Software Installation/Update via Internet Patented

RKBA writes "My wife just handed me an article from the Wednesday, October 22, 2003 issue of the Wall Street Journal about a tiny Austin, TX company called Bluecurrent that has been awarded patent No. 6,636,857 covering the Internet installation of any software or settings on new computers. The patent was granted by the USPTO on October 21, 2003. It will be interesting to see if it can be enforced. I think it's time for someone to file a patent on Earth, Fire, and Water. ;-)"

Comments

It Gets Worse

[John_McKee]

According to the WSJ article, They have already found a law firm willing to pursue the claim for a contingency fee.

"Mr. Thomas said Bluecurrent intends to seek royalties of $10 to $25 for each time a new computer has software or other settings updated over the Web."

Re:It Gets Worse

[waterbear]

The USPTO definition of prior art is a prior patent. If nobody has filed a patent on something, there is no prior art and they consider it patentable.

Nonononono. Wrong bug report. The problem is elsewhere. The USPTO definition of prior art is the same as the one in the US patent code (35 USC sec. 102), and this includes _much_ more than prior patents and non-patent literature. (E.g., prior inventions of other inventors in the USA are also part of the prior art even if not published, but unpublished material is quite hard to bring into the process and hard to prove.) Novelty searches in the patent office could be more thorough than they are, and sometimes are careless. But the examiners do sometimes look at non-patent publications.

The USPTO issues a patent if it doesn't find relevant prior art. This means that a careless USPTO search is likely to result in the issue of a patent with claims that should not be patentable, or at least are too broad.

Currently, there are access-to-justice issues (the law does not yet provide enough, or effective, opportunities for third parties to challenge issued patents). That means correcting mistakes like this is usually an uphill struggle, slow, and likely very expensive. So in the meantime, the beneficiary of the USPTO mistake, the owner of the patent, may be able to cash in on it.

The Federal Trade Commission recently made proposals aimed at correcting these defects of the system. The FTC proposals might or might not go far enough, but either way, between now and possibly getting them adopted, there would be another hard slow struggle ahead for their advocates :( .

But the bug in the system is not the one diagnosed by the parent poster (inadequate definition of prior art)! It lies in either or both of two other places (a) the skill/thoroughness of patent examination before patent issue and (b) lack of proper opportunities to correct mistakes after patent issue.

RTFA!

[bigHairyDog]

NO! This is *not* a patent "covering the Internet installation of any software or settings on new computers".

This is a patent covering backing up preferences on a remote server so that someone can safely upgrade their OS or move computers.

To recap:

1. We are not all going to die
2. It's all going to be OK
3. Profit!

I wish /.ers would check their facts before screaming how the sky is going to fall on our heads every time the USPTO grants a patent.

RTFA, this patent is quite specific!

[RT Alec]

It looks like this is a bit more specific than the original post would lead one to believe. It does not cover installing software remotely. This patent is more about saving a user's settings remotely, then transferring them to a new computer. Looks like it is a way to facilitate the use of a remote IT staff. It does not look like it covers downloading software install packs, nor does it seem to cover software updates. But hey, IANAL :)

Parent correct -- read the abstract!

[jhujoe]

Abstract The method and system of the present invention provides an improved technique for replacing, implementing and managing computer-related assets. A technician accesses the World Wide Web through a user's computer. The information resident on the computer, including information regarding the computer and the user's preferences, are downloaded to a remote storage medium through the World Wide Web. Once downloaded, all information may be removed from the user's computer. Subsequently, the technician accesses another computer such as, for example, a new computer that has been assigned to the same user. The technician accesses the World Wide Web through the new computer and downloads the information previously stored on the remote storage medium. This information can then be used to install the user's prior applications, settings and preferences on the new computer.

As the parent noted, as would anybody who actually took the time to read the patent abstract (which apparently does NOT the original poster), this patent is for using the web as a place to migrate settings and data from one computer to another.

Now, in my opinion, the actual patent is also ridiculous and way too broad in scope, but not nearly as bad as the picture painted by /.

NOT about software updates

[LauraW]

As someone else pointed out, this patent isn't about software updates; it's about preferences and other user settings. You have to read the patent's "Claims" section to know what it covers. They're the only part that really matters.

The scary part of this patent isn't the user settings stuff, it's this claim:

25. A method for asset management using the World Wide Web, comprising:

• accessing the World Wide Web through a series of computer-related hardware devices connected to a network;
• transferring information regarding each computer-related hardware device in said series of computer-related hardware devices to a remote storage medium;
• compiling information related to said series of computer-related hardware devices derived from said information residing on said remote storage medium; and
• preparing and disseminating reports compiled from said information.

This seems to cover cases where every computer on a network (say in a corporate IT environment) uploads a bit of information about itself to a server, and then someone prepares a report based on that information. But there must be prior art on this one. And it would be pretty easy to get around this claim anyway -- just poll the machines for information rather than having them upload it to a central server.