Slashdot Mirror
British Telecom's Hyperlink Claims To Reach U.S. Court
downundarob writes: "Last year, BT said it had discovered that it holds U.S. patent 4,873,662 for the invention of hyperlink technology used on the Internet, and on Dec. 13, 2000, the London-based telecommunication company filed suit in federal court in White Plains, New York. A court date was set Monday in the lawsuit brought by British Telecommunications PLC (BT) against U.S.-based Prodigy Communications Corp. for patent infringement through the ISP's (Internet service provider) unauthorized use of the hyperlink. The full story is here."
It seems strange that an organisation that claims to have invented a part of the Internet seems so inept at implementing it. As a bt interent "anytime" customer, I can theoretically dial up at any time, for as long as I want to. In practice, I can spend five minutes at a time attempting to connect; when I eventually do get online, I'm cut off after two hours online.
BT's rollout of DSL has been nothing short of abysmal - as was its marketing deployment of ISDN before. Indeed, I would argue that BT itself has done a great deal to hold back Britain from becoming a truly "connected" country: the very concept of broadband is alien to many people here, and who can blame them: 40 quid a month for a connection that's a) not really _all_ that fast, and b) will likely be unavailable on a regular basis, if BT's dialup service offers any indications.
That BT is pursuing this patent is not only laughable: it's also offensive to those of us who have had to put up with their poor service, arrogant behaviour, and general crapness.
From the patent:
"Informaton for display at a terminal apparatus of a computer is stored in blocks the first part of which contains the information which is actually displayed at the terminal and the second part of which contains information relating to the display and which may be used to influence the display at the time or in response to a keyboard entry signal."
Throughout the patent, references are made to "keyed digital data", but it never mentions mice, or pointing devices or point-and-click devices, etc.
So, if there is a literal interpretation, all you need to beat the patent is a mouse.
Now we just have to get the entire computer world to use these 'mice' things...
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
BT is seen as a complete joke by many in the UK internet community.
They dragged their feet over unmetered internet access via dial-up, their network fell over earlier in the week and they are very reluctant to unbundle the local loop.
Also, their ADSL package for regualar home users is tied to USB modems and costs £40/month (approx. $56).
Ijust read the patent, and here are a few observations...
1. The patent specifically specifies a "telephone network", and use of a modem. (which is why they're not suing the W3C)
2. The patent specifically states use of a a "terminal aperatus", stating not a "traditional computer terminal".
It also lays out a plan for non-crt use via alphanumeric display and keypad. No mention of a mouse.
There are some other vague points in there, but I believe the patent is practically invalid due to the fact that it was built around technology available in 1976. Technology has grown so rapidly that this patent is nearly garbage today.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Earlier /. discussions on this endearing little scam can be found here and here.
BT are that desperate for a bit of reliable revenue, as what passes for their management have slammed a company deep into the ground that looked so promising just 10 years ago.
They are still many billions of pounds in the red, despite issuing the biggest cash call in British history (5.9 billion pounds), some frantic sales of overseas assets, leasing back property, and more recently spinning off their mobile business. There have been angry scenes at emergency shareholder meetings, senior brass quitting in disgrace, etc. So right now they will grab at any readies they can lay their sticky little claws on.
I wish had enough space to tell you all the times I have been let down by BT on network projects: "sleepy ISDN" syndrome, installation "engineers" who couldn't find the right spot to put in a line despite my drawing big black boxes on the wall in magic-marker labelled "BT install here", etc. So much for the magic wand of privatisation, curing all those horrible nationalised industries.
Their mgt dug their heels in on ISDN roll-out to protect old business; they are finally being dragged by the regulator out of the same old racket on DSL. They are one of the worst-run businesses I've ever had the misfortune to work with. Starting out as a privatised monopoly with all the assets, skills and R&D firepower of the British govt's old monopoly telecoms service, they have successfully sucked all the value out of what might have made a good private competitor, and I don't expect them to be around in a year's time, at least not under the name BT.
So go for it lads, hoover it up while you can, and maybe you can cheer the shareholders up enough in the short term to allow you a cushy trip out the door when the buyout happens.
Am I coming across as bitter here? Sorry.
If I recall correctly, the last flurry of /. articles on this subject included some information about an old movie or video of someone demonstrating hyperlinks. I think it was dated in the late sixties. What ever happened to that?
-- Gun
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
Business ethics today are measured in profit/revenue terms. I.e. if it costs Bob, Inc. $2,000,000 to honor a contract which returns $1,000,000 and estimated legal and sundry expenses of breaking the contract are $500,000 then Bob, Inc. should break the contract.
This math leaves the value of goodwill and reputation out of the equation, and anyone who know anything about marketing knows that reputation is precious.
I once interviewed with a sleazy outfit called "Systemhouse", which failed to repay my travel expenses for the interview for about three months. After I called up the HR drone who promised that the company would cover my expenses, they sent me half of what I was owed, to the penny! (Of course, I called the bimbo right back, and informed her that if I didn't get paid in full by fedex the following day, I would tell everyone in the whole NeXT community what had happened, and that they would suddenly find it very difficult to recruit anyone with even one year of NeXTSTEP experience, since we all knew each other.)
I later learned, that SystemHouse had some idiotic bean counter very high up in their management (might even have been their CFO, I don't know), who had set a policy of never paying a bill until there was a threat of litigation, and then to send 1/2 of the amount owed, and hope that the claimant would just go away. Sure, it saved them a bunch of money on their payables, but I know that many of their vendors would only do business with them on a cash-in-advance basis. Turns out that some businesses do talk to each other.
It may seem to some short-sighted dweebs that they can make or save money by being unethical, but a business simply can't survive if their customers and vendors can't trust them. (Not unless they inherited IBM's mediocrity franchise, but that's a rather special case.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It would seem like BT doesn't really have a leg to stand on. But we'll have to see how the US legal system views this...