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."
Finally, someone will make money off the internet.
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
They also patented the first post!
Seriously, it needs to be redone. We need some sort of bill/legislation/executive order on these stupid patents.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
And if this is not enough of a clue to people that the patent system is hopelessly outdated and needs to be reworked, I dont know what is... A company claiming to have invented the internet, Bah!
No I didnt spell check this post...
Sure, REALLY, I (or anybody else) is REALLY going to pay NCR for inventing the internet. That's like claiming the invention of the road. It's part of international infrastructure, national security, and every business in the world. If they had a snowball's chance in hell we could worry.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Man, am I glad I am going into intellectual property/patenet law. Going to make the dot-com bubble look like spare change. Of course, posting this message on Slashdot is going to cost me 33 cents in royalties to NCR. Back to the local BBS....
Other References
President William J. Clinton, Vice President Albert Gore Jr., "A Framework For Global Electronic Commerce," Jul. 1997, at http://www.iitf.nist.gov/eleccomm/ecomm.htm, pp. 1-22.
Polluting the Internet since 2003...
http://percep
Time to patent the ability to turn oxygen to carbon dioxide using a biological process! I could make trillions (just my luck, it'll be Canadian dollars).
"Flag on the Moon, how did it get there?"
(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
The easiest way for the masses to realize how screwed up the patent system is quality headlines such as the above.
Now, to get this out of the technosphere and onto the front page of the NY Times.
The problem is that companies who pantent things which are obveousley common sence or knowledge cannot be stopped without going through the courts. I know of many companies who have patents across things they should not but I cannot do anything unless do they take me to court. And by then its too late and I can't defend my self.
The only thing you can do is publish every idea you have no matter how stupidly obveous. (Cat overclocking hats for example).
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
IANAL, but those patents don't look like they cover the whole Internet to me...just database stuff. What gives? O_o
-insert a witty something-
PRIOR FUCKING ART!
patents are an important mechanism that help spur innovation, but the patent system is too undiscerning - common methodologies, such as one-click, hyperlinks, business plans, and putting candy bars out by the checkout counter, should not be patentable.
patents should reward true innovation, not extensions of common sense or general techniques....
smd4985
You can't stop the future, you can only simulate it by stopping progress.
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.
Patent 6085223 describes the method to look up the very same patent using the USPTO database by clicking on this url! The patent office is violating the patent!
At least, by making patents available on the internet like this they make them sort of "open source" so that stupid patents like this one will be challenged as soon as someone finds out.
See charts for twitter trends on Trendistic
Another shining example of the US patent office's brilliance. What child has never done that on a swing before? The children at the US patent office, obviously...
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
Because they are just loose concepts. That's like trying to patent the form of communication known as a "debate". It is logical and reasonable that other people would come to point in their life where they might want to "debate" things with other people.
Just like searching something by keyword. I wonder if libraries are going to get sued because of the Dynix based searches using keywords.
--If only there was a license required to use a computer.
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
I really couldn't care less - its not like anyone will pay. But this story hit me kind of personally - from the time I was 3 untll I finished high school, my dad sold ATMs and PCs for NCR. I grew up with their gear (it sucked) and every time I went to K-Mart I looked at their bar code scanner with pride (it was the first and only). I used their prototype tablet PCs years before Palm got it right (NCR's were pathetic - hand held DOS, I shit you not).
It just makes me sad. NCR was founded on pure innovation. They built the very first cash register. Ever. They built some of the very first computers. IBM beat them out on the early gov't contracts, but they weren't slouching. The company was also (at least back in the day) a very good place to work. Corporate day care in the 1920s?!?!?
And now, through failure to adapt, they are reduced to this.
Even if Borland could find an old copy of PowerBase they can't do anything without NCR taking legal action against them. There is no system to get patents withdrawn unless the owner takes someone else to court.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
Since the topic is on crazy patents...
Has anyone ever tried to patent the patent process itself? Heck, since such stupid things as using laser pointers as a cat toy are patentable, why not do something completely insane and patent the actual process of getting a patent.
I can just see the waves of patent lawers out in the street screaming about how they have to now pay ME the holder of the patent on patenting royaltee's everytime they file a patent.
As stupid as an idea this may sound, look at how stupid the patent office is already. I think someone with the balls and cash should do it, just as a wake up call to the USPO.
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)
Umm... Doesn't Al Gore have prior art on inventing the internet?
something like "a special method of causeing physical arousal by looking at special pixle paterns" (even market it as yet another viagra alterntive) image the total costs for every porn site would have to pay..... maybe we could sue those porn link spamers, for "a adversitsing method of the above, heck why not just patent spam "sending unsolicited mass marketing for much proffit by exploiting buffer overflows to hide headers..." heck how many overworked non-techies would recognize what these things are
come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/
Making money off the internet was patented by Amazon.
See charts for twitter trends on Trendistic
The abstract:
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".Because they didn't develope the technique, they just took someone elses idea and patented it, there is far too much prior art for any of these to hold up in court
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
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"
Please, no more "Al Gore created the Internet" quips. Y'all think you're being clever, but that horse is long since dead, and most of the blunt trauma suffered by the carcass clearly occurred after death.
Find a new joke.
Well, there is an "obviousness" exception, related to prior art. Shouldn't that take out most of this? People have been doing keyword searches since the invention of the index, for example.
:)
The nonobvious exception is of course nonobvious in appplication. And the USPTO doesn't always get it right -- though the eventual litigation might.
Certainly this sort of discussion is nothing new.
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
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Does that mean they claim a patent on grep? In 1998?
Does Ken Thompson know about this?
KFG
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.
6,253,203 Privacy-enhanced database
This patent amounts to "select * from tbl where tbl.give_my_email_address_to_others = false".
Seriously. That's the whole thing. Read it.
this mess is getting out of hand....next down the line, some major company like SBC will claim rights to another trivial piece of web-browsing....maybe frames...yeah, SBC will claim rights to frames! how stupid and frivolus will that be?....oh wait, im too late...
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
I think that's a joke. "Tarzan swing" and "Jungle forestry not required"?
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.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
its not like anyone will pay.
Um, larger companies have already paid..
My question is why are there no "big names" out there pounding on congress for software patent reform? Seems like one of those things where "everybody" knows it's broken, but yet no one really does anything about. I'm assuming it's because anyone with deep enough pockets (i.e. has congress's ear) benefits from the way things currently are. Does anyone know of any "real" efforts going on out there to try to do something about this?
How is this not the lead story on every site? every day?
/. at least two more days.
I've got US$10.00 on it being the lead story on
All these greedy bottom feeders trying to strong-arm Mom & Pop, inc. into paying up to license some ridicously broad and already common knowledge idea will have to pay me!
BWAHAHAHA AHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAH HAHAHA!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Are these the same guys that have legal claim on the entire universe excluding Earth. They'll have quite an enterprise going if so.
So now patents are controlled by whoever owns the court, which is usually the body with the deeper pockets.
Since they patent the swing does this make them responsible for any swing accidents that have happened as I fell out of it?
Prior art does not invalidate a patent or make an invention unpatentable unless the prior art covers every single part of the new patent down to the tiniest details. You can patent something that's already patented with only a slight addition. You'll have to have a licence to use the other patent to implement the invention, but you can still get a patent that grants you a limited monopoly to just the new parts. Since the time this article was posted until now (when I've seen dozens of people claiming that these patents are invalid due to prior art) there is NO FUCKING WAY that people who were unaware of these patents before could have figured out wether these should be valid patents or not.
In summary: prior art doesn't mean you can't have a patent. It just means you have to list it in the "prior art" section of the patent and licence the old patent to implement your "improvement" to the old invention (assuming the original patent is still valid).
Any prior art will have to predate, by more than 1 year, the filing date of the original application.
Hrmm... I'm going to apply for a patent to having sex on a swing. I'm surprised its not already.. oh fsck.. the secrets out!
Can all fish swim?
Simple: make software-patents illegal. They're really plain stupid stupid stupid. Software is NOT a device but merely a list of commands which controls a device. Such a list of commands is sometimes called a recipe - a list of actions which you should perform to reach a certain goal. Recipes should not be patentable, otherwise the way I move my hand when jerking of can also be patented (good luck trying to proof prior art:P). Or the way you move your mouth when saying "Anarchy". All actions:) What kind of agent (me, you or a computer) performs those actions should not matter of course. Patents are meant for fysical things. It's just the retardedness of the patent office that causes them to consider computers and software some sort of magical thing. Their way of thinking has become a bit like that the inquisition - driven by utter ignorance and FUD. Someone should either educate them or just kill them for stupidity.
0x or or snor perron?!
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.
the submitter shoud have read this:
n umber=5123456) where the patent number "5123456" may be replaced by any valid patent number within the database, has been established to enable users to more easily construct a URL for bookmarking or linking to the full-text of a single granted patent. To simplify this process even further, the patent grant search process has been modified such that when a search results in a single hit, the user is taken directly to the full-text display for that patent, rather than to a hit list containing only the single patent.
A special shortened URL format, (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patent
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
Sorry, if Borland found said copy, they would use it only for their own protection. Jumping in bed with NCR as most of Borlands competitors would come under fire. I think Borland would see this as an advantage to them.
You need to start thinking like a soulless corporation.
This is trully terrible, but it may turn out that they get their ass handed to them on this one. If their patent-enforcement is a documented means of revenue generation and prior art is found to invalidate their patents( which is certainly more than possible ), the shareholders to which they are accountable will likely begin selling and perhaps even calling for a change of management.
Can't wait to get my monthly NCR internet bill in the mail...
All of this is moot. I believe I see a pattern here. Could it be that these companies are trying to patent these ideas and processes in order to keep OTHER lawyers busy? I would therefore propose that I be allowed to patent the concept of having a lawyer in ones employ for the express purpose of patenting everything else. That way, I can make money by legally stealing other peoples ideas/concepts.
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. A method by which a remote client can query a database and recieve a result? We're not talking about a child on a swing here, we're talking about patenting things for which entire industries have existed since the 70's. This is gross negligence of the highest order, with prior art just a quick altavista search away. Come to think of it, Altavista is prior art.
This gross negligence on the part of the patent office is costing companies and consumers millions of dollars, while adding absolutely nothing to the general pool of knowledge. If the underfunded patent office found it was more resource-efficient to hire competent personel than it would be to simply fail at their appointed task, then we wouldn't have these sorts of problems.
I say we get a class-action suit against the patent office. Any lawyers with me?
The ______ Agenda
Getting there.
As long as no one tries to take away my cat's favourite toy, it's gonna be ok. If someone asserts that patent, I'll be the pile of torn-up flesh and cat fur over in the corner.
But how long until someone with intelligence realizes this?
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
So unless someone is making money off these patents, nobody cares.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
**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.
adjusts tin-foil hat
Personally I think there's a major backlash campaign being given unspoken support from all the old-money dow-like companies. The internet is something they have never understood, and view it only as a threat to thier way of doing business.
The legal system in no way supports the proliferation of free technocratic society, but serves only to perpetuate old-money institutions.
You will never find a retired programmer on the bench. You will find a trial lawyer of some 30 years experience whos outlook is based entirely on precedent(think 1970s and 1980s). This was a time of farms, banks, automobile production, petroleum embargoes, and cold war.
90% of the serving officials in the 3 branches of government were lawyers before being elected senators, or supreme court judges, or in many cases presidents. Very very rarely will you ever see an engineer or scientist turned politician.
We are a fundamentally misrepresented class of people. Our priorities are largely askew from the priorities of the "majority voting public". All we want is unlimited bandwidth, unlimited computing power, and to be left alone. These 3 things are very much within our technological/finacial means as a nation. If the $200billion spent on the defense budget was poured into building a broadband infrastructure we would have it. And we all know how quickly processors and storage mediums improve. Simply said there are no real technological bariers towards the implementation of what the majority of us here want.
But none of this will happen because old-money has become aware of the threat of giving abundant resources to "everyone". They will use the legal system as a means of slowing/crippling/dismantling the "internet" until it is no longer functional.
Said again, the "internet" is under siege from old money...and it is nothing if not a war. Throwing file-sharers in jail, patenting hyper-links, all of this is insanity...but in war you use whatever means necessary to destroy your enemy. We, and what we represent, are the enemy of old-money institutions....and they will leverage every resource in thier means to destroy us.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Yahoo is suing NCR, saying that Yahoo! is not violating NCR patents.
Shouldn't HE have those patents?:)
You are not the customer.
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.
"Why the hell would anyone take an infringement law suit seriously from these patents?"
Because until these patents are deemed invalid (which they certainly seem to be though IANAL), they are enforcable.
I'm afraid that in most, if not all, legal systems the Jeff Spicoli defense of "Your honor, that patent is totally bogus" won't quite cut it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
At least this one ( 6,368,227 ) has a Commissioner Ordered Re-examination pending.
Except that without a military, we would quickly not be 'left alone'
I don't read AC A human right
Looking at the big picure i cant help but laugh! NCR once again trailing at the coat tails of modern concepts AGAIN! (some guy at NCR quits, starts IBM) NCR "tries to compete" fails misserably in the face of a new concept called a programmable computer (1930's to 2003)... IT industry outstrips the effectivness of patents after the first line of OS code was shared between geeks half a century ago... ... and continued with the infrastructure sytle standards based work of ARPANET from DARPA - this technology was built for everybody. Hmmm, I'd like to see NCR sue the US military establishment, cant wait!
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.
Isn't the USPTO in violation of these patents?
Read the patents, for god's sake. The claim of the article submitter, that NCR has "patented the Internet", is totally baseless. They've patented a bunch of things, but they're quite specific and most certainly do not cover all internet technologies or applications -- not even close. I shudder to think that there are many people who get their news solely from the (often wildly innacurate) Slashdot synopses of actual reportage elsewhere
Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.
It does however have one redeeming quality - it's one of the most readable patents I've ever seen
If it's a joke, why was it approved? Why is it in the US PTO database? I would think a joke would get a good laugh, and then cause a reject letter to be mailed out.
If jokes get into the US PTO database, that makes the system a joke. After all, if it is a joke and not marked as such, how do I tell a joke? Perhaps the patents referenced from the main story are all jokes?
At this point, I hope you see the folly of your comment.
How does one submit prior-art to the patent office? I doubt there is a single person here who wouldn't mind firing off a few dozen examples to help keep patents in line with reality...
The ______ Agenda
http://www.uspto.gov/ appears to violate all those patents itself !
Suppose several companies with bogus patents get together and cross-license the patients:
For example, AT&T license the use of the internet to Southwestern Bell and Amazon. Southwestern Bell turns around and licenses the use of frames to AT&T and Amazon. Finally, Amazon licenses the use of mouse clicking on web pages to the other companies.
Now all the companies can go to court and use these license agreements as evidence their patients are valid.
Has anyone ever seen anything like this happen before?
The wrong people are financially liable in our current system. Right now, the main burden is on the people the patent owner is sueing.
There should be a way to sue patent owners for trivial patents, and a way to sue the patent office for really obvious inventions.
Um. We did:) Now we just need someone with intelligence _AND_ the marketing-budget required to be chosen president of the mediacracy called the USA...
0x or or snor perron?!
NCR Corporation provides us with some examples to get you going:
- Exactly like a database, except it's on the Internet.
- Exactly like a secure database, except it's on the Internet.
- Exactly like a commerce database, except it's on the Internet.
- Exactly like a database client, except it's on the Internet.
- Exactly like computer security, except it's on the Internet.
Thanks, NCR!Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
America's #1 passtime is 'settling out of court' .. aka, self-censorship and the growing iirelevency of America's legal system.
That is because there are not enough lawyers and not enough courts.
We need more courts and more lawyers!
Uh.....wait.....
Table-ized A.I.
As discussed all the time here on /., the system just sucks. The whole concept of proprietary intellectual property which is monopolistically enforced by the government sucks. I'd like to see studies on how much LESS innovation we'd see without a patent system all together. (Shit, if it's Microsoft's definition of innovation, we wouldn't be losing anything at all.) Does anyone know of a first world country without such a system?
Don't blame the lawyers or the companies for doing what the system teaches them to do.
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.
Borland doesn't need to find a copy, anyone who bought a copy can do so (brushes off the 'ole dbase4 /dbase5 diskettes, the clipper5 diskettes, the dbfast diskettes, reinstalls 5-1/4" drive - woohoo! - can still read them!!!)
When I worked with NCR Computer division in South Carolina, we trademarked the TOWER and MINI-TOWER. Until then all desktop and most small computers were flat or cube-type units. When we tried to enforce the trademarks as small PC companies started selling "Towers", the industry media gave us a "black eye" for going after the "little" guys. (After all, why should someone be able to trademark a common word like TOWER? or SCOTCH?) At the time NCR was about 60,000 people and Dell was about 25 or less.
Now I did not read the full text of the patents, but I do know NCR was using databases in the '70s, but so was IBM and Ross Perot's EDS of Dallas.
If they can pull this one off, maybe their stock will not be at $16.75 much longer!
This patent will never stand up, the US goverment and
many goverments all have online stores (and are doing quite well).
They will crush any patent infringement case.
http://bookstore.gpo.gov/index.html
What they do not check is unpatented prior art. That is left to the courts.
My cat loves that too. He can't get enough.
I can't believe that
A) the USPO awarded this
B) that any court in the country could believe that this is more than an IP grab (on par with the misquoted Gore claiming he inverted the internet)
c) that anybody's actually given them a dime.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I can see the financial benefits of Amazon and other marginal patent holders supporting each other, but I'm having trouble seeing what MSFT gets out of this. Never mind...
There are good patents for non-tangible things.
The real point, seems to me, is that you can patent how to do something, but you can't patent what it is that gets done. In other words, I can patent how I build an particular type of car engine, but I can't make that patent extend to anything that is self-moving on 4 wheels. (Or at least I shouldn't be able to, because such patents are overbroad.)
If somebody else can build an entirely different thing that does what I do but doesn't do it how I do it, my patent can't cover it.
The problem with software is that the distance between what and how is much, much smaller. So it's easier for a patent applicant to say "This covers everything that even conceivably does what I do, because in the process of describing how I do it, I cover every rational way of doing it."
How do you fix it? Well, as pointed out in the parent post, copyright is the proper area of law to address this. Other issues: companies need to realize that you can't make money by trying to slap a patent on whatever any half-bright programmer can produce.
Maybe we need to make software generally unpatentable, and make exceptions in certain tightly defined areas (highly evolved algorithms, certain kinds of codecs, etc).
Hey, you just hit the nail on the head! Being that the USPTO gave out these patents, they have to license the technology to use the database that they filed the patent into!
THEY SLIT THEIR OWN THROAT! They've dismissed prior art in giving the patent, thereby proving their ignorance!
What a freaking world!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Budget freeze for a couple years would make plenty of money for broadband infrastructure without causing undue risk of invasion from Canada. Hell, 10 years even.
That's classic. My favorite quote comes at the very end.
Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.
Licenses are available from the inventor upon request. "
(Score: -1, Stupid)
First we had the Overture patent of ranking search engine results by bid amount:
select * from matches order by bidAmount desc
And now NCR is patenting the LIKE clause.
Has anybody grabbed JOIN's yet?
Table-ized A.I.
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.
Method and apparatus for storing, manipulating, retrieving, and displaying logical representations of arbitrary entities
Abstract
A method and apparatus for providing a means for representing arbitrary entities is described. The method comprises the steps of receiving a representation of any entity, conversion to a convenient format, including but not limited to a numeric or alpha-numeric format susceptible to electronic or mechanical storage, and subsequent storage, manipulation, retrieval, and display of the representation.
I am still consulting my attorneys, but I believe it is general enough to cover everything else. That is to say, everything else.
You seem to have a different definition of rightful than most people. At one time, slaves were propery under US law. That didn't make it right to have slaves.
This is what happens when you try to embrace and extend the concept of rights.
:( symbol.
Patents were created to assign exclusive rights on the usage of unique processes and creations to allow their creators to benefit from them for a reasonable length of time. They were never intended to stifle innovation or to freeze out people from using ideas that should be obvious to a 4-year old kid.
But then someone decided you could patent software...Now you can patent anything apparently. And as with most embrace and extend wars, the concept of patents, and soon, intellectual property rights as a whole, will be meaningless.
Have a look at despair.com They've patented the
Business, like most people in this philosophically deprived culture, lives for the moment. Their short-range, narrow-minded concentration on next quarter's earnings would allow them to yank the copyrights for "a system of national defense" if it would bring profits up for the quarter. Of course, next quarter, when the country gets invaded, they'd all be screaming that "nobody told us, how would we know?".
We will all have to pay 1 cent every time we post in /.
Ohhh, NCR! At very first glance, I read that subject as NPR. I was thinking, they might have prior art against the majority of blogging.
Y'know, hordes of "experts" droning on about their day, and other things no one really cares about.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
I think I will patent a system for the production of specific enzymes through the use of transportable and duplicable molecular combinations through polymerase enzymes.
I will then demand license fees for the operation of DNA in every lifeform on Earth.
This was discussed last year, see for example
3 08 4451.htm
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/
Hartti
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
Well, of course. That's the whole issue, isn't it? Haven't you heard about this?
However, many patents that sound like a joke to most people have turned out to be quite serious, unfortunately.
At this point, I hope you see the folly of your comment.
At this point, I hope you feel pretty stupid for attempting to prove to me that the USPTO is one fucked up nest of clueless bureaucrats, which I really didn't need. But thanks, anyway.
These filings are not a big deal. There is too much prior art for them to be granted. I wonder, however, if we will be able to have sex anymore because of the patents on portions of the human genome. If I reproduce a patented section of DNA when I reproduce, can I be sued? Maybe we can just pay a one-time fee to RIAA for the right to procreate. ;)
How is that an invention? Thats like saying, if someone discovered a rock on a beach, that they can go off saying they invented the rock.
Only deal is, even if there were a method in place for people to contest said lawsuits and not suffer mounting legal fees (ie: legal fees for the defendant paid for by the claimant on a lost case), taking a case to trial is too much like gambling. Too many things can go wrong for you in a court of law. The judge could be insane that day and rule against you. Your laywer could misstep a rule and fail to make an appropriate point at the proper moment. The prosecution could bring out evidence or a witness that skews your ability to defend against it. Heck, you might find something out 30 seconds after you lose your defense that would've changed the case, but it's too late because the judge has ruled.
Too many problems, too many ways to lose even if you are 'in the right' for people to want to consider. Only someone who will stand up for themselves and the principle will go to court for something so stupid as this. Everyone else will simply try to minimize their headache from an already stupid situation.
But are they going to? And why should they?
Because the owner of the stupid patent knows that the "infringing" company also has stupid patents, the usual solution is that it gets licenced for a comparitively modest fee. The immediate issue goes away, and the proponents of the system get to point at checks and balances that make sure no-one gets ripped off.
But what happens when we get to the end of this process and we have a King Rat (a nest of rats with their tails inexorably knotted together) of tech companies that have cross licencing on key technology patents? What interest do they have in allowing participation by someone with a marginal number of links to contribute?
I think that processes such as the power law has lead to a small number of players with many links (patents). Unlike blogging, there's no incentive for the top end of town to play with the bottom end of town, and without intervention, you will see a divide where you will be unable to compete in the tech game without access to a large patent portfolio. The existing players are happy with this, because their tails cannot be cut out of the rat king without harming the others.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
what if sombody were to:
(1)Incorporate a disposible business
(2)Break stupid patent
(3)Get sued
(4)Make asses of patent holder in court
How about Penn Jillette's (of Penn & Teller) patent for arousing women in a hot tub?
This sig intentionally left justified.
So... what about patft.uspto.gov... have THEY paid their licensing fees yet?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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.
Rather than worrying about whether or not software patents should or should not exist, instead, the US Congress could fix the a larger body of problems with one simple, quick, easy fix:
OVERTURNED PATENT OWNER PAYS
That's right. If the patent owner LOSES a patent challenge on the grounds that the patent is obvious or prior art exists, the overturned patent owner has to pay all court costs (attorney's fees, etc.) of each and every defender that the patent owner was suing. Included in those costs should be reasonable compensation to the defenders for their time and energy in having to defend themselves, and reasonable compensation for provable lost sales (due to the suit) in the case of a business.
This would QUICKLY discourage owners of dubious patents from bothering to enforce them, since they run the risk of considerable monetary loss.
When someone with a dubious patent threatens someone with little money, the likelihood is that the defender could find a competent patent attorney willing to challenge the suit without any up front charges, getting paid only if they win the defense.
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.
My question is this:
These patents were filed in 1998...
Why would ebay have caved? Their site (at least functionality) is mostly unchanged from when I remember them well before 1998. Aren't THEY prior art?
no, i am not asking readers to sue the uspto. but it seems that ncr will sue uspto since uspto.gov is violating their patents too!
No I don't feel stupid. Your comment, "I think that's a joke", could reasonably interpreted as "this isn't a real patent, it's a joke". I now understand you meant "it's a joke that the patent office granted it". Had I originally understood, I wouldn't have even posted a reply.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
A client of ours just had a very similar thing happen to them, with Divine's supposed patent on shopping cart technology, which is also insane.
unfortunately, they had to settle eventually to get back to business. We did put together a website to try to help fight Divine, and intend to continue the effort ourselves. And expect to get targeted by divine as well.
scum sucking lawyers are making most of the money off of these things, not the companies who hold the patents.
check out the history of the divine issue here:
http://www.divineintervention.biz/
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
I appreciate the joke, but just to make a point: the lawyers are involved (and paid) whether a case ever is heard in a courtroom or not. And, in fact, an early trial might be quite a bit cheaper than all the filings and counterfilings that the lawyers wind up preparing.
It is ILLEGAL to steal money and to cause monetary damage to other companies (*ahem*hacking,sharing mp3s,violating DMCA*ahem*) and this is no different. They should be held responsible for their actions.
The patent example is just another example of our legal system bleeding society dry. Frivilous personal injury lawsuits are another. There are others. A general solution would be to enact a law making it easier for judges/juries to award damages to either the defendant/gavernment in the case that the plaintiff is particularly wrong to bring such a case. For example, in this instance, if the patent holders sue for infringement and the patents are overturned, and it is additionally decided that the suit was malicious, the patent holders should be required to pay not only all court costs and legal fees, but an additional penalty. BTW, IANAL.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
as Al Gore has already stated, publicly, that he is responsible for the internet.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
'Privacy-enhanced database'? If I am not mistaken this idea was implemented a LONG time before 2001. I remember reading a COBOL book written in the seventies(?) that basically had such an idea implmented in code that was used as an example. Maybe someone should tell Oracle about this too, because I have no doubt they devoloped and implemented such things themselves before this company even existed.
'Method and apparatus for forming subject (context) map and presenting Internet data according to the subject map' Oracle and whoever first coombined SQL with PHP may have a claim that they came up with such an idea first.
As for the others, they sound supiciously like things that Oracle, IBM, Sun, and Microsoft had already to a degree implemented by 2000 let alone 2001. It sounds to me like what NCR has done is it has copywrited other people's ideas. Maybe Bill Gates is waiting for these guys to get some money so that he can then sue them for real money.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
6,085,223 - giving DB info to non requesting client? If you read it, it patents what every fricken crappy (mine included) PHP+MySQL website ever written! (Well close enough for dilution grenades) Oh man this is funny stuff. Anyone written a webpage like that prior to 2000? :) (sorry, I picked a random patent to comment on it's absurdity.)
Maybe because no one wants to go through the ordeal of trying to read one of their rambling, monotonous and over-worded* patents.
* is that a word? it is now! I'll patent it!
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Has anyone checked out this link?
eBay, Amazon and MSFT have already licensed from NCR
Provide links to evidence that this is indeed true.
And honestly, any story that begins with "my buddy" or "my friend" should be rejected immediately.
According to documentation that a friend's company has recently received,
What documentation? What company?
Seriously, I could pen a story claiming that my friend's company just received a million dollar grant from Bill Gates to create a self-propelled rocket to Mars... sounds great and makes good "copy", but it's complete bull$hit. Bold, baseless accusations do not make a story valid. Timothy should have spent more time validating this story.
I thought Al Gore invented the internet.
--
"I'm don't know exactly what an AS/400 is, but I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want one up my ass" --Lou
My God! You're right, that's gotta be the Best Troll Ever, but you've got to read it a -1 to see all the replies. Quite a catch! Genius, whoever s/he is.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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.
There was some todo about patenting business models a while ago. I'm not sure whether it was accepted or not, but if it was, it might be interesting to patent the approach of "acquiring or registering obvious patents for the purpose of extorting money from other companies".
Then, once you own the patent, grant a free, one month license to any company getting sued by someone like NCR.
What's the benefit?
NCR (and similar companies) have little reason *not* to go after companies like this one. If they lose, the only cost to them is of legal fees.
Granted, a challenge to their patent can destroy it, but that costs the challenger money and risk, and doesn't cost NCR anything other than the patent. However, if you were able to sue them for patent infringement, they'd be looking at damages. The only way out of the patent infringement case would be for them to prove that their patent is non-obvious -- essentially that it's a legitimate patent, which they wouldn't be able to do.
May we never see th
NCR still kicks some serious but in the DB department. TeraData is a DB workhorse that puts anything else out there to shame. The NCAG DB is a 30+ node unix/win2k based machine that flies. VERY expensive equipment and proprietary EVERYTHING but effective.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
although thats a good idea, i dont think that it is a very practical one. Just because of the sheer number of retailers, and, i would be willing to bet that this is not going to solely affect retailers, (if you read the patents) it could be any site that uses pretty much a database, and keyword searches.... this is either going to be aquitted, or its going to be a big mess, which will mess things up for all of us.
...We are a fundamentally misrepresented class of people. Our priorities are largely askew from the priorities of the "majority voting public". All we want is unlimited bandwidth, unlimited computing power, and to be left alone. These 3 things are very m...
This may, or may not, be true. But it's irrelevant. The choice of candidates is such that almost all people are misrepresented. Or even anti-represented. Mind you, you can't always tell ahead of time. There's been a couple of times that someone I thought might be a good candidate actually won. What they did after they were in office, however, clearly indicated that they were not as presented. There are very good reasons for the proverbs about "as good as a politician's promises".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I remember using Windows 95 to access MSN and probably Amazon before Windows 98 existed, so therefore it was before '98 (when these patents were granted). I don't understand how they could claim they invented such things in '98. Surely the patent office has made mistakes before and should be held accountable. Somebody there just didn't do their homework. Here are the facts: Amazon started in 1996 and Ebay started in 1995, according to the copyright statement at the bottom of their homepages(for what that's worth).
I think Mr Olsen has a little too much time on his hands to be grabbing patents on swing methonds..... perhaps he was neglected of a swing as a child?
I doubt there is a single person here who wouldn't mind firing off a few dozen examples to help keep patents in line with reality...
Doubt there is a single person who wouldn't mind? Everyone would mind doing it? Actually there's probably quite a few people here who wouldn't mind.
"When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
OK but what if the Prior Art was not patented, or further, that it was cover under on of the many open source licenses or similar
The reason I ask is that I was part of a development group that had a functional eCommerce website produced for the government under a cooperative research and development agreement in Jan of 1997. As such it is has special provisions under patentablity and copyright. If so, who would want to know about this?
The only problem with just making a small addition and then claiming a new patent is that your addition has to be NON-OBVIOUS. And it's already established that something done offline, but moved online, is obvious and is not grounds for a patent.
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!
Fair enough. I apologize for the snappy comeback.
Someone should patent the golf club and then maybe the goverment would give this some attention.
I sort of agree with this, but if you suggest that a recipe should not be patented, then my arguament would be that to make a physical object- ie a new widget - is just a series of steps. If I give you a manual that tells you how to make an object, step by step instructions, then is that a recipe ?
Semper ubi sub ubi
All of these patents are ridiculous.
I would like to patent the process of hitting everyone at NCR with a rubber mallet.
That is really big news. The Patent office almost always sticks with the patent holder, no matter how ridiculous the patent is.
Externally requested reviews are not uncommon, the catch with an external review is that if the patent survives the review the presumption that it is valid is increased, even though the USPTO will apply its usual standards of sloppy and incoherent review and do everything it can to avoid admitting a mistake.
Commissioner requested reviews are very rare and tend to only happen when the USPTO knows that if it does not request a review itself it is likely to end up looking very stupid.
Basically the USPTO behaves exactly the way you would expect an agency to behave if its decisions can be challenged in court by one side but not the other.
The whole thing is an extortion racket.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Well, either they they make HTML/PHP/CGI etc. routines and code unpatentable or I'm going to file patents for similies, metaphors, analogies, rhyme, hyperbole, etc.
What's the difference here?
"Abstract: In human interaction it is sometimes necessary and often preferable to unfavorably interact with other persons rather than favorably. To this end, this patent claims the usage of words in such a manner as to create an "insult" whereby the target is subjected to one or more of the following: belittlement, ridicule, laughter (at, not with, target), embarassment, humor, insight, and/or humility. Additional states that can be created by said arrangement of words, either spoken, written, or implied, are also claimed under this patent. This patent is not limited to any specific language, though the exact construction methods of "insults" may vary..."
"When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
It seems said person is all about stealing from others rather than playing fair. I wonder maybe if Bruceyboy got thrown in the slammer for not delivering the goods the silly patents would cease to be enforced? Or perhaps trying to circumvent software protection might do it. There's all kinds of interesting stuff about him on Google.
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6
The more patents I read the more I realize how vague they are getting. The wording is right out of the Web Economy Bullshit Generator. I am sure you can take the same patent and reword it 50 times and get 50 patents. It is sicking. I thought patents were for lightbulbs and hammers. Oh well. Live sucks then you die.
I tire of this falacy.
People who hold similar occupations or hobbies don't make them a "class." If you find yourself in a underrepresented minority of some sort, you have to concede that it was your choice to join this minority, or to even believe such a minority exists.
Unless, for example, you're aluding to the "class of people" which can no longer afford to run around in BMWs just because they can write "hello world" anymore.
Very very rarely will you ever see an engineer or scientist turned politician
Then why are you an engineer?
Actually the Steven Olson is the young son of a patent lawyer who patented the "technique" under his childs name
I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
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
Perhaps eBay, Amazon and MSFT are all paying this license fee to NCR is because its in their interest to do so. The fee is probably a pittance to an established multinational corperation but a small startup joe shmoe working on his computer in the basement its a fortune, NCR can slap him silly and its in the best interest of all established players for this to happen. Little guys are not allowed to rock the boat or break their gravy machines.
"watching capatalism undermine democracy" ani Difranco
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
I agree that software patents are stupid, but I'm not too sure about the recipe thing. One could call a set of mechanical drawings (often what patents are based on) recipes. You follow the steps and you wind up with a widget. A patented widget.
The difference is that when you follow the directions in software (compile and run it), all you get is a temporary state of electronic gates on a device (computer). As you pointed out, there is no real, er, physical presence. Patenting software is like getting a patent for a car going 30 mph with the left front window down and a flat spare tire in the trunk.
Software should be copyrighted, for those seeking protection, not patented.
Did Al Gore ever work for NCR?
Instead of trying to fix the patent process,
I'd rather see a new law that says anything implemented on hardware built before the patent was filed does not infringe on it.
Unfortunately they can't be marked as a joke. Somebody has patented that idea of 'a selection of words and phrases put together so as to cause humour' and therefore they would be in breach of the patent.
The funny thing is that the original applicant only sent in joke as a joke...
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Actually someone may have clued them in on this one.
For some values of "database", this'll
be describing the 1989 CERN WWW server,
no?
If they were sensible, they would insist that patents be worded in as simple terms as is reasonably possible before granting the patent. But the way most patents are written, apparently they grant the patent if they don't understand it, that's why we see all these twenty-page descriptions for doing something as simple as 1+1.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Why would anybody be pro any corporation?
I remember when I was in high school people would be pro ford vs pro chevy or pro nike vs pro addidas (I guess I am dating myself there). I used to remember making fun of those people who somehow thought that they would be "cool" if they somehow aligned themselves with one corporation or another. I guess on one level these people knew that the CEOs of that corporation didn't give a flying fuck about them but I guess they still went around with bumperstickers that said "friends don't let friends drive chevys" or some such advertising because it made them feel somehow powerful.
To this day I don't understand their motivation for being "pro" some corporation. Maybe you could fill me in. Why do you care so much about MS? Also why did you choose MS as opposed to say Baskin Robbins or Exxon or Proctor and Gamble? I mean if I was going to adopt a corporation to be "pro" for then I might choose one that made delicious ice cream over one that made software.
Also do you have a bumber sticker with a picture of calvin (from calvin and hobbes fame) pissing on a penguin or something like that? I see a lot of those too.
War is necrophilia.
Don't you have to be a patent attorney to do this? They don't work for free last time I checked.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
I was mistaken. It's at least $8140 to obtain a patent (assuming you don't get into refilings or modifications or the such). Sorry
Read the patent. He's patented swinging left and right on swings that you'd normally swing back and forward.
Congratulations, you've proved me correct. See, the way you get a patent is you file for one, spend a lot of money and time, and if there's nothing in the records available to the PTO that says the patent should not issue, then it issues. That does not mean the patent is therefore valid for its life. It just means that in the interest of efficiency and expense that the patent will issue. But someone needs to sue you for infringement before it goes anywhere. And once they do that, you can represent yourself if you wish and provide just one instance that the patented thing was done before the application was filed and that's that. I'm not sure if you get attorneys costs, but you very well might, if you win. Thanks for your time.
Application for a US Patent:
:-)
Title: A Method for the Protection of Exclusive Property Right
Abstract: The method is comprised of a system consisting of three parts: a) a mechanism for notifying a controlling unit of a new device or process, or a modification to an existing one; b) a process for notifying the public of approval of said innovation; and c) a mechanism for enforcing the intellectual property rights of the creator of the innovation.
Think the USPTO will mind if I try and patent patents?
--
Me: http://www.robertdhill.com/
You are sadly completely right !
After the Texan "coup" in your last "election" (I use the word in it's broadest term possible), the US is as credible democracy as Zimbabwe!
There's something ironic & scary about the fact, that only a decade after you finally broke the back, of the largest totalitarian regimes, you rapidly becoming one your self. On the other hand your elections _are_ the ultimate "reality show" out there, I do so enjoy you buy by a new president..
Get a grip America, you'r fuxoring it all up !
Go ahead Flame me !!
#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
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Or you could just move to Canada, where broadband is cheap and plentiful (in most parts of the country).
I can choose from wireless (2M/2M) for $28 USD/month; DSL (1.2M/160K) for $20 USD/month, or cable () for $30 USD/month.
Oh yeah, the beer's better here, too...
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
hilarious, very strange, but its a viable patent in my opinion, of course IANAL. Anyway, they do specify that the nozzle would be aligned in a manner that stimulates the clit, which my hot tub doesnt have (i checked, jsut to be sure) so that additional nozzle does make it a valid patent, to an extent. I mean, what guy hasnt already thought of this. ... or maybe it was just me ...
YOU SUCK BALLS!
One would think that keyword searching and product categorization, along with many other concepts, were already demonstrated in 1968 by Douglas Engelbart.
http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html
I'd like to appeal this patent. Please, everyone email me lots and lots of prior art for the lawsuit. Both video and still photos are acceptable.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Please put a gun to your head and pull the trigger
On behalf of my client, Anonymous Coward llc, I am asking you to cease and desist advising others to voiolate my clients patent entitled "A METHOD OF TERMINATING ONES LIFE USING HIGH-SPEED PROJECTILES".
Some kid's parent did write it for him. A lawyer did it to teach his children about the patent system and at a same time point out it's ineptitude.
perhaps you could file a patent which describes a method for distribute electronic images of naked women, as a guise for collecting more email addresses to send out more communiques, ad infinitum.
...then I could sue all the spammers, claiming patent violation.
- passion
Patent 5319777 referenced by one of NCR's patents claims "multidimensional spreadsheets" that can be viewed in sections at multiple computers but updated individually, affecting the entire spreadsheet for other users. Obviously, this is just a (poorly implemented) relational database. However, without knowing the mathematical background of relational databases, the typical patent clerk probably wouldn't relate the two. The problem with the patent system is that the most convoluted terms can be used to describe a precise, mathematical concept and can make two implementations indistinguishible from each other.
Well, thankgoodnes they took out these patents... otherwise we wouldn't have keyword searching or product categorization or anything in between! Online shopping would suck! Yay NCR.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
I'll second that. I worked for NCR for several years in the 90's and let me tell you...it's not for nothing that they are the most "Dilbertized" company around.
"What?!? We're not profitable AGAIN? Ok, here's what we do:
1. Forced early retirement for most who know anything about the ancient stuff out there that's still in use and not documented.
2. Lay off almost all temps and/or freeze all hiring.
3. Get twice as many contracts by promising half the response time as before."
Result? Quadruple the workload on individuals still working there.
I kid you not, one afternoon I had 70 service calls thrown in my lap to fester because there were only 4 people working for field service that weekend in the whole state of Maryland. And most of them had contractual obligations of less than 4 hour response times. Insanity.
The only reason I mention this is to underscore what an increasingly desperate and unfocused company NCR is. It was once great, and some of their products are pretty good, but bad choices and dubious management have destroyed them.
a patent on a particular widget, but every
possible similar widget.
Ronco can take a patent out on their electric dehyrator, and no-one can copy it. But you can make your own electric dehyrator on a different design.
With software patents if you patent one-click or frames or anything else, then no-one else can implement it at all.
The best thing that could've happened would be BT's hyperlink patent being upheld
That would've forced reforms onto the world's patent offices.
Sorry, chief. I did that in preschool in 1989.
Repeal the DMCA!
mean that "prior art" will infringe on said Patent and be deemed a circumvention device. :)
Do you need a website upgrade?
I particularly liked the part about the "Tarzan yell". That's when I decided that this HAS to be a deliberately-spurious patent, perhaps filed to demonstrate the flaws in the current system.
And if it's serious -- I claim prior art and obviousness -- I discovered the "pull on either chain" method of making a swing go, back about 1960.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Assuming software patents are legal, and assuming that patent law trumps copyright law (big assumption, but stick with me for a minute) then cant the patents on the software be used to invalidate the (c) when the patents expire?
In that case -- maybe it would make a good example for demonstrating just how badly the system is broken. (See my post above about how I claim prior art and obviousness, which I retroactively mark as "serious, not funny after all" :)
:)
Haul this wonderful example in front of whoever makes the patent rules and see how well they defend it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
But in that case, wouldn't an infringement *also* have to satisfy the "every single part of the new patent down to the tiniest details" requirement?
ISTM if that's what defines prior art, that what defines violation of someone's patent should be no less stringent.
But "anything in the near neighbourhood" seems to be the actual criterion used to determine whether to sue someone.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Your question seems funny, considering your sig. Why did you choose Bill Gates, as opposed to Larry Ellison or Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet? You must be "pro-Linux"? How can you be "pro" operating system? Isn't that a bit pointless, hmmm?
A good examiner searches for the terms of the claims. And finds the proper prior art when available.
A lot patent stories posted here on 'they are patenting the world' are plain BS, since in the end, most claims are rather very specific.
In my opinion, this is, however, not the case here. It seems to me the examiner has been sleeping. And his assistant as well.
I absolutely do not agree with you.
You Americans already have 35 USC and I think that's good enough to stop most bogus stuff. With this legislation, you can have patents revoked when they lack novelty, isn't it?
IMHO, your problem is that your patent office has appointed silly examiners. From US colleagues I've heard that most of them stay there for only a couple of years and then leave the place. There goes your quality...
Why doesn't this happen in Europe, where requirements for novelty and inventive step (or non-obviousness) apply to a very large extent in the same way? Because European examiners (at the European Patent Office, that is) get paid muchos much a lot. And don't pay taxes.
In that way, you keep your good people and quality of the patents you grant.
Why not ask for re-examination? With additional prior art?
That is incorrect. The prior art has to cover every detail of the claims to invalidate the claims, which determine the protection. No more, no less.
I'd agree with banning software patents but I think the recipe argument is a little weak. You could provide a list of commands to follow for which you end up with a patented physical object
I'd rather go with the does it promote innovation argument. When it comes to physical objects then many times it is going to involve substantial monetary investment even if that is only for creating prototype after prototype while you find what works. When it comes to software for how many patents can you, as a prospective patent owner, argue that if you didn't do this commercially that nobody else would do it?
It will get increasingly difficult to argue that a software innovation could only have been done comercially. Programming has long been a hobby for many people but there are barriers. My first computer was a BBC B. £399 almost twenty years ago. In real terms you can get a computer for a lot less now, plus a household is more likely to have a computer for other uses already given the increase in functionality. Then you have to have some software to develop in. I was lucky with the beeb in that respect as it came with a decent BASIC and Assembler! These days there is plenty of open source software that will fulfill that requirement. (Possibly) finally you do need to learn to program. There are going to be people who might have been great programmers who fail when starting to program and never pick up the bug. How much easier is this these days with the internet? When you're learning you have readily accessible tutorials. When you're stuck with debugging there's usenet and message boards. All this adds up to an increasing population of competent programmers. If a certain percent of these have a mindset to do at least some noncommercial programming then this also adds up to an increasing population of noncommercial competent programmers.
Add to this the ease, again given the internet, for these programmers to collaborate on projects that they would never have attempted on their own and how many software innovations are reliant on patents for their existence?
A Prayer to the Omnipotent FSM
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...
I just patented viewing computer generated text and images off a monitor with your eyes. You now owe me $1,000 in royalties.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, The hands acqui
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
NT
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Some people have much better ideas to profit from...
How right you are. Limiting patents to non-trivial, useful, genuinely novel applications would be such a stupid idea, wouldn't it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You fight fire with fire.
e ver violate it.
1) Manage to patent something obvious.
2) Find out which of your senators/congresscritters/legislators/judges/what
3) Sue them.
4) If they contact you, explain that you really have nothing against them personally. You're only defending your intellectual property rights. Casually mention that it seems to be a valid business model. Do not tell them your true motivation, let them think you are just a common greedy bastard.
5) Either take it to court, settle or get your patent repealed.
6) Let them realize that the current patent system is thoroughly fucked-up and that they should do something about it.
7) Repeat.
(I know, I know. I left out the ubiquitous "profit" step. Use your imagination)
Krill have announced that they will dissolve their species effective some time in Q2 of 2003, citing a hostile intellectual property environment which makes their business plan no longer tenable. Their remaining assets are expected to be acquired by Blue Whales.
"Why did you choose Bill Gates, as opposed to Larry Ellison or Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet? "
,democrat, american or chinese. Open source is the most important movement in the world today. It is also the worlds largest (and quite possibly the only) meritocracy. Open source is an ideal and I am in love with that ideal. The fact that this noble ideal also happens to produce a fantastic operating system is nothing short of a miracle. If it produced a mediocre toothbrush I'd be just as happy. The reward is in the process not the end result.
Because they are not hoarding 40 billion dollars in cash and very short term funds. Other people run their corporations in the best interest of the shareholders which means that any excess profits are returned to the shareholders. Bill Gates OTOH is hoarding the money. I am puzzled as to why he thinks he will need 40 billion dollars in cash very soon. So far I have not heard one explanation from anybody.
Also I chose Bill gates because he is most evil out of all the CEOs you have mentioned. He runs an evil corporation (an evil empire if you will). His top level staff are all scummy unethical people. Not only is he evil he has chosen to surround himself with evil people.
Those are my reasons.
"You must be "pro-Linux"? How can you be "pro" operating system? Isn't that a bit pointless, hmmm?"
I am pro open source. I believe that open source is the last chance for people all over the world to work together to accomplish one task any task. No matter if they are white, black, muslim, jew, republican
That is why I am pro linux. Now once again.
Why are you pro MS, why MS and not some other corporation? what made you choose this corporation to give your love and loyalty to?
War is necrophilia.
Cash? He has a lot of it, but not nearly 40 billion dollars. Most of his fortune is in Microsoft stock. Get your facts straight.
Also I chose Bill gates because he is most evil out of all the CEOs you have mentioned
There are a lot of evil people in the world, but I doubt you've come across any if you think Bill Gates is "evil" because he runs his company the way he does. He's not in the business of being nice to you and your friends, he's in the business of growing Microsoft and maximizing shareholder value. That's what CEOs do.
Open source is the most important movement in the world today
Yes, I'm sure it is. Any moment now open source is going to cure cancer, find an AIDS vaccine, turn rocks into bread and distribute it in Africa and topple all the evil governments of the world. Oh, and it's also going to stop global warming, pollution and deforestation.
The fact that this noble ideal also happens to produce a fantastic operating system is nothing short of a miracle
I don't agree that it's particularly noble (but you seem to live in a world where things are much simpler), though I do agree on the miracle bit.
The reward is in the process not the end result.
Yes, that's definitely an attitude that seems to permeate open source. Unfortunately it also means that most of what it produces is unusable unless you're a computer expert. But that's another discussion.
Why are you pro MS, why MS and not some other corporation? what made you choose this corporation to give your love and loyalty to?
First off, my sig is a play on the Slashdork collective. It has very interesting effects, especially among moderators. Second, I do not give my "loyalty" to Microsoft anymore than I give it to JVC because I buy consumer electronics from them. Third, I don't "love" Microsoft. If you want to "hate" a company, that's fine. Personally, I reserve my stronger feelings for more important things. But don't assume everyone else in the world is also waging religious war over the software they happen to use (or not). It's just that, software.
...and you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. We understand this isn't the first time it's happened. This happens all the time, just like earthquakes happen all the time, and bribery and extortion happen all the time. It's still "news".
It may not be new to you, but it is to other people, AND it's also worthy of taking notice especially considering the broad scope of these patents.
Just because you think you've hashed through the issues doesn't mean it's not news.
Lastly, you might want to reconsider your hashing skills, you obviously didn't put a lot of thought into your argument.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
"Cash? He has a lot of it, but not nearly 40 billion dollars. Most of his fortune is in Microsoft stock. Get your facts straight."
You need to work on your reading skills. Go back and re-read the post you are replying to. I said Microsoft has 40 billion in cash not Bill Gates. When corporations hoard money it goes against the principles of capitalism. That money belongs to shareholders.
" There are a lot of evil people in the world, but I doubt you've come across any if you think Bill Gates is "evil" because he runs his company the way he does."
He is evil. He is a liar. If he was an ordinary person he would be in jail for perjury, witness tampering and evidence tampering. He is a bully. He has no morals. He steals, lies and cheats. I don't know what your definition of evil is but mine includes people who lie, cheat and steal.
" Yes, I'm sure it is. Any moment now open source is going to cure cancer, find an AIDS vaccine, turn rocks into bread and distribute it in Africa and topple all the evil governments of the world. Oh, and it's also going to stop global warming, pollution and deforestation."
OSS may not cure cancer or reverse global warming but it's nevertheless the most important movement in the history of mankind. If people can learn to work together for non profit motives then they can do anything including curing cancer and reversing global warming. OSS is about people learning to overcome their differences and working together for the common good. This is the ideal that Jesus, budha, and mohammed preached. For some strange reason this effort seems to really irritate people like you and Bill gates. I guess it irks you guys when you see people getting along and working for a common goal.
" Yes, that's definitely an attitude that seems to permeate open source. Unfortunately it also means that most of what it produces is unusable unless you're a computer expert. But that's another discussion."
Once again you need to learn to read. What OSS produces is irrelevant. Like I said if it was a mediocre toothbrush it would still be the most impressive achievement of mankind in a long time. It's unheard of in any other endevour for people of differing cultures, races, religions, and political idiologies to work together without a profit motive. The end result is meaningless.
" First off, my sig is a play on the Slashdork collective. It has very interesting effects, especially among moderators. Second, I do not give my "loyalty" to Microsoft anymore than I give it to JVC because I buy consumer electronics from them. Third, I don't "love" Microsoft. If you want to "hate" a company, that's fine"
You said you are "pro" microsoft. That means that you have pledged some sort of an alligience to that corporation. I simply want to know what causes any person to pledge themselves to a any corporation let alone MS. Why are you "pro" and corporation? Why did you choose this corporation to be "pro". I keep asking you this but you don't answer. Maybe you don't know the answer. Maybe you need to search your soul and conscience and ask yourself why you would align yourself with a corporation so much that you feel to advertise that fact in your signature. It's an interesting thing to think about. You should be able to articulate your feelings about your ideals if you believe in them. I have told you why I hate Microsoft and Bill Gates. maybe you disagree with me but at least I can lay out my ratinale. You are "Pro" Microsoft and you can't explain why.
" It's just that, software."
Once again go re-read everything I have written. It's not about software, never was, never will be.
War is necrophilia.
Um, your sig says "Bill Gates". But fair enough.
He is evil. He is a liar.
Perhaps in your rather limited perspective of reality, yes. I happen to think "evil" is a somewhat more serious label, reserved for actions a bit more "out there" than cheating. But hey. Whatever makes you tick.
This is the ideal that Jesus, budha, and mohammed preached.
Well, I suppose if you can label Bill Gates as "evil", you're entitled to compare open source with the preachings of jesus. I mean, what the heck, right?
For some strange reason this effort seems to really irritate people like you and Bill gates
Yeah, sure. I'm pissed to no end.
most impressive achievement of mankind in a long time
As a card-carrying member of humankind, I feel vaguely insulted by this.
[...]You are "Pro" Microsoft and you can't explain why.
That's an impressive monologue, but I have to wonder what part of my previous response you didn't manage to digest?
Trust me, I know what the bible (and the Popol-Vuh and every other seminal religious text in the world) says. I fail, however, to understand how you're equating the open source movement with a religion. Oh, wait...
You are so pissed [...]
LOL, that's quite a tirade.
Kurt Vonnegut [...]
First you turn open source into a messianic brouhaha and now you paraphrase Vonnegut? Wow.
you never said why you are "pro" microsoft. You only said that you don't like slashdot and you think OSS is shit
I can almost see you banging your head against the keyboard yelling "pro microsoft, pro microsoft!!1!!". Again, read what I write and don't try to put words in my static. mmkay?
I was part of a team who built a real time, database back end kluge of an on line ordering system with a web site as the front in back in 1996. These patents are from 2000 - 4 YEARS later. They can't patent what they didn't create. They can try, but it won't hold. We GPL'd this stuff back in 1996. These jackasses are in violation of the GPL.
Anyone want proof? Feel free to write. I still have a disk image of the site somewhere.....
HDGary secures my bank