Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Company Claims RDF Patent
quinticent writes: "Looks like they are at it again. Companies seem to like to let a standard become, well, standard before pulling out the lawyers to claim they own a patent on it. Now some Canadian company is claiming they own a US patent on RDF (doesn't Slashdot use RDF?). When will the US government realize that allowing patents on common ideas is just wrong? The CNet article is here."
I think that's the trick. File a patent with a bunch of obscure phraseology like "method and apparatus utilizing bond identifiers executed upon accessing of an endo-dynamic information node", wait for a technology that remotely could be stuffed into the obscure phraseology, then claim a patent on it. Easy.
-
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
This is from the RDF specifications available from W3C:
The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax.
This can't happen because Guttenberg, or anyone else for that matter, could prove prior art.
I think the original question has merit. What is a common idea? Isn't instamatic film an idea? The patent covers the implementation itself but it's nothing more than an idea.
RDF is an implementation of XML and XML is nothing more than an idea of ways to make data seamless. It's the DTD that is the actual implementation of which RDF is one, and it is patented.
The problem is not with the patent, it's with the process by which patent claims can be checked and with the way with which courts allow patnet owners to lie in wait before filing a law suit. The patent process needs to be revamped, not what gets patented.
Looks like this company is sham and nothing else. Reminds me of Rambus, only Rambus actually invented some of the stuff they're suing over. Reading through the parent link (http://www.pearlltd.com/content/investments.html) , it appears they pay for the right to defend patents for people and get a portion of the winnings.
The most recent date even mentioned is May 2001 and even tho they've been attempting to sue folks over these things since 1999 they've only won $200,000. Unless PEARL is one person, I highly doubt this even covers operating expenses. Hope they have day jobs.
"Can I say you're my lovepuppy?" Founding member of SODAMNHOTT
I remember an article in New Scientist from years ago about a company that was the first to succesfully genetically engineer cotton claiming a patent on all genetically engineered cotton - just the sort of excess you complain about.
I've said this before: patents should distinguish between means and ends, and one may be patentable when the other is not.
Examples:
Self developing film: obvious end, inobvious means.
Hula hoop: obvious means, inobvious end (so the developers could prevent loops of hose being sold as a toy for swinging around one's body, but not loops of hose being used for other means.)
Rubic's cube: inobvious means, inobvious end.
One-click shopping using cookies: obvious means, obvious end.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
And the patent system worked as it should in this case. Polaroid thought they could rest on their patent forever. They failed to innovate and paid the price.
A few days ago I saw an ad for some product they were releasing in vain hope of rescuing the company--yet another instant film camera. So sad. Two years before the introduction of Sony's Mavica, I was discussing the idea of a floppy-based digitial camera with my friends. Polaroid just kept cranking out those stupid film cameras and never saw the light. I have a Polaroid that's been sitting in my closet for 6 years now...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Aren't the ideas in this also embodied in Marvin Minskys frames though. Can't remember the date but he invented these in the 60's
mark
As badly as the patent office is doing, (and at least the USPTO never allowed a patent on the wheel), we might consider simply removing the "checking" function from them entirely and just have them run a public on-line database. Applications get posted.
There is a public comment period during which anyone can see the patent and send in examples of prior art, or whatever tends to limit or invalidate the patent. The office appends this to the on-line file. At the end of this period, the filer may withdraw the application and only be out a few $ for the posting fee, but it stays in the database as public-domain prior art. The filer can amend and re-post it just once, but the history is retained. Or the filer can assert that it _is_ a valid patent. There is no government certificate that the patents are any good.
If you still think the patent is invalid, you can sue in a (special, technically savvy) court. You don't have to possibly break the law first by infringing and wait for them to sue you. Both challenges and infringement suits are judged under these rules:
1) Obfuscated language will be interpreted to the advantage of the challenger. (See also "defend it or lose it")
2) If the patent does not contain a specific implementation that was workable at the time of filing, it's invalid.
3) Claims (defining the actual reach of the patent) may be broader than that specific implementation, but overly broad claims are penalized so that someone searching the database doesn't have to manually examine dozens of patents for whether the patent is validly that broad. Any claim that applies to something that was either obvious or had prior art or publication at the time of filing is completely invalid. Two claims invalidated will invalidate the whole patent. And it costs money -- see "Loser Pays".
4) Loser Pays: If any part of the patent is invalidated, the filer must pay all court costs, legal fees, and a penalty to the challenger. (Bad patents are a big enough public nuisance to make it worthwhile allowing lawyers to profit from knocking them out.) Invalidated patent applications, or parts thereof, stay in the database, marked either as public domain or with a cross-reference to the earlier patent. If the patent is upheld, the challenger pays, and the database notes that it was upheld and points to the court record.
5) Defend it or Lose it:
(a) Statute of limitations for damages for infringement: 1 year before the defendant is formally notified that he is in infringement, or 2 years befor suit is filed, whichever is less. (Exception -- if it is proven that the defendant knew of the infringement and attempted to conceal it while continuing to infringe.)
(b) Delay in defending patent: If defendant was openly in infringement for two or more years before patent holder notified them to cease, defendant gets one year of royalty-free operations for every two years before notification.
(c) Obfuscating the search process: If it is shown that the use of non-standard terminology in the patent kept it from being found in a reasonably thorough automated search, this is not only a valid defense against damages for infringement, but it will also allow the defendant to continue producing infringing products for at least two years.
I would _hope_ that the patent defines the terms. I don't want to spend the time reading it to find out, if that's how they write. And of course, it is quite possible that between 1994 when they filed the patent and 1997, they discovered which way the RDF team was going and added the appropriate definitions to the patent...
If I was on a jury concerning this patent, that language would certainly put me on my guard and predispose me to find something wrong with it. In my experience, made-up words like these occur in four ways:
1) The inventor or scientist is doing something so new that it is necessary to invent words to describe it. However, serious inventors and scientists don't make up words like "Endo-dynamic information node."
2) The "inventor" is a crack-pot.
3) The "inventor" is utterly unaware of existing work in the area, so does not know the proper terminology and makes up his own. He also doesn't know about prior art. And, to make up words like that, he is either a crack-pot or his marketing side is a lot stronger than his technical side, so I'd wonder about whether he really can invent anything.
4) The non-standard terminology is deliberately used so that no one doing a patent search, is likely to find it. This lets the patent holder wait until someone has committed their business to using this technology, instead of working around it by changing the implementation, and then spring the patent on them. If that's not fraud, it ought to be.