Slashdot Mirror
Interwoven Patents Code Versioning
webengr writes "It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents. CVS has been around for a long time, but now Interwoven has been awarded a new patent covering version control of web assets. The claims include, 'The use of a hierarchical file system and an object repository for representing and hosting content and its structure,' and 'The combined concepts of file history, versioning, comparison, and merging as it relates to content, provide an archive of all individual changes as well as collections of changes so they can be versioned and audited.'"
I'm just wondering if the patent being granted is someone hinged on Interwoven's claim to be the first to do version control for 'web assets' (ie, HTML, images) as opposed to source code.
The fact that there's no technical difference between version control on an HTML file and version control on a 'C' file seems to be the sort of thing that's lost on the patent office.
(I am not AL, nor am I ANAL)
:p), submission and workflow associated with the content, embeded webserver, etc. These are features which parallel Interwoven's offerings (albeit at a smaller scale).
First off, read the actual patent, not the press release.
The patent does indeed include version control elements, but further defines exactly what their product does. See section 2, for example:
"The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of work areas configured to allow different users to create and maintain web content to be displayed on a website, wherein the staging area is adapted to receive web content changes of files modified in the work areas and is configured to check for conflicts in web content received from two or more work areas. "
There are very many products out there that do version control. But, there are very few that provide robust Content Management, which includes version control, but also includes a system to quickly and directly retrieve content for a web site/application and other such ammenities described in the patent. You would never do such a thing with CVS, unless you're insane.
What this does endanger is projects like Zope with it's CMS framework, which does alot of what is described in this patent. Versioning, browsable "file system" (html browsable, not unix mountable
So, having said all this, I don't see why everyone is freaking out. The patent obviously addresses a complex Content Management system, not a simple version control system. I'm sure a simple-minded judge would be able to tell the difference once given the facts.
If you're going to make this assertion, you should say exactly what is "so much more" about this patent. I read Interwoven's press release. They say that the patent contains 13 claims.
I read all 13 claims of the patent (go to the Patent and trademark office and do a "Quick Search" for patent #6505212, and saw an exact description of all the features CVS and Clear Case users have enjoyed for years. Six years ago I built a system using PVCS to manage source code and a 7 platform build system, and three years ago I adapted it to CVS for management of a website managed by 45 writers and programmers. It included a staging area, individual or team work areas, and the ability to search versions by content.
Following the 13 claims are the details of the patent; there is nothing there that cannot be done with CVS and some perl or python scripts. The "virtualization module" is similar to perl I wrote to run the site. The user typed in the URL with the CVS label and they would get the site in their browser as it appeared when labeled. Clear Case did the same thing with a file system view.
Nothing personal against Interwoven; if their product works it's worth the money, but it does not deserve a patent.