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

Browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

Web sites don't use frames. Web browsers use frames. Web site author doesn't know how it will be renderred.

Re:Browsers

[tomhudson]

quote from the patent:

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;

Sounds more like bookmarks or menus (displaying in the user interface of the browser and not the document) than frames. Methinks their patent is too broad to stand up. After all, software has been using bookmarks in the UI for decades. Think of outline editors, for example, or windowing interfaces.

Re:Browsers

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Web sites don't use frames. Web browsers use frames. Web site author doesn't know how it will be renderred."

This sounds 'informative' util you think about it. The author is intentionally implementing the feature in question. He knows very well what he's doing to the browser because he's intending for that to happen. You don't just use frame code and cross your fingers that it'll do what you have in mind.

This patent is silly, but this reasoning isn't helping.

Re:Is this legal?

[mkldev]

Unfortunately, submarine patents are perfectly legal. What's illegal about this is that the patent blatantly doesn't cover what they claim it covers.

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.