SBC Getting Aggressive With Frames Patent

mpthompson writes "Aspects of the SBC patent shakedown were covered previously on SlashDot, but the following article has more details including the royalty fee schedules on the two patents that SBC is seeking to enforce against web sites that utilize frames in their design. In short, SBC has asserted that it is the exclusive owner of a technology for "structured document" browsing - the use of frames to provide hyperlinks to documents displayed by a browser. Apparently the strategy by SBC is to set precedent against small web sites that will presumably capitulate before going after the big guys. Based on the fee schedule, SBC seems to be pretty serious about this whole patent thing and may not go away so easily."

Comments

Just frames? looks like more....

[redheaded_stepchild]

A representative claim of SBC's '574 patent, independent Claim 7, recites a method for navigating a document having multiple sections. The claimed method comprises the steps of: (a) displaying a document with a browser comprising a user interface; (b) automatically displaying a plurality of selectors in the user interface of the browser and not in the document, the plurality of selectors automatically configured to correspond to respective sections of the document regardless of what section of the document is being displayed; (c) receiving a selection of one of the plurality of selectors; and (d) displaying a section of the document that corresponds to the selector selected in (c). So in other words, if I have any kind of navigation on my page, I'll have to pay SBC? This looks more like a patent for webpages, not just frames. And did anyone else notice the lawyer-troll's name? It's Petty. 'nuff said.

Re:What's next... ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude,

At least quote the source for your stolen joke.

This isn't about frames

[PD]

It's about having navigation links on all the pages of a site that don't change, but part of the page does change. For an example of this, see slashdot.org where there's a list of links on the left side, but the rest of the content changes. CNN does the same thing.

This patent is evil.

Cringely has already refuted the SBC patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Robert X. Cringely, the PBS Tech columnist, has already refuted this patent. See his article: "We've been framed."

Re:Netscape

[signe]

Actually, seeing as Navigator 2.0 was released in February, 1996, and the patents have invention dates of May, 1996 at the earliest, Netscape seems to be prior art.

-Todd

or use CSS

[yintercept]

...as tables were designed intended for tabular data, the W3C would prefer to see people use CSS.

Re:or use CSS

[smagruder]

I meant " classes..."

Prior art

[hamsterboy]

Some quick googling turns up these facts:

• SBC filed for the patent [uspto.gov] in May of 1996.
• Netscape 2.0 was released [hmetzger.de] in March of 1996.
  

Sounds like more Rambus gouging goodness.

Hamster

Re:Netscape

[signe]

Definitely a part of 2.0

Here's a link to the press release for Netscape 2.0: http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease82.ht ml

-Todd

It's NAVIGATION they patented, not FRAMES!

[Ja-Ja-Jamin]

You guys don't get it, they patented navigation that constantly appears on each "page" of the "document" - regardless of how it's rendered. This also covers SSI, DHTML, etc, and even just simply copying and pasting the navigation to each "page". Can we sue the Patent office for destroying the Internet? -- If you think open source caused a stir, what until OpenData(TM) catches on!

lots of prior art

[g4dget]

There is so much prior art for this that it isn't funny: lots of document browsers, WYSIWYG text editors, etc., had user interface features that provided this kind of navigational support.

The HTML Menu package version 4.7, announced on USENET in January 1995 contained support for generating frame-based navigational elements.

HTML 3.0, published in 1995, may not have standardized frames, but it did standardize the LINK element, which also constitutes prior art for this patent.

Of course, this isn't even a question of prior art, it's a question of obviousness.

Here are links to the actual patents in question

[angle_slam]

Here are links to the the actual patents in question: 5,933,841 and 6,442,574.

Claim 1 of the first patent claims, "a browser for viewing documents having embedded codes . . ." The other claims also seem to be specific to browsers, not documents (a web site designer creates documents, not browsers).

At first glance, it does appear that SBC should be going after Netscape and Internet Explorer. Of course, Netscape is owned by AOL/Time Warner and IE is owned by Microsoft.

It's hard to believe...

[pfankus]

...that this patent is legal, or infact actually even exists. For one thing. it's like saying a large corporation who didn't develop photography technology patents the B&W photograph after people have been taking photos for 100 years with cameras the company doesn't even produce (and then charging the amateur photographer a fee for every picture he takes!). The article states:

SBC Communication's claim of ownership for a common Web site formatting tool is based on a pair of patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,933,841, having a grant date of August 1999, and U.S. Patent No. 6,442,574, which issued three years later in 2002. Both patents cover a "structured document browser" having an invention date at least as early as May 1996, which is the filing date for both the original application that matured into the '841 patent and the continuation application that resulted in the '574 patent.

but Netscape had this technology implemented in 1995, found here:

2.0B1 Oct. 1995 First Beta of the Navigator release added several HTML 3 elements, Frames and the ability to handle Java.

I'm not up on my copyright law, but this has to make one question validity. I can't imagine it holding up in court...

PriorArt

[stevenp]

>> SBC Communication's claim of ownership for a common Web site formatting tool is based on a pair of patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,933,841, having a grant date of August 1999, and U.S. Patent No. 6,442,574, which issued three years later in 2002. Both patents cover a "structured document browser" having an invention date at least as early as May 1996, which is the filing date for both the original application that matured into the '841 patent and the continuation application that resulted in the '574 patent.

In related news:
>> February 1996
>> Netscape Releases Netscape Navigator 2.0
>> Netscape Communications recently released Netscape Navigator 2.0, a major new version of its popular client software for the Internet. This official release version runs under Macintosh, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows NT, and X Window System operating environments.

The Netscape Navigator 2.0 which allows the use of frames is released 3 months before the SBC-s applications are filed. The filing for the patent happens even 3 years later.
What are they thinking???

Blame SBC's Whitacre...

[havaloc]

Read this article, and see if you still respect SBC (if you still did). Selected highlights...

• 2 1/2-hour meeting, he chided the commissioners for forcing him to rent his phone network to competitors at cut-rate prices. Their actions were ruining SBC's profits and diminishing its ability to compete, he said. In his trademark unhurried Texas cadence--and with his trademark directness--Whitacre explained that their actions would come back to haunt them. Keep the rates low, he warned testily, and SBC would be forced to start firing its Michigan employees. Within several quarters, the telco might even be bankrupt.
• one-man crusade to repeal federal rules that require SBC to resell its network at deep discounts. He decried the regulations in speeches to investors and trade groups. He sat with federal policymakers, members of Congress, and newspaper editorial boards. In each meeting he trotted out the same stats: SBC was losing over 12,000 customers a day, revenue had dropped more than $1 billion in the first half of 2002, and the company was cutting jobs--20,000 of them in 2002.
• "The FCC ruling sends a terrible message to businesses across every sector. It simply isn't fair," he says. "But they'll say I'm whining."

Re:then again...

[Wakkow]

Has anyone actually LOOKED at the site that got the letter from SBC? They don't use frames.. The term "frames" according to SBC means more than you might think.. Here's a quote:

The letter suggests that any website which has static, linked information (top banners, menus, bottom banners) which are displayed while other sections of the page are displayed as non-static (the area where products appear on most websites) infringes upon the patents they hold.

Doesn't that pretty much cover ALL websites?

Re:Heh

[ChemicalSpider]

"Who uses frames anyways? They are SO three generations ago."

What seems to be a trend is that these companies file for a patent (in this case back in 1996) that aren't granted until after the technology has already propogated across the internet (2002). Then when these companies try to enforce their patents everybody's already using the technology as a standard - or even past standard.

Perhaps if the patents were granted faster then whoever controls the rights can also control the proliferation of those technologies. That way when they finally get permission to enforce their patent it's not already spread around the world - giving the public the idea that these big business types are picking on the little guys.

Or perhaps this is just my poor understanding of the patent system. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm switching my local service to ATT

[leighklotz]

This takes the cake. I'm not motivated by cost of telco services (as I used to tell the people trying to get me to switch long distance carriers), but I am motived by outrageous corporate behavior. I'm calling ATT right now to switch to their local calling service. Here is the link: ATT Local and here is a search for press releases that shows you get to keep your phone number (though it does say in most cases).

ATT may not be perfect either, but at least they're not trying to patent part of my life.

Hint Hint

[recursiv]

Look at the web page. The slashdot writeup is wrong. They're not using frames. What SBC objects to is their use of static header info at the top of every page. (pretty much every web page)

Prior art ?

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

Netscape 2.0 enabled framesets and was introduced March 1996.
It was added to HTML 4 at least as early as Dec. 1997.
A note on frames with CSS dated 08-Jun-1996 exists also.
The article mentions having an invention date at least as early as May 1996
Even the patent is completely silly, but the dates are wrong, March happend before May in the year 1996, didn't it ?