Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SBC Patents Links, Dynamic Pages

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

Oculus Habent writes "Robert Cringley has an article on a patent that SBC aquired. Patented in 1996 is the concept of linking to dynamic content with a static element of a page. First approaching museumtour.com, a small site, and asking them to obtain a revenue-based license, SBC appears to be trying to set precedent. He goes on to note that SBC is not a villian for doing this - it is after all a valid patent, and that what is needed now is prior art."

6 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. I win by andih8u · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm patenting 1 and 0's

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:I win by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too late.

      Microsoft beat you to it.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  2. Villianous? by Anonymous+Coward++1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    SBC isn't a villian for trying to bully small companies with a horde of lawyers, any more than a dog is a villian for humping your leg. It's the expected nature of the beast.

    Nevertheless, when the dog starts humping people's legs, we cut his balls off. SBC will need similar treatment to stop their anti-social behaviour.

    --
    Karma: Bad (mostly affected by being such an asshole)
  3. The US Patent Office website violate this patent.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.uspto.gov/ appears to violate this patent itself !

  4. No Villains? What? by wobblie · · Score: 5, Funny
    As I said, there are no villains here. SBC probably came across this patent and realized that it could be the basis of an Internet tax, that the company had a good chance of getting license revenues from millions of web site owners and it is hard to blame them for that.

    What? Not hard to blame them for patenting some twiddling thing and then charging other people for those people's creations? They're fucking assholes. What's sad and absurd is that it never occurs to anyone just how sleazy, reprehensible and disgusting practices like this are.

    We don't need prior art. We need firebombs.

  5. Re:Prior use by Brobock · · Score: 5, Funny

    As you can see, this person did not pay his royalties and thus, his link displays as text.