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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.