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. What we really need now by nhavar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we really need now is patent reform. Companies should not be allowed to sit on IP while it gains broad adoption and then come back and extort companies in order to generate profits. We've seen too many companies do this, it's unethical, they know it, when are we going to stop them from continuing the practice.

    --
    "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
  2. Nope. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


    > 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.

    No, what's needed now is IP law that promotes innovation rather than blood-sucking.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. This is assinine by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just patent images on a screnn conveying information.

    that way you don't need to specify "buttons" of "frames".

    I think that web pages should be treated as just a novel way to replace a library, and tell these wanna be patent millionaires to take a hike to the nearest cliff.

    Information is information - doesn't matter if it's in a book, newspaper, or a bunch of pixles on a screen.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  4. They're not villians... by juggleme · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...they're just taking advantage of a situation that should not exist in the first place. Right? Right... From the article:

    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. They are, after all, in business to make money.

    The idea that this is corporate greed rights all wrongs is really getting old. The catch all justification of our times. Where is this going to end?

  5. Prior art here is very easy... by OneStepFromElysium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Both Yahoo! and Amazon (at the very least) were doing this in 1995, well before May 1996. Proving prior art on this patent is trivial.

  6. No less ridiculous... by jackdoodle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...than a patent on the human genome, which has been done more than once. (Note, for instance the patent on the genetic material of a member of the Hagahai tribe of Papua New Guinea - patent number 5,397,696.)