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.
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
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.
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.
Robert X. Cringely, the PBS Tech columnist, has already refuted this patent. See his article: "We've been framed."
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.
- 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
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.
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...
...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???
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
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...
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.
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.
God will roast their stomachs in hell...
.sigs are for post^Hers.
> 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."
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!
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 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;
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"?
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.
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
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 ---
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!
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.
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