Actually, I forget where I read this, but the product placement in that movie wasn't paid for--it was supposed to be a joke that went along with the plot (corporate takeover of pop culture or something like that).
It probably would have worked better if they made their own brands, though--it went over the heads of most moviegoers (and most reviewers, too).
I think it was the Dave Kehr (of the NYTimes) top 10 list, now that I think about it.
So I've been reading all this, and there's a couple things I'd like to point out real quick like.
First, IANAL, yada yada yada.
Second: Most patent systems throughout the world are based on first application. This means that in, say, Austrailia, I can file a patent for something I invented, even if someone else invented it earlier. This is what one of my professors did when he finished a research project (bioengineering stuff--not genetics but something else) and found it was already patented in the U.S. The USPTA doesn't work like that. They care about who invented something first, which is why they have the whole prior art search. However, the reason why something like FrontPage '97 doesn't necessarily count as contradictory prior art is that the file date has very little to do with anything. The invention date is what matters. And how is that invention date proven? Through the use of very, insanely formal engineering notebooks that get notorized on a daily basis.
So what does this mean? Well, IBM engineers could have come up with something like this years ago, let's say during the HTML 1.0 era. At this point, it wasn't really an obvious thing to do. They have the notorized notebooks saying, "yeah, they made this up way back when." IBM then takes those notebooks and drops them off with any prior art that they are aware of (that really only needs to be from before when they invented it), and let the patent office do their thing.
Why did they wait until 1998 to file this? I don't know. Maybe some other company was trying to get a patent on it and they said, "hold it. We did this first." In which case this is a good thing. It doesn't seem like this is the sort of patent IBM is going to use litigiously. They'd have to bring down hundreds of companies, and that wouldn't make them too popular.
So let's all calm down and save our vitriol for the truly tragic cases of the patent system gone wrong, like the guy who invented the intermittant windshield wiper, had the idea stolen by Detroit, and spent 10 years in court suing the hell out of the car companies. And going insane. That was a big problem. This? Someone needs to stop reading Adbusters.
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately, this has been posted already.
Sorry to disappoint everyone.
I nominate Jesus.
Actually, I forget where I read this, but the product placement in that movie wasn't paid for--it was supposed to be a joke that went along with the plot (corporate takeover of pop culture or something like that).
It probably would have worked better if they made their own brands, though--it went over the heads of most moviegoers (and most reviewers, too).
I think it was the Dave Kehr (of the NYTimes) top 10 list, now that I think about it.
First, IANAL, yada yada yada.
Second: Most patent systems throughout the world are based on first application. This means that in, say, Austrailia, I can file a patent for something I invented, even if someone else invented it earlier. This is what one of my professors did when he finished a research project (bioengineering stuff--not genetics but something else) and found it was already patented in the U.S. The USPTA doesn't work like that. They care about who invented something first, which is why they have the whole prior art search. However, the reason why something like FrontPage '97 doesn't necessarily count as contradictory prior art is that the file date has very little to do with anything. The invention date is what matters. And how is that invention date proven? Through the use of very, insanely formal engineering notebooks that get notorized on a daily basis.
So what does this mean? Well, IBM engineers could have come up with something like this years ago, let's say during the HTML 1.0 era. At this point, it wasn't really an obvious thing to do. They have the notorized notebooks saying, "yeah, they made this up way back when." IBM then takes those notebooks and drops them off with any prior art that they are aware of (that really only needs to be from before when they invented it), and let the patent office do their thing.
Why did they wait until 1998 to file this? I don't know. Maybe some other company was trying to get a patent on it and they said, "hold it. We did this first." In which case this is a good thing. It doesn't seem like this is the sort of patent IBM is going to use litigiously. They'd have to bring down hundreds of companies, and that wouldn't make them too popular.
So let's all calm down and save our vitriol for the truly tragic cases of the patent system gone wrong, like the guy who invented the intermittant windshield wiper, had the idea stolen by Detroit, and spent 10 years in court suing the hell out of the car companies. And going insane. That was a big problem. This? Someone needs to stop reading Adbusters.