SBC Getting Aggressive With Frames Patent 444
mpthompson writes "Aspects of the SBC patent shakedown were covered previously on SlashDot, but the following article has more details including the royalty fee schedules on the two patents that SBC is seeking to enforce against web sites that utilize frames in their design. In short, SBC has asserted that it is the exclusive owner of a technology for "structured document" browsing - the use of frames to provide hyperlinks to documents displayed by a browser. Apparently the strategy by SBC is to set precedent against small web sites that will presumably capitulate before going after the big guys. Based on the fee schedule, SBC seems to be pretty serious about this whole patent thing and may not go away so easily."
Browsers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Browsers (Score:5, Funny)
If they go after you, plead innocense - say "I've been framed!".
Re:Browsers (Score:5, Insightful)
b) automatically displaying a plurality of selectors in the user interface of the browser and not in the document, the plurality of selectors automatically configured to correspond to respective sections of the document regardless of what section of the document is being displayed;
Sounds more like bookmarks or menus (displaying in the user interface of the browser and not the document) than frames. Methinks their patent is too broad to stand up. After all, software has been using bookmarks in the UI for decades. Think of outline editors, for example, or windowing interfaces.
Re:Browsers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Browsers (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Browsers (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. I've been involved with several patent applications. The process basically consists of paying some attorneys $200/hr to read your design documents, reformat them in a monospaced courier font with line numbers added, edit your diagrams to replace all text labels with numbers, insert one of these index numbers after every noun in the document, and, most importantly, insert the phrase "a plurality of" in front of every plural noun.
Re:Browsers (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it sounds like this patent description is describing the outline display used in Adobe Acrobat -- you have navigation on the left side that doesn't change (much) as you work your way through the document in the right-hand window.
Now there would be a fight.
Re:Browsers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Browsers (Score:5, Funny)
Mp3 files don't use the MP3 codec, Mp3 players use the MP3 codec. The
Re:Browsers (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds 'informative' util you think about it. The author is intentionally implementing the feature in question. He knows very well what he's doing to the browser because he's intending for that to happen. You don't just use frame code and cross your fingers that it'll do what you have in mind.
This patent is silly, but this reasoning isn't helping.
Re:Browsers (Score:3, Insightful)
"you should charge everyone who manufactures handguns, because they are intended to kill people, and that is murder"?
Just because something is designed to do something (ie: render in a frame, kill something) doesn't mean everyone who uses it will do it that way. What if the world all used text browers (not links), you could have frames on your site but they'd never get rendered or used, would that exclude y
Re:Browsers (Score:5, Funny)
(ducks)
Re:Browsers (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's say the patent covers a browser that implements frames. You are a web site designer that uses frames. Why should you be held liable? Analogy: If Sears stole a wrench invention and I used bought the infringing wrench and used it to change the spark plugs in my car, why should I be held liable?
Of course, an inventor of the wrench would not go after me, they would go after Sears, the deep pocket. It seems that SBC wants to go afte
Wow (Score:2)
It brings about the arguement: Where do HTML elements come from. Is a frame a component of
a) A website
b) A browser
c) The HTML standard
In reality, I think that (b) is the best answer- [since not all browsers do frames - , and (c) is a close second.
I mean, really, if you look at it. The website simply throws out a bunch of codewords to a client. The codewords are written in HTML format.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Here are links to the actual patents in question (Score:5, Informative)
Claim 1 of the first patent claims, "a browser for viewing documents having embedded codes . . ." The other claims also seem to be specific to browsers, not documents (a web site designer creates documents, not browsers).
At first glance, it does appear that SBC should be going after Netscape and Internet Explorer. Of course, Netscape is owned by AOL/Time Warner and IE is owned by Microsoft.
Buy Out (Score:2)
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole point of the wc3 existance is to prevent this and encourage innovation and a level playing field on the web.
Sbc claims sounds borderline fraudulant.
Its like the equilivant of me pointing at your car, claiming ownership and then demanding you pay me to use it or i will sue. You can not claim something unless you developed it or bought it. No exceptions!
Patents are designed to protect investments of bussinesses who do R&D as well as encourage arts and sciences of individuals. Since no R&D happened at SBC they should of not been granted a patent. If there is no law on this then we need to talk to our representatives on this. Because someone can claim anything they like and if they have big pockets then they legally (steal) it.
SBC also is the assh*le who is corrupting our state governments for deregulation and screwing our tax dollars. The other baby bells are mostly silent. They are being paid for by the government and our tax dollars to install fiber under our streets and they will not turn it on unless the market is deregulated and all competition is wiped out. They are the Microsoft and the RIAA of the telecommunication industry.
They are using our own tax dollars to screw us over and monopolize communication.
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
To everyone on Slashdot, remember: you have a choice in cellular providers, long distance services, and ISPs. You may not have a choice in land-line phones, but you can make them beg for every penny they get from you. Do not use SBC long distance. Do not use SBC DSL. Do not use CellularOne in areas where it is run in conjunction with SBC. Do not use Cingular Wireless.
SBC is truly an evil company, far more so than even Microsoft. They're a baby bell who longs for the days when they had a complete monopoly over telephone services across the country, and as a result, they have repeatedly abused their limited monopoly power over the citizens of California (and probably other states) and repeatedly tried to gain even more power through legislation that would keep them from having to lease shared access to their lines to other companies (for DSL service, etc.). Now in yet another act of petulance, SBC is suing companies for using web standards rather than suing the bodies that made those standards and the companies that implement them.
Worse yet, their patent is at best loosely tied to the concept of frames, and any reasonable person would laugh at them for this. However, because many of these companies are smaller companies that can't afford to defend themselves, SBC is able to use these fraudulent legal strongarm tactics to extort money from them.
My friends and colleagues, it's time to draw a line in the sand, to say we will go this far and no further. Everyone who is being sued MUST fight this. It is your civic duty; your national honor is at stake. You must organize and work together to form a united front in the legal defense of every case, and make certain every case goes to trial or is dropped outright. Do not settle. Do not pay one penny in patent royalties.
While you fight---and win---the cases against SBC, you should also file individual countersuits for harassment against them in your LOCAL court system to force them to send their lawyers to YOU. Your goal should be to literally drag SBC into legal fee Hell.
The only way to deal with a company that attempts to make fraudulent use of patents is to make them pay for their abuse of our legal system, and if necessary to end their attempts at extortion, to literally sue them into oblivion. And yes, I will contribute to a legal defense fund if you set one up, so long as it is with the clear intent to counter sue the living crap out of SBC.
The usual IANAL caveats apply, as though it were not obvious.
so use tables. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:so use tables. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes -- and you'll find that MY royalty fee schedule is MUCH more reasonable than SBCs.
Agreed. (Score:2)
Frames are also one of those things that has been ruined by idiots using a poor implementation. So many people use bad frames that, for example, render with a scroll bar or something else annoying.
And nobody uses them these days -- I see a site using frames and think, "Six yea
or use CSS (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:so use tables. (Score:2)
Re:so use tables. (Score:3, Flamebait)
CSS works even better, as long as you use a browser with a decent CSS implementation. (A browser that doesn't grok CSS [browser.org] can still do an acceptable job with the site if the underlying HTML is clean enough...that's why separating content from layout is a Good Thing.)
OT- About your sig; and bad spelling (Score:3, Interesting)
I like your sig link. It made me think, especially the part about reversing the number of Muslims and Jews. I do not think that it would be an exact opposite, but I do think that the prevalence of democratic vs. dictatorships would reduce the level of violence considerably. Of course these assholes (the dictators/kings/etc) do not want to give up their power. I just can not figure
Netscape (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Netscape (Score:2)
Re:Netscape (Score:5, Informative)
-Todd
Re:Netscape (Score:2)
But I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Re:Netscape (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a link to the press release for Netscape 2.0: http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease82.h
-Todd
netscape versions & features (Score:3, Interesting)
The "throbber" you're thinking of was in Netscape 1.0 and maybe 1.1. It was replaced with the modern (up thru version 4.8) animation at either version 1.1N or 1.1, I don't recall the exact version.
I used version 1.1N, 1.12, and 1.2b for a long time on Solaris, IRIX, and Mac OS.
Re:Netscape (Score:2)
> the earliest, Netscape seems to be prior art.
Err, IIRC Netscape 2.0 came out in the summer of 1995. And as I was working at Stream at the time, answering calls about Netscape's box edition, it's likely that my memory is correct.
In any case, googling comp.lang.javascript ought to furnish clear evidence when Netscape first implemented frames in their browser.
Geoff
Re:Netscape (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, alpha versions of Navigator 2.0 were supporting frames as early as September of 1995 - and I had a number of frames-enabled sites running by the time it released.
Dare I say it? (Score:5, Funny)
What's next... ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What's next... ? (Score:2, Informative)
At least quote the source [theonion.com] for your stolen joke.
Re:What's next... ? (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, Microsoft patents the numbers 0 & 1, rendering all computer code their sole property..
Yep! They alread did patent ones and zeros [theonion.com]
Since SBC has relatively deep pockets, ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
Current web admins use CSS and positioning.
Previous web admins (well, me, and I think slashdot and sourceforge and such) use tables.
Frames are (or at least should be) extinct.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
Simplicity counts for something, you know.
Does anybody use frames any more? (Score:3, Interesting)
HTML has, but doesn't need, three completely different mechanisms for dividing a page into nested rectangles. This might be a good excuse to dump frames.
Never let the assholes win (Score:4, Insightful)
Never let the assholes win. If browsers and web authors dropped frames "because of this patent," then they'll use the same patent to go after tables and explicit positioning and it will be a lot harder to defend against the claims.
I don't know the wording of the SBC patent, but I can guarantee it doesn't say anything at all about the <FRAME> tag. It refers to some unspecified mechanism for formatting text, combining it from different places, etc., and any decent lawyer can stretch it cover pretty much anything you can name.
The only way to stop this crap is to make it hurt when someone (corporation or greedy individual) makes excessive claims.
Re:Does anybody use frames any more? (Score:3)
Actually, frames are more useful today than ever: In today's world where web pages are more like application interfaces than information displays, frames are a great way to avoid reloading things, because they encapsulate the frame content as a separate URL. DOM/CSS/JavaScript/XSLT and the like will make frames more, not less common. Check some of the more davanced uses of these technologies, and you'll find them wrapped
Why don't the sue AOL Time Warner (Score:3, Insightful)
SBC should sue AOL Time Warner as the current owners of Netscape, there is no way that anyone else should be liable for using a technology that was released to them.
Stupid patents.
Just frames? looks like more.... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
My only question is this: what separates the "user interface" from the "document" portions of the browser?
Re:Just frames? looks like more.... (Score:3, Interesting)
GO SBC! (Score:4, Funny)
usually (Score:3, Interesting)
Chicken or the Egg? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Chicken or the Egg? (Score:2)
I mean really, small companies should not even have to bother going to court over something trivial like this! They shou
then again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:then again... (Score:5, Informative)
The letter suggests that any website which has static, linked information (top banners, menus, bottom banners) which are displayed while other sections of the page are displayed as non-static (the area where products appear on most websites) infringes upon the patents they hold.
Doesn't that pretty much cover ALL websites?
a-HAH! (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't about frames (Score:4, Informative)
This patent is evil.
Re:This isn't about frames (Score:2)
I think books do that too. Ever notice that the page number shows up in the same spot on each page (well facing pages usually mirror, but still)? And the navigational elements along the headers and footers, things like the the name of the book,
SBC...the real story (Score:5, Funny)
Eclipse uses frames (Score:2)
Hopefully, this will cause the eclipse folks to re-think this piece of "architecture".
This is, of course, discounting the point that others have raised that browsers use frames. Web servers just serve up code that is not rendered in any particular format until a browser hits it.
Cringely has already refuted the SBC patent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cringely has already refuted the SBC patent (Score:3, Insightful)
The game SBC is playing creates a pretty pernicious circle that works to the benefit of those with deep pockets. The best we can hope for is that
Re:Cringely has already refuted the SBC patent (Score:3, Insightful)
museumtour.com cannot set a legal precedent- only a judge can do that. No matter how many people caved and paid off SBC before going to court, if a judge finds that the patent is invalid, then it is invalid. Whether or not museumtour.com capitulates has no bearing on the legality of the patent.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
~Philly
The choice (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Give money to SBC
2) Get sued
3) Stop using frames
Guess which one's simpler (hint, 3)? I don't think they'll make a dime out of it because unlike gif (at least at some point) or hyperlinks, it's not an essential technology for the web.
Hint Hint (Score:3, Informative)
Re: your sig (Score:3, Insightful)
For the unitiated
float x = 1/2;
x will be 0.0, because 1 and 2 are both integers, therefore 1/2 is an integer division and its results is the integer 0, which is then converted into a float.
If you really wanted a float division you should write
float x = 1.0/2;
Blessing in Disguise? (Score:2)
Prior art (Score:2, Informative)
Sounds like more Rambus gouging goodness.
Hamster
Not just frames (Score:5, Interesting)
"The letter suggests that any website which has static, linked information (top banners, menus, bottom banners) which are displayed while other sections of the page are displayed as non-static (the area where products appear on most websites) infringes upon the patents they hold."
And indeed, Museum Tour is being sued and does not use frames. Thus nearly any site that uses templates is subject to litigation.
1996? (Score:2)
Both patents cover a "structured document browser" having an invention date at least as early as May 1996...
If this patent really covers frames - as some already has suggested it don't - wasn't the FRAME-tag a part of the HTML-spec before 1996? I made my first website in the fall of 1995, and I'm fairly certain I recall using frames on that one... Anyone has some solid info here?
The Anti-Patent-Mafia club (Score:2)
Helping defeat these patents would be a public service of real and immediate benefit to us all.
Either that or start kidnapping some USPTO offi
Re:The Anti-Patent-Mafia club (Score:2)
Here's an Idea. *YOU* start this NPO. If you have paypal donations, I will become a member, and donate $75.
I would, but I'm in Canada, and our patent law isn't insane, not to mention that it's not my idea.
do people read the linked articles? (Score:5, Informative)
Unsane. (Score:2)
I don't see finding prior art on this one to be that great of a problem. The patent was applied for in May of 96. Netscape 2.0 went beta in October of 1995. Every introductory tutorial on frames used this application as the primary example.
It's NAVIGATION they patented, not FRAMES! (Score:4, Informative)
lots of prior art (Score:5, Informative)
The HTML Menu package version 4.7, announced on USENET in January 1995 [google.com] contained support for generating frame-based navigational elements.
HTML 3.0, published in 1995, may not have standardized frames, but it did standardize the LINK element, which also constitutes prior art for this patent.
Of course, this isn't even a question of prior art, it's a question of obviousness.
It's hard to believe... (Score:2, Informative)
SBC Communication's claim of ownership for a common Web site formatting tool is based on a pair of patents, U.S. Patent No.
Feedback just sent to SBC (Score:2)
This is a complaint.
How can SBC consider itself in the right in this matter?
Your actions may lose you a customer due to clear bad-faith actions by your legal department. Please cease this madness immediately!
http://www2.museumtour.com/sbc.html
PriorArt (Score:5, Informative)
In related news:
>> February 1996
>> Netscape Releases Netscape Navigator 2.0
>> Netscape Communications recently released Netscape Navigator 2.0, a major new version of its popular client software for the Internet. This official release version runs under Macintosh, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows NT, and X Window System operating environments.
The Netscape Navigator 2.0 which allows the use of frames is released 3 months before the SBC-s applications are filed. The filing for the patent happens even 3 years later.
What are they thinking???
The Parent isn't for "Frame" (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, to the person that said that the browser is the thing that uses frames, what a silly statement. Clearly you didn't read the patent either, and the comment should be modded down. Again, the patent is on using static content (such as a menu) which remains through a series of pages (more than 1) where by simulating what one would call a Frame. <frame> is just an easier way to do this, which is why it was created and used.
Blame SBC's Whitacre... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Blame SBC's Whitacre... (Score:3, Insightful)
I sure hope these assholes go down, nothing like a little accounting and securities fraud.
Prior Art (Score:2, Interesting)
SBC is really sticking their neck out, and is using their legal slush fund to try and wrangle something they shouldn't have in the fir
Letter from North Korea: (Score:2)
It's not new, and a SITE needs BROWSER for frames (Score:3, Funny)
If I look at a site with code for FRAMES with a browser that does not support them, I do not see the frames. It takes a combination of the various BROWSERS and the HTML CODE from the site to make this so-called infringing applicaiton show up.
Maybe they should sue Microsoft forenableing the infringement by having MSIE support frames.
Immoral Patent Mercenaries (Score:3, Funny)
God will roast their stomachs in hell...
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
The wrong idea (Score:3, Interesting)
With patents, here's where the hard part is: being able to communicate exactly how a particular patent is obvious or has already been invented. In SBC's case, I think they will have a hard time as the "framed" interface has been around for almost as long as the VT100 terminal.
At the end of the day, most patent actions I've seen fall into this pattern:
* Big Company A sues Little Company B
* Company A's stock jumps 1.0 points because they made news that might involve making money in the future.
* Company A spends a large ammount of money building their case.
* Company B spends relatively little money building theirs.
* Company B wins on summary judgement as the patent is quickly invalidated after the judge rules that the patent in question is either not novel or is not a new invention.
* Company B then threatens company a with a malicious prosecution suit unless they pick up the tab for their lawyer.
* Company A executives, now pissed at their lawyers pay the legal bill for Company B and go home to pray the analysts dont hose their stock in the morning and try to figure out how to hide their misguided suit from their bosses/shareholders.
Having a patent is easy. Having a valid patent that will stand up on it's own is more difficult. My guess is that this one will cost SBC's stock about 1.25 points when they lose.
Does this really mean frames? (Score:3, Interesting)
A representative claim of SBC's '574 patent, independent Claim 7, recites a method for navigating a document having multiple sections. The claimed method comprises the steps of:
(a) displaying a document with a browser comprising a user interface;
(b) automatically displaying a plurality of selectors in the user interface of the browser and not in the document, the plurality of selectors automatically configured to correspond to respective sections of the document regardless of what section of the document is being displayed;
(c) receiving a selection of one of the plurality of selectors; and
(d) displaying a section of the document that corresponds to the selector selected in (c).
SBC might THINK this means frames, but it sounds to me that there are codes in the document that change the user interface of the browser itself. For example, the page you've loaded changes the "back" and "forward" buttons, or adds new ones to the browser.
I'm sorry, but if you simply have a frame with navigation buttons, this is still a document, and not an inherent part of the browser.
The Table of Contents of a book is not a seperate document from the book, even though it is different in appearance. In fact, you can hold your finger there and then browse through the book, using the TOC as a reference. But, the TOC is still a part of the document and is not seperate from it.
What happens if you don't set up the navigation using "frames", but instead just duplicate the navigation section on each page? On a fast enough load, you couldn't tell the difference.
I really hope these people get squished!
I'm switching my local service to ATT (Score:3, Informative)
ATT may not be perfect either, but at least they're not trying to patent part of my life.
Easy Fix (Score:3, Funny)
I don't run my website anymore, but when I did I had framed navigation by default, and the option of not using frames. Just give the user two options: 1. pay royalties to these people [mailto] and continue with frames. or 2. no frames. :)
The Patent Office site violates this patent (Score:4, Interesting)
Unactionable (Score:3, Interesting)
The purpose of a patent is so that you can protect your invention from copycats, therefore protecting your revenue stream from YOUR OWN USE of the technology. If you do not even use the technology in your own patent, then your patent is even less enforceable because it shows that your motives behind the patent are to stifle innovation - which directly contradicts the entire purpose of the patent system.
For example - say SBC patents frames, but then they do not use that technology nor do they actively offer the technology for sale. They just somehow work their technology into the standard and then sit on it. They don't tell anybody they own patents on it, and since it's part of the standard, people are given the impression that there are no licenses required. After all, it's an adopted public standard. 10 Years later, they get slapped with a lawsuit for $10M for infringing a patent that they didn't know existed, for using an ancient technology that not only isn't widely used anymore, but is downright UGLY to look at, and they don't have a clue what the hell is going on until after their lawyer settles for $1.5M and a perpetual $100K/yr license to use the obsolete technology.
This is the kind of thing that the patent office needs to form an enforcement body for - to prevent these kinds of things from happening.
SBC Needs Money (Score:3, Interesting)
All in all, their stock price is down about 50% over the last 4 years and they are doing anything they can to scrape up a few dollars. Recently it dawned on them that they had a huge number of patents that they hadn't really looked at so....
Expect them to do this more an more and more. The word I hear from friends at SBC is they have formed and entire business unit dedicated to mining their patent portfolio. And, the person in charges is a hungry young executive trying to add to her reputation.
Of course, I *could* be completely full of
Stonewolf
Re:Yeah.. (Score:2)
yeah! (Score:2)
My ip has been static for 6 months, and a static ip through BelllSouth that I also control. I checked, but they have no whitelist or way to authenticate legitimate servers.
Re:yeah! (Score:2)
So that may be what's happening to you. "Dynamic" and "static" are, in the hands of the ISPs, just words after all.
You are soooooo fired. (Score:3, Funny)
SBC the company that even the devil couldn't love. Oh wait that's Verizon (BellSouth & GTE I think, god GTE sucked).