Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Installation/Update via Internet Patented

Posted by timothy on from the 35-claims dept.

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. ;-)"

8 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Only covers updates via the "World Wide Web" by slyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This patent specifically covers using the World Wide Web to update a computer; it does not cover all possible ways to update software via the Internet (the web is just the subset of the internet that uses HTTP and HTML). Thus, if you perform automatic updates without using HTTP or HTML (say, XML and SCP), this patent does not affect you. In essence, this patent is easy to work around, so it should have much of a long-term effect on the world as we know it.

    I suspect the only reason this patent was issued was due to this specific nature of the claims; however, in the short-run this pattent still might cause some big headaches if the lawyers get really over eager (which always seems to happen...)

  2. It doesn't seem that broad by HardCase · · Score: 4, Insightful
    After reading the patent, the claims that are made don't appear to support updating or installing software over the Internet. They do seem to support maintaining a database of system settings that can be updated at a given workstation by a technician, then accessed by the same, or different technician, in order to account for existing user settings and to maintain a list of installed hardware and software so that when a software installation is performed, the technician can rely on this database to make sure that the software is installed to the user's satisfaction. It really seems to me that all that is really claimed is a way to utilize a remote database to maintain records of a particular computer's software and hardware configuration. The things that we write down on paper are now contained in a database. The critical part of the patent appears to be that the database is relational, maintained at a different location from the computer under examination and is accessed via the Internet.


    There aren't any claims about installing software or software updates. Perhaps a case could be made that an online software installation/update system that copies a computer's configuration from the computer to a remote system via the Internet could be infringing, but as far as I can tell software installers/updaters simply send an installer program that examines what's on the computer, then requests the appropriate files from the remote server. And it seems to me that that's how it should be done, anyway.


    Nonetheless, this still does not seem like anything particularly novel. The idea of maintaining a database of settings is certainly nothing new. Making that database accessible over the Internet doesn't seem like a particularly significant improvement. In fact, what is (critically) missing is automation. The claims that are made in the patent specifically call for the intervention of a technician in the process, to interpret the settings reported from the remote database. Regardless of the novelty of the idea, it doesn't seem to be as broadly applicable as the title of the /. summary makes it appear. I'm sure that the company can try to sue to enforce the patent against others delivering software updates over the Internet, but the claims that the patent makes (at least the novel claims) are so narrow that I don't think that they will enjoy too much success.


    And it seems that if anybody wants to look at an existing system that might infringe, Red Hat's RHN system may be just the thing. But I think that it's been around since well before 2002.


    -h-

  3. Re:It Gets Worse by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't DHCP be "updating settings over the network"???

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  4. yes, you need to know. by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But do we really need to have a story every day about every new piece of evidence that the patent system is screwed up?

    If you don't care about internet software updating and maintaning that has a database, you don't care about this. That would mean you don't have a system like apt, up2date, ports or any other software version atomation on any of your computers. If that's the case, Slashdot does not have much to offer you and you should point your licensed copy of IE someplace else. If you care about free software, stupid software patents bother you because that's how propriatory software makers intend to kill their competition.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  5. Re:It Gets Worse by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 5, Insightful

    false. prior art means that the idea has been in common use for a while.

    Apt has been around for a long time. since the mid 90's

    this is mot going to be enforceable. I doubt the Patent officer looked farther than his windows machine.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  6. Re:It Gets Worse by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    false. prior art means that the idea has been in common use for a while.

    I phrased it badly- I meant "there is no prior art" as far as the USPTO is concerned when they grant the patent. They do a search through their database, and if they don't find anything, they grant the patent and pocket the fees.

    Why waste time doing a Google search? It might find something, and then they don't get the fee. If there's unpatented prior art out there, let the courts sort it out!

  7. Re:RTFA! by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem is that the patent madness is a hindrance to the development of software. Rather than focus on making good software, companies that want to try to make a living in the software industry has to hire an army of lawyers to make sure they aren't infringing on anyone's patents, or they can ignore it and hope that they aren't, and that no one will find anything and sue them.

    Maybe these ridiculous patent applications weaken the patent system, but real companies are having real problems with this today. Maybe a lot of people in the /. crowd work in the software industry, and are therefore concerned about their jobs.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  8. Re:It Gets Worse by bahamat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, the pattent specifically and repeatedly says "World Wide Web". Contrary to popular belief, the WWW is NOT the Internet. The WWW is a subset of the Internet. DHCP would not apply, since it's not part of the WWW. FTP would not apply. NNTP, SCP, UUCP, RCP, SMTP, or any protocol other than HTTP would be outside the scope of this patent.

    Also, this patent is only for transferring one's files/settings from one computer to a new computer. Before you all go moaning and groaning, RTFP. This thing is written very specifically. So specifically, I don't see how it could possibly affect any other service currently in place that I am aware of. Of course, IANAL, but it seems to me that this was intended to be so specific to only cover precicely and exactly the service Bluecurrent offers, or whoever wrote it is moronic enough to think that the "World Wide Web" is all there is to the Internet. Either way, I don't think this will ever affect my life again.