I wonder whether anything done in OpenDoc counts as enough prior art that some of the claims could be ruled invalid? From the timelines I've seen so far, OpenDoc would appear to pre-date this patent, leaving simply the question of whether you can add the phrase "on the web" to any previous patent and really get something innovative enough to patent.
The problem isn't the courts, they are charged to uphold the letter of the law & that is all that they are trying to do. The problem is the patent office granting obscure patents & laws that don't properly deal with idiocy. We need massive reform of the judicial & legislative systems in this country.
The courts have the power to recognize that a patent ought not have been granted and revoke it.
See, I gotta agree that in order to receive a patent an individual needs to be able to produce a prototype. If you have an idea for something but haven't a clue how to make it happen then you really don't have anything at all!
Hey, I got a great idea for a dishwasher that puts the dishes away for me. I could describe in detail ways it might do that but the thing about having a working prototype is that you have to actually make something that WORKS!
We need patent reform so that the people who actually work hard to advance technology are the ones rewarded & not these leeches who are sucking the life out of innovation.
I totally agree with you. However, they claim they did and I think they proven that the did. The issue right now is that everyone, including the W3C and the defendants, knew about this patent but they chose to ignore it. I think they should be held responsible if they willingly infringe on this "908" patent.
Just because there are patent trolls who abuse the system, we shouldn't automatically bash and exclude the valid ones.
They basically have a patent of Web 2.0 in the US.
If this is indeed valid, say goodbye to all IT companies in the states and kiss your future economy goodbye.
You won't even be able to use your security devices/software connected to your bank to pay your bills or make transfers online. This kind of operation often includes a software to maintain a secure connection while you use your browser.
You will have to use a separate application for basically everything the rest of the world outside of the US use a standard browser for.
Another example. Anyone playing online poker? You won't be able to do this either.
The worry here is that the patent must be very generic and vague to cover all such implementations.
That doesn't fit well with the fact that patents are meant to protect a specific implementation, and shouldn't prevent people achieving the same aim via a suitably different implementation.
It's unclear from the article if the patents involved in the suit against Apple are the same patents in the dispute with Microsoft. But even if they are different, given that they filed in a very sypathetic jurisdiction, I wouldn't be surprised if they get the benefit of the doubt just because they won against MS.
And I like how they claim that Apple's hardware infringes on their patent simple because it runs the software. Seriously? That would make virtually every PC ever sold in violation of their patent.
Finally, I know patents are good for many years (20?), but isn't there also a requirement that you actively defend your patent or risk losing it? If someone is in violation, you have to challenge them in a timely manner. That's so you don't sit on it and wait for someone else to build up a huge market for you to ambush. It's been eleven years since this patent was issued. What have they done to challenge Apple's use of their claimed technology before this?
Finally, I know patents are good for many years (20?), but isn't there also a requirement that you actively defend your patent or risk losing it? If someone is in violation, you have to challenge them in a timely manner. That's so you don't sit on it and wait for someone else to build up a huge market for you to ambush. It's been eleven years since this patent was issued. What have they done to challenge Apple's use of their claimed technology before this?
Yes the timeliness in this matter- you would think they would throw it out.
I totally agree with you. However, they claim they did and I think they proven that the did. The issue right now is that everyone, including the W3C and the defendants, knew about this patent but they chose to ignore it. I think they should be held responsible if they willingly infringe on this "908" patent.
Just because there are patent trolls who abuse the system, we shouldn't automatically bash and exclude the valid ones.
interesting that MS rejected licensing it in 1994. i read The Road Ahead and Gates thought at the time that the internet would always be like AOL where you pay a service charge per month, log on and get content delivered to you. approximately 2 years before they sued Microsoft is when MS did a complete 180 and embraced the internet
one the face the patent looks legit. they even mention Mosaic and the patent pre-dates Netscape Navigator
The courts have the power to recognize that a patent ought not have been granted and revoke it.
That's the issue, judges aren't free to actually be judges in this day & age because of the ridiculousness of our laws & the obscurity they are written in.
I totally agree with you. However, they claim they did and I think they proven that the did. The issue right now is that everyone, including the W3C and the defendants, knew about this patent but they chose to ignore it. I think they should be held responsible if they willingly infringe on this "908" patent.
Just because there are patent trolls who abuse the system, we shouldn't automatically bash and exclude the valid ones.
Agreed, if they did in fact have a developed prototype then it should indeed be upheld. One of the things that sickens me most is how RIM got away with intentional & blatant patent infringement simply because they are too big with the government for anyone to be able to shut them down.
Agreed, if they did in fact have a developed prototype then it should indeed be upheld. One of the things that sickens me most is how RIM got away with intentional & blatant patent infringement simply because they are too big with the government for anyone to be able to shut them down.
who did RIM infringe on? there are several email server to phone products out there and they all use different ways of solving the problem
the problem is that 1998 is when the patent was granted, not when it was applied for. They do consider prior art, either prior to granting the patent, or certaintly when it goes to trial. In this case, the prior art likely came after the initial patent application.
Yes its a very general concept (now), but it wasn't in the early 90's and maybe these are the guys who figured out how to do it.
More likely they figured out others would do it. They didn't make the browsers, the plugins, or the method to create plugins. And they certainly didn't invent AJAX.
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.
More likely they figured out others would do it. They didn't make the browsers, the plugins, or the method to create plugins. And they certainly didn't invent AJAX.
actually the Wiki article that was linked to said they developed a browser as part of the patent that was capable of doing what they patented. even in 2003 they couldn't replicate the functionality without violating the patent.
if NCSA could patent and successfully sue based on the concept of a hyperlink then this isn't that much a stretch
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.
Well, I read the patent and I don't see how this is anything but an obvious evolution of the functionality of ISMAP.
"We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely".
Given that patent 906 was issued in 1998, the CEO's own claims of wide demonstration constitute public disclosure which could render the patent invalid.
The patent was filed on October 17, 1994 (just under, not "over" 15 years), so it's unclear, due to the 1995 change in patent law, whether it's good until October 2014 or until November 1015. However, if they claim to have demonstrated them widely "over 15 years ago", that could invalidate the patent. From Wikipedia: "EOLAS claimed to have created the first web browser that supported plugins. They demonstrated it at Xerox PARC, in November 1993, at the second Bay Area SIGWEB meeting." Such a meeting would constitute public disclosure, rendering any European patents invalid, but it does fall within the 12 month guideline for U.S. patents.
Plenty of non-web programs used embedded objects; i.e. opendoc (1992), and many BBS systems going back to the 80's featured interactivity.
This patent seems to also clearly violate the "non-obvious" requirement.
It seems to me they should be able to get a lot more than 22 companies. I would say several thousand. From what they were able to get from Microsoft, this company can hope to make trillions from a lousy plugin patent.
It's funny that from all computer manufacturers only Apple infringes!
Finally, I know patents are good for many years (20?)
There is a huge problem with this. In the tech world 20 years is an eon. For someone to patent a browser (interface) may seem like a reasonable request one day but five or ten year down the line the technology in its developed form has become such a fundamental piece of the entire business and everybody's lives that it seems completely unjust that any one person / company can lay claim to ownership. There really should be some way to release patents from ownership for this kind of thing not to happen. I don't want to take monetary benefit away from inventors but when it takes on a life of its own and becomes a de facto standard across the globe for performing common everyday tasks it could be argued that it should become public domain. There are many such technologies - recently a patent suit was filed against a number of e-tailers for an online payment technology! iTunes may even be approaching the point where Apple has to cede control in terms of use an access by companies with connected technologies, like Palm.
Comments
The problem isn't the courts, they are charged to uphold the letter of the law & that is all that they are trying to do. The problem is the patent office granting obscure patents & laws that don't properly deal with idiocy. We need massive reform of the judicial & legislative systems in this country.
The courts have the power to recognize that a patent ought not have been granted and revoke it.
See, I gotta agree that in order to receive a patent an individual needs to be able to produce a prototype. If you have an idea for something but haven't a clue how to make it happen then you really don't have anything at all!
Hey, I got a great idea for a dishwasher that puts the dishes away for me. I could describe in detail ways it might do that but the thing about having a working prototype is that you have to actually make something that WORKS!
We need patent reform so that the people who actually work hard to advance technology are the ones rewarded & not these leeches who are sucking the life out of innovation.
I totally agree with you. However, they claim they did and I think they proven that the did. The issue right now is that everyone, including the W3C and the defendants, knew about this patent but they chose to ignore it. I think they should be held responsible if they willingly infringe on this "908" patent.
Just because there are patent trolls who abuse the system, we shouldn't automatically bash and exclude the valid ones.
They basically have a patent of Web 2.0 in the US.
If this is indeed valid, say goodbye to all IT companies in the states and kiss your future economy goodbye.
You won't even be able to use your security devices/software connected to your bank to pay your bills or make transfers online. This kind of operation often includes a software to maintain a secure connection while you use your browser.
You will have to use a separate application for basically everything the rest of the world outside of the US use a standard browser for.
Another example. Anyone playing online poker? You won't be able to do this either.
Am I totally wrong in the way I read the patent? (I only quickly read this from cnet: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10368638-264.html )
The worry here is that the patent must be very generic and vague to cover all such implementations.
That doesn't fit well with the fact that patents are meant to protect a specific implementation, and shouldn't prevent people achieving the same aim via a suitably different implementation.
If MS lost, will Apple def loose as well?
It's unclear from the article if the patents involved in the suit against Apple are the same patents in the dispute with Microsoft. But even if they are different, given that they filed in a very sypathetic jurisdiction, I wouldn't be surprised if they get the benefit of the doubt just because they won against MS.
And I like how they claim that Apple's hardware infringes on their patent simple because it runs the software. Seriously? That would make virtually every PC ever sold in violation of their patent.
Finally, I know patents are good for many years (20?), but isn't there also a requirement that you actively defend your patent or risk losing it? If someone is in violation, you have to challenge them in a timely manner. That's so you don't sit on it and wait for someone else to build up a huge market for you to ambush. It's been eleven years since this patent was issued. What have they done to challenge Apple's use of their claimed technology before this?
Finally, I know patents are good for many years (20?), but isn't there also a requirement that you actively defend your patent or risk losing it? If someone is in violation, you have to challenge them in a timely manner. That's so you don't sit on it and wait for someone else to build up a huge market for you to ambush. It's been eleven years since this patent was issued. What have they done to challenge Apple's use of their claimed technology before this?
Yes the timeliness in this matter- you would think they would throw it out.
I totally agree with you. However, they claim they did and I think they proven that the did. The issue right now is that everyone, including the W3C and the defendants, knew about this patent but they chose to ignore it. I think they should be held responsible if they willingly infringe on this "908" patent.
Just because there are patent trolls who abuse the system, we shouldn't automatically bash and exclude the valid ones.
interesting that MS rejected licensing it in 1994. i read The Road Ahead and Gates thought at the time that the internet would always be like AOL where you pay a service charge per month, log on and get content delivered to you. approximately 2 years before they sued Microsoft is when MS did a complete 180 and embraced the internet
one the face the patent looks legit. they even mention Mosaic and the patent pre-dates Netscape Navigator
Yes the timeliness in this matter- you would think they would throw it out.
patent filed in 1994 and issued in 1998. it was basically to extend NCSA Mosaic
the original lawsuit was filed in 1997.
Windows 1995 came out in August 1995.
I think it was next year that MS decided to embrace the internet and released IE and IIS and a few other patched together products.
1995 was when Netscape came out and 1995 - 1997 was when we first saw flash and other uses of the patent
The courts have the power to recognize that a patent ought not have been granted and revoke it.
That's the issue, judges aren't free to actually be judges in this day & age because of the ridiculousness of our laws & the obscurity they are written in.
I totally agree with you. However, they claim they did and I think they proven that the did. The issue right now is that everyone, including the W3C and the defendants, knew about this patent but they chose to ignore it. I think they should be held responsible if they willingly infringe on this "908" patent.
Just because there are patent trolls who abuse the system, we shouldn't automatically bash and exclude the valid ones.
Agreed, if they did in fact have a developed prototype then it should indeed be upheld. One of the things that sickens me most is how RIM got away with intentional & blatant patent infringement simply because they are too big with the government for anyone to be able to shut them down.
Agreed, if they did in fact have a developed prototype then it should indeed be upheld. One of the things that sickens me most is how RIM got away with intentional & blatant patent infringement simply because they are too big with the government for anyone to be able to shut them down.
who did RIM infringe on? there are several email server to phone products out there and they all use different ways of solving the problem
the problem is that 1998 is when the patent was granted, not when it was applied for. They do consider prior art, either prior to granting the patent, or certaintly when it goes to trial. In this case, the prior art likely came after the initial patent application.
Yes its a very general concept (now), but it wasn't in the early 90's and maybe these are the guys who figured out how to do it.
More likely they figured out others would do it. They didn't make the browsers, the plugins, or the method to create plugins. And they certainly didn't invent AJAX.
More likely they figured out others would do it. They didn't make the browsers, the plugins, or the method to create plugins. And they certainly didn't invent AJAX.
actually the Wiki article that was linked to said they developed a browser as part of the patent that was capable of doing what they patented. even in 2003 they couldn't replicate the functionality without violating the patent.
if NCSA could patent and successfully sue based on the concept of a hyperlink then this isn't that much a stretch
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.
Well, I read the patent and I don't see how this is anything but an obvious evolution of the functionality of ISMAP.
Given that patent 906 was issued in 1998, the CEO's own claims of wide demonstration constitute public disclosure which could render the patent invalid.
The patent was filed on October 17, 1994 (just under, not "over" 15 years), so it's unclear, due to the 1995 change in patent law, whether it's good until October 2014 or until November 1015. However, if they claim to have demonstrated them widely "over 15 years ago", that could invalidate the patent. From Wikipedia: "EOLAS claimed to have created the first web browser that supported plugins. They demonstrated it at Xerox PARC, in November 1993, at the second Bay Area SIGWEB meeting." Such a meeting would constitute public disclosure, rendering any European patents invalid, but it does fall within the 12 month guideline for U.S. patents.
Plenty of non-web programs used embedded objects; i.e. opendoc (1992), and many BBS systems going back to the 80's featured interactivity.
This patent seems to also clearly violate the "non-obvious" requirement.
Aron Spencer, Ph.D.
http://www.inventure.us
"We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely".
Given that patent 906 was filed in 1998, the CEO's own claims of wide demonstration constitute public disclosure which render the patent invalid.
Aron Spencer, Ph.D.
http://www.inventure.us
906 was filed in 1994, it was granted in 1998. and it was demonstrated in public in 1993
It's funny that from all computer manufacturers only Apple infringes!
http://support.novell.com/techcenter...d19970516.html
http://www.ddj.com/java/184415588
http://web.pip.com.au/office/
Finally, I know patents are good for many years (20?)
There is a huge problem with this. In the tech world 20 years is an eon. For someone to patent a browser (interface) may seem like a reasonable request one day but five or ten year down the line the technology in its developed form has become such a fundamental piece of the entire business and everybody's lives that it seems completely unjust that any one person / company can lay claim to ownership. There really should be some way to release patents from ownership for this kind of thing not to happen. I don't want to take monetary benefit away from inventors but when it takes on a life of its own and becomes a de facto standard across the globe for performing common everyday tasks it could be argued that it should become public domain. There are many such technologies - recently a patent suit was filed against a number of e-tailers for an online payment technology! iTunes may even be approaching the point where Apple has to cede control in terms of use an access by companies with connected technologies, like Palm.