|
|
| PubPat challenges epicRealm patents asserted against dynamic websites |
 |
|
Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 10:36 AM EST
|
PubPat is on the move again. This time, it is asking the USPTO to review and revoke patents epicRealm Licensing Inc. is asserting against dynamic websites, and in connection with that it has filed prior art that the USPTO was not aware of when it issued the two patents in question. You can find the Requests for Reexamination here. EpicRealm no longer makes any products or provides any services; it sues others, the press release says, including more than a dozen end users. You can read a bit about it here. That, PubPat asserts, is causing "substantial public harm by threatening the way in which much of the most useful aspects of the Web are provided to the public." I so despise software patents. I'm glad PubPat is doing this, but it's ridiculous that someone has to. Here's the full press release, so you can reach your own conclusions.
**********************************
PUBPAT CHALLENGES EPICREALM PATENTS BEING ASSERTED AGAINST PROVIDERS OF
DYNAMIC WEBSITES: Patent Office Asked to Review and Revoke Patent
Licensing Company's Widely Asserted Patents
New York, NY -- November 22, 2006 -- The Public Patent Foundation
("PUBPAT") filed formal requests with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office today to review two patents held by epicRealm Licensing
Inc. that the patent licensing company is widely asserting against
providers of dynamic websites, i.e. websites that can produce custom
responses to individual visitors or users. In its filings, PUBPAT
submitted prior art that the Patent Office was not aware of when
reviewing the applications that led to the two patents, described in
detail how the prior art invalidates the patents and asked that the
patents be revoked.
Despite no longer making any product or service itself, epicRealm is
asserting the patents against those that provide information and
services to the public over the internet, a group which includes many
private citizens, public service organizations and even the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office itself. EpicRealm's assertion of the patents has
included the filing of infringement lawsuits against more than a dozen
mere end users of allegedly infringing web site systems. PUBPAT
challenged the patents because epicRealm's aggressive assertion of them
is causing substantial public harm by threatening the way in which much
of the most useful aspects of the Web are provided to the public.
"EpicRealm is yet another example of the growing trend of businesses
whose sole purpose and activity is to sue others for patent
infringement, but the fact that they are claiming rights over the vast
majority of websites based on these patents that would have never been
issued had the Patent Office known of the prior art we were able to
uncover only makes the matter that much more unsettling," said Dan
Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "Perhaps some day soon Congress
will fix the patent system so that such exploitation cannot occur. In
the interim, with respect to these specific patents, we expect the
Patent Office to look at the new evidence we are providing today and
agree with us that they should be withdrawn from issuance."
Copies of the Requests for Reexamination filed by PUBPAT against the two
patents epicRealm is widely asserting dynamic websites can be found
here.
About the Public Patent Foundation
The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal
services organization working to protect the public from the harms
caused by the patent system, particularly the harms caused by undeserved
patents and unsound patent policy. PUBPAT provides the general public
and those specific persons or businesses otherwise deprived of access to
the system governing patents, with representation, advocacy, and
education. To be kept informed of PUBPAT News, subscribe to the PUBPAT
News List by visiting http://www.pubpat.org. To be removed from the
PUBPAT News List, send an email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line
to news-request@pubpat.org.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 11:06 AM EST |
If required
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 11:08 AM EST |
Please make links clickable if possible
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Drive by - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 11:50 AM EST
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 12:21 PM EST
- Suse 10.1 GM - Authored by: AntiFUD on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:05 PM EST
- Suse 10.1 GM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 03:08 PM EST
- Suse 10.1 GM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 04:58 PM EST
- Suse 10.1 GM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 06:55 PM EST
- Suse 10.1 GM - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 24 2006 @ 07:39 PM EST
- A 'nuther take on the Vista EULA - Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 12:38 PM EST
- Bruce Peren's open letter - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:30 PM EST
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 04:13 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 11:25 AM EST |
Is the USPTO immune to lawsuits seeking damages for failure to exercise its
required duty of examination.
Clearly the USPTO is not doing what it is expected to do in the checking for
prior art and obviousness of these patents.
Is the USPTO protected by federal law or can they be sued for failure to
complete their mandate.
Lawyers like to keep busy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 11:37 AM EST |
Despite no longer making any product or service itself, epicRealm
is asserting the patents against those that provide information and services to
the public over the internet, a group which includes many private citizens,
public service organizations and even the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
itself.
So, the real question is: Why does the USPTO hate
America (including itself)? Or rather, why do they hate it when people can
actually work honestly? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 12:51 PM EST |
It's good that PubPat is challenging annoying patents.
But even the grounds on which they challenge, indicate all sorts of problems in
the patent system.
For example, they challenge a patent on the ground that the patent is obvious in
the light of some undisclosed prior art (which is in itself in a previous patent
- I think from a different owner).
But if you look at the articles describing which sites are being challenged by
the patent holder and why, I would say the whole patent (or at least what the
patent owner claims the patent covers) is obvious to ANY even moderately skilled
programer. While the patent owner doesn't claim to own the concept of dynamic
web sites - they do claim to own certain methods of optimizing the performance
of dynamic web sites. I'm sorry, but I believe any programmer who need to
optimize the performance of a dynamic web site, could have come up with the
exact same solutions that they claim the patent covers - in fact, I would say
the programmer would have been derelict in his duties/abilities if he hadn't.
In other words, IMHO, it's a patent blindingly obvious, regardless of any prior
art.
The second thing which tells you the patent system has turned into a ridiculous
game, is the prior art that supposedly makes this obvious, is a patent that this
patent owner may never have read.
In other words, it tells you implicitly that a goal of a lawyer writing a
software patent application is to write the patent as broadly as possible to
cover as much future technology as possible (I'm coming to this in my 3rd
point), but worded in such a way that an artificial test of prior art (looking
at prior patents that may never have been read or even implemented) will fail.
My third point, is that the patent owner claims a variety of different
applications infringe the patent. But it looks to me likely that at least some
of these applications were probably not even envisaged by anybody, let alone the
patent owner, at the time the patent was applied for.
In other words, the definition of what the patent encompasses is retrospectively
changeable and flexible. How changeable and flexible depends not on the
invention, but on how skilled the patent owner's lawyers are in writing a
flexible application, or in re-interpreting the issued patent.
And finally, the biggest problem with software patents, is that there really is
no defense of independent invention. These web sites (assuming arguendo they
infringe and the patent is valid), could have designed everything themselves
from scratch, not even be aware of the patent, never stolen anything from the
patent holder, never damaged the patent holder in any way, never even competed
with the patent holder -- yet they are liable for damages and can be shut down
by injunction -- and can be held to ransom using that threat.
Now I expect somebody is going to argue why one or more of these points
(retrospectivity is an obvious one) may not apply in this particular case. I'll
concede it's possible that one or more may not in this _particular_case_ - but
they undoubtedly do apply in other software patent cases.
And that is why software (and business method) patents, are ridiculous,
anti-competitive, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, and need to be stopped.
Everywhere.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Laomedon on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 12:52 PM EST |
Since the prior art is another software patent, does this really advance the
cause? Sure, the patent holder of the Rogers patent currently may not be
asserting any patent rights but could do so in the future.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Expiration date? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:00 PM EST |
What a load of garbage those patents are!
Even when I was an amature VB developer in the early 90's (about 1993-94)
industry magazines were discussing dynamic websites where a request made to the
server resulted in a dynamicly delivered page. This is beyond obvious for anyone
in the developer world.
I even read an editorial in VB Developers Notebook that discussed how JAVA was
the new kid on the block and would be capable making coding this type of
application trivial. I don't have the magazine anymore darn it.
[lawyers_son ~can't login for some reason][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:26 PM EST |
I have filed for and received a number of hardware patents. The USPTO was very
thorough during the examination - the USPTO is very hardware oriented and does a
pretty good job IF the subject is hardware.
For example if my objective was to fly, and I were to file a patent on a method
of "flying" the patent office may or may not grant a patent on the
implementation of how I accomplish the objective. It is clear that there is more
than one way to design and implement a flying machine. My patent must teach a
novel method of "how to fly." My patent would not preclude anyone else
from inventing and patenting another method of "flying."
Software seems to be a problem for USPTO - they cannot seem to separate the
objective from the implementation. When it come to software patents, the USPTO
confuses the objective with the implementation. For example if flying could be
reduced to an abstract mathematical concept, it could be implemented in one of
any number of software methodologies. However, the UPSTO would probably issue a
patent on "flying" not a software method of "how to fly."
which is absurd - and that is where we are today.
Then there is the ultimate absurdity of all when it comes to software patents -
if the objective is patented, no one can work with and improve the existing
software implementation without an experimental patent exclusivity exemption
(which does not exist in US patent law) or the ability reverse engineer a
software product.
Citing prior art becomes practically an act of self-incrimination, and clearly
against the spirit of the reason for patent disclosure in the first place.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:40 PM EST |
Andy Warhol prediced that, in the future, everybody would be famous for 15
minutes.
I predict that, in the future, everybody will earn a living by suing everybody
else. Everybody will be a lawyer, or a professional plaintiff.
If you don't believe that, then please look at the trends: consider the
exploding number of lawyers, the exploding amount of litigation, and the
exploding number of professional plaintiffs. I mean, c'mon you can't ignore the
obvious trend. And it only makes sense: making money by lawsuits is much easier
than earning money from honest work.
epicRealm is simple a little ahead of their time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 08:20 PM EST |
Software patent reform would be a waste, as it would just be fitted to suit
large corps like MS, so they can just cross license and bully everyone else out
of competition.
However, if software patents went the way of the dodo, who would it upset?
Computer Scientists? Academics? Hmm...
Or would it just sadden companies/persons that procure patents and aim to sue,
patent lawyers, and large companies that would like to bully others?
Why is patenting algorithms even allowed? Are there math patents too?
If software patents fail, well europeans have done a good job so far refusing
them... Heck, if the U.S. got rid of them, and the DMCA modified a bit to allow
for some fair/personal use, I'd have nothing to whine about... ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Starlite528 on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 08:41 PM EST |
How much do they know about this kind of thing? Do they even care?
---
"Death continues to be our nations number one killer."
Henry Gibson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LionKuntz on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 12:52 AM EST |
Any patent on dynamic content would be expired after 20 years,
I ran a BBS in 1986 that served up dynamic content. In 1986 I ran the BIG CITY
BBS that served up dynamic content, based on if you were logged in or nor, were
registered user or not.
It could produce multiple responses based on new messages since your last visit,
new uploads since last visit, tell you that you had new mail and how many.
Depending on user-selected options or sysop decisions you could have greater or
lesser access rights and see very different responses from a majority or
minority of others.
I think all the main points were included in this BBS-PC software commercial
package sold on several operating systems popular during the time period. What
could possibly be new enough about serving up dynamic contents that could
qualify as not being obvious and derivative?
People were reaching my computer by proto-internet at the time, using telnet and
other existing networks for the connectivity.
About the prior art being another patent, therefore no gain -- every pushing
back means sooner that it becomes public domain. Once PD, forever PD.
I use all free softwares. That means FREE as in BEER. I don't mind if it is 20
year-old concepts. My Amiga operating system in 1986 fit on a floppy disk, has
256 KILO-bytes of ROM and did pre-emptive multitasking with multiple windows,
deep hierarchial filepaths and long filenames when DOS was king with 8+3
filenames and monotasking. IBMers thought it was hot stuff that they had TSR
(Terminate and Stay Resident) quasi-multitasking. That 20-year-old operating
system would still be considered state-of-the-art today with very few tweeks. My
20-year-old BBS might have strained to do what Groklaw does now, and not look so
pretty, but it could have done most of it, and done some things Groklaw can't do
even now.
If life had to go back to that software era it wouldn't be so bad. We had the
FSF providing a steady stream of free software, beginning with the AmigaDOS
Replacement Project, that gave CLI commands which functioned exactly like Unix
(and now Linux) does. There were cluster render farms on AmigaOS before Linus
wrote a line of code. We had parallel processing before the 1990s -- I had
genuine MAC ROMs in my machine and switched between DOS, MAC and native Amiga in
windows multitasking on the same screen. I read and wrote DOS-Atari, MAC and
AmigaOS disk formats. 20 yr-old software ain't necessarily all that bad.
After 20 years ALL software patents expire. GIF is PD, as if anybody really
wanted it anyway. Certainly FAT8+3 was around in 1986, and FAT32 is nothing but
obvious after that -- it's dictated by the machinery once you have to also be
compatible with FAT8+3.
I gave a lot to making the computer user experience more pleasant way back when.
I take it as a matter of principle that I am entitled to receive from others the
way I gave. I use all free software as a point of principle that I paid my dues
-- most of what I use is better than the stuff I used to buy, although as a
software publisher I had legal warez to trade with other publishers for their
products, and they were as eager to get mine as I was to get theirs, so even
back then I didn't buy a lot.
It's not that I don't think programmers should get paid -- it's more like I
shouldn't have to pay you for a year's work more than I pay James Michner for a
year of his -- he sells his product under $10 and "you" sell yours for
$199 or $39.95 or $79. It costs more to produce one copy of a Michner paperback
than it costs to produce a DVD, and even less when it's a download. That's what
tipped me to free softwares, and even if I only had 20-year-old softwares I
could still do more than the average person loaded down with everything the
software store sells. In fact, I already did. My website running on Apache,
running PHP TikiWiki on Linux has a gigabyte of content made with Stone's
Webwriter and OpenFX animator, and a free version of ACDSEE and Infranview.
Google has a few billion dollars and can fight the fights over patent challenges
on Linux Clusters if any come up. IBM can fight over RCU and stuff they claim
patents on. It's not my fight and not my worry.
I doubt that there is anything new that can be shown over dynamical content
serving which wasn't on the web 20 years ago. I made interactive programs that
served up dynamical content based on user decision trees 20 years ago. Who
didn't?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: archonix on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 12:42 PM EST |
I'm actually breaching an actual patent by continuing to program my CMS thingy.
How cool is that? Big-leagues here I come!
---
Graham's Diets:
This week I 'ave been mostly eatin' mashed badger.
--
http://unoriginalmuse.imdanet.com/
Delayed due to copper-eating spiders on the line.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
