Slashdot Mirror
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."
At least we don't have to worry about "apt-get update" :-)
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
The link presented is what, a press release by the company doing the suing? That's a nice, unbiased viewpoint, there. I like how the "article" states "This move follows Microsoft's and Apple's delay in entering into licensing agreements with BTG on commercially reasonable terms." In other words, "we're suing them because they told us that we're full of crap and please get lost." I skimmed through the lengthy patent in question, and it's so insanely broad that I cannot imagine that it would survive a court battle with its claims intact. There's not one single mention of how any portion of the "technology" in question would actually do anything. It's just a description of how it would be used. It looks like someone patenting a type of car by claiming, "It has wheels, and it moves forward and backward and can be steered by a person or by some other type of steering control, give me a billion dollars right now, I'm a genius."
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
There are too many holes and gaps in the patent system. Everything is so vague you can patent a flying car... just on a plastic model alone with some BS blueprints.
What the hell are we supposed to do when this company seeks an injunction against Microsoft's Windows Update?
lots of people will be royally f*cked...
Where would you like to stifle innovation today?
... in case you are interested
This patent looks in order. Early enough that there's a low likelyhood of prior art, and it pretty well covers any auto-updating system.
My only thought is that maybe we could kill it with the obviousness clause.
Jay | http://oldos.org
No doubt the "patent" also applies to various Linux distributions, but obviously they're not being sued because there's little money in them.
With all the hubub over software patents being a danger to open source software, you have to wonder whether or not they're a bigger danger to commercial companies. After all, if you're going to sue someone you're going to go after a company with money. Even better if they're public, as you might be able to extort them into settling behind the scenes since a lawsuit might hurt their share prices.
"*Sneeze* Oh, I'm sorry... I'm allergic to bullshit." --Will Smith, "I, Robot"
Moderation Insight
Mundane Concept = Mundane Concept
Mundane Concept Online = Patent
As much as I love to watch Microsoft feel financial pain, this is still yet another example of why software patents are a lousy idea. I shudder to think how much worse virus episodes would be if windowsupdate wasn't as convenient as it is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Programming Language creators should include a provision in their license that forces programmers to use the copyright system and not the patent system with programs written in their language. In addition all software patent applications should require actual working code that is complex and novel enough to actually warrant a patent for the idea itself and not just a single expression of the idea as in copyright.
In the meantime congress should simply ban new software patents until the USPTO can be fixed.
I believe World War III will be triggered by fuqing patents.
If I recall correctly, WWI and WWII were both caused by patents. Sorry, theres prior art to your statement.
HOWEVER, just throw "online" in there. WWIII will be triggered by ONLINE patents --- new idea!
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
I really don't get it. I could see if the code was ripped off line for line, but if two different programs have the same effect, but get it with two different ways, shouldn't they be concidered two different pattents? As an anlogy, a record player, a CD player, and an mp3 player all have the same basic function, to play back audio recordings. But thy're all protected by different patents. If I invent a new way to play back sound recordings, I can't be sued by the mp3-player patent holders.
However, if I write a piece of software, and include a function that someone has already patented, even if I write my code from scratch, I can be sued?
Isn't this the same as patenting an idea? Isn't there something in the patent law against this? Am I Missing something?
"A method for distributing information to a plurality of uncoordinated user stations each of which is configured for communications with a multiplicity of independently-operated servers via a non-proprietary network includes steps for providing a distribution service that distributes updates for a plurality of different products, and providing a transporter software component to each of the plurality of uncoordinated user stations, wherein the transporter software component at each user station automatically effects communication sessions with the distribution service via the non-proprietary network for the purpose of obtaining updates for each of at least a subset of the plurality of different products that are installed on that user station."
It sounds awfully complicated, and that's only the first sentence. They could probably claim they own pretty much every updating technology with that...
Seriously though, providing "updates to software with a menuing system to permit the user to pick the updates" has been in every system I used, and I don't believe that adding the word "online" in front of it makes it a new super-innovative technology.
Even if it's Microsoft, if they were to lose on this one, it would be a shame.
I'd get an injunction against each and every one of you.
While it seems that this Reisman guy may have been working on this technology since 1990, the patent wasn't filed until 2000.
So I think MS and Apple would just have to show they started using this tech before 1999 - i.e. it was public IP before the patent was filed.
Lesson: Patent early, patent often.
This is a combined Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/641,010, filed on Apr. 29, 1996, and entitled "COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED TRANSPORT OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION OBJECTS," which is a Continuation-in-Part of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/251,824, filed on May 31, 1994, and entitled "SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATIC UNATTENDED ELECTRONIC INFORMATION TRANSPORT BETWEEN A SERVER AND A CLIENT BY A VENDOR PROVIDED TRANSPORT SOFTWARE WITH A MANIFEST LIST," which as U.S. Pat. No. 5,420,820 on May 30, 1995, and U.S. application Ser. No. 08/982,157, filed on Dec. 1, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,125,388 and entitled "COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED TRANSPORT OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION OBJECTS," which is a Continuation of the aforementioned Ser. No.08/251,724 filed May 31, 1994 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,694,546). All of the above-identified applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
I count three "Continuation"'s in there, dating as far back as 1994.
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.
I hate software-related patents as much as the next guy, but the continual cry of "That's obvious" is getting tiring. If it was so obvious, why was there such a long period of time between the patent and when MS and Apple started using a similar system? Clearly, it took them years before they "saw the light."
This is ludicrous. BTG shouldn't be allowed to wait for ten years to enforce their patent, and then sue for past damages. If BTG were being damaged, BTG should have filed suit earlier. This is nothing but a shakedown.
The good thing about it is that if Microsoft gets pissed off about submarine patents, they have the money and political influence to do something about it, like lobby Congress to reform patents. Unless, of course, the perceived benefits of their patent arsenal outweigh the occasional nuisance lawsuit.
This is a disease which afflicts the patent system. People are not patenting brilliant, innovative, inobvious ideas, but just "staking out territory".
Also, this patent was filed in 2000. If this work dates from the 1980's, as is stated in the post, then an enabling disclosure or marketing of the technology may have occurred before 1999, and the patent will be questionable.
It may be that Applie and Microsoft think they can attack this patent, which is why they didn't cut a deal.
This is overwelmingly wounderous
news
time for everyone to switch to linux now
Difference: IMHO, Professional Inventors actually try to market their ideas- turn them into something useful- help people- build a profitable business. Think of Edison, Bell, etc. They invented and then put it out there so everyone benefited from their creativity. These guys make the patent, then hide out monitoring the market, until they find an "infringer", and then call out the lawyers. That's no benefit to anyone except themselves & the BSV attorneys.
There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
Just for the sake of recording prior art:
HelixCode (then Ximian, then acquired by Novell) produced an installer and updater that shipped in March 2000 and pre-dates the patent applications and did what is described there:
* tracking existing software.
* identifying new software packages.
* identify software updates available.
* install those, resolve dependencies.
* communicated with a server to fetch this information.
* Worked for Debian and RPM systems.
* It used HTML to render the information (like
this patent claim says).
This patent contains 376 claims, most of them
regurgitations of the previous one, and most of
them were done.
I remember that MandrakeSoft had something
similar, but I can not remember if they had it
before or after, I remember thinking that this
was a significant value added over the Red Hat
distribution (back in the day when Mandrake
was a relatively small fork).
Miguel
A method by which a plurality of alleged inventors may submit a plurality of patent applications to a plurality of patent offices using a computer network, connection to which may be facilitated by a plurality of independent service providers over a variety of communication methods, including but not limited to telephone lines, cable television connections, satellite uplinks, digital subscriber line technologies and paper cups tied together with a piece of string.
(I call this method 'e-mailing a patent attorney')
(ok, the patent system didn't exist then)
Yes, it did. You forget that Franklin was British. The British patent system dates from the first quarter of the 17th century, and before that the King could grant them directly.
He actually had a patent on the Franklin stove, but did not enforce it.
KFG
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.
its ironic that http://www.btgplc.com/ is running on IIS. Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:37:57 GMT it would be bad if they couldnt do windows updates ;)
"BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and ... " blah blah blah
Translation: We sue people.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
About BTG
BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and in early stage ventures. We realize value through technology licensing, patent assertion and sale of equity investments. Through a multidisciplinary approach, we apply intellectual property and commercial expertise, together with specialist skills in science and technology, to create major product opportunities in the health and high tech sectors. BTG has commercialized important innovations, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging, working closely with Professor Sir Peter Mansfield, who was jointly awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine, and others who made contributory inventions to MRI. BTG has also commercialized Multilevel Cell Memory, Campath(R) (alemtuzumab), the first monoclonal antibody treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and recombinant Factor IX blood clotting protein. BTG operates through wholly owned subsidiaries BTG International Ltd. and BTG International Inc. in the UK and USA, respectively.
Or, to summarise, they do nothing.
I skimmed a bit of the patent and it refers to the software being offered from a non-proprietary network. Does that mean that if Apple and MS prove that their networks are, in fact, "proprietary", then the patent doesn't even apply to them?
The patent wasnt awarded to them until April 2003 according to the story. So it's only been about a year.
:p Just FYI
Not that I'm defending them or anything
Joseph?
...and the doctrine of laches says that's not allowed. They could almost certainly have asserted their right years ago. Windows Update has been around for yonks.
I described such a system in a short class I was doing on a whiteboard in 1982. Prior enough to the patent for you?
You've completely confused patents vs. copyright. Copyrights protect the expression of an idea, and your arguments are more-or-less correct w.r.t. copyrights.
Patents exist to protect an idea. And yes, you can come up with the idea completely independently, and express it differently, but still be in violation of a patent. That's pretty much a requirement for patents to be useful. Otherwise you could just look at the patent but claim you hadn't.
No. Patents used to last 17 years from the date of issue. In 1996, this was changed to 20 years from the Application date to fix the submaringe patent problem.
An applicant gets the benefit of the the earliest aplication if later patents granted are a continuation of the earlier patents. THis is supposed to be an incentive to file early, with as much information as possible.
If you look at the sheer volume of prior art, it looks like the applicant and the USPTO went round and round on this one. The PTO probably got tired of hearing from the applant and just granted the patent.
...here is it.
t ml
t .html
In an 1980 article about Bulletin Board systems (which are more or less "menu driven" by selecting from the few commands available, displayed at start-up), there was already the idea of swapping files - a way to do software updates: "We also are considering a function that would allow swapping complete programs."
Here's the full article:
http://www.portcommodore.com/commodore/bbs/cbbs.h
Here's even more information on early BBS and even the invention of the XModem-Protocol:
http://www.portcommodore.com/commodore/bbs/bbshis
As even some of the earliest implementations of XModem-capable programs showed you a list of downloadable files that you could select with your cursor keys and download by pressing a key - presumable "d" - you could speak of speak of "menu driven downloads". And as this was used by developers to share patches and updated programs it was certainly "menu driven updates over a network".
Given the above facts, they can put their patent where the sun doesn't shine - if there's still space left, that is.
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
Gerald Durrell and Rudyard Kipling were both born in India. They were not Indians. They were British.
A military brat friend of mine was born in Osaka, Japan. He is not Japanese. He has no right to Japanese citizenship. He is American.
In some cases, and in some times and places, parantage is as, or more, important than place of birth.
On that April night of 1775 no one yelled "The British are coming." That would have been nonsensical. They were all British. The yell was "The regulars are coming."
At the time of Franklin all British were subjects and all subjects were British, either natural born or naturalised and the American colonies were not even self governing dominions. They were British, as Alaska was American at the time of my birth, even though it was not yet a state. Had I been born in Alaska I would still be a natural born American. Franklin was a natural born British subject of natural born British subject parents and grandparents, just as were British subjects born in London.
Modern citizenship laws were not enacted until 1914.
Go ahead and pick all the holes you want though. If no one did I would have less opportunity to close them. I'm hardly always right, but I do like to get righter over time. It's all anyone can do.
KFG
It's been almost two decades, but I there was a menuing update software that was in use in a school's Apple II computer lab near me back in the 1987-88 timeframe when I was just moving on to college.
The machines were networked with twisted pair cable and used an AppleTalk protocol to communicate with an AppleShare server. When booted from a (slightly customized) floppy the machines ran a startup program that pulled a list of software from the server and compared to what was on the floppy. This wasn't commercial software, these were programs and docs the teachers had written and were capable of being downloaded to the boot disk. The idea was that since this wasn't copyrighted software, the students could take home their floppy if they had access to a home computer. Because floppy disks couldn't hold much information, the system only downloaded or updated the particular files the user chose from a menu (it was too small to mirror everything from the Mac II hard disk). The ability to update already downloaded programs and docs was absolutely a necessity since teacher written code would often have bugs and need to be re-distributed multiple times per week. (These were teachers NOT programmers.)
Was this a commercial utility? Was this a facility of AppleShare? Was this something that one of the smarter teachers just cooked up on his own? I have absolutely no idea. It was just a very simple, obvious, menu-driven, networkable, software-update system that was in use in the eighties.
Would this pre-date the claim made in this patent? If more information could be tracked down about this, it sounds like it might destroy the patentability of a 1990 claim to the idea. But I'm not a lawyer so this may very well not meet the legal standards to call into question the patent.