Slashdot Mirror
Online Rich Media Patented
An anonymous reader writes "Balthasar has been awarded a patent on "Methods, systems, and processes for the design and creation of rich-media applications via the internet" ( USPO 7,000,180). In an article at news.com the company claims that "The patent covers all rich-media technology implementations including Flash, Flex, Java, AJAX and XAML and all device footprints which access rich-media Internet applications including desktops, mobile devices, set-top boxes and video game consoles". The patent was filed on 9 February 2001, five years after the original Flash application, FutureWave Splash, was introduced in May 1996."
The patent was filed on 9 February 2001, five years after the original Flash application, FutureWave Splash, was introduced in May 1996."
And seven years after the applet of Duke waving in 1995, soon followed by the 3D rotatable molecule applet demod by Gosling, both pretty rich for their time.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Original post.
An article in Information Week mentions that Balthaser was formerly a VP of strategy at Macromedia, so I'm sure they'll be interested in how his employment contract with them affects this patent's ownership and validity. It also mentions that he used Macromedia Flash 3 in the late 1990s, at least two years prior to receiving the patent. If anyone buys this patent from him they'll be up against big players, and it'll be war. And the patent will almost certainly be invalidated. Then again, if anyone is dumb enough to buy it, maybe I should approach them about buying my patent number 4,815,162,342 entitled "A Method for Utilizing and Commercializing a Simultaneously Suspended and Supported Access Route from Manhattan to Brooklyn."
It sounds like this also overlaps terminal services to a degree... /////
United States Patent 7,000,180
Balthaser February 14, 2006
Methods, systems, and processes for the design and creation of rich-media applications via the internet
Abstract
Rich-media applications are designed and created via the Internet. A host computer system, containing processes for creating rich-media applications, is accessed from a remote user computer system via an Internet connection. User account information and rich-media component specifications are uploaded via the established Internet connection for a specific user account. Rich-media applications are created, deleted, or modified in a user account via the established Internet connection. Rich-media components are added to, modified in, or deleted from scenes of a rich-media application based on information contained in user requests. After creation, the rich-media application is viewed or saved on the host computer system, or downloaded to the user computer system via the established Internet connection. In addition, the host process monitors the available computer and network resources and determines the particular component, scene, and application versions, if multiple versions exist, that most closely match the available resources.
Too fast? The prior art is a frigging DECADE ago. How is that too fast?
The prosecution outline was utterly normal: Restriction, election by applicant, first action rejection, response with amendment, final rejection, response with amendment after final rejection, allowance. The first rejection had a "double patenting rejection", which was a technicality, since the parent application was still pending; it was allowed to abandon, mooting this ground of rejection. In addition, some, but not all, of the claims were rejected as anticipated (35 USC 102(e)) over a patent with an earlier filing date. There were no other rejections, in particular, no obviousness (35 USC 103) rejections.
A consequence of item 2 above is that the applicant is entitled to file up to four divisional applications, each one, if its claims are limited to the invention outlined in the restriction requirement, are immune to double patenting rejections based on the current application claims (they will still be rejectable, however, based on prior art).
Now, I have no idea what circumstances surrounded the handling of this application, but I can speculate that there was a fight by the examiners not to get stuck with this application ("It's a dog!") and, when the examiner of record got stuck with it he was, additionally pressured to get an action out ASAP, reflecting PTO management's long held policy of keeping production high and time to action short. This is one motivation for making the first action a restriction requirement; it gets the case off the books for a month or two, but of course when the election comes back it's back in play and has to be handled.
Claim 1 is actually what is patented:
1. A method for users to create and maintain a rich-media application on said host website via the Internet comprising:
creating a user account; accessing a user account; and viewing available options for creating rich-media applications,
wherein said accessing a user account comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; creating a new rich-media application; modifying an existing rich-media application; and accessing statistics from an existing rich-media application;
wherein accessing a user account comprises modifying an existing rich-media application and wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; accessing rich-media application information; accessing rich-media application specification information; saving said rich-media application; closing said rich-media application; deleting said rich-media application; publishing said rich-media application; previewing said rich-media application; accessing components used in the construction of said rich-media application; accessing component-editing graphical user interfaces; and accessing a scene of said rich-media application; and
wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises publishing said rich-media application and wherein said publishing said rich-media application comprises downloading said rich-media application from said host computer to the user's remote computer system.
In other words this patent covers creating rich - media applications through what is essentially an application server. It is MUCH narrower than the stupid article claims. It is unbelievable that with all the patent related stories that Slahsdot publishes the editiors STILL don't have the foggiest clue as to how to read a patent.
Oh, and by the way, this application is a Continuation-in-part of an older application filed in Nov 2000, so the priority date is not February 9, 2001 either.
"Delivering whatsoever over the internet" is called FTP.
However, that's not really what's being dealt with here. HTML was designed with rich content in mind. It can transfer any kind of file specifiable by mimetype, *including* Flash etc., and was intended to do that interactively, thereby making it a superset of Flash in concept. Java Applets were available in HTML 3.0, which was a LONG time ago now (1995/6, I think?).
Moreover, HTML is superior in design, despite some misuse. It's independent of resolution, browser, etc., and was designed to be future-proof, based on previous future proof document formats. This essentially makes it less implementation-bound and more forward-thinking than the proprietary Flash format.
Also, the very first interactive web apps were done with CGI, developed back in 1993. This uses the very successful and now re-popularised "REST" model, which isn't going anywhere as a modern solution to interactivity.
When he says it covers all "rich media" he really means it covers rich media GENERATOR/EDITOR applications in said rich media, not all apps or the technology itself.
...and wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information;...
The patent describes a system for creating what basically is a Flash IDE with clipart online.
Sadly, I must disagree with your conclusion.
From the patent:
IE: the patent claim is that accessing account information is a sufficient modification of an exisiting rich-media application to be considered under the purview of this patent. I agree that the abstract is talking about rich media editors, but the specific claims are vastly broader (as is so often the case). If that particular piece of claim 2 holds up then this patent covers, for example, every AJAX application that involves client log-in.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Did you actually take the time to read the patent ? In fact, the editor didn't read it either. This patent is for a web based tool that would auto-magically create rich-media application as the low-intellect user would like to have, and it has to look good too... I don't think anyone right in his mind would like to try to make something like this ;)