Interwoven Patents Code Versioning

Patents out of control by hether · 2003-02-25 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

We all know the awarding of patents has gotten out of control. This is just another example...

--

Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.

Re:Patents out of control by cindik · 2003-02-25 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

I think I shall patent "a means of using a patent to create ownership of an obvious method of using existing devices or methods so as to stifle innovation and help lawyers buy new cars"

--
Terrycloth Lobster
Re:Patents out of control by dahughes · 2003-02-25 06:45 · Score: 2

I'm not saying I disagree with the comments made so far, but does any know the process used to review a patent application? I heard a frightening statistic (unsubstantiated) that an examiner only has a couple of days to review each application.

Maybe we should forward a set of questions to the USPTO to get their side of the story.
Re:Patents out of control by ATMAvatar · 2003-02-25 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's prior CVS, too. That didn't stop the USPO from awarding the patent to Interwoven.

The thing to note, though... were Interwoven to try using its patent to press liscence fees, a defendent in court could simply show that CVS existed long before the patent was awarded.

See here.

This patent about as effective as Microsoft security.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Lenient? No. by burgburgburg · 2003-02-25 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Asleep at the wheel, recklessly driving us all over a cliff of patent infringement lawsuits? Yeah, that's fair.

Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

When will the patent office get a clue? Doesn't *anyone* there make even the slightest attempt to search for prior art? A 5 minute google search should have invalidated this patent.

Re:Ugh. by SpacePunk · 2003-02-25 06:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Unfortunately it's up to the person(s)/entitiy submitting the patent to supply prior art. Evidently they aren't fullfilling this requirement.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Re:Ugh. by HBI · 2003-02-25 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

2) Over 90% of the serving members of the 3 branches of government were lawyers. Lawyers and old-money own the government(now more than ever). Do you think they will regulate themselves?

Where did that come from? Even *appointed* officials aren't 90% lawyers, and rank and file government employees sure as hell even aren't *mostly* lawyers. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the total government work force.

USPTO sucks, but let's not get carried away here.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Ugh. by arkanes · 2003-02-25 06:38 · Score: 2, Informative

By serving members, I assume he means senator, congressmen, presidents, and judges. In other words, people with the direct power to create and change law. I suspect the 90% figure is close.
Re:Ugh. by 0x0d0a · 2003-02-25 07:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

When will the patent office get a clue? Doesn't *anyone* there make even the slightest attempt to search for prior art?

Not really the task assigned to them. They zip through their own patent db, and (I would assume) check referenced patents, but they don't have anywhere near the funding to be an authoritative source on whether a patent is valid or not. They're basically just a registry...and if someone tries to go after you with a bogus patent, it's *your* responsibility to challenge it. The PTO wasn't given authority to mark patents as valid or not.

Think of what it would entail (and keep in mind that patents are deliberately worded to be as broad as possible and yet sound as original as possible). You'd have to hire leading PhDs in every field to comb through all the data coming in.

--
May we never see th

article in case of server meltdown by mrhandstand · 2003-02-25 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative

pertinent info frfom article

Interwoven's U.S. patent (#6505212)

A system for asset management comprised of multiple workareas, each configured to maintain a virtual copy of content as it would appear when published;

A staging area to which content is submitted from multiple work areas and where any conflicts between content can be resolved;

Branches and sub-branches (for different projects or initiatives) that contain individual workareas, staging areas, and editions which allows for massively parallel development on a single platform;

The use of a hierarchical file system and an object repository for representing and hosting content and its structure;

Virtualization of all content regardless of location as well as Web and application servers - this allows contributors to make changes "in context" of the entire site;

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.

--
Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me

Re:article in case of server meltdown by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Regardless of what Interwoven's site says, here are the 13 actual claims that define the scope of their exclusive rights. Pick the braodest among these and see if prior art exists that discloses each and every limitation. If so, great.

The point to remember, gentle reader, is to put zero stock in the company-paraphrased/sweeping language on their website. To quote (or at least paraphrase) a famous patent law scholar and judge, "The name of the game is the claim." IAAL, a patent one at that.

1. A system for file management for files containing website content comprising:

a work area configured to allow a user to create and maintain web content to be displayed on a website, the work area being a file system having read and write operations to enable a user to edit virtual representations of files having web content that is located in the work area; and

a staging area adapted to receive and integrate the web content submitted from the work area when the web content of the work area does not conflict with other web content submitted to the staging area and configured to retain versions of web content submitted from the work area.

2. 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.

3. In a system having a plurality of file systems containing web content, for use in a system for developing virtual copies of web content to be displayed on a website, a method for maintaining the history and ancestry of the web content of an item in each of the file systems in which the item is included, the method comprising:

associating a history object with a first item containing information related to the revision history of the item web content;

associating information related to the ancestry of the item web content; and

maintaining an entry in the history object for each file system in which the item is included that identifies the web content associated with the first item in that file system so that conflicts with other items and their associated web content may be ascertained.

4. The method of claim 3, further comprising:

associating new web content in one of the plurality of file systems with the item;

modifying an entry in the history object corresponding to that file system to indicate that the item is associated with the new web content; and

adding a reference to the previous web content in the new web content.

5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:

determining whether a second item is in conflict with the first item by determining whether web content in the second item are previous web content of the first item.

6. A method for developing a website by resolving potential conflicts in web content submitted to a web content staging area by a work area where virtual copies of web content are developed, comprising:

modifying data associated with a selected object in a work area that is related to web content to be published on a website;

determining whether other web content is in conflict with web content developed by the work area;

resolving the any conflicts among the different web content; and

submitting web Content from the work area to the staging area where web content is staged before being published on a website.

7. A system for developing a website comprising:

a work area defined within a memory location and configured to enable a user to edit virtual copies of web content by editing files containing web content within the work area and to submit web content to be staged for publication on a website; and

a staging area defined within a memory location and configured to receive web content submitted by a work area, to determine whether conflicts exist between web content submitted by any one work area and other content to be staged in the staging area, and to integrate web content submitted from a work area when the web content of the work area does not conflict with other content submitted to the staging area and to maintain versions of web content sent from a work area.

8. A system according to claim 7, wherein the work area may be characterized as a file system stored within memory and having read and write operations to enable a user to edit files containing web content in the work area; and

wherein the staging area may be characterized as a file system for staging web content developed in a plurality of work areas and stored within memory and capable of receiving web content from a work area, the staging area including a versioning mechanism configured to maintain versions of web content received from a work area and an integration mechanism configured to integrate web content received from a plurality of work areas when the web content does not have conflicts.

9. A method for modifying website content, wherein the method is configured for use in a web content modification system having at least one. work area for modifying virtual copies of web content and a staging area for integrating web content submitted by one or more work areas, the method comprising:

modifying virtual copies of web content of a selected object in a work area;

analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other web content submitted to the sting area; and

in response to said other web content not being in conflict with the web content of the work area, submitting the web content modified in the work area to the staging area; and

in response to said other web content being in conflict with the web content submitted by the work area, not submitting the web content to the staging area.

10. The method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to said other web content submitted to the staging area being in conflict with the web content of the work area, rejecting the web content from being submitted to the staging area.

11. The method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to the other web content submitted to the staging area being in conflict with the web content submitted to the staging area by the work area, refraining from submitting the web content of the working area to the staging area for integration with other web content.

12. The method of claim 9, wherein analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other web content submitted to the staging area further includes analyzing the web content of the work area to determine whether the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area by a work area, wherein if the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with the other web content, no conflict exists, and wherein if the web content of the work area does not share a common ancestry with the other web content, a conflict exists.

13. The method of claim wherein analyzing the content of the work area to determine whether it is in conflict with other content submitted to the staging area further includes:

analyzing the content of the work area to determine whether it is the same content as and whether the content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other content submitted to the staging area;

if the web content of the work area is not the same as the other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict exists and the web content from the work area may not be submitted to the staging area;

if the web content of the work area is the same as the other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict does not exist and the web content from the work area may be submitted to the staging area;

if web the content of the work area does not share a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict exists and the web content from the work area may not be submitted to the staging area; and

if the web content of the work area shares a common ancestry with other web content submitted to the staging area, a conflict does not exist and the web content from the work area may be submitted to the staging area.
Re:article in case of server meltdown by Ashran · 2003-02-25 06:13 · Score: 4, Funny

1.) Mirror Page Content
2.) ???
3.) Karma

--

Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
Re:article in case of server meltdown by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 09:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't think that Interwoven's patent should be dismissed out of hand just because it incorporates the functionality of a traditional SCM system. As someone else remarked, improving on an existing idea CAN be legitimately patented.

Doing large-scale web development poses special problems that are not covered by conventional SCM systems.

For example, it's simple to preview a single web page you are working on in isolation--you just point your browser at the URL for the page. But what if you are replacing an existing part of a complex web application, and are working as a member of a team? Yes, an SCM system will help you keep track of the files and integrate the source changes. What it will NOT do is give you an environment in which you can use a web browser to debug your piece of the project. You have to set up a private development environment manually, and that's a real pain--you have to make sure all the URLs pointing to the various pieces are correct for your test environment in each file. You have to make sure that when you press the "Submit" button, the right CGI program is called (the one you are working on, or the "real" functional one, depending on what you are trying to do), and that the correct page comes up when a link is triggered. You have to make sure all the external references point to files you want to use for testing--i.e., that the correct Java Script files are being included, and so on ad infinitum. And you have to make sure that none of this interferes with the current application that is open to real users, or with your fellow developers. Like I said, a PAIN.

After unit development is done, you want to integrate everybody's work and do beta testing. Again, you can build a conventional application tree using a conventional SCM for this, but the SCM won't do it for interactive testing in a web environment. Once again, you have to change all the references so they point to the right places, and make sure everything works together. More PAIN. My head hurts. OUCH.

Lastly, you have to take the whole ball of wax and drop it in place of the existing application for real use. Again, an SCM will give you the finished code--but it won't fix the URLs in the code and create the web hierarchy in the right place for you. This must be done manually, and you have a good chance of screwing up and breaking the application. Maybe if I drill a hole right HERE in my forehead it will let the evil spirits out and I will stop hurting.

And when you've finally installed the new code and find out that something that worked perfectly well in Beta doesn't work in production because it interacts with something else on the same server that you didn't even know was there all along, you are screwed. If Interwoven's software will help me back out the changes and retrieve the previous working version before half a million people notice, I would be very grateful to them at this point. Really, I can do without my first-born.

Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? by aron_wallaker · 2003-02-25 06:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? by jez9999 · 2003-02-25 06:13 · Score: 2, Funny

3 year's work experience at McDonald's.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? by jfx32 · 2003-02-25 06:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Zope has built in version control for it's 'web assets', and I am pretty sure they predate Interwoven at doing so.
Re: Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? by Black+Parrot · 2003-02-25 06:57 · Score: 2, Informative

> 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.

FWIW, I just browsed our cvsroot and found Web pages in it dating back to 1998. And I'd be shocked if I found out that we were the first to do that.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? by Quarters · 2003-02-25 07:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Microsoft was pushing Visual Source Safe as part of their internet dev studio package back in the mid-late '90s. It was positioned specifically for versioning web site assets. NXN's Alienbrain package has been considered the premiere package for versioning digital assets for game development for at least as long. There are digital versioning packages for video production and prepress/publication production that date back to at least the early '90s. There's nothing specific about Interwoven's claim of first to do web assets that can't be disproved by prior art. That is, of course, if any potential litigation defendents want to (or can) properly defend themselves.
Re:Is the phrase 'web assets' significant ? by treke · 2003-02-25 08:30 · Score: 3, Funny

what do you expect, patent clerks arent exactly Albert Einstein

Ha. This will have no effect on me! by Sun+Tzu · 2003-02-25 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Unless one of the claims covers working on programs in one big file (tm) and saving off another copy with a new extension (1,2,3,4,5,...) with every significant change.

Heh, I knew my slackerly habits would pay off eventually!

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles

--
Geeky modern art T-shirts

Lost work at the patent office by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Nobody at the US Patent office must version control their documents. Maybe thats how patents get awarded so easily?

And in a related story... by TrollBridge · 2003-02-25 06:02 · Score: 5, Funny

"It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents."

And in our next story, Microsoft is now widely perceived to be the playground bully of computer software.

--
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.

lenient ? are you kidding ? by Booie+Paog · 2003-02-25 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

"It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents." no kidding. the USPO appears, in some cases, to not only be lenient, but to be completely oblivious to the purpose of having patents, as well as having wild interpretations of patent law. software patents, the way that they are currently handled, is incorrect, with regards to the original means that was set out by even Thomas Jefferson himself. to be able to patent compiled binary code, without regards to the source, or ENTIRE details of the mechanism that the software is implying is insane, and will continue to destroy the legal ability to innovate based on derivative work.

New Rules by glh · 2003-02-25 06:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the patents should be reformed in the following way:

1. Submit the patent idea to the patent office- as a "pending patent".

2. Patent office does a search (web or otherwise) on prior art, billing the individual/corporation that submits the patent at a standard rate. If no prior art is found, the patent office does not bill. The company is able to challenge any claims to prior art. Each challenge to a claim at prior art costs a certain fee.

3. Patent is awarded to the individual/corporation.

Basically the idea behind this is that companies will be charged for their stupidity. It will discourage patents on ideas that are already "out there" (patented or not). At the same time, it will *not* discourage individuals from ligitimate patents as they will be reimbursed for the "prior art search fee".

In addition, the Patent Office still gets its money and they begin providing real value.

Until something like this happens, we will all have to groan as the patent office continues to do stupid stuff and lawyers get richer.

Re:New Rules by Courageous · 2003-02-25 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

With all due respect, perhaps you should find out how it's done *now*. You just described, more or less, the process one goes through in the US to get a patent.

The problem is that these web searches and other techniques aren't really very fruitful. Patents are *complicated*.

I should know. I've written two, and read many.

C//
Re:New Rules by Slime-dogg · 2003-02-25 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny
Or, conversely
1. USPO submits claim to Slashdot as a news item.
2. Comments follow, listing examples of prior art.
3. Highest moderated comments are then re-submitted to the USPO, with a summarized recommendation based on all mid-high moderated comments
I don't think that I've seen patents go through /. and not read examples of prior art in the commentary.
--
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Re:New Rules by Washizu · 2003-02-25 06:50 · Score: 2, Funny

"Patent office does a search (web or otherwise) on prior art, billing the individual/corporation that submits the patent at a standard rate. If no prior art is found, the patent office does not bill. The company is able to challenge any claims to prior art. Each challenge to a claim at prior art costs a certain fee."

You should seriously patent this idea before someone steals it.

--
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.

Maybe by YanceyAI · 2003-02-25 06:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Some of you guys should get a job reviewing patent applications. You seem to know more about prior art & novelty than these patent officers do.

--
Can I bum a sig?

Re:CVS as prior art! by agroman · 2003-02-25 06:10 · Score: 2

What about SCCS?

jeez by maxbang · 2003-02-25 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

I just patented the process of "using organic photoreceptors to relay electronic signals via sheathed sodium channels to a core carbon based processing unit to elicit saturation of iron-rich fluids in nether regions of humanoid body, and further organic electrical manipulation of calcium mechanics to stimulate fluid-engorged region." I'm willing to settle for $20,000 per license violation.

--
I also reply below your current threshold.

Clearcase is prior art -it was their prior company by puppetluva · 2003-02-25 06:10 · Score: 2, Informative

The interwoven designers were the original designers for Clearcase.

Clearcase has all of this stuff including staging and work-areas.

They are basically patenting "Clearcase as applied to the web".

Total troll... by TopShelf · 2003-02-25 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is much more to this patent than just versioning, if you even take a cursory look at it. Perhaps we should able to mod articles themselves as trolls!

Actually, come to think of it, modding the article itself could yield some interesting info...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

Re:Total troll... by 47PHA60 · 2003-02-25 06:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-02-25 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Suing the patent office by SWroclawski · 2003-02-25 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

What I would like to see is if the patent holder then goes after someone for use of the patent and the defendnat challenges the patent in court, and if the defendant is correct and the patent is invalidated- the patent office itself should be liable for court costs, plus any lost revenue due to any possible injunction during the trial.

Enough of these cases and the patent office may begin to reforem itself in when and where it grants a patent.

- Serge Wroclawski

Re:Suing the patent office by SWroclawski · 2003-02-25 06:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes, that's right, the defendnat. It's a sort of protective insect with wings.

Yeah that's the ticket...

- Serge
Re:Suing the patent office by pete-classic · 2003-02-25 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Has forcing a government agency to pay (monetarily) for its mistakes, thereby forcing Congress to increase that agencies budget, ever been demonstrated to be effective in reducing the number of mistakes that the agency makes?

Always remember that from the bureaucrat's point of view it is all funny-money, and increasing his budget, even if only to allow him to cover punitive expenses, only increases his clout in Washington.

-Peter
Re:Suing the patent office by SWroclawski · 2003-02-25 07:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

We Americans already pay for it.

We pay for bad patents when we pay unreasonable prices for goods.

We pay for it in progress going slower than it should due to restrictions.

We pay for it in that we have to often replicate our efforts to avoid patent issues (PNG and OGG Vorbis are good examples).

The cost to the average American may be hidden but it's still there.

Making the entity liable for this type of situation will certainly not solve all the problems with the patent office. What it will do is get press atttention and make a few heads roll. Once that happens, reforming the organization will become easier.

- Serge Wroclawski

Link to patent by forand · 2003-02-25 06:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is a link to the actual patent.

The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents by Sanity · 2003-02-25 06:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Their attitude is to grant patents left right and center, and let the courts sort it out. The have no real incentive to try and find prior art.

The problem is that in the time between the dumb patent being granted, and the courts sorting it out, severe damage can be done to people's freedom to innovate.

Recall that over the past 100 years (and beyond), significant advances in technology have almost always been despite IP laws, not because of them*

*Some examples:

The modern movie industry set up in Southern California to escape from Edison's patents
The VCR was fought tooth and nail by the movie industry even though 2/3rds of their revenue now come from video rentals and sales
The proliferation of the commodity PC was only possible when IBM's BIOS was reverse engineered thus evading trade secret laws
The Internet is currently under siege from copyright holders
One of the worlds fastest growing operating systems, Linux, explicitly rejects the concept of intellectual property in its license

Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents by awol · 2003-02-25 06:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of the worlds fastest growing operating systems, Linux, explicitly rejects the concept of intellectual property in its license
Unfortunately, no it doesn't. Indeed, Linux (and GNU) explicitly relies on IP to make the GPL binding. This is the problem, even the answer to IP, Free Software, requires IP in order to live because of the existence of IP in the first place. It is a classic Catch 22 situation

--
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't think you're looking deeply enough. I think Stallman would be delighted if copyright was defanged, or totally removed. Until that time, the best he could do is to use it against itself.

It's much more of a philosophical thing. If everything was "free" then we wouldn't need the GPL.
Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents by Arandir · 2003-02-25 07:01 · Score: 2

It merely uses it to force software in to the public domain.

it does no such thing! Public Domain software has no restrictions. As in zero, nada, zilch. Heck, you can even claim you wrote it! On the other hand, GPLd software has several significant restrictions on what you can do with it.

There are few good analogies, but a close one is waterways. Most proprietary software is like a canal. You pay for use. Open Source and Free Software is like a public waterway. There is full public access, but there are rules you must follow while using it. Public Domain software is like the open ocean. Make your own route across it.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents by Black+Parrot · 2003-02-25 07:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Their attitude is to grant patents left right and center, and let the courts sort it out. The have no real incentive to try and find prior art.

More subtly (and also the POV of the US federal government), they have the idea that "everything should have an owner". No patent on record = no owner = gold rush (first come, first served).

The problem is in the underlying political philosophy.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents by bongoras · 2003-02-25 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

And that is Richard Stallman's single greatest hack. He actually hacked the legal system by writing 'code' (the license) that is written in the 'assembly language' of law to get a FUCKED UP legal system to do what he wants.

This Move is Ironically Anti-Innovation by McLuhanesque · 2003-02-25 06:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Deep in the company's website, they state, " With this patent, Interwoven joins the class of top tier software companies that recognize that market leadership is directly related to continued innovation combined with the protection of intellectual property. Patents represent the most effective and powerful way to ensure that a company protects its long-term investment in research, design and innovation."

Unfortunately, the fallacy of the first part of that self-serving statement is that history demonstrates the contrary: Innovation, especially in the area of software innovation, has been most successful in an atmosphere of sharing, openness, mutual support and peer-recognition. This is well-documented by Manuel Castells, Lawrence Lessig and others. Patents impede the advance of innovation by preventing potential competitors from innovating. With patent protection, innovation is limited to those who can afford the overhead of traaversing the patent minefield (as Stallman puts it). Those who choose to share innovation with the restriction that those who benefit also share their follow-on innovations - even when innovations pertain to other than software disciplines, accelerate the innovation process, and thereby support the development of a sustainably expanding economic infrastructure.

I do agree with the company's second statement: Patents are "most effective and powerful way to ensure that a company protects" its stuff. It just does very little for the rest of society, and for the economy in general.

Can the USPO be sued? by burgburgburg · 2003-02-25 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Can the subject of a frivilous lawsuit sue the USPO for recklessly granting a patent when any sort of effort at prior art research would have shown the notion to be invalid? If they don't have an incentive to NOT grant patents, wouldn't this potentially give them one?

This will never work by MmmmAqua · 2003-02-25 06:21 · Score: 3, Funny

...there's too much prior art.

Oh, wait...

--
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!

Re:PTO Link by hpulley · 2003-02-25 06:21 · Score: 3, Informative

here is a clickable link to the patent at the USPTO.

--
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???

I'd pay for this. by MickLinux · 2003-02-25 06:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

It looks like what they patented is something I've been thinking of for a while.

We have a small prepublishing company, and it really would be ideal to let the authors request their changes right on the web, and then submit them. Then have a system that would send an alarm to my people, who would get on the job immediately, update the info, and then send an email ['Your work is ready'] to the authors.

But that isn't all I want. I want
(1) Secure password encoded, 128-bit at least
(2) Dating and timing of requests, backup of all previous versions
(3) Dating and timing of our new documents
(4) Access to Mac systems

And then what I'd really like:
(5) Online web-native/Postscript-native document manager that can handle templates [like equations], read postscript *FROM OTHER WORD PROCESSORS INCLUDING MS WORD*, reformat it into template-format work, do all the things that Quark XPress can do, allow mass updates with individual checks [so words and formulas must be stored in tree format].

I suppose this could be done with Acrobat files initially, including their form submission.

But the fact is, we don't have it done. Now, I'm not about to spend money to develop something that isn't mine, especially when I don't have a lot of money. But if they got a really good system going, there's an excellent chance that I would buy in, so long as the license was permanent. [I won't be held hostage, but I *will* pay money for the system].

So I really hope they do develop a halfway decent working model.

But if they don't develop it themselves, I'm not going to have a problem doing an artwork search and then developing what I wanted anyhow. Or if they have a hostage-data situation.

I won't pay money to put a noose around my neck voluntarily.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's

What is all this costing for US taxpayers? by Max+Romantschuk · 2003-02-25 06:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

According to the US patent office: "Each year the USPTO receives approximately 300,000 patent applications." (from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/utility/utili ty.htm)

Some of these patents are no doubt software patents. And each patent application costs money to process. Even though there is apparently a fee for submitting an application I doubt the patent office is making profit. And as it is a US government funded organization the US taxpayers are paying for the process.

Investigations related to prior art surely cost a lot additinal money. If an application has already been accepted nullifying it can't be an easy process. Ultimately the whole mess must cost a grand sum... guesses anyone?

I'm rambling, but I can't help feeling that the money could be better spent somewhere else.

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/

Here's how to fix the patent process by Schik · 2003-02-25 06:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Every patent that is filed for is posted on slashdot. If nobody says "I was doing this back in...", then they get the patent.

The slashdot crowd will go bankrupt! by frozenray · 2003-02-25 06:29 · Score: 2, Funny

> It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents.

That's apparently true for any kind of patent, see this or this link (gathered from this excellent article by James Gleick).

I guess my patent application for "Achieving sexual stimulation in males by applying a repeated vertical up/down motion to the male reproductive organ using either the left or the right hand" has a real chance to be approved, then. Unless anyone here wants to step forward and claim prior "art" (ahem), of course.

--
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton

Next on Fox: "Leave it to Beaver, thePatent Clerk" by Colonel+Panic · 2003-02-25 06:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Beaver: "Hey Wally, getta load of this! It's another one of them swell software patents!"

Wally: "Well, you remember what the memo said, if it's got the the word 'web' in it then you should accept it, otherwise you're gonna get it when the commisioner gets back."

Beaver: "Not only does it have 'web' it's got 'web assets' and 'version control', what the heck is that?"

Wally: "No idea, but it sounds good. Hey just stamp the thing with the 'ACCEPTED' stamp and let the lawyers sort it out; we're gonna be late for beer at The Prior Art tavern."

Beaver: "Yeah, wouldn't want them lawyers to be outta work, now would we. Well, that's ten I've accepted before lunch, let's get to The Prior Art, pronto!"

a real technological lynchpin by GunFodder · 2003-02-25 06:34 · Score: 4, Informative

The patent for the integrated circuit was hotly contested between Fairchild and Texas Instruments when Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce both invented the integrated circuit at about the same time. The battle dragged on and by the time it was resolved it was totally irrelevant since both companies were making tons of ICs.

Re:wrong incentive by ctxspy · 2003-02-25 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

No it is not.

The parent is incorrect.

It's a non-refundable fee -- this fee is actually meant to compensate for the USPTO guys doing a prior art search.

-Tomaj

Interwoven vs Microsoft? by hndrcks · 2003-02-25 06:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Last week the SQL Server developers found out they might be liable for royalties...

Are users of this version control software next?

--
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.

Only way to sort this out... by IainHere · 2003-02-25 06:41 · Score: 4, Funny

I propose applying to the USPO for a patent on

"A system to allow full disclosure of innovative techniques or technologies, while permitting the applicant exclusive license to said technologies for a certain period."

They're bound to grant it, and once they do, you sue them into oblivion for infringing it.

To be fair you last item isn't true by kfg · 2003-02-25 06:41 · Score: 5, Informative

The GPL embraces the concept of intellectual property law and uses it to forward the philosophical point of view that the *code* ( not the coder) should always be free.

If the GPL rejected the concept of intellectual property it would called "public domain."

The GPL is very much *not* the same as the public domain, since it forces contractual obligations. It can only do this because the code is *someone's intellectual property.* You use the code under license. Not right.

This is why we have BSD/GPL/Aritistic license religious wars.

The power of the GPL ( whether you think it's good or bad is up to you. Please note I'm only bringing up facts here, not making value judgements) is that with no concept of intellectual property you would have *no* rights to obtain source code. The GPL uses intellectual property law to force the code "free."

KFG

Re:To be fair you last item isn't true by kfg · 2003-02-25 09:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are incorrect. If you have a *right* to the source code it must be produced upon demand. As in having a right to your medical records. This is precisely the right the GPL provides.

The right to try to obtain it is a different right. You do not have a right to break into your doctor's office to obtain your records, even if there is no legal restriction to your possessing them. This is the situation the GPL is designed to prevent. It gives you a *right* to possession, rather than merely removing legal restrictions to possession.

KFG

Open Source Patents by DonkeyJimmy · 2003-02-25 06:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does there exist a section of the open source community dedicated to seeking out obvious and prior-art patents for the purpose of making those ideas public domain (thus protecting us from companies doing the same but not making them public domain)? If not, there should.

--
"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips

Archive by bwt · 2003-02-25 06:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is anybody making an archive of all the bullshit patents?

What if you changed rule 2 by juahonen · 2003-02-25 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

What if you changed rule 2:

Applicant does a search (web or otherwise) on prior art, filing a paper with proof that existing systems found on the web or otherwhere are not comparable to the patent. The applicant must know of similar systems, so the work can be left for them. There's no expenses in time or efforts for USPO, and the proof can be filed with the patent.

If someone finds the proof is fraudulent, incomplete or otherwise doesn't provide negative proof of prior art, the patent can be revoked. Additionally, the patent holder could then be sued for misleading it's customers and all that sort of thing. There could also be some fines associated with patents for which proper proof was not delivered.

Palm Vs Xerox by bstadil · 2003-02-25 06:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

An interesting development on the Patent issues is the latest battle between Xerox and Palm.

Xerox won the day as far as Infringement is concerned, however the appeal court "agreed with Palm's argument that the lower court failed to find out if Xerox's patented technology was indeed unique." and ordered that portion back to the trial court.

If Xerox looses the validity of the Graffiti patent it will set a much needed precedent and pave the way for future legal strategies in dissputes.

Attack the Patent rather than defend non Infringement.

--
Help fight continental drift.

Why is everyone overreacting? by Dragonshed · 2003-02-25 06:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

(I am not AL, nor am I ANAL)

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 :p), submission and workflow associated with the content, embeded webserver, etc. These are features which parallel Interwoven's offerings (albeit at a smaller scale).

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.

Re:Why is everyone overreacting? by rocket_rex · 2003-02-25 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am pretty sure that this Marimba product does all the above:

http://www.marimba.com/products/change_managemen t/ server/content-distribution.html

--
Rocket Your humble build servant.
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? by consumer · 2003-02-25 08:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Um, have you every used Interwoven's products? What they mean by "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" is that when you check stuff in, it shows up in the shared code. Wow! That's basic CVS. I don't know where you got this stuff about "a system to quickly and directly retrieve content for a web site/application" from, but what TeamSite offers is just a way to sync the repository to a remote server. It's basically a very inefficient version of rsync.
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? by Un+pobre+guey · 2003-02-25 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am as upset about idiotic patents as the next guy, but I agree with the several posts that point out that there are some novel elements to the patent that are built upon prior art. You can use as much prior art in your patent as you like. What you are patenting, and can defend in court, are the novel aspects not found in the prior art and which are not obvious to skilled practitioners. At some point, someone needs to make a few bucks on an invention in order for there to be incentives to generate new technology.
The historically interesting aspect of licenses such as the GPL lies in the possibility that some people would forego the monetary profits for the greater good of both the inventor and the community. If you want to make a buck, fine. If you want to share with and among others, fine too.
Unfortunately, the USPTO is becoming less able to function as the arbiter of the rules, and this is what causes the system to degrade. In fairness to those poor schmucks, it is not realistic to expect young, underpaid, undertrained, inexperienced patent examiners (or even not so old or inexperienced) to be able to consistently and without errors or omissions spot all issues relating to obviousness and prior art. The volume of patent submissions also thwarts the system, at least as it pertains to high tech patents.
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? by KnightStalker · 2003-02-25 08:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let me get your argument straight.

1. CVS does not constitute prior art against this patent.
2. Other products, like Zope, do more or less the same thing as what the patent claims.
3. Therefore, there is no prior art.

???

--
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? by Dragonshed · 2003-02-25 09:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

What they mean by "..." is that when you check stuff in, it shows up in the shared code. Wow! That's basic CVS.

Anyone using Interwoven as a repository for code needs to have their head examined. Dont get me wrong, it will definitely manage your source, but I can think of better, and cheaper, systems suited for that. There's a very large difference between source code and content. Interwoven is much better suited for manipulating website content. Articles (news, white papers, announcements, etc), graphics, other kinds of assets. Managing all that with CVS on an Enterprise scale (Business Foo with 250 employees) would be hell.

I don't know where you got this stuff about "a system to quickly and directly retrieve content for a web site/application" from, but what TeamSite offers is just a way to sync the repository to a remote server. It's basically a very inefficient version of rsync.

rsync has absolutely no notion of what defines a site. rsync doesn't guarantee that all assets published are archived and accounted for. rsync doesn't allow for content rollback.

CVS has no semblance of workflow. CVS allows for rather large collaborations, but it's up to the developers (with or without sourceforge) to structure those collaborations.

I've implemented several Interwoven installations. You oversimplify how TeamSite works and what it offers.
Re:Why is everyone overreacting? by consumer · 2003-02-25 09:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's a very large difference between source code and content.
No there isn't. HTML == code == text. Articles are text, just like C++ code is text. Graphics are binaries, which CVS can also handle.
Managing all that with CVS on an Enterprise scale (Business Foo with 250 employees) would be hell.
It would be the same hell that managing it with TeamSite is.
rsync has absolutely no notion of what defines a site. rsync doesn't guarantee that all assets published are archived and accounted for. rsync doesn't allow for content rollback.
Right. You check out what you want from CVS, and then rsync it to the target servers. It can all be wrapped up in a tiny Perl or shell script. You can easilly check out older versions, alternate branches, tagged releases, etc. from CVS and rsync those instead.
CVS has no semblance of workflow. CVS allows for rather large collaborations, but it's up to the developers (with or without sourceforge) to structure those collaborations.
That's true. TeamSite doesn't either until you program it to.

dont get panties in uproar by chron · 2003-02-25 06:46 · Score: 5, Informative

I've used TeamSite for years.. and checked out the patent. everyone needs to settle down. Interwoven uses some clever tricks in the caching and indexing in their management system that go above and beyond what something like CVS does.

This is what they're pantenting. TeamSite was actually built on top of CVS when the project started, but the standard content manageement scheme is not what's being patented here..

--
Violate propriety

my revision to your patent by donutz · 2003-02-25 06:48 · Score: 2, Funny

I think I shall patent "a means of using a patent to create ownership of an obvious method of using existing devices or methods so as to stifle innovation and help lawyers buy new cars"

Actually, my patent will read:

"a means of using a patent to create ownership of an obvious method of using existing devices or methods so as to stifle innovation and help lawyers buy more cars" because sometimes lawyers want to buy classic cars too.

Let's see whose patent application makes it through the system first...if mine does, you owe me if you exercise your process!

Re:my revision to your patent by ideal · 2003-02-25 07:24 · Score: 3, Funny
Oh! I figured it out!
- Companies get idiotic patents
- Companies get lawyers to sue everybody
- Lawyers get rich
- Lawyers buy cars ... which cars? SUVs, of course, so ...
- Terrorists get rich.
It's all a plot by the terrorists! They've taken the USPTO! Run for the hills! AAAAAAAHHHH!

:-) I hope nobody really reasons that way :-)

Re:Clearcase is prior art -it was their prior comp by zenyu · 2003-02-25 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Applying to only *web* objects is a slightly grey area too.

No it's not, I've been using CVS for web pages since about 5 minutes after my first web page, what's that, 94? When did these guys file the patent. Plus if I thought of it, and didn't think anything of it, it certainly fails the "non-obvious" test. Then again is this really news? I'd be surprised to see the headline "patent granted on a real invention in software!!!!" I mean has a really clever algorithm been invented since quicksort that wasn't just ported from mathmatics or physics? (I'm counting theoretical cs and graph theory as mathmatics, since, um it's not "practical" and so hardly ever patented.)

My prior art: Versioned website dating to 1996 by douglips · 2003-02-25 06:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

And I can prove it:

support% sccs prs -e index.html SCCS/s.index.html: D 1.157 01/08/14 09:17:44 amorrow 157 156 00002/00002/00111 MRs: COMMENTS: kill target=_blank [five years of history removed for brevity] D 1.3 96/08/05 11:24:03 dvs 3 2 00001/00001/00089 MRs: COMMENTS: Highlighted "More" to emphasize that the list of links is incomplete. D 1.2 96/08/02 12:42:21 dvs 2 1 00000/00002/00090 MRs: COMMENTS: Removed link to old interface D 1.1 96/08/02 12:12:47 dvs 1 0 00092/00000/00000 MRs: COMMENTS: date and time created 96/08/02 12:12:47 by dvs

--
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M

ClearCase isn't a CMS! by Dragonshed · 2003-02-25 06:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

ClearCase is not a Content Management System. Interwoven is not a Version Control System.

ClearCase and Interwoven do indeed have a number of shared features, but noone in their right mind would *ever* use ClearCase as a CMS backend to a website. Interwoven specializes organizing information, in the form of website content, throughout it's lifecycle, including initial authoring, review stages and (this is the important part) publishing. Not a single Version Control system addresses publishing.

start a campaign by exhilaration · 2003-02-25 06:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Reading through the responses, I see plenty of complaints but no one seems to have a plan for reforming the patent office.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but maybe it's time to sit down, discuss the possibilities, and take action. All average citizens have to be shown is the patent for the "cat exercise system using a laser pointer" to convince them that reform is needed. The next step is a letter campaign to congress.

Perhaps some college kid with plenty of free time on his or her hands would be willing to start something? Maybe the EFF can start something?

I dunno - anyone got any useful ideas?

That is incorrect by Srin+Tuar · 2003-02-25 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

The GPL would be unnecessary if there were no copyright law.

If there is no "copyright", then why would you need a "copyleft"?

GPL is supposed to spit in the face of copyright law. The beauty of it is that it does this by depending upon it.

If there were no copyright, then closed source would still be inviable: because anyone could copy it around. The difference would be that the BSD, LGPL, and GPL licenses would be effectively compatible, and I could finally see goddam SVG enabled in mozilla by default, etc.

The reason the GPL does not need copyright, is that eliminating copyright would eliminate the incentive to violate the GPL. Thats a catch 22.

Re:That is incorrect by Derek+S · 2003-02-25 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Without copyright, you could distribute currently-GPL binaries without source. That would provide an edge if your business was in supporting or customizing said software.
Re:That is incorrect by smallpaul · 2003-02-25 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

The GPL would be unnecessary if there were no copyright law.
That's quite incorrect. If there were no copyright law, how ecould the GPL prevent me from distributing binaries that include the Linux source code?
If there were no copyright, then closed source would still be inviable: because anyone could copy it around.

I don't know what you mean by "inviable", but if there were no copyright, then it is clear that the software market would behave very differently but one part would remain unchanged: software companies would have no obligation to make their source code available ever. Plus, the GPL could not force them, no matter how much GPLed software the vendor incorporated. Linux distributions could be all-binary (but the binaries would be freely redistributable).

Re:Can the USPO be sued? IANAL but... by CrazyDuke · 2003-02-25 07:15 · Score: 3, Informative

You can not sue the government, or a governmental agency, without the permision of the government. You can, however, sue an employee of a government if they are personally negligent.

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.

Patent Office is a joke by BlackjackGuy · 2003-02-25 07:27 · Score: 2, Informative

One of the main reasons we have so many ridiculous patents these days is that patent office employees get paid per patent they approve! They get no pay for quality of research, or how thoroughly they examine the patents. There is no incentive for these overworked patent researchers to actually do good work or put any thought into what they're examining. With the current pay scale, they are incented to approve as many patents as possible in the shortest amount of time. Until that changes, we'll be stuck with the joke of the patent system we currently have.

I've got a solution by PhilHibbs · 2003-02-25 07:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Set up a cron job that executes twice a week, and posts a "Patent system still fucked" story on Slashdot. That'll save a lot of effort.

GONG! Try again by GrapesForBuddha · 2003-02-25 07:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Peng Ong was most definitely NOT one of the original designers of ClearCase. He was, however, heavily influenced by ClearCase when he set out to create TeamSite.

IWOV actually had to change the way they do things in order to not infringe on some of Rational's patents (for example their MVFS patent for a virtual filesystem that tracks build artifacts). I believe that the whole workspace/staging area/edition structure may have evolved from having to avoid stepping on Rational's toes.

In any case, the engineers at IWOV know that the core of TeamSite is very similar to any other version control system and that it's just optimized for web content control and delivery.

IMHO, there's nothing patentable about TeamSite. It's pretty useful and all, but not worthy of a patent.

Patents are just registrations. by gurps_npc · 2003-02-25 07:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

The USPO makes very little judgement calls, getting a patent is incredibally easy. Why - because they are part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. That way, if their is any arguement, both sides can have all their rights observed by a court of law. The question is, will a court hold it up. It does not sound like that patent will stand up.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com

Legitemacy of patents going the way of copyrights by d00dman · 2003-02-25 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

If this keeps happening no patent is going to be enforcable based on the US patent office's recent history of complete incompetance. Taking every case of a bad software patent to the courts is hardly practical. I think people will soon start disregarding patents the same way they've started disregarding copyrights of music and movies.

Re:SourceSafe by AndroidCat · 2003-02-25 07:52 · Score: 2, Informative

That's who they'd go after first, because they have the money.

No no no! The idea is to go against weak opponents first. They don't have the money to wage a legal war, so they rollover and pay a licence fee. You keep going after small targets. If you feel lucky, you go after a target that will fight, but can't afford a legal dream team. If you win, the next victim^w company will fold much quicker.

With the big boys, you horse-trade patent licencing. "We'll let you use our patent, if we can use yours and a first-round draft pick."

You never want to go up against a company that can spend more on legal bills out of petty cash than your total assets.

Unlike trademarks, you don't have to defend a patent against all comers or lose it. You can pick your targets carefully.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Prior art: cvs for web (from wayback machine) by bradleybear · 2003-02-25 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here, from the wayback machine, is a note about how I used to maintain web pages using CVS.

http://web.archive.org/web/19971222105157/ee.yal e. edu/www.html

The nice thing about the wayback machine is that it gives you a date for that prior art (In this case December 1997, which preceeds the Feb 1998 filing date on the provisional applicatoin.)

Re:#1 is a pretty broad claim by mkldev · 2003-02-25 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

CVS was first released as a set of shell script wrappers for RCS in 1986. It is descended from RCS, which has been around since at leaast the mid 80s. The design of RCS was based loosely on that of SCCS, which was written in about 1972. Man, that patent must have been hanging around for a long time. ;-)

--
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.

In defense of the USPO by Grotus · 2003-02-25 09:32 · Score: 3, Funny

A lot of posters have been criticising the USPO for not scrutinizing the contents of patents passing through their system closely enough. I would suggest that having the USPO carefully examine each patent passing through its system for prior art, obviousness, etc. goes way outside the bounds of their job.

IMO, as long as the patent is properly addressed, has sufficient postage, and doesn't set off the anthrax detectors, the USPO should move it straight through the system just like the rest of the mail.

Now the USPTO, on the other hand...

--
"From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH

IPJusticie: the EFF of the patent wars by Brian+Hatch · 2003-02-25 10:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Robin Gross, previously the staff attourney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation has founded a new group named IPJustice. I suspect it's still getting it's feet since it's so new, but it will hopefully be able to do to IP abuses what the EFF does for online/free speech/etc issues.

Re:Cutting services ... by scphantm · 2003-02-25 11:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I used to work for the PTO back in the day. The head honchos in the PTO (back then) didn't want any tax money. They wanted the same designation that the post office has, a Federal Corporation. Back then (1995) the honchos looked at the books and realized that if they really wanted too, they could be self sufficent in what they do. I would bet that position changed in the glory days of the Dot-Gone era when they got slammed with more patents then they had ever seen before, but the idea was real and they were activly moving in that direction.

--
*** I suffer from a colorful array of psychological problems

Slashdot Mirror

Interwoven Patents Code Versioning

94 of 451 comments (clear)