Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BT Loses Case Over Hyperlink Patent

Posted by michael on from the world's-smallest-violin dept.

Tarkie sent in this Bloomberg blurb noting that British Telecom has lost their patent suit against Prodigy over an old patent that BT hoped would cover the use of hyperlinks on the modern WWW. See our original story or check out the court's decision.

5 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. JPEG next... by philipsblows · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's see some similar sanity with the JPEG patent

  2. Re:Lost on SJ by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There was absolutely nothing along the lines of, "look, your claim is idiotic, and you know it, now go away."

    I'm not so sure I'd agree. The judge essentially says that BT's claim is bogus because it refers specifically to a hub and spoke data system (central computer and terminals that are hooked exclusively to it) while the Internet is the exact opposite. Saying (as the judge does):

    The Internet, is, in short, an entirely different beast from the system described in the Sargent patent. Consequently, the Internet does not infringe the Sargent patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Prodigy is therefore entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

    Sounds very close to "look, your claim is idiotic, and you know it, now go away."

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  3. Re:Patent Status by bwt · · Score: 4, Interesting


    No, unfortunately it doesn't. On most legal matters, patents included, judges take a restrained approach: they only answer the minimal amount that they have to. In this situation, before you toss out the patent, you have to show that if the patent is valid that the defendent infringed it. Since there is no infringement here, the question of validity does not arise.

  4. Re:I disagree by cbogart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is kind of similar to HTTP/HTML, but the judge
    points out that this patent was already defended against a prior art claim, by emphasizing the fact that the links contained not virtual references but actual track/sector numbers; and that the links appeared in a separate section of the file from the main text. Those quirky details were therefore an intregal part of what their patent claims, and they definitely don't apply to HTML.

  5. But AOL may infringe by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Unlike the Internet, AOL really does have "central computers", located in their big data center in Northern Virginia, and containing all of AOL's "blocks" of proprietary "content", linked by "hyperlinks". So AOL might actually be infringing.

    The BT patent comes from a previous generation of technology, which included Ceefax, Prestel, and Minitel. Ceefax and Prestel are dead, but millions of Minitel terminals are still out there; France Telecom uses them instead of phone directories. You can click on the link above and download a Minitel emulator, which allows you to emulate a 16-color block graphics terminal inside a web browser. From there, you can access the telephone directory of France or the Minitel services directory. Most of the services are pay, and at sizable per-minute rates. That sort of fee structure was characteristic of those first-generation systems deployed by telcos.

    It's little-known, but Telecom France actually deployed Minitel in the US. There were dial-in ports in all major cities. There were even some English-language services. I had an account for about a year around 1989. International text chat for around $0.06/minute, which was good back then.