Slashdot Mirror


Oracle Fights EpicRealm Patents

An anonymous reader writes "Oracle is now fighting EpicRealm's web patents after Safelite settled with EpicRealm, then asked Oracle to pay, as per their software license agreement. EpicRealm's patents are vague and 'describe a technique where a web site updates only part of a website instead of having to rebuild the entire page. That may look a lot like DHTML, but apparently it isn't the same.'"

18 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. but...but by gargletheape · · Score: 5, Funny

    But I patented a technique whereby companies with names starting with 'O' sue companies whose names start with 'E' over patents that are bullshit.

    Send me 10,000 moneys now!

  2. The true problem with patents by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If something is to be patented that has been around a long time and it STILL gets patented, it usually means the patent clerk has no idea what he's doing. That doesn't surprise, even though they tend to be experts in their field, it is impossible to keep up with the development in the field of computer science.

    Now, of course he knows all relevant patents (or, rather, he is able to look them up). But not everything in this field is patented, and "prior art" is usually not decades old and well known, more often than not you have prior art that's only a few years or months old, hardly known and far from penetrating the market, before someone comes up with the bright idea to file a patent for something that does roughly the same (without, of course, mentioning the general name of the non patented prior art). And there you go. A patent for something you didn't do anything for.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:The true problem with patents by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Solution, don't allow blue button patents.

      Chances are if you tack "on the internet" to your patent claim it isn't original or non-obvious. A method of only updating part of a page? You mean like an IFRAME, Javascript and the DOM? Not exactly "new". I did a web programming class on it in 2001.

      You'd think though, with the thousands of patents filed daily that we'd have flying cars, microwaves that you can put forks in, better televisions, magic food pills, etc...

      Instead we have gas guzzling cars that will end society, microwaves using decades old technology, TV incompatibilities up the wazoo and fake sugar pills sold on SpikeTV at 2am. /sad

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:The true problem with patents by achacha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HTML frames let you update part of the page back in the early 90s. I am glad Oracle is attempting to fight this, bottom line is the greatest obstacle to productivity and innovation is, irnically, the patent office.

    3. Re:The true problem with patents by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A method of only updating part of a page? You mean like an IFRAME, Javascript and the DOM? Not exactly "new". I did a web programming class on it in 2001.

      They're not patenting only updating part of a webpage. They're patenting a method of only updating part of a webpage. Iframes, Javascript and DOM are 3 completely different methods, and had they not already been used, would have been eligible for separate patents. They (presumably) have a fourth, which may well be original and non-obvious.

    4. Re:The true problem with patents by indifferent+children · · Score: 4, Funny
      They (presumably) have a fourth, which may well be original and non-obvious.

      Yes, updating part of a web page using JavaScript on the Internet! .

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  3. The real problem by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess it's good that the big boys are fighting it out, maybe the patent trolls will lose this time. However this doesn't fix the real problem with the patent system. And no the real problem is not that you can get a patent for anything. The real problem is that it is too costly to defend against an illegitimate claim. If you could defend yourself cheaply against these stupid patents then it wouldn't matter if they were granted, you could just swat them away without blinking.

    1. Re:The real problem by donaldm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every time I have looked at a patent my eyes glaze over since it is written in legalese which IMHO is nearly incomprehensible or just plain stupid to the professional engineer. Of course the reverse applies as well.

      So here we have patent lawyers writing an application for a patent that they most likely don't have a clue about and on other the other side we have people who have the scientific knowledge that cannot understand the legalese. Now waiting in the wings are the patent trolls who don't care so long as the patent has some vague scientific facts that they can use to make a quick dollar because the people they sue cannot afford to fight the patent.

      I hope Oracle forces a revamp of the patent system but I won't hold my breath.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    2. Re:The real problem by Serveert · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just wait until Intellectual Ventures(IV) starts suing. Keep in mind Google and others have 'paid off' this patent troll. We shall see what everyone's truly made of when IV goes on a suing rampage. Worst case, IV sues people for obvious patents they bought, google and others get off scott free, the rest of us must pay bribe money to IV. Best case, IV goes down in flames, but I don't see that as happening, the founder nrrhrnrh or whatver his name is will not go down without a fight. He thinks he's not a patent troll, but others who are against him "hate intellectual property." Reminds me of people who "hate america" because they don't agree with you.

      --
      2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
    3. Re:The real problem by tomjen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but if a company is know for draking every patent through the entire court system and never negotiate then the patent trolls are more likely to sue somebody else. So even if it cost more a blank "we do not engotiate with terroists" could be cheaper in the long run.

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
  4. Shows why indemnification is bad for open source.. by Homology · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article:

    Safelite allowed itself to be scared into settling, but not before the company looked at its software license agreement and saw that Oracle promised to indemnify the company against these claims.

    This show why indemnification clauses is bad for open source projects. So including something like Postfix into a Linux distro or a *BSD may very well open you up for litigation in the future under certain conditions.

  5. EU software patents now back from the Pet Sematary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Commission seems to have made its favorite dead cat return from the grave (where Parliament overwhelmingly sent it just months ago) this week:
    See recent links to key articles on Slashdot, as well as the latest attempts to spin the issue uncovered (alleging double jeu - albeit in "Austrian" only, so far).

  6. "EpicRealm's patents are vague" by rangeva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea behind a patent is to be as vague as it can be but at the same time very specific! Sounds impossible? Well that's why a good patent costs a lot of money. The lawyers who write patents mission is to write something that will cover as much ground but on a specific quality of the product.

  7. Dear Oracle. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dear Oracle,

    All your patents are belong to us. Please pay us money.

    Greetings,
    EpicRealms

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  8. No shit, Sherlock... by Khyber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    EpicRealm's patents are vague and 'describe a technique where a web site updates only part of a website instead of having to rebuild the entire page. That may look a lot like DHTML, but apparently it isn't the same.

    I was able to do this before DHTML or PHP. It was called a dynamic CGI database script, and it was used for "realtime" CGI/HTML-based chatrooms (I typed something, unless you hit refresh after I typed it you'd have to hit refresh again to get your information that I sent...) The only thing that refreshed was a frame unless some interaction (this was all for a web RPG,) caused a change in other frames of the page. This sounds exactly like what I'm doing, without frames, and hell, you can onyl tell I'm using frames because I alow you to resize the damned windows for your resolution, so you've gotta be able to somewhat see the bars. Had I made this a fixed resolution and frame size, well, more people would play with the page in the upper-left corner of their web browser, but it'd still refresh the particular needed areas without "reloading" the page (since only one/two frame(s) is(are) changing, kinda just like how PHP can make this happen...)

    So I've had prior art to begin with, since.. 1997? (That is if I can pull up my old documentation from my old ISP/Provider and get a reliable backlog of files I made/uploaded to what I have backups of on my computer.) It's past 7 years so I guess I'm a couple years late, unless there's some potential extenuating circumstance I can talk about.. oh, wait! Almost any website TO-FUCKING-DAY can do things like that in PHP, Perl, RPG script, or even CGI script. Why are these idiots suing to begin with?!?!? Hello? Is anyone home in the CEO/Shareholder department? Do I need to smack you upside your head to get some rational and logical thought out of you? No - I take that back... we've probably already given potential proof that you and your entire IT department is semi-useless because we've already put your server traffic to a crawl only by looking at your whole site.

    Sorry for the rant, guys, but lots of this just screams BULLSHIT to me. I've done this - these guys obviously haven't figured out a way of implementing it - I could make a /. attack-worthy server using a two-month late unpaid geoshitties account, for fuck's sake, just by using the technique they describe - yet they don't seem to bother to employ it very well in their website, from what I can get cached from other mirror sites. :( They're full of crap, as far as I'm concerned.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  9. Patent is about web servers and page servers by PianoComp81 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I found the patent that EpicRealm holds. It was filed in 1999.
    EpicRealm patent

    Basically, the patent is about the web server receiving a request, and handing the request off to a page server. The page server finishes the request and responds to the client while the web server continues to handle other requests.

    This sounds very similar to many web applications in use today (J2EE, ASP.net, etc.). There are usually a few processes running with J2EE (the one I'm most familiar with). One handles the HTTP requests and then hands it off to another process to dynamically create the web page. The second processes send the generated page back to the HTTP processes, which sends it to the client. In the meantime, the HTTP process could have been handling other HTTP requests.

    1. Re:Patent is about web servers and page servers by cswiger2005 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the real prior art is "WebRex", written initially by Linus Upson, who also was one of the authors of EOF.

      Steve Jobs wasn't initially interested in web-based stuff, so Linus left NeXT and joined ITS with Ted Shelton, Drew Treiger, and me who finished up Linus' demo into a saleable product. Then Steve changed his mind, and decided to reimplement Linus' ideas as WebObjects 1.0-- very bad things happened with regard to EOF licensing (which went from $699 or $750 or so per licensed copy to $25,000)...and poof when ITS' market, since WebRex depended on EOF to do the app-to-database layer.

      Still, every so often, some patent troll tries to sue Apache or JBoss or Tomcat or some other likely target, but, since WebRex dates back to late 1994 for development and Apr 1995 or so as a publicly available product, it predates all of the claims that I'm aware of.

      --
      "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
  10. Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If some company owns "Intellectual Property" worth billions, WHERE ARE THE TAXES?

    If the co. owns an old chevy pickup or a building, they have to pay property tax on it.

    TAX THE IP OWNERS based on what THEY CLAIM IT IS WORTH.

    The rest of us will get a free ride next April 15.