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!
--
(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 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
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.
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.
everyone knows al gore did that
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?
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".Can't Al Gore claim prior art?
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
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"
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..."
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.
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.
Don't you mean "Not making money on the internet was patented by Amazon"?
So now patents are controlled by whoever owns the court, which is usually the body with the deeper pockets.
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).
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.
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
**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.
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.
Ooooh
But I just patented the idea of patenting patents!
You owe me money!
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.
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 !
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.
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.
What they do not check is unpatented prior art. That is left to the courts.
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)
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.
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 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.
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.
How about Penn Jillette's (of Penn & Teller) patent for arousing women in a hot tub?
This sig intentionally left justified.
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?
I thought that making money off the internet was pioneered by the pornography industries.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
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
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.
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 ?
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).
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.
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.
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
Did Al Gore ever work for NCR?
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/
#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.....
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.
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
THAT YOU PR0N LOVIN PERVS!!!!
You're welcome.
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...