Slashdot Mirror
Patent On Software Downloads Upheld
PacketMaster writes: "A U.S. Federal Circuit Court today ordered a lower court to reconsider its ruling on this
this patent -- detailing downloading software over a network or the Internet. The full story at news.com details this on-going battle. This latest ruling indicates that the courts consider the patent, filed by a company called E-Data in 1985, a valid patent. E-Data's plan is to charge a license fee for all data downloaded over the Internet. The main companies standing against this patent are Intuit and AOL/Time-Warner's Compuserve division." Yes, E-Data would like to collect on every software download.
This is yet another example of Slashdot manipulating their readership just to provoke a reaction. Lets see what the article actually says, the first bolded part of the news.com article reads:
A federal appeals court has for the second time breathed life into a patent that could force software vendors to pay licensing fees to sell their products directly over the Internet.
This is a helluva lot more accurate than what slashdot does with its:
Yes, E-Data would like to collect on every software download
There's a HUGE distinction between collecting on selling products over the internet and using FTP. As it stands now, all companies have the right to patent business processes. That's what gives companies competitive edges. If you had invented something don't you believe you have the right to protect that invention? Yes, you have this right, and that right extends even to the invention was a new way of doing business. I'm not sure that News.com wasn't trying to tap into the same vein as Slashdot users or perhaps wanted to use Slashdot to get more hits and knew this type of story would jump right to the front page of slashdot. With so many people use this service to get the "skinny" on what's happening on the net, doesn't the person that writes the caption at least owe an editor's debt to keep the stories honest??
It dosent hurt Claim 27 or any "below" it.
Aren't patents valid for only about 20 years or so? If so it will expire in 2005, it just needs to be kept tied up in court for another 4 years to become a moot point anyway...
Well, this is certainly the type of patent that I'd like to see revoked, and is an excellent case to cite when trying to show weakness in the patent system.
But you have to wonder if the shoe was on the other foot, and AOL had this patent, how hard would they be fighting to keep it?
And I don't think this is retroactive. Patents before some date in 1999 (IIRC) are still 17 years from awarding; anything after is 20 years from filing.
Many companies, notably drug makers, used the prior rules, and the fact that they could accidently 'forgot' to fill in paperwork that would keep the patent approval process going, the USPTO charging them a minimal fee ( I think $500.00 ) for this 'late filing' charge. However, during this time, while the patent wasn't granted, the company filing did have some basic protection on the patent, and the patent documents were not public, so an enterprising company could easily get about 22 years of protection for a small incidental fee. Note that the typical time between submission and awarding of a patent is around 2 to 3 years in the first place (assuming that everyone plays by the rules).
The new system says that once you've submitted a patent, the 20 year timeline starts ticking. In addition, as soon as it's reasonably possible, the patent document is placed in the public domain (eg USPTO's website), though the company does have protection on it's invention. This still gives companies sufficient protection on their inventions, but does prevent abuses of the system.
Going from 17 to 20 years really doesn't drastically extend the protection a patent gives it's owners with the given rules, it simply helps avoid abuses in the system.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I remember distinctly reading about PPV proposals being proposed and tested as early as 1968. There was one partisan who was particularly vilified for broaching the notion at the time ( can't remember the name ).
IIRC, the entire controversy was covered quite extensively in (wait for it..)
TV GUIDE! How's that for prior art, eh?
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
I dunno. This part from the parent quote (can't get to the patent site) "and the predetermined information is reproduced in a material object at the point of sale location" seems to hurt it.
It sounds like what Sam Goody's used to have - where you could pick 6 songs and have a custom made tape in 5 minutes. Put a card in, pick a file, and it spits out a floopy/cd-rom.
Howdver, where is the point-of-sale location? I would imagine that it would be at the location of the web server, as that is where the transaction is validated, logged, etc...
You forget, we're spoofing software patents. The guy doesn't own a patent on walking, he holds a patent on movement (such is, more or less, how these things run).
----------
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Well, there is the latches doctrine, but it mostly hinges on how the plantiffs acted between the filing of the claim and the filing of a lawsuit, and how they interacted with the defendants. (and other alleged infringers)
(essentially, it's an abuse of patent to encourage others to infringe on your patent with the hope of later suing them for all the money they made when they were doing it)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
A case could be made, yes. Although it's nowhere near as onerous as the requirements for trademarks, patent (and to an even lesser extent, at least in practice) copyright holders have a responsibility to not abuse what they've been granted by the public.
However, it would probably be kind of tricky, and it would require someone being sued by Unisys to pursue this.... it's probably not going to happen. Maybe here it will.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That it's possible to have GIFs that aren't LZW compressed? That the patent isn't enforced against freeware/shareware authors? (among others) That the patent expires in a few years?
Got me. You might as well go ahead and tell.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Hey, if this kill java on the web dead, I'm all for this!
--
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
> 'material object' then 'non-material information' doesn't get covered
"information in material objects" does. They say
"By way of another example, a floppy disk is a material object in which information in the form of programs can be fixed". Now if you can fix information in non-material form, you're fine.
--
rant
> three root claims in this particular patent. To wit, claims 1, 29, and 37
All of which mention "point of sale".
> if you get one of the really narrow claims, you get all of its predecessors too
Conversely, if FTP isn't prior art for the broadest claims, it can't be prior art for any of the narrower ones.
--
rant
It's not really "every software download". It's downloads "uniquely identified by a catalog code" to a "point of sale". I suppose a file path might be "a catalog code", though it sounds dubious, but FTP doesn't involve a "point of sale".
Sure, it's still a dumb patent that should never have been granted, but it isn't _that_ dumb.
--
rant
Or heck, maybe even something more drastic, like going outside.
---
The article, as written, is wrong (as usual).
The higher court merely sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration. It did NOT issue a ruling on whether the patent was valid, only that the lower court should reconsider its original ruling.
The words were also twisted in the submission to give it more controversy - for example, the company never claimed that they had any intention of exacting royalties for "every internet download". This was a statement made by the defendants to win favor with the court!!
Any patent defense has two strategies - first, you can get the patent declared invalid, and second, you claim that you aren't infringing. This case applies only to the first. There's plenty of battle left ahead on the second point.
I doubt they'll ever extort royalties from this. It's very clear after reading the patent that it is, indeed, extremely limited, regardless of the court's interpretations.
Why thank you
Link to patent
P TO 1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm& r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='4,528,643'.WKU.&OS=PN/4,528,643&R S=PN/4,528,643
Cut and paste link
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
The title, abstract and disclosure part of a patent don't really affect what it covers. What's important is the CLAIMS. The patent may describe a very narrow implementation but the claims may try to claim a much wider area of "innovation" which includes this particular implementation.
I'm downloading the patent now to take a closer look at the claims.
-
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
"material objects at a point of sale location"
:)
since when are downloads "Material objects"!?!
And it doesn't apply to all downloads, since a point
of sale location really needs something to sell!?
But hey what do I know
You must be like water, it fits into any
container, but it can damage a rock.
If you're after prior technology, then comp.sources.* probably predates even the internet.
-- Andrew
Even if this person has a valid patent, this is one of those times where, for the good of the world, you have a moral responsibility to just let it go.
Well, more like: it shows the patent system (particularly as applied to software and the internet) is invalid, and it's time to just let it go.
When I first stated this position I found that, really, a good portion of the readers here didn't agree (usually relying on the "lone inventor" or "drugs are expensive" arguments). But now, hey, after a whole string of these really stupid claims, I think opinion is starting to come around.
The next step is to take action.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
OK, so let's sum this up:
1. A user submits a request to download something.
2. The remote server sends a request for an authorization code.
3. The user provides the authorization code.
4. Pending authorization, the remote server sends the requested information.
How about changing the process a little bit?
1. The user downloads the requested information WITHOUT a prior request for authorization.
2. The user THEN submits a request to purchase - perhaps days after the initial download.
3. User receives a serial number that activates the product.
This scheme is used in some software - download a limited version, and upon purchase, you receive a code to unlock all of the features.
If you really really stretch things, you can file a patent and wait an eternity before it becomse public domain. The USPTO has no trouble collecting that late fee over and over and over again. I don't remember the details, but there is a patent involving machine vision that was filed in the 50's, but only was granted in the last 10-20 years. The original inventor is dead, but the foundation he created to handle his patents is trying to claim that his patents can cover bar-code scanners.
If somebody remembers the guy's name, it would be nice to put it up. The guy has a huge collection of patents, and has taken huge advantage of that particular hole in the patent system. That and that they allow unlimited modification of the wording of your patent so long as it is true to the original spirit of the filing (read: remotely close).
I think Watson and Crick did Acid and later envisioned the DNA double helix....for whatever that is worth...
"...Beer..."
You thought wrong. It had been 17 years, and has been changed to 20 years. So that puts it at 2002 or 2005, depending on when the law was actually changed. But since E-Data has had this in court for years now, they can still try to collect fees retroactively. (Not to say they'll succeed, but they can try.)
As the lower court originally decided, this patent appears to apply primarily to kiosk systems. In that context it might be valid. However, the higher court ordered the lower court to "reconsider the scope" of the patent, stating that it should apply to all downloads. This may be a smart move on the court's part, since there was lots of prior art in 1985 regarding information downloads. I was downloading from BITNET then, and the FIDOnet and UUCP networks were alive and well. If the scope is determined to apply to all such downloads the patent can probably be overthrown completely.
Or then, the higher court may just be smoking something...
Chelloveck
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
ahem, did you actually read?
this case refuses!! to die for 16 years now!
or make a little Java applet that makes it into a one 'drag' (as in drag-and-drop) or a one 'slice' shop. Or maybe just a 'wave' by moving the mouse over box.
Heck, soon you'll have bought something just by blinking at it.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Though this is an interesting patent (if not undeserving of being one), I see a hole that protects open source already. This is a "System for reproducing information in material objects at a point of sale location". Keyword here (or words) would be "point of sale". So, I'm not selling anything, therefore I can't be a point of sale, and you can download from me all you want, for free. On the otherhand, all those software companies that are selling software for download might run into a bit of trouble.
Also, the patent was filed in 1973, with a 17 year rule, it's expired (2000), with a 20 year rule, it'll expire in 2 years. Just keep it in court for 2 years!
Also, I mirroed the patent description. None of the title pictures or anything, just the acutal text. (links will not work from that page).
Located Here. Warning: File size is ~130KB.
Standard Caveat of: I am not a lawyer!.
- AMW
No...83+17 = 100.
If you read the linked patent you'll see that I typoed the date. Someone already posted that the date is 1983, not 73. A slip of one key.
- AMW
This patent is screwy. You can say there is definatly prior "art"
Wow! Does this patent bring back memories!
I used to have a Corvus hard disk. It weighed 30 pounds, was roughly 3 feet deep, 20 inches wide, and 8 inches high, and had a capacity of 10 MB. It had it's own card that went into a slot on the original IBM PC (prior to the XT), and you started the boot from a floppy disk.
It pertains to software activated by a code supplied by a remote entity. Think "shareware". (also windows XP, mathematica, etc.)
I don't think it covers all file retrieval. It appears to be more targetted to the download of software requiring an unlock code. This unlock code is transferred upon their receipt of an authentic request. From what I've read, this transfer seems to be done electronically.
Nor does it appear that this patent applies to software protected using electronic licenses (i.e. copy protection or feature limiting licenses).
And, to me at least, there lies the whole problem. It appears. It seems. What kind of judicial system allows laws and documentation that require advanced degrees to even understand? If ignorance of the law is no excuse, shouldn't law have to be written in understandable language. And don't give me any bullshit about $10 words being required in order to make the law more specific, 'cause that is complete bunk. I've seen enought technical documentation to know that it is possible to be clear, conscise and understandable all at the same time. All the bullshit rhetoric in patent applications and on the lawbooks are there simply to confuse the masses and make them hire lawyers.
Why can't we elect some judges that will let people off because the law isn't in English (or other native language as it may apply) instead of some twisted, latinesque, lawyerese? For instance, this judge should simply rule that noone can infringe on this patent, because an average person would need weeks to understand what the fuck it means.
Sorry for the rant, but the previous post was clear, concise and contained not noticeable misspelling. In short, Ronin Developer is literate in English, yet he can't decipher a document that purports to limit his activity. What kind of justice is that!?!
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
How I see the patent from a similiar brain numbing fugue is it covers all downloads which involve some payment mechanism built into the transaction. I love how it says "material objects" which would cover anything from a HD to a zip disk but that just seems to be how patents are written.
I'm very surprised that a lot more companies aren't fighting this patent. Taken to an extreme any file you download and pay for, say music, a downloaded newspaper or e-book, any information really that would ultimately reside on a storage device could be pinched for a royalty payment. RIAA, newspapers, and publishers might have a reason for concern.
But that's my completely lay person's scope on the thing. Take it with a tub of salt.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
But I didn't know I would have to keep paying to use it!
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
This stuff is beginning to tire me out.
*sigh*
nothing excels in every environment
Most of the recent laws around patents and IP protection have been intended to help the content distributers. Now, we have a small company that is using those same laws to go after potentially huge amounts of money.
I wonder, if the patent is upheld, if this will be the real spark that forces changes in patent laws. After all, the large corporations this patent will hurt, who spent huge amounts of money getting software under the umbrella of patent protection and, more recently, the DMCA, might realize the genie they let out of the bottle.
So it includes storing programs on network servers. It probably also includes home networks. Does it include Javascript in web pages? Talk about reaching to the core.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
For the 6 millionth time, TRADEMARKS require enforcement to stay valid. PATENTS do not.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Bad for companies like Microsoft, maybe - but not bad for patent law as a whole.
Female Prison Rape in NY
No matter how I try to warp my thinking, I don't see how this applies to a software download. It seems to have been intended to address things like CD or DVD purchase kiosks that would download and burn the content (thereby avoiding the need to have a stock of physical titles.)
Even if it were to apply, there is prior art -- how many people were using a BBS back then? I know I was! What's the conceptual difference between a "catalog" code and directory listings for locating the desired files, particularly when file links allow multiple "catalog entries" to refer to the same file? Wasn't your login id your "authorization code"?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
But it's really only relevant to people and companies who are selling downloads. So if you require payment before someone can download some information, this patent might (or might not) be relevant.
If I'm reading this correctly, pay-per-view cable television (which would be taped by the viewer) would violate this patent and/or be prior art (does anyone remember taping PPV movies before 1985?).
I press the button on my cable box remote, the box and the cable co. validate my purchase (and bill me accordingly), and they deliver the information over their network to my VCR, where I make a "material object" out of the data. Even if the PPV is ordered via the phone I think it's pretty much the same mechanism described in the patent.
Please, please, PLEASE try to look at the articles objectively before posting. Don't read the article and turn every little vauge remark into some sort of OSS Slander..
Real Headline: "Microsoft employee accidently drops large box on foot of stranger on the street".
Slashdot Headline: "Microsoft now physically harming others to get their way"
Slashdot User: "Well, that stranger could have been a leet linux coder.. Microsoft is stifleing innovation by causing that coder to go to the hospital! He could have been producing CODE at that time! (like a good communist!)"
My point.. this article was more or less void before it was even an issue. Plus, it doesnt directly pertain to all downloads. Read the patent. If you can get all the way through it without feeling drowsy, that is. legaleese.. blech!
Slashdot something useful.
Management is not a tunable parameter.
Does this mean unisys was abusing its patent?
can they?
Don't they have to inform patent infringers formally before they start charging for it?
As an infringer I have to have a choice whether to pay up or to change technology, no?
While being on US territory
From a US-based server
of which the verdict could be enforced by the Belgian courts (in my personal case).
Same goes for providing downloads to US-based netizens.
When I'm downloading something from a European/Australian/Asian/... server, E-data can't do anything at all.
I acknowledge that the treaty can be abused in various ways, but I'm afraid that's the result of the originating country's poor jurisprudence(?).
I always have to smile when I hear US citizens speak of "frivolous" lawsuits, when most people here in Europe (and probably in a lot of other places too) consider the USA the place where people can and will sue for about anything, not seldomly demanding absurd sums of money in damages. (no disrespect to those who do).
The hague is only a small part of a much bigger problem.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
Seriously - I don't consider my PC a "point of sale location", so the usual transactions over the internet are indeed as the lower court stated waaaay out of the scope of this patent.
But it seems to me that a CD-shack downloading tracks to burn them for their customers would have to cough up the money. Same goes for "on-line digital cinema", where HDTV is streamed from the moviestudios to the local cinemas. Those two example applications fit much better in the scope of "reproducing information at a point-of-sale location", they would have a problem countering this (if it weren't for the infinite amount of lawyers and the infinite amount of time of the MPAA ;-)...
You can't blame 'm for trying, after seeing the other patents that USPTO granted (and that were enforced in US courts).
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
Unfortunately, the clock may be ticking for the expiration of the patent. But, if the patent is upheld, they can collect retroactively to the day the patent was granted.
As the previous posted mentioned, I suspect that this will be thrown out due to prior art when it reaches the lower courts. Let's hope that it is.
RD
Exactly. How can an IT professional ensure they are in compliance with the law when we can't make heads or tails of it. Even more so, the people who CAN read the legalize (i.e lawyers and judges) can't understand the technical aspects of what they are writing about.
No wonder this case has been bantered around for so long. Laws written in a manner incomprehensible to the lay person should have no merit. Legal documents should be written concisely in the native language that is understood by all with normal intelligience and the ability to read for the society for which it governs.
Naturally, those in the legal profession may feel differenty. They will make the claim that the language is needed to precisely and unambiguosly define what the document is meant to say. Again, it is clear that in this case, they failed miseraby.
T professionals (ala programmers) also speak in a language the defines their problem domain in a precise and unambiguous manner. In our case, however, a miswritten statement is construed as a software defect and often considered unacceptable to the people that use it. We're forced to fix the problem or face consequences such as a lawsuit or losing business.
Why are those in the legal profession not held to the same standard? Perhaps, it's because the people that enforce those standards are the same ones who setthem in the first place.
Yes..but it all depends.
Let's say you were using the XYZ algorithm in a product before the patent expired. Everyone in the industry knows that the algorithm is patented.
You didn't license the algorithm but decided to take your chances and sold your product anyway. The company holding XYZ finds out about your actions and can immediately take action to protect their patent. In doing so, they may file suite to begin reclaimation for damages and/or seek an injunction to stop distribution of the product. They have the full support of the law on their side.
My guess is that they would then attempt to settle out of court. But, let's say you told them F*** off. You could reengineer your product to use something else if you can afford the luxury of reengineering and/or the PR implications. They know they have the legal right to come after you and will do so if a settlement isn't reached in order to avoid voiding their patent. End result, you still get sued and have to bare the cost of redevelopment, remarketing and, of course, the legal battle.
But, if you were shipping your product before they applied for the patent (and can prove it), then their patent can be overturned due to prior art.
If the patent was pending, the company needs to inform others using their disputed idea that idea is patent pending. This allows those using it to decide what course of action you want to take.
Once the patent is granted, you're on your own to make sure you aren't infringing and take the proper measure to license the use of the patent from its holder. If you were forewarned...your dead meat on a stick.
Now, I'm no lawyer...but I've come up against patents in the past. The real solution is to eliminate the legalese, get people in the PTO who understand what they are granting patents on, and make it easy to research existing patents and those pending.
The PTO does provide a web accessible search engine...Others provide similar services as well. But, its a cumbersome process to do yourself and you still face liability if you didn't do your homework.
I don't think it covers all file retrieval. It appears to be more targetted to the download of software requiring an unlock code. This unlock code is transferred upon their receipt of an authentic request. From what I've read, this transfer seems to be done electronically.
Nor does it appear that this patent applies to software protected using electronic licenses (i.e. copy protection or feature limiting licenses).
Now, I'm too lazy to read the whole patent, but if I encrypt my file for download and then send the unlock code later (via snail mail, for example), do I violate this patent?
RD
Let's see. I was downloading software over a network in 84, using a modem to access a server via a network called the PTSN (public telephone switched network).
Darpanet was transferring software even earlier that this.
Since e-data is micturiting in the breakfast cerials of several big players, I give this patent about the same probability of survival as a guy playing Q3A on a 486 with a CGA card over a modem.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I did. I used a network, called a phone, to download lots of programs over this network from BBSs from all over the Eastern US before 1985! I can't be the only one. BBSing was very popular. This patent is stupid and ridiculous. I hope AOL protests this. This would mean we'd actually have to pay something for Linux--a stupid fee to a stupid company! Are the going after MS for infringement with it's Network protcols that allow me to "download"/copy a file from a server at work to my work pc?
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
And did anybody use it before 1985 to download say BIND 0.9? Or sendmail 1.3? Or vi?
Come on, this should be easy to crack!
Bye egghat
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
Throwing out a bad patent is fine, it's just a question of why. I haven't read the actual law text (thank god I'm not a lawyer :-) but I assume they lists some reasons a patent could be invalidated. I'm pretty sure "moronic" is not one of the reasons listed, so they'll have to find something else, and that's where things get interesting..
I did read - and you actually prove my point. The 'system' has refused to let it go anywhere for a long, long time, simply because the outcome is either "go stick your patent where the sun doesn't shine", which is bad for patent law, or "go collect mucho bucks from everybody". Actually, just letting it die slowly in courts may be the best solution...
Really? Really really? If it's really about that large amounts of money, companies are going to fold or relocate outside the USA, rather than pay up. Does anybody here really think that's going to happen? In the unlikely event that a judge allows this company to win, the USA will have to reconsider its patent system or risk hurting the economy real bad.
My prediction is that this case will sizzle and die, never to be heard of again. The stakes are simply to high.
I'm going to patent monopolies buying off the court system. I should make a ton of money, especially since the patent will provide a barrier to the entry of Open Source in the hot influence peddling market.
I've read the patent and it does NOT seem to affect EVERYTHING download. In fact it only affects software downloads which are sold. They KNEW about that people could download programs and other files such as images etc, and didn't necessarily pattent that particular thing.
They only pattented software and other downloads which cost money.
This DOES NOT affect everything you download. As it stands, corporations which provides software for download for a price are the ones who can lose out big time on this.
Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm supporting either side of this argument, but as it stands that company DOES have a valid point
If you read the article it states they've been in court since 1995. Now I dont claim to be any expert on history here, but isn't that about the time when the ppl started offering software for download for a price?
H.
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
This patent was intended to apply to something like Blockbuster or Suncoast Video, and instead of storing a large inventory of videos, they would have a bunch of blank tapes and a catalog of available movies. A customer would then select a movie, which would then be downloaded and recorded to the tape after a fee was paid to the owner of the movie.
So no, pay-per-view isn't prior art.
73 + 17 = umm... 100?
A dialog box will pop up "Please deposit 35 cents for the next 5megs please"
--
Free Mac Mini
It's funny that the only thing that is even remotely understandable in the patent by just reading it is the background information. All else is yadayada refering to different claims, and there are quite a few of them.
from the actual patent doc:
16. The method of claim 1 wherein each information is uniquely identified by a predetermined catalog code and a dollar charge code, the dollar charge code indicating the amount of money to be charged in connection with the reproduction of said information ...blah blah blah
and
The present invention relates generally to a system for reproducing information in a material object at a point of sale location.
So basically things like FTP, HTTP, and Kermit don't really apply. They're not really saying they invented the concept of downloading.
The district court previously ruled that the patent was too narrowly focused, applying for for download, sale, and "physical reproduction" (tape, VHS, CD?) at a specific kiosk or physical store front and not a ubiquitous browser or other software client. I'm curious what portions of the patent were broad enough that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would throw the decision out the window.
Anyway, it looks like Intuit and Time Warner have the following options:
battle this out in court
wait for the patent to "expire" (4 more years)
sidestep the patent by temporarily finding another way to facilitate online software purchases.
The quoted portion of the patent is, "reproduction in a material object at the point of sale." This means that the reproduction must be occuring at the point-of-sale (or, as an alternate reading, in a material object that is at the point-of-sale). The two readings are subtly different, but both invalidate the claim that this covers copying to a disk which is then distributed or the implication that this might not implicate pay-for-download sites.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
January 10, 1983, actually. The patent wasn't granted until July 9, 1985. Remember, though, that it's not merely point-of-sale systems. It has to meet the specified claims, including the method of authentication. This is not to say that such systems did not exist prior to the filing. I'm reasonably sure that they did.
Anyway, there's good reason to fight the patent as being so broad that it'll apply to all downloads and to treat it as such: the language of the patent doesn't unambigously dismiss this possibility. Therefore, regardless of the stated or actual intent of the patent holder(s), the possibility for enforcement exists. That is what should be dealt with; not the probability of enforcement.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
As many of those news appears on slashdot, i find it more and more to be a jokeboard . Keep up the good work USA, make us laugh.
"We have long relied on the assurance that Good Things (tm) will be maintained by organized parties with financial incentive" ...?
Maybe that's the problem. Justice is so important over there, yet you agree, in a silent way, that It's being used as a tool by organized parties with financial incentives.
Maybe your respect of Justice is right, but your conception of it is lacking a few notions... like the concept of social justice
I think I'll go file my patent for "buying stuff from a store", it's the same damn thing. Besides, define a download. Every packet I receive could be part of the nebulous concept of download. I think I'm just going to lie back down and pull the covers over my head.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Thats like me going out and patenting jacking off left handed instead of right handed.
I'm pretty sure there's gonna' be prior art on that one.
Courts, especially appeals courts, only deal with the arguments before them. By reading the CNET article it appears that the argument before them was that the patent only applied to the case of kiosk downloads, not internet downloads.
The argument that there was prior art (as described elsewhere in these comments) was not brought before them so they couldn't rule on it.
You've got the right idea. You used to be able to perfect the technique by keeping the patent "in process" until some sucker does the work to make your invention actually be useful. At that point in time you let the patent be granted. With a good attorney, you become very, very, very wealthy. cf. Jerome Lemelson
I mean really what's the difference between grabbing a .html and a .zip, just beause one is displayed immediately and one is stored doesn't change the fact that they are both downloaded.
That's precisely the difference. The patent refers to an "information manufacturing machine," i.e. a removable storage device.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I own patent 4711/12345 "A method of movement by moving one foot in front of the other to get from a place to another place, regardless of the pace with which this method is applied".
I'll play along: The developers of GNU, PNG, and Ogg Vorbis have worked together to produce another way of getting from one place to another without using feet or legs at all.
(Demonstration)
Will I retire or break 10K?
There is prior art up and down the Yin Yang on this. this document places the innovation of Kermit in 1981, while RFC 765, describing the FTP protocol, dates back to June 1980.
You also mentioned Unix to Unix Copy Protocol. According to this history of the internet, AT&T labs developed the UUCP suite in 1976.
Or then, the higher court may just be smoking something...
Sometimes, I think the only reason that drugs are illegal is to prevent us from understanding the system. :)
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
Maybe we should make it a law that a patent (even better, contracts, too) is invalid if it contains the word wherein, or any sentence longer than 40 words.
Wouldn't the concept of FTP, being designed in an RFC from 1980 be prior art?
Granted, this may not help for the sale of items over the Internet, but that DOES mean that they couldn't claim EVERY software download.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Does this cover all file retrieval? What about the many different protocols out there? HTTP, FTP, TCP/IP, etc? The site with the patent description is already Slashdotted, so read a bit more over here. The legal battle is far from over, and this article is rather vague on the details. Why does it mention Intuit and Compuserve in particular?
"The present invention contemplates a system for reproducing information in material objects at a point of sale location wherein the information to be reproduced is provided at the point of sale location from a location remote with respect to the point of sale location, an owner authorization code is provided to the point of sale location in reponse to receiving a request code from the point of sale location requesting to reproducing predetermined information in a material object, and the predetermined information is reproduced in a material object at the point of sale location in response to receiving the owner authorization code."
Maybe I'm stupid, but from the abstract above, and a quick scan of the patent its constantly referring to the reproduction of material objects. I thought that patents were specific enough that if you say 'material object' then 'non-material information' doesn't get covered. By bending the meaning a bit I can see how this might be construed to cover, say one of those machines that can download and bind a book for you in a shop, but I can't see it meaning I have to pay to ftp a copy of Counterstrike, as there is no 'point of sale' there is no transaction and the exact material object isn't reproduced. Given that data down networks is older than 85 anyway (I remember strange TV programs that broadcast simple programs when you hooked your BBC micro up to them) I can't see this as right.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
What this brings to mind is the glorious Chaos Computer Club VMS login backdoor.
As I recall, the main thrust of this crack involved downloading and modifying the login code to the as-yet-unshipped VMS {can't remember the version number right now}, then uploading the modified backdoored version back to DEC's online distribution centre just before the patch was due to 'ship', thus getting it into a silly number of VMS sites via a totally trusted route.
And what makes this relevant here is that
- This happened in about 1985
- This probably wasn't the first VMS patch/version distributed electronically, and
- VMS costs money
all of which, circumstantially at least as I haven't got the dates to hand, could be taken to suggest that DEC was providing software across a network in return for money (whether it was a transaction fee or a service contract I don't know).Which hazy circumstantial speculation might or might not constitute prior art.
TomV
We have
1) A point of sale location
2) A Material Object
3) Information
4) Remote Location
5) Request Code
6) Authorisation Code
And the following processes
1) Providing a request code
2) Requesting an authorisation code
3) Providing an authorisation code
4) Reproducing information in a material form
so
A Point of sale location provides a request code to a remote location the remote location requests an authorisation code. The Point of Sale location provides an authoristaion code and the information is reproduced in a material object at the point of sale location.
*phew*
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
Woah, 20 years?! This is news to me!
Does this mean that the Unisys LZW patent does not expire this fall?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
1st off, we've already broken the poor patent query link :(
2nd, they can have my download when they can pry from my cold dead hand wrapped around my 80G drive :0
All of them, pr0n knows no boundaries.
If they start charging for pr0n downloads, the entire continent will go bankrupt! =)
Speaking of which, I haven't got my $50 from AOL and Microsoft for ever email of their's I forwarded. Anyone know what the holdup is?
Drinking (tm) is a registered trademark of the Coca-Cola Company.
--
--
#nohup cat
-- the most controversial site on the Web
But, don't patents become public domain if they're not enforced? If it was granted, even if it were only filed, in 1985, there's been over a decade of public-knowledge uses of their patent they never sued to enforce. Wouldn't this make the patent unenforceable now?
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
I thought it was a seven year limit on patents. 1985 + 7 = 1992. Why doesn't the court tell the company to fsck off?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Bite me.
Love,
The Internet
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
The main patent you refer to was filed in 1983, not 1973. But your math is still right...
Sometimes I honestly think that there should be a use it or loose it provision in the patent law, then I think about your typically small time inventor.
Besides, whatever happened to those guys who claim they invented the Hyperlink?
Patent law is a mess
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"Business meets technology." It might be the scariest thing ever, but business is still viewing each advancement technology just like anything else; something they can own exclusively. The Internet is yet another cultural innovation that happened too soon, because we don't have the social maturity to handle it properly.
Give a read to "Nobrow: The Culture of Marketing; The Marketing of Culture." Excellent stuff written by a guy who's made a living of packing maximum content into minimum space. It discusses a lot of the mentalities behind the privitization of thoughts, styles, etc. It's important to note that it's not a matter of "their fault" versus "our greater good," because we consumers make this sort of a nightmare not only possible, but in many respects necessary. We demand it, more or less, because there is a balance between the need for freedom of choice, and the need for a way to distinguish the cream from the crop.
What relevance does that topic bear on this problem? Simple; it's the mentality, stupid! Incorporation is a way of life. We have long relied on the assurance that Good Things (tm) will be maintained by organized parties with financial incentive to keep those Good Things (tm) flowing. Without that incorporated mechanic in place, how can we be sure that today's staple of life won't be gone tomorrow? Who will ensure that the things we rely on will be here tomorrow? It's a valid concern, and our current system fills that need well; but not well enough, and its driving principles are flawed in such ways that lead naturally to this sort of problem. We should change that by reading good books that teach us about the problem, and then changing our social (and market) behaviors to fix it. Providers will and must respond to their market's demands.
A substance to be inhaled, which reaches the lung from which it enters into the bloodstream and affects the brain
Nah! It's not Marihuana, we're talking about air(tm) and the patent is applicable for breathing(tm)
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Otherwise I can't rip it off legally to embrace and extend it and have to steal it.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
And how sir, do you think you get to that store?
I own patent 4711/12345 "A method of movement by moving one foot in front of the other to get from a place to another place, regardless of the pace with which this method is applied".
So don't you dare to even walk(tm) to your car without transferring a lot of $$$ into my general direction.
walk(tm), walking(tm), jogging(tm), running(tm) and feet(tm) are trademarks owned and controlled by CaptainZapp enterprises
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I also mis-read it the first time and was thinking the same thing, but if you check it a bit closer, it says "information" in material objects. That's a lot more relevant.
I think the key point to this patent without having taken legal advice, is that it's talking about point of sale. As usual all the initial modded-up comments are uninformed and ranting about how they were downloading before 1985. (The slashdot writeup doesn't help.)
But it's really only relevant to people and companies who are selling downloads. So if you require payment before someone can download some information, this patent might (or might not) be relevant.
I'm wondering how easy it might be to get around simply by changing the system slightly, like checking for authorisation code twice instead of once for example. I'm sure I remember an audio clip of that patent office guy stating that Barnes & Noble could quite feasibly run a 2-click ordering system to avoid infringing on Amazon's 1-click, and that would seem like the same sort of thing.
===
Post after post of some nutcase company thinking they invented something way after it was used for the first time. What's next, "Company claims patent on circular contraption used for the conveyance of people and objects"?
pry my apt-get from my cold dead fingers.
28. The method of claim 27 wherein the material object is defined further as being selected from a group consisting of: audio tape capable of having fixed therein information in the form of sound recordings; audio disc capable of having fixed therein information in the form of sound recordings; video tape capable of having fixed therein information in the form of pictures and or audio; video disc capable of having fixed therein information in the form of pictures and or audio; media capable of having fixed thereon information in the form of printed matter (words, symbols and or pictures); devices capable of having fixed therein inforamtion in the form of digital data; or combinations thereof.
(emphasis mine)
Even if this person has a valid patent, this is one of those times where, for the good of the world, you have a moral responsibility to just let it go.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Nevermind. E-Data's got that one too...
LFS. Have you built your system today?
Besides, companies have to defend patents in a timely manner to keep them. [Or at least that's the excuse some companies use for raking smaller companies over the coals] If this 80's era patent was not used against Compuserve, how can they get away with using it now?
Because the whole thing is a hoax meant to illustrate the ridiculous state of software patent law.
IANAL. Also, IANAPA (patent agent, or patent attorney, not all of whom are lawyers).
Slashdotters evidently need more information about patents. I'm going to try and give what I know, using this patent as an example.
First, each patent claim is separate from the others. Each one is effectively its own patent. You'll notice how patent 2 includes patent 1. This is because the first claim is the broadest claim that the patentholder can possibly lay claim to. Claim 2 is more specific, and then it just gets more detailed as you go on. This is normal. In most patent filings, you get a hierarchy of claims.
If Slashdot would let me, I'd put up a table enumerating the hierarchy. But it won't. Sigh. :)
Therefore, I will use my own webspace. Open this in another window and keep it handy.
Anyway, there appear to be three root claims in this particular patent. To wit, claims 1, 29, and 37 each have no dependencies, and set up their own trees.
This is important. One thing to remember is that the root claim is most often just a case of wishful thinking on the part of the patent drafter. It is probably too broad, and will be struck down in court. In theory, the PTO and its equivalent agencies in other countries would get rid of these claims, but in practice, they don't.
However, this does not mean that its dependent claims go with it. Actually, quite the opposite. Because they've been modified, they're narrower, they cover less, they're harder to attack.
But on the other hand, if you get one of the really narrow claims, you get all of its predecessors too. For example, suppose you find prior art for Claim No. 12. That allows you to knock out Claims No. 1, 2, 5, and 7 through 11.
That's why you get so many branches. This is a pretty good piece of drafting, this patent. 12 and 47 are the only big target claims. There's lots of others with only one or two dependencies.
I was going to try and figure out the claims themselves today, but I won't. My head hurts. Maybe tomorrow.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I read the story and most of the patent. (My brain began to go numb and I had to stop.) I fail to see how this could be interpreted as a patent on software downloads. The way I read it, it's a patent on how store owners can send information regarding a product in their inventory to an interested shopper from the point of sale.
But why is the rum gone?
Well, this certainly gets my day off to a cynical start.......
Don't read this!
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
It's probably the same miraclulous software that tracks how many times an e-mail is forwarded, so nickels can be donated to charity.
I can just imagine people shopping on the internet receiving a email bill for $45 for looking through a companies web site.
Europe has the right idea, NO software patents because it will kill the internet and the computer industry.
--
Will the last company to abandon Linux please turn off the lights??!
AOL had started to work on patenting this some years ago. Unfortunately, their users have yet to complete a successful download. Any time now...
This will have a similar effect to everyone flushing toilets during Super Bowl at half time.
Ask me about my vow of silence!
Disputes about prior art are usually matters of fact which require a full-scale trial before a jury if the parties can't reach an agreement. The judge apparently tried to kill the case before it got to that by ruling that, as a matter of law, internet downloads weren't even infringing. The appeals court tossed it back to him. Now he might have to bring in a jury. Juries are pretty unpredictable, but I think the odds are against the patent holders -- a judge might accept that as a matter of law a patent with 40-some obviously invalid claims (to inventing modems, remote "file duplication commands", etc.) and one possibly valid claim (paid downloads) may still be valid as to that one claim. A jury is either going to assume that if it's 98% invalid it's all invalid, or are going to do a bit of jury nullification and punish the SOB's who wrote that patent for making them read it and sit through the trial. (At least, that's what I would do...)
check out the rfc's for ftp. There's a link at http://www.wu-ftpd.org/rfc/
If the court does interpret the patent broadly at all, they're going to be nailed on prior art. Basically, if anyone can prove they were using the same method before the patent was filed, then the patent will crumble. And it was 1985 that they filed it? Are we to believe that nobody had distributed software to a point-of-sale location over a network prior to 1985? I doubt that.
In 1982, I used to download files on my Apple II+ using a bulletin board program called Ascii Express. Is this prior art, or does a bogus definition of 'network' help them? What about ftp, Bitnet, fidonet, etc?
First you get the patents. Then you get the power. Then you get ... the women.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I hope not..otherwise i will have topay for my office 2000 hack download..
Democratic USA - Government of the corporations, by the Corporations, for the corporations.
Regardless of where this case goes, let's assume the court rules in favor of EData and they make billions from licensing the concept of downloads. The defendants can file an appeal and possibly even file for a patent revocation on the fact that such a concept is obvious. Experts on the topic can point out that such a concept is fndamental to operation of the Internet long before the patent was filed in 1985. The concept wasn't designed by EData, it was dreamed up by the original Internet founders in US Defense Dept and academia back in the 60s.
EData will eventually lose this battle. It's just a matter of time until that happens.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Huh?
At first I was tempted to accuse the judges of being stupid for upholding this patent. But on second thought, they must be fucking geniuses if they can even tell what it means.
Save Bob OK! put down the club,You DO have the right to tax me!
This will never fly. They will probably be acquired and crushed before they collect. People will leave the Internet in droves if they even attempt to anyway.
If I understand this, I can speculate that for future discoveries and take the credit for them ? It makes no sense at all !? If you didn't make a prototype how could you patent the thing ? You didn't do research for it, you didn't even plugged the thing together... If this work, I can patent the idea of a Fusion Reactor. Sit on my butt and wait around for people to figure how to make one up and then claim "hey I had the Idea I take 5%, even though I did stricly nothing and I don't even know half about physics..." This is a good way to stop progress. There won't be any flying cars etc... If people started to patent the thing and take away the money from the too-deserving engineers and workers who brought em up. Then I hope must be awfully wrong in my conception of the story... But then Human beings have never been very logical says Spock or whatever... If you can Patent ideas or vague ideas, then what can we do? Might as well shut the Internet since it's a goldmine of free ideas for richer people to rip off and Patent. Maybee if you got plenty of cash the you can patent what I just said so we have to pay for loggin off the net or switching the server :)