Slashdot Mirror
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."
Don't worry (yeh yeh, TM)... if this gets out of hand, patents will stop being respected. No need to worry our little panties off that this spells the end of the internet!
Fuck it
(eBay, Amazon and MSFT have already licensed from NCR)
Is there proof of this?
If Borland could find an old copy of PowerBase they could probably get this patent thrown out for prior art, and have their own patent rejected for coming 20 years too late.
I dunno. Whining about incompetently issued patents is like whining about Microsoft or the DMCA. Good for a few quotable flames, but no real news. Move along, nothing to see here.
John
Yeah but the sad thing is that they will be making money off of other internet entrepreneurs, instead of consumers. I would hate to see some great sites go down due to patent infringement. Isn't science supposed to be unpatentable if it prohibits evolution?
--If only there was a license required to use a computer.
this is why in the latest Wired Ralph Nader says we shouldn't export our patent system to other countries--for all it costs, it's malfunctional, routinely issuing destructive, horrible patents.
Isn' t this what search engines such as Yahoo! have been doing since at least before 1996???
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
I used to say "Don't worry... there's no way anyone will take this seriously."
Except that they are. Ebay, Amazon, etc are licensing these patents. Why? Because it's easier than fighting in court.
But I still used to say "Don't worry... eventually, this will get bad enough, and real reform will come."
Except the people with the money to change things are also benifiting from this situation. See Amazon's "one click" patent.
So now I say, "start worrying." I get the very bad impression that things will get much worse before they get better.
So, what needs to change?
1. The legal system makes it more affordable to lie down and take it than to stand up to those who more than likely have no legal leg to stand on. This has to change.
2. Patents protect just about everything possible. If you can do it with a computer, chances are someone, somewhere, has a copyright that you are infringing. I once saw a patent on nested for lops, for crying out loud. Software and business practices shouldn't be patentable.
3. Lobbyists have got to go. People buy legislation. That is not democracy, and it is not right.
4. Parties. "Go ahead, waste your vote on a third party candidate. Muahaha!" We should not have to choose between Republicrates, Democans, and Hopeless.
Thomas Galvin
Have you ever tried to read a patent? Trying to read a patent and not go nuts is quite a feat in some cases. They are able to make something as simple as a hair-brush sound as complicated as a jet engine. The poor guys at the patent office probably have an eye on keeping their sanity, so let these thing go through and let someone else deal with the resulting mess.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Looking up a URL in a remote database and then using it - that describes just about everything usefull on the net (including Slashdot).
This is definitely both in the "obvious to the prectitioner in the art" (as shown by all the people who've gone off and done it) - and also prior art (because of all the DB driven web sites out there prior to 1998)
1991 - AT&T and NCR signed a definitive merger agreement in May, and the merger was completed on September 19. Product introductions included: the NCR 3600, the most powerful general-purpose computer on the market; NCR Document Management System, a general-purpose imaging system based on microprocessor technology and open, scalable systems; the NCR 3120, a notebook computer designed for mobile professionals who want feature-rich computing both in and outside the office; the NCR 3125, an advanced pen-based notepad that is the first mobile automation tool with true handwriting-recognition capabilities; and NCR Fourth Generation Self-Service Systems, which offer retail banks an unprecedented availability level of up to 99.9 percent. Charles E. Exley retired and Gilbert P. Williamson assumed the position of chairman and chief executive officer. R. Elton White was named president.
1992 - Teradata merged with AT&T on February 28 and was functionally integrated into NCR. Groundbreaking on a new development facility for massively parallel computing takes place in San Diego. NCR and AT&T recognize one-year anniversary of successful high-tech merger. 1992 Democratic National Convention delegates vote using NCR 7054 Integrated Touch Screen Systems. Product introductions included: the NCR 3170, successor to the Safari notebook computer; the 3130 NotePad computer; the System 7000 family of MIPS RISC-based symmetric multiprocessing systems running UNIX System V 4.0; the 5688 drive-up ATM; and new ATMs capable of reading AT&T smart cards.
It doesn't matter.
.. aka, self-censorship and the growing iirelevency of America's legal system.
America's #1 passtime is 'settling out of court'
Not only is lady justice blind, she's also sitting at home watching financial interests undermine her purpose. It's become cheaper to sell out to your sworn enemy than actually figure out who's on the correct side of the law.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
Or maybe, just maybe now, because it's a complete non-story. If these patent claims are so ludicrous then they will never stand up to a serious challange. You say the USPTO grants some silly patents? So what else is new? Call me back when any of these manages to survive a day in court.
Isn't this story early? I thought we did patent hysteria on Thursdays.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
This sort of a patent is good news overall, because it will give anti-patent advocates yet another argument against patents, and perhaps Congress will get a wakeup call from the people they fear the most--ordinary voters motivated to cause change. The people did win the vitamin battle against well connected and rich corporations. Who says we can't win the patent battle?
Unfortunately, this type of patents is also good news for large corporations. Sure they might have to pay a few dollars here and there, but it keeps that pesky innovation from the small players at bay, and that's the biggest threat to the established order--not patents from another stagnant mega corp. So it's dumb for a big company to fight this kind of patent. For them, patent payments are just musical chairs.
Copyrights are for a particular expression of an idea.
Should I be able to patent a song? What about one about DCSS? Can I patent an office furniture layout? How about one that improves productivity? Can I patent Grep? How about a perl script that does the same thing?? What is the dividing line between copyright and patents?
All this points to needed overhaul of the US Patent system. Why haven't they changed it? Hell, let the companies and individuals fight it out, as long as the Patent office gets money, and too much of it as well.
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.
Roughly translated:
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.
A log.
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.
A chronological log.
Consequently, the [log] not arranged meaningful to management and business operation.
Ok, so Boss, Pointy Haired couldn't read it. It's just a server log after all. Fine. What'ya gonna do about it, NCR?
Well...
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).
Cool! We can take an "Internet Data" (sorry, log) and split it up, no doubt by looking at other components of the path.
Finally...
In this way, the [log is] presented in a format meaningful to management and business operation.
GEE WHIZ! They patented log file analysis.
Go to hell NCR, and take US Patent #6,169,997 with you.
What they do not check is unpatented prior art. That is left to the courts.
But there is not punishment to the one that patented the wrong thing?
Lets assume that I patent something very used but not patented, and start asking licences to everyone. Until someone decide to lose more money than my licence and get me to the courts, I only win, and after that (if a prior art or in the court emerges that my patent or claims are unreasonables) I only stop wining, nothing more, but don't lose a penny in all of this.
I wonder why all "make rich fast!" schemes don't include patenting common sense or widely used ideas and technologies, you can't lose with that.
A small company doesn't need an army of lawyers. Everyone who runs an internet business needs to join together and sue them all at once. It would cost pennies on the dollar to sue them that way.
This is a business method patent, much like IBM's "Toilet Reservation System" and Amazon's "One-click shopping" patents. While being legal, they are looked upon as very "dirty". There is currently legislation being discussed about severely limiting these claims.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Read the effing patents...
If you visit Amazon, ebay, etc. They make offers based on a profile of similar behavior of other clients. This as an automated function is in the 1987 patent. Most of what I see in subsequent patents is aimed at protecting this patent from circumventing art. i.e. adding security to the '87 patent, if patented by someone else, would dilute the value of the patent because now two pipers are demanding payment.
The thing they say they own is the mechanism enabling...
"other purchasers of Blek have also purchased Bleh"
style affinity marketing, through automation.
Getting a reexamination
I wish it worked like you say. But for these patents (since they were filed before the law allowing new forms of examination came into effect in 1999) the only choice is to have an Ex Parte Examination, which by default assumes that the patent is valid given all prior art. Therefore, litigation is the only way for these to go, unless you can think of something new which breaks the patent. (Not exactly sure how that is supposed to work, but thats what the article says)
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I say we get a class-action suit against the patent office. Any lawyers with me?
/.? I wish. They're too busy making the news we all talk about so much.
Lawyers on
Nothing is going to change until we start suing the patent office to recoup costs on claims related to gross negligence on the part of the patent office.
An excellent idea. Unfortunately, this wouldn't work. The patent office being horribly underfunded, as you said, there would be no money to gain by suing it. This doesn't really mean that suing it would be unsuccessful--after all, by taking away what little money it has we would obvioulsy punish it and make it stop this stupid behavior, and we might be able to shut it down entirely. However, the fact that no money would be awarded to us means that no lawyer would want to take on the case.
Find a lawyer who'll work for free, and this'll become a viable idea. That should happen sometime around when hell freezes over.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
The patent office is a disgrace - from the bogus things that a patent expert got passed the patent clerks, to this indignity - things need to change!
We need to write our congressional representatives and get legislation inacted that does the following:
1. Add a new branch of the patent office that only handles internet and computer related patents.
2. Staff this new section with people who are computer and internet savvy.
Obviously this will have to be staffed by people who are demonstrably intelligent and reasonable - which means alot of outside hires at the patent office...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
That's not a problem. The problem is not someone who patents something that's public knowledge, but rather someone who attempts to enforce such a patent. That person should be stuck with triple court costs plus all the legal bills, however rediculous, of the defendant.
You don't necessarily know everything that is public knowledge, so it's unfair to say that you didn't invent it. And you may well have patented it in good faith. But if you aren't willing to accept reasonable arguments that there is prior art, then you deserve to be hit hard with bills. After all, that's what you're trying to stick onto your adversary.
That said, the current patent system is so broken that we would be better off without any patent system at all. Yes, it's appropriate to have some patent system, but the current one is so bad that everyone who works for it should claim that they work as telemarketers or prostitutes, to hide their shame.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Let them patent it all! After we have litigated ourselves into last place in the computer tech race maybe our lawmakers will get a clue and realize that software patents stifle innovation!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
What everyone forgets is that if anyone in the US was doing what your patent describes before you filed for the patent, then your patent is no good. And it doesn't cost billions of dollars to get a patent invalidated. First you need to get sued for violating a patent. Then you need to show some proof that at least one person was doing whatever the patent says before the filing date. Then you win. Given that it costs a minimum of $20k to get a patent, all this company has done is waste lots of money. If it ever tries to bring suit it'll spend even more money and it'll have nothing to show for it because these patents all seem to cover stuff that people've been doing with computers for a while. I doubt you will ever see a suit on any of those patents. It's like the guy who patented swinging. He spent at least $20k to prove that he doesn't understand the patent system. All I need is to bring in some witnesses that'll say they were swinging before Nov. 17th 2000 and he has officially wasted a lot of money. Patent examiners can only work with what they find in literature and trade journals etc. Courts can use anything you bring them.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6368227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6368227&RS=P N/6368227
Does this seem a sane patent law to you all.
I am extracting the salient featires of Indian Patent law modified recently to bring it in line with TRIPS under WTO act.
To me it a much more sane law than the current US law.
the actual paper is at
http://www.indianpatents.org.in/fac/jun02.pdf
1. Definition of Invention
Invention means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application.
Inventive step means a feature that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled
in the art Capable of industrial application means that the invention is capable of being made or used in an industry
2. Non-patentable SubjectMatters
discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature
an invention whose use or exploitation would be contrary to public order or morality or
which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment
mathematical or business methods or a computer program per se or algorithms
plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than microorganisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production and propagation of plants and animals
that the US patent office appears to equate original to "I, the patent officer, don't know this already."
The US patent system is being used as a land-grab operation. Companies that are unable to actually create anything for themselves just patent any old idea and then wait for the license fees.
There should be a return to the old days. If you want a patent, turn up at the patent office with a working example of your idea...