Slashdot Mirror
AvantGo Gets a Patent
AnElder writes: "Yahoo's Daily News Technology section is carrying a story reporting that AvantGo has received a patent for its synchronization technology. And here's an excerpt: "In legal jargon, AvantGo said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had issued it patent No. 6,341,316 covering the system, method and computer program product for synchronizing content between a server
and a client." Why didn't I think of this?" In all fairness, the patent doesn't seem to be as bad as many that have been issued. It cites many other patents as references (which helps ensure that AvantGo is doing something *different*), and is rather specific about the process - I would expect that there are many ways to "synchronize" data that wouldn't run into this patent.
Link to the patent is here.
that they don't leverage this to try to quash their competition, the most excellent Plucker
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
[Obligatory Common Tool/Application Reference]
[Obligatory Comment Such As, "I bet the US Patent Office could give me a patent for my ass."]
I think that covers it...
--Chag
The patent actually reads: What is claimed is: 1. A method of synchronizing a server and a client on behalf of a user, comprising the steps of:... - from the patent database
Well, I guess the patent isn't too onerous. But! What's the big deal anyhow?
Look at it - software patents basically take the idea that you had and force the concept into a legally protected form. But I believe the reality is that duplicating the data streams and storage methodologies (not to mention the marketing and hype) are going to be cost prohibitive for most companies anyhow. Why bother?
I suppose this kind of things bothers me, as I know it does others, because it seems to be getting more prevalent and smacks to me of protectionism in software. To me it's equivalent to providing an incumbant telecommunications infrastructure provider (like a cable-co or telco) exclusivity in a market and keeping out the competition. Good for the provider, bad for competition and business generally. I firmly believe that preventing the use of good technology in any scientific field (like software, biotech, engineering) by many different groups slows the rate of innovation in that field. Patents on specific inventions seem reasonable to me, though. I approve of the patent for the lightbulb, but not a patent on the use of electricity to provide light!
I'm completely against silly software patents, like the 1-click one, but I think that AvantGo deserves this one.
:)
If you've ever used AvantGo, you know that it's an incredible system. They deserve this patent! Clearly, they worked hard on their idea, it wasn't stolen from someone else or obvious.
This patent only covers server->handheld synchronization, not server->client sync (it's not overly broad). It won't make the whole Internet infringing.
This isn't a patent on a simple algorithm or something really simple, it's a patent on a complicated method (as opposed to most software patents). It obviously took a lot of work to perfect this idea, and the way our current IP system works, we let the inventors keep the right to their inventions. Whether or not you agree with our IP system, it's the way it works over here, and they deserve the patent.
qslack.com
This patent looks to be worded broadly enough to cover Lotus Notes clientserver replication, which was developed around 1985. The only difference I can see is that Notes replication does not use XML or HTTP... obviously these were not available in 1985. I don't know if that's a material part of the patent claim.
I think Lotus has their own patents covering replication. I also know that some work was being done to leverage the Notes replication engine in the Internet world, (circa 1995) perhaps using HTTP or XML, but I can't prove this.
IBM, owner of Lotus and the world's largest patent holder, may have something to say about this patent.
While I was in college I did a co-op with a company that makes software to sync a certain popular PDA with Office. At the time, the company was really small and there were established competitors who were a lot larger than my employer. They, too, had a patent on a particular algorithm of synchronization, but we my bosses (one of whom was the developer of our software) weren't concerned. Our software was so much faster than theirs, the algorithm couldn't possibly be the same.
Imagine our surpise when our biggest competitor sent a "cease-and-desist" letter claiming we infringed on their patents. My bosses denied it, of course, but our competitor would have none of it. They had to see our code for themselves to verify that we weren't in violation of their patents. I don't quite remember exactly how it was resolved - I left soon after this became a big issue - but I'm sure it had something to do with my employer striking a deal with the manufacturer of the PDA.
Anyway, where I'm going with this is that, sure it might not seem like having this patent is a bad thing or over-reaching. And, used responsibly, it's probably not. But don't be surprised to see AvantGo try to get the drop on a potential competitor if they can use this patent as leverage.
My sigs always suck.
Claim 1: The client subscribes to aa set of content, the server gathers this content and later sends instructions to the client to transfer the content.
Claim 2: As above, but use a single message for the request and a single message for the transfer.
Claim 3: As 1, but also identifies "information that is of interest" during the sync.
Claim 4: Claim 1 where it happens over http. victim: I may become ill and stop typing this.
Claim 5: Claim 4 but transfer some XML on the HTTP. Yep, that's it. I can't go on. I mean no one would ever have considered transfering XML over HTTP! My GOD these people are geniuses!
There is nothing in this patent that a handful of competent engineers wouldn't come up with in their first brainstorming session.
I propose that the US Patent Office has so badly mismanged software patents that ALL software patents should be vacated and the patent examiners held personally liable for any damages claimed by the affected patent holders.
I couldn't make heads nor tails of the damned thing-- no wonder the USPTO is so backlogged, the legalese has really reached ridiculous heights. Is babelfish ever going to release Lawyer to English? I'm not sure what's more unreadable-- legalese or babelfish translations.
However, I know Marimba was doing its Castanet updater before this was filed, so this application will have to be fairly specific to not get clobbered by that.
I should add that it took eight people to invent this and most of their references are their own press releases.
Zarni Maung should be ashamed of himself.
I wonder if we can query the patent database by primary examiner? God knows what else this guy is letting by.
It's an impressive system, but to me it fails to me to qualify as unobvious. Given the problem that AvantGo solves, it seems to me to be a straightforward and obvious solution: it's just that they happened to be the first to stumble upon the problem.
Yes, you can search the PTO by primary examiner.
:-)
Maung also granted a patent on Melodic alerts for communications device.
Not as broad as it sounds, but they have managed to patent their protocol for sending a snippet of song as numeric digits. I suppose the business model here is to get companies to adopt this specific tune encoding and then be able to collect royalties.
I could certainly encode a melody more compactly without infringing this patent, so innovation can't be the driving force behind this one.
My personal favorite of Maung's Greatest Hits is Internet weight reduction system. It involves dieting by sending pictures of yourself to a computer to analyze your outline to verify the information you enter into the computer run diet plan.
I just developed a new calculator that performs additions using a novel method. X+Y is calculated as X-(-Y). It never uses the add function!!! Warning to you thieving bastards: patent is pending.
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
As some of you may know, the claims that do not refer to other claims are the important ones in determining whether or not a product infringes the patent. The independent claims of this patent are terse, and use very ambiguous terms. This means that it is very broad, and so very likely to be infringed. Fortunately, the earliest filing date that they might claim for this patent is in '99, and their is plenty of prior art available to get (at least the first claim) ruled invalid. That first claim is ridiculously broad, in fact. That type of process has been around since networks were invented in the 70s, right?
I don't know much about the patent, legalese is beyond me so I'm not going to comment on if the patent is overly broad or not. With this type of thing, it's hard to say. Some could argue that what AvantGo is doing isn't a whole lot different than how a browser works.
Here's the thing though, even if it is very similar to a browser, it's still a unique and worthwhile service. Basically it takes existing sites and digests them into a format my PocketPC/Palm Pilot can handle. I like this because it turns my PocketPC into a little entertainment device. The Onion is one of many sites that is support AvantGo. It's pretty cool that in a meeting I can flip open my PocketPC to 'check my calender', only to be reading an article about an Ancient Race of Skeleton People Unearthed in Egypt.
It's likely that the patent could be too similar to how a browser works I suppose. Here's the thing though, AvantGo has a pretty focused business. "Convert web pages into useful docs on a PocketPC." I'd say that the chances are real good that the only people they'd go after would be the 'me too!' places that take AvantGo's idea and run off with it to make a competing service. Since AvantGo did such a wonderful job of making this a useful service, I'd hate to deny them protection. I don't think this is on the same level as Amazon patenting 'one-click shopping.' The steps AvantGo has to go through are rather complex.
I tell you what though, my tone would change really fast if they unfairly sued somebody.
"Derp de derp."
Plucker uses a completely different, server-independant solution to gather content. It is de-centralized, and does not rely on a single point of failure. It is client-driven, not server driven. Here's some other reasons why Plucker exceeds AvantGo:
- Plucker has two forms of compression (zlib/doc), AvantGo does not.
- Plucker supports 12 languages, AvantGo does not.
- Plucker supports local files (file://tmp/foo.txt) and intranet
(including https://) content, AvantGo does not.
- Plucker supports runtime image scaling, panning, zooming via the parser ([alt]maxwidth, [alt]maxheight),
AvantGo does not.
- Plucker allows runtime bit-depth changes in the viewer. AvantGo does not.
- Plucker is an 85k footprint on the Palm, AvantGo 4.0 is
399k, without content.
- Plucker supports Gestures, Autoscroll, Tap Navigation, and Hardware button configuration options, AvantGo does not.
- Plucker is
free and open source, under the GNU General Public License, AvantGo is not.
- Plucker does not require
that you have your Palm with you in the cradle to gather, sync, and create content. AvantGo does.
- Plucker uses an openly-documented data structure format,
and integrates with other parsers and gathering applications like SiteScooper. AvantGo does not.
- Plucker works on
11 platforms, 5 operating systems (with varying degrees of difficulty), AvantGo supports 1.5 OS' (Windows, and "almost" Macintosh).
- Plucker does not
"restrict" what websites can do with their own content, AvantGo does.
- Plucker supports multiple instances of the same content (NYTimes with images, NYTimes
with color, NYTimes without images) loaded at the same time, AvantGo does not.
- You can beam your Plucker content to another Plucker user, with AvantGo you
cannot.
- Plucker offers 5 font choices, AvantGo offers 2.
- Plucker does not have a maximum file size limitation; spider 20 meg databases if you want,
AvantGo limits you to 200-300k.
- Plucker does not "block" content. AvantGo does.
- Plucker does not "charge" for usage of Plucker, nor "fine" people for using it too much. AvantGo does (and steeply, at $6,000 per year if you exceed "contract" usage rates.
While they may think they have a wonderful, bloated product, which I'm sure appeals to corporate entities with $50,000/year to waste away without much functionality, and giving up control of their own content, I still believe that Plucker has a much better future overall. It's smaller, faster, more capable, and very well documented. It's also actively maintained, on a near-daily basis. When was the last time an update from AvantGo came around?Also, if AvantGo was the leader in this space, why are dozens of other companies moving to using Plucker instead?