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?"
I wrote code for this in (Openmarket's - then ICentral's) Shopsite Manager back in 1997. Fill in your products, pick some options, get an e-commerce website. Sigh.
--Just the place for a snark!
Sure, how about FrontPage97?
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?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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!
*Silent* film at eleven.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
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.
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?
"Help him! Help the programmer!"
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
...and how we wound up with England as an ally.
Like most designs, it is not the idea itself that matters so much, but how you implement it.
Less Talk, More Beer.
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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
I seem to remember Netscape Gold 2.02 (from 1996 or 1997?) having a WYSIWYG editor.
Given the length of time it takes to work a patent through the system, I'm sure we're going to have many more years of foolishness like this ahead.
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.
[
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:
./ers? Bored?
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,
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.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
#include <stdio.h>
int main (int argc, char** argv) {
char buff[100];
printf ("Please enter in your web text: ");
scanf ("%s", buff);
printf ("Your web page: <HTML><BODY><b>%s</b></BODY></HTML>\n", buff);
}
I don't know what the rule is for "prior art" (does it need to be published?), but I worked for Nando.net back in the early-to-mid 90s and we had a system that would qualify. We had a legacy system for newspaper editors that eventually got the data back in those systems back to a series of Perl scripts that we wrote that formatted it according to the site's format. Anyway, the editors wrote only text - no HTML.
I seriously doubt that they still use the same system, though.
Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$
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.
Yeah I worked for a company that was doing template based HTML publishing starting back in 1995 or 1996. 1998? Wow, IBM might have the edge in failing hard disk drives, but maybe they should stop bothering with software patents :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
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
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
surely this is a good thing though? hike the price up and make people pay every time they use a MS template. the ratio of good/horrific websites will change overnight :)
I tmay be humour, but it's the only way to get decent HTML out of word...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
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.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
Not to mention that Microsoft was giving away copies of FrontPage 97 with copies of Windows NT 4.0.
Our client wanted to be able to post reports that were output from the software to the web. Our head programmer put a very rudimentary web template system in place that would output reports with choices of sort order, gawd-aweful background colors (from a 16 color palett), and customized headings and footers. This was all done without the user having to know any HTML. You can see samples here dating back to 1997.
The About SCORE page even references automated HTML authorship. From the page:
SCORE (Scheduling Classes with Order Reliability and Efficiency) is an application developed by a group of Computer Science students enrolled in the Software Engineering sequence at Ball State University. SCORE is an application that is a flexible scheduling advisor for use by faculty involved in the creation of course offerings by a department. SCORE has features which allow for powerful schedule reporting, class conflict catching and reporting, persistent and consistent data retieval and automated HTML authorship of documents for Internet/Intranet display.
Though ugly, I think these qualify as prior art and beat IBM's 1998 application.
ViaWeb, Robert T Morris' e-commerce company, had a LISP-powered template system for creating sites a long long time ago. They got bought by yahoo in 98 (becoming Yahoo Store), but they were successfully using web templates long before that.
IBM should really be a little more carefull about crap like this; it obviously alienates the open-source community that they are trying to be on good terms with.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
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?
sulli
RTFJ.
Constitutional basis for federal patent and copyright systems is to be found in the Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 which states:
... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. "
... "
"Congress shall have power
Federal patent laws have existed since 1790. The first United States Patent Act, that of 1790 was a short act of seven sections only entitled "An act to promote the Progress of Useful Arts". Under its terms any two of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney General were empowered to grant patents for terms of up to fourteen years for inventions that were "sufficiently useful and important" provided that the grantee submitted a specification describing the invention (and where appropriate a model thereof) to the Secretary of State at the time of the grant.
In 1793 this act was repealed and replaced by a slightly longer act, the drafting of which is largely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who was at the time Secretary of State and therefore intimately involved in the administration of the 1790 Act. The Act is notable for its definition of what constitute patentable subject matter in the United States, which definition is almost unchanged up to now:
"any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter."
In the same year the Supreme Court in Grant v. Raymond made it clear that failure to provide an adequate description of the invention was a ground under which a defendant might use when sued for patent infringement, it being held that
"as a preliminary to a patent a correct specification and description of the thing discovered (was required). This is necessary in order to give the public, after the privilege shall expire, the advantage for which the privilege is allowed and is the foundation of the power to issue the patent
A major review of the law was undertaken in 1836 in response to complaints about the grant of patents for things that lacked novelty. Under this revision the Patent Office was set up as part of the State Department and a specification had to be submitted to it and be examined for novelty before a patent would be granted. As a consequence of this provision of the 1793 Act requiring the inventor to distinguish his invention from the prior art was expanded upon to require the applicant to "particular specify and point out the part, improvement or combination, which he claims as his own invention or discovery".
Nowhere in there do I see anything about being designed to make money.
What I do see is that the Patent Office was set up to ENSURE sufficient novelty in those items submitted for patenting. If it fails in this IT IS FAILING IN THE ONE THING IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO!
Sigh.
Why can't /. read patent claims? This patent (somewhat cleaner presentation of the text than the top link) has a whole bunch of claims, and it actually has a detailed descriptive listing as to what the program's supposed to do.
I reproduce the list here.
IOW, it's more than just single-page templates. This system is multi-user, it supports a web page approval structure, and it supports web SITE templates.
That is, the templates will generate a whole bunch of pages.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore