NCR Patents the Internet

An anonymous reader writes "We all know about NCR's lawsuit against Palm & Handspring, but I haven't seen much press about patent infringements they are claiming against some of the biggest sites on the planet. According to documentation that a friend's company has recently received, their patents protect everything from keyword searching to product categorization. Patents to look for (and filed in 1998) include 6,253,203, 6,169,997, 6,151,601, 6,085,223 and 5,991,791 . IMHO, this is absolutely outrageous and is likely to cause billions in both legal fees and eventual licensing fees (eBay, Amazon and MSFT have already licensed from NCR). How is this not the lead story on every site? every day? Maybe because no one wants to get sued for having an online business."

Comments

Just another set of overly broad patents

[jj_johny]

Just read the first one and you know they are invalid - privacy enhanced database. Maybe I am shooting in the dark but I thought this was implemented in - maybe - 1986 or even 1970. The only reason that some folks are paying up is to let someone else take on NCR and invalidate it. So this is really just another story about how the Patent Office screwed the pooch and gave patents for the equivelant of a doorknob. Yeah nobody patented it cause it was obvious once it was in use.

You can't stop the future, you can only simulate it by stopping progress.

6,169,997 is about WebSite LOGS

[Jammer@CMH]

I haven't read all of the patents yet, but the first patent was about a database structore incorportaing cunsumer privacy wishes, and patent 6,169,997 is about categorizing web site logs for easy management. It's not about anything else.

The abstract:

Currently, a web site stores Internet data indicating file access status for the files that have been accessed in response to requests from web browsers. Unfortunately, the Internet data are kept as a set of separate and non-correlated data records that are chronologically arranged according to the times at which the requests have been received and processed. Consequently, the Internet data are not arranged meaningful to management and business operation. The present invention correlates web page files (HTML, SHTML, DHTML, or CGI files) with subject areas (such as sports, news, entertainment, restaurant, shopping, computing, business, health, family, travel and weather). In this way, the Internet data are presented in a format meaningful to management and business operation.

This is not a claim on the whole of the Internet. I haven't read the rest of the patents yet (and probably won't, if the first two were this harmless), but I'd be a but suprised to find a claim covering "all of the Internet".

Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc

[broter]

Agreed.

"A method, apparatus, article of manufacture, and a memory structure for storing and retrieving data in a database implementing privacy control is disclosed." (Abstract of 6,253,203)

I think a filesystem with permissions would be prior art for this... Who the hell would sign off on this patent?

Further on...

"1. A data warehousing, management, and privacy control system, comprising... a database table comprising a plurality of data columns and at least one data control column... information reflecting consumer privacy parameters"

exactly passwd which contains a "customer's" password hash and his/her home directory and shell.

"5. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a customer interface module providing access to the database table via the privileged view and to permit specification of the consumer privacy parameters."

A file system with permissions.... (eg. AS400 whose fs is *actually* a database)

Can anyone else see anything that's origional about this patent? I'm looking through all the claims and they all fit with either a filesystem or a rdbms.

Why the hell would anyone take an infringement law suit seriously from these patents?

Sometime the profound stupidity of businesses really hits me. Like the time an old boss of mine wanted to patent the ability to write libraries so that the implementation could change without changing the code written against it (ie. API's). This was in 2002.

It's broken, but I don't see it getting fixed in this life time :(

-RB

Re:It looks like they're patenting database "filte

[ajakk]

You can submit evidence to the patent office and force the patent into reconsideration. You can also file a declartory judgement action against the Patent holder if they are threatening you with their patents.

Re:evidence please

[Mr. No Skills]

No Google search I can think of has come across this. Maybe the poster is confused with the GIF patent that Unisys holds?

Re:Prior art

[tomhudson]

The oldest was 1995:

**quote** Method and apparatus for providing database information to non-requesting clients Abstract A method and apparatus for providing access to object data stored in a database management system to a receiver client. The method comprises the steps of receiving a database query from a submitting client on a first communication path, transforming the database query into database management system commands, transmitting the database management system commands to a database management system, receiving a response from the database management system comprising a media object locator, compiling an answer set comprising the database management system response, and transmitting the media object locator to the receiver client on the first communication path. **/quote**

That being said, it seems to me that a we were able to do this w. dBase back in the '80's over a lan, w. netware serving as the communication path, etc.

Re:Sky Falling: Film at 11

[Nix0n]

I think you misunderstand a few key elements of patent law. The USPTO's own act of issuing a patent in the first place creates a very high legal standard for anyone to pass; the courts has repeatedly held( whether corrctly or not )that the USPTO is a competent organization that *generally* issues valid patents.

In other words, the courts tend to assume at the beginning of ANY legal action that the USPTO issued the patent correctly. This places the burden of proof( and a very heavy burden, at that )on the hopeful patent-breaker to prove( more or less to the same standard of "reasonable doubt" in criminal law )that the patent's claims are invalid due to illegality or prior art.

Obviousness is a VERY difficult argument to win once a patent has been issued.

So in a nutshell, if the USPTO has already issued a patent, it's really damn hard to get it reversed. It takes lots of time, money, and a HELL of a lot of evidence and valid argumentation.

Re:evidence please

[stinky wizzleteats]

The closest I could come up with is a lawsuit filed against yahoo late last year about online ordering.

It doesn't go into details, but it appears the NCR's claims, at least in this case (and according to the yahoo attorneys) are as crazy as the slashdot headline suggests. No mention is made of anyone paying them license fees, however.

Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc

[Xenophobe]

Of course it's a joke. Although I can't speak for him, I am sure that Mr. Steven Olson knew he was being absurd when he filed the patent. The real joke is the patent office actually granted him the patent. Unfortunately, I'm not laughing.

In Australia Someone Patented the Wheel

[magnum3065]

In Australia some lawyer obtained a patent to the wheel back in 2001. Here it is! He took advantage of a new program for 8 year "Innovation Patents" which basically don't get reviewed. This was basically a stunt to prove that the new program was flawed.

Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc

[Tom]

Actually yes, it was intended as a joke. If I remember correctly, a patent lawyer used it as an example to teach his young kid the process, and decided to send it in just for fun. It came back approved, and he was more than a little surprised.

Here's the prior art:

[Dynedain]

#6,253,203 - June 26, 2001
A database containing personal privacy prefferences.
I distictly remember setting AOL privacy prefferences in 1996...dont even try to tell me they didn't use a database to track that

#6,169,997 - January 2, 2001
Category viewing of portal content such as News, Sports, Weather, etc instead of simple chronological organization.
I signed up for my Yahoo! ID in fall 1997.....

#6,151,601 - November 21, 2000
This one uses the words "collecting" "transformation" "organization" and "transmitting" so many times I can't even understand it. However, it appears to be for using a database system to analyze network traffic at the ISP level.
I don't know the inner workings of AOL or any other major ISP, but I'm betting they've been using these type of systems for a loooong time.

#6,085,223 - July 4, 2000
This is for connecting a client to a database through a seperate step, seperating the client and the database.
One acronym to defeat this one: ODBC

#5,991,791 - November 23, 1999
A database system to catalog a bunch of stuff...whether digital or not, and to deliver it when requested..
My local public library had everything on an electronic catalog waaaaaay back in 1990. And vending machines delivered me content on request as well.

There's your prior art - run with it