the only difference was that the content was usually displayed in a separate window (and the "plugins" were often called "helper applications"). See also his comments regarding prior art in other applications like MS Write (there's no reason why the class of application should make any difference here) where the content was, previous to this patent application, displayed inline through the use of a "plugin" (MS Paint), as well as the remarks that this was a common topic of discussion in the literature at that time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in previous comments here, the functionality they describe is not significantly different than that already (at that time) provided by ISMAP and USEMAP.
in this case tim berners lee was only able to show a browser running a local file within a browser. eolas/UC's patent from 1994 had it where another process from another server runs within the browser. and they did this years before Netscape hit the market and before Al Gore invented the internet
in this case tim berners lee was only able to show a browser running a local file within a browser. eolas/UC's patent from 1994 had it where another process from another server runs within the browser. and they did this years before Netscape hit the market and before Al Gore invented the internet
in this case tim berners lee was only able to show a browser running a local file within a browser. eolas/UC's patent from 1994 had it where another process from another server runs within the browser.
Clearly you didn't read his letter to the PTO. And the server aspect of it is why it's basically no different than the use of ISMAP, which predates this patent.
Obviously these are issues that need to be addressed legislatively, and doing so is long overdue. And, while they are at it they can specifically put an end to the idea that a naturally occurring gene may be patented.
This sort of thing is outrageous, I agree. It happens with pharmaceuticals too. For example, the FDA recently reclassified a naturally occurring variant of B6 as a drug because a pharmaceutical maker had obtained a patent on a manufactured version of the molecule. As a result, this particular form of vitamin B6 can no longer be included in supplements because it is now classified as a "drug", even though it naturally occurs in the food we eat. Another case in point are statin drugs. Statins naturally occur in many foods, but one drug maker was successful in lobbying the FDA to classify red yeast rice, which is completely natural, as illegal for sale because it contains the naturally occurring statin molecule upon which their patented drug is based.
first some of the patents NTP claims are complete BS and are just paraphrasing the SMTP RFC. second Japan had email to cell phones before NTP filed their later patents which also makes them suspect. text messages were around before email to cell phones as well and you can argue that as prior art too. i was getting text messages on a cheapo cell in Italy in 1999
in the EOLAS case they showed off a browser with their patent claims in 1993. they filed for the patent in 1994 and it wasn't for at least a few more years until we saw stuff like flash and other app within a browser implementations
Clearly you didn't read his letter to the PTO. And the server aspect of it is why it's basically no different than the use of ISMAP, which predates this patent.
isn't ISMAP just a way to make a picture file clickable? was it presented at trial? there is a difference in running something like flash or other executable code in a browser and ISMAP. and that letter was only his opinion. he was involved in the case and his workaround and demonstration of the technology at the time was dismissed by the court as not going far enough to invalidate the patent.
and MS has already modified their products to get around the patent
At this point things are getting absurd. All we hear about are patent trolls. Simple solution, end all software patents. Everything is connected to everything else in one way or another. The people who defend this atrocious behavior aren't looking into the future to see that this is only going to get worse. Do we even have ten years before literally nothing can be released because when it is the patent trolls come out in droves? Patents in, and of, themselves are getting out of control and only stifle innovation. The comment about gene patents is right on as well. Patents need to be a thing of the past. This has to end.
At this point things are getting absurd. All we hear about are patent trolls. Simple solution, end all software patents. Everything is connected to everything else in one way or another. The people who defend this atrocious behavior aren't looking into the future to see that this is only going to get worse. Do we even have ten years before literally nothing can be released because when it is the patent trolls come out in droves? Patents in, and of, themselves are getting out of control and only stifle innovation. The comment about gene patents is right on as well. Patents need to be a thing of the past. This has to end.
you need to force people to create algorithms to patent in software instead of just drawing a diagram of an idea. the way it is now big companies patent every little idea to keep the trolls and the competition away. almost like MAD during the Cold War
you need to force people to create algorithms to patent in software instead of just drawing a diagram of an idea. the way it is now big companies patent every little idea to keep the trolls and the competition away. almost like MAD during the Cold War
I say let there be no software patents and let people steal other people software and networking technologies. This way developers will find it less motivating to think about new ideas and we, the customers, will get plenty of goodies... like Windows
I say let there be no software patents and let people steal other people software and networking technologies. This way developers will find it less motivating to think about new ideas and we, the customers, will get plenty of goodies... Like Windows
That's simply not true. Patents stifle innovation. The motivation is there when it's open and companies scramble to be the first to release, and to be the best implementation of whatever it is.
Just be careful what you name it- musn't have the word "pod" in it , nor the letter "i". It also mustn't resemble any round fruit with a stem on it- be it a peach or a kiwi.
Who is going to mistake a small flightless bird for an apple?
I say let there be no software patents and let people steal other people software and networking technologies. This way developers will find it less motivating to think about new ideas and we, the customers, will get plenty of goodies... Like Windows
Actually, if there were no software patents, software would still be covered by copyright, so one would have to "reinvent" the process to "steal" it. One can argue convincingly that software patents do more to stifle innovation than to stimulate it. And, at the rate that software patents are issued, and the trivial nature of many of them individually, we may soon come to a point where it's necessary to do just that to make it possible for technology to continue to develop at the pace we'd like it to and remain affordable.
EDIT: I thought I posted this earlier, but I can't seem to find it. If the following is essentially a repost of content, my apologies in advance...
The purpose of patents is not primarily to protect intellectual property. The purpose of patents is to stimulate innovation, and protection of intellectual property through patents was conceived as an effective way to accomplish this by rewarding the inventors financially, thus, giving incentive to innovate. Patents in many areas, particularly in realms that did not exist when the concept was originally put into practice, do often tend to do more to stifle innovation than stimulate it, which is probably an indicator that these realms, such as software, ought not to have been included in patent protection in the first place.
Actually, if there were no software patents, software would still be covered by copyright, so one would have to "reinvent" the process to "steal" it. One can argue convincingly that software patents do more to stifle innovation than to stimulate it. And, at the rate that software patents are issued, and the trivial nature of many of them individually, we may soon come to a point where it's necessary to do just that to make it possible for technology to continue to develop at the pace we'd like it to and remain affordable.
Copyright does not cover how your software works. I really wouldn't worry much about software patents and believe me when I tell you that no one will go bankrupt because of them. The whole point of patent lawsuits is money and this is why the settle most of the time. Companies will continue to steal from each other (patents and ideas) and they will continue to go to court and settle. If the issue is widespread and critical the court will force everyone to set and settle, just like what happened in with RIM and NTP.
There should be protection and I agree the current patent system is flawed when it comes to software/methods. I think software/methods patent should be improved not eliminated and I think software patent should be tied to actual software productions. For example, you have x number of years from the date you file your patent to get a product on the market or we will not approve it and you cannot use for lawsuits.
first some of the patents NTP claims are complete BS and are just paraphrasing the SMTP RFC. second Japan had email to cell phones before NTP filed their later patents which also makes them suspect. text messages were around before email to cell phones as well and you can argue that as prior art too. i was getting text messages on a cheapo cell in Italy in 1999
in the EOLAS case they showed off a browser with their patent claims in 1993. they filed for the patent in 1994 and it wasn't for at least a few more years until we saw stuff like flash and other app within a browser implementations
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the method of getting the e-mail to the phone was what they infringed on, RIM knowingly took their model & applied it. You're opinion on whether their patent was BS or not is irrelevant, blatant patent infringement is still wrong.
You are SOOOOO right. I've used embedded applications in some of my web design products. Nothing i didn't learn from taking Tool A and Tool B, putting them together and creat Tool C.
You are absolutely right when you say that many patents for technology are based on obvious progressions of existing ones. I'm guessing, if research was rEALLY done, and someone came forward, we'd find that this company didn't "invent" it. They probably were just the first ones to file for, and get, a patent on it.
This is just absured. They better be giving a nice chunk of their winnings to someone who really NEEDS it. Because... if they're still in business... and can afford to go up against all of these big companies... doesn't sound like they need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisdaddy
The US patent system is responsible for setting technology back decades. Especially in ridiculous cases like this where companies are granted patents for technologies that are obvious progressions of existing ones.
It sucks that MS lost this lawsuit. I'm not a fan of the Redmond gang but this is absolutely stupid. That patent should never have been granted.
I think from now on, companies should be required to sue in their own state. The only reason they are suing in the eastern district of Texas, is because they know they have a chance of an easy win. If they truly had a case, then they could bring the case anywhere, including in their own state. This is a travesty of justice and these little money grubbing worms should be stamped out like the menaces to society that they are!
I think some posters here are misunderstanding the actual issue. The alleged infringement is not against the technologies of Flash, QuickTime, and certainly not javascript. It is the browser functions that allow the <embed> tag basically. That is why for a time IE had sort of a click to Flash implementation and people started using Javascript to write the embed tag on the client side.
Considering there were people who tried to turn Hypercard stacks into Internet apps like HyperFTP from Douglas Hornig which goes all the way back to 1990 for version 1.2 (see Info-Mac Digest V8 #131) I think this might have a little harder problem flying with Apple as it can show other people had similar ideas predating not only this patent but the Internet as we know it. Also various elements of embed go all the way back to Project Xanadu of 1960 so I have to wonder just how did MS botch this up?
I agree with you that there are patents trolls and I agree with you that something need to be done about it. However, when this patent was filed in 1994 there was no such thing as web apps, IE, or Safari and the internet browser as we know it today did not exist.
BZZZZ WRONG.
Go to Web Browser History The very first browser was WorldWideWeb on the NeXT in 1991three years before this nonsense was filed ViolaWWW used applets and dates from May 1992. Mosaic actually dates from 1993 and only went public in 1994.
The Hypercard stack HyperFTP from 1990 allowed you to do FTP through hypercard with all that implies and there were even primitive attempts to have Hypercard stacks communicate with each other through the networks as early as 1991 (not these attempts worked well). Nevermind that the 0.5 version back in 1988 of TEX for HC was called a "browser", TidBITS went to setext format on Jan 06, 1992 that via a setext "browser".
The point of that was that the idea clearly predates the 1994 date on the patent making is questionable if not invalid.
I think from now on, companies should be required to sue in their own state. The only reason they are suing in the eastern district of Texas, is because they know they have a chance of an easy win. If they truly had a case, then they could bring the case anywhere, including in their own state. This is a travesty of justice and these little money grubbing worms should be stamped out like the menaces to society that they are!
Comments
As pointed out by Tim Berners-Lee in his letter to the PTO, many browsers used "plugins" at that time, the only difference was that the content was usually displayed in a separate window (and the "plugins" were often called "helper applications"). See also his comments regarding prior art in other applications like MS Write (there's no reason why the class of application should make any difference here) where the content was, previous to this patent application, displayed inline through the use of a "plugin" (MS Paint), as well as the remarks that this was a common topic of discussion in the literature at that time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in previous comments here, the functionality they describe is not significantly different than that already (at that time) provided by ISMAP and USEMAP.
in this case tim berners lee was only able to show a browser running a local file within a browser. eolas/UC's patent from 1994 had it where another process from another server runs within the browser. and they did this years before Netscape hit the market and before Al Gore invented the internet
in this case tim berners lee was only able to show a browser running a local file within a browser. eolas/UC's patent from 1994 had it where another process from another server runs within the browser. and they did this years before Netscape hit the market and before Al Gore invented the internet
in this case tim berners lee was only able to show a browser running a local file within a browser. eolas/UC's patent from 1994 had it where another process from another server runs within the browser.
Clearly you didn't read his letter to the PTO. And the server aspect of it is why it's basically no different than the use of ISMAP, which predates this patent.
Obviously these are issues that need to be addressed legislatively, and doing so is long overdue. And, while they are at it they can specifically put an end to the idea that a naturally occurring gene may be patented.
This sort of thing is outrageous, I agree. It happens with pharmaceuticals too. For example, the FDA recently reclassified a naturally occurring variant of B6 as a drug because a pharmaceutical maker had obtained a patent on a manufactured version of the molecule. As a result, this particular form of vitamin B6 can no longer be included in supplements because it is now classified as a "drug", even though it naturally occurs in the food we eat. Another case in point are statin drugs. Statins naturally occur in many foods, but one drug maker was successful in lobbying the FDA to classify red yeast rice, which is completely natural, as illegal for sale because it contains the naturally occurring statin molecule upon which their patented drug is based.
NTP, read about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP,_In...ent_litigation
first some of the patents NTP claims are complete BS and are just paraphrasing the SMTP RFC. second Japan had email to cell phones before NTP filed their later patents which also makes them suspect. text messages were around before email to cell phones as well and you can argue that as prior art too. i was getting text messages on a cheapo cell in Italy in 1999
in the EOLAS case they showed off a browser with their patent claims in 1993. they filed for the patent in 1994 and it wasn't for at least a few more years until we saw stuff like flash and other app within a browser implementations
Clearly you didn't read his letter to the PTO. And the server aspect of it is why it's basically no different than the use of ISMAP, which predates this patent.
isn't ISMAP just a way to make a picture file clickable? was it presented at trial? there is a difference in running something like flash or other executable code in a browser and ISMAP. and that letter was only his opinion. he was involved in the case and his workaround and demonstration of the technology at the time was dismissed by the court as not going far enough to invalidate the patent.
and MS has already modified their products to get around the patent
At this point things are getting absurd. All we hear about are patent trolls. Simple solution, end all software patents. Everything is connected to everything else in one way or another. The people who defend this atrocious behavior aren't looking into the future to see that this is only going to get worse. Do we even have ten years before literally nothing can be released because when it is the patent trolls come out in droves? Patents in, and of, themselves are getting out of control and only stifle innovation. The comment about gene patents is right on as well. Patents need to be a thing of the past. This has to end.
you need to force people to create algorithms to patent in software instead of just drawing a diagram of an idea. the way it is now big companies patent every little idea to keep the trolls and the competition away. almost like MAD during the Cold War
isn't ISMAP just a way to make a picture file clickable?
It's interactive content embedded in a browser window and requires interaction with a server. I don't know if this was presented at the trial or not.
you need to force people to create algorithms to patent in software instead of just drawing a diagram of an idea. the way it is now big companies patent every little idea to keep the trolls and the competition away. almost like MAD during the Cold War
I say let there be no software patents and let people steal other people software and networking technologies. This way developers will find it less motivating to think about new ideas and we, the customers, will get plenty of goodies... like Windows
I say let there be no software patents and let people steal other people software and networking technologies. This way developers will find it less motivating to think about new ideas and we, the customers, will get plenty of goodies... Like Windows
That's simply not true. Patents stifle innovation. The motivation is there when it's open and companies scramble to be the first to release, and to be the best implementation of whatever it is.
Just be careful what you name it- musn't have the word "pod" in it , nor the letter "i". It also mustn't resemble any round fruit with a stem on it- be it a peach or a kiwi.
Who is going to mistake a small flightless bird for an apple?
I say let there be no software patents and let people steal other people software and networking technologies. This way developers will find it less motivating to think about new ideas and we, the customers, will get plenty of goodies... Like Windows
Actually, if there were no software patents, software would still be covered by copyright, so one would have to "reinvent" the process to "steal" it. One can argue convincingly that software patents do more to stifle innovation than to stimulate it. And, at the rate that software patents are issued, and the trivial nature of many of them individually, we may soon come to a point where it's necessary to do just that to make it possible for technology to continue to develop at the pace we'd like it to and remain affordable.
EDIT: I thought I posted this earlier, but I can't seem to find it. If the following is essentially a repost of content, my apologies in advance...
The purpose of patents is not primarily to protect intellectual property. The purpose of patents is to stimulate innovation, and protection of intellectual property through patents was conceived as an effective way to accomplish this by rewarding the inventors financially, thus, giving incentive to innovate. Patents in many areas, particularly in realms that did not exist when the concept was originally put into practice, do often tend to do more to stifle innovation than stimulate it, which is probably an indicator that these realms, such as software, ought not to have been included in patent protection in the first place.
Actually, if there were no software patents, software would still be covered by copyright, so one would have to "reinvent" the process to "steal" it. One can argue convincingly that software patents do more to stifle innovation than to stimulate it. And, at the rate that software patents are issued, and the trivial nature of many of them individually, we may soon come to a point where it's necessary to do just that to make it possible for technology to continue to develop at the pace we'd like it to and remain affordable.
Copyright does not cover how your software works. I really wouldn't worry much about software patents and believe me when I tell you that no one will go bankrupt because of them. The whole point of patent lawsuits is money and this is why the settle most of the time. Companies will continue to steal from each other (patents and ideas) and they will continue to go to court and settle. If the issue is widespread and critical the court will force everyone to set and settle, just like what happened in with RIM and NTP.
There should be protection and I agree the current patent system is flawed when it comes to software/methods. I think software/methods patent should be improved not eliminated and I think software patent should be tied to actual software productions. For example, you have x number of years from the date you file your patent to get a product on the market or we will not approve it and you cannot use for lawsuits.
first some of the patents NTP claims are complete BS and are just paraphrasing the SMTP RFC. second Japan had email to cell phones before NTP filed their later patents which also makes them suspect. text messages were around before email to cell phones as well and you can argue that as prior art too. i was getting text messages on a cheapo cell in Italy in 1999
in the EOLAS case they showed off a browser with their patent claims in 1993. they filed for the patent in 1994 and it wasn't for at least a few more years until we saw stuff like flash and other app within a browser implementations
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the method of getting the e-mail to the phone was what they infringed on, RIM knowingly took their model & applied it. You're opinion on whether their patent was BS or not is irrelevant, blatant patent infringement is still wrong.
You are absolutely right when you say that many patents for technology are based on obvious progressions of existing ones. I'm guessing, if research was rEALLY done, and someone came forward, we'd find that this company didn't "invent" it. They probably were just the first ones to file for, and get, a patent on it.
This is just absured. They better be giving a nice chunk of their winnings to someone who really NEEDS it. Because... if they're still in business... and can afford to go up against all of these big companies... doesn't sound like they need it.
The US patent system is responsible for setting technology back decades. Especially in ridiculous cases like this where companies are granted patents for technologies that are obvious progressions of existing ones.
It sucks that MS lost this lawsuit. I'm not a fan of the Redmond gang but this is absolutely stupid. That patent should never have been granted.
I think some posters here are misunderstanding the actual issue. The alleged infringement is not against the technologies of Flash, QuickTime, and certainly not javascript. It is the browser functions that allow the <embed> tag basically. That is why for a time IE had sort of a click to Flash implementation and people started using Javascript to write the embed tag on the client side.
Considering there were people who tried to turn Hypercard stacks into Internet apps like HyperFTP from Douglas Hornig which goes all the way back to 1990 for version 1.2 (see Info-Mac Digest V8 #131) I think this might have a little harder problem flying with Apple as it can show other people had similar ideas predating not only this patent but the Internet as we know it. Also various elements of embed go all the way back to Project Xanadu of 1960 so I have to wonder just how did MS botch this up?
I agree with you that there are patents trolls and I agree with you that something need to be done about it. However, when this patent was filed in 1994 there was no such thing as web apps, IE, or Safari and the internet browser as we know it today did not exist.
BZZZZ WRONG.
Go to Web Browser History The very first browser was WorldWideWeb on the NeXT in 1991 three years before this nonsense was filed ViolaWWW used applets and dates from May 1992. Mosaic actually dates from 1993 and only went public in 1994.
The Hypercard stack HyperFTP from 1990 allowed you to do FTP through hypercard with all that implies and there were even primitive attempts to have Hypercard stacks communicate with each other through the networks as early as 1991 (not these attempts worked well). Nevermind that the 0.5 version back in 1988 of TEX for HC was called a "browser", TidBITS went to setext format on Jan 06, 1992 that via a setext "browser".
The point of that was that the idea clearly predates the 1994 date on the patent making is questionable if not invalid.
I think from now on, companies should be required to sue in their own state. The only reason they are suing in the eastern district of Texas, is because they know they have a chance of an easy win. If they truly had a case, then they could bring the case anywhere, including in their own state. This is a travesty of justice and these little money grubbing worms should be stamped out like the menaces to society that they are!
There are appeals aren't there?