Slashdot Mirror
NCR Sues Netscape For Patent Infringement
cswiii writes "C|Net has this story about NCR suing Netscape over nine patents said to be infringed. " NCR is suing over nine patent infringements for "organizing and retrieving information from computer databases". We'll update this story as more details come out.
WILMINGTON, Del, Sept 20 (Reuters) - NCR Corp. (NYSE:NCR - news) filed a patent
infringement lawsuit late Friday against Netscape Communications Corp., an affiliate of AOL
(NYSE:AOL - news) since AOL bought the Internet browser earlier this year for $10 billion.
In papers filed in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, NCR listed nine patents whose eight
inventors had assigned the patent rights to NCR from 1994 through 1997. NCR is based in Dayton, Ohio.
The patents include methods for blocking unauthorized users from gaining access to networks, for identifying users, for the symbolic display of a network model and for the management of networks.
A Netscape/AOL spokeswoman, reached at Netscape's headquarters in Mountain View, California, said, "The suit is without merit and we plan to fight it vigorously."
NCR has nearly 2000 patents in the USPTO database, and if you scan through them, you'll see lots of entries that will make you go 'What the...?'
They've got patents from an 'ornamental design for a computer' (which I unfortunately can't see the pictures of) to this: 'Blocking a "reply to all" option in an electronic mail system'. The abstract for the latter one says "A "Reply to All" command may be selectively blocked by a sender in an electronic mail system. The "Reply to All" command may be disabled in response to selection and enablement of a "Block Reply to All" option when the message is composed by the sender. After the sender transmits the message, the message is displayed in a window on a computer operated by a receiver. If the "Block Reply to All" option has been enabled, then the "Reply to All" command is disabled at the computer operated by the receiver. The disabling of the "Reply to All" command may be visually represented by a change in the display. "
I can't believe they can patents things like that.
Actually, Wang was in financial trouble and was using their patent hoard to sue several parties, including Microsoft and Kodak/Eastman.
Now Wang has been acquired by Kodak, who have subsumed it into "Eastman Software", and they are very cosy with Microsoft. Their TIFF viewer ships with every copy of Windows 9x since 95B, and the offer a line of imaging software that integrates with MS-Exchange, which appears to be intended to help Exchange compete with Lotus Notes.
The attack on Netscape came a few years later, and it's not hard to imagine that it was done in collusion with MS.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Somehow, all the patents ends up being owned by companies large enough to afford their own patent lawyers, or companies specializing in patent portfolious. Patents basically allow a few large companies to control an industry with cross-licensing agreements, keeping everybody else out.
Patents doesn't exists because the inventer "deserves" anything, at least not in the US. They exists as an incentive for the inventor to share the invention with others, thus promoting science and art. The US constitution is quite clear about that.
Patents is a violation of peoples freedom (much more so than copyrights, since it also covers independent inventions), and can only be excused if the benefits to science and art are larger than its cost in individual freedom.
For some patents, this might be the case, allthough the period may be too long. But there were plenty of innovation in software before patents, so there are no excuse for those.
No, but many have come up with compression techniques that are no worse than LZW. The reason the LZW patent is valuable isn't that it is particular good, became in widespread use in many protocols and file formats, because it was well documented and unenforced. When Unisys started enforcing it, alternative algorithms was quickly developed. However, the need to communicate through old LZW based protocols and file formats continues, and thus make the patent valuable.
NCR produce large scale machines used for datawarehouses. Essentially they have the database engine (Teradata) implemented in hardware.
While they have sold a number of these the market is small, and the likes of Oracle on Solaris are just as good and cheaper.
I suspect that it is the "patents" on this that Netscape has supposedly infringed, rather than the ATM systems (sales of which are also going downhill, since NCR insist that you buy both hardware and software from them).
What makes this really funny is that www.thelettern.com is registered to the Sesame Street folks.
Registrant:
Children's Television Workshop (THELETTERN-DOM)
1 Lincoln Plaza
New York, NY 10023
US
Domain Name: THELETTERN.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Peterkin, Arden (AP3118) arden.peterkin@CTW.ORG
212 875 6297 (FAX) 212 875 6089
Billing Contact:
Arena, Louis (LA1410) louis.arena@CTW.ORG
212 875-6387 (FAX) 212 875-6089
Record last updated on 09-Apr-98.
Record created on 09-Apr-98.
Database last updated on 19-Sep-99 07:43:34 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
AUTH02.NS.UU.NET 198.6.1.82
AUTH60.NS.UU.NET 198.6.1.181
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
I seriously hope these don't hold up in court. Hopefully those AOL lawyers will actually do something good for a change...
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
despite the recent (somewhat) sucess of companies going after Microsoft in the legal arena, going after Microsoft for something as specious as this sounds (so far) is just asking them to jump on you. And while they have their own branded unix, how much do you want to bet that they have some MS Office around in there... to me, anyways, Netscape looks like a better initial target, if it's about browser technology.
/else/ has done that! :)
I didn't see anything offhand in that article you reference that might explain patent infringement. the only thing that it looks like NCR brought to the table was another brand of unix to port the browser to, and an agreement so that Netscape would port the SuiteSpot server. looks like they paid Netscape so that they'd have an application on their OS. I'm sure no one
so far, anyways, I haven't seen anything resembling a valid patent that NCR held that Netscape violated. bring on the lawyers!
Lea
This doesn't necessarily relate to browser technology. Perhaps there's aprt od suitespot that accesses databases. Part of The netcenter site, i'm sure, comes from Oracle as well as LDAP.
I've been working in netscape doing Database I/O for a n internal tool, however, I'm not sure if they can be sued for a tool, that'll only be used inside the company, or perhaps AOL.
I'm quite surprised that such an established corporation would try to fuck themselves over as far as most of the Free Software Community is concerned.
I'd see this as blatant pandering to Microsoft's will, in order to gain favour, if this is the only suit. However, if they try to sue everyone who uses Database I/O ? The author of DBI.pm would be a master criminal overnight. >:|
- DoC
> Patents should only be possible to claim on truly revolutionary methods of doing things.
Nonsense. Unique would be perfectly suffucient criteria. Uniqueness then tends to run into natural law, think of it it "God's Prior Art". You can't patent a mathematical formula for instance, but you can still patent the implementation of it in an algorithm, even if the language is nothing more than the specification of the formula. Then there's patenting of file formats, which smacks to me like patenting a shape of a drawing (something you could no doubt get copyright or trademark on, not a patent).
Patents on algorithms are based on the ludicrous concept of a physical machine that executes the algorithm, otherwise it's not patentable. Even though you have no IP rights over the language, runtime, or silicon that executes it, it doesn't matter because you've patented the hypothetical "database-o-tron" machine that runs the algorithm and has its file formats carved in hardware somehow. It's truly the twilight zone.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
It's as bogus as a blue bear, but it still costs massive bucks to defend against frivolous suits. This is where the legal system needs reform: you lose, you pay.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Didn't Wang sue Netscape before, claiming that they had patents that basically covered what the World Wide Web does? IIRC, these patents were applied for in the 1980s. I seem to recall the suit being thrown out.
I have a hunch this is just another case of some company patenting the obvious, or the already in use, and trying to make a quick buck off of it.
Quite frankly, I think that all patents ought to be done away with.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Wait a minute? Wasn't it just yesterday that there was a news story having a blurb that companies sued Microsoft because of their inability to compete in the market? Now we have a comment that companies trying to better their positions with Microsoft by suing Netscape.
Neither accusation is true, though. Especially the accusation that the Anti-trust trial is a way for Netscape to make up for their failings. In this case, I think NCR is looking for an easy buck. Netscape has less lawyers then Microsoft, so that's who they hit. I can't imagine Microsoft IE *not* doing anything that Netscape does.
-Brent--
Maybe the patent office could be privatized and both the patent office and patent applicants could be found liable and assessed penalties if patents are overturned. The problem right now is that the risk and cost of applying for a frivolous patent is tiny compared to the benefit of getting away with it occasionally.
It might be possible that a lawyer could argue that a company that has obtained an invalid patent has greatly harmed its competitors and should pay fines and penalties. But in the current environment, it's already so hard even to establish that patents with obvious prior art are invalid that I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.
ha ha! how humorous! let me try to come up with a joke like that. Alright, how's this:
..oh, wait a minute. i forgot. that actually happened. www.appleinsider.com has been talking about it for weeks. Damn. OK, let me try again.
A company called "microware" has recently filed suit against Apple Computer for naming their new update of the Mac OS "Mac OS 9". Microware has an existing product named "OS 9" for mostly PPC-based mostly embedded applications. Since it's clear that the apple could not possibly have come up with any other source for the name "Mac OS 9" (which comes after Mac OS 8.6, Mac OS 8.5, Mac OS 8, and Mac OS 7.6) other than purposefully copying microware, Microware has come to the defense of its intellectual property to keep apple from defaming its reputation.
Ha ha! How was that?
Garth Brooks and the rapper "Warren G" have both sued each other over usage of a lower-case "g" as a logo. Both artists recently began using a huge lower-case "g" in their stage sets during live shows. It is uncertain who came up with the idea of a letter named "g", but since it is so creative and unobvious it is certain between Garth and Warrren, one is attempting to copy the other, and they didn't just come up with it independantly.
Err, wait a minute-- That happened too. i saw it on MTV news earlier this year. Dammit, i give up!! this satire stuff is too hard.
-mcc
[this post brought to you by the letters B and S, and the number 9]
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Because the idea has been around longer than the patent. For example, the wheel barrow has been patented as recently as 1990 (see http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn=US0492130 5__ ). Can the gentleman who patented it go to all the companies who manufacture wheel barrows and tell them that the wheel barrow is his intellectual property? No-- the wheel barrow has been in use for hundreds of years. It would never hold up in court.
The same situation applies for "retrieval and organization" of data from a database. Hell, that would mean that ATM's are older than terminals-- technically, using vi to view a textfile via a telnet session is retrieving an organized piece of information from a database.
This *is* slightly different, however, from the LZW/gif compression thing. The patent existed *before* it was used for gifs-- so the company (even though they sat on the patent) can still enforce it. Just one of the idiosynchrasies (sp?) of patents...
But, then again, IHNLE (I have no legal experience).
If you're a little guy, or a student, you probably can't afford to get the thing patented in the first place. Have you looked at the fees lately?
There was a time, not that long ago, when no software patents were issued because they were considered in the same class as mathematical formulae or laws of nature, and unpatentable. The (long since released to the public domain and expired) famous Bell Labs patent on the SUID bit in Unix was famous in no small part because it was an exception to the "no software patents" rule, and if you look at the application it carefully describes how the feature could be implemented as a hardware device.
Software patents now are doing more harm than good: time for them to be flushed.
-- Alastair
Thanks VanL for an AWESOME post and some excellent research.
Can anyone see where their isn't a TON of prior art for each one of the patents listed here?
This single post is probably the strongest case against software patents that I have seen in sometime.
It is proof positive that there are companies out there patenting algorithms that have existed for decades and longer and the US patent office just blindly rubber stamps them so as to let the court system establish the actual validity of the patent through litigation.
Why on earth else would a company patent something that appears a generic description of client-server computing, or one that essentially describes generic load balancing if not to have them available to pull out of their pocket one day to throw in the face of some other wealthy corporation as a means of extorting money from them.
I cannot believe that NCR actually would expect one of these patents to hold up in court if challenged, but they may plan to use them to extort a settlement out of a company (like AOL/Netscape) who's legal department decides that the issue is "not worth" taking to court.
Perversion of the Legal system and the patent system like this has GOT TO STOP, or, as an earlier post suggested, all information technology will flee the US in favor of operating under governments who are not so stupid and do not pander so obviously to unscrupulous wealthy corporate special interests.
The patent office needs to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves also. They are supposed to screen patent applications, and not issue patents on ideas for which there is prior art. What they actually do is just pass everything (at least in the area of software or algorithmic patents) and just let the court system sort the mess out. It was never intended to be that way.
Apart from the spelling/typos (please proofread) which indicates that your posting was written in a hurry and without much eye for consistent argumentation, I still don't agree with you.
First of all I'm not socialist (I rather think of myself as being pragmatic) so I don't feel any reason to start giving away stuff just to do society a pleasure. Sure I'll consider doing so if there's a good reason to do so.
Second, I don't see any evidence backing up your claim about multi million dollar of research patents being discovered without any way to protect them. It's not at all obvious to me. If you take medical patents for instance, companies do researh patent the result and make a lot of money on the products they create based on that research. The last thing such a company would want is that competing companies introduce similar products based on their research (which why it was patented in the first place).
"Whats more value to socity, a corp wasting millions to come up with the same thing a few hackers can do on their own for free?"
I have yet to see any real innovative stuff coming from the OSS community. The OSS community delivers high quality software but most of it was not invented by it. Linux is a fine piece of software but it is not innovative.
Companies like SUN, MS, SGI pump billions of dollars into research. The only reason they do so is that they expect to make even more money on the products they can create with the results of this research. They wouldn't make much money if the OSS community would start giving new stuff away as soon as something useful is invented. Imagine MS has been working for years on speech recognition and they finally finds a way to do so reliably. They create a product based on this technology to get a revenue on their investment. The application is reverse engineered by someone and weeks after the new product introduction free products start to appear based on the research. And you are telling me that despite this companies would still be willing to invest loads of money in something they won't make much money on. Wake up dreamer.
Finally I found your doubt in my being a researcher slighty insulting. With not so many words you are accusing me of being a liar. For your information: I'm a Ph. D. student at the university of Karlskrona/Ronneby my homepage (see my personal details on this site) is located there and there are even some articles by my hand on it (not much because I have only started a few months ago).
So in your terminology, I'm a academic researcher. Since my research is funded by the swedish government and commercial companies, they have a vote in saying what happens to the result of my research. Mostly this means that my work is made public in the form of a paper in journal or at a conference. Should I discover something valuable, it is likely that a patent will be created for it first. So the research community still benefits (since the invention is made public) only the use of the invention is limited.
I think I tackled all of your objections now. Of course I'm open to new arguments. I find this an interesting subject since I have the ambition of producing useful research in the future. Therefore I care what happens after I do so. I don't have any moral objections agains patents which you do seem to have.
Jilles
Whoa thats scary. They own every single letter :) HAAH
But I noticed that none of
thenumber#.com's are owned anyone want to buy #1-12 and give them to CTW could be a tax writeoff
Accually I'd personally wouldn't suggest rolling your own. A well functioning web browser is Extremly difficult to make. Mozilla, while admittingly under a slow design process is looking to finish up around the 2 year mark. When did netscape try and proprietise protocols. Admittingly they wern't the most forthcomming of giving up javascript, but look what happend to it. Before the days of AOL, and netscape going free beer they were a company I looked up to. But things change, and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. While it is almost sad what netscape has become, it obviously did not begin that way. Many employees have left Netscape reciently because of that change. But we can't all know the reasons behind such change, I can only hope they relax a bit once Micros~1 is out of the picture.
Maby it is just me, but I have yet to see a patent as of late that wasn't reverse engineerable (atleast to the extend of what would be covered in the patent). Now adays if someone invented the transistor, they would process the "Making of an electronic gate by which through the flow or lack there of, of electrons into a container causes the opening or closing of such gate to allow a free flow of electrons." Or something like that, never quite describing how the hell you did it, but keeping other people from doing the same thing unless they took apart your transistor and figured it out themselves.
> it doesn't seem as though they just woke up and noticed that the technology was similar
No, but it may be that with the acquisition by AOL they think there might be some deeper pocklets willing to settle quickly?
Or maybe the availability of Mozilla source gave them some insight into whe suspected infringement that wasn't clear before?
"I know you got me on this silly monopoly thing, and that other Java thing but we'll get you yet you.. you.. you mean person!"
--Microsoft to Netscape re: NCR patent infringement suit.
D. Keith Higgs
CWRU. Kelvin Smith Library
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Why do they deserve to profit already? Does company "E", who independently invented the same thing 3 weeks later deserve to profit any more or less?
But because there is no patents, the BIG company "B" just steals my invention, and makes millions, and squeezes A out of business, because it is so much larger. This isn't "society benefit"..
Well, the men and women of society have access to the wonderful product, as sold by "B", do they not? If the small company "A" can do it better, for cheaper, then we will benefit even more. Or perhaps small company "C" would like to try their hand at it. Maybe 37 different small companies and 16 other large companies would be free to implement and sell the product. The product is much more likely to advance when anybody can run with the idea. Society benefits when the original idea is advanced and developed as far as possible, rather than when the idea is "shackled" to a single company that controls its fate.
the patents exist because the original inventor, person or corporation, deserves to profit from their invention.
Again, why does someone deserve to profit from an idea? Why should an idea be a ticket to a windfall when we all know that business is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration (pardon the cliche). People should profit from selling goods and services that other people cannot (or don't have to time to) manufacture or perform for themselves. If people want to buy your goods and services, then you should profit. You shouldn't be allowed to profit simply by denying others use of an idea.
I hope the USPTO web site database doesn't violate any NCR patents...
...
This looks like a general patent on client-server computing. Considering that this patent is dated April 2, 1997 (Granted July 13, 1999), Isn't there a lot of prior art?
It looks more like a more specific patent on a system to allow an application being run on one system to be seen and operated by one or more remote systems. There's a ton of prior art on that.
From 1988 to 1990, I did university research that led to software the does just this. The first system replicated full-screen dumb terminal sessions. The second, called XTV , did it for any X11 application. We published the following paper on it:
XTV: A Framework for Sharing X Window Clients in Remote Synchronous Collaboration
Proceedings of IEEE TriComm '91, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pp. 159-167, April 1991.
Similar projects had previously been done elsewhere, but ours was the first that didn't require a special X server or client libraries.
I'm not sure how NCR thinks Netscape infringed on this patent, but I'm sure some judge will get to hear their lawyer's explanation. This ought to be interesting.
So at one point during my software engineering course all those years ago, they brought in a Patent Lawyer who just happened to have a PhD in CS (apparently it is very common to be a patent lawyer and to also have at *least* a masters in your patent field of expertise.) And here's what I remember him saying about patents.
1) You can patent almost anything.
2) If your process is the same as another patented process, but has one aspect which is different, then it does not fall under the other patent.
What what?
Say JOe Mega Corp down the street has a patented process for making wedges. And their patented process uses a 1/2" brush to paint their wedges. You realize that you could make better wedges faster if you use a 2" brush. Bam. New process. New patent. It's called innovation. Then again, if the patented process uses a brush of un-described size, then you are in violation of the patent. So you change your process to use spray paint. So you open up a competing wedge business, and the other guy can't do squat about it.
How was this point illustrated to the class? Microsoft has a 4 step patent on spell checking documents. Why haven't they sued anyone? Because every other spell checking process is more evolved, with multiple differences in process.
Software patents are a necessity at this point in time. When used appropriately they help the little guy has to protect his work against the big bad corpoaration who want's to steal his idea. You just have to make sure that your patent description is strong enough to defend against all the guys out there with the 2" brushes hanging in their garages.
And maybe the NCR/Netscape battle is about netscapes enterprise servers? They do have more products than just a web browser...
If you do think you have a patent, first get your description/plans notorized. get a lawyer to help you out with the submittal. It may cost a little more, but your patent proposal will be that musch stronger when its done. Why the notary? There was this college kid to invented this thing called the laser within weeks of a college professor. The professor got his big corporate friends to help with the patent, so it was submitted and approved first. And so begins the lawsuits. The college kid eventually won becuase a) this process was better and b) the date his notes were notarized was a week before the the professor got his notarized.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
I'm sorry, but I can see absoulutly no reason that NCR can claim 'irreperable harm', nor even 'harm'! NCR, a largish manufacturer of cash registers, ATMs and the like, and Netscape, a web browser/portal, have virtually no business overlap!
Has NCR lost sales of their ATMs because Navigator uses the same data cache mechanism? No.
Has NCR lost POS customers because Netscape incorporates a low-level feature that they have a bogus patent on? Nope.
Is Netscape a threat to their dying PC division because of patent infringement? Not likely.
I think it a little more likely that NCR has an outstanding patent infringement claim with a company in direct competition, and that they are using this attack on Netscape as some sort of sick leverage.
'Golly, they can hit up a BIG company like AOL! We'd better cave!' Pshaw. I hope this goes to court and NCR gets crushed.
.sig: Now legally binding!
In any case, NCR is a huge company with a legacy name. It shouldn't be surprising that NCR has patents that have bearing on Netscape. They obviously don't "just make cash registers".
"I don't agree with you on that. Why would a company invest millions of dollars in research if anything they discover can be taken by some open source hippy who gives it away for free."
This is in error. Since when is an 'open source hippy' going to be able to market and distribute his product as effectively as a company with millions of dollars for research? It's a ridiculous suggestion. Something like, say, Linux, took _years_ to get into the mainstream, with thousands, _millions_ of 'open source hippies' pushing. A single person wanting to romp off with somebody's IP is going to be quickly clobbered by inability to execute his plan, or deliver on his promises of product and distribution.
Since it isn't going to substantially affect the big companies anyhow, why _shouldn't_ patents be abolished?
A lot of people have noted that the patent system appears to be broken, with respect to software (or algorithms, processes, orbits, et al.)
Some have suggested tossing out the whole system and not permitting software patents at all. But I'm wondering if there might be some good to patents after all, and that this would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ignoring how patents are used _now_ and whether they are operating according to plan or not, here is what it seems like the intent behind them is:
The patent office serves as a watchdog organization principly to assure that the item is not something that has already been done. It also registers the method of creating the invention so that others can save the work of recreating it later.
I think that the problems that we're having with software patents are not so much that software patents are wrong, but that they aren't properly following the patent system's intent. Here is I think it could be corrected to work as it was intended (with a couple additions for added safety, just 'cause we can):
Rather than registering a "concept" for a piece of software, you register the implementation of the software itself. I.e., the source code. For a period of time you are permitted exclusive use of that particular implementation of the concepts in the code, and can take legal action against those who copy it, with the full backing of the government. However, at the expiration of your patent, the source code becomes public domain (or perhaps GPL?) I suspect the life of the patent should be reduced to, say, 3 years - enough time to allow you to implement and market your idea, and build a brand name, but short enough so that the public can make use of your ideas themselves, later.
The current difficulty for the patent office to verify that the patent application is new art is greatly simplified; they can "diff" the code (figuratively, if not literally) against existing code. Checking for infringement is also much simplified - one need only compare the patented code against that of the accused infringer - if the patent office's computers determine a sufficiently high level of correlation between the software, it infringes, else it's kicked out.
One of the reasons I think the above process is better than the current patent process is that the whole procedure can be computerized and automated. You'd only need humans to take care of appeals and cases that the computer can't figure out.
I think this might result in *more* software patent grants than currently, but the breadth of those patents would be less; someone might get a patent for a program that uses a particular kind of genetic algorithm to create machine code for teaching Furbies to wash dishes, but not on "use of algorithms to create source code for embedded applications". The use of the same process for making Furbies read books to children would be a different patent.
An individual inventor could then come up with a unique new idea and have it protected while he builds a company around it and IPO's. A large company with deep pockets would have to do a lot of software development in order to get really broad patents (and then give all that code away to the software community after a few years).
Anyway, assuming that software patents are indeed necessary, I wonder if the above concept would be a lot better than the current one.
Bryce
Does anyone think it's odd that these formerly relevant computer companies (who are trying to better their position with Microsoft) are suing Netscape?
...
Of course, this also points out how useless patents for software are, but that's a different topic
James
Fortunately, the US is becoming less and less important as other, more populous countries, enter the information age. 260 million people are allot, but pale in comparison to China's or India's billion, or even Europe's 340 million. Losing the American market would hurt now, but in five years time it will hurt considerably less, and in fifteen years it will hardly be relevant.
As I argued in another (much longer) post, the ability of the US government is limited to destroying its own software industry and intellectual base -- the government's foolish policy of allowing software patents could put a dent in the Open Source movement here in the US, but it will not be able to stop the movement from thriving elsewhere. They will only be able to impotently look on, while the rest of the world, unfettered, catches and surpasses us.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
In principle, and if they had to actually follow the rules set up for other fields, and if the examiners didn't just automatically grant anything, then software patents might have a purpose. As it is...
A patent is supposed to disclose the method of building the patented "thing" to an extent that one skilled in the field would be able to easily recreate it. A patent is supposed to be for an unusual and difficult new invention that is not obvious to those skilled in the field, but requires a "flash of genius" in order to be invented. A patent is not supposed to be for something which is even retrospectively obvious in light of prior art.
And there actually are some things like that that do deserve patents. But there is so much garbage that I think that I agree with you. It's not the idea so much, as the implementation. But the implementation is so bad that it would be better to throw out the whole thing and start coding from scratch!
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Lots of these formerly powerful dinosaur-era computer makers have been taking this approach - countering their own declining profitability (and all that that drives, such as their ability to attract capital and talent) by using whatever resources they still have - mainly "intellectual capital" - to take whatever they can get.
The Wang lawsuit has already been mentioned. Another is Datapoint, which has pretty much dropped off the scope in computing these days, but used to be a very innovative company (first real LAN [ARC]; influenced the development of the first mass-market microprocessor; had real desktop computers in the '70s [the 2200 series, and later the 1500 and 1800]; kept Ted Nelson of Xanadu (in)fame around for a while; etc.). I learned programming on Datapoints in the early '80s; back then they had a pretty impressive, albiet proprietary, environment. (though their proprietary DATABUS language sucked jagged rocks).
Like most of the other proprietary vendors they lost bigtime as Unix and killer micros took over in the late 80s. Datapoint refocused on video conferencing technology, and picked up a number of patents on video compression technologies (that's not my field so I can't provide details). As their revenues from their old-line areas declined, and as they haven't become a force of consequence themselves in the video market, these patents have become their chief revenue earners through licensing. And they've become very litigious in enforcing them.
This is a truly brilliant post
Agreed, but you manage to provide some competition.
You know something, not everyone wants to be open source. Some people actually want to create something and own the intellectual rights to it.
Yep, and there is a mechanism for that called copyright.
I more informed post would be "could someone please fix the US Patent Office" because it's becoming apparent that they have no clue what they're allowing to become copyrighted.
First, I don't see why that would be a more informed post. Second, you yourself are in dire need of a clue regarding the differences between patents and copyright. Yes, Virginia, these are completely different things.
Another question, how are they damaging the community?
By not allowing you to use the most efficient way to solve a problem? By forcing you to pay a small fortune to lawyers for patent-compliance check before releasing the software? By making you vulnerable to bogus patent-infringement lawsuits that could easily kill the company before it could show the bogosity of the suit?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Does anyone have more information on the patents? I hope this is at least some really cool indexing scheme or something, cause otherwise this sounds just plain ignorant. I have several web-based data apps, am I in trouble?
Software patents strike again!
*SIGH*
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
It seems that one of the things that all Slashdot readers agree on is that software patents are not evaluated properly before they're given out, leading to frivolous lawsuits that cost innocent organizations gobs of money. How do we wake the patent office up?
How about this: why don't all of the organizations that have been hit by frivolous lawsuits file a class-action suit against the patent office for damages? The only ones that could file for damages are those where the court ruled in their favour and effectively nullified the patent.
Nothing motivates an organization to change its ways like being slapped with a lawsuit to avoid such things in the future!
---
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
The more I reflect on the situation of software patents, the more scared I become. The large number of bogus patents is not only a threat to the open software movement, but to the US as a whole (sorry non-US readers). You think that non-US companies give a damn about our patent mess. No Sir! But coast to coast, US companies are scared of infringing in some bogus patent and having to defend itself in court. The system desperately needs reform - and quickly.
[Sig: The box reads "Requires Microsoft Windows NT or better," so it must run on Linux.]
Right now these sorts of frivolous lawsuits appear whenever a software company is acquired by another company with deep pockets. I say frivolous, because that is what the patents are which are being granted so irresponsibly by the USPO. The hope is to get some extortion cash out of those deep pockets in a settlement, not in a trial where they might actually have to defend (and have overturned) the patents themselves. Ironic that the lawyers and politicians have managed to distort our democracy into a society where legalized extortion and legalized bribery has become an institution, but I digress.
In the not so distant future, as Free Software and Open Source begins to make a real impact, we can probably expect this phenominon to shift, where lawsuites are aimed at entities (and probably individuals) without deep pockets. Not for the purpose of getting a settlement and some easy cash, but for purposes of disrupting and even destroying (financially) the entity in question, who presumably cannot afford to defend themselves in court. Countless opponents of software patents have been warning us of this ugly scenerio for quite some time.
Fortunately, I do not think things are as grim as that. In the worst case, where a government of lawyers, by lawyers, and for lawyers refuses to correct the software patent absurdities and such frivolous abuses of the legal system stymie and even crush the Open Source ventures, all that will happen is that progress moves overseas (where governments have been much more intelligent with respect to patenting in general). So Red Hat moves their headquarters to Europe. So Linus Torvalds telecommutes from Helsinki. Linux and Open Source will continue to thrive outside of the US, while progress in this country stagnates beneath a horde of litigation.
The best minds in the industry will undoubtably follow suit, reluctantly at first, but then in greater numbers, moving to places where they can practice their art unhindered by such foolishness. In this scenerio one of two things will happen -- either legislation will be passed to correct the situation, or the United States will experience a brain drain with respect to information technology and eventually become a backwater to the rest of the world. Of course, then the politicians will be blaming some kind of "unfair trading practice" when they discover that all the high paying and expertise have gone overseas, all the while ignoring their own complicity in devastating the American software industry. It has already happened with cryptography, and none of those responsible show any sign of recognizing their own rather obvious roles in what has happened.
Of course, this won't matter to us much. Free Software and Open Source, be it Linux, FreeBSD, or Joes New Quantum OS, will thrive and grow, just as Open Source always have. What will it matter, that a nation of 260 million people with their heads up their collective ass will have complacently watched their government drive yet another prosperous industry overseas?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Don't jump to conclusions and assume that it has to do with their browser product. It's quite possible that they are being sued over some server database app that does data mining, using techniques that NCR 'owns.' That's only a guess, though. Too bad the CNET article wasn't a little more detailed.
_______
2B1ASK1
"Quite frankly, I think that all patents ought to be done away with."
I don't agree with you on that. Why would a company invest millions of dollars in research if anything they discover can be taken by some open source hippy who gives it away for free. I think the basic notion of protecting new inventions from being stolen is not a bad idea.
Of course the situation has gotten out of control when software is considered. The solution is not to throw away the concept of patents but rather to enhance it.
Such enhancements could be:
- better selection at the patent office. Clearly these guys don't have a clue about what they are doing. A suggestion could be to involve experts from the field in the selection process.
- restrict patterns to algoritms rather than vague methods for fro instance retrieving information from databases. Algoritms usually are the result of real research. While retrieving information from a database is a goal rather than a technique. To be patentable, a technique should be sufficiently concrete.
- a way to terminate a pattern if somebody shows that what has been patented was in fact invented and used elsewhere before it was patented. Right now the only way to get this done is being sued by the patent holder and winning your case. This would be an ideal way to kill the thousends of pointless patents in use right now.
Under the above restrictions I think software patents are not a bad thing. They encourage research and thus stimulate advances in technology. Being a researcher I like the idea of not working for nothing. It would really piss me off if I would invent something useful and somebody else would make loads of money with it, leaving me without a legal foot to stand on. Maybe I would give it away. But it would be my choice to do so. Maybe I would try to make some money from the invention either by selling it or by creating a product based on the idea. In either case the protection of a patent is a good thing.
Somehow I don't think copyright is sufficient to provide this protection. With software this would mean that
- you need a piece of code implementing your idea
- only the code not the actual idea is protected. I.e. a clean room implementation of the idea is not covered by the copyright. Example: a particular photo of a sunset is covered by copyright but that does not mean that a similar photo infringes on this copyright.
Jilles
Remote collaboration among host computer running host program and remote computers each running application program
The invention concerns using multiple computers to hold a conference. Under the invention, an application program can run on a single computer, yet remote participants can issue commands to the program. Remote participants can watch the program operate, because the invention replicates the display window of the running program onto the displays of the remote computers. Any participant can make annotations on the participant's own computer display. The invention copies the annotations to the displays of the other participants.
This looks like a general patent on client-server computing. Considering that this patent is dated April 2, 1997 (Granted July 13, 1999), Isn't there a lot of prior art?
Method and apparatus for providing shared data to a requesting client
A method and apparatus for providing object data stored in a database management system to a receiving client. The method comprises the steps of receiving a database query from the client on a first communication path, transforming the database query into database management system commands, transmitting the database management system commands to the database management system, receiving a response from the database management system, the response comprising an object locator identifying data responsive to the database query, compiling an answer set comprising the database management system response, transmitting the answer set to the client on the first communications path, receiving a data request from the client comprising the media object locator, establishing a transport session with the client on a second communication path, and transmitting data identified by the media object locator to the client on the second communication path.
This sounds like any site with a database powered back-end infringes.
Method and apparatus for extending a database management system to operate with diverse object servers
A method and apparatus for extending a database management system to operate with diverse object servers. The apparatus comprises a federated coordinator for accepting client commands and translating client commands into relational database commands and object server commands, a plurality of object servers coupled to the federated coordinator, each object server for storing and retrieving data objects identified by object data surrogates in response to the object server commands from the federated coordinator, and a relational database management system coupled to the federated coordinator for storing and retrieving object data surrogates and for transforming relational database commands into an answer set comprising an answer set data surrogate.
Not sure, but this sounds like load-balancing on the aforementioned database-driven web site.
Method and apparatus for extending existing database management system for new data types
A method and apparatus for extending a relational database management system performed by a computer to manage object data stored in an object server having a processor and a data storage device. The method comprises the steps of receiving a database command including a store command and object data from a client at a federated coordinator, generating a data surrogate unique to the object data, associating the data surrogate with the object data, and storing the data surrogate and the object data in the data storage device in the object server.
MIME types?
Annotation of computer video displays
A system in which multiple computers engage in a collaborative video conference. One computer generates a common image which is distributed to the other computers. The invention allows the users of the other computers to annotate (that is, mark up, bydrawings and text) the image at their respective computers. The invention replicates the annotations at the other computers. One type of annotation allowed is "highlighting," wherein a user drags a cursor across a display, and the invention leaves a colored trail behind the cursor, which is transparent, and does not obscure the underlying images.
Document Sharing? "Whiteboard" technology? Heck, it even sounds like VNC might violate this one.
Targeting advertising in a home retail banking delivery service
A practical system and method for the remote distribution of financial services (e.g., home banking and bill-paying) involves distributing portable terminals to a user base. The terminals include a multi-line display, keys "pointing to" lines on the display, and additional keys. Contact is established between the terminals and a central computer operated by a service provider, preferably over a dial-up telephone line and a packet data network. Information exchange between the central computer and the terminal solicits information from the terminal user related to requested financial services (e.g., for billpaying, the user provides payee selection and amount and his bank account PIN number). The central computer then transmits a message over a conventional ATM network debiting the user's bank account in real time, and may pay the specified payees the specified amount electronically or in other ways as appropriate. Payments and transfers may be scheduled in advance or on a periodic basis. Because the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks' computers. The terminal interface is extremely user-friendly and incorporates some features of standard ATM user interfaces so as to reduce new user anxiety.
If netscape has anny "virtual ATM" deals that they have set up with banks, then this might infringe. but wouldn't IE infringe also?
Just my own comment: These were all granted within the past three months. The certainly didn't waste much time. I wonder if AOL's new arrangement with Netscape encouraged this little venture.
But if this patent is related to other Netscape products, what else could it be? Everything Netscape makes that I can think of has been done already - from web servers to commerce products. I don't understand why they're being singled out.
(hopefully this post won't get lost :)
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Henson Productions has recently announced their intention to bring suit against Netscape for using the letter N as a logo. Henson lawyers have stated that the letter N has repeatedly been used to promote Sesame Street, and is therefore considered a trademark.
Henson lawyers went on to announce their ongoing partnership with Microsoft, regarding their innovative usage of the letter E to promote Internet Explorer. While the letter E has been used to promote Sesame Street as well, Henson Productions legal staff claims no intention of seeking damages from Microsoft, citing that E is a vowel and as such is more easily licensed to other parties. When questioned if this decision had anything to do with the $1billion donation from Bill Gates to the Henson Foundation, the lawyers replied with "no comment".
In other news, the head executives of A.O.L. have resigned for undisclosed reasons.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Seven of the nine (yes, I get it) patents could be:
United States Patent 5,748,188
Hu , et al. May 5, 1998
Hypertext markup language (HTML) extensions for graphical reporting over an internet
Abstract
A hypertext data processing system wherein graphical data is sent from a server to a client computer using extensions to the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). The client computer parses the graphical data and formulates an object representative of the graph to display. The object is passed to a graph server which displays the graph.
By the wording, it seems that any browser which accepts a graphic which represents a graph is in violation of the patent. If my memory serves, graphics were being used prior to May 5, 1998
United States Patent 5,951,652
Ingrassia, Jr. , et al. September 14, 1999
Dependable data element synchronization mechanism
Abstract
Described is a mechanism for dependably synchronizing data element activities on web pages among a group of browsers. The web browsers retrieve web pages from an HTTP server. Each of the web pages contains at least one data element and embeds a Master Applet and at least one DTS Applet (DTS stands for data tracking and synchronization). In response the data element activities (such as entering data into a data field) performed at a browser, the DTS Applet passes the activities to the Master Applet, which in turn reports the activities (together with the URL of the web page on which the data element activities have occurred) to a tracking server. The tracking server sends the activity report (together with the URL of the web page on which the data element activities have occurred) to the Master Applets at all participant browsers. The participant Master Applets then instruct their respective DTS Applets to display the data element activities on the web page identified by the URL.
This one mentions http and the word applet so I'm sure they are suing for violation of this one. Netscape uses Last-modified for "element syncronization" but I don't think that this patent would cover that. I'm not sure how broad "Master Applet" can be.
United States Patent 5,951,643
Shelton , et al. September 14, 1999
Mechanism for dependably organizing and managing information for web synchronization and tracking among multiple browsers
Abstract
Described is a mechanism for dependably organizing and managing information for web synchronization and tracking among multiple consumer browsers. A session is created for each of one of the consumer browsers when an individual consumer downloads an initial web page from an HTTP server. A unique ID is assigned to that session. After the session has been created for an individual browser, the information about the all activities from that consumer browser will be recorded into the session. Such a mechanism overcomes the difficulty to organize and manage the activities from the multiple consumer browsers that are in stateless nature.
Any server which sends a cookie to the browser to track the browser's activity is in violation of this. I'm sure this has been done prior to September 14, 1999
United States Patent 5,941,957
Ingrassia, Jr. , et al. August 24, 1999
Dependable web page synchronization mechanism (As opposed to undependable web page synchronization?)
Abstract Described is a mechanism for dependably synchronizing web pages among a group of browsers. Each of the web page embeds an applet. In response the activities (such as loading or unloading of a web page) performed at a browser, the applet reports activities (together with the URL of the web page) to a page synchronizing server, which in turn relays the activities (together with the URL) to all participant browsers. The participant browsers can load and unload the web page according to the report of the activities.
Any browser that is capable of running an IRC applet would seem to be in violation of this patent since the IRC server relays the activities to all browsers running the applet. Again, IRC applets have been in use prior to August 24, 1999.
United States Patent 5,870,746
Knutson , et al. February 9, 1999
System and method for segmenting a database based upon data attributes
Abstract
A system and method for allowing a user to segment and partition a database based upon attributes associated with the data in the database. Also, a system and method for generating a report for a user which allows the user to make decisions, without requiring the user to understand or interpret data itself. A database computer includes a database containing the data. The data includes a collection of information about an enterprise of the user. A server computer is coupled to the database computer and executes a database management program. A client computer is coupled to the server and executes an application program. The application program allows a user to define predetermined data types, to define relationships between the data types, to define parameters for the report, to define a method of analysis for the report, and to create the report. The report summarizes the data in terms of the data types, the data relationships, and the method of analysis.
Several things strike me as potential infringements. First, my netscape cache directory is partitioned into a bunch of directories (00, 01, etc.), depending on the definition of database, this could be a partitioning of a database. Second, a user can click on a link to have a browser create a "report" based on the html that it receives, the user need not understand html himself.
United States Patent 5,721,903
Anand , et al. February 24, 1998
System and method for generating reports from a computer database
Abstract
A system and method for generating a report for a user which allows the user to make decisions, without requiring the user to understand or interpret data itself. A database management program executed by a server within a system for generating the report for the user includes a first subsystem for translating user requests for data, for generating dimensional queries for retrieving data from a database, and for processing user modifications to data types used in generating the report. A second subsystem coupled to the first subsystem reads data from the database, creates the data types, creates a mapping of the data types to the data, uses the mapping to translate user-initiated dimensional queries received from the first subsystem into Structured Query Language (SQL), and returns query results to the first subsystem. A third subsystem creates the report at a predetermined time.
A browser allows users to make decisions without understanding the data by allowing users to click a link without understanding html
United States Patent 5,710,900
Anand , et al. January 20, 1998
System and method for generating reports from a computer database (Hmmm, this looks familiar)
Abstract
A system and method for generating a report for a user which allows the user to make decisions, without requiring the user to understand or interpret data itself. An application within the system includes a graphical user interface (GUI) which allows the user to select and specify the parameters for the report, display the report, print the report, and save the report. A folder management subsystem allows the user to create a folder object for storing the report within the database, store the report within the folder object, and retrieve the report from the folder object using the GUI. A business information setup subsystem allows the user to create data types and create and constrain relationships between the data types. An analyst definition subsystem allows the user to select an analyst representing a method of analysis to use in generating the report using the GUI. Finally, a viewer module displays the report.
This seems the same as the last one, but the application neeeds a GUI to infringe on this one. Lynx is safe, rejoice!
I work for NCR and I think that I can shed some light on the thought process behind the lawsuit and NCR's position in all of this.
Before I begin, let me say that I am not speaking for my employer in any way. These comments are merely those of one who is familiar with the company and it's goals.
NCR is a 100+ year old company, and started out making cash registers (National Cash Register). NCR moved into making electronic cash registers, then ATM's and point of sale equipment, with NCR servers providing back end support. NCR realized that services and software were the most profitable sections of the company, and is now positioning themselves to be a solutions company, with Data Warehousing being emphasized above everything else. NCR currently outsources most hardware manufacturing to other companies.
NCR is counting on their Teradata product line to move the company ahead into the year 2000. Databases and solutions to make those databases work with other systems (ATM's, point of sale equipment, etc) are now the focus of the business. The patent infringement was probably with a Netscape server product that accesses some sort of back end database. NCR could care less about the browser. Since NCR's database products are the key to the business, NCR is trying to protect them as much as possible.
After all, if it was just the browser, wouldn't NCR go after Microsoft as well?