Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO Rejects SBC Browser Patent

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the seen-coming dept.

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."

3 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Quietly? by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Um, like it's a surprise? by symbolic · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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".

  3. all corps will inevitably enforce their patents by indaba · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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/