Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Charlie Northrup's One-Man Patent Grab Continues

Posted by timothy on from the and-now-with-only-one-eye-open dept.

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."

81 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by c_oflynn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks like Amazon has competition... I thought there was a law though that you have to patent something within one year of public exhibition?

    1. Re:Hmm... by angle_slam · · Score: 3, Informative
      I thought there was a law though that you have to patent something within one year of public exhibition?

      There is. 35 U.S.C. 102(b):

      A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
      (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States,
    2. Re:Hmm... by angle_slam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He didn't really wait nine years. He filed a patent in December 1994. The patent was issued in December 1998, meaning that's how long the patent office spent examining the application. Just before the patent issued, he filed what is known as a contunuation patent application. Basically, he covered one aspect of the invention in the first patent, and another aspect in this patent.

    3. Re:Hmm... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Informative
      This whole story is bogus, the patent is incredibly narrow, it is not pardigmatic and not essential to web services.

      He didn't really wait nine years. He filed a patent in December 1994. The patent was issued in December 1998, meaning that's how long the patent office spent examining the application. Just before the patent issued, he filed what is known as a contunuation [yale.edu] patent application. Basically, he covered one aspect of the invention in the first patent, and another aspect in this patent.

      Even so there is nothing in Web Services that was not previously invented in CORBA or previous systems. I published the idea of using the Web for machine/machine interaction in 1993, I don't hink I was the first, Tim probably discussed it in 1992 at Annecy. Try to remember what we were doing there folks, controlling real time physics experiments.

      The language of this patent, 'brokers' etc is all from CORBA.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    4. Re:Hmm... by Groote+Ka · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That is correct. It is a common policy when only half of your claims is granted after two official communications of the USPTO: you file a continuation with the rejected claims and let a patent witht the granted claims issue.

      This had an additional advantage that the protection of your invention could be extended, since protection used to be granted untill 17 years after the issue of the patent (commonly used for submarine patents like the Lemelson heritage).

      With the amendments of USC 35 (US patent law), however, this was 20 years from filing, when filed later than July 1995 (I do not know the exact date). For patents filed before July 1995 and issued after that date, the protection was 17 years after grant or 20 year after filing, whichever was longer.

      HOWEVER, for this kind of stuff (continuations), filed after July 1995, the protection is 20 years after the FIRST filing. So the US will be 'freed' from this patent by December 2014.

      To a certain extend, this kind of stuff is also possible with the European Patent Office (EPO), filing a divisional. However, as I have understood from US colleagues (I am a European Patent Attorney trainee), it is in the US possible to extend your subject matter and with that, the protection of your patent, pretty far from what you have filed originally. With the EPO, you would go flat on your face; the EPO is very precise with respect to addition of subject matter: strictly prohibited and the rule is applied very strict. And when the EPO makes a mistake, you just file an opposition which you will probably win.

  2. That's okay... by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure that he'll manage to get royalties from the two or three million geeks running Apache at home.

    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...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. What is it, actually? by SmartGamer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to be describing IRC, a message board, and/or basic client-server architecture, all of which provably existed before '94.

    It's quite likely I'm not understanding this correctly. What, in actually legible text, has he just patented?

    And what laws are there that would permit him to retroactively sue anybody who was already using something like that?

    --
    Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.
    1. Re:What is it, actually? by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What, in actually legible text, has he just patented?

      That's a wonderfully good question.

      A CS professor can write a book full of algorithms, and a second year CS major can read the book and tell whether a random piece of code uses an algorithm from the book. Why can't a professional software engineer read a patent application and understand what will infringe and what will not?

      I think the balance between protecting the patent owner and protecting the public requires a plain English (at the very least, something that a CS major can read) reform to patenting.

    2. Re:What is it, actually? by GlassHeart · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The obscure, broad language is the product of patent lawyers. That's their job!

      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:

      • Patents must be readable by someone of ordinary skills. A patent determined to be overly vague in court is voided and the case summarily dismissed. The threshold for "vague" should be low. (If someone who can implement your patent can't read it, it's gone.)
      • Patents must be narrowly defined. An overly broad patent limits the damages the court will allow the inventor. (Even if you invented "e-commerce", you are not eligible to collect a lot of money on each of the various forms, such as on-line auctions, that you did not actually invent.)
      • Patents where the inventor should reasonably be aware of infringements (such as publication as an international standard) but not asserted are voided. (Submarine patents are voided.)

      Note how neither reform hurts an honest inventor. In fact, there are two benefits:

      • A company is likely to be more aware of infringement, and actively pay you. Today, you have to find companies that infringe, which is nearly as difficult as a patent search.
      • You may actually get paid without a lawsuit, because the violation is clear.
    3. Re:What is it, actually? by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because the algorithms from the CS text will be trivial, for the most part.

      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.

  4. Well, he does have a point. (Hear me out) by beee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've heard a lot of "off with his head!" comments around these parts in regards to Mr. Northrup, but can we look at his point of view with a shred of objectivity for a moment? Let me introduce a hypothetical situation. You, a programmer, create some wonderful technology. It's so wonderful, in fact, that it spreads all over the world and is used by nearly everyone on a daily basis. Would you not want some measure of control on this technology that you labored over for so many hours? Would you not like some shred of claim to its origin? Though it's easy to tie this man to a cross for his pursuits in I.P., I think the honest answer most of us would give is "Yes, I would." Perspective is a difficult thing to deal with; however, I think Mr. Northrup is on the "good side" in this fight.

    --


    + Donald Gunth
    + Email: dgunth@quicktek.net
    "Caffeine is the greatest lubricant ever created." -ESR
  5. Any company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    which has lawyers as its main labor force, should be destroyed!

    1. Re:Any company by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cool. Does that include the US government?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  6. uhh by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:uhh by istartedi · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!"),

      Don't worry. I hold the patent on making jokes about patenting things that can't be patented, and will be contacting the aforementioned parties shortly.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  7. WTF? by kg4czo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ya know, this stuff discribed really reminds me of the old BBS days. Almost every service in this "patent" could have been applied to almost any BBS package as far back as '86, maybe even farther. Isn't that prior art? Somone need to trump this guy before he makes it impossible for anyone to run services.

    1. Re:WTF? by mr_death · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Somone need to trump this guy before he makes it impossible for anyone to run services.

      That "someone" needs a boatload of cash, as well as good prior art.

      What I learned while trying to get a patent, and what the slashdot crowd needs to grok, is that Patents Are Business Tools! The determination of what is novel, unobvious, and what advances the arts and sciences is legal, and not subject to what those "skilled in the art" think. Rather, legal definitions and arguments are the high ground, and must be understood

      Because of the cash needed to invalidate a patent, companies usually end up licensing a marginal patent, rather than slugging out in court. It isn't right, but it makes business sense.

      Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

      --
      It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
    2. Re:WTF? by Old+Uncle+Bill · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your BBS didn't run TCP/IP? Loser...

      --
      Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
    3. Re:WTF? by kcbrown · · Score: 4, Informative
      The determination of what is novel, unobvious, and what advances the arts and sciences is legal, and not subject to what those "skilled in the art" think.

      Bzzt!!

      Title 35, Section 103(a) of the U.S. code explicitly says:

      A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

      What those "skilled in the art" think is centrally important because it is they to whom the subject matter as amended by the patent is obvious or not.

      If the opinion of those "skilled in the art" does not matter when even the law itself essentially says it does then the patent process is so fundamentally broken that it cannot be fixed.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  8. hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    i wonder if bruce schneier's recent cryptogram about dos'ing someone via postal mail would be useful in this situation. this guy's address is listed on the patent.

  9. I'm just going to ignore him by Wee · · Score: 3, Funny
    He'll go away eventually, like a wart on your toe. Or Muammar Khadafi. Or something.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  10. Our boy Charlie by sssmashy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like our boy Charlie read a book on communications or network theory, understood about half of it, and threw all the words he remembered into a few densely worded and confusing paragraphs.

    And then he patented it.

    It's kind of fun to watch Chuck's patent exploits, since he has no chance of ever winning one of his pesky lawsuits. Of course, it can be kind of annoying for the other parties involved.

    1. Re:Our boy Charlie by GreyyGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If there wasn't any chance then there wouldn't be that many lawyers involved.

      He has a pretty decent chance with that many laywers to throw at it and if they are smart and not too greedy, they will do what every single other similar patent recipient has done- go after small shops that can't afford to defend against a patent. Then use that money to finance further lawsuits. Very profitable and very effective.

  11. I wonder... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:I wonder... by AsmordeanX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While I agree with your statement, it doesn't really apply to this case.

      The individual patented the 'web' before the web was even heard of outside of universities. There might be prior art but that is another argument.

      The USPTO had no reason not to grant this patent as of yet. What I find annoying is that the guy sat on it for nine years but AFAIK never put forth the effort to create the web. Basically he had an idea, patented it then filed it away. Meanwhile someone else had the same idea and used it now we are all in a pickle.

      Maybe we will get lucky and he will go after Unisys first.

    2. Re:I wonder... by kien · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The USPTO had no reason not to grant this patent as of yet.

      Not to nitpick, but shouldn't we expect a little common sense from the people that we pay with our tax dollars? I mean come on, the whole "ignorance is bliss/we are overworked" excuse is really beginning to wear a little thin.

      From the article:

      The LLC lawyers are starting to work on what are called "claim charts" that track alleged infringement. Licensing terms are still being thrashed out.

      Claim charts??!!

      rm -rf USPTO
      kill -9 patent_squatter

      --K.
      --
      Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
    3. Re:I wonder... by thing12 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The individual patented the 'web' before the web was even heard of outside of universities. There might be prior art but that is another argument.

      What about 1991: Archie for file searching, WAIS for document searching, or all the public sites you could telnet into? Weren't those services? Or 1992: Gopher as a not too distant predecessor of http(d) and Veronica a year later as a menu service for Gopher pages. The 1+ million hosts on the Internet by late 1992 were not just at universities. How can all the servers that were running out there not qualify, at least in part, as prior art for 'Web Services'. Even NTP was around in 1992 - that's purely an automated web service - a client application getting data from a server application and doing something with the response in an automated fashion. I'm sure a good long browsing session through the RFC's would yield enough prior are to kill this patent.

  12. Can you say CORBA? by rossjudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. woo hoo by DanThe1Man · · Score: 4, Funny

    Charlie doesn't like to talk in terms of suing people, but says it may be advantageous to Web services players such as IBM, Microsoft, BEA, Sun and the service providers to have a license

    Woo hoo! Lawyer fight! I can't wait to watch this on court TV. I wonder which side will get Johnny Cochran

    1. Re:woo hoo by Telastyn · · Score: 4, Funny

      They should just have a draft. Whichever company had the worst record last year gets the first pick this year of Law School seniors [and choice undergrads going pro early].

      Of course there's always the usual signing problems and draft day trades...

    2. Re:woo hoo by DanThe1Man · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder which side will get Johnny Cochran

      Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decided whether to reverse the decision for my client Chef. I know he seems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen... (pulling down a diagram of Chewbacca) This is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment -- that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know.

      It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit!

      (pulling a monkey out of his pocket) Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! (one of the juror's heads explodes)

    3. Re:woo hoo by Turing+Machine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He might want to take a look at these records before deciding to take on IBM in court.

      41 feet of paper!

  14. Re:That's okay...Circular defense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

  15. Ah, the legal system... by tony1c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ah, the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe that the "legal tax" is about 20% of the economy. I have seen reports that in the medical field the largest cost is legal expenses, followed by doctors, health care, etc. As long as people keep electing idiots to office that take contributions from special interests, they will continue to find their money, and rights being sold to the highest bidder.

    2. Re:Ah, the legal system... by johny_qst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So when will this problem actually get noticed by the american public or world public at large? The clues have been mounting since the 60's. Things like using off-shore holding companies to avoid legal and tax issues have been common business practices for too long. When will people look to straightening up all the obfuscated legal detritus clogging our ability to innovate? Whay are we stuck making laws about the laws about the laws about the laws about when the DMCA is applicable? Man I sure hope 'the revolution' gets here soon cause William Shakespeare was pretty on the mark and it seems like noone is listening.

      --
      Fnord.sig
    3. Re:Ah, the legal system... by mrcparker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As someone who once owned a rather large company, I can assure you that most of what lawyers do is take your money and protect you from other lawyers.

      If you are just starting to believe that lawyers are a parasite feeding off American business, you haven't been sued yet. Wait until the profits start rolling in and they begin to smell the blood in the water.

      The main reason I got out of business was I was sick of having to sit in court and spend money so a nickle and dime lawyer could try to extract money out of me - yes, it is that bad.

    4. Re:Ah, the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I'm starting to believe that we have a large parasite feeding off of (American) businesses.

      I think the word you're looking for is "government".

      HTH

  16. The Problem is... by KimiDalamori · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  17. Re:That's okay...Circular defense. by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  18. A good idea to stop that by WetCat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is to make patents NON TRANSFERABLE...
    so he would have defend that stuff by himself

    1. Re:A good idea to stop that by angle_slam · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Is to make patents NON TRANSFERABLE...

      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.

    2. Re:A good idea to stop that by alphorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  19. Re:That's okay...Circular defense-II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  20. No need to point out the obvious, changes needed by augustz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We don't need to rehash the stupidity of these patents. Let's assume for now that is an accepted point.

    We do need to rehash prior art. The companies populated by lawyers are fully aware that their patents likely have prior. Give them some credit.

    The first folks they will chase down are mom and pop shops. If they've been keeping up with their industry best practices they won't send out too many notices at once as they will realize they will risk having the group band together, at which point they may be able to defend themselves.

    What small org has the $100,000 - $200,000 to see this kind of thing all the way through to conclusion against a group of aggressive lawyers. Who has the time to manage the lawsuit?

    They could charge $250 and I promise you, despite all the raving of prior art on slashdot, the VAST majority of folks, myself probably included will pay, even if we KNOW it is totally bogus.

    Our only hope is they go after a small company that is actually owned by a big bad company who has enough lawyers of their own to bludgen them into submission.

    Or that we get the IP laws changed so that folks like this stand a much smaller chance of success.

    Or that a rich benefactor be willing to put $1 million or so into a fund designed to have a "chilling effect" on their operations. I would volunteer to run such a fund.

  21. In other news... by YahoKa · · Score: 4, Funny

    A patent on the "Use of Common Sense to Solve Real-World Problems" was recently granted.

  22. Re:Well, he does have a point. (Hear me out) by SmartGamer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  23. Plain stupid by Peter_Pork · · Score: 5, Informative
    The present invention provides a virtual network, sitting "above" the physical connectivity
    We call this the Internet (late 60s). Or the telegraph (XIXth century).
    and thereby providing the administrative controls necessary to link various communication devices via an Access-Method-Independent Exchange.
    Also known as Patent-Nonsense-Is-Stealing (as old as patent system)
    In accordance with the present invention, connectivity is provided by a series of communication primitives designed to work with each of the specific communication devices in use.
    The Internet Protocol (IP) RFC 791 September 1981.
    Intraprocess, as well as Interprocess, services are available.

    Interprocess: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) RFC 793 September 1981.
    Intraprocess: main memory ENIAC 1946.

    ..and so on. This is plain nonsense and any competent lawyer will win the case against this atent. Not even OJ Simpson's pals can play this practical joke on a federal court.

  24. Bad things travel in pairs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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. "

    Well as the saying goes. "Behind every greedy lawyer, is a greedy client." Another variant is "Behind every greedy lobbyist, is a greedy organization." If our legal system is a Frankenstein, then who's the mad doctor?

  25. looks like he just pattented IP... by rusty0101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps a few years too late, but IP is a network protocol that can communicate with other editions of itself independent of the underlying physical network technology (802.3, 802.4, 802.5, 802.11, ppp, fddi, atm etc.)

    Of course this could be said of SDLC, HDLC, X.25, but all of these tended to specify what hardware infrastructure would be used at some point or another. Once the OSI model was created, as well as people implementing IP on various platforms, the cat was out of the bag. All of this was happening prior to 1990, so dating it at 1994, or 2003 (as appears to be the case with the article in question) means that there is sufficient prior art to eliminate the effectiveness of this pattent.

    -Rusty

    --
    You never know...
  26. Wait! I've got a patent! by flyneye · · Score: 4, Funny

    just got it,it's the Charlie Northrup action figure.
    It flouts the constitutional spirit of patents,its head spins round and round,spits up pea soup and cries f**k me!f**k me!f**k me!
    realistic skin and two openings(somewhat indistinguishable from each other)

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  27. 20 years is way to long by scot_sd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:20 years is way to long by angle_slam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It depends on the techonology. 20 years is an eternity in the software industry or the electronics industry. But pharmaceuticals have a much longer shelf lifes, as do detergents, and tire compounds, just to name a few.

    2. Re:20 years is way to long by KFury · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that it currently takes over 2 years for a patent application to be reviewed and accepted or rejected. While a 2-year patent on internet technologies seems more reasonable, it's meaningless, since the application would be pending all that time.

      --

      Kevin Fox
  28. Things Change by anubi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Maybe this is a troll or flamebait, but I have been seeing all this flurry of patenting and the generation of untold amounts of litigatables for some time now and its getting scary. Although this is great news for those who deal in litigatables, it is really bad news for those of us in the trenches trying to get something done ( i.e. product to market ).

    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]

  29. Easy prior art - Sun's ONC-RPCs by tstoneman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've always thought that Web Services is just a rip-off of ONC-RPC (the basis behind NFS, NIS, NIS+):

    RPC uses XDR to marshal data, Web Services uses XML.
    RPC uses TLI as the transport mechanism, WS uses HTTP.
    RPC uses .x file, WS uses wsdl.
    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.

  30. Re:That's okay...Circular defense. by jpetts · · Score: 3, Informative
    The whole system needs change so that people don't have to take out such defensive measures.

    I just finished reading Practical Cryptographyby Niels Ferguson and Bruce Schneier, and in the back there is a brief chapter about software patents. These comments are in a crypto book, but are addressed to software patents in general.

    Among the choice comments are:
    • Our current patent system is completely out of control. At best, patents are a necessary evil. At worst, they are an entirely legal form of fraud and blackmail.
    • We think that the IT industry would be better off without patents than with patents.
    • [t]he current system is simply not working.
    • The patent system won't be fixed, because there is simply no political gain to be made in this aread.
    All this is, as most people agree, true, but Schneier and Ferguson seem to think that it's something that we have to live with. Money talks, they say, and "There is, of course, onne group of people that consistently benefits from the patent system: the lawyers. No prizes for guessing which professional group claims that the current system is workable, or even good."

    Sad, but there you go.

    BTW, the book is truly outstanding, and fills a huge gap in the literature of crypto: watch this space...
    --
    Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  31. Why, oh why, don't they think long-term by cgreuter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The way this scam works is:

    1. Patent something.
    2. Go after big corporations.
    3. Set your prices low enough that it's cheaper to roll over than to defend against an infringement suit.

    It's cheaper in the short-term to just give in to these assholes, but if everyone always fought every garbage patent, it would put them out of business.

    And that would be cheaper in the long run.

  32. Patenting the open app layer? by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  33. Nobody needs to sue this guy.. by raehl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  34. "circular transportation facilitation device" by ozzee · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, the "circular transportation facilitation device" patent has been awarded to John Keogh.

    Patents are becoming very difficult to validate because of the extreme number of patents and the extreme levels of knowlege to validate patents. However, this situation plays directly into the hands of the big corporations and rich lawyers squeezing out the very people that patents were set out to protect in the first place.

    Large corporations love this scenario, they love to pay for patents to squeeze out the smaller players. I have yet to find a large corporation that does not play this game. Do a google search on "abuse frivolous patent" and you will find scores of well documented patent abuse cases.

    The only way to fix this is to come up with another system and legislate out of the current abuse. Start screaming to your nearest congresscritter/minister.

    I'm convinced now more than ever that the political systems need to be better controlled by people with a clue and a genuine interest in helping the whole and not the wealthy campaign donating individual.

    Posting yet another case of patent abuse is just plain boring, doing somthing about it would pick my interest.

  35. hey by Mr.Happy3050 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You make a "company populated by lawyers" sound like a bad thing.

    --
    "All great truths begin as blasphemies." -George Bernard Shaw
  36. What makes you so sure IBM would be a mistook? by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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...

    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
  37. Re:Well, he does have a point. (Hear me out) by HeghmoH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let me propose to you another hypothetical situation.

    You, a programmer, create a wonderful technology. Realizing its potential, you obtain a US patent on it. But then once the patent comes through, you file it in a drawer and forget about it. You go back to your day job. In the mean time, smart and more motivated people have recreated something like what you made, and are busy taking over the world with it. After they have succeeded, you come out of your hole and say "Hey! I came up with that first! I want money!"

    You would have every right to expect people to desire your slow and untimely demise for such moronic behavior.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  38. What a poorly written article by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2, Informative

    It sounds like something lifted off USENET.

    Meanwhile, Charlie, who's got a little tiny company called Global Technologies Ltd, is productizing the IP under the code name DASCOA, short for Discovery and Connectivity Oriented Architecture, which is basically what it does using XML.

    So, the IP does architecture? And that's not a "code name", it's an acronym.

    The US Office of Patents and Trademarks pored over his application simply forever, comparing it to other like-minded patents.

    Patents have minds? Perhaps she means applications submitted by like-minded applicants. One last then I'm done. Can you say "run on sentence"? I knew you could.

    It's all about the automated discovery and connection of Web services though the word "Web" was never used in the filing since the Web didn't exist back then outside of research circles but 518 describes how to connect to a service using TCP/IP so it doesn't matter, it anticipates Web services.

    Doesn't this rag have editors? I wrote a product review for Java Developer's Journal, also put out by Sys-Con Media, and the editor there came back with changes, then they shipped me a pdf proof to review. Apparently LB&T isn't so rigorous.

  39. Re:WTF?-Guilty? Not I. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "What I learned while trying to get a patent, and what the slashdot crowd needs to grok, is that Patents Are Business Tools!" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

    Let's see.

    1. "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.
  40. incorrect by ProfBooty · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Not to nitpick, but shouldn't we expect a little common sense from the people that we pay with our tax dollars? I mean come on, the whole "ignorance is bliss/we are overworked" excuse is really beginning to wear a little thin."

    I repeat again, patent examiners are NOT paid by your tax dollars, the USPTO is one of 2 fully fee funded organizations in the government (the other is part of the FAA), so patent examiners are paid by the applicants in effect, in fact currently 500 million of the USPTO's revenue is siphoned away to pay for other agencies's budgets(about 25% of their total revenue). If this money was restored, the PTO could hire more examiners, spend more money for training, etc.

    From your comments, it doesn't sound like you are an educated patent professional. If you want to read things from an examiners perspective, read the USPTO patent examiner union's website, www.popa.org. This website should really be featured on slashdot so that posters can understand the patent process from the examiner's side.

    Additionally, there is a backlog of over 500,000 applications, that is there are cases filed 4 years ago which haven't even had a first examination on them and the PTO processes less than 500,000 applications a year so pendency will increase even more.

    In particular, this case has a priority date of 1994, that is, any references, publicatons, etc after 1994 can't be applied. Try understanding more about the patent office, the massive number of forgein application filins and PCT (patent cooperation treaty filings which are supposed to help applications) before you post.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  41. PLATO Prior Art by kmahan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After my eyes crossed reading the patent (and maybe not understanding all of it) all I could think of was "gee, we did that at the University of Illinois in the late 80s." Connecting to a mainframe computer from a specialized client that used TCP/IP as a communications medium. There were directory services, local and remote executing, fees for computing royalties, directories to be searched to find applicable content.

    Oh well.The world would be a different place if Universities had been into patenting cool ideas instead of just writing papers about them and then having the commercial sector use the technology.

    --
    Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
  42. Article not quite correct by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Informative
    To knock Charlie's patents out of the box, somebody would have to have filed for a Web services-resembling patent in late 1993.

    Mmm, no. No patent would have to be filed, just prior art proven. (Although a previous patent that this one infringes on would be a good proof of prior art.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  43. actually.... by ProfBooty · · Score: 2, Informative

    you can think of an invention, show it to no one, and file for a patent seveal years after you thought of it as long as you didn't tell anyone else, publish information on it, sell it etc. You will recieve a filling date based on when you filed an application, but you can file a sworn affidavit to estabish a new earlier filing date, during the patent process. it works like this

    examiner produces prior art A, which was filed before applicants invention. the applicant replies with a sworn affidavit saying we made our invention before that date, the affidavit includes documentation proving that they had indeed invented before that date. the new filing date is the same date as the reference a's filing date.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:actually.... by angle_slam · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's called swearing back of a reference, formally known as a Rule 131 affidavit, where the inventor makes a statement that "include facts showing a completion of the invention in this country or in a NAFTA or WTO member country before the filing date of the application on which the U.S. patent issued, or before the date of the foreign patent, or before the date of the printed publication." The particular reference can not then be used as a bar against the invention. However, the filing date (which determines the expiration date of the patent) is not changed, merely the date of invention.

  44. Large Corporations by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what happened to the theory that only megacorps could use patents? Seems like one guy named Charley can do it.

    1. Re:Large Corporations by ozzee · · Score: 2
      So what happened to the theory that only megacorps could use patents? Seems like one guy named Charley can do it.

      So exactly who do you think will benefit from these patents ?

      What I mean is that big corporations would love to pay for a patent if it means that their competitors are squeezed out of existance. So you see, a frivolous patent that costs big bucks that nukes your competitor is exactly what the doctor ordered. I've seen this happen too often in my career where the marketeers and the lawyers buy up some waste of a license instead of doing the right thing and fighting the patent. Do your own search, they are well documented.

  45. MS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

  46. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do my eyes deceive me, or does it look like this guy is patenting clustering and/or grid computing?

  47. Again, prior art. by NullProg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I feel like I am getting old when someone patents something that was already done in the good old days of yore. But I don't feel old!

    1) Netbios/SMB in the mid 1980's covers most of his protocol discovery network claims (OSI).It also refutes any of his service provider claims if you think of the central fileserver as the provider of services (which I think qualifies).
    2) Purchasing items was done through compuserve over dialup long before this patent. I still have my 1985 (5.25 floppies) Compuserve kit to prove so.

    I didn't read the whole patent. I didn't see what, if any, physical medium was claimed (the damn double speak gives me a headache). If someone wants to give me an itemized claim, I can probably refute most the rest. There is no physical difference from a LAN/MAN/WAN from the internet. Only the protocol has changed.

    Bob Metcalf should be consulted to refute more than I can.

    Enjoy,

    --
    It's just the normal noises in here.
  48. Re:Well, he does have a point. (Hear me out) by sharrestom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sounds like Lemelson. You know, the foundation of which gives piles of money to MIT. While individuals and corporations in the world research and develop technology at great expense, others mine patent law. Lemelson was a miner.

  49. Prior Art: DARPA (was/is/was ARPA) funded research by Joe+Wagner · · Score: 3, Informative
    The SHARE, SHADE and MADE programs funded research into geographically distributed, e.g. Internet mediated, knowledge capture, design collaboration services. At the beginning of 1994 the MADEFAST experiment was initiated as a test showing that of all of the research worked. MADEFAST was "an exercise in geographically distributed design and prototyping conducted by members of the ARPA MADE research community." There is an ACM paper that was written about it. I worked on MADEFAST--it was my first paid RA'ship in grad school at Stanford. Madefast.org is no more but an archive of that website is here.

    I also worked on the short documentary that was filmed during the course of the project and which was shown ultimately to a Congressional committee, IIRC.

    Maybe someone somewhere will find the existence of this old research and its public publications of use...

  50. Re:Well, he does have a point. (Hear me out) by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Informative

    no, no, no....

    IT is just an idea. IT is about ideas and realizing them, like realizing a story. IT has no reasonable limitations, etc. Hence IT should be protected by copyright, but not patents.

    Patents suck and Greenspan says almost the same. Consider the following quote:

    Indeed, the nature of intellectual property is importantly different from physical property. In particular, one individual's use of an idea does not make that idea unavailable to others for their own, simultaneous use. Furthermore, new ideas almost invariably build on old ideas in ways that are difficult or impossible to delineate. From an economic perspective, this provides a rationale for making the calculus, developed initially by Leibnitz and Newton, freely available, despite the fact that those insights have immeasurably increased wealth over the generations. Should we have protected their claim in the same way that we do for owners of land? Or should the law make their insights more freely available to those who would build on them, with the aim of maximizing the wealth of the society as a whole? Are all property rights inalienable, or must they conform to a reality that conditions them?

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/speeches /2 003/20030404/default.htm

    He asks questions, but he understands wealth should be a society NOT an individual. And that is why the IT industry did so well. A community proposered.... Remember the difference between Apple and Microsoft. Apple wanted to control, not Microsoft. Who is the more dominate player? I rest my case....

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  51. Need penalities for abuse. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  52. No, Mod parent down by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Would you not want some measure of control on this technology that you labored over for so many hours?"

    In the computer science arena? I think not. I base this on several ideas:

    1) Software algorithms are essentially expressions of mathematical formula (in a broad sense). This is inherently not patentable. Its the equivalent of copyrighting a prime number because it took you a long time to calculate that is was prime.

    2) Based on 20+ years of software development, I've not seen any new algorithm. Every program is cribbed from some other program. As far as I can tell (and I'm not being facetious), nobody starts a program from a blank editor. Each program, or generation of programs, is in improvement. Allow minor improvements to an algorithm to be the basis of a family of patents is likeChevy patenting the automobile because the new Corvette goes faster than the last Corvette.

    Lets look at some practical implications of patents:

    1) If you consider my previous point to be true, then a small inventor can't benefit from Software patents because large corporations can always show prior art to virtually any software algorithm. You, as "Joe Inventor" don't have the resources to do this type of research so as a practical matter, software patents aren't useful to the mythical lone inventor.

    2) In practice, software patents have been used exlusively by large corporations as leverage with other large corporations in arguments over control of markets.

    I think the software industry was more vibrant and innovative prior to the "invention" of software patents. So if the intent of software patents has been to foster innovation, it has failed miserably at that goal and on the basis of that alone should be scrapped.

    Finally to address your main point about hard work justifying a reward, consider the case of the man who makes a model of NYC entirely out of toothpicks and spends his entire life doing it. Impressive? Hell yea. Is he entitled to some sort of compensation? I don't think so. Hard work and effort is not equal to money.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you