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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
(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.
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?
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