Slashdot Mirror
EFF To Fight Dubious Patents
theodp writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation launched a campaign on Monday to overturn patents that it says are having a chilling effect on public and consumer interests. The ten patents initially cited as problematic by the EFF Patent Busting Project are: one-click online shopping, online shopping carts, hyperlinking, video streaming, internationalizing domain names, pop-up windows, targeted banner ads, paying with a credit card online, framed browsing, and affiliate linking. Maybe this will prompt former EFF Board Member Tim O'Reilly to share that killer piece of 1-click prior art that's sitting on his bookshelf!"
What's interesting is that a lot of these patents reek of intrusive advertising. So, who cares if Gator gets smacked around because they use one-click -pop-up-banners?
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
I was thinking 'yay, go ahead and patent pop-up ads, I hate them and want them all to die a horrible death, the less people that can use them, the better'.
And then I re-read it and noticed it said 'pop-up windows'. Which doesn't limit itself to adverts.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
"Are you sure you want to move these files?"
> Yes to All
"Are you sure you want to move these folders?"
> Yes to All
"Are you sure you want to move these system files?"
> Yes to All
"Are you sure you want to move these hidden files?"
> Yes to All
"Are you sure you want to move these read-only files?"
> Yes to All
Yeah, I can do with less pop-up windows.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Indeed. Strange that these ludicrous patents are not discussed more. I'm especially 'fond' of this one (taken from here):
Method and system for internationalizing domain names
Abstract
A method and system for internationalizing domain names is provided which allows domain names to be entered in any language without having to modify the existing Internet domain name servers. When an [sic] user enters a domain name including non-English characters into an internet program, a domain name transformer intercepts the domain name prior to reaching the resolver. The domain name is converted to a standard format which can represent all language character sets, such as UNICODE. The UNICODE string is then transformed to be in RFC1035 compliant format. Redirector information is then appended to the compliant string which identifies the delegation of authoritative root servers and/or domain name servers responsible for the domain name. The compliant domain string is then resolved by the authoritative domain name server just as any English domain name.
If I understand this correctly (but hey - who can be sure), this is basically a patent for, um, a method for converting strings between different formats and then doing a DNS lookup or some such thing. Excuse me, but isn't that usually called a 'standard', not a 'patent' ?? This boggles the mind.
Oh, and by the way, the spelling and grammar generally sucks in these patent desciptions. Check it out for yourselves if you don't believe me ...
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
I mean, we (as geeks) must be a large % of sales.
If we all stopped buying O'Reilly books until he did the decent thing and knocks the '1-Click' patent off the face of the earth, it might help speed things along.
Would this work? Anyone?
Join the Free Software Foundation
That reminds me:
- There is a prediction that was supposedly made by Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office Charles H. Duell. The words attributed to him were: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." The date given was 1899.
Now, in 2004 we have the ghost of Duell appearing as an anonymous coward to make the same prediction.Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I have said it before. There is nothing wrong with the patent policies. The officers granting the patent simply don't follow the rules. it goes something like this
1) rich company applies for patent
2) officer reads patent, thinks if he has ever seen it before.
3) if he has he might look it up
4) rubber stamp Patent granted move to next one.
the new system should be.
1) rich company applies for patent
2) if it is based on software should be denied and told to copyrigh the software.
3) if it is based on physical system then it most be carefuly looked over.
My way a huge section of patents get thrown out, work in the patent office declines.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Depends on how the popup is created. Look at patents on stuff made outside of the computer world. There's patents on popcorn boxes and paper bags. The patent isn't always on what is created but also in the process of creating the end product.
Free Mac Mini
"Maybe this will prompt former EFF Board Member Tim O'Reilly to share that killer piece of 1-click prior art that's sitting on his bookshelf!"
After reading the page this links to, I'm really wondering if there is any such prior art. Maybe my tin foil hat is on a bit too tight, but perhaps it's really a killer piece of 1-click bluff he's holding onto? He could be waiting for Bezos to make the next move in the patent poker game.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
One of the biggest problems I see with these patents is that they are not innovations, they just happen to be used on a computer. You shouldn't be able to simply take a random, common concept and slap a "...by computer." on it and get away with a new patent.
/. also mentioned the "progress bar" patent attempt in Europe. I'm not familiar with this one, so it may be a bunch of hot-air, but I'm too lazy to check on it. So I offer you the same thing in the real world: Sand clocks, air compressor pressure guages, the pop-up thermometer stuck in the turkey, what not.
One-click online shopping: How about picking up the phone, calling the grocer, and having them deliver. If they already know you, you probably only need to give them your name. Not "one-click" but pretty damn close. Just slap the "online" part to it, and you have a new patent?
Online Shopping Carts: Oh for Christ's sake... shopping carts have been around forever. Again, they slapped the "online" part, and now it's a patent.
Hyperlinking: Hyperlinking may be a computer-specific item, but how about touch-tone phone systems, for example? "If you would like to make a claim, press 4..." You have a selection of items, and just press a button to get to it.
Video Streaming: TV. 'Nuff said.
Internationalizing Domain Names: Zip codes and country names, anyone?
Pop-up Windows: How about those annoying "Subscribe now! 80% off news stand prices!" cards in magazines? They seem to be the same thing.
Targetted Banner Ads: Targetted advertising of any sort. The crap you get in your physical mail box.
Paying with a Credit Card online: And you couldn't do this over the phone, prior to this patent?
Someone on
I think we could all come up with a bunch of ridiculous patents based on their real-world counterparts... such as "method to transfer electricity over computer networks". Ethernet (minus the fiber optic variety) does just this (however small the current) and the real world counterpart is the freakin' power grid. And so on so forth. What's scary is that half of them probably already to, or will soon, exist.
To be fair most of those things really shouldn't be patented on the obvious claim for patents. I was working on a shopping system for a php script I was writing. I didn't really think about it until it was about finished but the final code was pretty much a cart.
Problem:
1) People need to buy things.
2) Buying one thing at a time is slow/silly.
Solution.
Allow people to make a list of things to buy and buy them.
I can't think of another solution to that. And that solution is pretty much a shopping cart. If somebody was giving a question and came up with a truely original idea that no one else had thought of having had the same question given to them. That idea should be patentable. But, if there's only about one solution which isn't hard to find. The idea of even spending any time thinking about issuing a patent is a waste.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
YES. Agreed. If patents on IT are allowed, they should be 3-5 years at the very longest.
They should also have a "use it or lose it" clause - if patents aren't defended against infringement they become invalid. This already happens with trademarks, and would effectively prevent companies building up patents then sitting on them until infringing technology becomes so prevalent that it cannot be easily replaced.
Should not make them freely available to all (perhaps.)
Instead, what if they only made them freely available to those without software patents or those with software patents who do the same and who commit to doing the same in the future.
They would need to word things up so a company with software patents could not, for instance, start a subsidiary with no patents and let that one make use of them. (Is this clear?)
A Nony Mouse
I wonder if they'll take up a fight against M$ for trying to patent "Virtual Desktops" - as they describe it, the ability to have more than one working desktop environment on a single machine. - Basically what we've been doing on Linux for years, what Windows still fails to be able to do properly (PowerToys plugins for XP lets you half-@55 it)... yet they are going to try to patent it as if they created it and mastered it and should have rights to who can and can't do it!? "ID-10-T" errors there, ne?
-- "You must be the change you desire to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi --
Why would anyone want to bust a patent on popup ads?
Hell I'd contribute money to the owner of the patent, to help him collect much deserved royalties on it.
I don't see the problem in patenting things nobody wants around.
and help coordinate fund raising with it so it can stand a chance against the Republicrats. The easiest way for the EFF to effect longterm change would be to work with the Libertarian or Constitution Parties to help them get elected at the local and state levels where a lot of really stupid IT decisions are made. Think about it.
Libertarian candidates tend to be highly educated compared to their Republicrat counterparts. If you have a LP majority on your schoolboard, you have a much better chance that Little Johnny won't get kicked out for being a "hacker" for using the Windows Messenger Service to send a "hello" message around the network. Why? Because you'll have a well-educated, more rational schoolboard who is passionate about civil liberties. Members of the LP tend to embody the old saying "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Another thing to consider: a libertarian wouldn't pull either a Bush or Gore on IT and science. Bush wants people to back up his preconceived moral notions on biotech research and Gore wanted yes-men who would just confirm what was in his little world, his great and powerful intellect (in reality most of the last occupants of the whitehouse as P or VP had similar IQs). Harry Browne as I recall said that he'd have worked to repeal the DMCA if he were elected. Try hearing that from a Republicrat. They always want to just "fix something" rather than get rid of it.
Lastly consider this. In Eldred versus Ashcroft the geeks got a taste for what social conservatives decry as an out of control activist judiciary. That judiciary is reinforced by the Republicrats. If we were to work together to remove people like Tom Daschle and Trent Lott and replace them with members of the LP or CP we'd have a judiciary more on our side.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Granted, patents are needed to insure inventors are compensated for their work, but why are they the same length of time for a trivial invention as for an invention developed over several years at great expense? Shouldn't there be a way to adjust the length of a patent based on how much it would take to adequately reward the present inventor and encourage future inventors?
To paraphrase Malibu Stacy, "Law is hard!" but to look at a single invention that is also a single product -- a drug for example -- we could:
a) Look at how long it took the person or company to develop the drug
and
b) Look at how expensive it was to test the drug for its patented use.
A drug company that spends a billion dollars to created and test a drug deserves a reasonable length of time to earn that money back, plus interest and enough profit to encourage future research. Amazon.com might spend a few thousand dollars and a couple of weeks thinking up the text for the "one click patent" and while I don't mind them making their money back plus interest and a tidy profit, they shouldn't be awarded the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars (if competitive advantage is taken into account) just because they filed a trivial patent first.
Which brings me to my question: What do other Slashdotters think would be the best way to ensure inventors benefit from their work, while preventing opportunists, lawyers, and the unscrupulous from screwing up the system?
Now we get to see if you have to be an organization like Microsoft in order to succeed in having the patent office revoke a patent. It would be nice if these obnoxious patents could be revoked purely on principle.
another good idea would be to 'open source' the prior art aspect of patent review, for a 'million eyeballs' Groklaw-type community...
for the common good, i will attempt to patent neither of these ideas, or the new word 'groklawing' ;>
Anytime someone is able to patent a concept/idea we all lose out.
UPS Sucks
Any opinions on which organization is most worthy of support with my limited donations: EFF or PubPat or someone else?
Dave