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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Patent Warfare 139

Posted by Hemos from the incoming! dept.
H310iSe writes: "The California Recorder has an article covering another of the many ridiculous Web patents out there, this one held by TechSearch claims rights for a "'remote query communication system' patent, which covers a method for compressing and decompressing data transmitted from a server to an end user." Basically they're patenting Web servers. What's interesting is their selective enforcement, they are currently suing Greg Aharonian, one of their most vocal critics, for infringement on their patent. He's fighting it. TechSearch has quite a history of aggressive patent enforcement ("extortion" claims Intel's spokesperson Chuck Mulloy), some major players like United Airlines have caved in; Intel, however, has not (surprised?)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patent Warfare More

Patent Warfare

Comments Filter:
  • I thought about it for awhile, and while you have a good point, I think I stand by my earlier proposal. True, a company could take a free version of some software, say Emacs, and make a proprietary version, or even just close the source. But I think that's ok, because in three years it would pass back into the public domain.

    Perhaps some sort of a BSD-style clause requiring credit where due would be in order. But I do think everyone should play by the same rules, rules which ought to be drafted because they make sense and are reasonable, not because they support opensource/free software or proprietary software (as they currently do).
  • I was mildly surprised to see my company as one of those listed for patent infringement; but even more surprised to see that we had settled. I don't even have to pick up the phone to know how it was 'settled': I have no doubt that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to write them a $30,000 check than it is to go to court over the issue.

  • Some clones died that fast, but most of them suffered when Jobs came back into power and pulled the plug on licensing the ROMs altogether, effectively killing the clone market. I would suspect that if the clone market were continuing, PowerComputing would have some sweet clones based on the G4 but with more PC-ish support in terms of cards, ports, and the like.
  • The important part is that you tell them you have violated it. If they fail to respond to this within a reasonable period of time (say 6 months to a year), it will weaken their case if they eventually do decide to sue you, and would make it more difficult to sue anyone else.
  • You can't easily limit the term on one catagory without limiting the terms on all, as then the spin doctor patent writers will adjust the patent to move it into a longer term patent catagory. For example, if you say software patents are 3 years, and business practices are 5, a software patent such as the one here in question could easily be written as a business practice one ("a method to speed delievery of data to customers by compression of the data stream"), and gain 2 years. There are also patents that classify into 2 or more of these 'catagories' so what would you do then?

    The better solution is to invalid any software and business practice patents, or limit the terms of all patents to 5-10 years.

  • Hasn't anyone patented cookies? Forcing anyone wanting to dump a cookie on my machine to consider if it was worth a $30,000 licence fee might lead to them being a little more selectively used.
  • An improved method and apparatus for downloading compressed audio/visual (AV) data and/or graphical/tabular information from a remote Server to an End User Station (EUS) for the purpose of decompressing and/or displaying said downloaded data.

    Weren't BBS users downloading ANSI control sequences over modem links with (standardised) hardware compression way before 1991?

  • Apple should have called it either:

    1. Our way of shooting ourselves in the foot when we were ahead.

    2. Our way of ensuring that Bill Gates will be the richest person ever!

  • Sometimes I'm for the 'kill them all and let god sort them out' method of fixing it. :)

    Seriously, how about, oh, not allowing software patents at all. Patents are supposed to be on processes, and, while software excuting can be a process, it's also speech. If you invented a new form of art, say mixing interpretive dance with paint (I can't actually imagine this, but oh well.), you wouldn't be allowed to patent that process. Sure, you could copyright the specific act, but someone could make a show like yours, using the same methods you used.

    Patents on something as intangible as a softwarte 'process' are just to vague to be allowed. Plus, half the patents on software are on math, which I think is insanely horrible. I don't care if you figured out a specific way to encode something, math is public domain, period.

    -David T. C.

  • My favorite patent of all time is for a cat "laser excercise" device ... basically you shine a lazer at the floor and the cat chases it .. but lord its patented. the patent holder obviously has a sense of humour. its as good an idea as anything I've seen patented recently ... anyone have a link to this?
  • November 1, 2000

    Washington, United States of Blame - The ScrewYou Corporation has filed a suit against Jill Brady, a young girl from Florida, for infringing on their patent on lemonade stands.

    "We will not stand any infringment on our patents, especially from little 12-year-old girls who don't have the finances to defend themselves in court" said ScrewYou's CEO, Anthony Sueyou.

    ScrewYou has filed for damages of $50,000,000 in "lost revenue" due to little Jill's lemonade stand. "Everyone of her customer's could potentially be a ScrewYou customer. Since we have no idea how long she has been running this illegal stand we think this is only fair," said ScrewYou's lawyers after they got out of a case they settled against the Boy Scouts over the infringment of ScrewYou's fire patent.
  • For harrassment. Come on it could easily seen that Tech Search is nothing but a company goes around threating people with lawsuits in hope for them to pay thier stupid patent fee. They are abusing the what the Patent system in the USA was set up for. TECH SEARCH should have charges brought against them. They are the one that are abusing the system.
  • My favorite patent of all time is for a cat "laser excercise" device ... basically you shine a lazer at the floor and the cat chases it .. but lord its patented. the patent holder obviously has a sense of humour. its as good an idea as anything I've seen patented recently ... anyone have a link to this?

    Here [delphion.com] it is.

    =================================

  • Trial by money as bad as patent idiocy (Score:5)

    by Morgaine ( 4316 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @07:22PM (#659234)
    Everybody is irritated at the idiocy of patent claims in the US, but the article touched on another issue as well, one that is likely to be the deciding factor in this particular patent claim. The article states, rather obviously, that Intel has deeper pockets with which to fight the action.

    Money is an issue that distorts justice far more than the recent patent nonsense, and I bet that nobody sees any light at the end of that tunnel. The legal profession has very effectively perverted the course of justice in that regard, and the perversion is so endemic that we consider it quite normal and the status quo.

    These two things are actually related. After all, the people that chase down patents are not productive contributors to society's building of a better world. They create nothing, but merely leech off the creativity of others. They are the fine upstanding members of the legal profession, for whom logic and commonsense can be freely disregarded when sophistry and technicalities are judged to yield a better paycheck.
  • I'm patenting "paradigm shifting algorithems". It has buzzwords and is vauge enough to go after anyone. Knuth, you're on my radar!!
  • What the hell does attacking the bumblings of the USPTO and have anything to do with patent infringement?

    Agreed. This lawsuit is so obviously bad that it's shocking.

    What's even worse is that TechSearch is so obviously launching this lawsuit as a means of harassment (what vergil called a "slap suit"). When asked why TechSearch went after Aharonian specifically, when in theory anyone with a web server is "infringing," TechSearch president Anthony Brown had an intesting response to the reporter:

    "I don't want to get into why we choose to go after certain people," Brown said. But he contended that Aharonian has been critical of TechSearch and has said things about its patent that are incorrect. "If that is his position, let him defend it," Brown said.

    The last I checked, "letting someone defend his position" is not sufficient grounds for a lawsuit of this nature. Feh.

    It's the kind of suit that makes me want to say, "Oh, it'll be dismissed, no problem." Of course, I wanted to say, "Oh, the whole Whitewater investigation is going to blow over eventually," too, and instead it produced the Lewinsky scandal, so who the hell knows where this is going?

  • Sweden - and I think most other countries - have the system that the loser in a suit pays the legal costs of both parties. That way, you can fight anyone in court, with full resources, as long as you're right.

    So people don't sue, unless they're pretty sure they will win, and litigation in these countries is a small fraction of the US level.
  • The prior art on this one is where we downloading GIFs off of BBS's or just used ftp to download GIFs (compressed data), and then viewed them (decompressed them) on the machines. Pretty funny.

    -Dean
  • If A sues, and B only wants to spend $1000, but A wants to spend a million, A can go ahead and loan the money. B has to accept, but doesn't have to spend.

    So you bury the body, spend $1 on your defense, the prosecution spends lots more and loans you the money, you don't spend it.


    --
  • The only way out of this is to adopt the English system whereby the loser in a civil suit has to pay both his own and the other sides costs.

    This system doesn't work either (speaking as a Ukanian citizen), because the cost of bringing a case to trial is often prohibitive even if you feel you will win. It's all very well being awarded your costs at the end of a trial, but if it costs hundreds of thousands of pounds before the case even gets to a full court hearing, you're not even going to get to court unless you're rich.

    Many people have relied on the protection of this system, especially by bringing libel actions against people telling unwelcome truths. Individuals such as the late fraudster Robert Maxwell, and noted conspiracy theorist, liar, safe-cracker, racist and all-round bad employer Mohammed Al-Fayed, have used such writs to attack their critics. All but the surest and richest newspapers back down when faced with the possibility of millions of pounds costs and a similar amount of damages.

    If judges showed more discretion in the allocation of costs here, it might make some difference by discouraging trivial lawsuits where corporations spend millions and little damage is done. Removing the abused laws entirely is attractive but I doubt this is realistic nor entirely desireable, as most of them serve legitimate purposes as well as illegitimate ones.

    What is needed is to make justice as swift and as efficient as possible, so people cannot drag out pre-trial proceedings for years and bankrupt their enemies before the case is ever heard. Although how to do that without shooting all the lawyers is a difficult question. And I'm not sure we have enough bullets.

  • What with how crazy this is, would it take much for me to patent the concept of wearing clear plastic raincoats in the rain?

    Would they be so stupid to let that through????

    Then I can get royalties from anyone who wears a raincoat in the rain????

  • .. for the US patent office to start actually READING applications for patents?

    Clearly they do. No reasonable reading of a patent prosecution file could possibly be taken to suggest that examiners did not read the application.

    Isn't it about time for critics of the patent system to try to present specific, direct evidence of their gripes, and to unsubstantiated demagoguery?

    mean, it seems absurd that people can patent things like websevers, which are so common. Patents are designed to protect ORIGINAL ideas,

    Both of these propositions are correct. So, if you have a gripe, let's take the specific patent, the specific claim, and the specific prior art, and then determine whether or not the patent is invalid.

    If we do so, we can save Greg Aharonian a lot of money in legal fees.
  • ... for the US patent office to start actually READING applications for patents? I mean, it seems absurd that people can patent things like websevers, which are so common. Patents are designed to protect ORIGINAL ideas, so that people who put time and effort into them can reap the benefits of their work. What they've turned into is a free-for-all on "what can i sue people over?". Eventually, these stupid patents will be overturned by some higher authority (i'm assuming there is one), because 20-something years without being able to use your own webserver is a long time!
    -MR
  • There is a process called "reexamination," in which you present documentary prior art not previously considered, which raises a "substantial new question of patentability," and file a petition requesting rexamination.

    If the request is granted, the patent will be completely reviewed in light of the new art. This has an upside and a downside, of course -- the applicant gets to rewrite his claims to narrow the patent to avoid the new art, which may result in a stronger (but valid) patent.

    If the patent cannot be amended to avoid the prior art, then the patent claims will all be cancelled.

    If a patent is significant and a substantial burden, the Commissioner may autonomously decide to call a patent into reexamination. This is what happened in the Comptons and Energizer Bunny cases.

    Alternatively, you can sue (in some cases), or be sued and then counterclaim for, a declaratory judgment of invalidity. You present the prior art and, if you prevail, the patent claims you challenged are killed on the spot -- the applicant gets no chance to "amend around."

    Reexamination can be a fairly inexpensive process (just a filing fee and time for preparation of the proper papers), or if you decide you want to actively participate in the process -- answering applicant''s responses and the like, it can be moderately expensive (say mid-four figures to the low five figures). Except in clear cases, litigating validity can be awesomely expensive, often in six figures.
  • It's like Amazon's ridiculous patent on the "single-click shopping" idea...as if that's unique or even a paradigmatic concept. Is Netscape going to try and patent the Back button?
  • If this company succeeds in this latest venture, other companies are going to start The USPO needs to start carefully analyzing patent applications

    They do carefully analyze patent applications. Why do you think they don't?

    and needs to have either a public review or a panel-based review

    Under the recent changes to the patent act, certain applications are published 18 months after application, and thus can be subject to review by the public prior to issuance. However, there is no provision for opposition apart from the very expensive interference process.

    Once patent applications issue, however, there is a fairly low-cost process to challenge their validity, called reexamination. Recent changes to the act expanded the scope of third-party participation in reexaminations.

    Regrettably, both of these recent steps are watered-down versions of far stronger proposals in the original patent reform legislation. My understanding is that the reform bill will likely be taken up again next term.

    Ironically, many Slashdotters opposed these stronger proposals last year during a discussion of patent reform.

    to determine whether a patent applicant is simply follwing an evolutionary path or actually a technological innovation.

    Evolutionary paths can include patentable subject matter, so long as they entail new, useful and unobvious subject matter.
  • The process of:

    1. Using neurochemical impulses to control human tissue

    2. Controlling, via said impulses, certain tissue in the abdomen of a human

    3. Having this tissue lower pressure inside the abdomen, facilitating human respiration

    GET REAL! Take away the internet, and you're taking away our breath or our voice. Going to patent the motion of the solar system now?
    ----
  • Is Netscape going to try and patent the Back button?

    Don't be ridiculous, you can't patent the back button. The forward button on the other hand...
  • While intel's attempts to stop clones are underhanded and harmful to the consumer I can't agree it is in the same ballpark.

    For one thing intel's new archetecture is non-obvious and involved a great deal of intellectual effort. Selecting what instructions to include in a chip is a non-trivial task especially with something like EPIC. As we want companies to put in the effort to come up with these sort of things there is a valid argument that intel should gain some advantage over clones because of its research investment.

    Now it may be true that the individual instructions patented by intel aren't particularly novel but these appear to be the way intel can protect its novel contributions to its instruction set.

    Personally I think we need an entire new system to control patents/copyrights in `standards.' The problem in intels case is not that they get rewarded for their instruction set but that they get rewarded disproportionatly. Because of intels market share this instruction set will become a standard and intels patents will give them far more money than the novel ideas in the instruction set are in fact worth.

    What is necessery is some system to seperate the component of value in the actual technological innovation from the component of value inherint in the standardization.
  • Trying to read the patent -- and it's not fun, it's NOT the web server. It's more like selecting streaming video through a network.

    But judge for yourself:

    http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn=US05253341__ [delphion.com]

    It doesn't make it less evil to sue your critics first, though.

  • DNA (Score:3)

    by ryloth ( 249823 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @07:31PM (#659252)
    "...a method for compressing and decompressing data transmitted from a server to an end user." If you assume the server to be the male and the "end user" to be the female and the data to be DNA code compressed and decompressed by the human body. It seems to me they hold a patent for life itself.
  • The article fails to specify exactly how Mr. Aharonian infringed their patent.

    According to the article, here's what the suit alledges Aharonian's transgressions are:

    "He shamelessly, and oftentimes profanely, attacks [the] United States government, specifically the Patent and Trademark Office, its examiners and various public officials and private citizens," the suit says. "He also purports to be an expert in patent law, though he has no specialized training in the field, has not graduated from any law school, is not admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office and is not authorized to practice law."

    Say What? What the hell does attacking the bumblings of the USPTO and have anything to do with patent infringement?

    I've met Mr. Aharonian before at a National Academy of Science conference on Intellectual Property, and had the opportunity to read his always entertaining email missives critiquing business method patents. He may be profane at times, but (in my opinion), he is one of the most articulate and analytical opponents of a fundamentally flawed patent system that continues to churn out limited, legally sanctioned monopolies on nebulous, specious and overly-broad business method "inventions" to the detriment of the public domain and true innovation.

    I haven't seen the text of the lawsuit. But if the aforementioned article is accurate, it seems that Mr. Aharonian is being targeted by a slap suit (remember the McLibel [mcspotlight.org] trial in Britain?). Slap suits are typically frivolous attempts to silence critics of corporate interests by dragging them through an expensive, time-consuming and tortuous labyrinth.

    FYI, Here [wired.com] is a recent Wired Magazine article about Aharonian and business method patents.
    Aharonian's website is www.bustpatents.com [bustpatents.com]. You can subscribe to his newsletter -- the Internet Patent News Service from this site.

    Sincerely,
    Vergil

  • Training live wombats as web developers. They're pretty good at it, although they do still require special visas to get into the country. A few buck in the right war chests and one more week and that will be sorted out. When I go IPO look for the name Wambus (not to be confused with that worthless memory IP company of similar name.)


    --

  • surprised about Intel (Score:3)

    by Pink Daisy ( 212796 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @07:37PM (#659255) Homepage
    I'm not suprised... they said pretty much the same thing about Rambus not too long ago. "Seeking to collect a toll from other companies," rather than developing their own technology was the phrase used. So they say the same thing to another company with a dumb patent that interferes with them somehow. It may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but I think we need all the corporate assistance we can get to fight these things, particularly ones which the owners admit could probably cover every web server that exists.
  • I've been chasing cats with lasers for years now! If I'd known I could have made money off it.... I mean I'm sure I could con some kids into paying $5 a pop to play with the cat using a laser, but that's a con! Now getting a patent. ON THAT!? Wow. I could sue everyone who ever bought a laser, and be rich....

  • Netscape Should patent this...

    patenting a method of making forward button un clickable when back button havent clicked yet.
    haha
  • 3.) IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE NON-TRANSFERRABLE!!! License them, sure. an inventor may not always have enough capital to market his invention. But ownership of a patent should always stay with the inventor, likewise a copyright.

    Who would this benefit? Surely not the inventor. What makes IP assets valuable is that they are PROPERTY. One of the essential elements of property are that they are transferrable -- can be used as currency in an economic transaction.

    The more limitations you put on the transferability of an asset, the less valuable they are. Whether you are talking about country club memberships, tickets to a ballgame or otherwise, the value of an asset is limited when you cannot exchange ALL of the rights you have. (What is more, it is the nature of a capital asset that it flows like a force of nature; legal limitaitions on transferrability simply invite ways to circumvent those limitations, whether by scalping, side-agreements or contracts or otherwise; all that happens is that it becomes more expensive and risky to effectively transfer the assets -- which makes it less valuable, of course).

    It is very, very common that an inventor, author or otherwise is not the same person or entitty that has the assets necessary to practice an invention or publish or otherwise exploit a literary work. If you limit the ability of the parties to transfer assets, you simply invite the capital to flow elsewhere -- to safer, more secure investments.
  • Reread the patent. It does not cover laser pens, just the method of using it as a form of exercise.

    This is simply another in a long history of deeds issued by the USPTO for reasons of sheer amusement. This class of "wacky patents" is so silly and amusing that it even has its own web site [colitz.com].

    If you read the claims and prosecution, you will understand clearly that the patent issued because it was clearly harmless and would have been difficult and expensive to reject.
  • They should, should they? Let us see if Greg does challenge under Rule 11 (for filing meritless claims), and if so, whether he would prevail.

    Time will tell.
  • "He also purports to be an expert in patent law, though he has no specialized training in the field, has not graduated from any law school, is not admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office and is not authorized to practice law."
    I have no degrees whatsoever in any field, nor any certifications in my feild of employ. does this mean i am unfit to be a sysadmin? if so it flies in the face of fact, as i have successfully held down jobs in the field for the past 5 years. and my experiance has been that just because someone has a degree it does not mean that they know anything more than how to pass tests.
  • Reexaminations are processed with substantial speed in the USPTO. The result of that will be known soon. It is quite possible that the patent claims will all be cancelled, that the patent claims will all survive, or that some claims will be cancelled and/or some claims amended. If some part of the patent survives, the resulting claims will be STRONGER (in the sense of defensible against invalidity, not in the sense of broader in scope) than the original.

    Don't take broad descriptions of a patent to indicate either the scope of its claims, or the likelihood of its validity. Read, at least, the patent disclosure and claims. [delphion.com] In this case, it is unclear whether the patent reaches as broadly, or would be clearly invalid in view of the prior art on or prior to 1990, as Greg was quoted to suggest. Time will tell.

    But it should be understood that Greg has made a practice of self-promotion and promotion of his search services by publicly attacking the scope or validity of various patents. In some cases, he had manifest a clear lack of understanding of applicable patent law, and in others a failure to have read even the most basic information relating to a particular patent he was excoriating.

    While it is certainly his First Amendment right to state opinions on various issues, he has often arguably stepped over the line of reason, perhaps even so far as to defamation of title.

    But this case isn't about free speech. Greg was not attacked for having claimed a patent was invalid -- he is attacked for having infringed a patent. He is being invited to put his money where his mouth is, literally and figuratively, to prove a patent is invalid which he has claimed, directly or indirectly, was invalid. Again, time will tell.

    Frankly, I am unfond of those heavy-handed tactics, both when they are applied by property-holders or their critics. Neither litigant has a stellar history for being truth-seeking and desirious of finding the truth wherever it may lie. At least, in this case, we'll see the results of these issues determined on the merits by a third party. Greg, hardly defenseless, is a self-acclaimed expert patent-buster, and so he is better equipped than most to find the best prior art.

    Again, time will tell. Hopefully, the truth will prevail.
  • In this lawsuit, we have an apparently overreaching litigant attempting to beat up on an apparently overreaching patent critic. Wouldn't it be interesting if the verdict of this case were (as tends to happen these days), that the patent was construed to be narrower in scope than the parties contend, and thus, that the patent is valid (thus Greg is wrong), but not infringed (thus the patent owner is wrong)?
  • Patent 23901: "A method for combining two Hydrogen molecules and one Oxygen molecule for creating a substance that is liquid at room temperature and can be frozen and boiled within 100 degrees celsius positive or negative" I'm suing all of you!
  • I wonder if all the scientists and engineers that read bounties at www.BountyQuest.com could do a better job of finding prior art on this patent than the Greg (the master) can do by himself?

    There are over 2 billion unique pages on the web. How can any one person know what is in even a tiny fraction of them, much less all of the documents in every language around the world? Maybe Greg should post a bounty. Even better, why don't all of the readers of his newsletter get together and post a huge bounty?

  • Yes, but if their proprietary extensions are never open-sourced, then it does you little good. After the three years had passed, the binaries that they distributed would be up for grabs, but the source would still be secret. You can't force them to publish the source; you can only use what they've previously published (once it's fair game).

    Also, any new changes they made would be off limits, so you would be limited to three-year-old versions of software, which is rarely satisfactory.

    Of course, after the copyright expiration you would be free to reverse engineer it, using whatever portion of the source that was available. Also, any "leaks" of the source would be ok to use, but only if the leak was three years old! (or if you could prove that the leaked info was written three years ago, which would be difficult.)
  • I had a little patent.fit last year and registered gnupatent.org
    I had intended to declare war on stupid software patents using that domain as home base. I did a little research and discovered there were others already doing such things, and I've discovered I don't have the time to simultaneously live & crusade.
    Anyway, this domain is already registered, and if you'd like to lead the charge I'd be perfectly happy to point it to a site that is working on a GPL type approach to putting an end to stupid software patents.

  • CVS? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Does the -z option in CVS infringe on this?

    There goes the bandwidth.

  • Although this has been repeated before, it seems to me that the patent office does not read any of these new and upcoming "tech" based patents, and if so... toss in the "no-clue" factor. Some, (actually I'll rate this up to *alot* of companies) depend on the actual attitude of the patent office to either:
    1. I work 40 hours a week and meet my quota.
    2. I don't get paid enough to envolve myself.
    3. No clue, but it sounds fesable.
    4. Crap shoot.
    5. See #4.
    6. As long as I perform, I'll get the benefits and pay.
    7. Call Cleo on the tarot card hotline.

    Sorry, but my spelling sucks.

  • Back in March, they were advertising this crappy jacket [slashdot.org] as coming free with the purchase of any of their horrible stinky colognes.

    Back to the drawing board.

    - A.P.

    --
    * CmdrTaco is an idiot.

  • A question... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Forgive me, I know this is a bit off topic but 1. IANAL and 2. Slashdot covers tons of copyright stories.

    If someone patents say a widget and I work long and hard and never see this widget but come up with something much much like it. Is that patent infringment? Do I now owe the patent owner something. Granted I reinvented the wheel, but I didn't know it existed yet. My thinking is no I don't, but what rights do I have to keep people from making me bankrupt by suing me saying I ripped them off and stole their patent? Could counter-suits be made and for what reason. I work in a place where my creativity and skill is pushed to the limit and any day me or someone on my team might come up with something revolutionary. Even if we did try to patent it and someone already has that widget patented what are we to do?
  • this crappy jacket [wtower.com], my bad.

    --
    * CmdrTaco is an idiot.

  • Just wondering... I wonder, with the patents on species being allowed if some biotech company could patent the homo sapiens species. Then slavery could be reinstated as said company would be the owner of all human beings on Earth and could sell them out to the highest bidder. PyRoNeRD
  • Yes, but if their proprietary extensions are never open-sourced, then it does you little good. After the three years had passed, the binaries that they distributed would be up for grabs, but the source would still be secret. You can't force them to publish the source; you can only use what they've previously published (once it's fair game).

    well, i'm still not sure I think copyright expiration should require source discosure. This could violate First Amendment rights (i.e., the right NOT to speak) as well as possibly disclose some valid trade secrets. It would depend on the situation, I suppose. Unfortunate that we can't tailor law to the situation! I just wish that lawmakers would start passing algorithmic laws instead of heuristic ones.
  • Hey, why not get a patent on a stupid patent system where everyone can get patents for obvious "inventions"?

    Then sue the USPTO for violating that patent!

    / Krister
  • Right, but most WYSI(sn't)WYG editors also insert a generator meta tag;

    <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Mozilla/4.05 [en] (Win95; I) [Netscape]">

    (That's from a page I did nearly 3 years ago in Netscape Communicator.)
  • thanks, you outlined a number of the reasons I run a website.

    And the first time I read about patent craziness was only a couple years ago. Change is what you make it.
    --
  • Actually, that would be a patent on human reproduction. Life is something they couldn't even begin to describe.

    Wow, imagine a Beowulf cluster of... oh. Never mind.
  • The problem with the USPTO is that it doesn't understand the effect of patents. I've heard over and over again how patents "create wealth."

    Patents don't create wealth. They concentrate power. Very different.
  • The Netherlands has this system as well, with the same provision as mentioned earlier in the thread -- the judge can even allocate the trial costs to the winner of the trial.

    Of course, you're always worse off than before if you're on the receiving end of a frivolous suit, even if the other party has to pay the costs. No lawyer will work for the money that you get awarded, and forget about getting your vacation day you had to take reimbursed. Etcetera.

    The perceived advantages of any legal system over another are immaterial in patent law cases.

    Obviously, the company that holds those frivolous patents is not going to be deterred from a pretty safe gamble just by the prospect of having to reimburse the opponent some costs, especially if from all appearances they're just out to nail the guy anyway.

    I wouldn't mind a provision in patent law that outlaws using frivolous patents for extortion. I believe that a legal case could be made for that interpretation.

    Remember the "unobvious to a craftsman skilled in the trade" requirement, and the obvious fact that none of the parties sued could reasonably have suspected that they used a patented procedure; also a point could be made of their total absence of an effort to reach a substantial portion of alleged infringers to negociate fees rather than sue, which would weaken the "vigorous defense" requirement.

    Oh, and the kicker is that the court documents apparently make it clear that reimbursement for the usage of their "invention" is totally subordinate to getting back. I loved the Forbes coverage of this lawsuit; they're up two marks in my book now!

    Oh well, I am not a patent attorney. I work for my money.

  • The GIF issue is not at stake. The patent covers computing intensive actions initiated on request of the end user.

    Of course the patent still is bogus. Prior art in any 80's book on what were then called "intelligent terminals". These days, we'd call them thin clients.

    Now, to convince the judge or (shudder) a jury... We object to jurors 1 through 7 and juror 9, your honor. They've got no clue about protocols. They're not my peers.

  • Their ICBM coordinates are 42.1255N, 87.8406W.

    Please be responsible. Tactical nukes are not toys and may incur collateral damage.

  • to be found here [delphion.com]. And here's the summary:
    An improved method and apparatus for downloading compressed audio/visual (AV) data and/or graphical/tabular information from a remote Server to an End User Station (EUS) for the purpose of decompressing and/or displaying said downloaded data. The EUS may transmit a query to the Server manually and/or automatically for the purpose of initiating a process in the Server (e.g. data compression, indexing into a very large database, etc.), which requires the high speed processing, large capacity and multi-distributed data storage, etc.) which are typically preferred at a Server. The EUS provides appropriate inverse processing (e.g. data decompression) which, by its nature, requires relatively little processing power to accomplish. Thus, the method of this invention exploits the inherent asymmetry in the overall process of an EUS querying a remote Server (and/or Server Network) for a data service (e.g. retrieval of AV data in faster than real time) where most of the processing power and global scheduling is performed by the Server.

    I haven't actually read the fine print to see what's so "improved" about their method. And if they're looking to compress things server-side on the fly, AFAIK normal web servers don't do that in general.

    *shrug*
    ------
    WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??

  • Re:Possible prior art (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just look at the SNA protocol, or the one that predated it. IBM used to publish 'Technical notes/journals' they are not online - but it will be there. IBM, CICS, SNA, and VTAM compression , also built into os/2, and terminal controller units. The airline whose SABRE in the 1960's did this. Forex trading systems, even had lookup tables, so that price movements/arbitrage would flash up on their screens that fraction of a second sooner In the ATS, there were firsts. A big thing in the days of 1200 baud.
  • Again: the actual patent hasn't been mentioned anywhere. We don't know what exactly was patented, nor how broad the patent is. Until we do, this whole discussion is rather pointless. The word "FUD" comes to mind.
  • I think you've got something here. Check out this nugget from their web site:

    Since patents are our only business, we are not vulnerable to retaliatory claims of patent infringement by infringers who are themselves patent owners.

    I'd have to say, with the frames and all, they have to be using trained wombats to design their site. You should sue them.

  • Back in 1982-1984 I had done this in two different applications.
  • It seems like it was intended as a system to distribute information over cable TV (like pay per view?, but with on demand access to anything in the database)--but the way the patent is phrased, it could be interpreted as not just applying to webservers, but to the internet as a whole. This seems to be the key bit, from the patent:
    The EUS may transmit a query to the Server manually and/or automatically for the purpose of initiating a process in the Server (e.g. data compression, indexing into a very large database, etc.), which requires the high speed processing, large capacity and multi-distributed data storage, etc.) which are typically preferred at a Server.
    note:EUS is End User Station

    There are also bits that seem like they describe routers etc...the whole method of getting the data from client to server....the main difference seems to be that it allows the process to be transmitted in bursts(for instance once a day), but it allows for it to take place at any time, and with any frequency--the intent seems to be for some kind of on demand information service through cable TV service
    anyway,I hope some of that made some kind of sense....to see the patente, go here [delphion.com]
  • It has the FEEL of something that was put together by a moron from the ground up. The majordomo-evil idea of setting up a patent-holding company is getting off on the wrong foot. They will buy/license your patent, and then CONSIDER letting you use your own invention for a nominal fee? Fuck these AOL-using assholes, they're giving corporations a bad name, and that's not greasy kid stuff.
  • At least Intel is trying to make a product better for profit.. Intel is not trying to take money from others for by buying patents for products they never intend to make and suing as the main revenue source. Anybody who sues farmers because they use a plow will have a revolt!

  • TechSearch uses AOL!! (Score:3)

    by doublem ( 118724 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @08:17PM (#659291) Homepage Journal
    Anyone else notice that http://www.techsearch-llc.com/ was put together by a moron?

    No Title for any of the pages, and the "Contact Us" link goes straight to an AOL account?

    The link on http://www.techsearch-llc.com/about.htm SAYS info@techsearch.com but when you mouseover, you find out it's a link to mailto:brownao@aol.com

    They claim patents on major portions of computer technology, yet don't have the skill to set up an MX entry in a DNS...

    Anyone else here really not like lawyers today???
  • Your Honor, further to our expert findings that the Plaintiff is web-il[l]iterate, which permits to question, if not doubt his technological expertise and understanding, we would like to submit to the record: ---

    [a]
    The Untitled Document tag points to the conclusion that the people who committed the crime of wasting valuable cyberspace did not use FrontPage [which by default calls everything "New Page".
    [a.1]
    It also seems to permit the assumption that they never bothered to look at the source code of their own page, because they would have been likely to change the title if they had done so.
    [a.2]
    Which in turn permits the assumption that no commercial strength html editing software was employed, as such software packages usally insert tags which identify the software used.
    [a.2.1]
    These tags can be manually removed, but require accessing the source code, which seem to have not been the case as claimed and resonably assumed in a.1.
    [b]
    The facts as established in a.ff point to the assumption that plaintiff's site was indeed generated through the employment and use of an online template.
    [c]
    It is the opinion of the experts of this online panel that a the credibility of a hightech company that lays claim to many relevant patents in all fields of information and internet technologies ids highly questionable
    [d]
    based on that questionability the expert panel strongly advises the defendant to question the validity of any statements, claim, patents copyrights, ideas, visions, dreams including but not limited to 'cyber-wet[TM]'ones, made by the plaintiff

    ------
    we will also sue everyone that has wet cyberdreams - a controlled or uncontrolled thought that willfully or unwillfully, knowingly or unknowingly causes or results in sexual arrrrousal where such thought or thought pattern includes any type of object or objects and/or person or persons in conjunction with any type of technology.
    oops that means you can't dream of a vibrator anymore...
  • A device for circumventing the access controls on rain?

    Haven't you heard of the DMCA?!?

  • Yup that is the really scary part.

    A company with deep pockets can usually safely infringe even on "valid" patents, unless the patent holder has deep enough pockets himself.

    Say you invent something truly novel, spending years and multi-$ of your own on it.
    Now assume that you actually get a wordwide patent for your invention (they don't come cheap)

    If it is truly valuable, you can bet that the big guys will happily infringe on your patent, since you will never be able to affort the legal costs of defending it.
    Your only chance is probably to sell your rights to some megacorp (hoping they don't screw you completely)

  • Trial by money is a longstanding feature of the US legal system. The only way out of this is to adopt the English system whereby the loser in a civil suit has to pay both his own and the other sides costs. This also applies if the litigant withdraws. Both these measures tend to make people think twice before they sue and make nusience lawsuits largly an American phenmena. The question is with lawyers writing your laws how are you going to introduce it?
  • The site was put together with Dreamweaver I think. You can tell from the identation and the extra <p>&nbsp; </p> at the end of each page.

    Tis a very very poor site. Can anyone say antialias?
  • The most likely case is that you would be ignored by the government. I have reported far worse crimes and been utterly ignored. The basic rule is money and publicity buys enforcement. The FBI might take your complaint - but I doubt that it would be prosecuted. Good luck on the experiment - I would like to know how it turns out.
  • From http://www.techsearch-llc.com/about.htm& lt;/a> [techsearch-llc.com]

    Phone: (847) 509-0795
    Fax: (847) 509-1330
    Directions from Chicago [techsearch-llc.com]
    Directions from O'Hare Airport [techsearch-llc.com]

    Street Address:
    500 Skokie Boulevard
    Suite 585
    Northbrook, IL 60062
  • To whom it may concern,

    After seeing a story about your firm on the web site www.slashdot.org, a friend and I started a discussion about your site's design, and I was wondering if you could settle the issue for us.

    I say someone's nephew slapped it together with FrontPage, and he says one of the lawyers did it using whatever "Web Site Creation Tools" your Virtual Hosting service offers for newbies.

    Which is it?

    PS, Please don't sue me for criticising your web site. I was just noticing how ironic it is a firm that claims to own the patent on emulating one processor with another (Will you be suing Transmeta next?) and pretty much claims the patent on any kind of graphics on the Internet can't pull together the skill to design a decent web site.

    When will you file your lawsuites against Macromedia, Real, Microsoft and the guy who invented GIF? They violate your patents too.
  • This Greg Aharonian sounds like a good candidate for one of those "Slashdot Interviews (patent pending)". Hemos or Taco, are you listening?

  • That explains client server. I guess a 3-tier architecture would be a... never mind.
  • An improved method and apparatus for downloading compressed audio/visual (AV) data and/or graphical/tabular information from a remote Server to an End User Station (EUS) for the purpose of decompressing and/or displaying said downloaded data. The EUS may transmit a query to the Server

    Maybe it's just me, and maybe it's just a mis-read from that small excerpt from the whole patent, but this really does seem absurd. This makes it sound like the patent covers any kind of server-side data processing that sends output to the user -- Say I log on to a server, run some statistical software on a big data set that I otherwise could not do on my own end (or "EUS" .. sheesh), and ask the server to display a table of the output, say correlation coefficients.

    Haven't I done everything that appears to be patented? Unless you demand that the data be compressed or something -- in which case it sure seems like the wording is vague, as it appears to use data compression/decompression as an example, not a material part of the process.

    What a mess.

    -schussat

  • And note the patent was filed April 11, 1991.

    I also note that the patent was issued to a couple of guys in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Isn't that where Bell Labs is/was?


    ...phil

  • Neither party can spend more than the other.

    If A wants to sue B, and B only wants to spend $1000, then A can't spend more than $1000.

    A can offer to loan B money for the defense. In this case, if A wins, B owes that money in addition. If A loses, A loses the money too. But B has to agree, and of course if B has no money to pay it back, tough luck A!

    Works both ways, in all cases, including the criminal cases.

    There would probably have to be some minimum, at least the minimum to file suit (filing fees, etc). And it would be hard to enforce to the dime. But it would curb the blatant excesses where A has 5 lieyers in court and B has one.

    --
  • It's like Amazon's ridiculous patent on the "single-click shopping" idea...as if that's unique or even a paradigmatic concept. Is Netscape going to try and patent the Back button?

    No, but I hear that AOL is patenting having a browser start page

  • Just don't phrase it like that. (Score:3)

    by dark_panda ( 177006 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @06:59PM (#659322)
    Apply for something more along the lines of

    "A device which circumvents the dampening of the upper layers of the epidermis and garments during periods of precipitation."

    It's all in the wording.

    J
  • An intel spokesman calling this patent `extortion' after their little go around or trying to patent the instruction set on their new chip. hmmmmmm.....

    I am firm believer it karma, it is the galactic equalizer. If we wait and sit by the river for a while my guess is we will see the corpse of intel floating by.
  • I was wondering if anyone had any info on successful steps being made to change the Patent system.

    Everyone is complaining. No?

  • Ultimately, their "we used a default template" website resides on Verio, probably on a leased server. best.com either owns or leases the server on Verio and resells bandwidth to subscribers. I'd look up more but I'm too tired to bother with a reverse DNS lookup. Besides, I work in the morning.

    Here's the evidence:

    URL: http://www.techsearch-llc.com [techsearch-llc.com]
    IP: 209.24.191.243

    WHOIS entry:
    Registrant:
    TechSearch LLC (TECHSEARCH-LLC-DOM)
    500 Skokie Blvd
    Northbrook, IL 90062
    US

    Domain Name: TECHSEARCH-LLC.COM

    Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
    Webmaster, Robert (RS12741) webmaster@TECHSEARCH-LLC.COM
    TechSearch LLC
    500 Skokie Blvd
    Northbrook, IL 60062
    +1 847 509 0774
    Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
    Hostmaster, Best Internet (BIH2) hostmaster@BEST.COM
    Best Internet Communications, Inc.
    345 E. Middlefield Road
    Mountain View, CA 94043
    +1 650 964 2378 www.best.com

    Record last updated on 27-Jul-2000.
    Record expires on 19-May-2001.
    Record created on 19-May-1998.
    Database last updated on 31-Oct-2000 06:27:59 EST.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NS1.BEST.COM 209.24.149.41
    NS2.BEST.COM 209.157.102.11
    NS3.BEST.COM 209.24.149.42


    WHOIS entry for their web hosting firm:
    Domain Name.......... best.com
    Creation Date........ 2000-03-23
    Registration Date.... 2000-03-23
    Expiry Date.......... 2001-08-29
    Organisation Name.... Verio, Inc.
    Organisation Address. 8005 South Chester Street
    Organisation Address. Suite 200
    Organisation Address. Englewood
    Organisation Address. 80112
    Organisation Address. CO
    Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

    Admin Name........... Verio Hostmaster
    Admin Address........ 8005 S. Chester Street
    Admin Address........ Suite 200
    Admin Address........ Englewood
    Admin Address........ 80112
    Admin Address........ CO
    Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
    Admin Email.......... hostmaster@verio.net
    Admin Phone.......... 214 290 8620
    Admin Fax............ 214 745 1877

    Tech Name............ Verio Hostmaster
    Tech Address......... 8005 S. Chester Street
    Tech Address......... Suite 200
    Tech Address......... Englewood
    Tech Address......... 80112
    Tech Address......... CO
    Tech Address......... UNITED STATES
    Tech Email........... hostmaster@verio.net
    Tech Phone........... 214 290 8620
    Tech Fax............. 214 745 1877
    Name Server.......... NS1.BEST.COM
    Name Server.......... NS2.BEST.COM
    Name Server.......... NS3.BEST.COM

    The previous information has been obtained either directly from the
    registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
  • Most WYSIWYG editors insert <title>Untitled Document</title> or something similar by default. I know Netscape Composer used to do this. I've been using Homesite for ages so I don't know if it still does.

    It just means they never went to the menu item that set the title to something informative.

    I have a gut feeling some putz charged them an arm and a leg to design that web site for them...
  • Now it may be true that the individual instructions patented by intel aren't particularly novel but these appear to be the way intel can protect its novel contributions to its instruction set.

    This is why Apple clones dies off very quickly. Sure, manufacturers could put together the hardware, they just couldn't have any software for it. Apple was charging a ridiculous fee for the operating system for clones, thereby guarenteeing that their machines would be cheaper. Apple called this "recovering the cost of developing the OS"...

  • Yes (Score:3)

    by DzugZug ( 52149 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @09:14PM (#659332) Journal
    Yes there is. Simply follow these instructions.
    1. Hire an IP lawyer
    2. Read the patent.
    3. Find the part that you find objectionable
    4. Violate the claim that you thing is invalid
    5. Sit back and wait

      This is the important part. You need to wait for them to find you (you can tell them if you like) and tell you that you are violating their patent you dont do anything untill they send you as cease and disist letter. If they never do, who cares? If you realy want a fight, then repeat step 4 for more claims or keep waiting. Once the do send you the letter proceed to step 6.

    6. Pay the lawyer from the first step a few million dollars.
    7. File suit.

      Ask the judge for a summery judgement ruling the patent invalid.

    Congradulations you just used the legal system to reject an accepted patent.

    I have a friend who is an IP lawyer. She says that if something is not worth a million dollars it's not worth patenting because that is the minimum cost to litigate a patent infringement case.

  • Watch Gattaca [imdb.com]. It's a very rosy view of the future, but Hollywood had to inject SOME home or no one woud ever watch it.
  • Actually it's more complex than that. The issue of winning & the issue of costs are two seperate things which have to be decided. If I was to sue McBigCorp cause they don't serve donuts in their shops, then I'd loose, and McDonalds would be awarded costs, because this is obviously frivulous. On the other hand, if I was to sue McBigCorp cause they served me a mouse in my burger, and the evidence showed that they took all reasonable precautions, I might loose but McDonalds would not be awarded costs, so we'd both have to pay our lawyer fees.

    There have been instances where the winner has had costs been awarded against them. The Judge is basically saying, yeah you were in the right, but you were wrong to bring it to court.

  • Legally that might work - it is exactly with the letter of the DMCA - however, the question is whether or not you have deep enough pockets to defeat a company in a court of law.

    It is possible to do defeat a large company in court. A lone inventor who created the intermittent windshield wiper and patented it was successful in getting judgments against a number of automobile companies: but he did all of the legal work himself. He is the only person I have ever heard of who was successful in doing something like that. By the way, his case was pretty good; the auto companies lifted his circuit design - down to the specific transistors used - straight from his patent and built it into their production models.

    This took him many years to win, and the judges ruled against him every chance they got. Judges don't like the idea of an individual suing without a lawyer: as an article of legal extortion they think that their legal brethren deserve a cut of everything.

    Short answer to your question: possible, but not probable.

  • Another bad one (Score:4)

    by Kooshman ( 248753 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @07:06PM (#659345)
    And try this one [forbes.com] by Forbes.

    Oh, just an amusing story along with it... i saw it in a forbes magazine just laying around the house, thought /.'ers should see it. Went to forbes.com, found the online version, submitted it for posting. Doesn't seem to have made it to the front page, but hey, the link's still useful.

    ~the Koosh man

  • Reality Smacks You in the Face (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @07:07PM (#659346)
    This is not really very interesting news. We all knew that companies would commercialize the internet. And we complained. Then we knew that companies would take over the internet and restrict our rights. And we complained. But what gets me is that people don't seem to mind seeing the internet restricted more and more. They don't mind regulations. It's true. If it wasn't, people would really start doing more. They would stop talking and they would start acting.
    Now, for those folks that are going to refute these claims, I have to laugh. You can talk about Open Source and the EFF all day. You can talk about how your vote counts and how you are trying to make a difference. You actions, while brave, are futile. You simply are not doing enough to combat the corporations. They feed your family and put you in a big house with a big car. You, and a huge army, would need to fight these changes to the internet. You would also need to give up on the things that comfort you. Golden handcuffs.

    Cable companies will control your access to the internet. They will govern you bandwidth. They will get richer and you will be limited to seeing what they want you to see. They will think nothing of cutting you off for saying things against them. They will get warrants through the FBI and take your computers too.

    Governments will regulate your transactions and they will demand to know what you are doing. They will work with Amazon and Yahoo! to kick your ass.

    Medical companies will compile a huge database full of data about your genetic profile. Your medical history will be referenced to your bank account and you will denied insurance and care. You are in an at-risk group and your race will be used against you.

    Oh sure, call me crazy. Tell me that I am full of shit. That's fine. My point is still hanging out there: Despite the alarms going off right now, people are rolling over and allowing corporations to control them. You rely on them for your paycheck. They babysit you. They watch you and play with you like a sad little toy.

    Let's take a real example. Every day more and more web pages are created and new domains are being bought. These pages are not personal nor are they for small organizations. Instead, they are pages owned by huge corporations. Or the media. When you look for news, do you go to Jo Bob's web site? Do you trust Jo Bob? I doubt it. You will seek out the "truth" at MSNBC, CNN, ZDNet, and Yahoo.

    End of Line.
  • So... Uh.. Sounds like they could include compressed cookies in that claim, too. How fucking rediculous. Somehow I think there are a few too many examples of 'prior art' in any claim they make that would prevent them from keeping their patent.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • If this company succeeds in this latest venture, other companies are going to start buying up patents that offer even a glimmer of a payout in the millions of dollars and start flooding the court systems with infringement cases. The USPO needs to start carefully analyzing patent applications and needs to have either a public review or a panel-based review to determine whether a patent applicant is simply follwing an evolutionary path or actually a technological innovation.

    The only people that are going to win in this deal are the attorneys.

    -- The actual development of a "true" patent is up to big corporations or the extremely lucky.

  • I'll echo an opinion espoused time and again here on slashdot:

    Patents are a Bad Thing.

    Ok, maybe that's an overly broad statement. The patent system was designed to encourage and reward innovation. Today it is abused to the point that not only does it discourage innovation through the fear that one may be infringing on a patent, it harms the general public by allowing government-sanctioned monopolies to be formed. Unlike copyrights (another artifact i'll get to in a minute), if you independently develop a product and someone else has already taken out a patent on it, all the work you have put into your creation is for naught, even if you have never heard of the patent, and even if the patent-owner has never actually created the invention patented.

    If i had my druthers, I would see a lot of reform in our IP system, notably:

    1.) Literary copyright limited to 20 years. Contrary to popular belief, the IP system was not given constitutional protection so that an author could be assured a lifetime income. It was created to ENCOURAGE AND REWARD ARTISTIC AND TECHNICAL INNOVATION!!! Obviously you have to reward innovation, or there is no incentive to create anything. However, by ensuring that the "limited times" specified in the constitution really are limited, we would encourage authors, playrights, etc. to continue innovating, rather than rest on their laurels. If they only have one good book in them, then they should really pursue other career alternatives.

    2.) Software copyrights limited to 3 years. Come on. Do i really need to explain this one here?

    3.) IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE NON-TRANSFERRABLE!!! License them, sure. an inventor may not always have enough capital to market his invention. But ownership of a patent should always stay with the inventor, likewise a copyright.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close