Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Firm Patents Software Downloads

Posted by timothy on from the handy-things-patents-thousands-of-uses dept.

spike1 writes "The Register has a story about BTG (British Technology Group) acquiring a patent on software downloads ... If this is one area of tech that's not covered by prior art, I don't know what is. Although, the Reg doesn't include a link to the actual patents, out-law.com is also carrying the story and contains links to the patents, and looking at some of their patent synopses, it looks like it's a pretty broad brush."

56 comments

  1. Don't Look NOW!!! by zulux · · Score: 1



    Your web-broser is dowinloading SOFTWARE:

    HERE IT IS:

    10 PRINT "BILL GATES MAKES 3L33T PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES";
    20 RUN

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    1. Re:Don't Look NOW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Interesting... got a link to the XPI?

    2. Re:Don't Look NOW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So when is the Service Pack due out? Service pack 1: 10 PRINT "BILL GAT3S MAK3S 3L33T PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES."; 20 RUN

    3. Re:Don't Look NOW!!! by Jorkapp · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've already begun work on SP1:

      10 PRINT "|31LL G4T35 15 4 31373 |-|4X0|2 |)00|)"
      20 GOTO 10

      --
      Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
    4. Re:Don't Look NOW!!! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      I've found an exploit in your Service Pack!

      Hit Control-C at any time and you get a command prompt!

      This has been verified on my Tandy 102. Beware!

  2. No effect by DCBoland · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's entertain the notion that BTG get their way (this wouldn't surprise me anymore), the companies paying royalties would only pass these fees onto their users. Making this another reason for users not to patch, there should be part of patent law for patents that effect national security like this...then again if you're going to change patent law I can think of a few other things I'd change too...

    --
    I think the [MS Word] paperclip is a great idea. - Miguel de Icaza
  3. BTG's past record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    BTG seem to be the worst sort of patent parasites, if we go by the "success stories" on their website. Here's an excerpt bragging about locking down the rights to Interferon, a vital anti-cancer drug developed by the UK Medical Research Council:

    Because Dr Isaacs and Dr Lindenmann published their findings before any patent applications were filed, it was not possible for BTG to secure patents except in countries whose patent laws offered a 'grace period', namely USA, Canada and Germany.

    BTG applied for a US patent for Interferon in 1958, and after a long struggle with the US Patent Office, was granted its patent in 1972. BTG signed licence agreements with three of the largest pharmaceutical companies of the time: Schering Plough, Hoffmann-La Roche and Wellcome. This paved the way for the development of the manufacturing process which would eventually take Interferon to market. The first sales of Interferon occurred before the expiry date of the patents and BTG generated over 3.8 million from the technology in just those few countries. The patents were relevant to Interferon as sold even though it had been produced by recombinant DNA technology, which had not yet been invented when Interferon was discovered. This justified BTG's 14-year-long persistence in pursuing the grant of patents on the original discovery.

    1. Re:BTG's past record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on... so BTG didn;t have anything to do with the development of Interferon, but they still got the patent? How did that work?

    2. Re:BTG's past record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      BTG applied for a US patent for Interferon in 1958, and after a long struggle with the US Patent Office, was granted its patent in 1972.

      Hang on... so BTG didn;t have anything to do with the development of Interferon, but they still got the patent? How did that work?

      They discovered the molecule but couldn't produce it in large enough quantities for it to be commercially viable until recombinant DNA techniques became available. Their "long struggle" with the patent office probably consisted in getting enough continuations on the patent application until somebody else could come up with a discovery that would make production commercially viable. Without their long struggle in coming up with changes to the patent application to delay its validity period, the patent would have expired long before they could make any money from it.

      There needs to be an upper bound set on the amount of time these delay tactics can be used since the "corrections" can often include work done by others after the original patent application date. Yet another long-overdue abuse loophole in the patent system that needs to be corrected.
  4. These are the same people by Mycroft_514 · · Score: 1

    that had the patent on hypercards a while back. When it got to the courts, they lost.

    Further, isn't a patent supposed to present something that isn't just common sense? I can remember diagramming such a system as this on a whiteboard for a fellow programmer - in 1981! Can you say prior art?

    1. Re:These are the same people by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Hypercards is the Apple Mac thing that was a cross between HTML and Visual Basic. (Ok, that's probably got to be the most misleading simplification I've seen, but it's roughly right.)

      What you're think of are hyperlinks. And it wasn't BTG that "patented" hyperlinks, it was BT, Britain's monopolist telephone company. A phone company that makes you pay by the second for local calls.

      And it wasn't really a hyperlinks patent either. It was a sending a request down a phone and getting a response back that includes more codes you can send back down the phone - it's been a while since I read the patent, but one of the reasons it was thrown out was that it was ridiculously specific and described a technology that was sooooooo 1970s.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:These are the same people by sydb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it was BT, Britain's monopolist telephone company. A phone company that makes you pay by the second for local calls.

      Telephony is something I consider a natural monopoly, that should be either state-run or under strict state governance.

      Same for energy supply. Phones, gas and electricity in the UK are a disaster now that the artificial market has been created. Everyone tries to cover up the true cost by introducing bonuses for taking two services from one company, "friends and family" discounts, cheap international calls, and so on. It's impossible to compare costs.

      Anyway, if you have telephony from a cable company, they generally give you free calls to other cable customers.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    3. Re:These are the same people by pjay_dml · · Score: 1

      Could you verify your statement and post it to the appropriate section at Wikipatent.org

    4. Re:These are the same people by MWelchUK · · Score: 3, Informative

      BT, Britain's monopolist telephone company. A phone company that makes you pay by the second for local calls.

      Ok, I have family that works for BT so I'll bite on this one. BT used to be a part of the post office, it was then split off as a private company and I believe it had a monopoly for a number of years. I think in about the last 10 years or so competition has been introduced (NTL, various others - I don't pay much attention) and the industry regulated by oftel (I believe a name change has happen recently).In the early-ish days of this non-monopoly market BT were thinking about offering free local calls, however oftel objected as this would kill the competition (which is a fair point, to some degree). Since then BT's market share has reduced and are now not in a position to offer such an attractive package.

      Before I get flamed into oblivion I would just like to add that I appriecate BT doesn't have the best of public images, however some of the competition make them smell of roses.

    5. Re:These are the same people by fallscrape · · Score: 1

      This is a generalisation, and I may be wrong. But as this was explained to me (this only applies to the UK side of the pond): A software patent cannot be applied to something that can be done by a human (within reason). It can only be applied to something which a human would be unable to do. Take the example of telephone receptionist. You could replace her with a piece of software which routes calls depending on the area code. This system would certainly not be allowed in the UK - simply because the receptionist could have caller ID and a list of area codes and where to route them. It may however be available in the US, because your standards are mad :- ) Note, when I say "within reason" I mean in the case of a software download, obviously you could have a human at the end of a modem, with a PC screen displaying the file request. Then you could type in the entire code and send it in binary. It is however not pratical. ps, I'm not a patent agent and don't take this as advice.

      --
      http://www.neobard.info - wacky world of me
    6. Re:These are the same people by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Eh ? BT _do_ offer unlimited free local (and national) calls depending on which calling plan you take.

      Sure, you pay more monthly fixed charges to get free calls, but then same goes everywhere - "free local calls" normally means you don't get charged any _extra_ for the calls over and above fixed monthly charges, not that you don't pay anything at all.

    7. Re:These are the same people by isorox · · Score: 1

      SO isntead of paying 30p/minute to Greece as I did under the old nationalised BT, I now pay 1p/minute. Instead of chugging along on 56k with no alternative, I have 2Mbit ADSL. Instead of paying 10p/minute for phone calls I pay 6p/hour. And thats bad why?

      Competition drives prices down and innovation up. That's why monopolies are so bad - no competition.

    8. Re:These are the same people by justkarl · · Score: 1

      I said it before, I'll say it again.

    9. Re:These are the same people by sydb · · Score: 1

      Competition can't drive prices down below cost+profit margin. You're right - competition does produce innovation, but we don't need innovation in the telephone network. We need a stable system with gradual improvement at a low cost.

      For most people, the savings to be made are not worth the time and effort involved in keeping up with changes to calling plans and actually changing suppliers.

      Over 70% of the UK are still with BT, in spite of the artifical market.

      I don't love BT at all. It's simply that the economies of a market in a natural monopoly don't add up.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    10. Re:These are the same people by isorox · · Score: 1

      So we didn't need innovation when the phones were still switched manually. Or when you used to have pulse dial? Or before things like 1471 to get last number called, or ADSL?

      There are many natual monopolies, rail infrastructure, sewers, roads, the local loop. A phone company is not one.

      The cost is substantially less in privatised companies as theres a motive.

    11. Re:These are the same people by sydb · · Score: 1

      I see no reason why the "innovations" you mention would not have happened under a properly state-controlled monopoly. I grant that state-control is rarely practised well, but I don't see that as inherent to the concept.

      Remember that BT is still the monopoly network provider. If a service isn't supported on BTs network then NO-ONE can sell it. Most of their competitors are just glorified sales, marketing and customer service congolomerates.

      I remember the last company I worked for, we moved to Thus from BT for Internet provision. What was the largest source of outages? BT failures. These companies don't have cables! OK, maybe short ones.

      And tell me, if the "local loop" is a natural monopoly, how is the trunk not? Why is it sensible to have competition on the most geographically distributed infrastructure of them all?

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    12. Re:These are the same people by LoocSiMit · · Score: 1
      BT, Britain's monopolist telephone company. A phone company that makes you pay by the second for local calls.

      I guess you're from the USA, the country we still own. Or have things changed since then?

      BT is no longer a monopoly. Well, not as much of a monopoly as it was. There are various bits of BT that I've given up keeping up with, but some company with BT in the name still owns the wires from your house to the exchange. That makes sense - a monoploy in wires and pipes from houses to some central point is cheaper overall. But they have to allow other companies to use those wires for a reasoable (regulated) cost. Some people have cable (TV, broadband etc.) cables to thier houses too, so they can ignore BT completely. There are a dozen or more phone companies I can chose from with just a phone call. I don't need any new hardware to chose between them, unless I chose my local cable company. Many offer free local calls. Some BT suscription plans offer free local calls too.

      Here's another bit of news: we have these round things that fit on boxes to make them easier to move.

      At least we don't pay to receive calls on our mobile phones in the UK.

      --
      Intellectual Property
      Intellectual: of the mind
      Property: that over which one has control
    13. Re:These are the same people by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No, I'm British. I didn't say BT had a monopoly, I said they were a monopolist. I've never seen them enter a market they didn't scheme to try to get an unfair advantage.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:These are the same people by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      The trunk is relatively inexpensive to duplicate, which is why by-and-large there are far more long distance operators with their own infrastructure than there are nationwide local telephone companies. Rebuilding the trunk means connecting cities together, in general digging one trench (albiet a long one) per city (or even using wireless links.) Rebuilding the local loop means digging up every street, navigating through haphazard and poorly planned existing infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage, etc) while you do so, interrupting traffic, et al.

      That's why the local loop is a natural monopoly and the trunk isn't. Cable and Wireless had little problem in the UK duplicating BT's trunk after competition was opened up. In the US, MCI, Sprint, Qwest, etc, have all reproduced AT&T's trunk without major problems. Indeed, competition didn't have to be legal for trunks to be economically viable. In the UK, British Rail operated its own for a very long time before telephony was opened up.

      By comparison, the only attempts to make local loops in most countries have been on the back of something else. Cable TV companies sell it because they're having to lay cable anyway (an exceedingly unpopular activity); The UK had one operator that tried to sell phone service (whose name I temporarily forget - I still have a share certificate somewhere...) which it did by using wireless links, a technology with some rather obvious major limitations; other than that the only real competition has come from mobile operators.

      I'm not suggesting rolling out a long distance network is cheap. It's beyond the resource of you or I. But it's far easier and cheaper than rolling out a local loop, so much so that it's economically quite a viable thing to do.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  5. 24 years of BBS & internet experience by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most of which I downloaded at least some software. Prior art indeed! What closet have the patent examiners been locked in for the last 30 years that they never heard of software downloading?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      RTFP

      It's about automatic updates. The headline is misleading.

    2. Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience by Dizzle · · Score: 1

      A misleading, FUD headline on Slashdot? Stop the presses :)

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
    3. Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It's about automatic updates. The headline is misleading.

      From the Article:A British company with a history of taking on larger rivals says it owns six patents affecting software downloads. The claim comes from British Technology Group (BTG), which is in the business of turning inventors' ideas into commercial products. If true, it could mean that dozens of software firms that use the Web to deliver certain kinds of software - including security updates and patches - could be forced to pay royalties to BTG.

      I may be interpreting the English wrong (after all, I'm from Oregon and I speak Standard American, not English), but the way I read this maybe one or two of the six patents include using the Web to deliver certain kinds of software like security updates and patches. The other four could be covering anything- including shareware, freeware, OSS...

      But I'll give you "on the web" which means basically only my last 12 years out of the 12 is relevant. But shoot- even back then I knew a guy who was writing "beneficial viruses" to update his shareware....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      RTFPatent ;)

      to be fair I haven't read the patent either, but both of the articles imply that this is limited to automatic updates / patches.

    5. Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Once again- the article on The Register implied no such thing, at least, not by my understanding of English. I saw it as INCLUDING, but not LIMITED TO automatic updates and patches. Also- I had a friend back in college, circa 1993, who was using beneficial viruses and worms to update his shareware automatically, so there is certainly prior art for that which predates the web.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience by Iron+Monkey · · Score: 2, Informative
      Read the other article. The actual patents are linked. From the page:

      Patent 5,694,546: System for automatic unattended electronic information transport between a server and a client by a vendor provided transport software with a manifest list

      Patent 6,594,692: Methods for transacting electronic commerce

      Patent 6,125,388: System for transporting information objects between a user station and multiple remote sources based upon user modifiable object manifest stored in the user station

      Patent 6,658,464: User station software that controls transport, storage, and presentation of content from a remote source

      Patent 6,611,862: User station software that controls transport and presentation of content from a remote source

      Patent 6,557,054: Method and system for distributing updates by presenting directory of software available for user installation that is not already installed on user station

      --
      If my enemy's enemy is my friend, what happens if my enemy is his own worst enemy?
    7. Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I'll go read the other article. But on it's face, it's 6,658,464 and 6,611,862 that are the scariest. Every browser, every terminal program, even the old "dumb terminal" VT100 embedded operating system, controled transport, storage, and presentation of content from a remote source; and that's what I was looking at. I'll admit to not actually drilling down below that- some of us have jobs!

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:24 years of BBS & internet experience by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I've now read the other article. Prior art for Patent 6,125,388: ZModem, YModem. Prior art for Patent 6,611,862: any terminal emulation program or web browser that supports secure or unsecure logins.

      Actually, my full 24 years of experience applies to these two- it's completely rediculous to hand out a patent on either one of these NOW.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  6. Law of (Un)Intended consequences -Akamai is toast! by syrinje · · Score: 1
    This set of patents is a veritable gold mine for the holders - its not just web update/patch/dnld mechanisms that are involved. For example Akamai uses a lot of similar technology to sync and distribute content between their different nodes - and the folks at BTG can, doubtless, hear the CHI-CHING!!! of the cash registers. If you own a set-top box that is remotely programmed/updated with firmware through your phone/cable/satellite conenction - CHI-CHING!!!! If you write a small client-server software for your startup and the stars smile on your IPO - CHI-CHING!! I can see these patents keeping a large army of sharkskin suits in business for a long time indeed.

    syrinje
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

    --
    See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
  7. Global by alexo · · Score: 1

    > And it wasn't BTG that "patented" hyperlinks, it was BT, Britain's
    > monopolist telephone company. A phone company that makes you pay by the
    > second for local calls.

    Almost every phone company outside of North America makes you pay by the second for local calls, and most of them are monopolists.

  8. Not just patenting software downloads... by abertoll · · Score: 1

    But having SIX different patents on downloading software? How does that make sense?

    --
    "he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
    1. Re:Not just patenting software downloads... by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 1
      But having SIX different patents on downloading software? How does that make sense?
      It's the shotgun approach! They fire six, one might land a hit.

      Though I wonder... if that happens, could we cite those other five as prior art?

      --
      You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
    2. Re:Not just patenting software downloads... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      It's the SCO method. Throw around enough crap, and hope something stinks, err, sticks.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  9. IIRC, this stupid patent has already been patented by bluephone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IIRC, didn't Symantec get a patent on this very idea a year ago, relating to it's LiveUpdate system, but promised not to enfore it? I mean, it was a stupid patent then, but apparently the bar is even lower now. Not only can you patent things you didn't invent and with plenty of prior art, you can patent stuff that's already been patented!

    --
    jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
  10. Who'd have thought ... by jc42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... that the Web would be useful for installing software?

    But now that these guys have shown us the way, we can all start doing it. It oughta be a lot faster than those punch cards that I'd been using.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  11. apt-get by sydb · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do I have to take it out of cron now? If I put it in cron, but didn't write apt-get, am I exempt?

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  12. back in the day by viniosity · · Score: 1

    When we used tapes to load software on computers I heard it was possible to record tapes from the radio and then use (or upload if you will) those tapes onto your computer. Prior art may even go back all the way to downloading software from Radio.

    1. Re:back in the day by murky_lurker · · Score: 1

      Heh, this brings back memories - my dad and one of his friends spent an afternoon playing BASIC programs to each other down the phone, each recording the output to a tape recorder. I remember thinking "Wow! wave of the future!" when one of those crappy BASIC listings actually worked using this method. However, the level of mental anguish involved to try and copy any Speedlock or Bleepload-protected data (damn you, Footballer of the Year!) using this method far outweighed the convenience factor. R:Tape Loading Error still haunts my dreams :/

    2. Re:back in the day by spike1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Various TV programmes in the UK did similar things. Tomorrows world back in the early 80s tried a few methods of downloading from the telly.

      The old tape recorder next to the tv while we play you the loading sound was the first (I tried that with the ZX81 one they broadcast... didn't work, they also did vic 20 and later, spectrum, iirc). Later, they tried a direct connection to the computer via a light sensor stuck to the screen, and a flashing black and white square. (Think that one was only for the BBC micro though)

      The BAUD rate must've been in the 10s but it's still a software download... :)

      Other more game oriented computer programmes used to broadcast the loading sound to things on a weekly basis.

      Of course... All of this is forgetting Prestel and the games downloadable from teletext if you had the correct peripheral for your computer (again, BBC Micro only iirc)

  13. Off-topic: Off-line browsing patent as well? by Bega · · Score: 1
    After I RTFA, what caught my interest, was this;
    The company also claims to hold a patent that relates to off-line Internet browsing, another area that could be lucrative in terms of royalty payments.
    --

    THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
  14. RTFC ... by pbhj · · Score: 1

    Read The Flippin' Claims ...

    Patent monopolies are only as broad as the area defined by the claims. I only looked at the eldest patent via Outlaw (http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=10873 19985&area=news) to the USPTO (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.ht m&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,694,546.WKU.&OS=PN/5,694,546&R S=PN/5,694,546).

    The claim 1 (which is usually the broadest) specifies automatic download and uncompressing of files using a software component that can be embedded in an "vendor-provided containing information product". The embedded component also does all the dialup stuff and uses manifests to decide the file downloads.

    The examiner appears to have been quite thorough, citing mirror-ing scripts for example.

    So, it sounds alot like apt but as an embeddable component. The restrictions to "information file object[s]" is interesting as this appears to rule out executables. Also, if you use a pre-existing net connection (including a pre-dialled connection) it seems you are outside the claims. There's enough in the main claim (such as the requirement that it uses a "a communications network lacking a network file system" (there must be at least one NFS attached to the www, right?!)) means it's a pretty harmless claim.

    Point at issue is that you can still be sued and it will probably be cheaper to pay for a license than to challenge in court!!

    1. Re:RTFC ... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Check out patent #6,611,862 - from it's claims every damn terminal emulator, and even the hardware firmware in terminals, violates it. The question becomes, will they enforce them as a set or separately?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  15. me too .... by turnin · · Score: 2, Funny


    Investor: We decided to invest in Company 1 due to the unique Download patent they had.

    Company 2: oh ... if that is the case we had pending patents on
    1. upLoading 2. leftLoading 3.rightLoading 4. omniLoading
    ofcourse with "download" as an old prior art.

  16. microsoft by qtothemax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article: The UK's Daily Telegraph, which broke the story, speculates that Microsoft - which delivers millions of security updates for its software over the Net - is one of the firms on BTG's hit list.

    Since Microsoft is involved, I see 3 possible outcomes to this:
    1) Microsoft challenges the patent and wins
    2) Microsoft buys BTG and does not enforce the patent. Everyone lives happily ever after.
    3) Microsoft buys BTG and milks the patents for all they are worth. Everyone looses.
    If microsoft is forced to pay royalties, I have no doubt they will try to buy out BTG, and since BTG is not a software company, they will probaly not face many regulatory roadblocks. From the examples of patches and update downloads, possibly this only applies to automatic updates to things like windows or virus scanners. If MS does end up owning the patent, they will probly use it to put Symantic and co out of buisness, because they could then offer thier new antivirus product we've been hearing about at a lower price, and take a chunk of whatever symantic/mcafee still sells. Hopefully, this stupid patent will just be thrown out, and that whole mess can be avoided.

    1. Re:microsoft by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What I'd like to see is, shall we say, option 1a:

      Microsoft challenges the patent and eventually wins, but uses its courtroom manipulation mojo to make the trial last as long as possible, thus causing BTG to collapse into bankruptcy under the weight of its own idiocy. Maybe that will be a bit of incentive to stop further patent stupidity from other firms.

  17. Sensational Slashdot headlines as always by MegaT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you take a look at the second link and investigate the patents, you'll see it's really not as simple as 'downloading software'. Although it's plain to see that BTG are a bunch of immoral patent-grabbing bastards, it looks as though these particular patents might just be specific enough to circumvent your scorn. Maybe just.

    1. Re:Sensational Slashdot headlines as always by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It is in fact, worse after you look at two of the patents- not just downloading software, but also CONTENT- thus covering every browser or file tranfer protocol that I've ever used.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  18. I feel sorry for the Patent staff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who have to read through so much BS, the patents have such complicated wording. There should be a rule stating:

    "If your patent description exceeds X pages then it is not unique and important enough to benefit from the patent protection"

    Quality not quantity! Make things clearer!

  19. I wonder by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    Does this patent 6,611,862 cover trojans?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  20. They did *not* patent, they *licensed*! by Randym · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A British firm that is the exclusive licensee for a portfolio of six US patents...



    These are *pre-existing* US patents which they have *licensed*. They, themselves, have *not* patented these, they have paid money to the people who *did* patent them.



    The real controversy here is their application of these patents: their business plan is that they will sue the pants off the largest corporations they can find that they can plausibly attest is violating "their" patent. This has been their modus operandi for awhile.



    Ironically, they were originally set up by the government of Great Britain in 1948 to commercialize "publicly funded research". It seems that they have gotten a little off track, and should probably be reined it a little.

    --
    DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.