USPTO Rejects SBC Browser Patent

theodp writes "Remember that dicey 1996 SBC Structured Document Browser patent that Slashdot readers immediately called BS on back in 2003? Two-and-a-half years later, a USPTO Director-ordered reexam reached the same conclusion, and a final rejection was quietly issued last month."

Comments

Quietly?

[Dancin_Santa]

All patents are issued or denied quietly. It's usually rumor sites like Slashdot and www.eff.org that make these quiet affairs larger than life.

Something will never change

[guardiangod]

Pattent System
by spooje on Wednesday November 12, @10:01AM (#7453079)

Great now if we can just get the USPTO to review the entire pattent process we should be all set.

It is sad that after 1 1/2 year, we are still talking about reforming the patent system, instead of actually doing something.

Re:Something will never change

[Tassach]

Let's see if we can get the concept through your microscopic pea brain:
You are talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE. I am talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. The gaping disparity between the two demonstrates that the system is defective.

It's really nice that you can cite the case where the meaning of the word "obvious" was redefined to have a different meaning than what the rest of the English-speaking world uses. All that means we can use it to pinpoint exactly when and where things went wrong, and that we know what ruling we need to have overturned if we want the current farce to come to an end.

The fact that it's the currently the law of the land doesn't change the fact that it's a BAD ruling which is largely reponsible for the current fucked up state of affairs. Dred Scott was the law of the land for many years as well, that doesn't mean that it was ever RIGHT.

As far as I'm concerned, we can put Grahame v. Deere up on the list of the Top 10 Revisionist Supreme Court Rulings, right alongside the others which have changed the legal definitions for key words and phrases like "unreasonable search", "probable cause", and "infringed" to mean something completely different than what they mean in common usage. The Supreme Court occasinally makes spectacuarly boneheaded decisions. Dred Scott was one, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company was another; Grahame v. Deere belongs right up there with them.

I prefer to read the OED to get my definitions of words in the English language.

Try that in traffic court, Mr. MENSA. They'll even laugh at you there.

This isn't a court of law, numbnuts. I'm not presenting a legal case -- I'm presenting an argument that the system is BROKEN and needs to be changed. Perhaps if judges and lawyers would start reading the same dictionary the rest of the English speaking world uses, instead of twisting and obfuscating words for their own self-serving ends and playing pedantic naval-gazing word games, we might have a justice system that actually dispensed justice on a reliable basis.

If I were going to court, I'd hire a lawyer and let him pervert the English language on my behalf. That doesn't make it right, or ethical -- that's just how the game is currently played. The point I'm trying to make is that we need to CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME.

A courtroom is not SUPPOSED to be some strange bizzaroland parallel dimension where simple words have different meanings than they do everywhere else, where the rules of logic and common sense take a back seat to mindless unreasoned tradition, and where the same old mistakes are unquestioningly repeated over and over ad nauseum. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the courts have become. That is why the system needs to be changed.

Not that I'm holding my breath for things to change, except for the worse. Injustice and corruption are becoming the norm, rather than the exception. The trend to subvert and ignore the Constitution will continue to accelerate. The legal system will continue to wallow in it's own filth until it finally chokes on it and brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Re:Um, like it's a surprise?

[symbolic]

How many other things does the governent "talk" about doing? Let's see...a couple of biggies are campaign finance reform (never happened), and social security. I truly believe that if they ever *did* accomplish anything with respect to these issues, they'd feel like there wouldn't be anything left to promise during the next election. The formula seems to be, "promise, do nothing, rinse, repeat".

all corps will inevitably enforce their patents

[indaba]

Not quite, that's another question to the one I raised. I agree with you in that Microsoft have never used this patent offensively, but do you remember they DID try with the FAT patent ???

The real problem/question I wanted to raise is with obvious extensions to prior art being patentable. (see my original post)

Finally, there is ~14 years left to run on this patent. A lot can happen in that time.. I wouldn't discount the possibility of Microsoft beginning to enforce their patents, and hence derive significant revenue if the rest of their business model begins to suffer from the encoachment of open source software.

IBM derive SIGNIFICANT revenue ($US 1.6B in 2000) http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,43186, 00.html
for thier shareholders by enforcing their patent revenue.

Companies are not "good", they just have interests (that of thier shareholders) to serve.
Enforcing a patent portfolio is inevitable for companies. It's just in the nature of the beast.

But don't take my word for it, how about Eben Moglen, pro bono counsel for the Free Software Foundation
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/08/microsoft_ aiming_ibmscale_patent_program/

Patent stewardship - what nonsense

[putaro]

The reason for having a patent system is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (that's what it says in the Constitution).

Allowing entities to patent large swaths of ideas and then expect them to be "good stewards" of them is not what the patent system is for. Why should we have to rely on Microsoft's good graces to use what are obviously trivial ideas.

Overly broad patents should not be granted. AT&T had a long history of being good about licensing patents widely and not trying to extort money for them. SBC, the inheiritor of that patent from Ameritech, went fishing for money with it. What guarantees are there that Microsoft will not be taken over by someone else (since you believe they are such wonderful folks) who would decide to enforce all of their dodgy patents?

No, solutions that rely on corporate self-restraint are fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, having Microsoft be the owner of the patent is just luck. The system needs to stop granting these things. In fact, the system needs to start punishing people who apply for this crap. Patent lawyers will apply for just about anything because the risks associated with not researching prior art enough are completely negligible.

FLAGRANT

[drew]

I'm not normally one to nitpick on spelling errors, but if you're going to YELL that loud, you could at least yell the word correctly.

Re:Um, like it's a surprise?

[zippthorne]

There have been numerous "campaign finance reform" bills in recent memory. So far, all they've been good at is securing the incumbent however. The most recent one has given quite a bit of power to the owners of media companies. What do you call a country ruled by its press? Mediocracy?