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.

Comments

Their CEO knows better...

[Monthenor]

...if we work around their patent, we'd be jailed for making a "circumvention device" under the DMCA! We're constructing a means to use their intellectual property (ASPs) by circumventing their IP protections (the patent).

McAfee has us by the balls here...

I bet there's Pseudonews in this somewhere, gimme a moment ;)

Affect XP?

[Mr. Sketch]

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.

Prior art.

[cmickel]

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.

### JAVA anyone???? ###

[Myrv]

A system, method, and computer program product for delivery and automatic execution of ... over an Internet connection to a user computer responsive to a user request entered via a web browser on the user computer.

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 ;)

Competing patents

[jordan]

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

Re:Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or AOL's client which I think is updated over the net by AOL when the users login

Hmm.

[emf]

"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?

Re:Hmm.

[justin_w_hall]

You know.. maybe this is what needs to happen for the government to realize the idiocy of the patent system:

• McAfee files a blatantly obvious patent.
• The patent happens to cover an idea that Microsoft is about to base their entire software strategy on (web services).
• Light bulb goes on over a Microsoft VP's head - 'hey we should do something to stop this'.
• Microsoft's legal muscle fires off multiple letters to Washington.
• Light bulb goes on over Washington's head (or is forced there by Microsoft's legal types - 'maybe this patent law does suck.'
• Change ensues.

Who knows? Maybe having the 800-pound gorilla fight some battles for you isn't all bad..

Prior Art exists in same market

[Sinistar2k]

This is a repost (see "*cough cough*"), but this incredibly relevant data is being ignored in favor of James Bond references. :)

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.html
http://www8.zdnet.com/pcmag/insites/sod/sd970310.h tm
http://www.quantum.org/members/issues/1097/7875.ht m

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.

My god - Microsoft will be the *good guys*!

[Rogerborg]

• 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

What? A patent that actually limits its scope?. But read right to the end for the gotcha:

• 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.

• Filed: December 8, 1998

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.

Stopping .Net

[sterno]

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.