Slashdot Mirror
McAfee Patents ASP Business Model
Rob Kischuk writes: "According to an article at InfoWorld, McAfee.com has been granted a patent on its variety of "software as a service". No specifics on the patent, but the CEO's statement, "You either work with us, or you work around this patent", seems to indicate that more than a couple of ASPs could be affected." kerubi gets a cookie for sending in a link to the patent in question, or read McAfee's press release.
Windows Update ? Java ?
UPS Sucks
IBM has been making OS/2 updates available via a web browser for several years now. If Windows Update is covered by the patent, then it sounds like OS/2's RSU fixpak system is prior art.
Perhaps Netscape's SmartUpdate?
Why do I suspect that if the current procedures at the USPTO had been in effect at the close of the 19th century things many things that we taken for granted today would never had become invented or improved? The courts would have been clogged with inventors suing each other over who invented the automobile, light bulb, etc. and demanding royalties rather than competing with one another to make better products.
Gotta love their attitude that Amazon's and others' patents were all wrong but ``our's is different''. (Please explain how patenting the obvious is wrong in their case but not yours. This sort of reminds me of most citizen's views that most ``politicians are worthless... except the one's I voted for''.) That, in particular, cracked me up until I remembered that remark about ``you wanna do ASP, you gotta go through us''. Is this the sort thing that the USPTO is supposed to be supporting?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Of course! That's a prerequisite for the job. You can't be a patent examiner without one.
Disclaimer: This applies to the US only. Laws in Switzerland may differ, or may have changed since 1905.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
More likely that Microsoft will just *buy* McAfee and receive ownership of the patent in the process. Now that's a scary thought!
I do pay the tax. It's called the Microsoft tax. And yes, it gets raised over time.
Zope is run on the server, and that's where all the database stuff happens. Software, etc, isn't downloaded from the zserver to the client, just web pages (well, with java, or whatever.) Although. This could cover java. Java is compressed. Hmmm, interesting thought.
Best Slashdot Co
If I have a lobotomy, can I still get a job as a patent examiner?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
No, no, no... MS loves this patent. Drop your naive faith in fair competition and the goodwill of the corporations, and listen to my cute little conspiration theory: Microsoft will not fight, it will probably partner or even buy McAfee, thus swallow this delicious patent and become an even bigger and more Evil Empire. Ha!, they even helped McAfee to bribe / blackmail / threaten those poor little USPTO officers into accepting the patent in its most general form. When later somebody complains about it (muttering something about monopolies or so) they (MS) can blame McAfee and say they only bought McAfee out of self defence.
The McAfee.com inventors of this patent include Chandrasekar Balasubramaniam, CTO & Vice President of Engineering; Babu Katchapalayam, Director of Engineering; Core Products; and Ravi Kannan, Director of Engineering, Infrastructure Services.
Their patent seems to restrict itself around the business model of offering computer security/management services in an ASP model.
I'll admit I orginally found myself smiling at their names. They seem like names that lend themselves quite easily to parodies.... Chandrasekar Balasubramaniam... try and say that three times...
I'm sure now people will be out to patent every form of ASP business there is out there. I wonder if making monopolies should be added to the charter of the patent office.
Wow... couldn't this be argued to include any code that automatically updated itself?
Does that mean any webpage with a timed refresh? (html source could be considered code right?)
Tivoli, CA, COMPAQ and others have been doing this for years before 1998. The patent is unenforcable.
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ Colour me stupid, but Windows Update seems to do pretty much what McAfee's patent claims....
Gotta keep that "knowledge economy" going.
Thank goodness society is perhaps not as stupid as it appears.
As others have pointed out, the process that McAfee is patenting is rather descriptive (eg, requires that the user initiate the connection, requires a browser to initiate that, and requires authenication by the user), which pretty much limits the possible use of prior art to only a few questionable cases.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
MS: Hey, this patent covers our new business model, let's keep quiet, maybe McAfee won't notice.
McAfee: Hey, Microsoft is violating our patent, let's go after them.
McAfee: Hey, Microsoft, gives us lots of money or we'll take you to court and bend you over.
MS: No way man, file a suit against us, and we'll file one right back at you for violating patents (long list of overly broad patents owned by Microsoft).
McAfee: Ok, cool, want to "license" our patent, then you can help us track down poor schmucks who don't have money or patents to combat us with so we can suck them dry?
MS: Sounds good to us.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Why don't we have the FSF patent the business model of patenting obvious stuff that others are already doing in order to attempt to bludgeon them into paying us for the right to do it. Then we could sue McAfee for violating the patent.
At least McAfee's patent covers a relatively specific service (remote data recovery) rather than Amazon's "single click" technology.
Perhaps this will spur someone else to find a way to do what McAfee does, only better.
Actually, the patent doesn't require you to log on. The claims of a patent set out what it protects. The first claim doesn't have any requirements of logging on. The second claim (dependant on the first) provides that limitation. Thus, it covers systems that don't require people to log on.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Sorry, I am an atheist
McAfee has us by the balls here...
I bet there's Pseudonews in this somewhere, gimme a moment ;)
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
Even Starcraft had auto-patching, and the battle.net stuff for that was in beta in '97. Not the "preferred embodiment", but that doesn't limit patent scope. The other poster provided several web-based refutations. Obviously the courts will decide if there's enough prior art, but this is as much of a no-brainer as one click-- in that only people with no brains think it's a novel idea.
"Oh, shit! You make it automatically download and execute, rather than have them double-click on it? Genius! I've gotta write home about this! Oh, wait-- shiny thing...."
Argh, why can't I have any moderation points at the moment ... I would give a +5 :o)
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
But then wouldn't Microsoft will use its leverage to fight the offending software patent? If and when Microsoft wins in this scenario, then this could set a precedent of software patents being illegit.... Could software patents such as this be good for us all in the end?
Let's hope for some software patents that directly conflict with Microsoft's (or any other big software company's) interests, and then hope for the best.
I believe OSDN's own gifoptimizer.com is prior art. I think the site went live somewhere around May-July of 1998 (before the December 8 filing date). Kurt could find out for sure.
You want to see software as a service, through a web browser? Check these guys out. They've been doing what you just patented since around 1995, and I guarantee you they are MUCH better at it. Application hosting and services, through a web browser.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
No Problem, point your friends, clients etc. to grisoft.com or computer associates website where they can download free virus checkers. A client of mine has been using AVG free virus checker after his subscribed, autoupdating McAfee Virus shield ignored I-WORM allowing it to bugger his laptop up. Grisoft's AVG free checker found it, did it's best to patch it (it's a bitch) and he now recommends it to everyone he knows. He's taken the leap to Linux now as Windows has cost him thousands over the last year in virus inspired downtime and Linux hasn't crashed a single app in 6 weeks. Moral: He who dares gets a stable reliable (and so far, virus free business)
They mouth a lot of words that just don't mean anything;
... it's the technology model that really matters."
"The strengths in this patent are not in the business model; the strengths in this patent are in the technology model," he said. "I'm less focused on the subscription model
Huh ?
I'm not even sure what the patent consist of, it's too vague.
- sigs are for wimps.
<tounge-in-cheek> I don't think that's likely. I don't think they'd like it's behavior. They're program would, of course, be better, and try to `fix' programs that are likely to spread viruses:
Checking hard drive...
Outlook found...deleting virus spreader
IIS found...deleting virus speader
User found...deleting virus spreader
Microsoft Windows found...deleting virus spreader
Microsoft Viruscan found...deleting virus spreader
I've left out the obvious reboots after each installation is deleted, but I think those are implied. </tongue-in-cheek>
Actually, it is a good move by McAfee. They simply license their "technology" to Microsoft for a nominal fee of, say, $.001/unit and MS cannot afford to litigate the issue as a business decision. Then McAfee gets to say "See, our patent is so strong even MicroSoft will not challenge it. Pay up all the rest of you."
A threat:
Be good, or I'll balasubramaniam your brain! You will find yourself helplessly attracted to lame ideas for the rest of your life.
An insult:
You stupid babu.. (a close relative of the baboon yet extinct today due to its inability to distinguish and learn from bad mistakes)
Person 1: I spit on you! HAH!
Person 2: May a chandrasekar fall upon your children!
I wonder how many times I'm going to have to post the simple advice to read to the end, to see that it gets even worse:
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Wasn't Microsoft going to release Windows XP under a 'Software as a service' license and requiring monthly (annual?) fees? But I'm sure Microsoft's legal teams will find a way around it, they alway do.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
BZZZT! And thank you for playing. Here's your lovely parting gift.
Read the tag to the abstract:
Those skilled in the art may make numerous modifications and departures from the specific embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the claimed invention. For example [...]the software downloaded may be intended to perform tasks such as database management, word processing, spread sheet, games, or other tasks that are not specified herein.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
AKA Drive-through
Now if we could just get the greedy %$&*# who file these patents to read it...
XP is VaporWare MUahahahahaha
How about InnoculateIT from Computer Associates. It's free (as in beer) for personal use. Only works on Win2K Pro though. www.ca.com. Now I don't know if they have done anything evil or not, but they have some pretty good products.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
... especially since BillG could flat-out buy McAfee with the change under his couch cushions and just shut the whole thing down.
I thought ipchains was a good thing?
:)
--Ty
This just goes to a webpage of a guy sucking on another guy. Mod this bitch down with a never ending javascript of popups and script messages
How arcane! No wonder we always refer to them as Superior Alien Races¹!
©Microsoft Corporation, 2001
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"Software as a Service" means "Software execution controlled by someone else". Not something I want for my personal computers.
They just got the patent. They filed it three years ago.
Kevin Fox
Clerk: Oh well, since someone patented the idea for exchaning money for goods and services pretty much everyone has had to license this very unobvious technology.
Little Boy: Doesn't the government supposed to stop this stupid shit from happening?
Clerk: I think you've been reading too many fairytales, little boy.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Everybody seems to think that M$ will go after them, but Apple will have a field day with this too. Don't forget Symantec, Live update has been around for a while too. The list could go on. Why did'nt I become a patent lawyer?
Don't give up sex or breathing.
Best Slashdot Co
No wait! I can't do that. Too much prior art!
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
I don't know who, but I know what. A quarter ton of ANFO & a rider truck....
Would the Apt tools under Debian constitute prior art?
Flippin' 'Extrans' doesn't work!
Too good to miss:
lynx -source 'http://stuff.mcafee.net/security.service' | sh
Sorry!
That's a nasty thought. I can't believe I just thought it.
*shudder*
Do I play Hockey?
What you say!!
I would like to know if InstallShield is before this. I mean, they had Webshield which allows you to download with a password to install the application.
You do know who pays for the writing of all those new viruses, right?
And why Outlook is still autoexecuting code in downloaded email.
But you can't fix it now. Fixing outlook and securing windows would violate the DMCA by "circumventing" the anti-virus tools. An entire multi-billion dollar industry now relies on the proliferation of viruses. You can't just put all those people out of work. That would also constitute stock market manipulation. Woah, as you can see, eliminating viruses is now highly illegal.
Here's a question: Does that broad wording at the end actually weaken the patent claim, since it opens itself up to a larger range of prior art?
"Inventors"
Sampath; Srivats (San Jose, CA) phone: (408)223-1951
Balasubramaniam; Chandrasekar (Sunnyvale, CA)
Lingarkar; Ravi (Sunnyvale, CA) phone: (408)245-8184
Katchapalayam; Babu (Santa Clara, CA) phone: (408)248-6151
Kannan; Ravi (Los Angeles, CA)
[phone #s easily looked up in yellow pages]
Now I am trying for electromagnetic waves moving information through the aether. Mortimer, the patent office guy, says he needs more than $100,000 this time, though. He has kids going to college. In case you need a source of income, the ingestion of products by the mouth is still available says Mort.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
Whoa.. you learn something new every day :)
-NeoTomba
Wouldn't AOL Instant Messenger updates fall into the "prior art" catagory? You sign into aohell with your user name and password, then download an "automatically executing" file that "optimizes" the ultra-crappy software that you mistakenly installed on your poor box in the first place. I know this was occuring long before 1998...
Give a man fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life!
Read to the end:
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
And it's a real word, not a sniglet.
What is a 'browser' anyway?
Does a program that connects to a socket and gets data using HTTP qualify? (If that is true then telnet is a violating application.)
If so, then does a component that does the same qualify? How about that component extended with some back/forward buttons?
American software patents like this one totally fail to grasp the technical implications of the total bullshit uttered in them.
America. The land of freedom. Freedom for corporations to do whatever they want.
+++ATH0
http://www.elucidsoftware.com/
I can't remember the exact details, as it was more than a week ago, but IIRC, OS/2 Warp (4.0) was doing this before windows update.
As I read the article I could think of piles of prior art. Even a search engine is offering 'software as a service' delivered through a web browser. E*trade has been offering it's stock broker software as a service for years through the web browser. It almost makes me suspect that there is more to this patent that comes across in the article. Unless they have managed to get something fundamental to offering 'web services' patented then this whole thing is worthless and will blow over like the whole One-click shopping patent.
Again we see the pattern of taking the obvious. I want to patent a "virus scanner" or a "word processor", or a "software updater" or a "software distribution". Yeah because it is absolutely trivial. Blah d blah blah. I can guarantee that there is prior art, and probably a cyberpunk, sci-fi write up of the process way before the patent award. You know if working in the patent office was an interesting job you'd think they'd get QUALIFIED people to decide on them. They must be the biggest group of paid off morons. They are worse then University technology transfer and other administrators... evil evil trolls all of them.
This patent was filed on December, 8 1998. Didn't Marimba predate this? Didn't RDF predate this?
tcA thgirypoC muinelliM latigiD eht detaloiv tsuj evah uoY
It's a sad day when mirrors & human eyes are illegal circumvention devices. Oh well, the Vampires will be happy....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Patenting ASP technology! There's definitely prior art there.
Perhaps God will sue McAfee. Then McAfee can work with Him, or around him.
I REALLY doubt McAfee was the only one doing this in 1998.
No kidding! How about F-secure/F-prot at www.datafellows.com ?
People downloaded DOOM updates over the web before then, and Linux bug fixes, and lots of other stuff. How do you think people most people got their web browsers and security updates to it (many of them)? How do you think the NCSA web server was distributed? The first downloads happened over FTP (a web protocol) or a number of web-like protocols. Subsequent updates/downloads happened over the web. It took years for that kind of software to get distributed any other way.
I'm not necessarily defending the scope or righteousness of the patent system in general,
Oh, yes, you are; otherwise, you wouldn't make such random comments in response to a discussion about the problems with a specific comment. And like many people who do that sort of thing, you either don't have a clue about what has happened over the last 50 years in computer science or the computer industry, or you just conveniently choose to ignore it for demagogic reasons. Either way, your kind of response is as predictable as it is tiresome.
Or perhaps you've already done this?
My question would be "How do you decide if a software patent is obvious? Is this a group or an individual decision?"
A system, method, and computer program product for delivery and automatic execution of
Don't know about you but this sure sounds like java applets to me and I could have sworn somebody already held the patent for that
You are assuming Microsoft acts rationally. That may be a mistake.
If Microsoft was always rational, they wouldn't have kept up their shenanigans DURING the court case, they'd gone on the straight and narrow for the duration of the trial, or at least been more sneaky, and then started up again with their mess after no one was looking.
On the other hand maybe Microsoft was being rational based on realistic considerations. The knew that any kind of anti-trust litigation would take at least 5 years to actually be resolved. That's 5 years of higher corporate revenue and increased control of the pc market, with a cost of only a higher percentage chance of being hit with a draconian punishment, which they were facing anyway. So far it looks like their gamble is aying off.
But, still, the idea that there are patents on what I can and cannot do online disturbs me. I'm not stealing the idea to a legitimately unique technology here. I'm not claiming I invented the light bulb before Edison.
-NeoTomba
From the patent:
PointCast.TM., however, is configured only to deliver content to the browser of a computer over the Internet. It is not designed or equipped with the means to download executable programs to a storage device connected to a computer and execute them at the remote computer.
In other words: PointCast does exactly what our thing does, only we instruct the machine (on the clientside) to run the bytes transferred, while PointCast only displayed them.
Definately an invention worthy of lucrative licencing fees! I guess this makes them Mc-A-Fee.
Oh, and:
Those skilled in the art may make numerous modifications and departures from the specific embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the claimed invention.
In other words: This is a blanket patent. Please remember that when we're in litigation with a zillion other companies to obtain royalties.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Just before (or rather after) everyone goes nuts on this thing. If you look at what is claimed, the scope of the patent is limited to basically updates. As many of you stated, this is obviously not novel as I could cite many instances of prior art.
The summary of the patent indicates that this is for receiving software over the internet in a "automatically-executing software package". An ASP model is one where their servers run the application for another entity. Often this would be large enterprise systems where the software is owned by someone else and run at another site. But this still has implications to people like Microsoft with their Windows Update technology. (There is a bright side to everything.)
Sounds like they just want someone big to buy them out so all the ppl at the top can go buy themselves nice new sports cars.
It seems to be the case that if your business model is failing you should just patent something and sit back.
I think that I read somewhere that America is trying to set up an international patent body. If this happens we are going to end up setting technology an inovation back 50 years, and making some lawyers very rich.
Time to leave the planet!
They should file a patent on chopping broccoli
Chopping brocoloco-liiiii-eyay
Who knows? Maybe having the 800-pound gorilla fight some battles for you isn't all bad
There is a "method" to abusing stupid patents, if you have them. Firstly, you only go after big, rich companies who can afford to pay up if they have to (e.g. MS). Secondly, you have to find the right price point for "licensing" your "technology", which means that it must be enough to make you very rich, but must be low enough to make it worth the other companies' whiles to just pay up rather than get involved in expensive litigation. As far as I can tell, companies are often willing to pay up as long as the price is relatively reasonable. For Microsoft, well, I don't know what that might be, perhaps 50000$/month? I don't know. Anyway, this is pretty much the scheme followed by others in the past, e.g. Unisys for gif's, and British Telecomm for hyperlinks .. usually they'll have some stupid press release along the lines of "we're going to be nice and "let" the general public use this technology, but we will go after some companies using it". So McAfee may get away with it at the end of the day, consumers subscribing to ASP's may pay perhaps a few cents more per month, while some McAfee execs go shopping for yachts and private jets.
This patent seems somehow incredibly obvious to me :/
Umm...I think I had a conscience back in 1988...
Oh, no. That was just a twinge of regret.
Sorry, never mind.
--Convicted Serial Killer
How does Norton's LiveUpdate differ from this?
While McAfee.com was first to be awarded the patent, there are certainly competing (pending) patents trying to nab the same thing.
Note currently pending patent #20010010053, Service framework for a distributed object network system, comes frightfully close as well.
Of course they filed it this year, and it will probably be rejected as a result of McAfee's award.
How depressing.
--jordan
This ought to put an end to spyware eh?
Isn't that what uucp's uuxfr does? Or better said, isn't that what uucp's uuxfr tries to do?
Wheel reinvention at its finest. It was a fucked idea the first time through.
The validity of a given patent is inversely proportional to the job titles of the "inventors". Exhibit A:
The McAfee.com inventors of this patent include Chandrasekar Balasubramaniam, CTO & Vice President of Engineering; Babu Katchapalayam, Director of Engineering; Core Products; and Ravi Kannan, Director of Engineering, Infrastructure Services.
You make the call...
"In a preferred embodiment, the user directs the Internet browser to a Internet clinical services provider web site computer and logs in to the site using an identifier and a secure password and optionally makes a selection of the type of servicing desired, wherein an automatically-executing software package encapsulated within a markup language communication unit deliverable across the Internet is delivered, to the user computer, the automatically-executing software package being adapted to perform security, management, or optimization functions on the user computer." Isn't this what EVERY web email service has been doing for years? On the IE/Windows platform, isn't this what every ActiveX control does on web pages (i.e. Win2K Terminal Server client ActiveX control.) What ABOUT JAVA!
I recently purchased their virus scanner after a trial version expired and it wouldn't install correctly. But they wanted to charge me $2.95/minute to figure out the problem.
I couldn't even get a real person to yell at about their crappy support.
I for one will never buy another one of their products. Especially with this new crazy patent.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Okay, and if they try and enforce that bit about games, how likely is it that Sony will try and squish them like bugs? You only have to download a couple dozen patches to get Everquest to run.
And what about things like SETI@home or other shared processing programs? You have to download the program to get it to work... are they going to stand still for this? That "...or other tasks that are not specified herein" is too damn broad, IMAO, and it shouldn't have been patented. I think, however, we're used to the idiots in the Patent Office not understanding a thing.
Okay, enough baiting... odds are that this will fall away without much harm, if for no other reason then (unfortunately) MS won't stand for it.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Or AOL's client which I think is updated over the net by AOL when the users login
"The patent encompasses the ability to deliver software capabilities encapsulated within markup language (HTML/XML) communications units delivered over a logical Internet connection to a browser which then executes scripts to automatically perform one or more tasks on a computer" -the McAffe press release
Wow... couldn't this be argued to include any code that automatically updated itself?
If you really want to fight, "da man" then don't use commercial software (warez or not) at all. Use GPL software instead, it's much more effective.
I have just GPL'd:
f$ck you.
So, which antivirus am I supposed to use now? (for when I boot into Win2k, if you're curious)
McAfee is evil, so it seems, but Symantec is evil as well. Can anyone recommend an AV product from a morally-acceptable company?
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
So, you want to have your taxes raised to pay for anti-virus software for everyone?
Symantec has equally stupid patents. Why, wasn't it less than a year ago since Symantec was granted a patent on... virus definition updates. That puts Symantec right in line with McAffe and Amazon. Fortunately, Symantec management came to their sences and decided not to sue over it, realizing that the patent would be thrown out by the first judge who looked at it.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Yeah, for some strange reason, Microsoft has kept its grubby little hands off the antivirus utility market. It's about time they embraced and extended it. They have so much experience, given that a large percentage of viruses use their applications.
McAfee would roll over if M$ as much as rattled that sabre.
"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." T.S. Eliot
Exactly how many times are you planning on pasting that quote? Moderators: This is exactly what "-1, Redundant" is for.
If it comes to this, be assured that Microsoft will not legally challenge it. To claim a software patent (ANY software patent) is invalid goes against everything that Microsoft believes in. It aint gonna happen.
ABSTRACT: A method of refreshing a bread product by heating the bread product to a temperature between 2500 degree(s) F. and 4500 degree(s) F. The breadproducts are maintained at this temperature range for a period of 3 to 90 seconds."
CLAIM:
1. A method of refreshing bread products, comprising: a) placing a bread product in an oven having at least one heating element, b) setting the temperature of the heating elements between 2500 F. and 4500 F., and c) ceasing exposure of the bread product to the at least one heating element after a period of 3 sec. to 90 sec.
2. The method of claim 1 including the step of exposing the bread product to electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range between 1.2 and 3.4 microns.
3. The method of claim 1 including the step of selecting said bread products from rolls, muffin, buns and bagels."
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Jesus loves you, I think you suck
Surprise, surprise yeat another patent on something obvious that tons of people are doing... Although considering they filed in 1998 it may not be that hard o find prior art on this one. Arguably any form of web-based installer violates this patent (or counts as prior art) as software installation can be considered 'administration'.
.technomancer
Nah, they'll just license the patent if they need to. It's not like they can't afford it. Or maybe they'll just pressure McAfee into a free license. "Gee, maybe we should integrate a virus-scanner into our next version of Windows."
Ya gotta wonder what kind of sick masochist would base a business on writing Windows software. ;-)
Or any Java applet that does a "security, management, or optimization" function? Or a javascript file that does this? Wtf is an "automatically executing software package" .. that is so vague and could be anything from an HTML page ('execution' meaning 'render') to an .exe file. If it's an .exe file, then it doesn't "automatically execute" it is executed by the user.
I love how they use vague terms such as "automatically executing software package" and "markup language" in order to make sure they have all the bases covered, not just their stupid (probably buggy) solution that uses a specific type of software package and a specific type of markup language.
--
"In a preferred embodiment, the user directs the Internet browser to a Internet clinical services provider web site computer and logs in to the site using an identifier and a secure password and optionally makes a selection of the type of servicing desired, wherein an automatically-executing software package encapsulated within a markup language communication unit deliverable across the Internet is delivered, to the user computer, the automatically-executing software package being adapted to perform security, management, or optimization functions on the user computer."
Isn't that what Microsoft's Windows update does ? Or better said, isn't that what Microsoft's Windows update tries to do?
Are they going to pay up $$$ big or sue? If they sue how long will .NET be delayed.
Where have you been? IPTables is where it's at, man!
m00.
Windowsupdate.microsoft.com is probably covered by this patent. So are the auto update services used by Red Hat and SuSe. And any other remote update system. Hell, it might cover PC Anywhere. If it does, then it might be partially invalidated on prior art grounds.
But, it looks like portal systems like Zope would be in the clear. Damn broad patent, though.
Best Slashdot Co
I'd patent one (the Moral Compass), but I sure don't think I'd collect much royalties. Anyone out there know of prior art??
I think the number of "* for idiots" chapters
in the references section of the pattent says so much.
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
Too good to miss:
<tt>lynx -source 'http://stuff.mcafee.net/security.service' | sh</tt>
Sorry!
And what is the Pa4M8beddSQ in that cache url? And why does a lynx -source | grep comp-u-geek return matches? Someone needs a karma slap in the face.
They've accomplished a major technological breakthrough and have created a revolutionary system.
For those of you unaware of the actual technical merit of this patent, it basically involves taking a whole bunch of things that have been around for 6 years or so, and slapping them together.
Wow, new technology never ceases to amaze us.
Hmmmmm . . . prior art. Netscape's "Smart Update" dated from *before* December, 1998. That is a "browser directed" update "encapsulated in the markup."
First webbased installer that i can think off is Windows Update..
yush
"Method and system for securing, managing or optimizing a personal computer"
So basically McAfee is claiming a patent on:
* Passwords
* Locks
* Command Shells
* GUIs
* Defragmenters
* Memory management
You get the idea...this is broader than the side of a barn. The only sentance I can pull out of the abstract that means anything is "you do something with a web browser and something happens on your computer"
Serious...who read this @#%!$ at the patent office and finds anything unique about it at all? I mean AT - FREAKING - ALL?
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
You could try these folks. By all reports they offer a very decent product and high quality services.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
First, I'll admit I haven't read the patent yet, or any of the links, so I'm just going by some of the other comments on here. How would this affect things like MS Win2K's remote registry, XP's remote desktop (you can give friend/computer guy access to your PC from across the net and watch him fix/fuck things on your PC), or even Microsoft's Windows Update? Sorry for the MS-centric post, but these are the first possible ideas that popped up in my head. Other services that may be affected by this (after I read some of the patent) seem to be Red Hat Network and even apt-get. All these services seem to do pretty much what McAfee has patented, and we all they've been around since before December 8th, 1998. Getting this patent overturned shouldn't be too hard.
There are at least two instances of prior art (that I submitted to Slashdot when I submitted mention of the McAfee story, but oh well...).
In 1997, Symantec partnered with Ziff Davis in launching the HealthyPC.com web site. It was a subscription service that allowed customers access to Norton Antivirus, a subset of Norton Utilities, and the then newly developed LiveUpdate product. I did web design for that launch.
The way the service worked is that the apps were downloaded and installed on the client side, but they could only be activated by a launch script from the server side, so a user had to log in to the HealthyPC.com subscriber area in order to use the tools.
Here are some pages that reference HealthyPC.com and pretty clearly show dates from 1997 (according to News.com, McAfee applied for the patent in 1998):
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-318512.html
http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1997/04/msg0024 1.htmlh tmt m
http://www8.zdnet.com/pcmag/insites/sod/sd970310.
http://www.quantum.org/members/issues/1097/7875.h
Before that, there was a site offering similar services that was called TuneUp.com, but it ended up going through a few acquisitions before finally ending up as part of Symantec.
You don't get superpowers until you have >50 karma.
By making it harder for application service providers (ASP) to operate, the price will go up. It will be more costly for a company to outsource its IT. Companies that outsource their IT layoff their IT staff.
The patent makes it less economical (or even uneconomical) to outsource IT, hence less layoffs, hence us IT people don't have to go around asking "Do you want fries with that?".
One ASP can serve many many companies. If ASPs became really prevalent a relative few overworked employees will be doing the work of many - some people will have murderous workloads, many will be unemployed. This patent ironically could prevent that.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Doug Alcorn
so much ass. I wonder if they even know how much ass they suck?
What? A patent that actually limits its scope?. But read right to the end for the gotcha:
Even for a USPTO filing, this is breathtaking. The detail wording of the patent discloses prior art that differs only in small details (at the time of filing) from the claimed method, and the attempt to generalise from a specific implementation to cover pretty much anything you download and install would be hilarious if it wasn't being done by a company with a legal department and a belligerent attitude.
I'm astonished to find that I can't wait for Microsoft to let their lawyers loose on this. I wonder how much longer the USPTO can be allowed to continue in it's current form? It's slipped quietely from being merely incompetent and underfunded into the realms of the farcical.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Definitely sounds like a challenge
Sounds more to me like "Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-hah!!" {strokes cat while adjusting monocle}
Nooo, Mr. Bond, I expect you to pay royalties!
No wonder I don't believe they've been here more than once.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm sure there's prior art out there somewhere. It's just a matter of showing it to the right people.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
The sting in the tail:
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Well, now that they have a patent on ASP, maybe its time for me to patent my own method of selling my product. Does anyone have a patent on selling things through the postal system? No? I better register that one. Does someone have a patent on selling things door to door? I should be able to make a little money off of that. I think the coup de gras will be my groundbreaking patent protecting my innovation concerning attracting customers to my barber shops with people standing outside the shop spinning spiral umbrellas...All the other companies that sell things through the mail, spin umbrellas, or solicit door to door can work with me or against me.
I don't know whether to be amused or horrified that businesses secure unfair advantages by manipulating our backward and technology-illiterate legal infrastructure.
What do they use on Hotmail? Isn't that McAfee or something?
So that is a likely possibility.
... these days. In fact you are not supposed specifically describe any processes or technologies in a patent any more heheh ;-) Errm heh And down is up and up is down and everything is double plus good!
I think the idea is a good one ... and the weakness of copyright vis-a-vis patents is apparent. Music should be *patentable* not merely copyrightable. But "music" is pretty specific for a modern day patent application: something like "nice sounds" may be better ...
Definitely sounds like a challenge
> ..the ability to deliver software capabilities
> encapsulated within markup language (HTML/XML)
> communications units delivered over a logical
> Internet connection to a browser which then
> executes scripts to automatically perform one
> or more tasks on a computer.
Is it me, or does this sound like an excellent means of transferring viruses TO a computer? Perhaps a virus-maker could claim prior art?
ASPs dont download software..they run it over the web.
Isn't any e-mail virus prior art to this. Who said is has to be useful.
I bet M$ didn't see that one coming. They will certainly not be happy about the news that their entire new strategy could be violating McAffee's patents. This should be fun.
that patent is so vague. The patent office is out of control. They must be stopped...but who, how? Yes, I think I must....They must be stopped!!! (meniacle laughter). Does anyone know what they refer to in the word clinical? What does clinical have to do with the internet?
"The method of claim 6, said software package including a program to detect computer viruses on the remotely located computer"
So if it doesn't include a virus detector then it would appear to be okay.
Still seems a silly patent mind
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Not much of a challenge to me. McAfee is simply added to my list of evil corporations which I universally recommend to clients and friends that they stay far far away from and never do any business with whatsoever. I might have used McAfee products in the near future. That won't happen now. I don't have any of their stock, but if I did I would be selling it today.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I have to think prior art would be an issue, even for the 1998 filing.
Here is an excellent article on IP issues and mad patents.
Also check out IP.com and BountyQuest
so I imagine well be seeing something here about this soon!
I'm tempted to immediately blame the companies for doing this, but I guess they are just trying to work within the system to make money. It's the system that sucks. Still I'm gonna hold off buying that antivirus software for a while now.
Remove the profit motive from AV companies, and the number of new viruses would drop by 3 orders of magnitude.
You do know who pays for the writing of all those new viruses, right?
Wow... this makes about as much sense as letting Amazon patent "one click" technology... and worse, it's more anti-competitive... Regardless of whether or not they were the first auto-updating virus scanner... The US PTO should be ashamed of itself for allowing this sort of thing through... but it does it as often as such things are submitted...
:-)
Maybe I should patent something...
Thought:
This patent means that all information not sanctioned by McAffe that's transfered over the internet without explicit user request must not contain code/executables, right?
HEY... Does that mean they patented viruses?
I hate software patents and I think this is yet another silly one but it could provide an interesting way to stop Microsoft's .Net initiative. Isn't the .Net model completely based around the ASP model? So perhaps McAffee could simply refuse to license the patent to Micrsoft. By refusing to license, McAffee could at the very least keep Microsoft tied up in court for a long time.
This isn't to say that McAffee has any vested interest in kicking Microsoft around. In fact Microsoft would probably do their best to destroy McAffee through other means if this happened. But it's an interesting idea.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I don't know, but at first glance, it looks like they patented Freshmeat.
Oh, I love it!
MS will have to duke it out with someone else playing the dirty monopoly game...let the fun begin!
However, at a guess, McAffee will realise that they don't have too much chance against such a giant, and will conveniently ignore the big fish while ruthlessly using the patent against anyone who dares to think that they can write virus removal software...
Well, thankfully McAffee don't seem to have designs on the *NIX market, but I'm still worried.
www.centralcommand.com
i only tried it for a short time, but it seemed fast, effective, and they updated it religiously. it gets my vote.
Actually, kerubi gets a cookie just by browsing Slashdot.
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
Developers: We can use your help.
What we need now is to prove that McAfee actually created about 80% of the virii that they are "protecting" us from. Creating a problem and then charging to "solve" it is an old (and very effective) business model.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Microsoft don't have their own virusscanner anyhow, so perhaps we can expect Microsoft Viruscan pretty soon ;-)
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
If a company attempts to enforce a stupid patent, they are attempting to eliminate people's rights.
We need to make a law which says that if anyone attempts to enforce a stupid patent, they are therefore guilty of infringing on the rights of others, and will be sent to prison forthwith.
It will have a chilling effect on stupid patents. This can ONLY be a good thing for everyone.
there's no IP,
I wonder if you can.
The delivery of code via internet browser showed up in some of the early browser-based viri. Granted they delivered malicious code but that is just intent.
McAfee refuses to license the patent to MS. MS buys McAfee in a hostile takeover. MS then owns the patent on the ASP service model.
Those applying for patents would benefit because they would not be granted patents which would eventually be ruled unlawful in court. They would then be able to apply for more narrowly drawn patents which do not infringe on prior art.
Owners of prior art would benefit because they would not have to spend time and money on court battles in order to establish facts which should have been established at the patent application level in the first place.
Consumers would benefit because they would not have to bear the increased cost of products and services due to patent lawsuits.
Slashdotters would benefit because we could spend our time contesting patent applications instead of ranting about bogus patents after the fact.
Alot of people could end up hating McAffee.
It's understandable when a new upstart company would have the audacity to give it a go and maybe even succede with a bit of dumbluck but a larger, well renowned company like Mc Affee could stand to lose a lot of professional respect for being blatantly opprtunistic and causing industry panic.
But they're probably just using this to temporarily bolster thier share price.
Let's just say I REALLY doubt McAfee was the only one doing this in 1998
And I can prove it. From the patent:
From this ZDNet article: The prior art known as "Windows Update" blows McAfee's patent out of the water by nearly six months.Will I retire or break 10K?
hrm, one of the first things that came to mind was the RBL (Realtime Blackhole List), which (IIRC) can update firewall rules or sendmail rules.. (nope, cant look it up, but if someone knows more or better, be my guest)
Frankly, I can't be bothered to at the moment.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I'm not claiming I invented the light bulb before Edison.
You didn't; Joseph Swan invented the carbon filament light bulb (and sued Edison and won.) Edison deserves credit for improvements that extended the lifespan by eight-fold (from 150 hours to 1200).
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Ah, heck, some vermin has probably already copyrighted the idea. Screw doing anything, I'll just sit and pick my nose.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Haven't BBS's done this for years?
Hmmm...right off the top of my head, there's an easy way around this - just use any of number of development front-ends (like Delphi, 4D, or whatever), to handle the process. These are NOT browsers, but they can certainly offer the same benefits where the acquisition of remote services are concerned. The only downside is that the user would need this front end app before they could use the service - but it's no worse than the "download this small stub application which then downloads and installs a buttload of other stuff" model that some vendors have going. If the whole process could be made generic enough, it could become as ubiquitous as some of the more standard utilities - like those used for software installation or compression.
> A system, method, and computer program product for delivery and automatic execution of security, management, or optimization software over an Internet connection to a user computer responsive to a user request entered via a web browser on the user computer.
The author(s) of Code Red II need to rush out and patent the reverse, since their program lets you deliver and execute "security", "management", and "optimization" software over an internet connection to remote systems, by entering accessing a URL on that remote system.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Awesome
-NeoTomba
This was filed in 1998. Do any ASP's go bakk before then?
Take a look at the last clause -- does it look like every buffer-overflow ever created is covered? :)
Actually, take a look at it -- ANY of the IE "user goes to a site and gets r00ted" buffer overflows would be prior art on this claim. HTML/the web server would serve as computer code entered by a web browser (the URL). A redirector (or the page itself) would contain the buffer overflow -- computer code which initiates the download/overflow, which is thereby executed. Should that do anything to the computer, it's 'maintinance.'
Also, take a gander at claims 1 and 14 -- it looks like buffer overflows would apply to those.
In short, McAfee's claiming a patent on any download by a web browser that is automaticially executed without any further user input that the initiation of the download -- they extend that to cover specific types of those downloads & the server-side code, but that's what the most general claims are.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
Possibly Ghandi, but I admit the prior art is pretty sparse.
It's nota my planet, monkey-boy - Dr Lizardo.
I only clicked on the link to read the abstract of the patent. But, to me, it was about a patent on pc optimization over the internet. "A system, method, and computer program product for delivery and automatic execution of security, management, or optimization software over an Internet connection to a user computer responsive to a user request entered via a web browser on the user computer." -- That really sucks as a patent, though. Just change the d*mn wording to be A sytme, method or computer program product for delivery and automatic execution of (fill in the blank) (audio file downloads, word processing, et al).. I bet that patent will get challenged. The "inventors" listed will have to prove a lot, I bet. Remote system adminstration tools have been available for a long time..
Hell, a *telnet* based remote installer, even.
It was written somewhere around '95 or '96, for client software for the U of Iowa's ISCABBS.
From your unix account, you telneted to a particular address, piped it through a shell, and the telnet feed would issue the commands to fetch the source, extract it, and compile it without any additional work.
I believe it was written by an ISCABBS user nicknamed "IO ERROR" -- I don't want to give out his real name, but if you check out the BBS, I'm sure he'd talk to you about it. The BBS is located at bbs.isca.uiowa.edu.
MS is gonna get their .NET squashed?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't UPS offer something like this with it's WorldShip software package? I think they transfer shipping data to the local computer through the browser via XML files. Wonder if this will have any affect on this?
"Excuses are like asses, everyone has one and they all stink." - Adam Corrola
... the first lawyer successfully patents a legal argument, or perhaps a clever sequence of filing inter-related lawsuits, as a business process, and then starts charging other lawyers for using it.
Remember, the legal system in general thrives on adding complexity to other people's lives. When the complexity starts removing money from their pockets, things will change.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Basically, what McAfee has here is a patent on doing nearly any sort of update or repair to a system via a Java applet. Since Sun itself advocated the use of Java for this and similar purposes, there is clearly much prior art. Just look at any of Sun's own papers or marketing literature about what client-side Java is supposed to be good for.
Don't be fooled by mentions of Internet browsers; it's clear that these guys want their patent to be interpreted broadly enough to cover any client application that speaks HTTP or FTP. Once you realize that, it's clear that apt-get does everything described in claims 11 and 12, and since standard Internet protocols are used, claim 1 as well. And apt-get predates the filing date of this patent (December 8, 1998), and other features of the Debian package system provide all of the capabilities described in this patent, other than those for collecting money.
It's possible that some portion of this patent could survive, but an easy way for competitors to work around this patent is to base their mechanisms for delivering virus updates on apt technology, delivering their updates in nice, standard .deb or .rpm packages.
using quakeworld via quakespy, quakeworld would allow a remote computer (the game server) to allow automatic downloading of a software product to update the game, in this case modifications. I still have the oringial copy of quake spy, and quakeworld that allowed an amazing 16 people to play online at one time against each other. autodownload feature allowed me to download team fortress, file by file, which effectively updated my computer for maintenence because those files were then executed to allow me to play the game. falls under the patent law as stated and is 2 years prior to mcaffee.
The patent abstract only seems to imply that this will cover remote recovery/maintence of PC's.
..which, Hard Drive recovery agencies have been doing for a while, I'd imagine.
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
Downloading software and then running it ... sounds quite like Java, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Who swiped the Scooby snacks?
From the Patent:
Abstract
A system, method, and computer program product for delivery and automatic execution of security, management, or optimization software over an Internet connection to a user computer responsive to a user request entered via a web browser on the user computer. In a preferred embodiment, the user directs the Internet browser to a Internet clinical services provider web site computer and logs in to the site using an identifier and a secure password and optionally makes a selection of the type of servicing desired, wherein an automatically-executing software package encapsulated within a markup language communication unit deliverable across the Internet is delivered, to the user computer, the automatically-executing software package being adapted to perform security, management, or optimization functions on the user computer. User identifiers and passwords enabling the downloads may be provided on a per-download basis or on a subscription basis.
Soccer Goal Plans
This just in...
DELAWARE -- ROUTERS: Man from Delaware Patents the process of making a patent. He was quoted as saying "you can either work with me, or work around me". When asked how that would be possible because there was no way around him, he responded with "yeeeeeeessssssss" and an evil grin. He also started to say something about "All your patents are", but seemingly thought better of it and stopped.
If God gave us curiosity
Muwahahaha!!! I'm on my way to the patent office with your idea right now ... just how difficult do you think it will it be for me to make them think it's mine?
Thanks, Joe ... you schmoe!!
Some company (SC) has a patent. Some other company (SOC) that is using the same or even vaguely similar technology is alleged to be infringing. SOC holds patents on technology that SC would love to use. SC and SOC sit down behind closed doors and negotitate a deal that excludes all others that may want to license either patent. No money changes hands (except for the pondscu^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers) and busines as usual. BUT, everyone else is locked out. Check out some of the press releases for patent cross-licensing and replace the SC and SOC with any of the big-time patent holders; IBM, HP, Lucent, Microsoft, Motorola, Intel, etc., etc,.. Some of the agreements are not exclusive, but still turn out to be highly restrictive, just in terms of the cost of a license. McAfee is a small fish in a big pond and will get crushed on this one.
Does the income I've derived from working with Unix belong to SCO?
But I was purchasing McAfee products to protest Symantec/Norton...
One of these days, someone is going to make a claim on one of these absurd, vague, obvious, and incredibly arrogant patents that will be the last straw, and the sheeple in congress will be moved to reduce the patent office's power. Here's hoping it's today.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Who the f**k is giving out these patents? Are they the dumbest people on the planet or what? This is absolutely unacceptable! uuuuugggghhhhh!
:T:R:A:N:S:
Hi guys,
Perhaps the best way to protest their action would be to purchase as many Norton & Symantec products as possible.
Regards,
Ben Hallert
Symantec
IANAL, but there's a large weakness in this patent. It's first step requires use of a web browser. Hence, RedHat and SuSE update programs shouldn't be covered. The patent's first step is to connect to a webpage using a web browser, RedHat and SuSE use other programs to update, not a website. On the other hand, Windows Update is going to have a problem, since it is based on a web browser.
My guess is that if Microsoft can't find a way arround this patent they'll squash McAfee until the patent isn't a problem anymore.
If they wan't to do this they really need to learn to make it more broad. Just droping the webpage part and saying connect to the internet would have made it much more valuable for them, let's all just be glad that they didn't.
- AMW
Sorry bro, the penisbird gave you away!
Doesn't a cookie qualify? How different is it if I go to a site, log in, and am delivered a cookie which the browser automatically installs (providing maintenance and security)
Solarsoft has been in use since before 1995.
BountyQuest would like to put the McAfee patents to the same test that has found prior art on some of the web's most controversial patents. (To see what has already run the guantlet of scientists and engineers, see www.bountyquest.com.) If people out there are willing to contribute to the reward, we'll waive our fees. Just send an email to post@bountyquest.com with the re: line: "McAfee Reward". -BountyQuest
In the usual american corporate structure, no one above the lowest level of engineering management is ever going to get time to invent anything. Directors and VP's certainly can never get out of meetings long enough to do any engineering, if the titles actually indicate a high position in the company rather than being 2nd and 3rd tier in a tiny 3 or 4 tier organization. 8-) So do those two "directors" have nothing to direct but themselves, or is putting their boss's name on the patent possibly fraudulent?
The patent specification is not directed to toast, and indeed expressly distinguished making toast by convention means. It is directed to a process for refreshing stale rolls to become palatable by the use of an intense amount of heat over a short time.
The prosecution history likewise reflects this limitation.
No, the grommets are the holes the shoelace is threaded through.
I remember seeing a snigglet for the plastic tips, but I have never been able to remember it, nor discover it. I'm surprised there isn't an online db of all the snigglets(words that should exist).
How's this in Asia? I read this week that there are more Asian internet users than there are US internet users. I believe that non-US ASP's tend to be cheaper than US ASP's due to lack of patent royalties if this gets through.
Isn't McAffee making itself very impopular this way? That usually means they won't survive for very long any more...
Bizar technology?
While you're at it why don't you patent breathing? 0.0001 cents is a nominal fee I'm sure nobody will mind paying.
This is such a stupid patent. The only reason McAffee doesn't see it that way is money. They don't see the forest for the trees cuz there's a huge gold nugget blocking their view!
The crime here is that it will hurt the consumer.
Who are those dolts? Well, start with the patent statute, which was written by Congress. It's implemented by the Patent Office, an administrative agency under the Dept. of Commerce. And the whole mess is interpreted and adjudicated by our Federal court system. So basically, you have lots of high-level people in all three branches of the Federal government working together to annoy you. In any case, they are not doltish enough to allow the patenting of storylines. It ain't allowed. However, scripts and movies are copyrighted.
Actually I see little difficulty..
:)
Method and system for securing, managing or optimizing a personal 'computer'
Most ASP's services provide a way to secure,
manage or optimize an OS or some piece
of software. Let them prove otherwise in
court..
maybe Steve would like to license?
They could not have said it any better. If you implement this the obvious way you will infringe on our patent, therefore our patent is clearly obvious. Do they intend to licence the technology or just permission to do the obvious.
Surprise, surprise yeat another patent on something obvious that tons of people are doing
It doesn't matter how many tons of people are doing something -- if they weren't doing it more than one year prior to the date of the application, it does not negate patentability. 35 U.S.C. s. 102(b).
It doesn't matter whether you consider the invention to be obvious. The test is whether there exists prior art that contains each and every element of the claim. If no one piece of prior art contains the element, then prior art references may be combined to "fill in" for the missing pieces, provided that the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
In short, "obviousness," as the term is used to determine patentability, doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.
The CGI program running on the server computer 100 causes a web page to be downloaded to the user computer 104. Embedded in the web page are ActiveX.TM. controls and scripts that cause a search program to be executed on the user computer 104 to determine if any executable software needs execution, installation, upgrades or updates (step 408). In a preferred embodiment, this results in a search of the user computer's storage medium, for example, in the cache area of the browser 116, to determine if any program needs to be downloaded. Additionally, the program looks to determine if there is a need to execute any software program, such as an anti-virus program (step 410).
So basically the're patenting using ActiveX to do Virus detection through a web browser. I would think MS might not like them claiming such an ActiveX function as theirs.
The other two products were Symantec's Norton LiveUpdate, and Quarterdeck's TuneUp. Soon after this review was published, Symantec bought out Quarterdeck.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Are they patenting things that already exist and that are already being widely used in the market? And then becoming assholes over it, starting lawsuits, and then losing, falling apart, fading... forgotten... finished...
(background sounds of insects)
Table-ized A.I.
Virus have been doing most of what is in the patent claim for many many years.
That would be funny of MS had to pay royalties to McFEE (pun) every time a virus used MS Exchange Server to spread itself.
(I have a funny feeling that somebody already mentioned this.)
Table-ized A.I.
Tell him what you think!! http://www.pennie.com/bio.ihtml?id=334