Slashdot Mirror
BT Pushing Hyperlink Patent
There's been a lot of new publicity lately about the British Telecom trying
to defend a patent that they claim means
they invented hyperlinking. Currently they are going after Prodigy for
using hyperlinking back in the early eighties. We've
mentioned
this one before, but it really looks like they are going to
push it. Insane.
1968 - includes MOVIES of working links
1965
1940's
And alot more
The list goes on and on. Let them squander their money. To quote a recent game - "If theyre deadset on squandering prescious resources sabotaging their own [] efforts, I say we let em do it."
Along the same vein I cant believe Xerox hasnt made a stink about this. You think they would have learned their lesson after not screaming about the mouse, GUI, etc . . .
Well looks like the US PO wasn't that brilliant even in 1980. This Slashdot article shows MIT demonstrating the idea back on Dec 9 1968.
Given BT's cash problems I think they are trying it just in case they can get some money.
The article says "BT is determined to prove that a patent lodged with the US patent office back in 1980". That's 22 years ago. Doesn't that mean it's already expired even if it were valid (which I doubt)?
/. than people who don't read the article. Hell, I'd expect better from someone with a UID > 20000.
Nothing pisses me off more on
From the actual article, (you know... what you didn't read)...
"The UK patent has already expired so ISPs in the UK would escape having to pay anything. But in the US, the patent does not expire until 2006. "
Also, to answer your second question (which is also IN the article you didn't read,) BT used to be a part of the Post Office, but it no longer is so.
Can I do this legally? Patent something, hope someone else develops a similar technology, say nothing for 20 years until the patent is about to expire and economies depend on my product, then just raise my hand one day and say, "Excuse me! You have to pay me now".
Yes, they can do that - trademarks have to be actively defended, patents do not. Consider Unisys and the gif (lzw?) patent.
I thought everybody knew Vannevar Bush invented the concept of hypertext & hyperlinks with the introduction of Memex in 1945. Read the full article here. Maybe someone should mention this to BT before they waste a lot of time with this nonsense?
The obvious thing for Prodigy to do is to call Douglas Englebart as a star witness. You can watch video of a point and click hypertext system he was demoing back in 1968. One place that can be seen is here:
m l
http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.ht
He even demoed a shared display system between two geographically separated terminals. If I was BT and saw Englebart on the defence's witness list, I would sue for peace immediately. 1968 for Pete's sake! Those guys need to be slapped upside the head with a wet mackeral.
US patents used to run for 17 years from the time a patent was granted, vs. 20 years from the time of application in the rest of the world. So if it expires in 2006, then it must have been granted in 1989 -- that's a rather long delay if the UK application was in 1980. Or, the article seems to say that the suit now is over patent infringement in the 80's -- which makes this a remarkably long time to wait, and isn't there an applicable statute of limitations?
Also, US courts are just now beginning to consider that failure to enforce a patent for an unreasonably long time (like while the patented technique becomes industry standard practice, with no royalties), may constitute "prosecution laches" and make the patent unenforceable. See this.
Here's a neat article on this stuff, and the entrenchemnt of the patent enforcement industry (still relatively new 'visible' industry):
here
Interesting stuff - kinda shows how the current patent climate actually causes people to focus more on exploiting patents and their lucrative pay-offs rather than focus on actually inventing shit.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I think you should add the IANAL eh?
Well, sure - IANAL. This isn't a legal forum, either. Deal.
Trademarks do NOT have to be actively defended. They should be actively defended, especially if you have the resources. However they do NOT have to be actively defended.
Copyright does not have to be actively defended. Trademark does. Consider:
- Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the use of the trademark (unlike, for example, copyright law, where the copyright owner is the copyright owner, always is, and always will be unless he willingly relinquishes ownership, and even THEN he ends up having rights).
This is nasty, because it means, for example, that a trademark owner has to be shown as caring about even small infringements, because otherwise the really bad guys can use as their defense that "hey, we may have misused it, but look at those other cases that they didn't go after, they obviously don't care.."
(Linus Explains Linux Trademark Issues)Go ask a lawyer, I did. In fact, I asked 3 of them on this exact topic.
Sorry. You probably asked the wrong question. Among other things, you're probably confusing prior art (a patent issue) with unopposed infringement (a trademark issue).