Slashdot Mirror
British Telecom, Hyperlinking And Mr. Englebart
tewl writes: "Saw this [article] on [New Scientist] --
'BT's hopes of enforcing its U.S. patent on Internet hyperlinking (New Scientist, 1 July, p 17) may be dashed by an old movie clip. The U.S.-based Internet Patent News Service is pointing patent lawyers to a website which says it hosts film of a prior demonstration of hyperlinking
prior demonstration of hyperlinking. BT is basing its claim on a 1976 patent (4873662) that through a legal quirk remains in force until 2006. The 90-minute film was shot by Stanford University in 1968 when Douglas Englebart showed 1000 people the first mouse -- using it to click on hyperlinks.'" What's not open-and-shut here?
More specifically Real Video Demonstration of Hyperlinking.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
You are probably thinking of the hypothetical "memex" device proposed in his article As We May Think that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in 1945. He did not demonstrate anything, he only described it.
Somehow I think Heinlein wouldn't have minded using one as a sexual novelty in a sleazy motel, however, given his later fiction.
No offense, though. He's the man.
-m
It's not. That may, however, be true to some extent for trademarks.
This technique usually works when it's a large company going against an individual or small company.
But sometimes David can win against Goliath.
Fight Spammers!
This first time the story came up, I actually looked up the BT patent. As it turns out, they did not patent the hyperlink as so many people have been flaming. The patent is about hyperlinks over the telephone network. As I recall, the initial news release said BT is only going after the ISP and not sites; this makes sense given their patent.
The BT patent may or may not stand up, and it may be Good or Evil, these are all up for discussion; but at least flame them for what they are doing.
It's true! Picture it, many years ago...
Ogg (looking at stick propped under huge boulder): "Hmf. Writing on stick say, 'Push here to view Cave Defense Strategy.'"
Mogg: "Ug. I push." (press)
*** RRRRRUUUUUMMMMBLEE ****
-TBHiX-
I'm glad to see them get ass fucked on this one. How dare they think they could get credit for good ol' fashioned USA technology.
Fuck you pasty faced bastards. And tell Blair fluoride isn't a bad thing.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Now all we need to show is proof that someone, somewhere, thought to directly access the ARPA network before 1976 via phone lines.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Yes, yes it does. And every day, the pots call the kettle black. Sheesh.
On top of that, it's the people submitting the stories to be posted that are making the mistakes, not the editors.
(Curiously enough, the ever-practical Heinlein had envisioned waterbeds being used for long-term hospital patients [to avoid bedsores] and as acceleration couches for space travel. He was apparently a bit put out to discover them being considered a sexual novelty for sleazy motels ....)
A few weeks ago here on /., there was a story showing three of the clips from this presentation. I ended up seaching a while before I found the whole thing, but I tell ya what, it was worth it.
I am not sure how much of all of the stuff in the videos were actually in use in '68, such as the database and the way you could jump from level to level, but I have a feeling that everything presented was just wowing the folks who were in the auditorium that day.
Looking back at the presentation, everything done there is still done today, with the exception of that weird ass 5 key keyboard Doug was using. Ya got email with message threads, relational databases, the mouse, multi media video, networking to a far away computer... I find something new each time I watch it.
But, whoever it was that decided NOT to make the computer go "bbeep! buzz! honk!" every time it started computing something - that is the person who's hand I want to shake! That would drive me nuts after a while - come to think of it, I think I would rather listen to that all day than the Win9x startup music.
Vote Nader
http:www.xanadu.com
and (in a different incarnation of sorts) was led by Roger Gregory:
http:www.udanax.org
and finally incorporated into AutoDESK in '88, at the urging of John Walker:
Statement for the Autodesk/Xanadu Press Conference
Unfortunately, AutoDESK (no longer under John's direct control) killed Xanadu in 92, of all times, not seeing any future in hypertext -- which is a shame, since IMHO Xanadu was and is much better than the mess which is the web.
Roger and Ted are certainly bemused by the BT thing... and would probably be more bemused if BT won :)
No, no, no. What we need is a patent on *0*-click shopping. I'm not sure what's the best way to implement it, though. We have two options, as I see it:
1. Mouse-Over Shopping - this new, revolutionary system is a wonderful aid to those too lazy to click. Just run your mouse over our product listing, and they will be billed, packaged, and shipped without your having to lift (or depress) a finger!
or
2. Predictive Shopping - Based on your previous purchases, our cutting-edge neural network will send you the items you want *before* you know you want them.
Which seems more promising?
If anyone would bother to read the patent, rather than just going "I know what a hyperlink is, so I understand all the issues involved here!", then you would see that this is not by any means an open and shut case; BT may actually be in the right.
You see, whatever Rob Malda thinks, BT are not claiming to have patented the idea of hyperlinks. For a very good reason -- you can't patent ideas. What the Post Office did patent was a specific schema for a device which allowed information to be accessed using hyperlinks over the telephone system, in a certain way.
In much a similar way, whoever invents the flying car (in the sense of producing an actually working, commercially viable version) will be able to patent the technology they use to build it their way, in spite of all the footage that no doubt exists of weird and wacky flying car ideas. It so happens that BT patented their way of doing this, and, without knowing, the inventors of the Internet happened upon the idea of doing it the same way. If you independently come up with someone's patented idea, you're in the hole for a patent violation.
Note that BT doesn't have a claim against publishers of hyperlinks; they aren't using BT's patented system.
I hope, without hope, that this is now clear.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Kinda sed some words twice and added a few characters at the end of the URL there (what of "Use Preview Button!" don't people get?)
http://sloan.stanford.edu/Mous eSi te/1968Demo.html
When some of the first computing patents started going through, they relized that alot of their ideas were previously patented, or partially in some cases by a certain mr Nicola Tesla. This is reportedly where the precident started to only looking back a hundred years or so for patents. IMHO they should revoke all patents and go back through them one by one, beacuse they'd end up finding that half the pantents in the past 10 years are probably invalid due to either prior use or even prior patent. But then again the government doens't ask me ;)
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
Don't you wish you had a stick you could hit corporations with...
*Whap!* Bad British Telecom! No Patent!
*Whap!* Bad Amazon! No One-Click!
The person who invents the corporate-whapping mechanism will become my one true personal hero...
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
The reason why it isn't open and shut is that BT is a giant monopoly with it's fingers in everybody's pie. Of course it is going to try to use its mega-resources to try and fight this. And if it's strong enough and can yell loud enough they think that people will eventually see things there way.
After all, it isn't about money, it's about who controls the internet.
But the thing is, that was NLS hyperlinking and this is <i>Internet</i> hyperlinking. I mean, come on, the two must be sooo different! Why should the patent not be enforced? I mean then, we can sue every person who's every made a webpage and only be the biggest company on Earth? Really now! :)<p>
This is better
I certainly hope they intend to split the money made from their lawsuits with Al Gore. If it wasn't for him inventing the Internet, there would not be any reason to use hyperlinks! :o)
BT is crazy if they think that they can patent hippolugging. My great grandfather invented hippolugging and placed it in the public domain in the late 1800's. Here is an extract from his journal, which was published by the Natural Geogrampa Society (emphasis added)...
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
not the editors
WTF is an editors job then?
Hm, editor; one who edits. Hence, they should edit whatever post is going to be posted. Of course, anyone who confuses Adobe with a little house of mud probably isn't too apt at clicking either. It is getting horrendous. Slashdot tries to push itself as a journalism site, yet all they really do is publish other peoples gibberish with links.
Bring Slashdot back to what made it popular, a link site with a message board attached to it. It was a portal, and that was what it was good at. It should not be a news site. It should not be for journalism. The only time I admired the journalism on slashdot was when Jon Katz posted a feature. While I seldom agree with Jon Katz anti-witchhunt and extremist point of view -- it was/is journalism.
The "journalistic" content of slashdot now consists of interviews with their friends and collegues, and occasionally someone with higher visibility that has input from the message board instead of Slashdot "journalists".
I'm finding myself looking at other sites like linuxtoday.com for real nerd-news. They just link, and that's what Slashdot did to make it popular.
I suppose I can't blame them, the old philosphy of do it till your popular then do what you want seems in effect. Unfortunately a lot of the people who made slashdot what it is today are getting fed up with the constant idiocy spewing forth from the posters.
The only person that I think doesn't make routine mistakes and blanket idiotic statements is CmdrTaco because it seems he still holds the ideal of slashdot there, post links with summary and if you have something to add, add it -- otherwise just let the link be.
nerdfarm.org
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Wasn't there a Simpsons episode about this? Some bum claims to have invented Itcy and Scratchy, but the film strip that proves this burns up?
Mirror the movie quickly before it's too late!!!
Yes! Yes! That is what I was refering to. Thank you for posting the link to the article (my main familiarity with the article if from it's too brief discription in Stephen Levy's book 'Insanely Great'. As the other responder to your comment puts it "even a discription is enough to invalidate a patent." (Not a pure quote). What I am wondering is: Is that so? Would the fact that Mr. Bush described such a thing really be enough to fight this patent?
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
And then watch them patent the idea. Anyone tries to whap someone else gets two whaps and a lawsuit. In the end, we'll be wondering "Who whaps the whappers?"
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Yes. Thanks.
That is what I was wondering.
Not being a lawyer and all, I was wondering if the mere fact that someone else had conceptualized the whole thing would be enough to discredit a patent on hyperlinking.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
> After all, w/o that what's to stop me from filing a
:)
> patent on a teleportation booth?
The oodles of prior art in comic books and bad SF movies?
I think Vannevar Bush (is that spelling right?) demonstrated the basic /concepts/ of hyperlinking back in the 1940's (although the actual technologies involved did not exist at the time. Would this, or would it not, be an example of "prior art"?
(YES. This is an invitation for further discussion on the subject.)
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
Their tactics were as unethical as an ex post facto law, but it's the other way around, chronologically. Here, they were creating a patent before a system could be invented to run the subject of the patent. I think that there should be a rule for new patent applicants that the subject of the patent in question should be demonstrated somehow, be it a prototype or otherwise. If a rule like this already exists, then I'd at least be happy for that.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Funny how when nobody uses something it's thrown in the cold like a peice of trash, but when the potential for dollar'$ is there then everyone wants a peice of the action. --Toq
For years we used an integrated office suite called Enable where I work. I know for a fact that starting with version 3, circa 1989 or so, the complete documentation was shipped right in with the app, and it was all hypertext, sort of like hard coded web pages without images, and it worked exactly like the web except the documents were all on the local machine.
"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Well, LordHunter, are you sure you didn't mean this is Internet hyperlinking?
Malformed HTML aside (hint, forget MSFT IE coding), the problem is a runaway patent system that serves only to stifle innovation and reward the megacorporations.
Like the ones I invest in. Why do you think Pharmaceutical companies and Tech companies reap such undeserved rewards - because they can get patents for incredibly obvious things, and extend copyright far beyond the grave.
Will in Seattle
Maybe the DeCSS Judge actually knew about this patent, and was just trying to protect us from being sued! We should all thank him! =-)
Doh!