Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BT Pushing Hyperlink Patent

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept.

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.

12 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Already set to die on arrival by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The prevailing talk among the oucrts is that BT is going down a dead-end and no court is particularly interested in pursuing an obvious legal morass. Added to which it is widely known that Xerox has a strong case for prior art.

    I wouldn't get too worried about this.

  2. Harassment as a business model... by Nijika · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't see how this makes good business sense, even if there is MONEY to be made. Alienating, well, everyone who ever will and does use the Internet is probably bad for PR.

    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.
  3. Tagline is hilarious by TheTomcat · · Score: 5, Funny

    The last part of the article:

    'See "internet links" for the text of BT's patent. There is no charge for doing so.'

    *snicker*
    (-:

  4. Not an expert in patent law. by Restil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Not an expert in patent law. by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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. Yes, you can do it, if the 'similar technologies' truely fall under your patent's umbrella and nobody else has prior art (or you ensure that you find the prior art first, and 'bury' it somehow). Shit, companies file multiple patents 'around' existing patents, and then sue the original patent holder (provided they are small fry enough) for infinging on their umbrella. It's common practice. Patent laws are fucked up, but with less stringent patent laws, numerous entrenched patent-oriented industries, legal practices, etc, etc would also be fucked up. Ergo, there is little chance of going backwards. As usual, we've got so many doctors at the bottom of the cliff that we can't afford to teach people how to NOT WALK OFF THE CLIFF anymore. Too many people lose too much money and too many jobs, etc, etc .. but the patent process needs a serious readjustment in my views. Knowing what I know, I would never consider filing a patent for anything I thought was new; although I'd somehow make sure I had evidence of 'prior art' so I could proove at a later date that it was my idea to begin with if some corperation thinks they can claim it as theirs. I'd keep it to myself, unless I was at a big company, and was I indespensible to them (ie, I wouldn't even sell my idea to a large company, because they shaft you.) Currently, patent laws work against small timer innovation (it costs shitloads of money to even file a patent) and encourage this kind of big business petty behaviour; especially when said patent holders need an easy quick injection of cash. I've heard that companies like IBM have inter-department patent races to see who can file the most patents in a year, which is why we've got insanely granular, subjectively valid patents that are really only 'enforcable' by virtue of the amount of lawyers you have on a leash.

      Thats my understanding. IANAL, YMMV, and I'm sure you've all got cousins with personal stories that can debunk my raving lunacies ...

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  5. Prior rights to hyperlinks - from old /. articles by jgaynor · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 . . .

  6. prior art 1968 by martin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Patent filed in 1980?... by NickV · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)?

    Nothing pisses me off more on /. than people who don't read the article. Hell, I'd expect better from someone with a UID > 20000.


    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.

  8. Re:Patent filed in 1980?... by markmoss · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. that may not be prior art by markj02 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:that may not be prior art by crisco · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Your comment should be modded up a bit.

      I, probably like many /.'ers, watched a few of those videos and thought something along the lines of "man, those guys were so far ahead of their time, they had everything already done back then! Screw BT and their specious patents!". But go back and watch the demo again. Then scan the patent again. Doublas Engelbart's demo kept referencing hypertext within the same information store (computer). I couldn't find a reference to a local reference to remote information. Networking and even remote sessions are mentioned but never the context of a local link to a remote chunk of data. BT's patent appears to focus on hyperlinking menus being included with each chunk of data to allow easy access to further information.

      Now, having said that, there are some key differences between the hyperlinks we know and love today and the system described in BT's patent. Links in the form of http://, ftp://, etc are known as URLs because they abstract away the differences in local and network locations and various protocols used for transmitting the data. It may be argued that hyperlinks are abstractions of a local data store, not a remote menuing system. Also of interest in BT's patent is the reference to the VIEWDATA system, some quick internet searching reveals systems that used color coded links that may qualify as prior art. Another major factor is the use of a mouse. BT's patent doesn't seem to mention anything besides keypad input methods while today's interaction with hypertext is primarily with some sort of pointing device.

      Another thing to consider is BT's first major target in this. While other reports mention up to 17 ISPs being asked to pay royalties, Prodigy has gotten the majority of the attention. Wasn't Prodigy one of the larger online services back in the '80s? Might they have had an early interface system that consisted of numeric menus linking to additional information? Is BT going after one of the only true violators of the patent, hoping to scare the rest of the world into paying royalties? Are they deliberately setting up smokescreens, hoping to distract from the real issues in the case?

      So, after a closer look, I still think that Mr. Englebart and his peers were way ahead of their time and I still say "Screw BT and their specious patents!", just for slightly different reasons.

      --

      Bleh!

  10. specific to keyboards? by kisrael · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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