Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SBC Demands Royalties for Links in Frames

Posted by timothy on from the gutsy-and-bold-but-a-bad-aftertaste dept.

John Miles writes "Offering yet another persuasive argument in favor of employee substance-abuse testing at the US Patent and Trademark Office, SBC Communications is asserting exclusive ownership of the concept of links in browser frames. With SBC's convenient new rate plan, now you, too, can afford to license your favorite HTML feature!"

15 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. a few spelling errors in the letter... by pumpkinescobarsof2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    makes me wonder if the letter is legit, and not some scammer.

  2. Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    SBC Communications claims they own Patent on Internal links and Includes, threatens to sue the little guys first, then move to the big guys.

    We received a 40 page package from SBC Intellectual Property today informing us that our web site - which has links on the left side that go to other web pages within the site - but does not lose the left side navigation links - was in violation of their "Structured Document Browser" Patent.

    Here is the letter that was sent to us.

    January 14th, 2003

    Dear President of MuseumTour.com

    SBC Intellectual Property is the owner of US Patent no. 5,933,841 entitled "Stuctured Document Browser". The purpose of this letter is to advise you of an opportunity to acquire a license to the patents - view patent link at the bottom of this pag.:

    - We recently observed several useful navigation features within the user interface or your site www.museumtour.com. For example your site includes several selectors or tabs that correspond to specific locations within your site documents. These selectors seem to reside in their own frame or part of the user interface. And, as such, the selectors are not lost when a different part of the document is displayed to the user - see screen shots from museumtour.com enclosed. By sperating the selectors from the content, Museumetour has truly simplified site navigation and improved the shopping experience for its users.

    As you review the Structured Document Patent you will notice that the above-discussed features appear to infringe several issued claims in our patent. In light of Museum Tours presumed respect for the intellectual property rights of others, we are pleased to offer you a Preferred Rate license under the structured Document Patent - see enclosed rate schedule -

    Actual licensing amounts are calculated using SBC's then current Royalty equation. SBC will gladly determine your actual licensing amount if you provide us with your 2002 Company Gross Revnue (their fees are based on how much annual revenue the company does).

    For your convenience and to assist your analysis of the patent, I have enclosed a document that charts the claim language of an example claim to your site structure.

    After reviewing the patents and determining wheather you prefer a prepaid license or a recurring annual licence please contact Ms. Jill Walker at 512.231.7008 to determin your actual royalty amount. If you have your 2002 gross revenue number Ms. Walker will provide you with an accurate oyalty number and will facilityate the execution of an appropriate license.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

    Sincerly,

    Harlie D. Frost

    President

  3. W3C has prior art. by novakreo · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's worth noting that the cited patent is dated 3rd August, 1999, nearly two years after the 1997 release of the W3C HTML 4 specification, which added, among other things, support for frames in HTML.

    --
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    1. Re:W3C has prior art. by DarkBlack · · Score: 2, Informative
      It was actually filed in 1996, but what's three years. I believe that prior art matters from the filing date.

      Still html 2.0 predates the filing for this patent.

      I see no frames on www.museumtour.com, do you?

      Read the Article!
      We received a 40 page package from SBC Intellectual Property today informing us that our web site - which has links on the left side that go to other web pages within the site - but does not lose the left side navigation links - was in violation of their "Structured Document Browser" Patent.


      If you follow the patent link above, you can see that they are claiming a patent on using navigational menus in an SGML or HTML document. It's an oddball patent for sure, but from what I read on the patent, it seems that a persistent menu is what they are laying claim to.
    2. Re:W3C has prior art. by Fweeky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, that's ok: very few sites use HTML, but rather use a HTML-like language commonly refered to as tag soup.

      http://www.museumtour.com/ claims to use HTML 4.01 Transitional, but even a quick glace at the header shows two closing HEAD tags; hence they're not using "a predefined structure [that conforms] to the Hyper-Text Markup Language (HTML)."

  4. haha, this is great... by gyratedotorg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i can't wait for them to sue the united states government for patent infringement.

    --
    Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
    1. Re:haha, this is great... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      i can't wait for them to sue the united states government [umich.edu] for patent infringement.

      Government use of a patented invention is viewed as a taking by eminent domain, not an infringement.

      Infringement, by the Government, of privately owned patents, is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1498, which provides that a suit against the Government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is the exclusvie remedy for patent holders who allege their patented invention has been infringed by the U.S. Government or by one acting for the Government. The primary purpose of this statute is to protect and relieve contractors from any liability for infringement by the owner when an invention is used by or manufactured for the United States. By virtue of this statute, the Government may be held liable to the patent owner for payment of the "reasonable and entire compensation" for its unauthorized use of the patent. Unlike a private party, however, the Government cannot commit the tort of "patent infringement." Governmental use of a patented invention is viewed as an eminent domain taking of a license under the patent and not as a tort.

      The Government may delegate its eminent domain power over patents to contractors acting on its behalf. This is accomplished through inclusion of the "Authorization and Consent" clause in the contract [FAR clause 52.227-1]. This clause is usually included in research and development contracts and is a very significant power to grant to a contractor as it makes the Government responsible for the contractors' infringement of any patents during the course of performance of the contract; the patent owner must bring her/his action against the Government, not the contractor.

      Sometimes the Government does not wish to fully delegate its eminent domain power to a contractor. This is accomplished by inclusion in the contract of the "Patent Indemnity" clause [FAR clause 52.227-3] which obligates the contractor who infringes a patent to indemnify the Government for any liability it incurs.

    2. Re:haha, this is great... by BruceRD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually the page on the USPTO that displays the patent needs a licence. Follow the link in the summary then select "images" from the bottom of the page. You go to a frame based layout with consistent navigation (prev/next page, skip etc) in a left frame and the output of the browser in the right. Would be interesting to know if the USPTO have a licence, or are currently being hounded to get one!
      -Bruce

    3. Re:haha, this is great... by JCMay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I got a spam this morning from vvitehouse.com. There's just no end to the possibilities, I guess.

  5. the patent by shalla · · Score: 3, Informative
    This sounded suspicious, so I checked it out. I'm afraid the patent does exist. (You can check the US Patent & Trademark Office's searchable database if you don't trust me.)

    Interestingly enough, it seems to cover both browsers that have the capability of multi-frame links and the actual use of such links. (I could be wrong; I quickly scanned it instead of reading. Correct me if I am.)

    It also was submitted May 1996 and granted August 1999. So if we're looking for prior use, we need to be focusing on the 1996 date, I imagine.

    Also of note: the assignee is AmeriTech Corporation of Hoffman Estates, IL. Wonder what relationship they have to SBC?

  6. Prior art by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://webreference.com/dev/frames/

    A tutorial on using frames, copyrighted in 1996, that includes instructions on how to update one frame with a link in another.

    SBC's patent was filed for in 1999.

    1. Re:Prior art by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Informative


      SBC's patent was filed for in 1999.

      ISSUED 1999, filed 1996.

  7. The Patent by fulldecent · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Here is the original abstract of the patent:
    A structured document browser includes a constant user interface for displaying and viewing sections of a document that is [sic] organized according to a pre-defined structure. The structured document browser displays documents that have been marked with embedded codes that specify the structure of the document. The tags are mapped to correspond to a set of icons. When the icon is selected while browsing a document, the browser will display the section of the structure corresponding to the icon selected, while preserving the constant user interface.
    Here is a re-interpretation of the same information:
    A [web browser] [works]. The [web browser] displays [HTML documents]. The [HTML] [uses IMG tags nested in A tags]. When [clicked], [the web browser] will [follow the link] [according to the TARGET property of the A tag].
    May 17, 1996
    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  8. I know I'm just being stupid again, but... by Subjective · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't there some restriction on what you can patent, in form of its use?

    I know you can't patent an 'obvious' feature/advancement - what is obvious is decided by experts hired by the patent office (which is why new sciences always get odd patents through)

    A patent can be revoked if 'prior art' exists to prove the guy can't legally be the patent holder - BTW, can patents be moved this way - i.e. A patents his 'one-click' feature, B proves he did it first, so the patent moves from A to B? Or does it simply disappear?

    But isn't there some clause which says you can't patent a feature after everyone used it publicly for years?
    I can just imagine some huge-bearded 3' guy with a club, wearing only a loincloth saying: "Hey, guys, I invented the wheel some 10,000 years ago, so, uh, pay up"

    --
    My other .sig is also this bad
  9. Correction - sorry... by Subjective · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I got the idea wrong - they filed the patent 1996 - prior art may or may not exist, Im not sure - I think my dad wrote prior art several years before 1996 - I'll check it out.

    Anyway, it seems we're fscked ;)
    Everyone has been using formats which seem open and free and public, but are actually patented and the patenter could, at any time, pop up and demand his money (see the threats, etc. over MP3 creation programs)

    But still, it seems to me that the patent idea is ridicilous. They're not patenting a product they make, or a technique to make products, but an idea in product making - after all, anyone can claim they're not using 'their HTML' - you can't sue a person for writing 'what seems to be HTML' - only for using a product against its use license. I could be wrong, of course.

    I think the Information Age caught the patent office a bit off-guard...
    If these things don't sort out, we might find ourselves working in a completely patent/license world, where you have to pay to use every 'idea' someone made once.

    --
    My other .sig is also this bad