Slashdot Mirror
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. ;-)"
.Mac allows me to backup much of my data and utilize that data on other computers. I wonder if these people will go after Apple.
Sounds like trouble for users of Micro$oft's Windows Update. Or for the *NIX users of apt-get and similar utilities. Of course, coming up with prior art should be no problem and the rich Micro$oft will fight this for you.
BookmarkSync, which has recently gone open source. This does exactly what they're talking about in the patent, the preferences here being bookmarks, of course, and this was being done well before the 2001 application date of the patent.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
This was filed December of 2002: I think Microsoft "roaming profiles" (of course their patent claims that the unique aspect is "access the world wide web", which is a clause that should immediately send any patent application to the garbage bin), or even ICQ (which stores settings and contact lists on their server) had them beat quite handily.
This is yet another bullshit patent that claims uniqueness (in this case to the rather bland "backup data" process) by adding "World Wide Web". I repeat: Any patent that includes any reference to the "World Wide Web" or "Internet" should be immediately discarded.
Will Debian have to move APT to non-us now?
What about the BSD ports tree? How old is it? Would it be possible to consider that prior art?
so does that mean the patent only protects such activities when the transfer takes place through port 80 on the server?
"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."
Agreed. Reading the patent, one sees that they describe a web-based process where one can access a web page, back up files comprising a user's environment, go to a new workstation, and restore said files.
What they describe is essentially a web-based version of Microsoft's FAST (File And Settings Transfer) Wizard from Windows XP.
What about mozilla .xpi installs?
Or windowsupdate?
Or plugins?
For that matter what about large Active Directory structures that span large areas, even crossing state or country borders, and that utilize SMS for any type of maintenance? Obviously, within a local network it's a no brainer, but I have SysAdmin friends that do manage large networks that are spread all over the world.
And no, I didn't RTFA.
Spread the RC luvin'
It is a fact.
= JP ost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1066287147759&p=1008596 981749
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename
Just because something doesn't fit your view of the world, doesn't mean that it should be hidden. If you don't agree with it, you should confront it, not try to hide it.
So GATOR and all the other drive by downloaders can be charged for their robo spamming? COOL!
this will definitely screw up their balance sheets, but
it will be the only reason to rejoice at this
~corporate tool, but employed~
Yes. The patent system is screwed up. But do we really need to have a story every day about every new piece of evidence that the patent system is screwed up?
When this company starts actually enforcing its patent, then maybe it'll justify a story. Probably not though. I'd wait until they actually win a case. Which will be never.
Forgive me if I am mistaken - but this process is the HTTP protocal!! Pages are stored on your PC (OK in a tempory directory but still, they are "installed") and "run" in your browser. Oh !@#$%^&
What exactly is the 'World Wide Web'? Does it have boundaries, is it a distinct term used for a specific area of the Internet? What?
I say this because as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't cover a system I developed which runs on HTTP over a company intranet. It does exactly what this patent describes and assists in the migration of user settings from one PC to another when systems are updated etc. etc. in a large organisation. It does not use the 'World Wide Web' so to speak.
The 'World Wide Web' is just a buzzword and shows that the holder has no idea about the system that they're talking about, which is too generalised. If they don't describe exactly what it is they're referring to, the whole patent is screwed I guess. IANAL, but it'd be so much better to say 'a method of transferring data using the HTTP protocol to a remote server' - but in any case, a real world non-patentable method of doing this would be to stick important copies of documents in a safe at another location. That fulfils exactly the same criteria, but I bet that can't be patented... It's all just nuts.
Just glancing at that, it seems that Red Hats RHN, would be prior-art. When the machines are registered with the network, you can have them upload information about the box; RAM, Processor, packages installed, name, etc.
IIRC, you can also create reports from the data, but I haven't looked at it in a while.
-J
Just shows who actually reads the articles and who doesn't. This won't affect Windows Update or apt-get. Did you forget that apt has supercow powers? A dumb patent can't destroy it:) Any way... this appears to have nothing to do with what people have been complaining about.
The patent was probably filled (and applies to) enterprise-class workstation managing software. Funnily, though, if you ignore the WWW bit, mounting home directories over NFS would be prior art for this patent.
Also, simple internet installation is covered in the prior art -- there's a link to Microsoft's patent on internet installation.
I'm not so sure this is a problem. The patent mentions that data has to be encrypted when transmitted (presumably with SSL) and that the data has to be stored in a relational database.
MS primarily keeps data in config files (.inf, etc.). The old Windows update just used data out of these files with the ActiveSetup control to update components. I actually haven't checked into the "new" one (the one that was released with XP).
Of course, if they broaden the scope of "relational database" to start covering filesystems and loosely-related sectioned files like INF files, then, yes, I suppose they're screwed...
...except prior art exists. Then again, when has that stopped the USPTO from being utter morons with a bad business model?