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."
Can someone trump them with prior art in "the ability to delvier anything whatsoiever over the internet"?
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Perhaps any half-decent lawyer can have the patent invalidated, but perhaps not before some yahoo judge slaps a permanent injunction on the whole web. (cf. RIM)
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.
The patent describes a system for creating what basically is a Flash IDE with clipart online. That said the patent affects all sorts of CMS (content management systems), editors, template-based sites and so on and so on that fall under it.
The prior art for that patent is devastating. A lot of the claims are ridiculous and include the "revolutionarty" inventions of.. rotating, scaling and moving objects.
I'm still mightily pissed by this silly patent, but I'll just ignore it, should they try to enforce it, they'll have to face the prior art.
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
Also the patent office needs to be held accountable for it's mistakes, like, for instance, paying for anyone who has to fight a bogus patent. Maybe then they'd take due care?
What would be easiest would be to invalidate now, and forever, any software patents. That would get rid of most of the bad patents in one swoop.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Original post.
Eolas was able to successfully sue Microsoft with a patent which had clear prior art. The judge did not allow the evidence in the trial - for whatever reason, it was never quite clear - and Microsoft lost the case. Logic and reasoning are only half the fight in legal cases. You're forgetting the rules which determine what can be considered as evidence during teh case and sometimes what's left defies logic and reeasoning altogether.
Maybe I should have the concept of 'awarding stupid patents' patented - it would make me filthy rich by collecting *lots* of royalties from the USPO.
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."
Balthasar sues Everyone
Everyone fails to settle
Jury rules Everyone is infringing
Judge threatens to shut down Everyone
USPTO decides patent is invalid
Judge shuts Everyone down
Balthaser's own website is built using Flash, one of the technologies for which it claims a patent.
Man, I can't wait until this new technology is implemented. Just think; we'll have something to look forward to on the Internet besides all those cumbersome, hand-coded HTML pages. Hurrah!
In a world without walls, there is no need for Windows.
At first I thought "rich media" meant Jack Valenti, but now I see that, as parent says, this patent covers editing something like a Flash script over the Internet, with some network application server doing the actual work. However, if you had an X-Windows application that edited such a Flash script, & you exported its display to another terminal, then you're clearly violating this patent, even though you could have done this in the 90s, maybe the 80s.
Even if we ignored that, this patent is obvious: it's a principle of CS that anything you can do on your own box, you can do remotely, thus if the local application isn't patented, then the web application can't be patented either, because it's obvious. I think if the USPTO realized this (although they're systemically disinclined to understand anything, since their revenue comes from *approving* patents), many assinine web patents would go away.
A few weeks ago we saw an article advocating "patents lite", in which the USPTO checks that the patent covers something patentable, but does *not* check for prior art, usefulness, or non-obviousness. The patent is much shorter, like 3 years. The first time it's challenged, the burden is now on the patent-holder to show that it's useful, novel, & non-obvious.
It turns out that de facto, we have patents lite. Clearly, the Patent Office checked nothing before it granted this patent, so we're just waiting for the first lawsuit. We have patents lite, & the system still doesn't work. It's time to end this.
On second thought, insult to sharks. Sorry, guys.
Pining for the fjords
"Shame it has to be such an expensive process."
Which is what the trick is all about imho.
There is a fallacy and myth that seems to come from games theory, it infests the minds of many capitalist economists
and in psychology is a known damaged transaction schema. A great laymans explanation of the idea can be found
here. The idea basically goes..
Your loss is my gain
Many patents seem to be premptive defensive moves rather than protective. They are not crafted in a form mindful of protecting any real assets so much as they are designed to impede others. Patents have actually become a way of inhibiting technological growth of competitors. The competitors most damaged are of course the young startups, nobody could possibly start a software company today and do so legally, just to get on with the most basic design any coder has to say "screw their stupid patent claims".
Money is the thing that makes this work. Big companies don't need patents, they have vast amounts of money to use as a stick to beat off challenges. But no small startup is going to take up the challenge, so each time a new chilling bogus
patent gets approved it holds back the little guys a bit more.
While there are individual winners and losers in this game the whole caper is by definition STUPIDITY. The loser is the nations economy as new innovators either fold up or relocate to a friendlier host country.
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.
And good luck making the patent officers personally liable... that'll grind the whole thing to a stand-still as they refuse to grant any more patents to anyone.
The problem with the patent system is that (like communism) it's a nice idea on paper, but totally unworkable in reality. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and when faced with a problem the majority of people (engineers etc) will arrive at a very similar solution to any given problem independently. This means that all of these solutions should fail the non-obviousness test. So unless you arrive at a solution that others skilled in the field don't arrive at, your solution can't be patented. (of course they often do get patented despite this rule...)
I've jokingly said we should have patent-jury duty ... maybe it's not such a bad idea after all... a new requirement of keeping the little ring on your little finger is to, on a random basis, provide solutions to a problem (based on a patent request) in a vacuum situation. Any solution you (and the other random contestants) come up with that is similar to the patent request will cause the patent to fail the non-obviousness test.
Combine that with a requirement to actually produce a working prototype, and shorter monopoly times and we might have a patent system that actually benefits society instead of shareholders.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Too fast? The prior art is a frigging DECADE ago. How is that too fast?
Ah ha. If that is true, then I think I see how this mess happened.
Is this the same method of funding for other major patent approval organisations around the world?
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Since computers and the internet are so standardized, any invention conforming to any of the following should be obvious to anybody:
The invention already exists in a non-networked version.
The invention already exists in a non-scriptable version.
The invention already exists as a hardware implementation.
The invention already exists using older components.
The invention already exists and is being used as such using it's individual components.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
I've said it once and I'll say it again; the only thing that will deterr this kind of rubbish from sabotaging the computer industry is criminal convictions and jail time.
I would start my persuing the patent examiners. They are either criminally negligent in allowing this kind of idiocy to get through and/or they have been taking bribes. Either way I don't think jail time is out of the question.
You could work it up to the patent office management eventually, possibly even the company who filed in extremeous, but at the end of the day, the people who rubber stamped the patent have to be held accountable, otherwise this will just get worse.
A pushy manager and quotas are no excuse. The accountants who fudged the books for Enron at the behest of the boss are guilty too. If you have a problem with it, leave the job. That might sound harsh, but just think of all the jobs and potential jobs that have been flushed down the toilet by ridiculous patents like this one.
Someone has to be made accountable for this!
May the Maths Be with you!
When balthasar came out it was a pretty big thing for a short bit, you could generate 'rich-media' (read flash movie) online without having to buy a flash authoring license. it was a bit limited as a service, and I don't remember whether or not the end result had to be hosted on their server for an additional fee...
the patent in this case is specifically for the creation of rich media work over an internet connection.
whether or not anyone challenges this will have a lot to do with whether or not balthasar's income make it look attractive. anyone know how balthasar is doing at the moment?
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
No software patents
I used to think this was a rather extremist site at first, but it's actually a lot more down to Earth than I thought.
On a more relevant note, how can one patent cover all "media-rick" content on the internet? Why not just throw in pictures and text in there too?
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
...you left out one final critical fact: Lawyers and judges (who are typically ex-lawyers or still lawyers) control this entire process. The system is rigged. In the most obvious and transparent way. However it is so well rigged that there isn't a hope in hell of changing it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.