Slashdot Mirror
Charlie Northrup's One-Man Patent Grab Continues
FirstEdition writes "Will this never end! Linux Business & Technology writes that Charlie Northrup, the guy in New Jersey whose prior art on what looks to be Web services dates back to 1994 and appears to trump anybody else's IP, has gotten another patent. Of course, he has transferred the IP to a spin off company populated mostly by lawyers. More details here."
which has lawyers as its main labor force, should be destroyed!
Yes, we all know it's ridiculous, none of you reading this have to point that out in excruciating detail. The worst part about these kinds of stories is the avalanche of posts making bad jokes ("I'm going to patent air! I'm going to patent the alphabet!"), constructing elaborate metaphors, or making snide comments about MS, Amazon, or what have you. Don't preach to the converted. We all know.
It seems like the USPTO will let you patent just about anything.
Sooner or later, someone's going to point out that all this excess patenting is going to stifle rather than encourage invention and innovation. I mean, why bother developing an idea from first thought to reality if some suit somewhere who's never spent more than a few minutes on a distantly- (if at all) related product or service can shut you down before you get off the ground and/or demand crippling royalties from you for the fruits of your labour?
In the case of the USPTO, the lunatics truly are running the asylum.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If you read the patent, it reads like a description of CORBA. The OMG started working on CORBA in 1989. That's all the prior art that should be needed.
"Maybe we'll get lucky, and he'll pull a SCO, and try to sue IBM. I'm rather certain that IBM will find something that they have prior art on, or something that his patent depends on, that IBM can pull out and have fun with... "
But see that kind of thing is what makes the whole system worse. Defensive patents ( which in themselves maybe shouldn't have been granted ) also bog down the system, as well as the original one. The whole system needs change so that people don't have to take out such defensive measures.
As someone who's recently started operating his own company I'm astounded by how many ways the legal profession has of taking your money without actually providing any benefits. I'm starting to believe that we have a large parasite feeding off of (American) businesses. This is not to say that the entire legal prof is a leech... only that legislation is abused for the sake of acquiring money that isn't legitimately earned. I seems that a lot of patent suits fall into this category. I hope I'm wrong, but my experience makes me believe this is one of the more serious and unnecessary threats to progress here.
OK, this guy got the patent, and yes, someone probably has prior art, and the courts will probably throw it out as long as the President doesn't interfere with the judicial system to help this guy. But there's still a problem: Who want's to be the first poor SOB to have to defend himself in a lawsuit? I'm sure this guy isn't stupid enough to make his "liscensing fee" more expensive than defending one's self in a courtroom, which means he can use those firms who choose the cheaper option of paying the liscense, to legitimize his claims against those who do fight.
Me? I say to hell with Iraq, we need a regime change at the USPTO!
Lagito ergo expectabo
I look at it this way...
IBM did significant development of computer theory. They've probably contributed more than any other company combined. Granted, they have screwed up at times, and screwed up royally, but they don't appear to be running around smashing others with only lawyer-based divisions, a'la Rambus. They're also contributing back into something that I use on a daily basis as my primary computer platform, even when they didn't invent UNIX. Right now, IBM is a community player, and while that could change in theory at any moment, they're more my friend than this freak who is trying to demonstrate a patent on hypertext transfer protocol...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Well your position is understandable. It however isn't a solution. Even if he does something crippling, the faulty system is still in place waiting for the next Charlie to come along, and I can assure you there are plenty more out there. Also depending on a white knight to save people is nice, but not really realistic. This is everyone's problem, and the solution will need to be likewise.
MOD PARENT UP. ...Not that I agree with you. While I would understand someone wanting to patent something he/she actually did, doing it nine years after the fact? Seven years after the limitations expire?
And it's not always clear what the patent is actually for. It sounds like IRC, Apache, SlashDot, or all of the above; anybody have any guesses? It's such a basic, fundamental thing (as far as I can tell, reading through that 100-page-ish pile of gibberish) that it's a root part of the Internet- and if it is IRC or basic message board protocol, it's very provable that it existed long, long before '94.
I'm pretty sure he only pushed the patent through with either a few well-placed bribes, or more likely well-placed obfuscation so nobody can figure out what the hell he just patented.
Hopefully, if it's the latter, that trend will continue so he can't defend it either.
Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.
That would be about the worst thing that could happen because individual inventors (except thouse who were rich) would have no power.
Imagine the following situation. You invent a chemical compound in your garage. Let's say its a new form of rubber that never wears out. Great! Now you can start making tires. Except you can't. Unless you have millions of dollars to build a tire factory. Fine. Sell the patent to Goodyear. Can't. It's been outlawed. Well, at least you can prevent Goodyear from using the rubber, right? No. Goodyear takes your formula, you try to sue, but you can't afford to pay the lawyers, so the lawsuit ends before it begins.
From the USPTO site:
For over 200 years, the basic role of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has remained the same: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries.
As much as I agree that this is a laudable goal, I think it's obvious from this case and others that in today's high-paced climate, patents often serve to do exactly the opposite.
The truth of the matter is that after 20 years, modern technology is most likely so far behind the curve that it's useless or, at best, so developed that no right-minded business is willing to spend anything on it's continued development. Thus, patents such as these no longer serve to give a small advantage to inventors and protect fledgling technology. Rather, they tend to provide a means for the Chucks of the world to significantly inhibit development for the entire useful life of the technology. This isn't the industrial age anymore; to think that 20 years still represents a "limited time" is both ignorant and counterproductive.Note how things seem to change abruptly when things get bad enough.
Remember when the Standard Oil Company had a stranglehold on anything to do with petroleum? Then one day, BAM!
The Bell System had just about monopoly on anththing telephonic? You could not even put an extention phone in, despite fully agreeing to pay for any use of the line?
I get the idea we just sit back and let the USA paralyze themselves. While we spend our resources having all sorts of petty arguments, the rest of the world will go on.
Its all about economics.
Its what did USSR in. It can do the USA in too.
Once our government realizes we are seriously losing our capability of supporting ourselves, they will start paying attention. Once another world power ( probably China ) becomes strong enough that they could take control, where we could not do anything about it if they did, we will see action. Of course, by then, it will be too late. Especially if that new power sees no logic in recognizing the lifestyles or property of those here who don't produce anything. Kinda like we don't recognize any power or property of the Iraqi ex-powers-that-was. They may have been billionaires, now they are just bobbling heads hocking up words. While the new powers-that-be not only ignore them, but may even consider them a pest that needs to be exterminated. I mean, who do you think will be needed in the country, a wealthy landowner, or someone who can make the water pump work?
Remember how our Government actually encouraged youth to go into the sciences during the cold war? I think when the time comes where we really need to get our nose back to the wheel and start doing something, legislation will be passed to "clear the clutter" so things can happen.
Until then, its gonna be the same ol, same ol. The big kids get to the playground, call dibs on everything that can be played with, then rest on their big butts collecting extortion from anyone who tries to play with anything.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
I've always thought that Web Services is just a rip-off of ONC-RPC (the basis behind NFS, NIS, NIS+):
.x file, WS uses wsdl.
RPC uses XDR to marshal data, Web Services uses XML.
RPC uses TLI as the transport mechanism, WS uses HTTP.
RPC uses
RPC uses portmapper to advertise services, WS uses UDDI.
It's not very much different, and as long as this guy didn't explicitly define XML, I don't see how his patent is valid.
His patent describes the application layer of the OSI network model (presentation layer, too, in the old 7-layer version)...
Doesn't the OSI model predate all of his patents?
Simply ignore the patent. When he sends you a letter demanding money, ignore that too.
The "Costs more money to sue than settle" strategy works both ways. If no one settles, he won't have any money to sue anyone. If he does sue you, up the ante and tell him to go away or you're going to sue him back for the costs of defending the lawsuit he's about to lose.
paintball
What makes you so sure this would blow up in his face? Pan-IP has taught us weasels of this sort go after small fish until they have sufficient war-chest, not to mention a slew of precedent, to throw in IBM's face. I case you haven't been paying attention, our favorite whipping boy Rambus has been making some headway, thanks to some judges overlooking their devious behaviour while a member of JEDEC.
The damn shame in all this, and I'd love nothing better at this date than for someone to dig something like this up, is that the founders of the internet didn't make some blanket statement such as, "Whomsoever shall conduct business using these tools shall forgo any claim to intellectual property of methods or procedures pursuant to conducting commerce." Perhaps back in the DARPA roots there may be such a thing as, all your base are belong to public domain in the interest of furthering research. Sadly the lack of reason appears to hold sway.
"Ah ha, sent one packet, have it processed, get one packet back! A novel idea, I shall patent it and all subsequent technology!"
Given the chance, some bastard would attempt to patent breathing air and the way things are going they'd be awarded the patent.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Let's see.
"Whacking competitors is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."
That was fun.
"Industrial espionage is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."
Better, better.
"Insurance fraud is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."
Nice.
"Defrauding investors and employees is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it.".
Whoo Hoo.
"Dumping toxic waste illegally is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."
Yum.
You know? Life is so much easier when one doesn't have a conscious. Thanks dude.
So what happened to the theory that only megacorps could use patents? Seems like one guy named Charley can do it.
With all this talk about IBM, i'm suprised i haven't heard of other companies who would be forced to "roll over." Specifically, those who do not particularly like to roll over to anyone.
Now this could be a good or bad thing, but chances are if MS had to start leasing some of their Network stuff, they would unleash their horde of lawyers.
For that matter, i don't think Apple would be too happy with this either.
I don't think this guy has a chance. While he possibly could be in the right legally (IANAL), he will get rolled over if he goes after some of these companies.
Granted, some will just pay, but i doubt MS would pay when they could vary well keep him in court untill he is broke, and then buy the patents from him as a way to bail him out.
Just a possibility...
Do my eyes deceive me, or does it look like this guy is patenting clustering and/or grid computing?
Well, at least you can prevent Goodyear from using the rubber, right?
Yeah right, as if Goodyear even wanted to make tires that don't wear out.
If he takes on IBM he will wind up like Major H. Edwin Armstrong (remember him? He patented The Super Regenitive circuit in 1916, The Superhetrodyne circuit in 1924 and FM radio in the 30's
RCA took himto the cleaners)
The problem here is that there are no penalties for abuse of the patent system. Claiming to have invented something you obviously did not should be treated as fraud.
Basically, the current U.S. patent system has descended into a registry system. Filing and having a patent accepted is having put on file "I invented X on date Y" It's just not possible for them to check applications thuroughly enough. They would have to employ someone "skilled" in every art.
If you combine this with the ability to loose by default in the US legal system, you get some very nasty effects. Take this example:
Step one:
I try to patent the mouse. I have odds that this patent will slip through and be accepted. If it does not I just try some other technology.
Step two:
I use my new patent to file lawsuits against small companies for small amounts of money. It would cost them more to get my patent thrown out that to settle.
Currently, the practice above isn't even illegal. It's a blatant abuse of the system but there is no provision to punish anyone for abusing it. People who pull the kind of shit should go to laid. Their patent application was a lie.
If I pretended to own a piece of property I had no real rights to, and charged people money to park there, I would be guilty of fraud. The same should be true for IP.
Life is too short to proofread.
"The same sense in which a novel is an expression of the font used to typeset it..."
This is a bad analogy since the font is independant of the words it represents. Clearly, an algorithm is equal to the mathematical model it describes.
Or are you saying you cannot represent any given program as a set of mathematical rules? I think that is demonstrably false.
In either case, it appears you've never really programmed computers, or worked with algorithms to make such an extraordinary statement.
No, it isn't. Their job is to phrase the patent in a precise language, closed to individual interpretation. There should be little doubt whether a particular work infringes on a patent or not. The fact that just about every patent case requires a lawsuit to clarify benefits no one except the lawyer.
the accepted strategy is to make the application as broad as possible, expecting to lose on some points, but protecting the invention as thoroughly as possible.
The intent of the patent system, however, is not only to protect the inventor. In this case, I think the following reforms should happen:
Note how neither reform hurts an honest inventor. In fact, there are two benefits:
Many patented algorithms aren't all that complicated either. GIF, LZW, RSA, and JPEG are all well explained in various books. Idiocies like one-click are so trivial you'll probably never find it in a book, yet the patent is probably completely unreadable.
What we need is a way to cheaply rule out most patents, and concentrate on the few that we might infringe on a particular project. Note that today, people mostly just ignore patents. What good does that do the inventor?
The patent system is optimized to make the most money for patent lawyers, using a secret language only they understand, requiring expensive and time-consuming lawsuits even for clear cut cases. I wouldn't be surprised if an honest inventor actually makes more money if the patent was written clearly.