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. ;-)"
It's official. There is no God, the madness will never end. Kill me now.
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."
I think it's time for someone to file a patent on Earth, Fire, and Water. ;-)
Wind is already patented?
Who did what now?
multiple computers connected by digital communications?
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:
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.
foo mane padme hum
Mainframes.
(And please don't tell me this applies "originally" to the World Wide Web... if that matters I'm applying for a patent to do the exact same thing "for IP block 90.x.x.x".)
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
...but here's a link to a relevant article.
I hope someone counter-sues them into the dust!
evil adrian
Aren't American Citizens ASHAMED of the US Patent Office? I know I would be.
Then people think about the USA = stupid stereotype and wonder where it comes from. It's not just GWB.
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 :)
.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.
I'm sure they are just trying to cash in on the fact that IE will automatically try to download the Flash plugin.
Any of you readers who live in europe should be writing letters or whatever else is necessary to get your local media in some way to report this and other stories like this.
You need for the Great Washed, the computer-uninformed persons of europe, to become aware that if software patents go forward in Europe, this is the sort of thing you have to look forward to.
They need to understand that software patents will not help the innovators. They will simply mean that by some kind of strange lottery system, the first person to successfully get through a bs application describing something that is already an obvious, common practice will suddenly "own" that practice.
They need to understand that software patents help nobody who actually makes a profit, and will only help vultures like this Austin company who have never made a product anyone noticed; at the one end, it causes the small companies to do a strange dance around concepts that they thought of but turned out to already be patented; at the other end, it causes the large companies to obsessively spend time, money, and effort tossing all their obvious ideas they can think of at the patent system in hopes that enough of them will be granted they can generate a strong "patent shield".
-- Super Ugly Ultraman
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?
With your powers combined, I am Captain Patent!!
Insert clever one liner here.
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 /.
The scary part of this patent isn't the user settings stuff, it's this claim:
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.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...)
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
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-
Does this mean I have to pay $10 to $25 when I use apt. I mean it seems pretty clear to me that apt goes through the method of the patent. I think the USPTO has gone to far.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
well, we're gonna have a hard time /.ing you if you don't give us your IP...
:)
Very nice pun, in a story about patents
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Roaming profiles seem to be prior art for this one !. Also what about likes of NortonsGhost or Veritas and the myriad of backup systems that save user data to network for bare-metal recoveries. Puting magic words of world wide web just means using http to transfer files: nothing new and done many time before. Bluecurrent probaly can't believe their luck in getting this patent. User settings saved on a network so that you can re-use these when you re-install on another machine (asset) ! Shit, I would never have thought of doing that ! No my first thought when I re-install my PCs is to copy my files from my local hard disk to my local hard disk; you know, the one I'm about to format/junk/rebuild !. Doh !.
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'
WebMachines "iaNetwork" used to support remote storage and management of user preferences, so you could log into any machine managed by iaNetwork and see your data the way you liked. It handled remote updates, individual user preferences, devive settings, etc. See this link, courtesy of the WayBack Machine for a look at the (sadly, defunct) WebMachines iaNetwork. The iaNetwork "Identity Server" and iaNetwork "Device Server" seem most relevant to the patent in question.
My own web site is prior art to claim 25 of this patent. Here's how access to a web site running on Apache HTTP Server goes:
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;
People visit the web site, looking for a recently released open-source NES game.
transferring information regarding each computer-related hardware device in said series of computer-related hardware devices to a remote storage medium;
Web browsers send User-agent: HTTP headers to the web site whenever pulling a file.
compiling information related to said series of computer-related hardware devices derived from said information residing on said remote storage medium;
Apache collects User-agent: information in a log file.
and preparing and disseminating reports compiled from said information.
The web site uses Webalizer to produce reports from the server logs, and the webmaster digests the reports into posts on the site's news page.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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 !@#$%^&
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.
(1) What about thin clients? They store all settings on a server so that you can sit at any terminal you want and get your desktop. Unix has been capable of this since way before 1994 (which was when I first used Unix at university).
(2) At the school I went to they even did the same thing with the Windows 3.1 machines. Because they couldn't secure the installations, the machines were re-imaged every time they rebooted. When you logged out, your files were written to your network drive and the entire machine erased. I'm fairly sure that Windows has been capable of doing something like this (syncing with a network drive) without any extra software since Windows 95.
(3) The book "The Diamond Age" by Neil Stephenson describes a similar process whereby user settings were stored on a server (YT's mom in her federal job whereby the earliest arrivals sit at a computer close the front of the room - those who are late sit at the shameful back).
(4) Microsoft Hotmail has an Outlook Express interface that works over port 80 using web services to access and read your mail. Any changes you make to your mail files locally is then mirrored on the remote Hotmail server.
You only need to substitute "world wide web" in the patents text with "LAN" or "WAN" (which is essentially the same damn thing - it's just a protocol over TCP/IP) to get a good description of 1, 2 or 3. Item 4 covers web-based access over port 80 - which, really could be applied to anything.
With these sort of patents being filed (and approved) - the patent office should be shut down permanently. It has lost it's original purpose of protecting the truly original thinkers amid a sea of pathetic scam artists and lawyers who have never done a day's real work in their lives.
The hope was not to turn this into a forum on the Israeli occupation of Palestine, something your sig clearly tries to do.
/., and not a forum for Jewish Supremacists like yourself.
If you are so desperate to defend the indefensible, perhaps you should take it to a forum that wants to talk about that subject.
There are any number of "facts" about this conflict, not the least of which is that the number of Palestinian dead exceeds the number of Israeli dead by a factor of three.
I am quite sure if I were to put that in my sig that I would be modded off-topic or troll here, as I should, since this is
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
I've used the product in question on a contract a little while ago. It's great for taking an entire office, upgrading all their computers to newer models.. and retaining all the personal settings from the account/profile.
Claim 18 is just wrong.
I can see now why Patent Lawyers get paid the big bucks. Though they obviously still can't afford proofreaders.
1. The patent only covers anything that does everything in the claim, just like it says. It cannot be generalized. If you don't do all of the steps, you don't infringe.
2. Claims are often narrowed by stuff you don't see in the patent itself, but which are contained in the file wrapper, that is, the documents exchanged by the applicant (or applicant's attorneys) and the patent office. These documents must be obtained from the patent office, and are often very revealing. Typically every patent gets rejected in the first instance, on grounds of insufficient novelty, and will be appealed by the applicant saying "...but we only intended application in this narrow set of circumstances, which are different from the prior art...". All those documents are recorded and form part of the validity of the patent. They are admissible in court. It usually turns out that patents are much narrower than a reading of the patent alone implies.
Read the claim carefully. It applies only to "web" transfers, and you must upload from an existing computer and download to a "new" computer. I'd be willing to bet that there are specific circumstances contained in the file wrapper also.
I don't think this is very alarming, in summary. It's probably a much narrower patent than it first appears. Really, this kind of thing happens all the time and it isn't a big deal. Move along, nothing to see here.
Krill
Maybe this crazy patent will wake some peopel up? This patent is a joke and there are litterally thousands of applications that use this method. Adobe Acrobat checks for new versions, Windows update, Red Hat up2date, apt-get, Norton, Symantec, ZoneAlarm, etc. You name it, most software has some online update feature. Finding prior art in this case will be very easy. However, I bet this company will go after the "small fish" companies who cannot afford to fight the court battle and just pay the license fees. You gotta love the current implementation of Capitalism in the USA!
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
You know, like how the Palestinian suicide bombers and infiltrators specifically targets civilians, whilst the Israeli military does not?
Gimme a fucking break. You don't honestly believe that, do you? Say that again the next time Israel levels an entire neighbourhood because there may or may not have been some 'terrorists' hiding there.
Haida Manga
As I said in my last post on the subject, the USPTO and their overlords need large doses of antipsychotics.
I, for one, welcome our new psychotic undermedicated patent-holding Texan overlords.
[ducks]
Any backup software that allows someone to backup part or all of their system including settings and preferences is prior art for this patent.
Also, this is highly obvious. Patents are supposed to be non-obvious.
The problem is that English is such a powerful and flexible language that there are many ways to describe the same technique. While there are many ways to describe it the base method of utilizing it is the same.
1. Save your data to remote computer or alternate disk drive.
2. Do something that could loose data on original computer.
3. Restore data.
4. Be happy (if restore worked).
If only people patent examiners would learn the nature of software, computer technology and complex equilivant meanings in English. Maybe then we'd be spared this.
I used to work for BlueCurrent. They used to be called Lincoln Financial. Their business was refurbishing and reselling companies' old PCs and laptops. As I was leaving the company, I think they were getting some sort of contract with Dell to do warranty service for them. I have no idea where this patent would fit into their business model unless they have made some significant changes in the last 4 years or so.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Wrong. Since very few slashdot readers can be bothered to actually read the patent before complaining about it, it covers this process:
This little game of outright lying about the content of a patent and then joining in a chorus of ignorant bleating about the awful, awful patent system accomplishes nothing. I hope that no legislator or decision-maker ever reads this drivel, as he'll be convinced that patent reform is championed only by cretins.
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.
Anybody who reads an abstract and draws conclusions about the scope of the document deserves everything they get. Someone with a clue would know that the abstract, by regulation "will not be used for interpreting the scope of the claims."
Please, don't give us this horseshit by "reading the abstract." The claims define the patent, and the claims are informed by careful reading of the specification and the relevant prosecution history. Seriously, the legal advice offered here is absolutely hopeless.
Time will tell what is the scope of the patent -- but no fair reading of the claims may conclude that this patent covers a scope of behavior as broad as that set forth in the parent. No reading credibly informed by a review of the specification will reach that conclusion.
Just stop it, guys! If you aren't really going to bother to learn what these claims are, don't whine about them. It makes us all look silly, and takes away from those of us who ARE interested in limiting the scope of bad patents.
The abstract neither broadens nor limits the scope of claims of a patent. By regulation, it "will not be used for interpreting the scope of the claims."
The claim is the thing, and must be read carefully in view of the specification and prosecution history.
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.
... if i specify that it has to be put in a yellow envelope?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Whoever decided to let this go through as a valid ./ article is a moron and didn't read the link in the posting. The article is about a backup/restore procedure using the internet to access the storage medium. This has nothing to do with updates.
;)
I wasted 5 minutes on this because I deal with this kind of tech at my company... geez..
"In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."
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?
Modern science is now much more advanced, and clearly states that there are four phases of matter: solid, gasseous, plasma, and liquid.