Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online

SBC Demands Royalties for Links in Frames 55

Posted by timothy from the gutsy-and-bold-but-a-bad-aftertaste dept.
John Miles writes "Offering yet another persuasive argument in favor of employee substance-abuse testing at the US Patent and Trademark Office, SBC Communications is asserting exclusive ownership of the concept of links in browser frames. With SBC's convenient new rate plan, now you, too, can afford to license your favorite HTML feature!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SBC Demands Royalties for Links in Frames More

SBC Demands Royalties for Links in Frames

Comments Filter:
  • Wouldn't this patent cover Windows Explorer?
  • makes me wonder if the letter is legit, and not some scammer.

  • Text (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @11:52AM (#5107617)
    SBC Communications claims they own Patent on Internal links and Includes, threatens to sue the little guys first, then move to the big guys.

    We received a 40 page package from SBC Intellectual Property today informing us that our web site - which has links on the left side that go to other web pages within the site - but does not lose the left side navigation links - was in violation of their "Structured Document Browser" Patent.

    Here is the letter that was sent to us.

    January 14th, 2003

    Dear President of MuseumTour.com

    SBC Intellectual Property is the owner of US Patent no. 5,933,841 entitled "Stuctured Document Browser". The purpose of this letter is to advise you of an opportunity to acquire a license to the patents - view patent link at the bottom of this pag.:

    - We recently observed several useful navigation features within the user interface or your site www.museumtour.com. For example your site includes several selectors or tabs that correspond to specific locations within your site documents. These selectors seem to reside in their own frame or part of the user interface. And, as such, the selectors are not lost when a different part of the document is displayed to the user - see screen shots from museumtour.com enclosed. By sperating the selectors from the content, Museumetour has truly simplified site navigation and improved the shopping experience for its users.

    As you review the Structured Document Patent you will notice that the above-discussed features appear to infringe several issued claims in our patent. In light of Museum Tours presumed respect for the intellectual property rights of others, we are pleased to offer you a Preferred Rate license under the structured Document Patent - see enclosed rate schedule -

    Actual licensing amounts are calculated using SBC's then current Royalty equation. SBC will gladly determine your actual licensing amount if you provide us with your 2002 Company Gross Revnue (their fees are based on how much annual revenue the company does).

    For your convenience and to assist your analysis of the patent, I have enclosed a document that charts the claim language of an example claim to your site structure.

    After reviewing the patents and determining wheather you prefer a prepaid license or a recurring annual licence please contact Ms. Jill Walker at 512.231.7008 to determin your actual royalty amount. If you have your 2002 gross revenue number Ms. Walker will provide you with an accurate oyalty number and will facilityate the execution of an appropriate license.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

    Sincerly,

    Harlie D. Frost

    President
    • I'm not sure if that's a threat, or an Advertisement or both. Either way it doesn't smack of legalese so much as marketspeak.

  • W3C has prior art. (Score:3, Informative)

    by novakreo ( 598689 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @11:56AM (#5107632) Homepage

    It's worth noting that the cited patent is dated 3rd August, 1999, nearly two years after the 1997 release of the W3C HTML 4 [w3.org] specification, which added, among other things, support for frames in HTML.

    • Re:W3C has prior art. (Score:2, Informative)

      by DarkBlack ( 5773 )
      It was actually filed in 1996, but what's three years. I believe that prior art matters from the filing date.

      Still html 2.0 [w3.org] predates the filing for this patent.

      I see no frames on www.museumtour.com [museumtour.com], do you?

      Read the Article!
      We received a 40 page package from SBC Intellectual Property today informing us that our web site - which has links on the left side that go to other web pages within the site - but does not lose the left side navigation links - was in violation of their "Structured Document Browser" Patent.


      If you follow the patent link above, you can see that they are claiming a patent on using navigational menus in an SGML or HTML document. It's an oddball patent for sure, but from what I read on the patent, it seems that a persistent menu is what they are laying claim to.

      • Re:W3C has prior art. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Fweeky ( 41046 )
        Well, that's ok: very few sites use HTML, but rather use a HTML-like language commonly refered to as tag soup.

        http://www.museumtour.com/ [museumtour.com] claims to use HTML 4.01 Transitional, but even a quick glace at the header shows two closing HEAD tags; hence they're not using "a predefined structure [that conforms] to the Hyper-Text Markup Language (HTML)."

      • I see no frames on www.museumtour.com, do you?

        Read the Article!

        I did. I (obviously) read the story here on Slashdot, then I read the letter museumtour.com received, and the text of the patent. The patent is written in a very obfuscated manner, and from what I could tell, it referred to using frames for navigation. The Slashdot story also mentioned frames, so quite naturally, I assumed that was what this is all about.

        Of course HTML 2.0 predates the patent, I mentioned 4.0 because that was the first version to include support for frames, and I said that it predated the patent because I assumed the big date at the top of the patent would be the date it was filed. Evidently, I need to read US patents more.

        In any case, I am sure that there would be at least a couple of sites out there using persistent menus or whatever the hell the patent covers before the patent was filed in 1996.

  • Here [sbc.com]. Seems strange that he refers to himself as president in the letter but the SBC TRI website refers to him as vice president... maybe the site is just outdated.
  • Seems that if you could find an old piece of software that displayed some type of content with even a normal top menu to navigate between it would constitute prior art.

    What about some old image viewing program that displays a list of file names and has a thumbnail preview ?

    It's fairly sad that you can patent the equivalent of a book with tabs that stick out a bit from the pages.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @12:16PM (#5107710)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I could have sworn I saw frames at the White House site, but came across a different IP issue:

      Are most others aware of the difference between whitehouse.com and whitehouse.gov? The .com version has appeared and reappeared over the months; I think I saw it as a "help finding gov't agencies" version at some point.

      My Q: Isn't it about time the White House sued for trademark dilution? Trademark aside, seriously, is there some kind of leverage they can use against this example of, ah, free speech? It seems a bit unfair in an FTC sense for the average schoolkid typing "whitehouse" to get misdirected, unfair publicity at the minimum. Obviously, the White House was dumb not to grab the .com variant, but it may have been sold within days.

      Anyone know some similar cybersquatter examples?

      Adolescent jokes need not apply, I've heard them already.
    • i can't wait for them to sue the united states government [umich.edu] for patent infringement.

      Government use of a patented invention is viewed as a taking by eminent domain, not an infringement.

      Infringement, by the Government, of privately owned patents, is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1498, which provides that a suit against the Government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is the exclusvie remedy for patent holders who allege their patented invention has been infringed by the U.S. Government or by one acting for the Government. The primary purpose of this statute is to protect and relieve contractors from any liability for infringement by the owner when an invention is used by or manufactured for the United States. By virtue of this statute, the Government may be held liable to the patent owner for payment of the "reasonable and entire compensation" for its unauthorized use of the patent. Unlike a private party, however, the Government cannot commit the tort of "patent infringement." Governmental use of a patented invention is viewed as an eminent domain taking of a license under the patent and not as a tort.

      The Government may delegate its eminent domain power over patents to contractors acting on its behalf. This is accomplished through inclusion of the "Authorization and Consent" clause in the contract [FAR clause 52.227-1]. This clause is usually included in research and development contracts and is a very significant power to grant to a contractor as it makes the Government responsible for the contractors' infringement of any patents during the course of performance of the contract; the patent owner must bring her/his action against the Government, not the contractor.

      Sometimes the Government does not wish to fully delegate its eminent domain power to a contractor. This is accomplished by inclusion in the contract of the "Patent Indemnity" clause [FAR clause 52.227-3] which obligates the contractor who infringes a patent to indemnify the Government for any liability it incurs.

    • Actually the page on the USPTO that displays the patent needs a licence. Follow the link in the summary then select "images" from the bottom of the page. You go to a frame based layout with consistent navigation (prev/next page, skip etc) in a left frame and the output of the browser in the right. Would be interesting to know if the USPTO have a licence, or are currently being hounded to get one!
      -Bruce

  • the patent (Score:3, Informative)

    by shalla ( 642644 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @12:44PM (#5107823)
    This sounded suspicious, so I checked it out. I'm afraid the patent does exist. (You can check the US Patent & Trademark Office's searchable database [uspto.gov] if you don't trust me.)

    Interestingly enough, it seems to cover both browsers that have the capability of multi-frame links and the actual use of such links. (I could be wrong; I quickly scanned it instead of reading. Correct me if I am.)

    It also was submitted May 1996 and granted August 1999. So if we're looking for prior use, we need to be focusing on the 1996 date, I imagine.

    Also of note: the assignee is AmeriTech Corporation of Hoffman Estates, IL. Wonder what relationship they have to SBC?

    • Ameritech is what Illinois Bell became, and was purchased by SBC in the 90's.

      Ameritch is/was RBOC for Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and... Ohio? Can't quite remember now, and in the past week or so www.ameritech.com got replaced with a link to sbc.com
    • Why not post the link to the actual patent instead of a useless uspto.gov main page, if it does indeed exist ?

  • Prior art (Score:4, Informative)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @01:08PM (#5107911) Homepage
    http://webreference.com/dev/frames/

    A tutorial on using frames, copyrighted in 1996, that includes instructions on how to update one frame with a link in another.

    SBC's patent was filed for in 1999.

    • SBC's patent was filed for in 1999.

      ISSUED 1999, filed 1996.

      • http://www.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1995q 3/0566.html [webhistory.org]

        You don't need frames to invalidate this patent. See the above-linked discussion of a 1995 browser's use of the <LINK> tag:

        • "Most Web designers try to build in some sort of navigation system into their documents, usually at the top of the page. The problem arises when the user scrolls down the page and suddenly the navigation GUI is no longer visible. WebRouser's <LINK> command allows the Web document to place a button bar at the top of the screen, as a part of the WebRouser GUI. When the user scrolls down the document, the navigation buttons remain in place. Since the document drives the definition of the buttons' functions, each Web site can have its own Netscape-style "What's New," "What's Cool," etc. button bar pointing to their own content, not to some hard-coded browser company location, such as in other browsers."
  • Even assuming that SBC does infact have a firm hold on this idea (read: an air-tight patent ownership) it's highly unlikely that it'll even make a difference. It'll be thrown out (and/or) ignored. Just look at the case where BT said they own(ed) the patent to hyperlinks.

    What's next? Is Verizon going to claim they own the patent to "<img src>" ?
  • I use iframes on my website to avoid learning PHP.. does that count too? or is it exempt because it doesn't stay static while navigating.

    The funny part is, my website makes 0 dollars, would that mean I'd have to pay anyway? or would I be below the threshold?

    If I get a bill.. All you motherfuckers are gonna pay. You are the ones who are the ball lickers! We're gonna fuck your mothers while you stand there and cry like whiney little bitches..

  • The Patent (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fulldecent ( 598482 )
    Here is the original abstract of the patent [uspto.gov]:
    A structured document browser includes a constant user interface for displaying and viewing sections of a document that is [sic] organized according to a pre-defined structure. The structured document browser displays documents that have been marked with embedded codes that specify the structure of the document. The tags are mapped to correspond to a set of icons. When the icon is selected while browsing a document, the browser will display the section of the structure corresponding to the icon selected, while preserving the constant user interface.
    Here is a re-interpretation of the same information:
    A [web browser] [works]. The [web browser] displays [HTML documents]. The [HTML] [uses IMG tags nested in A tags]. When [clicked], [the web browser] will [follow the link] [according to the TARGET property of the A tag].
    May 17, 1996
    • Doesn't the original abstract of the patent sound as though it might be describing the Adobe Acrobat PDF reader? Any chance of prior art there?
  • The html frames you!

    But seriously. Whether or not SBC owns the patent, it's a LUDICROUS patent to begin with! It's the equivelant of trying to patent the invention of paper (which the Egyptians and Chinese have prior art on).

    So SBC can suck me and suck me hard. If I recieve a bill I'm just gonna shred it.
  • Thats just one more reason to not use frames in HTML...
    • That was my first thought too.. curse you, now I'll get modded down as redundant!!

      Someone please find me ONE page on the web where frames are actually used for something helpful. Because whenever I see them used they're either fuxoring up the page width or wasting half the available reading area with unscrollable menus and/or ads. Or both.

      I don't normally agree with stupid patent abuse, but this one is almost a good thing!

      • Someone please find me ONE page on the web where frames are actually used for something helpful...

        OK, I'll take the bait ;-) Frames can be used to implement a nice hierarchical view of a site, and the common problems can be avoided. It requires either a huge amount of work to keep it all consistent, or an automated tool. For both a description and example of the technique check out The Site Design: About Frames [killerbytes.com] on my web site.

        And notice that the navigation frame changes for every "page" (frameset), therefore is not static, therefore is not covered by the SBC patent. In fact, it is clearly a more sophisticated concept and by the pathetic terms of evaluation in place at the PTO probably qualifies for its own patent! Hmmm...

  • Isn't there some restriction on what you can patent, in form of its use?

    I know you can't patent an 'obvious' feature/advancement - what is obvious is decided by experts hired by the patent office (which is why new sciences always get odd patents through)

    A patent can be revoked if 'prior art' exists to prove the guy can't legally be the patent holder - BTW, can patents be moved this way - i.e. A patents his 'one-click' feature, B proves he did it first, so the patent moves from A to B? Or does it simply disappear?

    But isn't there some clause which says you can't patent a feature after everyone used it publicly for years?
    I can just imagine some huge-bearded 3' guy with a club, wearing only a loincloth saying: "Hey, guys, I invented the wheel some 10,000 years ago, so, uh, pay up"
    • I got the idea wrong - they filed the patent 1996 - prior art may or may not exist, Im not sure - I think my dad wrote prior art several years before 1996 - I'll check it out.

      Anyway, it seems we're fscked ;)
      Everyone has been using formats which seem open and free and public, but are actually patented and the patenter could, at any time, pop up and demand his money (see the threats, etc. over MP3 creation programs)

      But still, it seems to me that the patent idea is ridicilous. They're not patenting a product they make, or a technique to make products, but an idea in product making - after all, anyone can claim they're not using 'their HTML' - you can't sue a person for writing 'what seems to be HTML' - only for using a product against its use license. I could be wrong, of course.

      I think the Information Age caught the patent office a bit off-guard...
      If these things don't sort out, we might find ourselves working in a completely patent/license world, where you have to pay to use every 'idea' someone made once.

  • Absurd (Score:2)

    by jefu ( 53450 )
    I'd think this patent is absurd given the dates involved. It shouldn't be hard to find websites that infringe this absurdity that amount to prior art. (Or should it? Do reliable archives exist prior to 1996?)

    In any case, this might be a good case for everyone to send their (potentially) infringing links to the patent holder and refuse to pay. Maybe it will take something like that before the USPTO actually wakes up and realizes these things are absurd.

    Even without prior art, I'd suspect a good case can be made that this is "obvious" which is also supposed to be unpatentable.

  • The real irony here is that British Telecom recently lost its patent claim that they had invented the hyperlink. Who were they suing? Prodigy...and who owns Prodigy? Why, SBC Communications.

    Guess SBC was inspired?
  • I'm surprised that people have been so shallow in their search for prior art on this patent. There was a great deal of...
    * Medio Magazine, the first "broad market" CDROM based magazine which published between 1993 and 1995 had, from day one a "frame" based interface that anticipated that which was later implemented in HTML.
    * There were many "bookreader" or "document" reader products that worked on old VT100's that would display a "frame" of contents, or menu, at the top of the screen and then only repaint a portion of the screen when pages changed. I can't remember the names after all these years, but I think one was called "folio" and another was "flipbook", there was one built at Digital in the Methods and Tools group. Does anyone remember what it was called?
    * Microsoft had a multimedia authoring package from about 1992 on that I think was called "Blackhawk"... It allowed you to set up "frames" on the page just like HTML later did. At Medio, we used an "extended" version of HTML which got converted into the codes that the MS tool needed... So, that's even prior use with an HTML variant.
    * The numerous forms packages, FMS, TDMS, DECforms, etc. were all used to build "frame-based" interfaces on VT100 initially and later Bitmapped terminals.
    * There used to be an emacs package called "info" that had some modes that would allow you to show a pane of links at the bottom of a page.
    etc. etc.
    I could go on, but this is really ridiculous.
    The prior art cited above can be used to blow out the independent claims of the patent and should be used to force a formal reexamination by the patent office.
    If you want to bust this patent, find some old farts who can remember things that happened before 1996 when 90% of the folk in this industry today were still doing something else. Frames aren't new.
    Clearly the author of the SBC patent didn't know much history since the patent claims that SGML was "one of the first" markup languages and was developed by ISO... It wasn't. Even newbies to this industry should remember that the first application of UNIX was to do markup based text processing in the Bell Labs Patent office. runnoff, troff, nroff, etc. all came before SGML and Goldfarb, of IBM, had been touting predecessors to SGML for years before it got anywhere near ISO (which doesn't "develop" standards...).
    This patent is garbage, as are so many others that have been issued lately. It is really too bad that this junk ends up giving the entire system of patenting a bad name. The base idea of patents is a very good one, but it has been abused to the point where it seems like we'll never be able to get from the system the value that it was intended to provide.

    bob wyman

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close