Software Installation/Update via Internet Patented 519
RKBA writes "My wife just handed me an article from the Wednesday, October 22, 2003 issue of the Wall Street Journal about a tiny Austin, TX company called Bluecurrent that has been awarded patent No. 6,636,857 covering the Internet installation of any software or settings on new computers. The patent was granted by the USPTO on October 21, 2003. It will be interesting to see if it can be enforced. I think it's time for someone to file a patent on Earth, Fire, and Water. ;-)"
It's official (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's official (Score:5, Funny)
well, we're gonna have a hard time
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Funny)
Very nice pun, in a story about patents
It Gets Worse (Score:5, Informative)
"Mr. Thomas said Bluecurrent intends to seek royalties of $10 to $25 for each time a new computer has software or other settings updated over the Web."
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhm...how so? Neither Windows Update nor apt-get do anything remotely (no pun intended) like what is covered by this patent.
Go read the claims of the patent.
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:3, Informative)
Provisional patent Dec 2001. Filed Dec 2002. Granted Oct 2003. I don't think there should be a problem finding prior art.
Maybe not... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not so sure this is a problem. The patent mentions that data has to be encrypted when transmitted (presumably with SSL) and that the data has to be stored in a relational database.
MS primarily keeps data in config files (.inf, etc.). The old Windows update just used data out of these files with the ActiveSetup control to update components. I actually haven't checked into the "new" one (the one that was released with XP).
Of course, if they broaden the scope of "relational database" to start covering filesystems and loosely-related sectioned files like INF files, then, yes, I suppose they're screwed...
...except prior art exists. Then again, when has that stopped the USPTO from being utter morons with a bad business model?
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:2, Informative)
And if apt-get is in trouble, then so is emerge. So that would screw Debian AND Gentoo users.
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Apt has been around for a long time. since the mid 90's
this is mot going to be enforceable. I doubt the Patent officer looked farther than his windows machine.
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
I phrased it badly- I meant "there is no prior art" as far as the USPTO is concerned when they grant the patent. They do a search through their database, and if they don't find anything, they grant the patent and pocket the fees.
Why waste time doing a Google search? It might find something, and then they don't get the fee. If there's unpatented prior art out there, let the courts sort it out!
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:5, Informative)
Nonononono. Wrong bug report. The problem is elsewhere. The USPTO definition of prior art is the same as the one in the US patent code (35 USC sec. 102) [cornell.edu], and this includes _much_ more than prior patents and non-patent literature. (E.g., prior inventions of other inventors in the USA are also part of the prior art even if not published, but unpublished material is quite hard to bring into the process and hard to prove.) Novelty searches in the patent office could be more thorough than they are, and sometimes are careless. But the examiners do sometimes look at non-patent publications.
The USPTO issues a patent if it doesn't find relevant prior art. This means that a careless USPTO search is likely to result in the issue of a patent with claims that should not be patentable, or at least are too broad.
Currently, there are access-to-justice issues (the law does not yet provide enough, or effective, opportunities for third parties to challenge issued patents). That means correcting mistakes like this is usually an uphill struggle, slow, and likely very expensive. So in the meantime, the beneficiary of the USPTO mistake, the owner of the patent, may be able to cash in on it.
The Federal Trade Commission recently made proposals [ftc.gov] aimed at correcting these defects of the system. The FTC proposals might or might not go far enough, but either way, between now and possibly getting them adopted, there would be another hard slow struggle ahead for their advocates
But the bug in the system is not the one diagnosed by the parent poster (inadequate definition of prior art)! It lies in either or both of two other places (a) the skill/thoroughness of patent examination before patent issue and (b) lack of proper opportunities to correct mistakes after patent issue.
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:3, Insightful)
So they will have wasted their money, and it serves them right.
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:3, Funny)
You mean like 12 year olds getting sued for using Windows update?
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:2, Interesting)
this will definitely screw up their balance sheets, but
it will be the only reason to rejoice at this
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It Gets Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this patent is only for transferring one's files/settings from one computer to a new computer. Before you all go moaning and groaning, RTFP. This thing is written very specifically. So specifically, I don't see how it could possibly affect any other service currently in place that I am aware of. Of course, IANAL, but it seems to me that this was intended to be so specific to only cover precicely and exactly the service Bluecurrent offers, or whoever wrote it is moronic enough to think that the "World Wide Web" is all there is to the Internet. Either way, I don't think this will ever affect my life again.
So i can patent snail-mail ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wind? (Score:5, Funny)
Wind is already patented?
Re:Wind? (Score:2, Funny)
KFG
Re:Wind? (Score:2)
Re:Trademarked already (Score:3, Funny)
Modern science is now much more advanced, and clearly states that there are four phases of matter: solid, gasseous, plasma, and liquid.
Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)
has anyone patented this: (Score:2, Funny)
RTFA! (Score:5, Informative)
NO! This is *not* a patent "covering the Internet installation of any software or settings on new computers".
This is a patent covering backing up preferences on a remote server so that someone can safely upgrade their OS or move computers.
To recap:
I wish /.ers would check their facts before screaming how the sky is going to fall on our heads every time the USPTO grants a patent.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
That said, who can blame anyone for assuming the worst-case here?
Isn't this like Apple's .Mac? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't this like Apple's .Mac? (Score:2)
5. The method of claim 3 or claim 4 wherein said method of accessing said World Wide Web incorporates secure, encrypted transmission.
If your transmission is unencrypted, it falls outside the scope of this patent.
Also, they keep referring to the "World Wide Web". I assume this means accessing a local server via port 514 (shell) instead of 80 (http) would fall outside the scope, too, but am not sure.
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
The USPTO is getting more and more fucked up each and every day.
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename
Just because something doesn't fit your view of the world, doesn't mean that it should be hidden. If you don't agree with it, you should confront it, not try to hide it.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are so desperate to defend the indefensible, perhaps you should take it to a forum that wants to talk about that subject.
There are any number of "facts" about this conflict, not the least of which is that the number of Palestinian dead exceeds the number of Israeli dead by a factor of three.
I am quite sure if I were to put that in my sig that I would be modded off-topic or trol
Re:RTFA! (Score:2, Interesting)
This is yet another bullshit patent that claims uniqueness (in this case to the rather bland "backup data" process) by adding "World Wide Web". I repeat: Any patent t
Parent correct -- read the abstract! (Score:5, Informative)
Now, in my opinion, the actual patent is also ridiculous and way too broad in scope, but not nearly as bad as the picture painted by /.
Well what diffrence does it make? (Score:2)
I don't think this company is going to to take the time to file the other 2^32-1 patents they are going to need to cover the rest of the 'net.
Learn something before you start lecturing others. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anybody who reads an abstract and draws conclusions about the scope of the document deserves everything they get. Someone with a clue [gpo.gov] would know that the abstract, by regulation "will not be used for interpreting the scope of the claims."
Please, don't give us this
Re:Parent correct -- read the abstract! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
Right, but, as the special case of using a web browser.
If bookmark files count as preferences, then there's plenty of prior art. People have been uploading bookmarks to servers using INPUT TYPE=FILE since before '98.
'till '13? (Score:2)
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. Reading the patent, one sees that they describe a web-based process where one can access a web page, back up files comprising a user's environment, go to a new workstation, and restore said files.
What they describe is essentially a web-based version of Microsoft's FAST (File And Settings Transfer) Wizard [microsoft.com] from Windows XP.
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
While it does sound a bit like Windows Roaming Profiles, it sounds a lot more like USMT - User Settings Migration Tool - a utility included with Windows XP for migrating user settings from one machine to another.
The bigger question is: does "using the world wide web" mean using TCP ports 80 & 443, or does it mean the more broad using TCP/IP connectivity between computers/servers.
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
It is still wrong (Score:2)
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
1. We're all going to die
2. Put remains in box, it'll all be OK
3. Profit!
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
It's a catch-22--if they did that, then they wouldn't be
No! RTFC! (Score:3, Informative)
The claim is the thing, and must be read carefully in view of the specification and prosecution history.
Re:RTFA! (Score:3, Informative)
> court.
Patents mean quite a lot until tested in court. They are presumed valid until proven otherwise.
>
> the patent struck down.
Right. I'm sure it wouldn't cost more than a few hundred thousand dollars and take more than a few years.
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe these ridiculous patent applications weaken the patent system, but real companies are having real problems with this today. Maybe a lot of people in the /. crowd work in the software industry, and are therefore concerned about their jobs.
Sigh (Score:3, Informative)
(And please don't tell me this applies "originally" to the World Wide Web... if that matters I'm applying for a patent to do the exact same thing "for IP block 90.x.x.x".)
I know, I'm Karma Whoring... (Score:3, Informative)
I hope someone counter-sues them into the dust!
GO USA! (Score:2, Insightful)
Then people think about the USA = stupid stereotype and wonder where it comes from. It's not just GWB.
Breathing (Score:2)
Rus
Re:Breathing (Score:2)
Read the patent. Windows Update is outside the art described here.
What should be counted as prior art are services like X-Drive and
Hehe (Score:2)
I'm guessing their current plans are equally as amazing!
Re:Hehe (Score:5, Funny)
RTFA, this patent is quite specific! (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like this is a bit more specific than the original post would lead one to believe. It does not cover installing software remotely. This patent is more about saving a user's settings remotely, then transferring them to a new computer. Looks like it is a way to facilitate the use of a remote IT staff. It does not look like it covers downloading software install packs, nor does it seem to cover software updates. But hey, IANAL :)
Re:RTFA, this patent is quite specific! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RTFA, this patent is quite specific! (Score:2)
Re:RTFA, this patent is quite specific! (Score:2)
Re:RTFA, this patent is quite specific! (Score:2)
Details... (Score:2)
After that the installer run's locally, i.e. the installer executable is running on the consumer's PC not on the webserver.
So unless the patent cover's downloading over internet, which in turn would mean patenting the HTTP or FTP or any kind of File transfering protocol, I don't see how can they apply this patent.
This should be in the European press. (Score:3, Insightful)
You need for the Great Washed, the computer-uninformed persons of europe, to become aware that if software patents go forward in Europe, this is the sort of thing you have to look forward to.
They need to understand that software patents will not help the innovators. They will simply mean that by some kind of strange lottery system, the first person to successfully get through a bs application describing something that is already an obvious, common practice will suddenly "own" that practice.
They need to understand that software patents help nobody who actually makes a profit, and will only help vultures like this Austin company who have never made a product anyone noticed; at the one end, it causes the small companies to do a strange dance around concepts that they thought of but turned out to already be patented; at the other end, it causes the large companies to obsessively spend time, money, and effort tossing all their obvious ideas they can think of at the patent system in hopes that enough of them will be granted they can generate a strong "patent shield".
-- Super Ugly Ultraman
Mozilla (Score:2)
Or windowsupdate?
Or plugins?
Re:Mozilla (Score:2, Interesting)
For that matter what about large Active Directory structures that span large areas, even crossing state or country borders, and that utilize SMS for any type of maintenance? Obviously, within a local network it's a no brainer, but I have SysAdmin friends that do manage large networks that are spread all over the world.
And no, I didn't RTFA.
Just one example of prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
Obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
With your powers combined, I am Captain Patent!!
Re:Obvious? (Score:2)
NOT about software updates (Score:5, Informative)
The scary part of this patent isn't the user settings stuff, it's this claim:
This seems to cover cases where every computer on a network (say in a corporate IT environment) uploads a bit of information about itself to a server, and then someone prepares a report based on that information. But there must be prior art on this one. And it would be pretty easy to get around this claim anyway -- just poll the machines for information rather than having them upload it to a central server.Re:NOT about software updates (Score:2)
Apache itself is prior art (Score:3, Informative)
My own web site is prior art to claim 25 of this patent. Here's how access to a web site running on Apache HTTP Server [pineight.com] goes:
25. A method for asset management using the World Wide Web, comprising: accessing the World Wide Web through a series of computer-related hardware devices connected to a network;
People visit the web site, looking for a recently released open-source NES game [pineight.com].
transferring information regarding each computer-related hardware device in said series of computer-related hardware dev
Earth - Air - Fire - Water (Score:2)
http://www.paganlibrary.com/rituals_spells/invoca
North = Earth
East = Air
South = Fire
West = Water
Only covers updates via the "World Wide Web" (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the only reason this patent was issued was due to this specific nature of the claims; however, in the short-run this pattent still might cause some big headaches if the lawyers get really over eager (which always seems to happen...)
It doesn't seem that broad (Score:5, Insightful)
There aren't any claims about installing software or software updates. Perhaps a case could be made that an online software installation/update system that copies a computer's configuration from the computer to a remote system via the Internet could be infringing, but as far as I can tell software installers/updaters simply send an installer program that examines what's on the computer, then requests the appropriate files from the remote server. And it seems to me that that's how it should be done, anyway.
Nonetheless, this still does not seem like anything particularly novel. The idea of maintaining a database of settings is certainly nothing new. Making that database accessible over the Internet doesn't seem like a particularly significant improvement. In fact, what is (critically) missing is automation. The claims that are made in the patent specifically call for the intervention of a technician in the process, to interpret the settings reported from the remote database. Regardless of the novelty of the idea, it doesn't seem to be as broadly applicable as the title of the
And it seems that if anybody wants to look at an existing system that might infringe, Red Hat's RHN system may be just the thing. But I think that it's been around since well before 2002.
-h-
Re:It doesn't seem that broad (Score:2)
Like Windows Profiles? That would seem to an obvious prior art claim. You might be able to claim XTerm settings are transferable from client to client and stored on a central server. This just to freakin obvious.
I am going to file the "Get a Clue" Patent, and then license back to the USPTO for fortune because it then need it badly.
OMFG what about the apt system (Score:2, Insightful)
There must be some prior art before Dec 2002 ! (Score:2, Informative)
Prior Art: PC Sync (Score:2)
Senate (Score:2)
Yes, I said writing and letters. I am going to mail dead trees to them.
OT: Whats up with these new slashdot ads ? (Score:2)
But who else is noticing the new ads on the front page ?
http://opencurve.org/~sunny/images/slashdot.png [opencurve.org]
Sunny Dubey
Its unfortunate that... (Score:2)
Prior Art? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
More Prior Art (Score:2)
AOL is going to love this (Score:2)
LDAP? (Score:2)
Presumambly LDAP is included as part of the 'world wide web' (including http, ftp, ...) as distinct from the 'http web', so they cannot even claim the dubious novelty of just sustituting LDAP with HTTP?
Prior art! (Score:2)
These patent stories are getting old... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. The patent system is screwed up. But do we really need to have a story every day about every new piece of evidence that the patent system is screwed up?
When this company starts actually enforcing its patent, then maybe it'll justify a story. Probably not though. I'd wait until they actually win a case. Which will be never.
yes, you need to know. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't care about internet software updating and maintaning that has a database, you don't care about this. That would mean you don't have a system like apt, up2date, ports or any other software version atomation on any of your computers. If that's the case, Slashdot does not have much to offer you and you should point your licensed copy of IE someplace else. If you care about free software, stupid software patents bother you because that's how propriatory software makers intend to kill their competition.
does this not describe HTTP ???? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is good! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong, as usual. RTFP (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. Since very few slashdot readers can be bothered to actually read the patent before complaining about it, it covers this process:
This little game of outright lying about the content of a patent and then joining in a chorus of ignorant bleating about the awful, awful patent system accomplishes nothing. I hope that no legislator or decision-maker ever reads this drivel, as he'll be convinced that patent reform is championed only by cretins.
This ./ post is wholly inaccurate... (Score:3, Informative)
I wasted 5 minutes on this because I deal with this kind of tech at my company... geez..
Re:Apt? (Score:2, Interesting)
What about the BSD ports tree? How old is it? Would it be possible to consider that prior art?
Re:RTFA! (Score:2)
Re:Is this covered? (Score:3, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new psychotic undermedicated patent-holding Texan overlords.
[ducks]