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.'"
Come on Bone-O-Rama! Work your magic, you electronic whoredog!
cherish our balls as though they were the painful death of slashdot's editors
...terrorism!
The Adventures of Jared, Vol. 1: A Cautionary Tale
It was a balmy 70 degree day as Jared Fogel stepped out of his small corner apartment and headed down to his local Subway (store #16977) for the weekly Troll Tuesday special. Jared had every reason to be happy: his toll-free hotline was open 24 hours a day, and his "Army" of former fatties, culled from the ranks of those who had lost over 100 pounds at Subway, dispensed justice with an iron hand. The days of irate customers and devious managers subverting the ideals of Subway for their own nefarious reasons were long since gone. Now he and every registered Slashdot user could have the satisfaction of ordering a sub, loaded with succulent fresh vegetables and hearty meats and cheeses, for the low price of only $3.49 every Tuesday. The friendly Subway staff knew that Jared always ordered a 6" turkey sub and a bag of baked chips for lunch, and a 12" veggie sub for dinner, with extra veggies and no cheese, oil or mayo.
Upon walking into the store, however, Jared suspected that something was amiss. The formerly bustling lunch line had dwindled to just a few people, and there was not a single teenaged slacker or wandering vagrant to be seen. The potato chip rack was empty, chairs and tables were scattered haphazardly around, and there was an odd stench in the air not unlike a motherboard stuffed inside a dirty gym bag. Sudenly, his worst suspicions were confirmed as he heard the muffled grunting and snickering coming from the small crowd assembled in front of the counter. Jared's eyes widened in horror as he beheld no less than 12 filthy bisexual Linux hackers, ALL with their pants around their ankles, engaged in a man-train gangbang front of his beloved lunch counter! Suddenly one of the deviants spotted Jared standing in the doorway. "FRESH MEAT!!!" he yelled as he and his entourage stumbled, giggling and farting, toward the horrified customer. Quivering with rage, Jared quickly grabbed the soda machine and, with superhuman strength, toppled it onto the pack of leering perverts. With a muffled crunch, the 500-pound soda machine rolled over the unsuspecting hackers, crushing them under its massive bulk. After a quick trip to the dumpster to dispose of the remains, Jared hosed the bloodstains off the floor and opened the windows to air out the stench of sweat and freshly soldered video card that still lingered in the air. Soon the local Subway branch was filled once again with happy customers.
Sadly, not all stories have a happy ending, and the fact of the matter is that most cases of GNU/Linux use end in tragedy. Scientific studies show that Linux has been linked to illegal drug use, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, nymphomania, and venereal disease. If you or any of your loved ones has been experimenting with this lifestyle, encourage them to seek help NOW, rather than suffer the heartbreak of watching them slowly but inexorably turn into an unwashed, effeminate GNU hippie in a pink t-shirt. The time to act is now, not later. The beginnings of Open Source advocacy must be stamped out early before they have time to develop into something far worse. You have been warned.
Religious wars about patents aside: TeamSite is an objectstore that exposes a versioned filesystem image via kernel drivers. There's a whole bunch of interesting tech involved with making it work seamlessly and very quickly (instant snapshots of your workarea, etc). The stuff blows ClearCase out of the water. And no, none of the original designers of TeamSite were involved with ClearCase. I think the lead line of the article is more of a kneejerk reaction against patents more than an insightful look at what's in the patent (lots of talk about constant time publishing algorithms and virtualizing web content).
From a co-author.
The patent office can only do so much to protect you. They are not an all knowing database that claims responsibility to every bad patent. They give out patents, keep them on record, and do a "reasonable" search for prior art. Whatever the definition of reasonable is is irrelevant. The company who did the sueing, and did the patent getting is the fraudulent company, and should be the person paying for the defense if they lose.
If the USPO was liable for this, do you really want your tax dollars coming out of it to pay for a defense that was there because of a fraudulent company? I didn't think so.
If you apply for a patent and didn't bother checking for prior art yourself (or in this case, purposely ignore that prior art fraudulently) then you are negligent, and self responsible for all costs pertaining to protecting that fraudulent patent.
This is how the law works now. Changing it so the government is liable for fraud of another company is just fucking ridiculous. If you want the defense costs to be reimbused, why not try to come up with an idea that punishes the fraudulent companies, and not the innocent tax payers.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
With all due respect, maybe YOU should find out how its done *now*. You just described, more or less, the exact opposite process one goes through in the US to get a patent.
The problem with your reasoning is that your wrong. The patent office does NOT search outside the patent database for prior art. In order for them to do that, they would be required to staff experts in any field that a patent could be obtained. They don't, and so they don't. The only way you can get your idea rejected is if it's 1) in the patent database already, or 2) its a really obviously been invented before to the secretary that files it (ie, a fork probably isn't in the database, but obvioulsy there is prior art if someone were to apply for a patent for a fork), or 3) if the idea isn't patentable. Prior art outside the patent registry is for the judge to determine in current US patent laws.
Writing two patents, and reading many has nothing to do with your knowledge of how the USPTO grants patents. Don't bitch about how they grant patents. It's not the secretary's fault. If you want to change it, go to your legislator. It's not the USPTO's fault.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
As has been pointed out countless times, it is not the responsibility of the USPTO to search outside their database of already existing patents to find prior art. If you want them to, or think they should, maybe you should stop complaining about how the office is run, and start worrying about changing some laws.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.