IBM Patents Web Page Templates

jalefkowit writes: "More follies from the US Patent & Trademark Office ... now IBM has been awarded US Patent #6,304,886 for software that automatically "generates [a] customized Web site without the Web site creator writing any HTML or other programming code", based on "a plurality of pre-stored templates, comprising HTML formatting code, text, fields, and formulas" that are then customized through the process of asking the user a few questions. In other words, they've patented the ubiquitous wizards found in FrontPage and other newbie-oriented HTML editors. This was submitted to the USPTO on June 19, 1998 -- surely someone out there knows of prior art for this?"

Comments

Based on the

[jallen02]

This is a fairly specific patent. After having a look at it im not really concerned. Their definition of "tool" is a little loose, which bothers me somewhat.

Having worked with content management systems in both PHP and ColdFusion using a WebBrowser and a VB client for managing the content.

The chances your specific interface emulate completely IBMs described interface are little to none.

Before I rise up to say how evil IBM is I will say this. Patents are an eventuality. It is like a nuclear arms race, if you don't patent it someone else will, and then they can use it against you or at least hold it over you.

Is this new, unique, exciting, or worth a patent? No probably not. It seems from their description to be little more than a super-duper WYSIWYAG (What you see is what you almost get) type site builder. WIth IBMs drive to do ecommerce this definitely fits with thier overall marketing and business plans.. This would obviously be for the low - medium end of the ecommerce spectrum

THe system also defines a system of content approval and rights of some sort

All in all I have designed systems this in depth or more. The systems may do similar things but the means of doing it are invariably almost completely different. (Of course my system focuses on already having a site and allowing an administrator to build the site without the overhead of really thinking up the design aspect at all.. just manage the content)

Again, this is just an incremental evolution.

Jeremy

Interning at IBM

[pjdepasq]

Having interned at IBM for a summer (2000), I was somewhat nauseated during a meeting I sat in on where the focus was 'What can we patent?'. While I understand the purpose of such meetings, anything not nailed down was fair game to have a patent attempted for it.

We were constantly reminded that IBM was the corporate leader of patents (whoo hooo! How about getting my damned stock price up again!) and that meetings like this were common.

I found it to be pathetic.

RTFP, or, the claim's the thing . . .

[werdna]

Look, here's the deal. The abstract, by regulation and statute, has no bearing whatsoever as to the scope of a patent. None, nada, bupkis. Don't characterize a patent by the abstract -- you'll be wrong, often wildly wrong.

Look to the patent claim, which governs the scope of the patent grant. Understand that the meaning of that claim may depend upon many other things. And be cool -- most patents are much narrower than they seem to a lay reader.

1. A computer system comprising a tool for creating Web sites having user specified features, the system comprising:
identifying means for identifying an interface browser means during the creation or editing of content for a Web site, wherein the identifying means identifies, at least, the particular type of interface browser means being implemented to create or edit the Web site content;
presenting means, responsive to the identifying means, for presenting a plurality of views, wherein the plurality of views comprise menus of user selectable features, and wherein the presenting means presents predetermined ones of the plurality of views based upon the interface browser means identified;
selecting means for enabling a user to select one or more of the user selectable features, and wherein the user selectable features comprise one or more browser specific features that further comprise features predetermined to accommodate predetermined interface browser means;
storage means that stores, at least, common browser features that may be presented on a created Web site independent of browser type used to access the created Web site, the browser specific features selected so that the browser specific features selected may be presented on the created Web site when the created Web site is accessed by the predetermined interface browser means, and alternative browser features that display on the created Web site when the created Web site is accessed by browser means other than the predetermined interface browser means;
template means, associated with the one or more of the user selectable features; and
assembling means for assembling a Web site by retrieving the template means associated with the one or more of the user selectable features selected, and adding to the template means the common browser features, and either the browser specific features selected when the created Web site is accessed by the predetermined interface browser means, or the alternative browser features when the created Web site is accessed by browser means other than the predetermined interface browser means.

Profit Motive as Justification

[TheFrood]

People should stop complaining when organisations do what they are designed to do - namely make money (in the Patent Office's case, this means granting as many patents as possible). Don't bitch about the RIAA when they push for freedom-curtailing laws - THEY DON'T CARE - their job is to protect the interests of those who pay their salaries. Don't bitch when a for-profit corporation exploits dumb laws to increase their profit margins - THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO THAT.


Every time a story about a company doing something irresponsible or evil gets posted on Slashdot, somebody invariably makes this argument. "Don't blame them! They're just trying to make a profit!" Apparently the idea is that anyone who's trying to make money is exempt from any moral responsibility whatsoever. I've never heard a good explanation for why this is supposed to be true. In fact I've never heard any explanation for it; some people just assume that the profit motive is enough to justify any misdeed, as long it stops short of breaking an actual law.

Abusing the system by filing frivolous patents is wrong. Yes, there should be a law against it, but the fact that there isn't doesn't mean that the people who do it shouldn't be criticized.

TheFrood

Re:What can be done?

[Panaflex]

I have written legislatures extensivly on this topic, and have been invited to attend hearings on the matter. Never been, though I've talked once or twice to the PTO before. Here's my sloppy and quickly written take.

Here's what it's going to take (Pick 2).
1. Corporate backing (i.e. money. Find a company recently badly burned by patents to back up legislature)
2. Sacking people at the patent office. For what it's worth, the patent office is more of a product registration entity than an idealistic "never-seen-that-before" museum of greats. Hell, even I have a patent!
3. Changing the whole business of patents. Puttng hundreds of lawyers out of business.
4. Changing the view of product development and competition.

You see, sometime in the past, the patent office got spanked for the light bulb and the computer, and the transistor, others too. Whenever the patent office stuck by its guns, seems that they always got in trouble. Then in the 50s or 60s the people decided that the patent office was holding back innovation.. that they needed to move faster. So they gave them minimum patent creations. The effect was to expand the patent office to not only store the great ideas of the world, but to become a registry of products and service methods.

Lots of companies were looking to build new products based on old designs, but figured that they couldn't protect the product for a long enought time to make money off it.

The goverment saw a chance to fill in this practice with "lowering the bar" so to say for patents.

Whether you think this is bad or good depends mostly on which end of the stick you're on.

Getting a patent isn't that hard.. honestly. It just takes money, good lawyers, and a long time.

Getting a GREAT patent is. Because chances are that there are atleast one other patent that resemble yours at least in context.

Here's the stickler.. if you improve the patent office then open source will suffer... Why? Because companies will start enforcing their patents.

I can't imagine how much of the linux kernel/os/gtk/qt has patents associated already. I remember reading security patents in 89 from apple and sun that are SURELY broken by openssh. I'm sure there's alot of patents on GUI's, on cacheing, on scheduling, on file formats. But it's BECAUSE of lackluster patents that companies don't go after linux. Why? Because they're afraid of that other company that might have a simular patent going after them.

So the only way to really do it is to kill software patents, right? No.. then you'll see companies and universities going the "trade secret" route. Free Code could disappear like turkey on thanksgiving.

I think the real answer lies in improving the quality of patents. Raising the bar a bit, but not being too idealistic. To do this, the patent office should HIRE PEOPLE WITH A REAL SOFTWARE BACKGROUND. Most of them, I hear, are lawyers. (That's who they deal with, right?)

In other words, get the industry to pay for a comprehensive database like biomedical does. Allow people to "publish" in a journal to document prior art. This, and a good combination of standards committees will keep the playing field level, IMHO.

Anyhow, IBM has every right to get a patent on this.. you would too. Spending a few million bucks on development, only to get dragged into court later is NO FUN. Better to patent some basic novel method.

There's lots of patent holding companies who get their jollies off calling IBM and telling them their infringing on their patent.

Pan