software patents are. Too bad there isn't more references; I wonder if their patent predates HyperCard. Seems to me there was hyperlink in there, and it dates back from 1985. Is theirs older? If it is, it might just be too old enough anyway.
Re:Here is a link to the Patent (Score:2)
I hope you paid a licensing fee for that link.
___
Re:hrmmm. (Score:2)
I think an inventor is allowed to patent something that doesn't yet exist.
If I'm not mistaken, "Velcro" was was patented before it was possible to produce the nylon hooks.
Unfortunately, Velcro was invented in 1941, and the USPTO database only seems to go back to 1976, so I can't look it up myself.
No - gopher in 1991 (Score:2)
"This
document is adapted from the basic Internet Gopher protocol document
first issued by the Microcomputer Center at the University of
Minnesota in 1991.
"
Which suggests to me that gopher is more recent than 1989.
Re:Yet again... (Score:2)
How about "Letter of Marque". That's the traditional name for a government-issued predator's license.
--
Fools! (Score:2)
On that note, though, why are they targetting only ISPs? Couldn't they target every company with a web site?
--
REVOLUTION? (Score:2)
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:Nuke the limeys (Score:2)
Better solution than nuking Britain would be to distribute some crack with a serious toxin in it, and eliminate anyone who's been to more than one WWF event or been on Jerry Springer, then reassess.
I think this method is actually being applied in Britain, in Glasgow actually, albeit with Heroin. I guess they have patented it, too? But is there prior art?
Re:OK Cool, close but no cigar.... (Score:2)
Nelson's original concept and the coining of the terms "hyperlink" and "hypermedia" are all contained in a paper presented at an ACM conference in 1965! (I tried to read it at the time, but I had a hard time following it since I was only three... [grin])
Nelson had implementations of the Xanadu hypertext concept running in FORTRAN in the early '70s IIRC.
Regardless of anyone's claims, it looks quite easy to show prior art should anyone attempt to press any patent claim on hyperlinks.
OK... (Score:2)
Last one out turn off the blink tags!
If they sue the isp's... (Score:2)
---
Re:17 year patent expiration (Score:2)
Glad to correct you.
It used to be that patents lasted 17 years after they were issued. Some time ago, the U.S. changed the law so that patents lasted for 20 years after filing (the change so that filers were discouraged from slowing down the process and thereby financially benefiting from the maturation of the technology by others).
For those patents "in process" when the law changed, it was the later of the 2 terms. Elsewhere, someone noted that this patent falls in that transition zone, so that its expiration is 17 years after issuance - 1989 +17 = 2006.
However, it's still not a patent on web-style hyperlinking.
Can you say "footnote"? (Score:3)
In an ideal world, the USPTO would laugh this proposal all the way back across the pond. Trouble is, some equally harebrained schemes have already been granted patents, so I don't hold out much hope
Re:Here is a link to the Patent (Score:2)
I think these predate the BT patent by a few years at least.
Re:This again?! (Score:2)
I've never understood the 'if it wasn't for us, you limeys would all be speaking German' school of though.
Let's see:
So the idea that if the USA hadn't entered the war, the UK would have been invaded is crap. Sure, the US and Canada helped economically - but many Americans seem to think that Hitler was still trying to invade in July 1941 - he wasn't - he was fucked on three fronts (North Africa, Russia and the middle East) and he knew it.
Nick
Re:Here is a link to the Patent (Score:3)
It's supposed to reduce the complexity of communication protocols, as well as reduce the document overhead transferred across the dialup..
Fortunatly, I believe Ted Nelson (of Xanadu) demonstrated a very similar system three years earlier. He'd been working on it since 1960, and was a prolific writer, so there is surely some hypothetical discussion of systems covered by this patent somewhere in recent antiquity..
Minitel may also predate the patent, with its linked MGS. They were rolled out in 82-83, but development was probably three to five years earlier (Telecom companies are notoriously slow!)
Besides, ISPs have no interest in licensing this; They provide text content, which is only intrepreted by the terminal (AIEE, Nutscrape, Opera). This patent covers hyperlinking and the terminal. The ISP does not infringe, therefore licensing is moot..
Re:Bring Back Buzby! (Score:2)
That's stretching it a bit. Actualy, thats streching it a lot.
This is Bogus (Score:3)
First of all, the patent covers a custom terminal, with multiple ROM and RAM areas, and keypads hardwired to signal generators for modems. We have details about what type of information goes into what memory segment, what the ROM contains, and even the timing between the display and the memory.
For instance, the patent clearly states that the display text will be in the first transmission block, and will be loaded into one memory area, while the 'hidden information' will be in second block and will be loaded into another memory area. To the contrary, we all know that HTML is embedded, and all information is loaded into the same memory area. Once it is loaded, the appropriate text and graphics is generated for the displayed.
To Quote: "In the operation of the system shown, when a block of which is to be displayed is transmitted by the computer 1 to the terminal and routed to the memory A. The second part of the selected block is transferred to special memory B included in the computer 1 and associated with the input channel of the computer to which the terminal is connected"
The issue of the keyboard is also a problem. Not only is the keyboard used to communicate, but also it appears that they keyboard would be hardwired, though some signal generators, to memory and to the modem, or at least the acoustic coupler. Certainly T1 lines are not modems.
To quote: "Inputs from an operator to the terminal apparatus are entered by means of a key pad 12 which is connected to a signal generator 13 producing signals which after modulation in the modem 6 are transmitted via the isolation and protection circuits 5 and the switch 3 to the line 2, and through that line to the computer 1."
About the only problem I see is that they do talk about an index, which is probably the paragraph that all their lawyers will cite. Again, it only uses a keyboard, and again explicitly states the area of memory(the control area rather than the text area) that the address will be retrieved form. This statement is a bit fuzzy, but the intent is there.
To quote: "The complete reference (i.e. address) of the index items could be displayed on the screen and the operator could be required to press a number of keys on the pad 12 to select a particular item. However, it would be simpler for the operator if the items of the index displayed were simply numbered, say, from 1 to 9 so that all the operator had to do was to press a single key on the pad 12 to select a particular item"
Overall, this sounds more like a custom terminal hooked up to text retrieval service through an X25 line or something like that rather than a GPC connected to the Internet. Even then Kermit would probably do a better job than what they describe.
What is really patented here anyway? (Score:4)
The patent specifies a dumb terminal, and that the conection be done over a phone line. It claims rights to the dumb terminal, the CRT or "other obviously similar device* ( my paraphrase), the packet system of sending the information and the interface to make it easy to use for non computer users.
This isn't a patent for hyperlinks, it's a patent for WebTV!
Seriously, that's all it describes.
The CRT is obviosly prior art. So they arn't going to try to go for that. The packet system was already in use on the internet in 1989 and has its genesis in Hedy Lamar's spread spectrum broadcasting patent, which expired ages ago, so they can't go over that. Bell had the phone lines tied up a century ago, so they can't go after that. Dumb terminals have been around nearly as long as computers, so they can't go after THAT.
So, they're left with the interface and try to stretch that into hyperlinks, which noone really understands anyway, so maybe they'll get away with it?
Come on guys. You're pushing it here. Go after WebTV.
As for me, I'm using a computer, not a dumb terminal, and I'm accessing information over digital cable. Not even covered by your patent which specifically states the use of phone lines. Not even in your vague references to "other obviously similar" catchall.
Go away. You're bothering us.
Keypads and modems - not mice and LANs ... (Score:2)
I think they are going to end up with a PR nightmare .... they are going to find out that they've targetted the BLIND.
Microsoft done this in 1986 (Score:2)
Remember the Norton Guides? They had the same thing as a TSR.
Sort of wrong (Score:2)
You're sort of wrong. The cotton gin was not and could not be covered by copyright. It is not a published work. Further, the patent on the cotton gin meant that no one could make competing cotton gins (though this wasn't enforced all that well, and Whitney wasn't amused IIRC). Thus it was not merely the idea that was covered by the patent, but the implementation as well.
Use a mouse! (Score:3)
The Register disagrees. It claims [theregister.co.uk] that the patent was filed (presumably in the UK) in 1976, which puts it before Xanadu went public. However, note that the BT patent covers hyperlinks which 'would be selected by the operation of a selected key of the keyboard.'. So by my understanding you're OK if you use a mouse.
Re:hrmmm. (Score:2)
In teletext, in band characters are used to display formatting, such as change colour, switch character set, and presumably add links.
An example, if you wished to put the sentence "the red bird" on the screen, with the word red in red, then you'd send the(codeForRed)red(CodeForWhite)bird. The two control codes would be displayed as spaces, and you'd get what you wanted. It was a way to minimize the memory required to store screens back in the days when memory was very expensive.
These control codes were refered to as blocks, because that's what they became on the screen, blocks of space.
Re:It's because filing frivilous lawsuits costs ze (Score:2)
Be careful. There are advantages to being able to sue without playing the lawyers costs. Right now If I sue O.J. Simpson he will get the best lawyers money can buy, and odds are win the case no matter the merits of it. Then I would have to pay his lawyers fees, even though if he had hired normal (not the best) lawyers I would have won. We don't want to be in the situation where those with money cannot be sued because they will get the best lawyers without having to pay.
At the same time I agree we need reform. We need to get those sue friviously to pay. If my lawsuit against Mr. Simpson was because he thought about killing my cat, of course I should pay for this lawyers, no matter what the cost. If I sue because he put his SUV in 4 low, and drove all over my flower beds, even though I lose the case due to his expensive lawyers, the judge should determin that I had a chance of winning and decide that I don't owe lawyers fees, adding insult to injury.
Re:Read the patent -- it won't fly... (Score:2)
Re:Fools! (Score:2)
Brandon.
Here is a link to the Patent (Score:5)
Jeff
Hyperlinking started before the Web, e.g.Hypercard (Score:2)
There is a Loophole! (Score:2)
- Andy R.
Another overbroad patent (Score:3)
So surely this patent covers any client-server information access using any form of index like electronic library catalogues or any other form of electronically indexed database if only it has some form of visible index (this actually matches the description in the patent much closer).
It would also cover configuring the server side of a terminalconnection or any aplication running on a server the terminal is connected to via an option menu. This too is a much better match to the patents wording, small wonder, since the patent was thought of with a "one server, many dumb terminals" structure in mind.
Now it is very strange indeed, that the patent holders never tried for lincense fees from all those libraries, or anyone with a server-terminals structure setup for that matter. Maybe it was too easy then to dig up prior art. Or maybe they just got inspired by the Rambus Toshiba deal [slashdot.org] and just wait for someone who's paying before thinking.
Re:Insightful? No... sorry... (Score:2)
Idea, Concept, Theory, Effort, Delivery (Score:2)
Nurture ideas and creativity
Entertain concepts
Develop and challenge theories
Reward genuine effort
Celebrate delivery
and learn from mistakes
You should have to prove delivery before reaping rewards from patents. Where the benefit to society can be measured and is deemed to exceed the benefits to the invididual (read company), the reward should be distributed to society rather than to the individual.
Note, I do not use the words protect, restrict, punish, blame, profit or bureacracy.
--Rob.
Not enforcing patent != invalid patent. (Score:2)
That person or entity might, however, need to purchase a license for future use if he makes new use of the infringing technology. I'll let a real patent lawyer tackle that ball of wax.
-E
Patenting ideas vs patenting inventions (Score:2)
That's also how companies get around patents of physical inventions. They find another way to do the same thing .
Seem like most of the contentious patent stories that show up on slashdot have to do with the patenting of ideas. I mean if Alexander Graham Bell had patented the idea of communicating remotely, rather than the telephone, it would have covered two way radio, possible television, email, ect. The only way around it would have been if someone had patented letter writing or the telegraph.
Invitation (Score:2)
Wow, I wonder how many people will get in on the ground floor of this revolutionary technology. I know that I'll accept the invitation. Oh, wait a minute...
Idiocy (Score:2)
Yet again... (Score:3)
-Compenguin
Re:Prior-Art-a-Palooza! (Score:2)
SoupIsGood Food
Not everyone ought to be affected (Score:2)
Thats probably why they're only targeting ISP's.
Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:2)
Good God!
You're right, $500/year is nothing, especially given that today's standard procedure with patent enforcement is to not enforce the patent for a period of time and encourage people to use it, then surprise everyone years later (when it has become a de-facto standard a la GIF and MP3) with demands for royalties. Obviously, BT had an extra nine years to persue this strategy, with possibly catastrophic results for the internet.
Another example of the patenting system not only being unnecessary for innovation, but downright destructive to the entire innovative process.
It is past time for the patent office to be closed and the entire system to be scrapped.
Re:hrmmm. (Score:2)
The language of the patent clearly releates to teletext. I don't know if you had/have this in the states, but it is a system which sends text pages either in the scan-lines at the beginning of a television frame or in simple dialup systems like the French Minitel or BT's own Prestel. The system is page-oriented, which is what is meant by a 'block' (40 columns by 25 lines of text and crude block graphics).
What I understand this patent to mean is that non-displayed information sent with a page could be used to select further pages which would then be requested from the server. So I think that it does describe hyperlinks adequately. I'm inclined to agree that the patent probably shouldn't have been granted (but if Xanadu was still under wraps at the time you can't claim it as prior art).
or just use good ole' fashioned (Score:3)
(you're welcome)
----------------------------
But "A HREF=" precedes link text... (Score:5)
The patent says that (paraphrased) the link text is the first part, the address is the second part.
In HTML, the address (HREF attribute) comes first, then the link text.
May seem silly, but Motorola patented cell-phones with flip-down microphones. So what did the competition do? They created cell-phones with flip-up earpieces.
I know I'm nit-picking, but maybe it'll work. Any thoughts?
Re:Insightful? No... sorry... (Score:2)
Seems to me... (Score:2)
What about Apple's Hypertext product from the mid 80's? That used hyperlinks out the yang.
cypherpunks:cypherpunks (Score:2)
Or here it is:
RPT: BT to seek to exercise hyperlink patent in U.S. through Scipher19/06/2000 13:26:41
LONDON (AFX) - British Telecommunications PLC has employed Scipher PLC to exercise a historic patent on hyperlinks, the technology whereby internet sites cross-link to each other, to U.S. internet service providers, Scipher said today.
Dr Ken Gray, chairman of Scipher, said that BT claims to have patented the hyperlink technology in doing their work on information retieval systems, which is used extensively throughout the navigation of the World Wide Web.
He said the patent predates the HTML standard that currently exists.
"On behalf of BT we are attempting to licence (hyperlink technology), and inviting licences to be taken out by ISPs in the States," Gray said.
"We will be inviting ISP's in the U.S. to licence that technology from us."
Insightful? No... sorry... (Score:2)
Anyway- to my point- Not to flame or anything, but many, many people in this discussion have pointed out that hyperlinks were a novel idea, not in 1980 (when BT "invented" it), but in 1960. Check out xanadu.net for more details. If 20 years doesn't a) qualify as "prior art" and b) disqualify you as "original" then I don't know what does.
~luge
Re:partners.nothingventured.com? (Score:2)
Password: cypherpunks
Re:Here's a login. (Score:2)
l:cypherpunks p:cypherpunks
8)
Re:The US patent system has a bug... (Score:2)
Accually that is how the patent system works in almost every country except the US. Over here if you invent something (that is patentable) you legally own the patent no matter who pays for the registration. All you need is to have your lawyers go after whoever filed for the patent. If you have no money you simply prove to a compititor that you invented it first, sell them a license, and then they will pay the lawyer fees for you. Not exactly of course, I think you will then need to file for the patent and there are a bunch of other laws.
Point is, the US is the only country that protects the little inventor. Everyone else protects those with big bucks who file for a patent on everything they see.
Eminent Domain ... (Score:2)
This is an outrage! (Score:3)
Obviously, the people writing the browsers are the ones who are infringing on the patent.
They must sue MS! We must make this clear to them!
(cypherpunk, cypherpunk seems to work here, too)
Re:Use a mouse! (Score:2)
Xanadu went public with a release in 1977. There is academic description and active work as far back as 1972. It covered nearly every aspect of the patent, and those not covered can be clearly seen as obvious to anyone ordinarily skilled in the art.
The 'selected key' language in the patent make it obvious that they sought a system that used function shortcut keys, i.e. "Press pf12 for bass.ale.txt". No incarnation of any HTML browser has used this feature. Even the earliest incarnations of the WC3 browsers used tab stops.
Also, the notion of the 'central server' over POTS lines does not seem to apply here. Even when there is an actual modem connection (as per patent) there is never a central server. The terminal depends on the single central server (predetermined address) and can not be said to apply to a system where the address is not predetermined.
Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:4)
Looking at the patent [164.195.100.11], I see that it was granted in 1989, 9 years (!!) after it was filed.
What an obscenety.
What the hell was the patent office doing sitting on this for nine year! If it had been granted in 1980, the patent would have expired in 1997 and this wouldn't even be an issue. Patents have long since outlived their purpose -- the market encourages innovation without government enforced monopolies. I don't know if this particular abuse will lead to reform or not, but even if it does, reforming the patenting system will simply mean tweaking a broken and destructive system such that the net negative effects become tolerable to a majority. It will still be a millstone around our collective neck, perhaps with a few pounds chipped off to appease us but still weighing us all down.
Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:4)
What this means is that the stalling "trick" you mention is no longer possible in the U.S.; holding up the issuance of a patent is no longer of any benefit to the patent holder.
The BT patent, though, was issued before the law changed, and thus is valid for 17 years from when it was issued in 1989.
See the USPTO website [uspto.gov] for details.
Here's a login. (Score:5)
--
Re:This again?! (Score:2)
The UK was only able to fight in 1939-1940 because the US had been loaning it massive sums of money --- which was politically unpopular, and got a lot of people pissed off at Roosevelt.
Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:5)
Post the patent number! (Score:2)
At your service (Score:3)
---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
This again?! (Score:3)
Dear England,
Every so sorry to inform you again, that we are not interested in paying taxes to you. I thought we made that clear in Boston. Again, I'm so sorry the message was not clear. That is something I cannot apologize for enough. Sorry, sorry, and sorry.
What I have trouble uderstanding is that after killing so many of your "red coats", how did we leave you with the idea in mind that we still wanted to be taxed. I fear we, here in the "states", are not good at communication.
Never the less, do have you people speak to ours. We'll setup a meeting, and "do lunch" as they say.
PS: Please be kind to us, after all we did help a little with that small Hitler problem. Thanks.
-- With love,
The States
Not "Fools!" -- They're Brilliant! (Score:3)
How much more so if the WWW is shut down! The US economy would just tank: all that e-business disappearing. Sales of pron, books, computer crap, auctions -- all stopped!
There's no way BT should ever have received a patent on hyperlinking, particularly in the USA, where there was plenty of prior art!
The US Government may finally be *FORCED* to deal with the joke that is the US Patent Office.
And *that* might save us all.
I figure either this is all a hoax, or BT is trying to help put an end to Internet patent stupidity.
--
This is not the law . . . (Score:2)
This is not the law (Score:2)
Pushing back so-called submarine patents was the primary focus of recent patent reform legislation.
Re:Here is a link to the Patent (Score:2)
That last line is the kicker. As I understand it, the bitmapped CRT display predates the 1989 date of this patent. Game Over. Please don't play again BT.
Damnit (Score:4)
patenting ideas (Score:2)
Patents should be restricted, at the very least, to demonstrated, working models.
Xanadu is prior art- this patent is invalid. (Score:2)
Re:Not in every single country (Score:2)
Re:hrmmm. (Score:2)
I don't know if you had/have this in the states, but it is a system which sends text pages either in the scan-lines at the beginning of a television frame or in simple dialup systems like the French Minitel or BT's own Prestel.
Similar things exist in the US, such as closed-captioning. The bandwidth used for most data services in the US that transmit over NTSC-based TV signals is the "vertical blanking interval." I once set up a special modem which dumped to a fax machine with faxes of the NYT delivered via VBI.
I don't think this is terribly common now, or ever really caught on, except for such systems as closed-captioning for the deaf. I'm not sure whether CC systems use the VBI or some other unused area of the TV signal.
Bring Back Buzby! (Score:5)
This has GOT to be the most blatant scam BT has pulled in a long time. It's certainly comparable to their 35 GBP connect charges + time charges + packet charches + phone charges, for their early rival to the Internet, the International Packet Switch Stream.
The idea may have been patented, but "linking" has existed to the earliest days of man. A bit before BT's time! The idea of placing a reference, rather than a complete description, appears in early forms of writing, early naming systems (ever wondered how people got the surname of Cook, Baker, Smith, etc?), early artwork (cave paintings are essentially URLs to the animals being hunted), myths and legends (cross-references are everywhere in that stuff), and even appears in early architecture.
So, unless the patent can be shown to have been granted 10,000 years ago, in which case I'd check it's expiry date, it has been in common usage prior to the patent being granted, which is grounds for dismissal of the patent.
Re: Dream Machines publication date (Score:2)
Paul.
Re:Nuke the limeys (Score:2)
> ...our "cut the military spending" tree-hugging government...
...which spends as much on so-called "defense" as the rest of the world's armies put together. Some bunch of tree-huggers. As far as "cutting military spending," both parties in the U.S.A., this madhouse of fraud, are working up right now to flush tens and maybe hundreds of billions of dollars right down the toilet to buy a ballistic missile defense that will never ever work. You have to understand that these political gentlemen plan to get maybe one percent of that vast public subsidy back from the arms vendors as bribes, I mean campaign contributions. Even decades ago, Dwight Eisenhower was on to these con men. Go ahead and call him a tree-hugging lib'rul with an unrealistic understanding of warfare.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
hrmmm. (Score:2)
1) It is a patent regarding terminals. Specifically, links to what they refer to as "blocks". "Blocks" that can control things such as the color on a terminal. I'm assuming that doesn't mean filesystem blocks.. so what exactly is it referring to?
2) It was filed August 15, 1980. How is it possible for this to apply to something that didn't exist yet? I mean, the patent covers a link that controls things like color on a terminal. Hyperlinks consist of addresses to other computers. Hyperlinks don't control the browser at all, they just allow a computer to connect to another. HTML controls what the browser displays.
So what's the deal?
Hyperlinks inside documents? (Score:2)
now I could be wrong, but I can't see this being HYPERTEXT unless all the links are in a block at the end of the file - surely a pretty restricted patent?
--
forgot what site I was reading.... (Score:2)
Thought I was reading The Register for a second =)
Too bad the idea has been around since the Koran!! (Score:2)
(thats the rough ida, perhaps someone with a more in-depth knowledge of Islam would care to add....)
Re:Unenforcable (Score:2)
Q:How long did Unisys not enforce the LZW patent before deciding that their patent had been infringed?
A:Until somebody with cash (Microsoft) started making a web browser that displayed GIF images compressed with their patented algorithm.
Does this remind anyone... (Score:3)
...of the attempt to enforce a patent on browser status bars a few years ago? That fell through, and this will, too. We have nothing to fear from this. The government wouldn't dare enforce this, because there's too much money invested in the Internet right now.
Which is a problem, if you think about it. The government will only pay attention to freedoms on the web whule there's money in it. And that's why the economic downturn among the dotcoms is bad (along with the unemployment it will cause, of course). As soon as it doesn't look like the Internet is creating multimillionaires capable of donating large amounts of cash to campaigns, and they can't be accused of stifling business opportunities (the businesses having already stifled themselves, and the opportunities having dried up), Congress will move to establish as much control as possible.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Re:Hyperlinks inside documents? (Score:2)
From the patent:
a central computer means in which plural blocks of information are stored at respectively corresponding locations, each of which locations is designated by a predetermined address therein by means of which a block can be selected, each of said blocks comprising a first portion containing information for display and a second portion containing information not for display but including the complete address for each of plural other blocks of information;
now I could be wrong, but I can't see this being HYPERTEXT unless all the links are in a block at the end of the file - and all the destinations are on the same server. Surely a pretty restricted patent?
--
Re:OK Cool, close but no cigar.... (Score:2)
I started working for BT (Horwood House) in '82, and we were well familiar with BT's use of hyperlinking at that time -- Prestel was a really cutting edge solution. 8-)
OTOH, we were still jealous of Xanadu, as they'd invented all the good stuff a few years before us, and we knew it.
Re:History of hypertext and hypermedia (Score:2)
1965 Ted Nelson introduces Xanadu and coins the term hypertext.
1967 Andries van Dam develops the Hypertext Editing System at Brown University, followed by the introduction of FRESS in 1968.
1968 Doug Engelbart gives a demo of NLS, a part of the Augment project, started in 1962.
1975 A team at CMU, headed by Robertson, develops the ZOG system, which later becomes KMS.
1978 A team at MIT, headed by Andrew Lippman, develops the Aspen Movie Map, the first true example of a multimedia application including videodisk.
[Bush, 1945]. Bush, Vannevar. "As We May Think" The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945.
[Nelson, 1965]. Nelson, Ted. "A File Structure for the Complex, The Changing and The Indeterminate" ACM 20th National Conference, 1965.
[Nelson, 1980]. Nelson, Ted. "Replacing the Printed Word: A Complete Literary System" Information Processing '80, 1980.
I could cite a lot more sources, but most can be found at:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~g.vandijnsen/
Johan V.
Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:2)
Actually this may be a good thing (Score:3)
Do you honestly think that AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, Earthlink, etc. will actually start paying royalties to British Telecom for something as lame as hyperlinks?!? Hell no. They're huge companies with a large influence in the federal government, and if they all get hit with this, I have no doubt that the patent system will be changed.
--
Re:This again?! (Score:4)
If you're so keen on avoiding patent payments to foreign-owned compaies, why do you award them patents?
Re:Here is a link to the Patent (Score:2)
A few scenarios... (Score:3)
The ISPs all laugh and go about their business, assuming that BT wouldn't sue them all.
The ISPs point their finger at W3C and say, "We were just using THEIR spec. THEY told us it was OK."
The courts show that for well over 10 years British Telecom was NOT enforcing its patent, and therefore loses any royalties gained from its use.
BT spends a few million pursuing this lawsuit, we all have a good laugh, and get on with our lives.
BT spends several million, lobbies for several years, and causes millions of people to volunteer their computer and bandwidth to the most massive DDOS attack ever conceived, targetting any computer related to BT attached to the internet, and simply kick them off by force. (ie, mark their report card, "Doesn't play nice with others.")
No matter what happens though, I doubt we'll have to change anything more than our terminology. I don't hyperlink. I just annotate my pages with relevant information, which may, or may not, be found on another page. These marks are made in english, and some browsers convert the marking to a highlight and automatically go to my reference if the marking is clicked. (sorry, I guess BT with have to go after people who make browsers now...)
-Adam
"For example,
after I [found] myself being attacked by csh,
csh was shot by friendly fire from behind,
possibly by tcsh or xv,
and my session was abruptly terminated. "
Dennis Chao on the new machine process management utility, "Doom"
that isn't the law either . .. (Score:2)
For these reasons, a claim derived from an enabling disclosure is invalidated only by prior art antedating the date of filing.
IANAL implied but... (Score:3)
It seems like the guy had a very specific use of these links, coresponding to function keys and modems. The use of a modem is implied in all manners, with only references to using the 'telephone network'. In fact, the term 'modem' is used 18 times, while the term 'telephone network' is used 7 times. However, the idea of a data network or a LAN is completely missed under this patent.
Hence, only ISP's might be liable to the usage of this patent. IE, people using a 'modem' as it was in those days, MOdulation-DEModulation. Those of us on ISDN, cable, ADSL, and com-grade services are not affected. `8r)
Don't patents expire after a certain amount of time? I know if they go after a company like AOL, they will be caught up in court until the patent expires. and if it expires from when it was first filed, it's already been 20 years.
It'd be pretty funny to have someone say 'You cannot use a modem any more to access the internet' forcing everyone to upgrade to another type of high speed connection though. that wouldn't be a bad thing for our society, IMHO. Cheap, easy frame relay drops for everyone!
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Another doomed attempt, just like Wang's (Score:2)
Now, it says that BT is going to go after ISPs on this. Well, AOL (including Netscape) is the biggest one around, and the Netscape lawyers were sent tons of prior art during the Wang case. I rather doubt BT is going to have a chance on this...
Steven E. Ehrbar
Prior-Art-a-Palooza! (Score:5)
Prior art, bay-bee! Can't wait to see the AOL (doing GUI-centric internetworking before internetworking was cool) lawyers put the smack-down on these idiots.
SoupIsGood Food
OK Cool, close but no cigar.... (Score:5)
This specifically deals with documents stored on servers, sent through a PSTN to a terminal. It would seem to me, that if you asked six random people (i.e. the jury in the civil lawsuit) to equate a web server and a browser to a server and a client, they wouldn't do it. Especially if one of them has a cable modem.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Personally, I think Microsoft should buy Nothern Telecom - that way they can say they invented the hyperlink, just like they invented the Symbolic Link!
Then hopefully they will go on to prove that black is white and Steve Ballmer (I don't feel like picking on Bill Gates any more - it's too easy) will get killed at the next zebra crossing.
Read the patent -- it won't fly... (Score:5)
Anyway, they would have to claim that the "phone lines" are the Net's backbone, the "central server" is anyone with Apache running, and the "terminal apparatus" is the browser.
Here's some more that makes it sound distincntly unWWW-like:
Now tell me that sounds like the concept of hyperlinking. I don't think so. The only thing they even came close to getting right was the part about "the system is to be operated by unskilled operators". There's no arguing with that.I really hope we can get some US patent reform. Does anyone know of a decent movement to let our US representatives know how silly this has all become? I mean, everyone smells money in the "digital goldrush", and so they do inane thingsd like attempt patent enforcements like this. But everyone forgets that the only people to make a lasting living off the California Goldrush 1800's were the guys selling food and equipment to the miners (ever wonder where Levi's Jeans came from?). Everyone would be much better off letting the WWW do what it wants while concentrating on becoming the one that facillitates those goals.
This whole thing blows.
-B
Re:Here is a link to the Patent (Score:4)
Does it meant that only the lynx users are affected?:)
--- No sig.