getting tired of all these articles on who is sueing apple... time to just forget about it and and move on to better stories.... there are too many of these lawsuits.
Both independent claims 1. and 18. appear to require BIOS, which is a firmware implementation following a particular standard. Apple historically used Open Firmware and it's derivative EFI. Should it not use the BIOS standard it isn't likely Apple would be held infringing, something that can be found during discovery.
Should Ancora preserver in the expanded definition, it's likely there is prior art as has been pointed out. Sun Microsystems for instance included such support in Open Boot (Open Firmware) for providing a HostID, which was used prior to the '941 filing date for tying license manager licenses to particular workstations.
Ancora Technologies is founded by a previous employee of Microsoft and settled in November 2009 with Microsoft over infringement of the '941 patent.
Not exactly. They have a patent on using the host ID as a verification of the software license. This was the way UNIX software was licensed back in the 80s and early 90s - not so much anymore. For example if you purchased a copy of some piece of expensive software like a CAD or 3D modeling application, before you could use it you would have to call up the publisher of the software and tell them your Host ID of the machine that it was going to be running on. They would run that number through an encryption algorithm and give you a serial number which you would enter into the application registration setup. That way the application could only run on a specific host.
Anyway, as far as I know Apple has never used the Host ID for registering software, at least not any that I have used.
So basically they patented using a unique identifier to uniquely identify something... Maybe I should patent the method of authorizing someone by the last four digits of their social security number? I could make a killing off suing the banking industry... When will this issue ever hit the mainstream so our politicians take patent reform seriously?
When will this issue ever hit the mainstream so our politicians take patent reform seriously?
The U.S. Patent Office, like every other federal agency, has a budget. To improve the system means increasing the budget. In today's political climate, fugitaboudit!
So basically they patented using a unique identifier to uniquely identify something... Maybe I should patent the method of authorizing someone by the last four digits of their social security number? I could make a killing off suing the banking industry... When will this issue ever hit the mainstream so our politicians take patent reform seriously?
Careful what you wish for. Politicians wouldn't be very well equipped to deal with technology patent issues anyway. It probably would end up worse than it is right now, if that is possible. It is way more cost effective for the US taxpayers to have the PO approve every patent, collect the fees, and let the courts work out the details later, at the litigators' expense, rather than to deny the patent outright and be sued immediately.
The invention awarded on June 25, 2002, notes that illegal copying of software costs billions of dollars in lost profits. Ancora's solution is to restrict software operation with a license limitation.
Thats it I quit reading these.
That is an invention??? Really!?!?! This is aassinine.
Not exactly. They have a patent on using the host ID as a verification of the software license. This was the way UNIX software was licensed back in the 80s and early 90s - not so much anymore. For example if you purchased a copy of some piece of expensive software like a CAD or 3D modeling application, before you could use it you would have to call up the publisher of the software and tell them your Host ID of the machine that it was going to be running on. They would run that number through an encryption algorithm and give you a serial number which you would enter into the application registration setup. That way the application could only run on a specific host.
Anyway, as far as I know Apple has never used the Host ID for registering software, at least not any that I have used.
Take out the computer terms and this is exactly how Social Security numbers are generated, and how the system works from a basic standpoint. So what's next for them... sue the government? Oh, wait. There's a law that says you can't!
Both independent claims 1. and 18. appear to require BIOS, which is a firmware implementation following a particular standard. Apple historically used Open Firmware and it's derivative EFI. Should it not use the BIOS standard it isn't likely Apple would be held infringing, something that can be found during discovery.
Should Ancora preserver in the expanded definition, it's likely there is prior art as has been pointed out. Sun Microsystems for instance included such support in Open Boot (Open Firmware) for providing a HostID, which was used prior to the '941 filing date for tying license manager licenses to particular workstations.
Ancora Technologies is founded by a previous employee of Microsoft and settled in November 2009 with Microsoft over infringement of the '941 patent.
I think in this context, it is perfectly reasonable to reinterpret the use of the word "BIOS", to refer to the generic piece of firmware that provides a "Basic Input and Output System" for a computer in the early stages of booting before it has loaded its full operating system. That would allow for the Old World ROM, Open Firmware, EFI, as well as the traditional IBM PC BIOS standard, to fit the bill.
By the way, I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to label EFI as a "derivative" of Open Firmware. EFI was designed by IBM specifically as a classic IBM PC BIOS architecture replacement, for use in Itanium-based Windows servers, for which the classic IBM PC BIOS architecture was considered too limiting.
Well that is the beauty of vague language when comes to patents. They have a patent on the means of verifying the license of software running on a computer. The way they do is not really as important. To cover all possible future methods they patent the desired result not the actual steps involved with achieving that result. In their non-restrictive example, however, they do it the same way the UNIX guys were doing it for ages.
And the patent examiner, seeing that the end-result had already been achieved by various Unix vendors, should have recognized that the wording in the existing patent application was so vague that it also covered methods that have already been published; therefore the examiner should have told the applicant that they needed to re-file with more specific language which described a truly new process and which didn't attempt to claim ownership over existing prior art.
The patent should never have been granted in its current form.
Comments
IBM did that a couple of days ago.
No, really, see for yourself.
Wrong. IBM applied for a patent solution on a very specific end-to-end solution.
Ancora Technolgies attempts to hold a broader definition of BIOS than limited to IBM PC Compatible computers.
Should Ancora preserver in the expanded definition, it's likely there is prior art as has been pointed out. Sun Microsystems for instance included such support in Open Boot (Open Firmware) for providing a HostID, which was used prior to the '941 filing date for tying license manager licenses to particular workstations.
Ancora Technologies is founded by a previous employee of Microsoft and settled in November 2009 with Microsoft over infringement of the '941 patent.
Not exactly. They have a patent on using the host ID as a verification of the software license. This was the way UNIX software was licensed back in the 80s and early 90s - not so much anymore. For example if you purchased a copy of some piece of expensive software like a CAD or 3D modeling application, before you could use it you would have to call up the publisher of the software and tell them your Host ID of the machine that it was going to be running on. They would run that number through an encryption algorithm and give you a serial number which you would enter into the application registration setup. That way the application could only run on a specific host.
Anyway, as far as I know Apple has never used the Host ID for registering software, at least not any that I have used.
So basically they patented using a unique identifier to uniquely identify something... Maybe I should patent the method of authorizing someone by the last four digits of their social security number? I could make a killing off suing the banking industry... When will this issue ever hit the mainstream so our politicians take patent reform seriously?
When will this issue ever hit the mainstream so our politicians take patent reform seriously?
The U.S. Patent Office, like every other federal agency, has a budget. To improve the system means increasing the budget. In today's political climate, fugitaboudit!
So basically they patented using a unique identifier to uniquely identify something... Maybe I should patent the method of authorizing someone by the last four digits of their social security number? I could make a killing off suing the banking industry... When will this issue ever hit the mainstream so our politicians take patent reform seriously?
Careful what you wish for. Politicians wouldn't be very well equipped to deal with technology patent issues anyway. It probably would end up worse than it is right now, if that is possible. It is way more cost effective for the US taxpayers to have the PO approve every patent, collect the fees, and let the courts work out the details later, at the litigators' expense, rather than to deny the patent outright and be sued immediately.
The invention awarded on June 25, 2002, notes that illegal copying of software costs billions of dollars in lost profits. Ancora's solution is to restrict software operation with a license limitation.
Thats it I quit reading these.
That is an invention??? Really!?!?! This is aassinine.
Not exactly. They have a patent on using the host ID as a verification of the software license. This was the way UNIX software was licensed back in the 80s and early 90s - not so much anymore. For example if you purchased a copy of some piece of expensive software like a CAD or 3D modeling application, before you could use it you would have to call up the publisher of the software and tell them your Host ID of the machine that it was going to be running on. They would run that number through an encryption algorithm and give you a serial number which you would enter into the application registration setup. That way the application could only run on a specific host.
Anyway, as far as I know Apple has never used the Host ID for registering software, at least not any that I have used.
Take out the computer terms and this is exactly how Social Security numbers are generated, and how the system works from a basic standpoint. So what's next for them... sue the government? Oh, wait. There's a law that says you can't!
Both independent claims 1. and 18. appear to require BIOS, which is a firmware implementation following a particular standard. Apple historically used Open Firmware and it's derivative EFI. Should it not use the BIOS standard it isn't likely Apple would be held infringing, something that can be found during discovery.
Ancora Technolgies attempts to hold a broader definition of BIOS than limited to IBM PC Compatible computers.
Should Ancora preserver in the expanded definition, it's likely there is prior art as has been pointed out. Sun Microsystems for instance included such support in Open Boot (Open Firmware) for providing a HostID, which was used prior to the '941 filing date for tying license manager licenses to particular workstations.
Ancora Technologies is founded by a previous employee of Microsoft and settled in November 2009 with Microsoft over infringement of the '941 patent.
I think in this context, it is perfectly reasonable to reinterpret the use of the word "BIOS", to refer to the generic piece of firmware that provides a "Basic Input and Output System" for a computer in the early stages of booting before it has loaded its full operating system. That would allow for the Old World ROM, Open Firmware, EFI, as well as the traditional IBM PC BIOS standard, to fit the bill.
By the way, I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to label EFI as a "derivative" of Open Firmware. EFI was designed by IBM specifically as a classic IBM PC BIOS architecture replacement, for use in Itanium-based Windows servers, for which the classic IBM PC BIOS architecture was considered too limiting.
Well that is the beauty of vague language when comes to patents. They have a patent on the means of verifying the license of software running on a computer. The way they do is not really as important. To cover all possible future methods they patent the desired result not the actual steps involved with achieving that result. In their non-restrictive example, however, they do it the same way the UNIX guys were doing it for ages.
And the patent examiner, seeing that the end-result had already been achieved by various Unix vendors, should have recognized that the wording in the existing patent application was so vague that it also covered methods that have already been published; therefore the examiner should have told the applicant that they needed to re-file with more specific language which described a truly new process and which didn't attempt to claim ownership over existing prior art.
The patent should never have been granted in its current form.