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."

41 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Synn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's come to this now? How bad does it have to get before the entire system is scrapped?

    1. Re:Really? by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The big guys would just love this. They pay this guy $500 million and then never have to worry about another Google coming out of nowhere and redefining everything again. In Europe it was called the guild system, and it kept knowledge and power in the hands of the ruling elite.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    2. Re:Really? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's come to this now? How bad does it have to get before the entire system is scrapped?

      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.

    3. Re:Really? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately for him, entering text with a keyboard was my idea (and I have a few friends who remember me saying it) so he owes me royalties for that patent petition!

    4. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, looking at his patent claims, it's a lot more like he's patented the use of something like Applescript to let a browser control an external application. In fact in 1994 this was quite common in the Apple world, Applescript being introduced in 1991. In fact I think quite a few people were viewing medical imagery and multimedia (remember when that was a buzzword?) stored in "databases" like FileMaker and (ugh) 4th Dimension. It was commonplace stuff in the Apple environment while the Microsoft-centric world was still banging the Windows 3 rocks together (remember Windows for Workgroups?).

      The web, however, was not commonplace in 1994, so he may well have been the first to file for the use of this technique with a browser. However the technique was so commonplace it would be hard to imagine that it was *original*, especially if he used a browser with the necessary IPC mechanisms built-in. Why else *would* they developers have made an Applescript-aware brower *but* to interact with other programs? If they wrote the browser themselves, then they might have a claim that an IPC-aware browser was a novel thing.

      In any case, unless I'm mistaken the patent doesn't describe built-in multi-media capabilities, or multi-media capabilities through plug-ins. It covers controlling an external program with a browser.

      I wish this guy success though. As you suggest, this will gore enough oxen that somebody with money will care that the system is broken.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Really? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish this guy success though. As you suggest, this will gore enough oxen that somebody with money will care that the system is broken.

      Your folly is in assuming the cure won't be worse than the sickness.

      Think about the parties involved here, and their past actions regarding patents and copyright. This does not bode well for the average creator.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Really? by matrim99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How bad does it have to get before the entire system is scrapped?

      My guess: When patents for methods of political fundraising become popular (and begin to be litigated), we will begin to see fundamental change within the patent process.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    7. Re:Really? by wireloose · · Score: 4, Funny

      Man Claiming He Invented the Internet Sues

      Al Gore is gonna be sooo mad...

    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ah, no...Lee invented the web, not the 'internet'. The internet has been around much, much longer than the 'web'.
      I agree...hand in your geek card.

    9. Re:Really? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meanwhile, Berners-Lee, one of the guys who actually invented the internet, and probably couldn't care any less about all the legal nonsense, has to get dragged into court to testify. What a waste of time for the poor guy.

      It is upon this condition these sorts of Patent Troll suits prosper - when you don't show up the judge or jury is more than likely to rule against you.

      IANAPL, but looking at that patent, I can name several technologies which existed before it, peforming parts of the same functions. Problem is, the companies which made those products are mostly out of business by now and what hardware isn't in the Computer Museum is in a landfill in China, where a lot of the old computers went to be scraped for gold and copper.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    10. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      I lived through this. Apple got rejected from the enterprise market because (a) they had no interest in competing with cheap commodity hardware and (b) they acted as though they were doing their IT department advocates more than enough favors by letting them buy Apple stuff in the first place. They had an unnerving habit of pulling the rug out from under you too. God help you if you invested Apple's A/UX Unix (which was technically superb).

      Apple's "corporate DNA" has always destined it for the consumer market.

      As for their networking support, it was superb for the time. The only drawback was the implementation of LocalTalk over RS 422; it was a bus topology like thinnet but slower and without positive locking connectors. You can't compare Apple's built-in networking to Windows 3, because Windows 3 didn't have any. If you compare it to Novell, Novell had better file serving, directory services and scalability. Apple had better practically everything else, including UI (of course), P2P and service discovery.

      As for VB, it was a primitive era in 1994 when the patent was filed. VB 3, the first version with the Jet engine, had only come out the year before and VB code monkeys were excited about the datagrid control. In any case you have no idea what I'm talking about. Applescript is an object oriented inter-application communication system. It makes no sense to compare it to VB (you want to look at HyperCard for that); it makes more sense to compare it to something like CORBA or SOAP, only it provided a standard scripting language in addition to a networkable common object model (AppleEvents). On the whole it was very similar to Javascript and DOM, only able to control things other than web browsers.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm *not* a fan of Apple the company. I swore I'd never develop for another Apple platform again (although iOS is tempting) because of Apple indifference to developers and enterprise managers. But Apple sure has made some products that were ahead of their time.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. Interested to see what the companies do... by sohmc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. there has to be some statute of limitations... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... by stating_the_obvious · · Score: 5, Informative

      RT(F)A -- Suit originally filed in 1999. Since the claim is specifically against image interaction, rather than simply hyperlinks, the timing is just about right.

    2. Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... by NewWorldDan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you'd read the article, you'd see that there has been some back-and-forth with the patent office. Most of his claims were invalidated and some were then later reinstated. He had semi-successfully sued Microsoft, had the judgement overturned, and then later reached a settlement (undisclosed, but estimated to be in the realm of $100 million). Worth noting is that Microsoft was not allowed to present evidence of prior art at trial. Why that would be, I have no idea - I'm not a patent lawyer. In any event, in terms of this guy not acting on his claims, that's just an indictment of how slow the legal and patent processes move.

      Certainly, there's no question that by the time his patent application was publicly published, much less granted, everything in there was in common use. Frankly, if you strip out all of the buzzwords like hypermedia, it boils down to something as simple as downloading and running a script. That's it. And there's plenty of prior art that existed in 1994 for all of the claims listed in the application.

    3. Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      RT(F)A -- Suit originally filed in 1999. Since the claim is specifically against image interaction, rather than simply hyperlinks, the timing is just about right.

      That 1999 suit is long since over:

      To those who follow high-profile tech litigation, the name Eolas may sound familiar. The company sued Microsoft back in 1999, winning a $521 million jury verdict in 2003 that shook the tech world. While that verdict was overturned on appeal, Microsoft ultimately settled rather than re-try the case.

      So ultimately they lost the only case that went to court. By that time Microsoft could pay them to go away out of pocket change. That doesn't in any way validate their patent, which rejected the Eolas patent claims in re-exams. That was the state of things for a long long time.

      So the entire web grew up in the interim after the rejection, but before the re-instatement. Everybody thought the way was cleared by the rejection.

      Just as a side issue, Compuserve had the ability to share images over the web BEFORE there was even a WEB. Their suite even had image viewing back when it was strictly dial up. They introduced the GIF format in 1987, and digital porn was born two minutes later.
      Compuserve was the first online service to offer Internet connectivity, albeit limited access, as early as 1989.

      And another side note, consider this exercise:

      Berners-Lee's argument against this patent, namely that unless the Eolas patent was invalidated it would cause the “disruption of global web standards” and cause “substantial economic and technical damage to the operation of the World Wide Web. is fairly weak if you ask me.

      If Eolas didn't have valid patents the case should be thrown out on THAT fact alone! BUT, If they did have valid patents, then invalidating them SIMPLY because of the hardship those patents would inflict seems to me just one more proof of how essential those (supposedly) valid patents would be to the development of the web.

      I throw that out in the interest of discussion only. I'm not aware if there is any case law that allows invalidating a patent JUST because it proves essential to development of the very product it patents.

      (Note: this is about current law, not the world as it "should be").

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. signs of inflation by shellscriptz · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  6. Re:LIAR by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This guy claims he "allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window" ?? So a web browser was invented before the web itself? Can we ask him if the chicken or egg came first?

  7. Bad post title by dmomo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Internet" != "Interactive Web"

    Why sensationalize this lawsuit? It's absurd enough on its own merit.

  8. You have to be really braindead. by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:You have to be really braindead. by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He settled the MS suit, actually (for an unannounced amount, but in the millions at least). I would assume that, like many people who find themselves with undeserved money, he blew it all on private jets, hookers, and blow, and now is looking for more (rather than going back to work). Also, TFS doesn't mention it, but quite a few companies have already settled. This is (one of) the problems with the legal system: it's easier and cheaper for big companies just to pay a few million than actually do the right thing and blow these stupid patents right the hell up.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  9. Let him succeed by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Let him succeed by svick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh no, he won't sue the entire planet. You see, most reasonable countries, like Europe, don't have software patents.

  10. Re:LIAR by Stumbles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Add to that what image file format did he use.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  11. Re:Patent Lifespan? by Surt · · Score: 5, Informative

    It doesn't matter to the courts if the patent expires during the course of the case. The damages, if legitimate, were done during the period the patent was active. He just won't accrue any additional damage once the patent expires.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  12. Universities by rhysweatherley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Prior Usage. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  14. Re:LIAR by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative

    What I want to know is: "How did 'inventing a web browser plugin' get turned into 'invented a network that has been in place since 1969'?" Seriously, I want to stab samzenpus in the face for letting this through. What's next? Will Bill Gates be said to have invented the microchip?

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  15. Re:LIAR by wjousts · · Score: 4, Informative

    That is a direct quote from Al Gore

    Taken out-of-context and by your own admission, not what he meant to say. That's why it tiring and not funny any more.

  16. Re:LIAR by mbone · · Score: 4, Funny

    I filed for a patent on this joke in 1999, and, as soon as it is approved, I plan to sue everyone who ever used it into bankruptcy.

  17. Trojan Room Coffee Pot by jtara · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  18. Patent Section 16 Fig 9 by hAckz0r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  19. Re:LIAR by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Note that "create" is not the same as "invent."

    From Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn :

    No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the
    Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among
    people in government and the university community. But as the two people
    who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the
    Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a
    Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
    our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

    Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his
    role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
    initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have
    argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover,
    there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
    initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving
    Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and
    promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it
    is timely to offer our perspective.
    .

    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.

  20. Re:LIAR by ichthus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Old, yes. But, at least five moderators + me think it's funny enough to CTRL_F gore, just so we could read it.

    --
    sig: sauer
  21. Re:LIAR by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Funny

    This guy claims he "allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window" ?? So a web browser was invented before the web itself? Can we ask him if the chicken or egg came first?

    He is a biologist. He would be the one to ask.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  22. 2 + 2 = 5, HAHAHAHAHAH!!! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  23. Re:LIAR by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's an old, tired, indulgent falsehood posing as a joke.

    It irritates me not just because it's unfunny, but more because it takes a certain kind of mindset to think it's funny. You have to like beating down on others for their being dumb (whether that's actually what's going on), while simultaneously making yourself feel superior.

    Basically, you have to be a bully at heart.

    I find it irritating seeing bullies smugly picking on people. At least this "joke" serves a good purpose: to spotlight who's a bully.

  24. Re:Al Gore? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    This joke reminds me I need to go out in the field and beat a dead horse.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  25. Re:LIAR by TheMathemagician · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gore always gets an unfair kicking over his clumsy Internet claims. However I actually remember the first time I ever heard of Gore in 1992 (I'm in the UK - he was unknown here then) when he was explicitly characterised (in a mocking way) as someone constantly evangelicising about how the coming Net was going to revolutionise everything. To put this in context I was playing chess "online" via Telnet and an ASCII board on a VT-100 or FTP-ing The Anarchists Cookbook. I know he's a wooden hypocritical blowhard with a carbon footprint the size of Bigfoot but he was genuinely extremely prescient about the Internet.

  26. Vint Cerf is obstructing the truth a little? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.