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.
I didnt violate the patent.... I WAS FRAMED!!
Robert X. Cringely, the PBS Tech columnist, has already refuted this patent. See his article: "We've been framed."
Actually, seeing as Navigator 2.0 was released in February, 1996, and the patents have invention dates of May, 1996 at the earliest, Netscape seems to be prior art.
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
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 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.
...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???
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.
Doesn't that pretty much cover ALL websites?
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/