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."
(doesn't Slashdot use RDF?)
Here it is.
So, any bets as to how long before [Read More...] on slashdot stories is copyrighted?
They sure love that word.
As endo means inner and Dynamic means changing, I guess they are sayinga an internally reconfigurable system.Or a system that can react without external interference. Sounds like anything that is based on
an interpreter/parser to me...but anyway
(a) generating an information structure and relationship in the memory of the computer as one or more Endo-Dynamic Sets (EDS), the EDS comprising a list of one or more Endo-Dynamic Information Nodes (EDINs), the EDINs each representing an atomic component of data, and the EDINs each comprising a subject identifier, an attribute identifier, and a bond identifier, wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers;
OK, we got a two objects, and a relationship between them. Hashtable, anyone?
Maybe there is some subtlety hidden in all that gibberish. I am a programmer, and I have trouble reading it, I feel sorry for the poor bloke at the patent office that had to struggle through it...assuming one did.
I realize that most computer programs, converted to english, would probably translate as well as that one did. Wopuldn't it be eiser if they just tried to patent their original source code.
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
What kind of a remark is this? What determins a "common idea"? Would you say that polaroid's patent on self-developing film is a "common idea", just because everyone knows how it works? Protecting ideas is the whole point of patents. Just because an idea is common NOW doesn't mean it has always been so.
Not that I support this RDF patent (it's just an application of XML, and XML isn't patented. What, are we going to start patenting every DTD out there now?), but this statement is absurd.
The Patent was awarded November 1997, but was filed in Dec 1994.
Scanning through the patent, the patent seems to be filed on a mathematical system. of course I may have this wrong, but the language of the patent is filled with it.
It is like trying to patent arithmetic, but making it so complex that it is not obvious to most people looking at it.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Slashdot does not use RDF.
/dev/null where it belongs. RDF can be used to create very complex graphs which computer systems can understand.
What you are thinking of is the slashdot RSS feed.
This is not true RDF. This is actually Rich Site Summary.
Early in the development of RSS there was a slight intermingling with RDF.
The only current remant is the shared RDF namespace that RSS 1.0 uses. Slashdot uses RSS 0.9 so I can understand the confusion.
True RDF is REALLY cool and I hope this patent gets knocked back to
We are working on a distributed Reputation system and RDF graphs will probably play a major role.
Also. If you are interested in doing some cool stuff with RSS I would recommend checking out Reptile
Kevin
Well, I suppose that *MAYBE* this could be interpreted as an RDF triple.
bond identifier == URI
endo-dynamic information node == a Resource
Clearly, if you can patent a bunch of "slightly different bottle caps" then the patent is not common, but specific. The problem with many patents, especially software patents, is that they are specific things interpreted very broadly. For instance, I think that extended there concept of a "bonding identifier" to include (I presume) the nesting that defines parent-child relationships in XML to be very sketchy. You're supposed to be able to patent methods, not goals.
No, because they didn't patent the idea - they patented a method (probably multiple methods) of producing self-developing film.
The patent gave them a temporary monopoly on producing self-developing film using those methods. If someone came up with another way to produce self-developing film, then hey! - they could patent that method and tell Polaroid to go take a flying leap, because the patent was for how something was done, not the idea of doing it.
With software patents, the exact opposite happens - ideas are patented, methods are not. The actual method by which an idea is implemented is essentially irrelevant in a software patent. If you allowed these types of patents in other fields, you'd see things like Merck patenting "a method of utilising chemical compounds to increase serotonin levels in brain tissue" and filing a patent infringement lawsuit against every other pharmaceutical company that makes antidepressants.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
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.
The deficency in the US Patent system isn't one of "common ideas". As has been mentioned, tires, computers, and many other things are all "common ideas". The problem is patenting *general* ideas. It's reasonable to patent a specific solution to the problem of getting to work (say, each of the parts in a Ford Explorer). It is *unreasonable* to allow a patent on the idea of using internal combustion to move people around. It is also reasonable to patent processes like a specific method of refining crude oil into gasoline. However, the Patent Office would never patent the *idea* of turing crude oil into gasoline. The breakdown of the US patent system came when it was extended into intellectual property and CS concepts. The Office has not drawn a distinction between a specific algorhythm and an idea that encompasses an entire range of solutions.
The patent offices are supposed to hire experts to go over patent claims and reject bogus claims; this makes it fair for everyone. Other patent offices do this; why can't the USPTO?
Because Congress siphons off the USPTO's filing fee revenues and uses them to balance the budget instead of letting the USPTO use them to hire more competent examiners.
Will I retire or break 10K?