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.
I wouldn't get too worried about this.
In other words, just because you DO have a patent doesn't mean you should always attempt to enforce it.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents .html
Except the for fact that the current article seems to be based in fact.
The telecom industry is on life support at the moment. Stocks are about as low as they can go (WCOM hit $6.00 a share sometime last week, from a high of $85.00).
they will lose this case and they will probably go bankrupt soon after. Its just a money grab that is doomed to failure.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
HTML's roots are in SGML, the markup language primarily used by tech writers to create modular documents from multiple sources (ie, a car manual and related sales material would pull from the same source). A hyperlink is a logical extension once you place a markup language in a networked environment - by jumping from page to page you're, in essence, creating a modular "book" just as a tech writer could create a car manual.
Again, there may be some merit, but precious little, IMHO...
What beef does BT have with the group Prodigy?
------
I have not yet begun to procrastinate!
The last part of the article:
'See "internet links" for the text of BT's patent. There is no charge for doing so.'
*snicker*
(-:
However, it would appear that BT only discovered this patent in 2000. Therefore, they made absolutely no effort to enforce it over the last 15 or so year that it was being used by countless companies and organizations, not to mention end users. Even if they're able to extract royalties from this day forward, can they go back retroactively and enforce them on older products as well? Even the GIF patent, which I disagree with, only charged royalties from that day forward, not from the date they obtained the patent.
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".
I know the patent holder can selectively choose to license that patent for no charge and they coudlnt' come back later and change their minds retroactively. What about in this situation, where they've said nothing. Done nothing to enforce it. Didn't even realize they HAD the patent. Its almost as if they were purchasing patents for the sole purpose of hoping one of them would be a huge breadwinner in the future.
However, at least they had an actual product tied to the patent. Its not as bad as the idiot who patented "downloading music off the internet" as an idea with no product to back it up and trying to extort money out of companies as a result.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I once admired the Brits for their loathing of American flakiness. I love America, as a whole, but if I could excise parts, frivolous lawsuits would be first to go.
Anyway, I was working over in Europe and I happened to catch a British commercial...for a personal injury lawyer.
"Did you slip on a tin of Spam at the local market? Was your kid injured during a game of rugby? If so, you may be entitled to damages. For more information, call (whatever)."
(some guy dressed up in a rugby outfit)
"I received £10,000 pounds for (whatever)"
Looked and sounded *exactly* like an American personal injury lawsuit commercial, except the voiceover had a British accent.
They are getting as ridiculous as we are. It's a shame, really. I always admired their stiff upper lip and total hatred for whining.
Things they are a-changin'
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
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 . . .
BT are a privatised corporation - they used to be Government owned and run (actually, while the BBC is paid for by a tax they defend their independance fiercely), but were sold off during the 1980s to pay for tax breaks.
As for the whole patent thing, I've no idea when the patent runs out, and I'm not even going near the question of if its defendable. Let the lawyers argue that one out.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
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.
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.
"I'm not a dork, I'm a geek. Ask my girlfriend."
Geeks don't have girlfriends. You are at most a technically gifted person, who has a girlfriend.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Here are my favorite parts of the article:
"BT stumbled upon the patent during a routine update of its 15,000 global patents in the summer of 2000."
They didn't even know they had it, first of all. Their patent expires in the year 2006 in the US. What happens if you don't defend a patent (I am not a lawyer, I am curious if anything changes if you don't defend a patent)
Plus, this patent is so general. And here is their evidence:
Prodigy's unlikely saviour comes in the form of a fuzzy black and white video which shows a 1968 demonstration by Stanford computer researcher Douglas Engelbart apparently demonstrating hypertext linking.
I would like to see this video... Seriously, though, I think this is going to be a huge PR disaster when this blows up in their face. Not only do they look like desperate bastards, but also like idiots trying to claim a patent like "the flying machine" entitles them to the royalties of airplanes, helicopters, gliders, etc. (Ana analogy the article pointed out.
how low cna you go?
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
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.
If this passes, I guess you'll see plenty of dead URLs floating in Boston Harbor...
I think that if you kill hyperlinks, you pretty much kill the whole http-based World Wide Web.
Where does that leave us? Well, for starters, it gets a whole lot of companies back off the internet, where they don't really belong. I think that the last decade has proven that the e-commerce model doesn't really work when brick-and-mortar sales models are more efficient. There are a few, very specialized business who manage to do business over the internet, but these are almost always in the same area that phone and mail-order business have always dominated. The major auto manufacturers are a good example of companies who don't belong on the internet. The music industry is probably another good case, since they absolutely refuse to embrace the sharing model that the internet and P2P apps have made so popular. They don't want to do business on the internet. They want to use the internet to make their brick-and-mortar businesses more profitable.
So, let's say that all these companies get off the internet. What's left of the internet?
E-Mail, for one. Despite the popularity of the web, E-Mail still accounts for the vast majority of internet traffic. FTP is another. Just because graphical websites go away doesn't mean that we can expect FTP sties to go away as well. FTP sites after websites, however, can be expected to have much, much more in the way of content. We can expect 'pub' directories to have much, much more in the way of specialization and indexing. Personal FTP sites would have vast amounts of things the site's owners would like or find interesting. MP3's, images both conventional and pornographic, movies, text files like e-books and fan-works, applications... The list goes on and on.
This model for MP3 sites was almost the way things worked. In 1993, there were about an equal number of FTP- and Web-sites. HTML was so much more versatile than an FTP site, so it dominated.
I think we'll also see a resurgance in the use of Usenet, which has been supplanted in many ways by weblogs and online message boards for BBS-type use. We may even see a resurgance in telnet-based BBS's. That would be cool.
The thing I think we'll see the most of if the web magically went away, would be the proliferation of internet sites that use Post-http era technology. This includes any of the P2P protcols like Gnutella or FastTrack, CVS, Freenet, streaming music and video, distributed problem solving like Seti@home and Folding@home, and many, many more.
The web is stagnant already, so this process is already beginning. Just look at the statistic figures for Gnutella or FastTrack to get an idea. I don't think BT will win their lawsuit, and I don't think that the web is going away anytime soon.
I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing if it did.
I'm cynical enough to think that maybe BT gets Prodigy to settle this for some ridiculously small amount of money ($10, or even $100,000) to make it go away, and both parties aggree, as part of the settlement, to keep the details of the settlement private.
Now BT goes to work for Prodigy trying to go after their competitors. Just like the RAMbus nonsense, the first few get to settle on generous terms. But after that it starts to get expensive even to just settle. Because now BT has precedent on their side. "well look, all these other companies have settled to license our innovative hyperlink technology."
The benefit to Prodigy is: A cheap settlement. The lawsuit goes away. BT goes after their competitors.
The benefit to BT: They establish precedent. They might even get a little trickle of money ($100,000 to settle?). They get really big settlements later from the others who didn't settle early.
If Prodigy settles, what do you want to bet that they keep the terms of the settlement a secret? Now why would they keep something a secret? What possible motivation? Obviously, it must be hugely in their interest to keep it a secret -- because it would be embarrasing to settle for such a small amount, because that would make most people realize the true evil movies of both parties. Gee, could they even agree to this under the table in advance? Okay, I'll agree to let you sue me and settle for cheap with an unlimited nonexclusive license in return. Okay, maybe now I'm being too cynical.
Those are probably hyperlinks to resources within the same computer. BT may be claiming hyperlinks among resources distributed across a network. That should be an obvious extension, but "obviousness" is a much harder defense against patent infringement than prior art.
Also, by picking on someone smaller, they have a better chance of outlasting Prodigy's money. If they can win against a smaller company, then larger companies will be more likely to license instead of go to court...so they spend a little to make a lot.
You're right, it's kind of like a bully picking on the weakest kid in class to keep all of the other kids in line when it comes time to collect the milk money.
Not that I would compare this software patent lawsuit to schoolyard bullying and extortion. That would be scandalous wouldn't it? You can take that risk and expose yourself to possible libel suits, but I won't since I know that saying that all of those Important People in Expensive Suits protecting their Valuable Intellectual Property are just like punks who pick on little kids? That would be very rude of me. So I won't say that this lawsuit is like a bully picking on the little kid in class so that the rest of the kids will give up their lunch money without a fight.
But, even if they do win, the intersection between voters and people who have made webpages is probably pretty high. If you could only get the message out to all of those people that they're Patent Violators for using this patented technology without BT's permissions, perhaps the laws would be changed. After all, patents only exist because laws let them. They could be taken away. Unlikely...but you never know.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
If you read the patent itself (patent office link from the article), or at least the abstract, it specifically mentions "operation of a selected key of the keyboard". (Later on it says "The terminal apparatus may include data entry means, such as a manual keyboard"). Funny if they somehow win, maybe browsers will have to remove keyboard shortcuts, but mouse and trackpad clicking is still A-OK. (And then Amercians with Disabilities Act crew will jump on it...)
But yeah, this is really insane. Also, so many patents like this seem like they don't pass the "not obvious to a practitioner of the field" test.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
On the bright side, if things ever do get too bad for programmers...I am sure that it would be possible to get 20000 people to donate a few thousand each to start a patent pool. Not a patent pool for allowing OS/FS software, but a patent death pool to kill off all software development in the entire nation. Just look at the patents being awarded today and patent around them with as much generality and depth as possible, and in a few years noone will be able to move.
:)
:)
The nice thing about patents is that it works both ways. Yes the trolls and extortionists can stop the little guy, but if enough little guys get together, we CAN get enough patents to stop everyone else. No cross-licensing, no licensing period. Just stopping progress. But wait, there's more. Since patents can only be used to stop someone from doing something, and since this plan wouldn't need to be implemented unless software development is impossible, they can't sue you for patent infringement because you already aren't doing anything! (Because as we all know, writing software and getting software patents are two activities with "softare" in their descriptions, but are totally separate things!)
Sure, the courts might throw these patents out, but since patents are given to individual inventors, how can the courts just arbitrarily decide to say that these certain people cannot enforce their patents? Would they say that anyone who got a patent using PDP (Patent Death Pool) money cannot enforce their patent? That wouldn't be very nice. Also, you can stop someone else from using your patented idea, even if you have no intention of using it yourself!
Hopefully, the rest of the world would then ignore software patents and charge ahead as we in the US just stagnate. Then people in the US might wake the fuck up and force Congress to get rid of patents on uses of machines.
But, then again maybe not...but at least the rest of the world would be going on ok.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
"If I patented a flying machine the patent could equally apply to helicopters and aeroplanes even though they are completely different," explains Stephen Probert deputy director of the Patent Office.
Except that if the patent were for "a flying machine," every court in the world would see through it and realize what a farce it was. In the realm of computers, unfortunately, even such broad idea proposals are taken as some kind of intellectual accomplishment.
BT doesn't even know how to do it right...
You're supposed to go after a small fry evil hacker first, so as to set a precedent.
Instead, BT is going after Prodigy, who is owned by SBC, one of the three remaining "Baby Bells", who certainly has enough ca$h to defend themselves properly.
P.S. No offense to Mr. Corley or 2600 with the "small fry" remark. It referred strictly to company size/resources.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Why mess around with around with FidoNet? Why not just go back to using uucp and start an underground Usenet. Might be fun.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I'd love to see BT prevail, if only for the sheer entertainment value of it. Can you imagine? Maybe this is just the sort of thing that is needed to give patent reform a kick start. But it'd be great fun to see Jeff Bezos have to pay royalties on his one-click hyperlinks. Snicker.
Edith Keeler Must Die
The deputy director of the UK patent office is quoted in the article as saying, "It seems ludicrous that a patent for one technology can cover another but patents are anything but precise and are meant to cover things that aren't yet invented."
Patents are meant to protect useful inventions! Which HAVE been invented! What a sad commentary that this guy has lost sight of the whole idea and has caved, and simply accepts the current state of what patents have *become*.
As I said, offtopic but not quite. A British company is trying to patent salted chips, or fries, as we USAns know it. The group, ActionAid, is trying to point out the stupidity of modern foods patent laws. Their announcement is here.
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!