Slashdot Mirror
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?"
How about any text editor with a sufficient number of macros?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If they can smack Microsoft around for making Frontpage, then I'm all for it. If I was IBM, I'd do it just to see MSFT squirm...
Check out my sysadmin blog!
This speaks more to the Patent Office than IBM. IBM's success, in part, is a function of developing new things and getting the rights to sell them exclusively.. and if you had your own IBM you'd be doing the same thing. The Patent Office, on the other hand, is woefully inept at identifying unique things. In addition, they bear none of the consequences for granting a patent when no patent should have been issued.
Realistically, I doubt IBM would even bother to enforce this patent. It would behoove them nothing.
wouldn't this cover any program that has a "save as HTML" option?? That lets you create HTML without typing any HTML codes, and somewhere in the guts of the program are some HTML templates, right?
IBM seem to be pretty good about this. Remember both IBM and Unisys held patents on LZW compression (IBM's application was filed 3 weeks BEFORE Unisys), but it is Unisys that tried to extract all the money from it. IIRR IBM have released may of their patents to the public domain.
What? That's what prior art is for! If you don't patent it no one else can, because you have prior art.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
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.
Instead, bitch about the stupid laws which allow and encourage them to do this, and the customers who keep them in business (of course, very few of IBM's customers are likely to take a stand on this issue - but IBM does seem to care quite a bit about its reputation among the Open Source community these days).
If they can smack Microsoft around for making Frontpage, then I'm all for it. If I was IBM, I'd do it just to see MSFT squirm...
Of course, FrontPage existed, IIRC, in 1996 if not even earlier - which looks like solid prior art. I'm as much for smacking MS around as the next guy, but not without a legitimate reason. Bogus software patents, of course, with years of prior art, aren't exactly legitimate reasons.
This is just the latest in a *long* line of trivial, abusive patents that have been discussed on Slashdot. They all make a mockery of what intellectual property rights are intended to protect, which is innovation.
What, other than making sarcastic comments about 1-click shopping, can actually be done to effect change on how patents are granted?
Who's e-mailbox should we all slam with requests for reasonable IPR laws?
Anyone?
-Rothfuss
Patents exist.
There are two things that patents do:
One is a sword, one is a shield.
If IBM doesn't use the patent as a sword, then who should care? Nobody. If they start charging royalties for those who "infringe," if they start trying to attack other companies who have since done the same obvious thing, then you can sound the alarms of righteous indignation.
Until then, STFU. Please.
[
Might it not make sense that IBM, (now a good open source ally) is now actively, and proactively plugging holes in the anti-open source dike?
After all, we've often discussed on this very site the notion of patenting everything we think of, as a community, as a hedge against the multinationals!
Big Blue could very well be on our side here. God knows.. given all of the support they've supplied, and how severely entrenched we are so far, pissing us off NOW would be a Bad Business Move(tm) on their part. They have everything to lose, and very little to gain if they actually think this patent is truly enforceable.
I vote a Benefit of the Doubt for IBM.
Who's with me?
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
IBM is way too big to have everyone on the same page. Just because some over-proud techie asked legal to patent something doesn't mean the CEO looked over it and made a strategic decision.
The problem here is not that IBM uses a screwed up patent system to their advantage, the problem is that the patent system is screwed up in the first place.
What if it wasn't IBM that got this patent, but somebody who would use it more like a sword? What if IBM in ten years changes their policy and starts to use patents for attacking? What if IBM indeed intends to use it as a weapon against somebody?
I think most of the aggression here was pointed against the patent office and not IBM in particular. The patent system has just become one big machinery who's main goal seems to be to sustain itself and all the lawyers working with patent issues. It simply doesn't protect and promote innovation anymore the way it was meant to, at least not in the fields of software and business models.
The responsibility they have to their shareholders to make as much money as possible precludes any moral compunction they may have. Violating the latter gets them bitched at by a few Slashdotters. Violating the former gets them fired and possibly sued into the poor house.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
You missed Sanity's point: They don't care about their moral responsibility.
Besides, "moral responsibility" is a vague and relative term. What you consider immoral, I may consider ingenious. Does that mean I'm wrong? You think so. Does that mean you're wrong? I think so. Where does that get us?
The question is, should businesses use "moral responsibily" or laws as a code of conduct. "moral responsibility" doesn't work since its open to wide interpretation, everyone would have a different set of rules and the game would be unfair. Laws are a lot more concrete and make a better set of rules.
The point is, arguing that businesses should follow a moral code is useless. They don't and can't.
It's immoral to run a company in a manner which ignores obvious and legal methods of generating revenue. It's irresponsible to the employees and stockholders of the corporations. Indeed, it's so irresponsible that failure to maximize profit is an actionable offense.
True, but I've read this one, and it is general enough to cover just about every Content Management System.
bp