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

Prior Art

[_azure23]

Sure, how about FrontPage97?

Re:Prior Art

[BrianH]

IBM could conceivably argue that FP97 is a programming utility and therefore exempt. A better example would be MS Publisher 97. I hammered out a few simple brochure sites with Publisher back then and it clearly violates this patent. I could pick a generic template from a list, input nothing more than my content or body text, and have the software output a web site (they were pretty awful sites, but that's beside the point).

There's your prior art, and it's from Microsoft no less.

Re:Prior Art

[Schwarzchild]

Actually a book describing FrontPage is cited as a reference of sorts in the patent itself:

Tyler, Denise. Laura Lemay's Web Workshop: Microsoft FrontPage 97. Sams, Macmillan Computer Publishing. ISBN 1575212234, published Jan. 17, 1997. .COPYRGT.1997. Introduction, Chapters 3 and 5.*

Prior art ...

[jonku]

Someone has to answer this.

"customized Web site without the Web site creator writing any HTML or other programming code", based on "a plurality of pre-stored templates"

In 1996 I wrote JavaScript that would give a different action based on browser detection. This did require "programming."

I recently wrote a content manangement system (1999) and e-commerce site, the creator does no programming. Steuben.com.

Same workaround: different browsers see different-looking page (CSS or simplified version for IE 3.0, which cannot deliver different colored links on the same page). Similar effects for other features, pop-up windows etc. Also different menu actions. Many done with included page fragments ("templates").

Perhaps a lawyer would say I am the creator, although the tools were handed over to non-techies, they loaded all the images, content and products and now run the site.

Another answer is browser detection sending to a Flash or vanilla html site. Which are "templates."

Am I missing the point?

A modest suggestion

[AirLace]

Why doesn't the patent office implement a system whereby patent holders who are found to be abusing the system are denied the right to file any further patents for a specified period (say, 5 years) or lose the rights to other more valuable patents that they own? I think that'd make corporations like IBM which are looking to make a buck off trivial patents think twice about what they're doing. This software patent madness has to stop before it spreads to Europe.

Re:Sorry IBM

[Zeinfeld]

I have prior art going back to 1993.

I was in a patent meeting when we were discussing filling a bunch of patents so that we would have amunition to fire back should some company come and fire at usthe patents that they orginialy filed for the same reason.

The reason I don't like doing that sort of thing is that besides being essentially fraudulent the fact is that no company has prospered long on the basis of a patent portfolio alone. Polaroid and Xerox are two prime examples of the long term effect of management thinking they have a monopoly in their market.

Online Merchant

[Alien54]

Heck, there is this bit of software: Online Merchant

a quick and dirty product that uses a Paradox database engine under Windows to generate a mass of perl scripts to auto generate a simple web store, complete with graphics, etc., which are then uploaded by the program to you site on a Unix server.

By Stumpworld Services, the owners of which have since sold the company and got out while the getting was good. It is now integrated with a hosting service, which cuts out the hassle of mom and pop businesses trying to deal with clueless ISPs.

The date of the original software press release to market was July 15, 1998, and there was an extensive beta period before then.

I think there is enough prior art to have this covered.

????????/

[clone304]

Does all of this conversation spawn from boredom? The ONLY reason this topic was modded up to the main page is that it's Funny. IBM cannot enforce this patent. Anybody with at least half a brain, can see that it is not non-obvious. In fact, the Patent Office could use a rule similar to this to avoid handing out idiotic patents in the software industry:

The birth of computers obviated the USE of computers to automate tasks that previously would have been done manually or with another device. Thus any use of a computer to automatically do anything that would have previously been done by hand or with another tool is obvious. This also applies recursively. In other words, any use of a computer to automate the operations of a computer to do work that would have previously been done through manual usage of a computer is also obvious.

This one simple, OBVIOUS rule would strike down just about every software patent in existence, and only grant software patents that were truly deserving. I can't think of a truly deserving software patent off the top of my head, but methinks the posibility COULD exist.

Either way. Why all the drama, ./ers? Bored?

Nando.net had this in 1994

[wfaulk]

I don't know what the rule is for "prior art" (does it need to be published?), but I worked for Nando.net back in the early-to-mid 90s and we had a system that would qualify. We had a legacy system for newspaper editors that eventually got the data back in those systems back to a series of Perl scripts that we wrote that formatted it according to the site's format. Anyway, the editors wrote only text - no HTML.

I seriously doubt that they still use the same system, though.

Re:Sorry IBM

[Cratylus]

Not to mention that Microsoft was giving away copies of FrontPage 97 with copies of Windows NT 4.0.

Re:Interning at IBM

[peccary]

I found it to be pathetic.

Indeed, it's one of the reasons I finally quit IBM. They even acknowledged that the crap only had to be "patentable, not rocket science." And that it "doesn't even matter if the patents stick, nobody challenges them anyway. Just as long as our stack is higher than theirs." This kind of egregious abuse of the patent system just made me sick, so I will no longer contribute to their portfolio. I wonder how much creative talent they're missing out on for the same reason?

Re:Prior Art: 1995

[sulli]

I have right here in front of me a copy of the very first FrontPage, by Vermeer Technologies, copyright 1995. From the package:

Visual tools make modifications as simple as dragging-and-dropping.
- Drag-and-drop hyperlink editing
...

Desktop publishing features create professional-looking results.
- Hide HTML code with WYSIWYG editor
- Create "hotspots" on images with clickable image editor
- Add interactive forms with just a few mouse clicks
...

WebBots (tm) eliminate programming tasks while Web Wizards guide you through the creation process.

Built in WebBots let you:
- Create bulletin boards for threaded discussion groups
- Save information from fields automatically
...
Web Wizards simplify the development of:
- External Web sites
- Internal Web sites for corporate information distribution
Select from over twenty page templates or create your own.

So is this prior art or what?