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.
[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.
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.