Slashdot Mirror
Man Claiming He Invented the Internet Sues
wiedzmin writes "A low-profile Chicago biologist, Michael Doyle, and his company Eola Technologies, who has once won a $521m patent lawsuit against Microsoft, claim that it was actually he and two co-inventors who invented, and patented, the "interactive web" before anyone else, back in 1993. Doyle argues that a program he created to allow doctors to view embryos over the early Internet, was the first program that allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window. He is therefore seeking royalties for the use of just about every modern interactive Internet technology, like watching videos or suggesting instant search results. Dozens of lawyers, representing the world's biggest internet companies, including Yahoo, Amazon, Google and YouTube are acting as defendants in the case, which has even seen Tim Berners-Lee testify on Tuesday."
It's come to this now? How bad does it have to get before the entire system is scrapped?
Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Internet.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!
Many of the companies named has defendants have used patent laws to their advantage. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, especially since Tim Berners-Lee, who is completely against software patents, is set to testify.
We don't live in Shouldland.
Why has Al Gore gone mad? Why is he suing so many companies?
... to notify you that I have already patented the process of posting to this post. Please send royalties to P.O. Box....
I mean... if you file your claim decades after everyone was violating your patient isn't that your fault at a certain point?
I know big companies are basically forced to defend their trademark and copyrights or else risk that other people can do it with impunity. There's some requirement that you protest when this sort of thing happens.
So... shouldn't he have protested like... forever ago?
For the sake of argument, if his claims are all valid, they should be void now because he didn't act on them until now.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Giant Douche.
Redundant, Google OWNS youtube
I was using that shit in 1992.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let's have a SEAL team go in there and kill him. Dangerous sociopaths like him are more dangerous to freedom than Osama bin Laden ever was.
I think this is a sign of the times, because if $521 million isn't enough, I blame inflation. This troll is obviously starving and homeless because there not a bridge in existence big enough. Also, I invented the light bulb in 1995. Pay up bitches.
i thought that fucking idiot steve jobs was dead - is this crap from beyond the grave or something?
Again, more reasons for IP reform, IP needs to be redefined, and a good number of vauge and overly generalized patents need to be thrown out.
the review proccess for granting patents needs and overhaul, as well as restrictions and background checks on who can be a patent clerk and stingent enforcement.
Then we might see the end of frivolous tech law suits which only harm actually developers and artists.
"Internet" != "Interactive Web"
Why sensationalize this lawsuit? It's absurd enough on its own merit.
So you not only sued Microsoft, you actually won 500 million. Regardless of whether this was a dick move on your part or not, good for you, you are now set for life (or 3).
Now why on Earth would you risk it all by going into litigation again?
I believe the company is actually Eolas.
Sure it's not flesh eating Ebola?
Compuserve, Prodigy, BBS systems, FTP, modems, Visual Basic, WordPerfect
His patent is about as valid as 99.999% of all computer-related patents from the last 25 years. Maybe if he sues the entire planet into oblivion, someone will admit how screwed up software patents are.
Ah, how I love my afternoon fantasies...
So the circus had finally started for REAL at last ...
Read radical news here
PUH-LEEEZ /.'s only post neutral, unbiased, non-hyperbole containing headlines, summaries and links to articles that are characteristically the same way. "Patent Troll Claims Ownership of Interactive Web – And Might Win" clearly shows bias and ad hominem towards the subject of the article by the author and publisher. It's probably just me, but that offends me and hampers my ability to only read fair and balanced information on the internets.
On a practical note, since this was an 'invention' in 1993, wouldn't the patent expire next year anyway (20 year patent life?) In that case, won't somebody like IBM just tie this up in the courts and give the lawyers something to chew on until it runs out anyway?
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
If it gets tied up in court until 2013 the patents will have expired, would he still have the ability to use after that point?
And next someone will claim a patent on the wheel. This is total BS.
I was interacting with images (masturbating to porn) on my computer way before 1993 (BBS's in 1985).
Kodak filing suit for using your eyes to look into the past.
He may as well "let it ride" and sue everyone for everything.
Gently reply
Even if combining file transfer [ftp] and image scrolling is patent-legally considered "novel", there is the question of damages. 1993 patents ran out (in the US) in 2010, so he cannot get any ongoing damages.
Optaining "back-damages" would be highly dependant on legal procedure, but I doubt he would be entitled to [m]any if he did not inform the alleged infringers during the period of their alleged infringement. It's not like browser coders were hard to see, find or email. Just another troll.
I believe the company is actually Eolas.
You're right, oops.
Bow before me, for I am root.
And this is why universities like UC should be forbidden by law to apply for patents and required to put all discoveries in the public domain. It makes them or their former faculty pull stupid stunts like this where protecting revenue from commercial spin-offs is more important than doing science and research.
One would hope that on Slashdot of all place that an article whose subject is claiming to have invented the "interactive web" would not be transformed into a headline with him claiming to have invented the "internet".
One would be wrong.
Where's his patent huh? 1993 patents would have ran out in 2010.
Boneheaded crazy derp. Gopher predated the in 1991 web http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol) , and yes it feels like browsing todays web in Lynx.
Umm... ARPANET? Isn't that like 20 or so years too late to patent that... there's serious prior art here. How could this guy win?
Trolling so hard... it's full of stars!
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
Internet != Web, sheesh. The Internet was around long before Doyle or Sir Tim or whoever invented the Web in 1993.
You'd think editors might know that by now, even here on /.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Am I understanding the patent correctly in that it requires an external application to be infringing? So that something like ActiveX or QuickTime plugin would infringe, but pure HTML5 and Javascript (because there is no Interprocess Communication) would be non-infringing?
Based on the claims in this Patent, can anyone explain how Eolas is not in the right? I mean, I get that they didn't implement anything, but this was filed in 1994. It seems like anyone supporting the patent system would have to admit defeat on this (i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc). If you're generally against software patents, that seems like the only argument. I don't see anything obvious about this from 1994.
It seems like the ViolaWWW would have been prior art that nullified this patent, but apparently the claims were not clear enough?
Like Ballmer says, if you can't beat them, buy them, if you can't buy them kill them.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ceo-im-going-to-fing-kill-google/2005/09/03/1125302772214.html
Read amusing story:
http://pastebin.com/ekaNkT2Q
Bad post title? The whole summary is gibberish written by someone who doesn't understand the difference between a highway and a Ford truck.
Slashdot allegedly once had 'editors', but apparently these days they only employ brainless cut-and-paste monkeys.
Slashdot has really gone to shit in the last few years.
Back in them Old BBS days we Had RIPScript and RIPScript 2
There was also a Graphical BBS Engine called Roboboard and its upgrade Roboboard/FX
There were systems like Prodigy, and AOL which had images...
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Note that someone seems to be confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web, so I am not sure which he is claiming IPR on. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web (WWW) at CERN in 1989. The Internet dates at the latest to the start of the NSFNET (1985). Either way, this seems to indicate that a patent issued in 1993 may have some issues with prior art.
for a moment and 3eRst. Individuals are about 7000/5 in ratio of 5 to
He should win. Then finally it will become blatantly obvious that copyrights and patents must be abolished.
You can't handle the truth.
There were hypertext documents before WWW.
Like an encyclopedia on a cd.
Some of these ran special programs when you clicked on some tabs.
Like to show a recriprocating engine.
Bringing Hypertext to the internet (IE WWW) is prior art for their patent.
They are claiming bringing downloading and running a program to display a page.
Seems like expected functionality (given the encyclopedia example) once you start moving the Hypertext concept to the network.
Al Gore should counter sue.. i think it has been proven many times that he gave the idea to Tim Berners-Lee.
And so prescriptive rights should apply if the patent holder doesn't defend his/her rights for an extended period of time.
Have gnu, will travel.
5 simple steps for a submarine patent:
1. Patent something.
2. Do nothing for years, even decades until everyone is using it.
3. Out of nowhere sue everyone in existence as they haven't licensed your "patented proprietary invention".
4. ????
5. PROFIT!!!
The US Patent Office may be full of idiots, but they've still created laws to specifically prohibit this. If you make no attempt to protect your patent then you lose it.
Hypertext had been around since the 1980's. Apple II hypercard
anyone? There were many products before that.
Berners Lee released HTML by early 1991.
But then, that was on ARPA NET.
He owes me royalties.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Trojan Room Coffee Pot cam predates this by two years, though that was on a local network and didn't use a web browser. It didn't appear on the Internet until November, 1993.
The Netscape Fishcam shortly followed. I believe the first outdoor cam was at an antartic research station shortly after that.
Moving images were enabled by the "server-push" feature in Netscape's server and client. I'm assuming this used that technology, which of necessity would have pre-dated this claim. I would think the use case would be obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot
Anyone ever hear about Ted Nelson? He invented hypermedia in the mid-'60s - it just took another 20+ years for the wires and connections to physically realize it as the internet.
And some people still wonder why even big (in)famous American companies start to take their businesses to some other country (even if it is only on paper)!
The "patent" fig 9 discusses how to get the NCSA Mosaic 2.4 browser to display his object. He did NOT invent the Internet. He did NOT even invent NCSA Mosaic. He claims to have invented a way to view *his* 3D imaging object within a standard (at the time) browser. While there are some applicatons for viewing 3D within a browser, but I don't think they all need X-Windows protocols and the specific framework laid out in this patent to work within that particular viewing paradigm. Lets not panic just yet.
i hope he wins and keeps on suing and so does everybody suing everybody
...to "How many times can Slashdotters make the same Al Gore joke in a single article comments section? Click below to find out!"
Doesn't whoever wrote the summary know that there's a difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web? Or that the summary doesn't even make sense unless you make that distinction?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Who is Al Gore suing?
The lawsuit was filed Oct 06th, 2009.
There are two patents on the case.
US Patent No. 5838906
Filing Date 1994-10-17
Grant Date 1998-11-17
US Patent No. 7599985
Filing Date 2002-08-09
Grant Date 2009-10-06
Clearly the second one was the one that they were waiting on to sue people over.
"One can not truly appreciate Shakespeare until you have heard it in it's original Klingon" -Star Trek
It took them this long to sue? I realize that it may not have been granted immediately, but I recall using the web in the early 90's read before 93 and viewing images and text through a web browser.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
IIRC a submarine patent is a bit more involved than that.
1. File Patent Application.
2. Wait a while.
3. Submit something that delays the Application process.
4. Repeat 2-3 until you decide its time to let your Patent be Granted.
5. Profit.
What the PTO did to combat this is starting in 1995(?) they changed it where the life of the patent is 20 years past the application date, instead of 17 years past the grant date.
"One can not truly appreciate Shakespeare until you have heard it in it's original Klingon" -Star Trek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(web_browser)
Official release 1993, pre-release versions were available in 1992.
My university was one of the first to have a "high speed" link then. IIRC, we had a dedicated DS1 which allowed those of us in the engineering school to view some of the very first pictures available on the web using pre-release Mosaic beta loads. Several of the grad students at the time were working with folks doing the primary research on surrounding technologies.
I *think* it was 1992 (my second year) when we started using it pretty heavily. A favorite passtime was downloading "questionable" pics from the various alt.xxx.pictures newsgroups and opening mosaic windows on other people's Sun workstations, so that the lab admin would kick them out... That lab admin, wasn't too sharp.
Good times, good times!
nt
Al Gore claimed to have invented the intarwebs
Jesus F. Christ, give this a rest. This wasn't funny the first time I heard this bullshit in about 1999, and it sure hasn't improved with age.
But the nerd rage that follows is always hilarious !
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Why is it all these companies are based in Texas? Lax patent laws or something?
Yes. Specifically, the courts in Marshall, Texas overwhelmingly go with the plaintiff.
In November 1993 the owner of a local computer store (and a friend of mine) asked me whether it would be possible to sell computer parts over the Internet. In December 1993 that site went live and was among the first retailers on the Internet (Bottomline Computers...Discount computer parts that protect your company's bottom line!) The system was only semi-automated, as the server simply wrote the transaction to a text file, encrypted it, and emailed the encrypted file to the owner for manual processing, but that was a state-of-the-art bleeding edge concept at the time.
The site flopped and was shut down less than a year later. Back in early 1994 most people still equated online shopping with catalog shopping, with visions of dodgy JC Whitney parts and cheap knockoffs dancing in their heads. It was still an untrusted concept.
I never even thought about patenting e-commerce. I could have been rich! (of course, I seem to recall looking at a few other sites doing similar things as part of the development process, so I'm 99% sure we weren't actually the first).
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
Yes...and Eolas was founded in 1994. Not to mention, Arpanet was invented in 1968 and patented in 1970, which was followed in 1986, when one LAN branched out to form a new competing network, called NSFnet (National Science Foundation Network). NSFnet first linked together the five national supercomputer centers, then every major university, and it started to replace ARPAnet (which was finally shutdown in 1990). NSFnet formed the backbone of what we call the Internet today. All of this happened before 1993...so Mr Doyle is giant douche...period.
Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
Everybody repeat after me, "The Web is not the Internet."
And what's so darned clever about having images in a browser window? I remember using Mosaic in about 1994 and thinking, "Why can't these JPEGs be rendered in the page..."
It has become apparent that the headlines on /. stories never actually reflect the content, so why bother having them at all? For compatibility with RSS feeds and such, there could be a fixed, standard headline such as "Another Slashdot Story Which Is Probably Erroneous". This will avoid misleading readers and also has a conveniently memorable acronym.
Patents are not the threat to the Internet-- I believe that the root cause of this problem is giving the government too much power. These douchebag lawyers are simply exploiting the government's power to coerce and threaten people with violence. Minimize or abolish the government, and these problems will go away...
Unfortunately the same guy who claims he invented the internet also claims to have a patent on scrapping the patent system, so we'll never find out how bad it would have to get.
This is silly. We all know that Al Gore invented the Internet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology
From the wiki article on Patent Trolls: "An individual case often begins with a perfunctory infringement complaint,[21] or even a mere threat of suit, which is often enough to encourage settlement for the nuisance or "threat value" of the suit by purchasing a license to the patent. In the United States, suits are often brought in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, known for favoring plaintiffs and for expertise in patent suits."
So yeah, that area is troll-friendly.
Chip Morningstar, call your office.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
While he has no chance in topping Kim Jong Un, the Iranian president or Assad presently president of Syria, he has high hopes of becoming the most hated person of the week. It is like telling everybody you threw the shit in the fan.
Now he could invent the sue for internet sueing.
Granted there were plenty of hypertext languages before HTML, you cannot get all pissy because someone else created a better, much more robust language & accompanying protocol.
"I know both of these gentlemen, and getting them to agree on anything is not easy. Anyone, at this late date, who thinks its funny to denigrate Al Gore in this fashion is, IMHO, an idiot."
Anyone that thinks Al Gore has any credibility, period, is an idiot.
Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, but ("$521m lawsuit" + "current lawsuit" = "low profile") seems to be the logical equivilent of a divide by zero error.
Hey, isn't that the blonde guy following Hercules around?
I am saddened that a Slashdot user made that mistake.
Daniel Bell (a sociologist) coined the term 'post-industrial'. And in this book on that subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Post-Industrial-Society-Venture-Forecasting/dp/0465097138/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
he made the assertion that post-industrial society would need a worldwide network to connect individuals and organizations.
The book was first published in 1976.
With this "first to file" silliness vs. "first to invent" -- does prior art still apply? I worked for a company around that time that remoted their entire GUI over the network, including distributed interactive applications and a hypertext system called "HyperWeb".
I also remember a service available to "Agri-Business" in the mid 1980's that used a specialized set-top terminal to provide services to farmers. You could get weather reports and look at market values, etc., and interact with several other utilities that I don't remember. It supposedly had more success in Canada than in the U.S. I only knew about it because a friend of mine was the originator of the "Agri-Business" style morning news program, which was a big deal at the time. His program sold these things. He gave me his terminal as a novelty when the service died due to the internet. It had a built-in 1200-baud modem and reasonably functional terminal software, in addition to the specialized firmware.
It also seems that several of the Prodigy patents would apply. Some were filed as early as 1988. This one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,347,632.PN.&OS=PN/5,347,632&RS=PN/5,347,632 , which got broken apart, with this one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=14&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=filepp.INNM.&OS=IN/filepp&RS=IN/filepp being the one I was remembering as being applicable.
It's like a sick joke - for it to be a broadly known and utilised fact that courts are clearly inconsistent as to how they handle cases from place to place, and nothing being done about it.
I mean, can't they implement some sort of moderation (and meta-moderation) system for judges and start tossing out the ones who fail?
FGD 135
Unfortunately "first to file" means your honest, hard-won invention that benefits all mammalkind will be stolen by an eeval corpra$hun.
Only if an employee of said evil corporation invented a product or process equivalent to "your honest, hard-won invention" but filed a patent before you published it. You see, first to file doesn't scrap the requirement of novelty; it affects only patent vs. patent disputes. Defensive publication of how to build your invention remains a viable way to get your prior art on the record and preclude any patents. So "git" your source code out there.
Patent trolls, dentists... and guns.
99% Invisible-46- Vulcanite Dentures
well worth a listen.
Sorry dude, statute of limitations on your claim expired like twelve years ago.
*sarcasm on*
Well, everything looks to be in order. I say he wins. The only question now is how much to award him. Zuckerberg is getting $5 billion for creating a single company (that creates nothing). So, for creating the entire multimedia Internet ... I guess $5 trillion should be about right.
*sarcasm off*
Sorry, guys. Our global financial system is broken.
Mostly because the Internet - and the world wide web - existed prior to 1993. In fact, in 1990 the amateur radio operators in the Puget Sound area used a tcp/ip over 2-meter network that was linked to the Internet through one ham's occupation at a major industrial corporation in the area. Most of us weren't using a GUI web browser but we were using Lynx ( http://people.cc.ku.edu/~grobe/early-lynx.html ).
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Oh Al ! Say it aint so ! Don't worry, you'll always be the inventor to me !
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Sorry, this ain't gonna fly. The NeXT system was including video (and spreadsheets, and audio, and other stuff) in documents of all kinds including NextMail years before, and Tim Berners Lee was inspired by and based his WorldWideWeb program on the NeXT's comprehensive object-based system that made that easy. I used to have a copy of WorldWideWeb running on a NeXT, and I think it had video in it even then.
Back in 1990-1991 I also worked as a product manager for a product called PaperSight(tm) (surprise - it's still around, and now works on many platforms!) that provided network-based document management including change control, annotations, audio and video notes, access control, scanning, OCR and vectorizing, and many other features. (PaperSight, by the way, is also prior art for two of the patents that Microsoft is trying to enforce against Barnes and Noble).
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Actually, I'm inventing it right..... here......... now!
Yahoo, Amazon, Google and YouTube did not exist in 1993 or even for may years thereafter. Their testimony therefore moot.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee could be the "linch-pin" in the case, if he is directly involved, or if Anonymous can assertain that Sir Tim Berner-Lee was in fact directly involved, which in his "first go" testimony, he would deny, and only under harsh cross examination would divluge to the affermative of his direct involvment, thus perjuring himself, and his reputation, and quite as in very likely loosing his status as "Knight" and all the money that THAT status renders to its holders.
A sad tale indeed, for one who before hand was thought to be so noble.
If you only look at the internet there may not be an abundance of prior art, but it does exist. If you on the other hand take a quick look at the BBS scene there were tons of prior arts to this. One that pops up in my mind is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur_BBS but i do remember trying other similar stuff out long before it came out.
But, first and foremost the "invention" is so painfully obvious. All it took was a medium to transport the data, all the rest was already there but lacked an easily accessible transport link that Tim Barners Lee provided.
...the plaintiff wins.
its not as if the defendant companies are innocent here. they are all patent trolls too.
what's good for the goose...
I swear, every time there's an article regarding patents, there's a shitpost like this. Same bullshit misinformation, coming from ghod-knows-where, over and over and over.
NO, FIRST-TO-FILE DOES NOT AFFECT THE NOVELTY REQUIREMENT. PRIOR ART STILL APPLIES. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WHEN TWO ENTITIES BOTH FILE FOR PATENTS ON THE SAME, OTHERWISE-ELIGIBLE INVENTION!!
Why yes, Filter Error. It is rather like yelling. Because I'm fucking yelling!
Hm, i remember, way back, before 1993, i was developing BBS Doors where a user with a 'browser' (terminal) could interact with images (ansi art), i hereby claim to have invented the interactive web. now gimme some money!
Vint Cerf is obstructing the truth a little, I think, because the real story would give him less praise. The real issue is that most people at the time who had multi-site network access didn't want that access to be available to the public. For example, I visited someone at Tektronix who was intensely against making it public; he said that everyone with access with whom he had talked agreed with him.
Al Gore insisted that multi-site network access be publicly available, and made that happen using his power as a public servant to get money and government approval. He did that back when CEOs didn't know how to type. That service became the internet as we know it today. By that measure Al Gore did "create" the the public utility we call the internet.
My understanding, which may be wrong, is that Vint Cerf did nothing to make the internet a public utility. He didn't express an opinion. He didn't help promote the internet as a public utility until Al Gore made that possible and somewhat popular.
Before Al Gore's involvement, multi-site network access was available to those with U.S. government contracts, which restricted it to universities and corporations like Tektronix. Remember that in the U.S. the initial drive to network sites together was by DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is part of the U.S. government's ongoing drive to find more efficient ways of killing people and destroying property. There was, initially, no intent to do anything for anyone but the U.S. military. As the Wikipedia article says, "The Mansfield Amendment of 1973 expressly limited appropriations for defense research (through ARPA/DARPA) to projects with direct military application."
It's difficult now for technically knowledeable people to understand how technically backward most people were back then. Al Gore both knew about network technology and recognized its importance.
It seems reasonable to observe that the reason Vint Cerf's defense of Al Gore over the years has been expressed in tangled language is because he didn't want all the credit for the public utility to go to Al Gore.
I believe he should use the immunity the Queen granted him as a Knight of the Web, and slay this fucking troll.
It is a requirement that patents be non obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art; However, the patent system has very little in the way of a test for obviousness. Instead, it seems that any idea that hasn't been patented previously can be patented -- They can barely be trusted to search their own damn databases for prior art.
The USPTO's opinion is: If you want a weak patent its fine by us, but don't expect it to hold up in court. This places the obviousness testing burden on the court systems, which actually do not employ folks skilled in any patentable arts...
The proof of independent invention should be all that is required to prove the "innovation" is actually obvious, even if non trivial. Of course, if this sort of independent invention == (obvious & non patentable), then Alexander G. Bell wouldn't have been able to patent the telephone. However, both Bell & Elisha Gray would still have been allowed to manufacture and sell the devices, along with anyone else... Perhaps Gray would have been able to make money selling his product instead of finding himself in the poor house. Additionally, Less monopolies mean lower prices for consumers. Furthermore, "Genius" is so common today that I actually can't afford to innovate with my Virtual Machine Software & Languages because I risk all of my "brilliant" independent inventions earning me patent disputes. No one scans the patent database looking for something to steal, we all are just so damn "innovative" that all of our locally unique inventions unknowingly intersect.
I often hear the argument: "Without patents no one would innovate because they wouldn't be able to monetise their investment in research & development." This ignores the R&D costs lost by independent inventors such as Elisha Gray, or myself.
Honestly, I was surprised a comment such as this had not been independently invented above...
NSFnet formed the backbone of what we call the Internet today.
Which grew into NSFWnet which we all know and love.
And personally I'm thankful for all the filth!
That's just ridiculous... The whole point of network is to send bytes somewhere else and have a program process it on the other end. What exactly did he invent?
The problem is with the patents office, looks like anyone can work there... I think the US does set the bar too low...
The Internet (web, hyperlinking) is fully predicted in Heinlein's Friday, numerous Clarke works, and Asimov Caves of Steel, both WAY before 1993....
Look, I've had ideas for many inventions and technologies that would later come to be but I don't go around trying to sue people for having the wealth and entrepreneurial ability to implement what I was only able to see. You can be reasonably assured that any time some new technology emerges that at least a dozen others have been thinking about and/or working on it at the same time.
Prediction is not invention.
That means it was in development for a long time before, and so someone else was the inventor of the interactive web.
Motion for summary judgment should go well for the defendants.
Another example of prior art exists, and I quote from the IEEE article
One of the major improvements of Telidon over first generation videotex systems is its high-quality graphic capability. High resolution colour drawings, intricate shapes, even photographs are all possible through Telidon technology.
This was in 1981. In 1985 I did some work for a small Toronto based company, where they were developing both Telidon content and technology. I wrote a NAPLSP decoder/encoder written using C, lex and yacc. Everything was coded using a machine readable instruction set. Since everything was done using dialup modems, and 2400 baud was considered fast.
I also did a standalone NAPLSP server and browser that would display content. This was delivered to Xerox when they had their own retail stores in Toronto. It was commercialized to a certain degree.
There were several dozen public terminals in malls and other public areas in the city. It was a prime example of a technology that was a solution looking for a problem. Lack of bandwidth, and a lack of critical mass in terms of a wide spread adoption doomed it to failure. It was fun while it lasted.
It is regrettable that Michael Doyle had Microsoft settle with him. By settling with him, it gave him the war chest to proceed with further litigation. The concepts that he is claiming as his own, written up by Ted Nelson in Computer Lib (1974), and then became reality with Telidon (1981). Michaels patent is dated 1993. It is the interest of everyone to refute the patent by presenting prior art. Perhaps a Telidon terminal demonstration would be in order.
Research is what I doing when I don't know what I am doing - Werner von Braun
I intend to patent the word A-Hole both with and Ahole without a hyphen. That is spelled with a capital "A".
This gentleman will be number one on what I expect to be a long list I may compile and then post to the interwebs.
Jury sends Doyle packing!
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/interactive-web-patent/
Xerox beat him by over 10 years. X windows. It displayed pictures over an ethernet network long before www was about. Even the Mac in 1984 used Xerox technology, that was dated even then. Dudes should be thrown out on their ear. If that isn't enough, Xerox had hypertext back in the 1980s. Not HTML, however it was a display with pictures served up by a remote machine. BTW, html was around back in the 1960s.
Aha. And which system do you use in Germany?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's patent enforcement actions like this one that bring software patents into disrepute. While I'm not against the idea of patenting software, this particular patent litigation makes me think that maybe the ability to do so should be limited.