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."
Tables nearly always work better than frames.
Netscape Navigator 2.0 first implimented frames as we know them today. If Netscape infringed on SBC's patent when they "came up" with the idea for frames, then shouldn't they be the ones held responsible here?
Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
--Ronald Reagan
HTML has, but doesn't need, three completely different mechanisms for dividing a page into nested rectangles. This might be a good excuse to dump frames.
I work for SBC, and I have to say that with this, I'm kinda ashamed of that fact. *sigh*
they will go after a big guy, settle for a dollar, then use that as 'proof' that there patent is valid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From Museum Tour
"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."
And indeed, Museum Tour is being sued and does not use frames. Thus nearly any site that uses templates is subject to litigation.
I've actually contacted the company mentioned in the article (museumtour) to let them know that I have prior art. Frames were around before that time, and I actually was translating old Hypercard programs into web pages (and maintaining their look and feel) while using frames. They responded that they were evaluating their legal options and I haven't heard from them since.
SBC is really sticking their neck out, and is using their legal slush fund to try and wrangle something they shouldn't have in the first place. At some point our pathetic patent office should really stop being newsworthy...
It also looks like any one of a number of help systems may qualify, including Apple Help and Microsoft Help. I remember the old MSDN CD's which would show a table of contents to the left and the document you selected in a large right-hand pane. There was even a search facility. Sounds a lot like what is being covered by this patent. Prior art out the wazoo.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Face it, the tech community needs to have a prior art in the public interest group which tries to invalidate each and every patent granted based on some pre-existing prior art.
I know there are groups out there doing this now, but there needs to be a much larger effort including a reexamination of many patents issued in the last 5 years.
It's almost like we need a hardcopy journal of IT/tech ideas published with the sole intent of being citable prior art to fend off future patents.
p.s. can we end the dvd-ram / dvd+r whole standards bs thing?
I thought frames weren't part of the browser until 3.0 came out. If I remember correctly, Netscape 2 had the ultra-ugly 'N' that had the "push in, push out" appearance, and the browser didn't support colored backgrounds or frames.
The "throbber" you're thinking of was in Netscape 1.0 and maybe 1.1. It was replaced with the modern (up thru version 4.8) animation at either version 1.1N or 1.1, I don't recall the exact version.
I used version 1.1N, 1.12, and 1.2b for a long time on Solaris, IRIX, and Mac OS. These versions supported colored backgrounds and tables, but not frames. Animation was somewhat supported via server-push (a major kluge).
Netscape 2.0 supported frames as well as plugins and animated GIF files. Livescript ("Javascript"), Java, and VRML were also loosely supported. There was also a "Gold" version which added HTML editing features.
-austin
Ni bhionn an rath achx mar a mbionn an smacht (There is no Luck without Discipline)
Different tools for different jobs. I use 'em in a few places because they're the best solution.
You don't just use frame code and cross your fingers that it'll do what you have in mind.
Ever browsed a website with a browser that does implement frames, and seen a comment such as This site uses frames. Please use a browser that implements frames.
Or gone a website that whisks one to downloading a wanna-be browser from a two bit company that can't stand one bit of competition without at least checking that that browser would run on surfers platform.
Web designers do cross their fingers and hope that nobody notices the difference.
Wind under Thy Wings
Amber
Suppose you did.
Suppose you did not.
Let's say the patent covers a browser that implements frames. You are a web site designer that uses frames. Why should you be held liable? Analogy: If Sears stole a wrench invention and I used bought the infringing wrench and used it to change the spark plugs in my car, why should I be held liable?
Of course, an inventor of the wrench would not go after me, they would go after Sears, the deep pocket. It seems that SBC wants to go after medium depth pockets: i.e., not some guy who created a Sarah Michelle Gellar fan site, but a business that makes money. SBC doesn't want to go after the super deep pockets of Microsoft (the maker of the largest browser by market share) because, in a war of deep pockets, Microsoft would win.
The whole point of the wc3 existance is to prevent this and encourage innovation and a level playing field on the web.
Sbc claims sounds borderline fraudulant.
Its like the equilivant of me pointing at your car, claiming ownership and then demanding you pay me to use it or i will sue. You can not claim something unless you developed it or bought it. No exceptions!
Patents are designed to protect investments of bussinesses who do R&D as well as encourage arts and sciences of individuals. Since no R&D happened at SBC they should of not been granted a patent. If there is no law on this then we need to talk to our representatives on this. Because someone can claim anything they like and if they have big pockets then they legally (steal) it.
SBC also is the assh*le who is corrupting our state governments for deregulation and screwing our tax dollars. The other baby bells are mostly silent. They are being paid for by the government and our tax dollars to install fiber under our streets and they will not turn it on unless the market is deregulated and all competition is wiped out. They are the Microsoft and the RIAA of the telecommunication industry.
They are using our own tax dollars to screw us over and monopolize communication.
http://saveie6.com/
I'm tired of seeing everyone freak out about the cost of lawyers, etc... on Slashdot. First of all, courts base decisions on laws. If you have obeyed the law and someone was harmed most of the time the other party can't do anything. With patents, if someone brings a claim against you, you simply show that their claim is not valid based on the law.
With patents, here's where the hard part is: being able to communicate exactly how a particular patent is obvious or has already been invented. In SBC's case, I think they will have a hard time as the "framed" interface has been around for almost as long as the VT100 terminal.
At the end of the day, most patent actions I've seen fall into this pattern:
* Big Company A sues Little Company B
* Company A's stock jumps 1.0 points because they made news that might involve making money in the future.
* Company A spends a large ammount of money building their case.
* Company B spends relatively little money building theirs.
* Company B wins on summary judgement as the patent is quickly invalidated after the judge rules that the patent in question is either not novel or is not a new invention.
* Company B then threatens company a with a malicious prosecution suit unless they pick up the tab for their lawyer.
* Company A executives, now pissed at their lawyers pay the legal bill for Company B and go home to pray the analysts dont hose their stock in the morning and try to figure out how to hide their misguided suit from their bosses/shareholders.
Having a patent is easy. Having a valid patent that will stand up on it's own is more difficult. My guess is that this one will cost SBC's stock about 1.25 points when they lose.
-- $G
I read the decription on King & Spalding:
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).
SBC might THINK this means frames, but it sounds to me that there are codes in the document that change the user interface of the browser itself. For example, the page you've loaded changes the "back" and "forward" buttons, or adds new ones to the browser.
I'm sorry, but if you simply have a frame with navigation buttons, this is still a document, and not an inherent part of the browser.
The Table of Contents of a book is not a seperate document from the book, even though it is different in appearance. In fact, you can hold your finger there and then browse through the book, using the TOC as a reference. But, the TOC is still a part of the document and is not seperate from it.
What happens if you don't set up the navigation using "frames", but instead just duplicate the navigation section on each page? On a fast enough load, you couldn't tell the difference.
I really hope these people get squished!
Actually, it sounds like this patent description is describing the outline display used in Adobe Acrobat -- you have navigation on the left side that doesn't change (much) as you work your way through the document in the right-hand window.
Now there would be a fight.
This is off topic except for the parent's sig. Please excuse the spelling errors, and the use of paranthethis (I like 'em!)
I like your sig link. It made me think, especially the part about reversing the number of Muslims and Jews. I do not think that it would be an exact opposite, but I do think that the prevalence of democratic vs. dictatorships would reduce the level of violence considerably. Of course these assholes (the dictators/kings/etc) do not want to give up their power. I just can not figure out why the world (well, yes I can considering that several countries were making billions per year off them, ie. Iraq weapons deals) and factions of our country would side with groups that would rather leave Saddam Heusian (sorry about the spelling) in power to kill people within his borders rather than, for once, let the people of Iraq choose their own leaders. (If we, the US, prevent them from choosing an Islam rule, then we are wrong. They should have full choice)
If your sig link is correct, which I will have to check to verify, then I will have to review my stances on the Palestine/Israel debate.
But it seems that the truth, and I mean real truth, never gets to the news. Not the liberal news (I guess CNN), not the conservative news (I guess Rush Limbaugh), not the neutral news (I guess FOX News?- I've heard that they have a conservative slant).
This made me think- how far would the US get if it started terror bombing, say, Mexico or Canada to get territory or sanctions? France bombing Germany? Not real far is my guess, but I also guess that these parodies of nations get away with these same things because (hell if I know), and the UN says "whatever".
What about China, Sudan, South America (back during apartheid), etc. No problem while Mr. Heusian gasses a bunch of ethnic people that he doesn't like (the Kurds).
I know I've rambled all over, but I just wanted to find out why the hell can't people just agree that any kind of popular government is not better than a murdering dictator? Crap, even if they choose another dictator, at least they choose to screw themselves.
I know that the US gov has a bad grade for previous "interventions", and that this "war" was sold on WMDs, but isn't giving Iraq a choice at thier future a good thing? Yes, I agree that if we force thier choice for government is a bad thing.
End of rambling. Thanks for reading. Hope someone may have some sane answers for some of questions.
Good night, and take care!
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Time for a little poetic justice?
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
If the courts have any intelligence whatsoever (and I know this might just be wishful thinking), they'll realize that SBC failed in its responsibilities to protect their own patent. In short, they waited too long to have any enforceable rights under the patents. One of the requirements of owning a patent is that you promptly and vigorously act to protect your rights. If you wait, you lose your patent rights. This is to prevent companies like SBC from waiting until there are lots of high-profile infringers and THEN suing.
The purpose of a patent is so that you can protect your invention from copycats, therefore protecting your revenue stream from YOUR OWN USE of the technology. If you do not even use the technology in your own patent, then your patent is even less enforceable because it shows that your motives behind the patent are to stifle innovation - which directly contradicts the entire purpose of the patent system.
For example - say SBC patents frames, but then they do not use that technology nor do they actively offer the technology for sale. They just somehow work their technology into the standard and then sit on it. They don't tell anybody they own patents on it, and since it's part of the standard, people are given the impression that there are no licenses required. After all, it's an adopted public standard. 10 Years later, they get slapped with a lawsuit for $10M for infringing a patent that they didn't know existed, for using an ancient technology that not only isn't widely used anymore, but is downright UGLY to look at, and they don't have a clue what the hell is going on until after their lawyer settles for $1.5M and a perpetual $100K/yr license to use the obsolete technology.
This is the kind of thing that the patent office needs to form an enforcement body for - to prevent these kinds of things from happening.
Last report I read showed that SBC is losing 2% of their customers every quarter. Thats 8% per year, and the rate may be increasing. Their growth was all coming from wireless, but when they started to lose that battle they merged their wireless company with another one to form Cingular. They spent a bunch of money trying to get into broadband Internet and when it didn't grow as fast as they wanted, they backed away from broadband and don't seem to have a clue what they are doing, so they are not getting the ROI the expected on broadband and don't have the buts or vision to move forward.
....
All in all, their stock price is down about 50% over the last 4 years and they are doing anything they can to scrape up a few dollars. Recently it dawned on them that they had a huge number of patents that they hadn't really looked at so....
Expect them to do this more an more and more. The word I hear from friends at SBC is they have formed and entire business unit dedicated to mining their patent portfolio. And, the person in charges is a hungry young executive trying to add to her reputation.
Of course, I *could* be completely full of
Stonewolf