Interwoven Patents Code Versioning 517
webengr writes "It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents. CVS has been around for a long time, but now Interwoven has been awarded a new patent covering version control of web assets. The claims include, 'The use of a hierarchical file system and an object repository for representing and hosting content and its structure,' and 'The combined concepts of file history, versioning, comparison, and merging as it relates to content, provide an archive of all individual changes as well as collections of changes so they can be versioned and audited.'"
Patents out of control (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patents out of control (Score:5, Funny)
This will never work (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait...
my revision to your patent (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, my patent will read:
"a means of using a patent to create ownership of an obvious method of using existing devices or methods so as to stifle innovation and help lawyers buy more cars" because sometimes lawyers want to buy classic cars too.
Let's see whose patent application makes it through the system first...if mine does, you owe me if you exercise your process!
Re:my revision to your patent (Score:3, Funny)
It's all a plot by the terrorists! They've taken the USPTO! Run for the hills! AAAAAAAHHHH!
IPJusticie: the EFF of the patent wars (Score:3, Informative)
Lenient? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ugh. (Score:2, Informative)
start a campaign (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't claim to have all the answers, but maybe it's time to sit down, discuss the possibilities, and take action. All average citizens have to be shown is the patent for the "cat exercise system using a laser pointer" to convince them that reform is needed. The next step is a letter campaign to congress.
Perhaps some college kid with plenty of free time on his or her hands would be willing to start something? Maybe the EFF can start something?
I dunno - anyone got any useful ideas?
The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that in the time between the dumb patent being granted, and the courts sorting it out, severe damage can be done to people's freedom to innovate.
Recall that over the past 100 years (and beyond), significant advances in technology have almost always been despite IP laws, not because of them*
*Some examples:
a real technological lynchpin (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the worlds fastest growing operating systems, Linux, explicitly rejects the concept of intellectual property in its license
Unfortunately, no it doesn't. Indeed, Linux (and GNU) explicitly relies on IP to make the GPL binding. This is the problem, even the answer to IP, Free Software, requires IP in order to live because of the existence of IP in the first place. It is a classic Catch 22 situation
Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much more of a philosophical thing. If everything was "free" then we wouldn't need the GPL.
That is incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is no "copyright", then why would you need a "copyleft"?
GPL is supposed to spit in the face of copyright law. The beauty of it is that it does this by depending upon it.
If there were no copyright, then closed source would still be inviable: because anyone could copy it around. The difference would be that the BSD, LGPL, and GPL licenses would be effectively compatible, and I could finally see goddam SVG enabled in mozilla by default, etc.
The reason the GPL does not need copyright, is that eliminating copyright would eliminate the incentive to violate the GPL. Thats a catch 22.
Re:That is incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL would be unnecessary if there were no copyright law.
That's quite incorrect. If there were no copyright law, how ecould the GPL prevent me from distributing binaries that include the Linux source code?If there were no copyright, then closed source would still be inviable: because anyone could copy it around.
I don't know what you mean by "inviable", but if there were no copyright, then it is clear that the software market would behave very differently but one part would remain unchanged: software companies would have no obligation to make their source code available ever. Plus, the GPL could not force them, no matter how much GPLed software the vendor incorporated. Linux distributions could be all-binary (but the binaries would be freely redistributable).
To be fair you last item isn't true (Score:5, Informative)
If the GPL rejected the concept of intellectual property it would called "public domain."
The GPL is very much *not* the same as the public domain, since it forces contractual obligations. It can only do this because the code is *someone's intellectual property.* You use the code under license. Not right.
This is why we have BSD/GPL/Aritistic license religious wars.
The power of the GPL ( whether you think it's good or bad is up to you. Please note I'm only bringing up facts here, not making value judgements) is that with no concept of intellectual property you would have *no* rights to obtain source code. The GPL uses intellectual property law to force the code "free."
KFG
Re:To be fair you last item isn't true (Score:3, Insightful)
The right to try to obtain it is a different right. You do not have a right to break into your doctor's office to obtain your records, even if there is no legal restriction to your possessing them. This is the situation the GPL is designed to prevent. It gives you a *right* to possession, rather than merely removing legal restrictions to possession.
KFG
Re:Ugh. (Score:2)
1) Leniency in granting patents can only benefit lawyers who prosecute/defend patent infringment cases. There's no money to be made in "checking prior art".
2) Over 90% of the serving members of the 3 branches of government were lawyers. Lawyers and old-money own the government(now more than ever). Do you think they will regulate themselves?
It is one big money-making feedback cycle. We may hate MS for monopolizing the IT industry. But what about those who monopolize our own "for the people, by the people" US government? There's no mystery here, just a severe crisis.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really the task assigned to them. They zip through their own patent db, and (I would assume) check referenced patents, but they don't have anywhere near the funding to be an authoritative source on whether a patent is valid or not. They're basically just a registry...and if someone tries to go after you with a bogus patent, it's *your* responsibility to challenge it. The PTO wasn't given authority to mark patents as valid or not.
Think of what it would entail (and keep in mind that patents are deliberately worded to be as broad as possible and yet sound as original as possible). You'd have to hire leading PhDs in every field to comb through all the data coming in.
Can the USPO be sued? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can the USPO be sued? IANAL but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wrong incentive (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent is incorrect.
It's a non-refundable fee -- this fee is actually meant to compensate for the USPTO guys doing a prior art search.
-Tomaj
Tons of prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't the VMS filesystem have versioning in it?
Didn't the original ISO-9660 spec also talk about that as well?
Re:Tons of prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess they figure it's up to the courts to invalidate patents based on prior art??
Re:Tons of prior art (Score:2)
responsible for supplying all of the documentation to back up her claim.
The PTO just issues a number. Their award of a patent has no more
meaning than the International Star Registry. They don't take sides
when you have to defend your patent in court, either.
Re:Tons of prior art (Score:2)
ObTopic: Preaching to the converted here, but we all know that configuration management and version control have been around for decades, and that applying them to web content does not advance the state of the art at all.
I'm waiting to hear back from the USPTO regarding my "method of storing information via the presence or absence of electrical potential".
CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:2, Interesting)
branches, workareas, staging areas, and editions
I don't know of any explicit support in CVS for "workareas" and "staging areas". It's perfectly legit to patent an improvement to a previous invention.
You may have reacted too soon.
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Take a look at CVS Version Control for Web Site Projects [durak.org]. Workarea is nothing more than a local checkout, staging area is the remote checkout on the web server itself...
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever used Interwoven's TeamSite?
"branches" are just directories, "workareas" is like just one person's slice of the CVS, "staging areas" are just a stand-alone 'workarea' that you copy your workarea files into when you want to push, and "editions" are self-explanatory. This shit is not revolutionary. It's good product, but none of these things are "innovations".
This is another example of a poorly awarded patent.
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:2, Insightful)
workareas [x] (cvs co)
staging areas [x] (cvs co)
editions [x] (cvs tag)
You have a point here.... wait... no you don't.
Scott
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:2)
"If a proposed invention is considered "obvious" to an ordinary skilled person in the field of the invention, then the invention is considered "anticipated" and the patent application is denied."
Seems like they aren't seeking independent skilled persons in the field.
Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're 100% wrong. Where did you get your law degree?
Here are some patent facts [gatech.edu]
Re:Others do Re:CVS dosn't do all this. (Score:2)
But our /. editor sited CVS as an ovbious example of prior art, and that's where I had to disagree.
Anyone remember VMS? (Score:4, Interesting)
I quit, I'm going to go farm some llamas or something. All this patent crap is starting to wear me down.
article in case of server meltdown (Score:4, Informative)
Interwoven's U.S. patent (#6505212)
A system for asset management comprised of multiple workareas, each configured to maintain a virtual copy of content as it would appear when published;
A staging area to which content is submitted from multiple work areas and where any conflicts between content can be resolved;
Branches and sub-branches (for different projects or initiatives) that contain individual workareas, staging areas, and editions which allows for massively parallel development on a single platform;
The use of a hierarchical file system and an object repository for representing and hosting content and its structure;
Virtualization of all content regardless of location as well as Web and application servers - this allows contributors to make changes "in context" of the entire site;
The combined concepts of file history, versioning, comparison, and merging as it relates to content, provide an archive of all individual changes as well as collections of changes so they can be versioned and audited.
Re:article in case of server meltdown (Score:5, Informative)
The point to remember, gentle reader, is to put zero stock in the company-paraphrased/sweeping language on their website. To quote (or at least paraphrase) a famous patent law scholar and judge, "The name of the game is the claim." IAAL, a patent one at that.
1. A system for file management for files containing website content comprising:
a work area configured to allow a user to create and maintain web content to be displayed on a website, the work area being a file system having read and write operations to enable a user to edit virtual representations of files having web content that is located in the work area; and
a staging area adapted to receive and integrate the web content submitted from the work area when the web content of the work area does not conflict with other web content submitted to the staging area and configured to retain versions of web content submitted from the work area.
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of work areas configured to allow different users to create and maintain web content to be displayed on a website, wherein the staging area is adapted to receive web content changes of files modified in the work areas and is configured to check for conflicts in web content received from two or more work areas.
3. In a system having a plurality of file systems containing web content, for use in a system for developing virtual copies of web content to be displayed on a website, a method for maintaining the history and ancestry of the web content of an item in each of the file systems in which the item is included, the method comprising:
associating a history object with a first item containing information related to the revision history of the item web content;
associating information related to the ancestry of the item web content; and
maintaining an entry in the history object for each file system in which the item is included that identifies the web content associated with the first item in that file system so that conflicts with other items and their associated web content may be ascertained.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
associating new web content in one of the plurality of file systems with the item;
modifying an entry in the history object corresponding to that file system to indicate that the item is associated with the new web content; and
adding a reference to the previous web content in the new web content.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:
determining whether a second item is in conflict with the first item by determining whether web content in the second item are previous web content of the first item.
6. A method for developing a website by resolving potential conflicts in web content submitted to a web content staging area by a work area where virtual copies of web content are developed, comprising:
modifying data associated with a selected object in a work area that is related to web content to be published on a website;
determining whether other web content is in conflict with web content developed by the work area;
resolving the any conflicts among the different web content; and
submitting web Content from the work area to the staging area where web content is staged before being published on a website.
7. A system for developing a website comprising:
a work area defined within a memory location and configured to enable a user to edit virtual copies of web content by editing files containing web content within the work area and to submit web content to be staged for publication on a website; and
a staging area defined within a memory location and configured to receive web content submitted by a work area, to determine whether conflicts exist between web content submitted by any one work area and other content to be staged in the staging area, and to integrate web content submitted from a work area when the web content of the work area does not conflict with other content submitted to the staging area and to maintain versions of web content sent from a work area.
8. A system according to claim 7, wherein the work area may be characterized as a file system stored within memory and having read and write operations to enable a user to edit files containing web content in the work area; and
wherein the staging area may be characterized as a file system for staging web content developed in a plurality of work areas and stored within memory and capable of receiving web content from a work area, the staging area including a versioning mechanism configured to maintain versions of web content received from a work area and an integration mechanism configured to integrate web content received from a plurality of work areas when the web content does not have conflicts.
9. A method for modifying website content, wherein the method is configured for use in a web content modification system having at least one. work area for modifying virtual copies of web content and a staging area for integrating web content submitted by one or more work areas, the method comprising:
modifying virtual copies of web content of a selected object in a work area;
analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other web content submitted to the sting area; and
in response to said other web content not being in conflict with the web content of the work area, submitting the web content modified in the work area to the staging area; and
in response to said other web content being in conflict with the web content submitted by the work area, not submitting the web content to the staging area.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to said other web content submitted to the staging area being in conflict with the web content of the work area, rejecting the web content from being submitted to the staging area.
11. The method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to the other web content submitted to the staging area being in conflict with the web content submitted to the staging area by the work area, refraining from submitting the web content of the working area to the staging area for integration with other web content.
12. The method of claim 9, wherein analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other web content submitted to the staging area further includes analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area by a work area, wherein if the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with the other web content, no conflict exists, and wherein if the web content of the work area does not share a common ancestry with the other web content, a conflict exists.
13. The method of claim wherein analyzing the content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other content submitted to the staging area further includes:
analyzing the content of the work area to determine whether it is the same content as and whether the content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other content submitted to the staging area;
if the web content of the work area is not the same as the other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict exists and the web content from the work area may not be submitted to the staging area;
if the web content of the work area is the same as the other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict does not exist and the web content from the work area may be submitted to the staging area;
if web the content of the work area does not share a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict exists and the web content from the work area may not be submitted to the staging area; and
if the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict does not exist and the web content from the work area may be submitted to the staging area.
Re:article in case of server meltdown (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing large-scale web development poses special problems that are not covered by conventional SCM systems.
For example, it's simple to preview a single web page you are working on in isolation--you just point your browser at the URL for the page. But what if you are replacing an existing part of a complex web application, and are working as a member of a team? Yes, an SCM system will help you keep track of the files and integrate the source changes. What it will NOT do is give you an environment in which you can use a web browser to debug your piece of the project. You have to set up a private development environment manually, and that's a real pain--you have to make sure all the URLs pointing to the various pieces are correct for your test environment in each file. You have to make sure that when you press the "Submit" button, the right CGI program is called (the one you are working on, or the "real" functional one, depending on what you are trying to do), and that the correct page comes up when a link is triggered. You have to make sure all the external references point to files you want to use for testing--i.e., that the correct Java Script files are being included, and so on ad infinitum. And you have to make sure that none of this interferes with the current application that is open to real users, or with your fellow developers. Like I said, a PAIN.
After unit development is done, you want to integrate everybody's work and do beta testing. Again, you can build a conventional application tree using a conventional SCM for this, but the SCM won't do it for interactive testing in a web environment. Once again, you have to change all the references so they point to the right places, and make sure everything works together. More PAIN. My head hurts. OUCH.
Lastly, you have to take the whole ball of wax and drop it in place of the existing application for real use. Again, an SCM will give you the finished code--but it won't fix the URLs in the code and create the web hierarchy in the right place for you. This must be done manually, and you have a good chance of screwing up and breaking the application. Maybe if I drill a hole right HERE in my forehead it will let the evil spirits out and I will stop hurting.
And when you've finally installed the new code and find out that something that worked perfectly well in Beta doesn't work in production because it interacts with something else on the same server that you didn't even know was there all along, you are screwed. If Interwoven's software will help me back out the changes and retrieve the previous working version before half a million people notice, I would be very grateful to them at this point. Really, I can do without my first-born.
Re:#1 is a pretty broad claim (Score:3, Insightful)
CVS was first released as a set of shell script wrappers for RCS in 1986. It is descended from RCS, which has been around since at leaast the mid 80s. The design of RCS was based loosely on that of SCCS, which was written in about 1972. Man, that patent must have been hanging around for a long time.
Re:article in case of server meltdown (Score:5, Funny)
2.) ???
3.) Karma
Not Relevant (Score:2)
I'd pay for this. (Score:3, Interesting)
We have a small prepublishing company, and it really would be ideal to let the authors request their changes right on the web, and then submit them. Then have a system that would send an alarm to my people, who would get on the job immediately, update the info, and then send an email ['Your work is ready'] to the authors.
But that isn't all I want. I want
(1) Secure password encoded, 128-bit at least
(2) Dating and timing of requests, backup of all previous versions
(3) Dating and timing of our new documents
(4) Access to Mac systems
And then what I'd really like:
(5) Online web-native/Postscript-native document manager that can handle templates [like equations], read postscript *FROM OTHER WORD PROCESSORS INCLUDING MS WORD*, reformat it into template-format work, do all the things that Quark XPress can do, allow mass updates with individual checks [so words and formulas must be stored in tree format].
I suppose this could be done with Acrobat files initially, including their form submission.
But the fact is, we don't have it done. Now, I'm not about to spend money to develop something that isn't mine, especially when I don't have a lot of money. But if they got a really good system going, there's an excellent chance that I would buy in, so long as the license was permanent. [I won't be held hostage, but I *will* pay money for the system].
So I really hope they do develop a halfway decent working model.
But if they don't develop it themselves, I'm not going to have a problem doing an artwork search and then developing what I wanted anyhow. Or if they have a hostage-data situation.
I won't pay money to put a noose around my neck voluntarily.
Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that there's no technical difference between version control on an HTML file and version control on a 'C' file seems to be the sort of thing that's lost on the patent office.
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:2)
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:2)
On the flip side, can I get a patent for "webserving revision control assets" ?
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? (Score:3, Informative)
Ha. This will have no effect on me! (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, I knew my slackerly habits would pay off eventually!
Send us your Linux Sysadmin [librenix.com] articles
Lost work at the patent office (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lost work at the patent office (Score:2)
And in a related story... (Score:5, Funny)
And in our next story, Microsoft is now widely perceived to be the playground bully of computer software.
This is the point where ... (Score:2)
CVS as prior art! (Score:2)
RCS now that is where the real programmers live.
CVS... PAH!
Re:CVS as prior art! (Score:2)
Maybe they aren't going to use it for evil? (Score:2)
Or maybe I just have too much faith in society.
um, actually... (Score:2)
I'm not sure how broadly the courts would read "content" but on first glance, it seems all the coders out there should be ok.
Just a layman's opinion, but patents are ususally pretty specific in their scope, and this one mentions "Web" and "Content" not "code" or "source"
lenient ? are you kidding ? (Score:5, Insightful)
New Rules (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Submit the patent idea to the patent office- as a "pending patent".
2. Patent office does a search (web or otherwise) on prior art, billing the individual/corporation that submits the patent at a standard rate. If no prior art is found, the patent office does not bill. The company is able to challenge any claims to prior art. Each challenge to a claim at prior art costs a certain fee.
3. Patent is awarded to the individual/corporation.
Basically the idea behind this is that companies will be charged for their stupidity. It will discourage patents on ideas that are already "out there" (patented or not). At the same time, it will *not* discourage individuals from ligitimate patents as they will be reimbursed for the "prior art search fee".
In addition, the Patent Office still gets its money and they begin providing real value.
Until something like this happens, we will all have to groan as the patent office continues to do stupid stuff and lawyers get richer.
Re:New Rules (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that these web searches and other techniques aren't really very fruitful. Patents are *complicated*.
I should know. I've written two, and read many.
C//
Re:New Rules (Score:5, Funny)
Or, conversely
I don't think that I've seen patents go through /. and not read examples of prior art in the commentary.
Re:New Rules (Score:3, Funny)
You should seriously patent this idea before someone steals it.
Maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Another bloody defense strategy (Score:2)
Yeah a lot of the stuff they have in their patent is, well, obvious or common practice or whatever they call the stuff you aren't allowed to patent. But they have a completed product and filed. It will be interesting to see what they do about all the other CMS out there. I would love it if they were dumb enough to take on Vignette or any of the other commercial CMS's out there.
jeez (Score:5, Funny)
I just patented the process of "using organic photoreceptors to relay electronic signals via sheathed sodium channels to a core carbon based processing unit to elicit saturation of iron-rich fluids in nether regions of humanoid body, and further organic electrical manipulation of calcium mechanics to stimulate fluid-engorged region." I'm willing to settle for $20,000 per license violation.
Clearcase is prior art -it was their prior company (Score:3, Informative)
Clearcase has all of this stuff including staging and work-areas.
They are basically patenting "Clearcase as applied to the web".
Re:Clearcase is prior art -it was their prior comp (Score:3, Insightful)
Applying to only *web* objects is a slightly grey area too.
No it's not, I've been using CVS for web pages since about 5 minutes after my first web page, what's that, 94? When did these guys file the patent. Plus if I thought of it, and didn't think anything of it, it certainly fails the "non-obvious" test. Then again is this really news? I'd be surprised to see the headline "patent granted on a real invention in software!!!!" I mean has a really clever algorithm been invented since quicksort that wasn't just ported from mathmatics or physics? (I'm counting theoretical cs and graph theory as mathmatics, since, um it's not "practical" and so hardly ever patented.)
Total troll... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, come to think of it, modding the article itself could yield some interesting info...
Re:Total troll... (Score:5, Interesting)
I read all 13 claims of the patent (go to the Patent and trademark office [uspto.gov] and do a "Quick Search" for patent #6505212, and saw an exact description of all the features CVS and Clear Case users have enjoyed for years. Six years ago I built a system using PVCS to manage source code and a 7 platform build system, and three years ago I adapted it to CVS for management of a website managed by 45 writers and programmers. It included a staging area, individual or team work areas, and the ability to search versions by content.
Following the 13 claims are the details of the patent; there is nothing there that cannot be done with CVS and some perl or python scripts. The "virtualization module" is similar to perl I wrote to run the site. The user typed in the URL with the CVS label and they would get the site in their browser as it appeared when labeled. Clear Case did the same thing with a file system view.
Nothing personal against Interwoven; if their product works it's worth the money, but it does not deserve a patent.
Suing the patent office (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough of these cases and the patent office may begin to reforem itself in when and where it grants a patent.
- Serge Wroclawski
Re:Suing the patent office (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah that's the ticket...
- Serge
Re:Suing the patent office (Score:3, Insightful)
Always remember that from the bureaucrat's point of view it is all funny-money, and increasing his budget, even if only to allow him to cover punitive expenses, only increases his clout in Washington.
-Peter
Re:Suing the patent office (Score:3, Interesting)
We pay for bad patents when we pay unreasonable prices for goods.
We pay for it in progress going slower than it should due to restrictions.
We pay for it in that we have to often replicate our efforts to avoid patent issues (PNG and OGG Vorbis are good examples).
The cost to the average American may be hidden but it's still there.
Making the entity liable for this type of situation will certainly not solve all the problems with the patent office. What it will do is get press atttention and make a few heads roll. Once that happens, reforming the organization will become easier.
- Serge Wroclawski
Too bad we can't take a page from the RIAA (Score:2)
Too bad we don't have a bill letting us electronically attack people caught abusing IP rights.
Link to patent (Score:5, Informative)
This Move is Ironically Anti-Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the fallacy of the first part of that self-serving statement is that history demonstrates the contrary: Innovation, especially in the area of software innovation, has been most successful in an atmosphere of sharing, openness, mutual support and peer-recognition. This is well-documented by Manuel Castells, Lawrence Lessig and others. Patents impede the advance of innovation by preventing potential competitors from innovating. With patent protection, innovation is limited to those who can afford the overhead of traaversing the patent minefield (as Stallman puts it). Those who choose to share innovation with the restriction that those who benefit also share their follow-on innovations - even when innovations pertain to other than software disciplines, accelerate the innovation process, and thereby support the development of a sustainably expanding economic infrastructure.
I do agree with the company's second statement: Patents are "most effective and powerful way to ensure that a company protects" its stuff. It just does very little for the rest of society, and for the economy in general.
Does anyone like Interwoven TeamSite? (Score:2)
Here's how to fix the patent process (Score:3, Funny)
Next on Fox: "Leave it to Beaver, thePatent Clerk" (Score:5, Funny)
Wally: "Well, you remember what the memo said, if it's got the the word 'web' in it then you should accept it, otherwise you're gonna get it when the commisioner gets back."
Beaver: "Not only does it have 'web' it's got 'web assets' and 'version control', what the heck is that?"
Wally: "No idea, but it sounds good. Hey just stamp the thing with the 'ACCEPTED' stamp and let the lawyers sort it out; we're gonna be late for beer at The Prior Art tavern."
Beaver: "Yeah, wouldn't want them lawyers to be outta work, now would we. Well, that's ten I've accepted before lunch, let's get to The Prior Art, pronto!"
Interwoven vs Microsoft? (Score:3, Funny)
Are users of this version control software [microsoft.com] next?
Only way to sort this out... (Score:4, Funny)
"A system to allow full disclosure of innovative techniques or technologies, while permitting the applicant exclusive license to said technologies for a certain period."
They're bound to grant it, and once they do, you sue them into oblivion for infringing it.
Open Source Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Archive (Score:3, Interesting)
Palm Vs Xerox (Score:3, Interesting)
Xerox won the day as far as Infringement is concerned, however the appeal court "agreed with Palm's argument that the lower court failed to find out if Xerox's patented technology was indeed unique." and ordered that portion back to the trial court.
If Xerox looses the validity of the Graffiti patent it will set a much needed precedent and pave the way for future legal strategies in dissputes.
Attack the Patent rather than defend non Infringement.
Why is everyone overreacting? (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, read the actual patent [uspto.gov], not the press release.
The patent does indeed include version control elements, but further defines exactly what their product does. See section 2, for example:
"The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of work areas configured to allow different users to create and maintain web content to be displayed on a website, wherein the staging area is adapted to receive web content changes of files modified in the work areas and is configured to check for conflicts in web content received from two or more work areas. "
There are very many products out there that do version control. But, there are very few that provide robust Content Management, which includes version control, but also includes a system to quickly and directly retrieve content for a web site/application and other such ammenities described in the patent. You would never do such a thing with CVS, unless you're insane.
What this does endanger is projects like Zope with it's CMS framework, which does alot of what is described in this patent. Versioning, browsable "file system" (html browsable, not unix mountable
So, having said all this, I don't see why everyone is freaking out. The patent obviously addresses a complex Content Management system, not a simple version control system. I'm sure a simple-minded judge would be able to tell the difference once given the facts.
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? (Score:3, Interesting)
No there isn't. HTML == code == text. Articles are text, just like C++ code is text. Graphics are binaries, which CVS can also handle.
Managing all that with CVS on an Enterprise scale (Business Foo with 250 employees) would be hell.
It would be the same hell that managing it with TeamSite is.
rsync has absolutely no notion of what defines a site. rsync doesn't guarantee that all assets published are archived and accounted for. rsync doesn't allow for content rollback.
Right. You check out what you want from CVS, and then rsync it to the target servers. It can all be wrapped up in a tiny Perl or shell script. You can easilly check out older versions, alternate branches, tagged releases, etc. from CVS and rsync those instead.
CVS has no semblance of workflow. CVS allows for rather large collaborations, but it's up to the developers (with or without sourceforge) to structure those collaborations.
That's true. TeamSite doesn't either until you program it to.
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? (Score:4, Insightful)
The historically interesting aspect of licenses such as the GPL lies in the possibility that some people would forego the monetary profits for the greater good of both the inventor and the community. If you want to make a buck, fine. If you want to share with and among others, fine too.
Unfortunately, the USPTO is becoming less able to function as the arbiter of the rules, and this is what causes the system to degrade. In fairness to those poor schmucks, it is not realistic to expect young, underpaid, undertrained, inexperienced patent examiners (or even not so old or inexperienced) to be able to consistently and without errors or omissions spot all issues relating to obviousness and prior art. The volume of patent submissions also thwarts the system, at least as it pertains to high tech patents.
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. CVS does not constitute prior art against this patent.
2. Other products, like Zope, do more or less the same thing as what the patent claims.
3. Therefore, there is no prior art.
???
dont get panties in uproar (Score:5, Informative)
This is what they're pantenting. TeamSite was actually built on top of CVS when the project started, but the standard content manageement scheme is not what's being patented here..
My prior art: Versioned website dating to 1996 (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got a solution (Score:4, Funny)
In defense of the USPO (Score:3, Funny)
IMO, as long as the patent is properly addressed, has sufficient postage, and doesn't set off the anthrax detectors, the USPO should move it straight through the system just like the rest of the mail.
Now the USPTO, on the other hand...
Re:Prior Art? (Score:2, Informative)
You're talking about an organization that is so disorganized it granted a patent on the common-knowledge method of swinging on a swing.
Don't count on them getting a clue anytime in the forseeable future.
Re:PTO Link (Score:3, Informative)
here is a clickable link [uspto.gov] to the patent at the USPTO.