BT To Enforce Patent On Hyperlinking?

Bazzargh writes: "This article at nothingventured (annoying but free registration required) says that British Telecom have hired Scipher to enforce (in the US) an old patent -- predating the WWW -- that they hold on the concept of hyperlinking! Apparently they'll be seeking compensation from all ISPs. I've had a look on the IBM Patents Database but I can't see the patent referred to."

Comments

Re:OK Cool, close but no cigar....

[Carnage4Life]

This specifically deals with documents stored on servers, sent through a PSTN to a terminal. It would seem to me, that if you asked six random people (i.e. the jury in the civil lawsuit) to equate a web server and a browser to a server and a client, they wouldn't do it.

Why wouldn't they? A webserver is a server, a browser is a way to display stuff on the client.

I just read the patent three times and cannot believe it. It's a real patent filed for in 1980 long before Tim-Berners-Lee proposed the world wide web. To put it simply British Telecom came up with the idea of hyperlinks first, simply not in the context of HTML, but this does not change the fact that they did. To all those claiming this is a sign that patent reform is forthcoming are probably right but for the wrong reasons, in 1980 this was probably an original idea.

What is really patented here anyway?

[kfg]

Ok, I've read the patent. What it describes is a dialup dumb terminal retreiveing packet information from central information database on a computer.

The patent specifies a dumb terminal, and that the conection be done over a phone line. It claims rights to the dumb terminal, the CRT or "other obviously similar device* ( my paraphrase), the packet system of sending the information and the interface to make it easy to use for non computer users.

This isn't a patent for hyperlinks, it's a patent for WebTV!

Seriously, that's all it describes.

The CRT is obviosly prior art. So they arn't going to try to go for that. The packet system was already in use on the internet in 1989 and has its genesis in Hedy Lamar's spread spectrum broadcasting patent, which expired ages ago, so they can't go over that. Bell had the phone lines tied up a century ago, so they can't go after that. Dumb terminals have been around nearly as long as computers, so they can't go after THAT.

So, they're left with the interface and try to stretch that into hyperlinks, which noone really understands anyway, so maybe they'll get away with it?

Come on guys. You're pushing it here. Go after WebTV.

As for me, I'm using a computer, not a dumb terminal, and I'm accessing information over digital cable. Not even covered by your patent which specifically states the use of phone lines. Not even in your vague references to "other obviously similar" catchall.

Go away. You're bothering us.

Here is a link to the Patent

[jeff_bond]

Here is a link to the patent on the IBM patent database.

Jeff

Re:Here is a link to the Patent

[daiw]

The Patent reads

For example, the second part of the block could include information for providing the complete address of an another block which would be selected by the operation of a selected key of the keyboard.

So, their patent only covers hyperlink using a keyboard to activative the link. I've read their "claims" section, even in it they didn't mention about other means of activation (e.g. mouse click). AFAIK, patent laws only a protects the exact implementation.

Does it meant that only the lynx users are affected?:)

--- No sig.

But "A HREF=" precedes link text...

[lavorgeous]

The patent says that (paraphrased) the link text is the first part, the address is the second part.

In HTML, the address (HREF attribute) comes first, then the link text.

May seem silly, but Motorola patented cell-phones with flip-down microphones. So what did the competition do? They created cell-phones with flip-up earpieces.

I know I'm nit-picking, but maybe it'll work. Any thoughts?

Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly!

[FreeUser]

To all those claiming this is a sign that patent reform is forthcoming are probably right but for the wrong reasons, in 1980 this was probably an original idea/

Looking at the patent, I see that it was granted in 1989, 9 years (!!) after it was filed.

What an obscenety.

What the hell was the patent office doing sitting on this for nine year! If it had been granted in 1980, the patent would have expired in 1997 and this wouldn't even be an issue. Patents have long since outlived their purpose -- the market encourages innovation without government enforced monopolies. I don't know if this particular abuse will lead to reform or not, but even if it does, reforming the patenting system will simply mean tweaking a broken and destructive system such that the net negative effects become tolerable to a majority. It will still be a millstone around our collective neck, perhaps with a few pounds chipped off to appease us but still weighing us all down.

Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly!

[sleepycatsouth]

This used to be the case, but in order to bring U.S. patent law in line with international standards (agreed to during the Uruguay round of GATT), Public Law No. 103-465 (December 8, 1994, the "Uruguay Round Agreements Act") changed the term of all U.S. patents from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years from the date of filing.

What this means is that the stalling "trick" you mention is no longer possible in the U.S.; holding up the issuance of a patent is no longer of any benefit to the patent holder.

The BT patent, though, was issued before the law changed, and thus is valid for 17 years from when it was issued in 1989.

See the USPTO website for details.

Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly!

[Masem]

I recently learned that the person or company that issues a patent can 'indefinitely' extend the finalization of the patent process (that is, the move of the patent from being applied for to being accepted), by 'forgetting' to apply for some form to the USPTO, thus having a fine of $500 to be paid to the USPTO, and thus holding the patent in limbo for another year. $500/yr is NOTHING compared to some of the benefits that come from just holding the patent.

Here's a login.

[pen]

l:slashdotuser p:freelogin

--

Damnit

[cwhicks]

Damnit! Reading this just cost me $.03! I hope I can make it back to my own server in less than $1.75.

Bring Back Buzby!

[jd]

An infuriating talking yellow cartoon bird at least didn't give with one claw and rip away with the other.

This has GOT to be the most blatant scam BT has pulled in a long time. It's certainly comparable to their 35 GBP connect charges + time charges + packet charches + phone charges, for their early rival to the Internet, the International Packet Switch Stream.

The idea may have been patented, but "linking" has existed to the earliest days of man. A bit before BT's time! The idea of placing a reference, rather than a complete description, appears in early forms of writing, early naming systems (ever wondered how people got the surname of Cook, Baker, Smith, etc?), early artwork (cave paintings are essentially URLs to the animals being hunted), myths and legends (cross-references are everywhere in that stuff), and even appears in early architecture.

So, unless the patent can be shown to have been granted 10,000 years ago, in which case I'd check it's expiry date, it has been in common usage prior to the patent being granted, which is grounds for dismissal of the patent.

Re:This again?!

[nstrug]

Dear States,

If you're so keen on avoiding patent payments to foreign-owned compaies, why do you award them patents?

Prior-Art-a-Palooza!

[SoupIsGood Food]

Any Mac afficionado worth her single-button mouse knows the name Vannevar Bush and his concept of hypermedia, which detailed most of what's covered in that patent, only this was well before the second world war. Ted Nelson has worked for most of the second half of the twentieth century bringing Bush's vision into fruition using computer science. The technology he developed is called "hypertext", and has been implemented in everything from the old Xerox Star to the Apple's Hypercard. Hypercard has been around since '87, and does pretty much what the BT patent describes.

Prior art, bay-bee! Can't wait to see the AOL (doing GUI-centric internetworking before internetworking was cool) lawyers put the smack-down on these idiots.

SoupIsGood Food

OK Cool, close but no cigar....

[DebtAngel]

IANAL, but you would know that two sentences in.

This specifically deals with documents stored on servers, sent through a PSTN to a terminal. It would seem to me, that if you asked six random people (i.e. the jury in the civil lawsuit) to equate a web server and a browser to a server and a client, they wouldn't do it. Especially if one of them has a cable modem.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Personally, I think Microsoft should buy Nothern Telecom - that way they can say they invented the hyperlink, just like they invented the Symbolic Link!

Then hopefully they will go on to prove that black is white and Steve Ballmer (I don't feel like picking on Bill Gates any more - it's too easy) will get killed at the next zebra crossing.

Read the patent -- it won't fly...

[Wee]

From the IBM Patents DB:

This invention relates to an information handling system in which information is derived from a computer at a remote point and transmitted via the public telephone network to terminal apparatus. The invention also includes the terminal apparatus itself.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but the patent mentions phone lines, central servers, and "terminal apparatus" quite a bit. Which doesn't sound like the WWW at all. Sounds a lot more like gopher to me.

Anyway, they would have to claim that the "phone lines" are the Net's backbone, the "central server" is anyone with Apache running, and the "terminal apparatus" is the browser.

Here's some more that makes it sound distincntly unWWW-like:

It has been proposed to provide for domestic and/or business consumers a simplified form of computer terminal by means of which information stored in a computer can be obtained from it via the public telephone network. The form of the terminal is different from a conventional computer terminal, both in the simplicity of its operation and in the form of its display.
...
the screen in the form of a sequence of progressively more detailed indices by means of which an operator is enabled to key-in to a key pad provided for the terminal numbers identifying a particular page of information which he requires. Since the system is to be operated by unskilled operators it is important that the key required be of self-evident nature and inevitably this will restrict the nature of facilities which the computer can provide.

Difficulties arise in such a system, however, because of the need to ensure the simplicity of operation of the terminal, bearing in mind the likelihood that the significance of particular keying inputs may need to be varied in dependence on the data being displayed.

It is an object of the present invention to alleviate the above difficulty.

Now tell me that sounds like the concept of hyperlinking. I don't think so. The only thing they even came close to getting right was the part about "the system is to be operated by unskilled operators". There's no arguing with that.

I really hope we can get some US patent reform. Does anyone know of a decent movement to let our US representatives know how silly this has all become? I mean, everyone smells money in the "digital goldrush", and so they do inane thingsd like attempt patent enforcements like this. But everyone forgets that the only people to make a lasting living off the California Goldrush 1800's were the guys selling food and equipment to the miners (ever wonder where Levi's Jeans came from?). Everyone would be much better off letting the WWW do what it wants while concentrating on becoming the one that facillitates those goals.

This whole thing blows.

-B