Slashdot Mirror
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."
Web sites don't use frames. Web browsers use frames. Web site author doesn't know how it will be renderred.
will any big entities threatened by these astonishingly silly actions join together to get this permanently invalidated?
Who uses frames anyways? They are SO three generations ago.
Current web admins use CSS and positioning.
Previous web admins (well, me, and I think slashdot and sourceforge and such) use tables.
Frames are (or at least should be) extinct.
IANAL of course but wouldn't it seem that these suits against small websites should be thrown out because they didn't create the technology, they simply used it, under the presumption that it was safe since it was released by Netscape for free.
SBC should sue AOL Time Warner as the current owners of Netscape, there is no way that anyone else should be liable for using a technology that was released to them.
Stupid patents.
The Anti-Blog
Isn't frames actually part of the HTML specification? If so, then it would seem like they should try to have the HTML specifications modified to remove frames. I don't see how a concept based on what can be done with HTML can be covered under copywrite law!
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
...is the end of frames on the web a bad thing?
That means that site will have the choice between:
1) Give money to SBC
2) Get sued
3) Stop using frames
Guess which one's simpler (hint, 3)? I don't think they'll make a dime out of it because unlike gif (at least at some point) or hyperlinks, it's not an essential technology for the web.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Refuting the SBC patent claims in an article is one thing. Refuting the claims in a court of law is quite another. This is going to cost small sites like museumtour.com real money to fight. If they capitulate and pay the damn licensing fee to SBC then precedent will be set and it will cost that much more for the next round of victims. And so on, and so on...
The game SBC is playing creates a pretty pernicious circle that works to the benefit of those with deep pockets. The best we can hope for is that at some point the whole cycle gets absurd enough that lawmakers take notice and finally fix the situation once a for all.
as in the tag that most people are referring to. The patent in question is about more than 1 web-page using a "static" menu which makes it look like part of the web-page does not change. That part of the page is called a "Frame." Also, this article is rather old...check this.
Also, to the person that said that the browser is the thing that uses frames, what a silly statement. Clearly you didn't read the patent either, and the comment should be modded down. Again, the patent is on using static content (such as a menu) which remains through a series of pages (more than 1) where by simulating what one would call a Frame. <frame> is just an easier way to do this, which is why it was created and used.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Reading that, it does look like "name" and "target" tags would also be covered.
My only question is this: what separates the "user interface" from the "document" portions of the browser?
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
If they capitulate and pay the damn licensing fee to SBC then precedent will be set and it will cost that much more for the next round of victims.
museumtour.com cannot set a legal precedent- only a judge can do that. No matter how many people caved and paid off SBC before going to court, if a judge finds that the patent is invalid, then it is invalid. Whether or not museumtour.com capitulates has no bearing on the legality of the patent.
> This might be a good excuse to dump frames.
Never let the assholes win. If browsers and web authors dropped frames "because of this patent," then they'll use the same patent to go after tables and explicit positioning and it will be a lot harder to defend against the claims.
I don't know the wording of the SBC patent, but I can guarantee it doesn't say anything at all about the <FRAME> tag. It refers to some unspecified mechanism for formatting text, combining it from different places, etc., and any decent lawyer can stretch it cover pretty much anything you can name.
The only way to stop this crap is to make it hurt when someone (corporation or greedy individual) makes excessive claims.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
What's the date on the patent? Seems to me OpenDoc was doing something pretty much like HTML frames by the early 90's.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Not if you only used it locally, as part of the claim is via a network. If you can document that you used it to navigate an NFS mounted share, however, then absolutely.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
When you can do that thing, you know, where the top part of the spreadsheet doesn't change, and the bottom part does?
That's something they could tell Microsoft to cease and desist.
I was struck by the last link in the Cringely article others have mentioned ( We've Been Framed! ): 1968 NLS demo, which has realplayer clips of this 90 minute demo of the NLS system.
NLS allowed you to create documents which linked to other documents or content, create heirarchical document structures which could expand or collapse, and even was designed to interface with ARPAnet -- the demo shows a program designed to show a list of networks, what services were available on each, their various protocals, etc...
Viewing this really makes clear the debt we owe to our predecessors. So many "innovations" today are simply inevitable considering the work done by our predecessors -- somtimes more than one generation removed!
Does it make any sence to reward or even allow overly-broad patents, especially where there is no concrete implementation or prototype? It would seem that a criteria for gaining a patent should be some repayment of the debt owed to our predecessors -- some tangible contribution back to humanity for the next generation of innovation. Otherwise, you simply encourage people to file patents on things that will be inevitably produced or invented by someone else -- you do *no* work, then collect.
I recall reading about a geneticist who had done some remarkable research, made a name for himself, etc, but no one could replicate his work. It later came out that he merely faked his results, as it was clear to him that someone else would make the break-throughs eventually, and substantiate his work. Not too dissimilar to the patent situation, IMHO.
So, I'd like to see a requirement for patents which mandates a workable prototype or some concrecte research which can eventually be given back to humanity to repay our debt to our predecessors.
All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. - Johann Sebastian Bach
Are you saying (in your sig) that all integers should really be handled as floats (or doubles)? There is a reason they are not, you know?
For the unitiated
float x = 1/2;
x will be 0.0, because 1 and 2 are both integers, therefore 1/2 is an integer division and its results is the integer 0, which is then converted into a float.
If you really wanted a float division you should write
float x = 1.0/2;
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Windows EXPLORER use something like this for Navigation? If that is the case, either M$ can claim prior art or they are liable to be paying $5 million to $BC in licensing fees.
I encourage $BC to go after M$. Lets see who can afford better LAWYERS.
I am not sure who to root for here...
To everyone on Slashdot, remember: you have a choice in cellular providers, long distance services, and ISPs. You may not have a choice in land-line phones, but you can make them beg for every penny they get from you. Do not use SBC long distance. Do not use SBC DSL. Do not use CellularOne in areas where it is run in conjunction with SBC. Do not use Cingular Wireless.
SBC is truly an evil company, far more so than even Microsoft. They're a baby bell who longs for the days when they had a complete monopoly over telephone services across the country, and as a result, they have repeatedly abused their limited monopoly power over the citizens of California (and probably other states) and repeatedly tried to gain even more power through legislation that would keep them from having to lease shared access to their lines to other companies (for DSL service, etc.). Now in yet another act of petulance, SBC is suing companies for using web standards rather than suing the bodies that made those standards and the companies that implement them.
Worse yet, their patent is at best loosely tied to the concept of frames, and any reasonable person would laugh at them for this. However, because many of these companies are smaller companies that can't afford to defend themselves, SBC is able to use these fraudulent legal strongarm tactics to extort money from them.
My friends and colleagues, it's time to draw a line in the sand, to say we will go this far and no further. Everyone who is being sued MUST fight this. It is your civic duty; your national honor is at stake. You must organize and work together to form a united front in the legal defense of every case, and make certain every case goes to trial or is dropped outright. Do not settle. Do not pay one penny in patent royalties.
While you fight---and win---the cases against SBC, you should also file individual countersuits for harassment against them in your LOCAL court system to force them to send their lawyers to YOU. Your goal should be to literally drag SBC into legal fee Hell.
The only way to deal with a company that attempts to make fraudulent use of patents is to make them pay for their abuse of our legal system, and if necessary to end their attempts at extortion, to literally sue them into oblivion. And yes, I will contribute to a legal defense fund if you set one up, so long as it is with the clear intent to counter sue the living crap out of SBC.
The usual IANAL caveats apply, as though it were not obvious.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
I didsagree with 'Frames suck' comments. In certain cases Frames are very helpfull for people who have slow connections.
/. when you have to scroll back up to get back to the home page or access the navigation. Ultimately this is a question of personal preferences of course...but saying that frammes are ALL bad is not correct.
Example: You have a flash navigation that loads like 30k for the whole site in the top navigation frame and every other links from that navigation gord to a bottom frame. Users can navigate and go from page to page with and keep the top main navigation loaded all the time.
Kinda like if you take the Apple.com site and make the top navigation appear in one frame.
that way when you scroll long pages, the navigation is always available, this is a good way to use frames so you don t have to scroll back up to go somewhere else.
Same thing here on
Here is a link to support my argument.
Something tells me that SBC probably has an Enron, Qwest, or Worldcom size financial scandal hiding in its books somewhere.
I sure hope these assholes go down, nothing like a little accounting and securities fraud.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
*Ting!* Next please.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
yes, but computer code was written before microsoft was founded - so prior art would render that patent meaningless ;)