Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Sues Groupon Over 1990s Patents Related To Prodigy (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the precursor-to-the-modern-web dept.

An anonymous reader writes: IBM is pushing big internet companies to pay patent licensing fees in part because IBM invented the Prodigy service, a precursor to the modern web. Yesterday, Big Blue filed a lawsuit against Groupon, saying the company has infringed four IBM patents, including patents 5,796,967 and 7,072,849. IBM inventors working on Prodigy "developed novel methods for presenting applications and advertisements," and "the technological innovations embodied in these patents are fundamental to the efficient communication of internet content," according to the company. The Prodigy patents were filed in 1993 and 1996, but they have "priority dates" stretching back to 1988. "Despite IBM's repeated attempts to negotiate, Groupon refuses to take a license but continues to use IBM's property," IBM lawyers write. IBM says it informed Groupon that it was infringing the '967, '849, and '346 patents as early as 2011. As for the '601 patent, IBM says that Groupon should have been on notice of that once Priceline got sued last year.

123 comments

  1. Wait, what? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't patents have a maximum length of 14 years? The 90s were at least 16 years ago.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're thinking design patents. These would be utility or method patents. It used to be 17 from the date of issue. Now it is 20 from the date of application (not counting provisionals).

      The length gets fuzzy for stuff filed in the couple of years prior to 1995. Some of these patents fall into the "longer of the two" category. File something in '93 and have it issue in '99 (an unusually long review process) and maybe it could be enforceable today.

      There are also adjustments to length due to snafus. Sort of a "Oops, my bad. How about we add/subtract X days?"

    2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator#heading-5

      These are the rules that seem to apply:

      In 1861, Congress again changed the term to 17 years with no extension.

      In 1994 the US signed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act changed the date from which the term was measured. Because the term was measured from the filing date of the application and not the grant date of the patent, Congress amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to provide for applications filed after June 7, 1995 that the term of a patent begins on the date that the patent issues and ends on the date that is twenty years from the date on which the application was filed in the U.S. or, if, the application contained a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 USC 120, 121 or 365(c), twenty years from the filing date of the earliest of such application. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 154 was amended to provide term extension if the original patent was delayed due to secrecy orders, interferences, or appellate review periods.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those patents must have been a good idea at the age, but... those guys were very confused! Basically should be considered worthless. Is Microsoft paying IMB for the Win95 interface? Care to look at it, these diagrams look very primitive.

  2. *IBM isnt manned by Thinkers and Inverntors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's been taken over by Lawyers and Profiteers..

    1. Re:*IBM isnt manned by Thinkers and Inverntors by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      It's been taken over by Lawyers and Profiteers..

      IBM has always pulled this crap

      https://archive.is/6Qk0I

      There they are with a patent on how to draw fat lines.

    2. Re:*IBM isnt manned by Thinkers and Inverntors by chipschap · · Score: 1

      Another once-great company descends deeper into the mire. As if their overpriced under-delivering consulting services weren't bad enough, now they are grubbing money with patents.

  3. When I worked for these bums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A substantial part of the annual employee review depended on how "innovative" you were.

    Guess how that was assessed? Spot on. That's a large part of their business model.

    1. Re:When I worked for these bums by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Hey, I patented this kind of aggressive trolling. Pay up or my attorneys will confiscate your mother's basement, including your extensive hockey-mask collection.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:When I worked for these bums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My company keeps trying to get me to patent algorithms and similar stuff I come up with. I tell the bosses I have no interest in supporting such practices and won't have my name associated with the process in any way. I'm all for keeping it IP and of course copyrighting the code that implements the algorithms, but I'll in no way support their bullshit. It is amazing how they expect one to be excited over their suggestions to patent a algorithms. It disgusts me how most of the employees will do it even when many think patents on these types of things don't make sense. More people need to put their money where their mouth is (then again, most people are neither smart nor competent enough to get away with blowing off their bosses, and instead will stick to blowing their bosses).

    3. Re:When I worked for these bums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may seem distasteful to you, but you can actually get make good out of it.
      License it as free for non-commercial, non-government usage, and all other uses have to pay x% of global annual turnover to the charities of your choice.

    4. Re:When I worked for these bums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company dictates every aspect of how the licensing works (which would certainly not fall into those categories). I would just get some sort of extra bonus or a bigger pay raise at the end of the year for being a sellout. If I was into my day job for the money, instead of being an engineer building really cool things, I'd expend that effort on something a lot more profitable.

    5. Re:When I worked for these bums by omnichad · · Score: 2

      With a 5-digit UID, your patent probably expired by now.

    6. Re:When I worked for these bums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may seem distasteful to you, but you can actually get make good out of it.
      License it as free for non-commercial, non-government usage, and all other uses have to pay x% of global annual turnover to the charities of your choice.

      Which is still non-free in the FOSS sense.

    7. Re:When I worked for these bums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what kind of company you work for... But typically when you write software for a company, the code and any unique algorithms within it are theirs, not yours. They have sole discretion to patent any of the algorithms or not. They also own the copyright on any code you write.

  4. Shut 'er down folks by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    IBM owns teh internetz!

    Your lawsuit papers are in the mail and should arrive in the next day or two.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Shut 'er down folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh how quickly we forget. British Telecom used to claim ownership of the web. In 2000 they sued Prodigy, claiming that Prodigy infringed its patent (U.S. Patent 4,873,662) on web hyperlinks. Prodigy has already been sued for this type of crap.

    2. Re: Shut 'er down folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BT didn't claim ownership of webpages, only pages that had links on them.

    3. Re:Shut 'er down folks by Intron · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hate to burst their bubble, but hypertext systems predated both their claims.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  5. IBM Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM finally beats SCO's frivolous suit against them and starts some with other companies. Kind of ironic. IBM should be ashamed of itself for becoming a patent troll.

    1. Re:IBM Finally... by Desler · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You think this is new behavior for IBM? Ignorant much?

  6. IBM wants theirs before Groupon declares by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    bankruptcy.

    1. Re:IBM wants theirs before Groupon declares by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No IBM wants to get paid because they are trying to hit some super ridiculous profit margin growth targets. They are laying off 10's of thousands of US employees right now and it's going to be the death of IBM IMO because they are selling out the future for short term profits. They are going to turn into the biggest patent troll the world has ever seen but their profit margins will be phenomenal when the only employees are lawyers!

    2. Re:IBM wants theirs before Groupon declares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM was the biggest patent troll long before the patent trolls became mainstream. In fact, IBM invented the patent troll business model.

    3. Re:IBM wants theirs before Groupon declares by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did they get a patent on that?

  7. so conflicted by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

    i hate patents but i really hate advertising. i don't know who to root for!

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:so conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont know if there is any merit to the claims, but anything that puts groupon out of business is o.k. in my book... now if they could only come up with a way to nail facebook for a few billion while they're at it.

    2. Re:so conflicted by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      What's everybody got against Groupon? Do they count as advertising when you have to go to them to see what they have to offer?

  8. Wither IBM by mattyj · · Score: 3, Funny

    Patent trolls now? Wow. Charles Flint is rolling over in his grave.

    1. Re:Wither IBM by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry but patent 1,234,567 explicitly documents posthumous rotational corpus per subterranean casket. Would you be interested in licensing our technology? If so please make a check out to:

      Ignoramus
      Blackmail
      Methodology

  9. patent trolling by zlives · · Score: 4, Interesting

    when real business ideas have failed and rats a re leaving ship.

    1. Re: patent trolling by vpness · · Score: 1

      OK, I get it, and support, defending creations which are being actively marketed and or sold. This represents neither. Yuck.

    2. Re:patent trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Italian ship captains jump into a lifeboat then coordinate the rescue from the shoreline?

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16584591

  10. Patent Trolls in all sizes by TodPunk · · Score: 1

    What kind of patent troll does IBM make? Is this a new business model for them? Will they start going after small companies and putting them out of business, or what small token reason would it take for this to become a possibility?

    --
    This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
  11. Heck yeah Prodigy by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Mad Maze was the best.

    1. Re:Heck yeah Prodigy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mad Maze was the best.

      I wonder how many hours I spent in Mad Maze back in the day.

  12. Claiming patent on web pages with javascript? by presidenteloco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Patent 5,796,967 looks like a patent on programs which send page templates and executable code to a client machine to display a dynamic user interface with buttons and text and stuff.

    Doesn't this kind of mean they're claiming they've patented the dynamic web in general?

    New IBM strategy, perhaps though up by "No Shit Sherlock" the top-secret successor to Watson:

    "What is: Laying off our innovation staff and relying on wild-ass patent trolling for profit, Alex?"

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Claiming patent on web pages with javascript? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      How is that patent not expired?

      filed in 1993, published in 1998, priority date is 1988

      Its over 20 years from the filing date, and over 17 years from its publication date.

      It should be expired right?

      So are they suing groupon for license fees from at least a few years ago?

    2. Re:Claiming patent on web pages with javascript? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      For patents applied for prior to 1995, it is 17 years from issue. If it was issued in 1999 or later, it's still in force.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Claiming patent on web pages with javascript? by Sibko · · Score: 1

      IBM's basically excised everything important for the long-term functioning of their company, in the name of 'cutting costs'. They've got to monetize their few remaining assets somehow, and patents and lawyers are probably the most obvious to the beancounters. Sue everyone who looks like they might be infringing an IBM patent (And there's a lot of such patents); profit!

      Inventing new products, systems, services? Fuck that. That takes long term investment, there's huge costs paying for labor that can't simply be replaced with H1B visa holders, and it's extra risky compared to almost guaranteed profits from abusing the courts and running shakedown 'protection money' scams on other companies who actually do the inventing and creating.

      Just another item on the huge pile that's stagnating western economies - and with every politician bought and paid for by these corporations, in addition to corporate astroturfing/advertising, there's no effort on the governments' part to fix it. A lot of people are hoodwinked into believing it's a good thing. It's frustrating to watch this, because the long-term consequences are so obvious to anyone who can look further than next quarter's profit margin.

  13. ... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't this patent literally cover nearly every websites out there? It seems way too broad to me.

  14. The band? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, smack my bitch up and call me a firestarter!

  15. WTF by wwalker · · Score: 1

    So IBM apparently invented forms and frames/windows? Can they now sue any website that uses frameset/frame HTML tags now? Granted, there are not a lot of those any more, but still, WTF? It's a common design pattern. How is this non-obvious to be patentable?!

    1. Re:WTF by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      In fairness, it's non-obvious now. 30 years ago... I dunno? Cannot speak with much authority about computers back then.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:WTF by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      ""the technological innovations embodied in these patents are fundamental to the efficient communication of internet content," according to the company."

      If it's the only way to do a particular thing ("fundamental to the efficient communication of internet content" sure sounds like it) then it's not patentable - is a "mis en scene".

      Also, the X Windowing System predates these patents - 1984.

      Then there all the text-based UIs that had windows, title bars, drop boxes, list boxes, and buttons.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:WTF by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I thought frames was SW Bell or was it SBC claiming they got that patent when they bought some holding of SW Bell... I don't remember.

    4. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can and it was obvious 20 years ago when they made the patents.

    5. Re:WTF by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It seems to be that the UI instructions came over the network. Is X Windowing networked (honest question)?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re: WTF by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It must be very narrow to avoid being priored by VT100, X11, ANSI, heck maybe even 3270, all of which have been used to draw applications and present advertisements of some type (not necessarily product advertisements, but words have meaning).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:WTF by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So IBM apparently invented forms and frames/windows? Can they now sue any website that uses frameset/frame HTML tags now? Granted, there are not a lot of those any more, but still, WTF? It's a common design pattern. How is this non-obvious to be patentable?!

      No, actually, apparently Prodigy did. Ironically, one of the big examples of prior art is from IBM. Their glass terminals were smart and knew about form fields, and you'd fill in the form and hit a key and it would submit to the mainframe for processing. Then you'd usually wait, and wait, and wait :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:WTF by present_arms · · Score: 1

      X-Windows is server / client windowing system so yes it's networked :)

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    9. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is X Windowing networked (honest question)?

      Yes. It was designed with the mainframe in mind. The GUI terminal is meant to be a small, low power device while the main work is done on the mainframe.

      The legacy is still there in the Linux GUI with the DISPLAY environment variable. It's usually set to '0.0' but it can be an IP address and display number like 192.168.2.5:0.0.

    10. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't 30 years ago. It was 20-ish.

      Frames are part of a published spec and designed for that purpose. That makes it obvious.

    11. Re:WTF by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Is X Windowing networked (honest question)?

      Obviously, you have not read the comments in any story about Wayland.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    12. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The X Window System protocol was created as a replacement to the W Window System (which was already network capable). The X protocol provides for various primitives such as windows, text, arcs and rectangles to be sent over the wire. Libraries such as Athena Widgets (libxaw, 1988) and Motif (sometime in the 80s) assembled these primitives into menus, buttons and dropdowns, but they are sent over the wire as the aforementioned primitives.

    13. Re:WTF by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, right from the start. The new version of gnome breaks it by relying on local 3D hardware and being insanely slow elsewhere but everything else runs fine over a network.

    14. Re:WTF by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, the ones where the gnome3 shit that we complained was ruining network performance are used as an example of how X has poor network performance :(
      Actually it's ruining performance in general which may be why people started looking for a way to speed things up. A modern desktop on an eight core 4GHz machine should not be slower than a better looking just as functional desktop (E 0.16) on a Pentium 60 (60MHz single core).

    15. Re: WTF by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Is it actually possible to run something like KDE, Gnome, or Cinnamon, as well as apps written to use them, on a remote X server? I last tried a few years ago, and got the impression that you could (very, very tediously) configure some specific apps to run over networked X, but even if you managed to get the desktop environment itself to display over it, none of them can natively launch arbitrary programs with remote X (including the file explorers themselves, so forget about opening a drive window by double-clicking its icon, let alone double-clicking an executable or trying to launch it from the DE's launcher). And if by some miracle you got it to work, you'd lose things like hardware-accelerated dropshadows & window-translucency (because they are all hardwired to run from kernel code for performance reasons).

      Likewise, I found a commercial app that made Linux theoretically support RDP, but it was really just wrapping VNC to make it look like RDP to the remote computer, but didn't support any of the acceleration that makes Windows work reasonably well over RDP.

      I've heard there are now proprietary apps based on VNC that support acceleration of things like window drawing & font rendering, but they aren't just non-free... they're prohibitively expensive for anyone smaller than large enterprises (as in, no prices displayed on their web site... and if you have to ask, you probably can't afford it), and they only use acceleration under specific, limited circumstances (ie running a DE custom-compiled by them to hardwire their extensions into it).

  16. Pay up by VikingNation · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hold the patent for a business process that involves firing employees to help the company recover. IBM has chosen to use that process and they are not paying me any royalty fees.

    1. Re:Pay up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd hold your dick in your hands, but you don't have one.

  17. Watson arrives by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    This is the newest application for IBM Watson. They found that while it could win at game shows, it couldn't get paid, so here they are, cognitive technology in action.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  18. I'm starting to worry about this by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    kind of thing. Patent trolling used to be beneath IBM. Maybe it's 'cause of oil prices in the tank & big investors pressuring for the kind of returns they saw when gas was $4+/gallon. Then again this stuff goes back to 2011. At any rate something's got IBM desperate for new lines of business and fresh cash.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm starting to worry about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ginni is trying to re-focus IBM to become competitive in all of the areas other companies are now competitive, in particular Cloud, Analytics, Mobile, Social and Security. They're basically playing "me too" and trying to compete where others already are going gang busters and unlikely to be unseated. Due to the highly competitive nature of these businesses and the top heavy (heavy bureaucracy and brittle process heavy) way IBM operates, they'll be forced to fire as many staff as possible from high labor cost markets, shift these jobs to low labor cost markets and when they're still not competitive and seeing the returns they're targetting, they'll start patent trolling (because what's the point of filing for the most tech patents each year if you don't use them!) to return the profits they can't obtain trying to beat younger upstarts at their own game.

    2. Re: I'm starting to worry about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patent trolling never was beneath IBM. See e.g. http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

  19. The Prodigy commenting on patent law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHo8_P_H7y0

    Oops,wrong Prodigy.

  20. Prior art? by internet-redstar · · Score: 1

    An IBM software patent published on 8 december 2009 is used while 'Facebook Connect' already launched in december 2008... Software patenting makes nobody smile.

  21. Just like Peter Jackson with the Hobbit by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1

    The Nazgul felt left out of the latest series of events, so they had to figure out a way to shove them in there!
    I 'like' IBM for the most part, but it's important to remember that a good chunk of it's existence is owed to keeping hundreds of lawyers billing hours for decades. At least until recently, there were guys there who have literally never practiced law outside of their IP department getting ready to retire.

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  22. frames were VERY non-obvious to Microsoft in 1990s by raymorris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the early 1990s, Microsoft spent something like a hundred million dollars developing a technology suite which was immediately eplaced by the html tags , , and .

    This is one of two reasons that Microsoft absolutely freaked out when the web started becoming popular - it did the same thing as their new "killer app", in a MUCH simpler way. Their new COM technology was a newer version of something they called Object Linking and Embedding (OLE). The web had a much simpler way to link and embed documents.

      For a little while, Microsoft even tried to stop the web from becoming popular. When it was obvious that wouldn't work, they tried marketing COM as a web technology, under the name ActiveX.

    Anyway, they had invested very heavily in trying to solve the same problem that frames solved, but their solution was a super- complex solution that took years to develop and an 800 page book to explain. A solution so simple as wasn't obvious to Microsoft.

  23. frame, embed, a, and img tags by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Slashdot stripped the "html" out of my post rather than that encoding it. The html tags frame, img, embed, and "a" did essentially the same "object linking and embedding " as Microsoft's complex solution did.

    1. Re:frame, embed, a, and img tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for explaining that. I got the gist from your initial posting and I appreciate the clarification.

    2. Re:frame, embed, a, and img tags by dargaud · · Score: 1

      In the future you can use < and > to form < and >

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    3. Re:frame, embed, a, and img tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the future you can use &lt; and &gt; to form < and >

      Let me know when in the future Slashdot finally implements that.

  24. Did IBM hire the SCO lawyers? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Huh?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Did IBM hire the SCO lawyers? by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.

    2. Re:Did IBM hire the SCO lawyers? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Part of the scandal was that if "the SCO lawyers" the one that billed for most of the cash was Darl McBride's brother.
      It was a two man scam.
      Deliberately drive a company into a solid wall and take it to the second man for repair bills.

    3. Re:Did IBM hire the SCO lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM armied up with lawyers many years ago, and regularly boasted to their shareholders that their future income would be from patent income and not business computing / consulting services. This has been on the cards since the late 90s, long before the SCO crap. They used to boast about how many trivial patents they were being granted each year, and were the world leader at one point. This was a change from their real R&D / invention work, where they were already busy with real innovations. Anything that could be described as a basic business process was being spammed to the USPO.

      IBM has long since lost being the "go to" company for business machines, other than upgrades for the big ol' iron that's yet to be replaced. Everything else is now wintel or nix on generic x86 from box shifters.

  25. I miss the innovative IBM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I miss the IBM that created innovative mainframes, personal computers, floppy disks, commercial laser printers, UPC Codes, type writers, and other great inventions.
    Now IBM's plan is to squeeze weak companies like Groupon with questionable patents?

  26. kill everyone who makes software patent claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sick of these fuckers patenting ideas.

  27. I'll get pilloried for saying this but by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It isn't really that crazy to believe that IBM pioneered techniques for internet activity. It was not at all obvious back in the days of prodigy when people used things like Gopher and Archie more than WWW protocols. The were investing in the technology and they patented it.

    About the only thing one might complain about here is not the patents but the fact they submarined this. Surfacing decades later and then suing ordinary users just is lousy. But as long as the patents are legit, it may not be unreasonable.

    Not all patents are bad. Certainly patents in cases where huge technology changes are being established.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Following up my own comment in the late 80s and early 90s most people were not thinking or doing dynamic apps over a network. The real hotbed of that sort of thing was Sun. (and Java was a natural extension of that). But Sun's bussiness was mainly about local networks, not retail web-like services to consumers and bussinesses like prodigy. THings like time-share were very old school but those were the standard remote access model. These patents actualy describe the modern webpage which is served, client side applications (javascript).

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was prior art going way back. The European Teletext and Minitel services from the 1970s, for example. Early Teletext not only delivered text and blocky images to TV screens, but machine code for the Signetics 2650 microprocessor.

      I expect Ted Nelson's book Computer Lib also has examples of prior art from research labs that pre-dated IBM's lousy patent.

    3. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, though... when people did need to "think or do dynamic things over a network," they probably didn't rely on the teachings of some obscure IBM patents to do it. They probably just sat down at a computer and started typing, after perhaps consulting some textbooks and papers first.

      So what exactly is the benefit to society that we get from granting IBM ownership of these concepts for 20 years?

    4. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      The first person to invent the incadescent electric light gets a patent on electric lights. THe second person may come up with the fluorescent bulb as an implementation but the basic idea of the electric light was already thought of. THe prodigy patents showed the way. It doesn't really matter if someone came up with another implementation if the way itself can be patented.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    5. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      But what's the point? That kind of progress is inevitable.

      Anytime there's a foot race to the patent office, the consumer is the loser.

    6. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by BlueCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is the so called inventions. They are obvious and natural conclusions. There is no revolutionary idea or inspiration. Patents are to reward and motivate people to develop ideas, implement and produce useful products. These inventions were inevitable. If you could wipe everyone mind in the world and all evidence someone would "invent" it within a week if not days. There is no need to reward these "inventions". It is not revolutionary. It's nothing like the invention of transistors or semiconductors.

    7. Re: I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or fluffernutters

    8. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Prestel springs to mind.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      The problem is the so called inventions. They are obvious and natural conclusions. There is no revolutionary idea or inspiration. Patents are to reward and motivate people to develop ideas, implement and produce useful products. These inventions were inevitable. If you could wipe everyone mind in the world and all evidence someone would "invent" it within a week if not days. There is no need to reward these "inventions". It is not revolutionary. It's nothing like the invention of transistors or semiconductors.

      Right. That's why the real race is to identify the problems of the future. Once you know the problem, the solutions are often obvious. But getting there first is good enough for the patent office. The patent lawyers have twisted the test of obviousness to 'can you show someone thought of it before' which is hardly different to originality.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    10. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a bad example though, as you can't patent an "electric light" you can patent generating light via resistance in a tungsten filament though. Patents are for implementations not ideas.

    11. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. We were writing networking applications long before it was "but on the Internet" suffixes for method patents. There were loads of protocols available, the difference was it was over leased and private lines. In the 80s I worked on gear that had been in place since the 70s (Sperry/Burroughs) that was doing just this thing.

      As for central boxen serving remote clients, PRESTEL has that beat too. 1200/75 bps (yes - just bits) over telephone lines took away the lease line requirements.

    12. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Pioneering is not the same as inventing. And these "inventions" are so vague and meta that they're virtually meaningless. Are IBM seriously claiming that interactive screens did not exist before Prodigy? Or that banner ads didn't? I'm sure there is plenty of precedent in BBS services like Compuserve, Oracle, Minitel, Prestel etc.

    13. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      The problem is the so called inventions. They are obvious and natural conclusions. There is no revolutionary idea or inspiration. Patents are to reward and motivate people to develop ideas, implement and produce useful products. These inventions were inevitable. If you could wipe everyone mind in the world and all evidence someone would "invent" it within a week if not days. There is no need to reward these "inventions". It is not revolutionary. It's nothing like the invention of transistors or semiconductors.

      Every invention is inevitable given enough time. That or something else gets invented that performs the same function. As an example, take the invention of printing. The Chinese and Koreans were said to have invented some form of printing hundreds of years before Gutenberg.

    14. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Gutenberg didn't qualify for a patent on the idea of a printing press, but on the specific implementation of the Gutenberg Press.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I think the light bulb example isn't good - a fluorescent lamp would almost certainly not infringe on a patent for an incandescent lamp. As a real world example, Sony didn't license any of the RCA patents on shadow mask colour TV tubes when they started making colour televisions - the Trinitron tube they came up with was substantially different and didn't infringe, even though the end result was still a colour picture tube.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    16. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by torkus · · Score: 1

      That depends.

      If you patent an edison style bulb specifically then sure, a fluorescent bulb isn't covered.

      If you patent an elongated-sphere shaped-device with contacting points on one end which fits into a receptacle that has a threading mechanism to effect electrical contact and securing said device which is designed to emit light...then yeah, you're screwed. Welcome to recent patents.

      Instead of designing a light bulb and patenting it, companies draw up a vague representation that covers every and any imaginable permutation of their idea and they somehow get a patent for THAT.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    17. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by radiumsoup · · Score: 1

      the point is that inventions are valuable - and profit is an excellent motivator for innovation. The statutory balance (as opposed to market-driven licensing, which is its own balancing mechanism) between the interests of the inventor and the interests of the public happens when the patents are granted a reasonable but not indefinite exclusivity to the work.

      Yes, progress happens - but without an impetus to the inventor(s), it is not always inevitable - and certainly not within short timeframes.

    18. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by andphi · · Score: 1

      The progress in question only seems inevitable because it has already happened. We can see in the hindsight the "Of course!" and "Why didn't they think of that sooner?" moments because the logic of the thing is there for all to see. At the time it was happening, it was neither a foregone conclusion, nor trivial. The fact that several people have the same idea at the same time doesn't mean the idea itself is inevitable. The idea may be waiting, so to speak, to be discovered from first principles, but its discovery is not guaranteed.

    19. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      It has already happened in multiple times and places.

      Let that sink in for a few minutes, think about what it means.

    20. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by andphi · · Score: 1

      The convergent evolution of ideas strongly suggests the validity of those ideas. It does not demonstrate that the ideas in question must always come to light. I'm thinking about calculus, specifically. Two Europeans who had no contact with one another both developed calculus, but how many ancient cultures did not discover it? The Chinese did not, nor the Persians, nor the Arabs, nor the peoples of South Asia.

      In short, just because something requiring human creativity has happened in one way (or even several ways) does not demonstrate that the laws of the universe require it to happen at all. We simply cannot know that. If, however, you are right, and certain kinds of progress are inevitable, why then we should all sit back and wait for the laboratory equipment at Intel and AMD to spontaneously generate new CPU architectures. At the same time, we can wait for the computers at Apple and Microsoft to write new software and operating systems. If we feed Linus' computer enough electricity, we'll get Linux kernel version 5, eventually. We can all take a ten or twenty-year compiler break! Wouldn't that be wonderful?

    21. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      In short, just because something requiring human creativity has happened in one way (or even several ways) does not demonstrate that the laws of the universe require it to happen at all. We simply cannot know that. If, however, you are right, and certain kinds of progress are inevitable, why then we should all sit back and wait for the laboratory equipment at Intel and AMD to spontaneously generate new CPU architectures. At the same time, we can wait for the computers at Apple and Microsoft to write new software and operating systems. If we feed Linus' computer enough electricity, we'll get Linux kernel version 5, eventually. We can all take a ten or twenty-year compiler break! Wouldn't that be wonderful?

      Funny how much of our modern computing infrastructure, both hardware and software, was never patented. Yet somehow it magically came into existence anyway, and a lot of people made a lot of money.

      Is it your position that it would be best if everything that could legally be patented was patented?

      Yes? Then we're done here.

      No? Then you agree that the current criteria used by the USPTO for determining patentability is flawed.

    22. Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but by vivian · · Score: 1

      Actually apparently the ancient Babylonians figured out something pretty much like it.
      http://news.discovery.com/hist...

      Also this indian guy in the 14 century seemed to have a pretty good go at it too.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  28. Reversed History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this IBM acting like SCO?

  29. after years of fighting SCO... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

    After years of fighting SCO, and seconds after winning, they...do this? As others have said, the patents are reasonable to an extent. What isn't reasonable is not defending them for so long, then suing a blink before they expire.

  30. So much for fond memories by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    I used to love Prodigy Classic in all of its 320x240 pastel glory. Thanks for ruining those memories, IBM.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  31. Another revenue stream post-layoffs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM is the new SCO? Lay off arse-tons of workers and make up for revenue by patent lawsuits? And we thought the epic patent lawsuit debacle had finally faded away... =P I feel for all of the ex-IBMers as they are forced to exit the field.

  32. How the mighty have fallen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IBM used to be such a powerful and respected company, and now they are nothing more than a patent troll. It's kind of sad.

  33. Trollander by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    There can only be one.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  34. Re:frames were VERY non-obvious to Microsoft in 19 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure you know what COM is.

  35. THINK to TROLL by goombah99 · · Score: 0

    -----THINK
    -----Chink
    -----Chins
    -----Coins
    -----Joins
    -----Joint
    -----Point
    -----Paint
    -----Pains
    -----Pairs
    -----Hairs
    -----Hairy
    -----Dairy
    -----Daily
    -----Drily
    -----Drill
    -----Droll
    -----TROLL

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:THINK to TROLL by pla · · Score: 1

      THINK
      Thine
      Chine
      Chile
      Chill
      Shill
      Swill
      Twill
      Trill
      TRILL

    2. Re:THINK to TROLL by pla · · Score: 1

      D'oh! Make that last one "TROLL". Stupid lack of an edit function on Slashdot!

  36. My screen name is Legal.Troll and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can't tell if serious or troll :(

  37. Not cool IBM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to become a target of hatred and reviled and boycotted by techies, you are going the right way about it.

  38. Remember whenb IBM ... by houghi · · Score: 2

    Remember when people said IBM would only use it as self defense and would never use it to attack? Those were fun times.

    Nothing bad can happen after this, because this is the only one they have, right?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  39. IBM - Lays off workers, becomes a patent troll by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Long live SCO!!!!!

  40. 1996+20 = 2016 by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Seems like even in that regards they're barely valid?

    1. Re:1996+20 = 2016 by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Seems like even in that regards they're barely valid?

      If you think a little bit about what it said in TFA, you should know that IBM contacted Groupon in 2011. Even though the patent '967 has been expired since August 17, 2015 (iffy rule for this patent -- 17-year from issued date [08-18-1998] v. 20-year from filing date [11-26-1993]), it was still in effect when IBM attempted to collect loyalty from Groupon back then.

  41. IBM Sucks Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title says it all. IBM is a POS company and nobody should use their worthless buggy crap.

  42. Layoffs and lawsuits by bhamtown · · Score: 1

    So that's IBM's strategy for profit. Lay off a chunk of its workforce then sue other companies over patents. Gotta make those quarterly numbers!

  43. IBM becoming zombie company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) was a healthy, friendly company before they tragically morphed into an unrecognizable, vicious patent troll. IBM just laid off thousands of people, despite hiring many thousands last year. Then this first indication of IBM's possible ugly transformation. Are we seeing corporate DNA transmutation in progress? Is it possible that in their fight with SCO they contracted the SCO infection and are now in the process of metamorphizing into a "walking dead" corporation?