Slashdot Mirror
BT Sues Prodigy Over Hyperlink Patent
Freshly Exhumed writes "British Telecom, believing (seemingly
against historical fact
) that an old patent entitles it as the rightful owner of the hyperlink, has filed suit against Internet provider Prodigy. Frivolous and of little merit? Great non-quote from Tim Berners-Lee!"
Ted Nelson, who is generally acknowledged to have coined the term hypertext in his 1965 book, "Literary Machines."
Isn't BT in danger of losing it's patent? I mean if enough substantial information can be shown that "hyperlinks" existed before BT pateted them, then can't BT lose the patent? Not being familliar with English law, can Prodigy sue BT for bringing a "frivilous" lawsuit?
I guess in the end it's a gamble, and BT is going to take it. If it wins, then it gets MONEY, and more importantly sets a precedent. If it loses, it can always try again at a later date. I think somone needs to make this game that BT is playing untenable. How about a class action suit against BT by every person that has a web page? I'm not a lawyer so I can't think of any fancy charges to sue BT for (you can't sue for stupidity) but I'm sure somone can.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
It'll be bad if BT offers, and Prodigy accepts, a settlement that's relatively cheap compared to the legal expense of fighting it, and if BT then offered the same deal to others.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Is is possible to get a Slashdot interview witht his law firm? I would like to know just how a law firm like this expects not to damage its reputation.
BT don't have a patent on hyperlinks under British law, because, under British law, you can't patent software...
Sensible, that.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
"Early in the year after discovering in a routine check that it owned the patent for the hyperlink, BT wrote to 17 U.S. ISPs (Internet service providers), including Prodigy, asking them to pay for the privilege of using the technology through licensing agreements."
Last time I checked everyone around the world uses hyperlinks so, why not charge everyone for the useage? Because then a new version of html would comeout and instead of hyperlinks they would have superlinks(or hydrolinks,or Knock-offlinks) which would be completely different and with out copyright or patent. BT is just trying to make a quick buck.
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
BT is using the law firm of Kenyon & Kenyon, which /. readers ought to remember as the lawyers who sent out C&D's to CueCat web sites.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Is gnu.org gonna remove all hyperlinks from their pages and put up a message "No hyperlinks due to patent problems" :)
You know, how often do you read about some case that is settled, but the exact terms of the settlement were not disclosed?
I'm cynical enough to think that maybe BT gets Prodigy to settle this for some ridiculously small amount of money ($10, or even $100,000) to make it go away, and both parties aggree, as part of the settlement, to keep the details of the settlement private.
Now BT goes to work for Prodigy trying to go after their competitors. Just like the RAMbus nonsense, the first few get to settle on generous terms. But after that it starts to get expensive even to just settle. Because now BT has precedent on their side. "well look, all these other companies have settled to license our innovative hyperlink technology."
The benefit to Prodigy is: A cheap settlement. The lawsuit goes away. BT goes after their competitors.
The benefit to BT: They establish precedent. They might even get a little trickle of money ($100,000 to settle?). They get really big settlements later from the others who didn't settle early.
If Prodigy settles, what do you want to bet that they keep the terms of the settlement a secret? Now why would they keep something a secret? What possible motivation? Obviously, it must be hugely in their interest to keep it a secret -- because it would be embarrasing to settle for such a small amount, because that would make most people realize the true evil movies of both parties. Gee, could they even agree to this under the table in advance? Okay, I'll agree to let you sue me and settle for cheap with an unlimited nonexclusive license in return. Okay, maybe now I'm being too cynical.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Those who produce html web content follow the html markup guidelines. Markup tags simply indicate structure or meaning to some text on a page. So something like
<a href="http://somewhere.com/somepage.html"> check out this reference </a>
is merely an indicator to a reader or parser. There is no linking inherent in such a markup syntax.
Even web server authors or those using web servers are not infringing since (at least on a very basic level) http servers simply comply to the requests of a browser: give me this page, then that page, and then this next one. Like an ftp server, there is no concept of linking, at least as described by the article.
The only ones I can think of who are implementing hyperlinks are web browser authors. It is the browser that adds semantics to the markup, which it attempts to display on your monitor. It is the browser that actually highlights the linked text, and it is the browser that "connect[s] text, images, and other data on the Internet in such a way as to allow a user to click on a highlighted object on a Web page in order to bring up an associated item contained elsewhere on the Web".
So BT should lose this suit, not just by way of the unwholesomeness of the patent, but also because they're trying to sue a company which isn't even infringing their patent. -Terence
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
Someone please mail/email/fax/anything Prodigy that earlier patent, just so they can make this suit look totally foolish...
Would Slashdot / OSDN like to file an amicus brief pointing out the prior art and general stupidity of this?
sulli
RTFJ.
- It's so ridiculous that it should make people think
- It's owned by a non-U.S. corporation. This should make the traditional patent-mongering U.S. corporations think
- It shows exactly why the whole idea of software patents hurts society instead of helping it
So, I wish BT the best in their pursuit of royalties for this one - it can only hasten the end of this whole embarrassingly silly fiasco.--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
It requires that you access the 'URL' with a 'keypad' (not a mouse) .... and by my reading it could also cover FTP, and other remote file access protocols - in 1976 is was already dated (and I suspect suffers badly from the patent lawyer's attempt to try and write as wide a patent as possible)
It would be one thing if their 'innovation' had actually ended up in something useful being done. IE: if they had never come up with it or patented it, would it have changed *ANYTHING*??? Have they actual created *ANY* value in the world?
The answer is clearly no. (They discovered that they had the patent...)
Please, pretty please, if in the distant future any of you come across someone who was involved in deciding to move ahead with actions like this, whether they are former managers, lawers, etc etc, please, give them a F****NG earful!
It's too bad big companies weren't lead by real leaders. Real leaders would see this for what it is, gang up, and drive BT into the ground.
I'm noticing that slashdot users seem to think that any demonstration or article that describes anthing related to a patent is prior art for the patent.
Now, IANAL, but I own a good dictionary... The only think that would constitute prior art is an apparatus that corresponds precisely to that in a patent claim, and not one that is a bit similar, contains some of the same pieces, was invented by the same guy, involves some of the same buzzwords, or something like that. I'll restate this for the extra-thick-skulled users out there: The patent covers only that which is described in a claim, and nothing else.
Now, given this, I'd like to suggest that: - Slashdot users get their asses in gear and find some real prior art. AFAIK, none of the descibed systems that have been suggested as prior art contain a modem, for example.
It's about time BT tried to enforce this patent. This is good news. Prodigy is a big company that can afford the legal resources to defend itself against this ridiculously absurd patent.
I expect that it'll be an easy case for Prodigy. And once Prodigy wins, the patent will be null and void. This is good for all of us, because it means that we can all go on our merry way developing and using web products. If BT had selected first target that didn't have the bucks to hire good lawyers, the case might have gone the other way.
Worst-case scenario? BT wins, Microsoft goes to BT for an exclusive license to their innovative hyperlinking technology, and all other developers effectively become legally barred from writing or publishing web software. (Ok, it's a stretch, but worst-case scenarios usually are.)
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
BT rocks, I especially like Lullaby To Gaia and Believer, oh wait, the article is talking about British Telecom. I wonder if they do any techno?
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
That was a pretty funny article! Whoever wrote it did a good job coming up with quotes for British Telecom that sounded real. And this was the best part:
"Discovered the patent," I love it! Like some company is digging through their dusty attic and finds they have the patent for the wheel. Eureka! And like any company would be so stupid to try and enforce it!If it wasn't for the mistake of saying "copyright infringement" instead of "patent infringement", I would've believed it. Damn, even the IDG logo looks real.
Hey..wait a minute.. oh crap.
Don't count on Prodigy doing the Right Thing. All BT has to do is convince Prodigy that licensing the patent is cheaper than taking the case to court, even if it is guaranteed to win. Look at all the companies that rolled over for Rambus. Prodigy doesn't have morals. It's a publicly traded company.
When the first sentence of the article, which concerns potential patent infringement, ends in the statement "has sued U.S.-based Prodigy Communications Corp. for copyright infringement", one can only wonder about the accuracy of the entire article. I suspect they would be suing for patent infringement, not copyright infringement.
badtz-maru
IF they loose, then it's one less bad patent.
If they win then AOL has got to be on their hit list, and suddenly patent reform is at the top of the political agenda at least as seen by CNN. Gofigure.
Sooner or later one of these things has got to lead to reform, cause it's such a mess now.
-Peace
Dave
Free as in "the Truth shall set you..."
ESR has announced that december 18th will be Burn All Hyperlinks day, and put up a page about it here... ah, crap
--
Communication is only possible between equals
IIRC, Vanavar (sp?) Bush talked about having a global, hypertextual web of information in the late 1940s (48?49?), which is discussed somewhere in Brook's Mythical Man Month I think (or maybe it was Levy's Hackers, I've been reading both in the past few days and they are starting to blend together). Even if he didn't patent anything, his writings are a part of public record. When is BT claiming their patent is from again? ;-)
OK, I actually found some substantive evidence:
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I've just filed my patent application for being British. Guess we'll be talking about the Not-French Telecom pretty soon.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
....someone could come up with a patent on comment moderation.
Sean
I've read about something similar in English common law, called Trial by Combat. The accuser and accused fight to the death, God was supposed to ensure that the right person won. Given that the common law of the United States is directly derived from the common law of England, one of the parties to the dispute could petition the judge for a trial by combat.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Don't count on Prodigy doing the Right Thing
But you can help create an atmosphere in which they feel encouraged, perhaps.
Prodigy Biz
P.O. Box 1969
Stafford, TX 77497-1969
Phone: (281) 276-7900
1-800-480-9080
Email: info@prodigybiz.net
Strategic Alliances
Long Term Strategic Relationships
Contact: Ken Domnitz: alliances@prodigy.net
Press Inquiries
Please call (512) 527-1120
Job Opportunities
Contact Human Resources: human_resources@prodigy.net
Corporate Headquarters Telephone Number
(512) 527-1500
I know, you might have to use the _phone_!
Tweet, tweet.