Slashdot Mirror
Multi-Channel Communication Patent Up For Sale
OTDR alerts us to the latest software patent stupidity in the news as patent number 6,418,462, "methods allowing clients to perform tasks through a sideband communication channel, in addition to the main communication channel between a client and server," snubs its nose at AJAX, ftp, and decades of prior art and goes on sale next month in San Fransisco. "Singled out are AJAX mashups including Google Maps and Gmail, and Microsoft 'Live'... Also in the frame are Amazon's S3 and EC2 and clusters from Microsoft, VMware, and Oracle. eBay's Skype, Napster, and Microsoft's Groove are also listed as potentially infringing on the patent in P2P."
for ownership AJAX? :P
Also, if I pay double, will they make that pwnership?
proud caffeine whore
I bid a penny, and if I win, I grant a free unlimited license to everyone so long as they do not sue anyone for patent infringment.
ownership *of* AJAX
proud caffeine whore
If a crack team of lawyers takes legal action to get this patent invalidated, will the pending legal action depress its price?
Depressing the price is a good thing because it will discourage this kind of nonsense in the future.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
First off, they don't quite link to the patent so on a non-slashdottable version is here or you can go straight to the full massive PDF if you want (single file if you have problems viewing above in Linux).
Looks pretty much like a poster child example of why the patent system is broken. Either that or the USPTO needs to start looking at revoking patents in hind sight or after professional review by many leading members of the field. So much for patent reform!
My work here is dung.
Hopefully some patent troll will spend mega bucks on it, then spend even more bucks on expensive lawsuits against the likes of Google, Microsoft, etc., and finally end up going the way of SCO when they get buried under the weight of prior art. The sooner one of these "IP Portfolio" companies gets well and truly burnt, the better.
Plus, as a a bonus, Slashdot gets to root for Microsoft in court for a change. Watching some of the anti-Microsoft zealots around here trying to post on *that* should be entertaining, to say the least!
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Any document that contains the words "while" or the more technical "meanwhile" should be sufficient prior art.
How about talking to someone on one phone while you are trying to get a fax to them? Remember that conversation when you would be talking someone through putting a roll of thermal paper in a hopper?
Actually, isn't this exactly how FTP works? I have a control channel and one or more data channels that are doing the heavy lifting once a transfer starts.
Then there is ISDN, which _requires_ two or more barer channels and the control channel just to join the party.
Isn't the web browser "maximum connections to one server" all about this as well?
Hell, the entire word "sideband" (outside of radio) has the "meat" of this patent as its definition...
Time for the pitchforks and torches everybody, meet me on the hill outside the castle!
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
The inventor of 2 cans and a string could not be reached for comment.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
You fell for the old troll of believing the Slashdot summary of a patent.
For all of these stories, you need to go read the actual patent, including the claims, then you can laugh at the summary and (sometimes) the article for not doing so.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Patent filed Jan 7, 1999. Prior art: http://www.distributed.net/ January 28, 1997: RC5-32/12/7 (56-bit) Secret Key Challenge begins
Case closed.
I think patents on DS1 (the protocol used over a T1) may serve as prior art for this, though a quick perusal of the patent show this to be specific to network protocols. But DS1 uses a sideband channel to communicate channel state and framing information, and has existed for a VERY long time (late '50s).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Control_Channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-band_control
This is such a standard way to communicate that the patent is a total joke.
as it always is with the patent stories. Can't really blame them because often the stories haven't bothered to read the patent as well. or more likly, they don't understand it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Doesn't it destroy the purpose of a "patent" if you can sell the rights to it to someone completely uninvolved with its creation?
Rights shouldn't be a commodity!
Communism, its a party!
You are not a lawyer, patent abstracts are *abstract* they are not actual claims. These articles and your lack of willingness to understand the patent system is tiresome.
Yes software patents are bad, but blatantly lying about how they work will not achieve the goal of getting them removed.
The bravado here may seem surprising, but there's a good reason why the tone of these claims is so different from the tone of typical patent trolling. A typical patent troll will generally be vague about the applicability of a patent, except when discussing a case that's already been filed. Naming a dozen rather different specific technologies gives a defendant lots of ammunition to argue that the technique is obvious, due to the ubiquity admitted by the plaintiff, or to demonstrate prior art in the common technological heritage of all of them.
These claims are simply intended to drive up the value of the patent at auction, by making the big players terrified of letting anyone else get ahold of it. Were it really so valuable, the holder would litigate it themselves. The fact that they're unloading it for some sure money now is a strong indication of how weak they feel it would be in court.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
> The inventor of 2 cans and a string could not be reached for comment.
Why not? Doesn't his phone work?
When will the point be reached when the US patent system becomes so encumbered for real inventors that the US will become a medium-sized (no, not small by any measure) backyard for US patent specialists? If the US patent system keeps diverging from the rest of the world companies and inventors outside the US will certainly have an edge on anything someone in the US wants to bring to the much larger global market.
Requiem for the American Dream
Forget SETI at home look at PVM. First release 1989 !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_Virtual_Machine
Description here
http://www.netlib.org/pvm3/book/node17.html
Main channel is to pvmd. "backchannel" is the process to process communication.
--
The PVM system is composed of two parts. The first part is a daemon , called pvmd3 and sometimes abbreviated pvmd , that resides on all the computers making up the virtual machine. (An example of a daemon program is the mail program that runs in the background and handles all the incoming and outgoing electronic mail on a computer.) Pvmd3 is designed so any user with a valid login can install this daemon on a machine. When a user wishes to run a PVM application, he first creates a virtual machine by starting up PVM. (Chapter 3 details how this is done.) The PVM application can then be started from a Unix prompt on any of the hosts. Multiple users can configure overlapping virtual machines, and each user can execute several PVM applications simultaneously.
--
The general paradigm for application programming with PVM is as follows. A user writes one or more sequential programs in C, C++, or Fortran 77 that contain embedded calls to the PVM library. Each program corresponds to a task making up the application. These programs are compiled for each architecture in the host pool, and the resulting object files are placed at a location accessible from machines in the host pool. To execute an application, a user typically starts one copy of one task (usually the ``master'' or ``initiating'' task) by hand from a machine within the host pool. This process subsequently starts other PVM tasks, eventually resulting in a collection of active tasks that then compute locally and exchange messages with each other to solve the problem. Note that while the above is a typical scenario, as many tasks as appropriate may be started manually. As mentioned earlier, tasks interact through explicit message passing, identifying each other with a system-assigned, opaque TID.
--
even one stating the 'while' and 'meanwhile' clauses for patent denial. The USPTO patent system is obviously broken as this falls in the category of obvious extension to existing technology that is neither novel or unique. It should never have been allowed in the first place, and I question the legality of it's value in a sale proposition.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
As above, the summary isn't especially accurate. What the patent proposes is a system where anybody who connects to a webserver is asked by that server to compute a chunk of some distributed processing problem. Essentially, the concept of SETI@home or distributed.net; but allegedly bodged on top of an ordinary communication session with a web server. Trouble is, it's a bloody stupid idea. The system depends on the client system executing whatever code the server asks it to execute. There are two ways of implementing this: the hideously insecure way, and the hideously slow way. The idea that the client would execute a chunk of native code at the server's request is just crazy; riddled with possibilities for misuse and wholly unacceptable. Even if this were alright, the current ways of doing this semi-safely(java and the like) are not lightweight enough to set up, run the numbers, and bring down during a simple client/server connection session. The alternative is the hideously slow way: hack together a javascript implementation of your algorithm and use AJAX tricks to hand out the data and pull back the results. This would work; but there is a reason why people don't do scientific computing with javascript. Also, many browsers are on the lookout for scripts pulling excessive resources, and throttle or kill them to keep themselves responsive. I'm sure that somebody's javascript BLAST implementation isn't going to cause any trouble. If the patent dodges this problem by using dedicated client software then it will work just fine(for the class of very, very parallel problems); but runs into a long list of prior art. That said, I'd be amused to see an AJAXed equivalent of distributed.net or similar, just for the amusement factor; but it would be a monstrosity in performance terms.
The first set of claims (1-7) seem to be describing SETI@Home, more or less. The patent was filed in January 1999, while SETI@Home was released to the public in May of that year. Just something to think about.
That's great. I love San Fransisqó, and next month is the perfect time to visit!
Another wonderful bad summary brought to you by kdawson.
Seriously, why does he even bother? Better yet, why isn't he fired yet?
as someone in telco, my first thought was of the SS7 protocol, which could fit the description in the article, read loosely.
ok, very loosely, but this screams 'out-of-band signalling', and out-of-band signalling isn't really novel now, is it?
Let me get this straight. I'm buying a patent which has only potential infringement and no current licensing (at least not from the article that I can tell).
So I will spend money to buy a vehicle for litigation? That's it in a nutshell. If these guys could have got licensing in the last 6-8 years, they would have and most likely would not be selling.
They are selling to somebody that is willing to pay lawyers. That is really attractive.... to lawyers.
I cannot, for the life of me, find anything in Claims 1-7 which would be novel in 1999. It's a basic technique for distributed computing. It's like the "inventor" took a few papers on distributed computing and wrote them down as his own invention.
RSA-129 was factored in 199_4_ using basically the same technique.
It appears that the "novel" part is intended to be that the sideband channel for distributing work units operates as part of some other unrelated server, though that's not what the claims say. The description section could actually a reasonable description of a botnet.
I'll pay a dollar for it! Where's the paperwork?
Those big squarish light swtitches that take up almost the whole plate, along with their electrical outlet counterparts, and anything else in that form factor are patented by Leviton under the name "Decora". All the other styles are probably also patented. Since there's patents on STYLES of power switches it's going to be difficult to make a blanket patent.
I invented something a little while back when I was 13 or so. I was listening to a radio show about some astronomical event as I was going to sleep. They were talking about some photos, and they said we should go to their website and look at them. Well as I was 13, and it was after bed time on a school night I didn't have access to the internet so I just had to try to imagine what it looked like from their descriptions. Suddenly it dawned on me, what if you embedded a small screen in the radio? That way the radio station could send images over another frequency, you could even use the feed from the radio show's webcam when there wasn't any images to show. After about a minute of thinking about how useful this device would be I realized I'd just invented the television, again...
I'm pretty sure I've re-invented other stuff, I just can't remember what at the moment.
I seem to recall that being in beta prior to 99, and this patent sounds like it was written based on Seti.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
with a tunneled forwarded port or X session.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Sale of patents implies that someone without any activity in the area of the patent can become the patent owner.
A patent owner without activity in the area of the patent is often a patent troll.
Against patent trolls we need pesticide!
Patent filed: January 7, 1999
Prior art way before this... and many, many others I'm sure.
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
Didn't distributed.net do something almost exactly as described in 1998 (the RC5 challenge)?
Another is that you've decided you don't want to spend the time and energy managing the patent and you just want to cash out and invest in something else.
A third is that you need the cash for something and the patent is just one of the assets you are liquidating.
A fourth is that you know another company would be better stewards of the patent and you sell it to them in a private sale. Maybe they are experts in widgets and you are experts in cogs, and they have a cog patent they can't manage as well as you can, and you have a widget patent you can't manage as well as they can, and you swap ownership. This is not what is happening here by the way, but it is a legitimate reason for selling or in this case bartering a patent.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
From TFP: a server that implements tasks by breaking the tasks into smaller subtasks and utilizing idle resources in multiple clients to perform these subtasks;
I think I have a coffee cup that says something to that effect. Does that count as prior art?