Microsoft, Apple Sued Over Software Update Patent

mark_wilkins writes "Microsoft and Apple have been sued by Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC, alleging that their online software updating technology infringes a patent on providing online updates to software with a menuing system to permit the user to pick the updates. Apparently the work on which the patent is based supposedly goes back to 1990."

Comments

Re:decent patent - NOT

[prgrmr]

There's enough prior art from the BBSs of the late 70s through the 90s. Hardware manufacturers, e.g., Seagate, would have their own BBS from which drivers and patches could be downloaded. Sure, it was dial-up, but it meets the requirements of being networked, menu-driven, with user-selectable updates. Prior art should kill this dead, followed by obviousness stomping it into the earth for good. I download my security patches from HP using an on-line, menu-driver, user-selectable process too.

Re:Gimme a billion dollars, I'm a genius, I swear.

[Halo1]

The claims are not what the invention is, but indeed what the "inventor" wants a monopoly on in return for the publication of the description of how his "invention" works. As such, claims are always broader than the invention itself (the reasoning is that otherwise, someone can get around the inventor's patent by just changing one small detail of the invention).

With non-software patents (i.e., where the invention/innovation lies in a novel way of using physical forces/material), how far exactly you are allowed to abstract is mainly limited by three things:

1. You can't abstract the claims until only the forces of nature you are harnessing remain, because those are not patentable;
2. You can't abstract the forces of nature you harness out and remain with some generic algorithm/method that could apply to anything, because then your invention (novel way to use those forces) is no longer part of the claims;
3. You're of course also limited by prior art (you invent a new car, but other cars already exist -> you can't claim all 4-wheeled vehicles etc) and whatever the patent office deems too general (after all, society grants you a monopoly in return for disclosure of an invention, so those two should -in theory- be proportionate).

However, if you look at software patents, then

1. There are no unpatentable basic "forces of information";
2. Since what you start with is already some abstract method/algorithm, no matter how much you abstract it further, you can always argue that your invention is still embodied in those claims;
3. This one is the only thing left.

The net result is indeed that you end up with ridiculously broad claims in pretty much all cases with software patents, even if the innovation itself was not as stupid as in this case. An example is the base patent on MP3 compression, whose claims cover all iterative music compression schemes in which an entropic encoder (such as Huffman encoding) is used in the loop and whereby the loop stops when you've reached the desired bit rate.

Re:Blood sucking vultures

[EvanED]

No, not always. Plenty of inventors will make something up, approach other companies to do the actual marketing and manufacturing, sell them rights to the patent, and then go on and make something else. (Rinse and repeat)

Look at the Dyson vacuum cleaner. Dyson invented the bagless vacuum, patented it, and approached other vacuum companies to see if they were interested. Only after he was turned down did he actually start his own company. And after his vacuums took off, other companies copied his patent, were sued, and lost. That, to me, is perfectly desirable and just.

Granted, I can't tell if the company in question here approached MS and friends (and enemies) to see if they wanted to license their patent, but if they had and were refused, I have to stand on their side.

Re:Menuing system

[Qzukk]

Something like that.

Two things can happen, either the patent can be invalid, or the patent can be too broad. if an independent claim is invalid, all dependent claims are invalid as well. If the judge decides the scope is too broad, then the independent claim is restricted to only be valid with one or more of the dependent claims.

In this case, if the judge finds that software updates aren't patentable, then none of the dependent claims matter. But, the judge can find that claim 1 is too broad, (perhaps theres prior art for that claim) in which case he may find that the addition of an HTML viewer is novel and patentable.