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!"

Comments

Re:Scary

[Liselle]

Same here. Who knows what else is out there that the EFF hasn't found yet? It's an unsettling thought. But in digging around looking for info on these patents I haven't heard of, I found a nice little quote from Tim O'Reilly that he made back when the one-click idiocy was going on a few years ago:

I also want to say that a patent on something like "1-Click ordering" is a slap in the face of Tim Berners-Lee and all of the other pioneers who created the opportunity that Amazon has done such a good job of exploiting. Amazon wouldn't have existed without the generosity of people like Tim, who made legitimate, far-reaching inventions, and put them out into the public domain for all to build upon. Anyone who puts a small gloss on this fundamental technology, calls it proprietary, and then tries to keep others from building further on it, is a thief. The gift was given to all of us, and anyone who tries to make it their own is stealing our patrimony.

If that's not the damned honest truth, then I don't know what is.

I'd patent uninformed discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

on patents but there's already too much prior art. Yeah, I know this is a troll and too much prior art on that too. But did it ever occur to you that Slashdot's 400 posts in the first 2 minutes pretty much precludes any thoughtful replies that take more than 2 minutes to think out and compose. How about a 2 hour delay before posting is allowed?

Re:Scary

[spellraiser]

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 ...

Re:Too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much everything that can be invented has been either invented or patented already

I was going to post that the commissioner of the USA Patent Office said that too. In 1899.

However, a quick Googling later, I have found that this quote is a myth.

Software patents: not all bad?

[Aim Here]

"... pop-up windows, targeted banner ads, ... "

You mean the fuckheads who design websites full of this sort of garbage could be forced to cough up swingeing royalties for the privilege of polluting the internet? Almost makes me want to support software patents....

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned..

[the_rajah]

http://www.pubpat.org/ Public Patent Foundation and their work against the same sort of thing.

Real World Counterparts

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 /. 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.

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.

Patentablillity

[Tatarize]

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.

Counter productive?

[superskippy]

Does anyone else think all of this patent-busting might be counter productive? The real goal is surely that no one can own patents on this rubbish (software, websites etc.)- prior art or no prior art. If these rather ridiculous patents are thrown out, doesn't that strengthen the argument of those who say- "Software patents do work! Here are some bad patents and, look, they were thrown out! The system heals itself. Lets have lots more patents"