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.
I REALLY want to see them go after, say, AOL/Time Warner.. :)
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
Is it april fools again already?
Download Opera 9 (in the BETA forum)
I didnt violate the patent.... I WAS FRAMED!!
In other news, Microsoft patents the numbers 0 & 1, rendering all computer code their sole property..
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.
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*
Frames are soooo 1997
Nothing from nowhere I'm no one at all
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
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.
Don't use the Troll mod just because you disagree with me.
While I would generally complain about a company wielding its patents in this way, I can't help but think that SBC has nothing but honorable intentions. Their fee schedule clearly shows they don't want anyone to pay and merely want to rid the web of that evil known as "frames." GO SBC!
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
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?
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
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.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
SBC actually stands for Syrian Biologicalweapons Command, a terrorist organization. They also have plotted to kill Ashcroft's dad, made deals to sell their nuclear frames technology to Osama Bin Laden, and are behind recent cat disappearances in Des Moines. Boy, I'm sure glad the Patriot Act is in effect. I bet in a few hours those guys will fall off the map forever without a trial.
Frames suck. Especially since your page usually gets fucked up when indexed by search engines -- the engine will normally see your main page and link to it outside of the frame, requiring some pain and suffering to detect and undo.
Frames are also one of those things that has been ruined by idiots using a poor implementation. So many people use bad frames that, for example, render with a scroll bar or something else annoying.
And nobody uses them these days -- I see a site using frames and think, "Six years ago".
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Generally, I find frames to be abhorrent, so I'm wouldn't be concerned, except that Eclipse uses frames.
Hopefully, this will cause the eclipse folks to re-think this piece of "architecture".
This is, of course, discounting the point that others have raised that browsers use frames. Web servers just serve up code that is not rendered in any particular format until a browser hits it.
Robert X. Cringely, the PBS Tech columnist, has already refuted this patent. See his article: "We've been framed."
These idiots recently "moved into" my town...They've been aggressively telemarketing, I think we got at least 5 or 6 calls in total and told them we weren't interested at least once. I can't be completely sure, but I think they also switched to identifying on caller ID as 000-0000, which is now illegal in Michigan as per our lovely new "Super-DMCA". Just a moronic company all over...
-insert a witty something-
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
...as tables were designed intended for tabular data, the W3C would prefer to see people use CSS.
I see frames used all the time for navigation and other things that need to be referenced from an outside file. Why not go with php includes? They make my website much more dynamic and easier to navigate. I actually wonder why includes aren't part of html since the actual include could easily be done on the client side. Anyway, frames are so 90's.
We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
Hold up, wait... this might just be a blessing is disguise. No more frames.. w00t! And such a good reason.
- SBC filed for the patent in May of 1996.
- Netscape 2.0 was released in March of 1996.
Sounds like more Rambus gouging goodness.Hamster
In such a short comment, you've come with an astonishly and surprisingly easy arguement against such a court action.
It brings about the arguement: Where do HTML elements come from. Is a frame a component of
a) A website
b) A browser
c) The HTML standard
In reality, I think that (b) is the best answer- [since not all browsers do frames - , and (c) is a close second.
I mean, really, if you look at it. The website simply throws out a bunch of codewords to a client. The codewords are written in HTML format. The HTML format is interpreted by the browser.
So, really, one could argue that <frame> in its simplest form is simply a word. It's no different than <blah> or <sparkle> , except that it is part of standard HTML, and is interpreted by the browser in such a way that it renders a page differently. One could also point out that such things exist in many programming languages, notable Visual Basic, and have elements or dividers very similar to frames.
Want to get bitchy about it... take a laptop to court with a copy of anything as early as Win31, maybe DOSSHELL... oops... looks like we've got a framed navigator type there.
- 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
those sons of bitches blocked all "dynamic" ip blocks. That means that my lusers can't send email to AOL users. Normally I wouldn't care, but a single user noticed and is complaining.
My ip has been static for 6 months, and a static ip through BelllSouth that I also control. I checked, but they have no whitelist or way to authenticate legitimate servers.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
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.
The second web site I wrote used this amazing technology. I wrote it in 1995.
I don't see finding prior art on this one to be that great of a problem. The patent was applied for in May of 96. Netscape 2.0 went beta in October of 1995. Every introductory tutorial on frames used this application as the primary example.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
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!
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.
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.
Your pink slip is on your desk, you will see it tomorrow morning.
SBC the company that even the devil couldn't love. Oh wait that's Verizon (BellSouth & GTE I think, god GTE sucked).
...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...
Frames suck dead worms with a straw, anyways... they make for very poor website design i would be more concerned about Adobe... and their 'thumbnails' navigation feature on PDFs. the wording on the patent could clearly be applied to that
*shower*
Hehe, given both of those companies bank accounts one'll probably just buy SBC and ruin the other.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Anybody here who is an SBC customer should seriously consider sending them something like what I just sent to them:
This is a complaint.
How can SBC consider itself in the right in this matter?
Your actions may lose you a customer due to clear bad-faith actions by your legal department. Please cease this madness immediately!
http://www2.museumtour.com/sbc.html
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Has anyone read this article? There doesn't really seem to be any NEW information regarding SBC and their "frames" patent. It just sorta went on about "who's a patent dickhead now".
On the plus side, I was gratified to read that British telecom was told to go stuff it when they attempted to sue Prodigy over "linking". Let's hope ALL these "patent" holders are so told.
blue
...columnist Dave Barry has sued Robert Cringely for the unauthorized use of the sentence "I am not making this up" immediately following a statement whose content is patently unbelievable but is, in fact, true.
~Philly
>> 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???
...what Amazon , Google, & Ebay will say? Surely they have all patented this too at some point or another. I am still waiting on someone to patent the "displaying content on a website so as to disseminate information."
----- "It's all fun and games 'til somebody puts an eye out, then it's just funny."
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
SBC stockholders need to make noise about this. I own stock (great dividends) but am not really sure what to do...
I had a sucky sig.
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. The claimed browser includes a constant user interface for displaying and viewing sections of a document that is organized with embedded codes specifying the structure of the document. The tags are mapped to a set of icons which, when selected, will result in the browser displaying a section of the document structure corresponding to the selected icon, while preserving the user interface.
Didn't just about every Windows 3.x and Macintosh OS 6.x application with a settings/preferences/options window do just this? In, say, 1989?
Maybe someone, somewhere remembers Hypercard? This guy does.
Didn't ProComm Plus for Windows 3.1 have a BBS list with the features described above?
You could do the same thing in NextStep, especially in their network browser. See Dummies guide to NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP or NeXTstation - Timeline & Specifications.
Someone at MuseumTour.com should jump on the prior-art side of this argument...
-Don
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
I am going to patent stuctured programming. Then when I get the funding, hit Microsoft with a lawsuit. It may not hold up in court, but perhaps it will get people thinking.
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...
Kim Jong-il: Ooh! Ooh! We use frames! We use frames! Look at us, damnit! We've got tons of pages with frames!
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
If I look at a site with code for FRAMES with a browser that does not support them, I do not see the frames. It takes a combination of the various BROWSERS and the HTML CODE from the site to make this so-called infringing applicaiton show up.
Maybe they should sue Microsoft forenableing the infringement by having MSIE support frames.
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.
Just wait 'til my patent on taxation comes through! (Seeing how prior-art doesn't count for squat these days)
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Because they're only targeting web browsers. For now. Once they've established a solid base of precident, I'm sure they'll be expanding the scope of their attacks. Web browsers are just an easy target, because they're "new" and "digital". Which means that many judges and lawyers don't really understand the material involved, and can easily be bowled over by bad analogies and dubious arguments. We've seen the same thing countless times in the past, most prominently with the DMCA. Why should we expect this to be any different?
God will roast their stomachs in hell...
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Upon approval of a patent, the patent holder must provide a bond of ($1 million, $10 million??) which will be turned over to the first person who can provide prior art not disclosed in the patent.
The patent office obviously can't weed out the bogus patents (or maybe they just have no incentive to). But the folks underwriting their bonds will spend considerable effort checking out a patent before they put their money on the line.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Every site on the planet that is harrassed by SBC should replace the frames with a small announcement declaring that this site would be totally bitchen cool, if not for the blatant blackmail tactics of SBC. Second hand patents should be torn up. Companies should not be able to aquire them like baseball cards. If you do business with SBC, switch! Tell your friends, tell your family. SBC SUCKS!
Good thing Google doesn't like to index the one frame-based site I have. Keep it tight, GOOGLE!
Those sidebars that don't change when you navigate from page to page are basically just server-side includes. I believe that was around even before Netscape 2 and frames.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
> 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
Frames were the all the craze, about five years ago. Nobody in their right mind uses them anymore. You use tables and css for nice sidebars etc.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
"Lynx renders frames just fine without violating the patent. It asks you which frame you want to see (you can only see one at a time). "
Irrelevant. The author makes the pages with a goal in mind. He has the ability to test them. He's responsible for his content. You can't sue Mozilla because kiddie porn showed up on somebody's browser.
"Derp de derp."
are considering a relay server up for specific domains. Email me if you're interested in helping out; no spammers please. My other option is to excommunicate AOL in return.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
...or did the rest of you that actually read the patents notice that they spend much more time talking about the browser itself than the navigation issues. The navigation stuff is actually mentioned in the document, but the majority of it is simply describing "browser.exe" and how it works in displaying this information...as in they appear to almost patent the way it is displayed on screen, but not the actual use of navigational elements. Also, from the rather vague wording they are using in the letter (also in the patents link above) it seems that just having your navigational links visually seperated from the main body of the site (ie. FRAMES or not) is still something they are going after. Maybe it's just me reading it wrong (which is entirely possible) but it just seems like this lawsuit simply isn't going to stand up in court and neither will any other ones if they are of the same nature. (Just my 10 cents.)
-Adam
Animated GIFs are already covered by the infamous Unisys LZW patent, which fortunately expires in a couple of months.
Okay, there are about a zillion reasons why this cant fly.. I remember using "frames" in lots of DOS programs, and the pioneering Community Memory project in Berkeley, and the early hypertext terminals on BART in the early 80s. Prior Art bigtime.. But the real killer argument is that by not trying to defend 'their patent' when frames first arrived on the scene (1995) they have essentially given up on it.. The patent is obviously crap, but their not defending for over eight years makes it even more crap. Hell they even ADVERTISED on framed web sites WITHOUT SUING.
I agree with you about guns, they don't kill people. But websites don't render frames either, browsers do.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Using Strus/Tiles also allows you to keep navigation/header/footer separate from your content. It also allows you to change the whole layout and/or look of your site just by changing one page. I guess the downside would be that your host needs to support JSP.
Remeber those old SSI D&D video games? Those apply, because you had a static party menu on the left side with the action in the center.
if you wait until what you have patented has filled the market place then you have lost the right to that patent.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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."
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/
So this only good news, since frames are generally bad web design... they are doing themselves and all of us a favor if they succeed in driving people away from using frames.... but it's hard to believe they will be able to do so.
And like a strong military deters foreign aggression, just having large quantities of military grade arms in private hands tends to deter governments such that the odds of actually needing a revolution is lowered.
Or it contributes to a massive festering war
Finally, we can get rid of all those sites that use frames in such non-intuitive ways.
. . . from the article, it sounds like a standard MDI interface in Windows. You know, where you have menus at the top, and a scroll-able document below? Nothing new, nothing original.
Maybe websites will stop using frames now. Then I would be able to use dillo all the time.
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
...and my website
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
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!
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.
I think you're confusing patents and trademarks. Trademarks MUST be defended vigorously or they can be invalidated or lost-- which is why Google pissed us all off by cease-and-desisting WordSpy for using "google" as a verb. I doubt they really wanted to do that, but because of the way the system works, they had to. To do nothing would have been to risk their trademark (and by extension, their brand).
Patents are a different breed of cat... you can sit back for years and let people infringe on your patents, then spring the legal trap on them and take them for everything they've got-- and they have nobody to blame but themselves, for not doing sufficient due-diligence to make sure there were no pre-existing patents for their product/service/whatever.
Unfortunately, the Patent Office is so fucked up nowadays that they'll award a patent for the most obvious or stupid things, to practically anyone who has the money and the will to go through the patent process.
~Philly
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.
If you look at the pricing structure that SBC is suggesting, it's clear what they want:
If your company makes $100k they want $527.
That's 0.5%. Imagine if you could have 0.5% of all online revenue...
put the what in the where?
SUCK
You'd be right if SBC was a member of W3C and worked on the technical committee. This was true before the W3C request for comment on intellectual property last year -- before they were operating under the ANSI rules of incorporating intellectual property into Standards.
Here we have a company, though, who did not protect its intellectual property. SBC cannot claim harm, because they offer Internet Services for sale (I was an early customer before firing them) and so were aware of customary practice and the standardization of that practice by a Standards-setting body.
In short, they are complaining too late in the process. Was their delay just stupidity, or was there something more to it? Or is SBC hurting so much that they need to go after every dime they can?
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
Let's boycott them both.
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;
Can we let them fight one of my pet peeves but san no to the rest? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
> You can't sue Mozilla because kiddie porn showed up on somebody's browser.
You can if the image was in a format you own the pattent on, and mozilla didn't licence it from you.
Look at the gif pattent issue. They wernt going after people WITH gif images, they were going after people that made software to create gif images when they did not licence the compression formula from them.
In America, I wouldn't be so sure.
However, there are many cases where the person using the browser has been successfully prosecuted for bringing up kiddie porn on it.
Whenever I see the phrase `kiddie porn' I'm inclined to ask, `And what sort of porn would kiddies be looking for? Jack Stone does Barbie?'
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...honey? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I don't run my website anymore, but when I did I had framed navigation by default, and the option of not using frames. Just give the user two options: 1. pay royalties to these people and continue with frames. or 2. no frames. :)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
...lock azaleas like these up for blackmail?
It's obvious that the patent isn't worth a pinch of duck poo, and standover tactics like theirs are illegal in many places and many ways, why should their particular form of blackmail be exempt?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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...
Seattle's best coffe? What the...
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
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.
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.
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)
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
Those paragraphs describe the problem being solved: existing browsers are not adequate for long documents. The solution:
And here is a more detailed description of the invention:
it says "in the user interface of the browser and not in the document" -- frames, as well as templated links (static content at top, left, bottom, right, or in the damn middle) are in the document, not the browser. the entire page, including frames, is the document. the user interface has stuff like the status bar, favorites, link bar, and the evil animation thingie ... but not the frames, nor the templated content! that's the document, and therefore out of the reach of the patent.
Playing around on the wayback machine shows that their own law firm was once using something very similar to what this patent describes..
From the current law firm site (linked in the article):
MuseumTour.com's web site "has links on the left side that go to other web pages within the site but does not lose the left side navigation links."
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
When I saw "frames patent," I immediately thought "Layer 2 PDUs." Now that patent would be a cash cow...
If I remember correctly, Europe Online had frames on its site as early as January 1996, at least. Wouldn't that be prior art?
Note for the nitpicky: No, they no longer seem to use frames nowadays. Frames were neat in 1996, but are somewhat passé nowadays...
Do not use SBC long distance. Do not use SBC DSL.
SBC recently swallowed SNET, the dominant phone company in Connecticut (and a pretty pathetic outfit itself). I haven't been living on my own for very long and always used a cellphone, but when I became ill for a prolonged period I decided I needed to be able to check email from home. So I had to activate my land line. I pay $16/month for ATT dial-up; DSL is only $26/month. I'd been feeling very stupid about this until I read this article. I don't usually make this kind of informed consumer decision (other than refusing to fill my tank at Unocal or Shell), but in this case I'm definitely not giving them any more of my money than necessary.
Right. "Your honor, when he wrote this text the defendant was thinking thoughts that violate my client's patent."
Judge: "The scoundrel! You get all his money. Next case.
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.
One part stays still while another part dynamically moves? Damn! They patented tits + bra! Wait til the judge sees that "prior art".
Table-ized A.I.
Someone grab the Department of Homeland Defense. If they want cyber-terrorists, here they are.
-Zeecog
Wtf happened here?
This is truly scary in which no other phone company has this power. In 20 years they may be the next bell labs and everyone else may be out of bussiness.
THe problem is our government will only contract with these bells.
They and not the bells actually own the lines!
SBC claims its their lines and dam right we are not going to use them unless our market is deregulated! SBC also claims the clecs stop whining and if they want to play ball with us then they can lay their own dam lines! Its our playfield and they will pay us doubly what we charge our customers if they want to play with us. Guess what? SBC will sue if they do. Only they have the legal right and any smaller isp laying cable will have SBC automatically seize it at their expense thanks to lobbiest made legislation written by the old bells labs. This needs to change.
They want to be deregulated then fine! Take away their lines and have the government rightfully claim them and then compete with everyone else. Oh that will cost us our monopoly bawhahwawa.
I hate them.
How would you like it if our water or sewer companies did this and capped your water usage and charged you hundreds a month! If you don't like it go use an outhouse! If the CEO of SBC owned these companies you can bet this would happen.
They are public works and not for profit bussinesses. Meanwhile the japanese laugh at use since everyone there has 100mbs ethernet and fiber lines to there homes for $25 a month. Its true! Why don't we have this? Its because moma bells want to limit supply to increase demand for there bussiness customers paying for t1's.
http://saveie6.com/
The help menu's on Microsoft applications as well as the OS have a "frame" look to them. Prior art?
From the start button on Win95, click:
Start -> Help
On the help window, select the tab labeled "Index".
This looks like a "frame" to me.
Did the help windows display similar behavior in win 3.1?
Time for a little poetic justice?
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
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 ?
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.
*Ting!* Next please.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
You know those adverts you get on Sky One et al, for law firms offering to help you sue anyone and everyone for big compensation payouts?
..... imagine some sweaty scuzzball with one eye on your wallet ..... maybe a few shots of idiots doing stupid things, and big stacks of pound notes ..... you know the kind of advert I'm talking about.
How about this
Question. What's better than getting money when you hurt yourself?
Answer. Getting money when other people hurt themselves!
If you've been injured in an accident that wasn't your fault - or even if it was your fault - just call Dewey, Cheetham and Howe solicitors. Not only can we arrange a substantial compensation package, we can even patent your injury on your behalf. Then the next time anyone else suffers the same kind of injury, you could be eligible for a handsome royalty fee!
Dewey, Cheetham and Howe solicitors - don't just blame - claim!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The WOJA or We Ownz JOO Association has issued a patent on independant thought. The large stick that has just been removed from Hilary Rosen's ass has issued a statement expressing his dissapproval that people be allowed to think things that have not been approved by the advertising execs of major companies. He was quoted as saying " Us poor hardworking multinational conglomerates have spent billions of dollars to tell evil normal people what to think, and if they don't comply, we have lost billions of dollars!!!!!" A spokesman for the justice department release a related comment today from the deck of his new 80 foot yacht. Thoughts of corporations or their products must be aligned with the current advertising campaign. Original thought of family, friends or creative musings must be licensed on a thought per thought basis. Offenders will be lobotomized, which will also be charged on a case by case basis. That will be all. Oh, and one more thing, we have also patented the phrase " All your (insert word here) are belong to us!", violators will be shot. Survivors will be fed to rabid wolverines.
Oh, and one other thingAll those getting in SBC's face for trying to enforce this patent need to change your priorities. SPC has received a government patent on this, so they're entitled to attempt enforcement. The problem here is not the corporation screwing over the internet, it's a broken government office that doesn't research prior art in software. This has been an ongoing problem - patent office grants rediculously broad patent on a software "innovation" without bothering to even check if the applied for technology already exists.
Combine these bogus patent approvals with our draconian approaches to copyright law and we're sliding down that slippery slope that much faster. Pretty soon you'll be paying your employer a "usage" fee for office space and the government will be taxing the air we breath. The fact that companies can patent human genes should have set of alarm bells throughout the nation. Companies are preparing to buy our very existance in the name of profits and our government is letting it happen.
...and while I can say, with out reservation, that I hate spam and pop-ups (and especially pop-under), the bad feeling about frames is not in that class.
But I do dislike frames. They are annoying and they tend to hide URL's. I think that web pages can be better designed without them.
I hope that SBC will charge royalies of say, $10 a frame per view and it sticks!
What is more likely, that people will pay a bunch of royalties to SBC and keep using frames, or just redesign their pages without them?
I know there is the issue of back-monies that SBC thinks they would be entitled to, but I think they would have to give reasonable time to either pay up or quit using their patented whiz-bang technology. I think we can live without frames, if that is really what SBC wants.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
One of the key steps in the patent is the following: "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" This and all of the others list an unchanging interface linking to portions of a document. They have nothing to do with using an unchanging interface to link to multiple document_s_. Maybe therein lies a loophole?
If this won't kill frames, nothing will.
Seriously people. We have a wonderful XHTML language and a robust CSS model. There is absolutely no reason to use frames on a website, other than pure laziness.
Maybe it is just from the expectance of victory, but this is the most outrageous thing I have heard about concerning the internet, especially concerning patented material.
I have always judged the online boycott letters, and the mix a very wasteful piece of time, but this is serious. They want to own the internet, and every piece of software, on a concept which they didn't create.
They will eventually if they succeeded (which they will hopefully not), force every single user to pay a huge copyright, which will in effect kill the internet.
I have never hated a company more.
The audacity that they show is amazing, and every judge that will take the countless appeals this will inevitably take better have all of their facts straight.
I will never use an SBC product, or service.
http://use.perl.org
The website that they targeted does not use frames. They use tables, which consitute as frames in the minds of SBC considering tables are now used in the same manner.
SBC is suing every web page in existance not conspired of plain text, single page view.
http://use.perl.org
Look at the website that SBC is targeting. They use tables.
That is what SBC is charging for. The use of tables!
Slashdot, and every other website in existance is in direct grevience of their complaint!
http://use.perl.org
So, no I think lynx does not violate the patent
Eat at Joe's.
SBC Patents Letters S, B and C.
mdrTao to pot new weite here:
http://lahdot.org/
New for Nerd. tuff that matter.
ill Gate of Mirooft announe plan to patent letter M.
I am sure that whoever added frames to the HTML standard, had the use described in the patent in mind when they did so. It might be good to look into finding the original documentation for the frames feature when it came out and see if there is a how-to example that violates this patent.
Eat at Joe's.
I think it is legal. Just like the amazon.com cookie patent, they took a feature of HTML and it's standard use and patented it. I am waiting for the day when people will look at other programming languages and decide to patent the most common uses of keywords. Like patenting the use of the while keyword in C/Perl/Whatever to make the flow of the program loop, or something just as wierd.
Eat at Joe's.
I think you could sue them if they made a tag. They do make and tags.
Coding Blog
There should also be an 'Open Source' way to patent things that is free, or really cheap so that you can patent something just so that nobody else can, but have a guarantee that the patent will never be enforced against anyone. Prior art is kinda like this, but it takes a year. So if you make something and don't patent it, anyone can patent it for a year.
Eat at Joe's.
"To everyone on Slashdot, remember: you have a choice in cellular providers, long distance services, and ISPs."
Not me. Where I live, I have only one viable ISP.
Moving isn't an option.
...is a three ring binder with multiple colored plastic tabs sticking out from the side. That's what we used for science reports in high school.
I had always assumed that was Amazon's inspiration for their navigation, which pretty much everyone has copied by now. (They might not have started the fad, but they're the first big site I remember doing it)
Here's hoping they don't win. Kudos to MuseumTour.com for speaking out instead of caving.
The patent seems to be for a browser, not for a document or for any specific tag or set of tags in a document.
If browser developers all decide tomorrow that the <img> tag needs to be changed and they change the browser to render it like the <p> tag, all of our images turn to text. The browser is what does the rendering, not the document.
From my limited knowledge of legalese, this patent looks like it pertains to the way that a browser renders and interprets the contents of a document and has nothing to do with the document itself. Perhaps MuseumTour needs to post a disclaimer on their page that their pages should not be viewed in what we have come to know as a "web browser" because it renders their code incorrectly.
WARNING: This post should only be viewed with non-html compliant browser software. Failure to do so will render it in a manner that is in violation of patent...blah blah blah.
Medio Magazine, published on CDROM from 1993 to 1995 by Medio Multimedia, and many other CDROM based titles had a "frames-based" interface which pre-dated the earliest possible date of conception for the SBC patents.
bob wyman
Creator, Editor, Medio Magazine
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
Same thing here. My cable provider sucks and doesn't provide Internet, Modem is not an option and the dish... well let's say I have no choice...
That is weird for a country that have such strong anti-trust laws to enforce local monopolies like that...
Life sucks
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Don't forget Windows HTML Help (CHM files; try the PHP CHM-format manual). I guess they'll have to sue Microsoft too.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Everyone- Get out your biggest wire cutters and head for the phone lines, cut SBC's cables and leave scary notes about the repercussions of good companies doing bad thigs like sueing small companies for doing nothing (with citations of course).
You Won't ever get enough people to boycott them so make it hurt yourself!
Opps, forgot to post anonymously.
Who is this "Poster" guy and why does he own all of my comments?!?
I much prefer DeCSS.
Oh, wait...
Who would want to patent such crap? The only reason I would patent frames, is to keep people from using the nasty things. Can you tell I hate frames?
SBC swallowed Ameritech as well. They control Michigan and Ohio now. dunno what other states Ameritech had under it's thumb.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.