BT Pushing Hyperlink Patent 458
There's been a lot of new publicity lately about the British Telecom trying
to defend a patent that they claim means
they invented hyperlinking. Currently they are going after Prodigy for
using hyperlinking back in the early eighties. We've
mentioned
this one before, but it really looks like they are going to
push it. Insane.
Already set to die on arrival (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't get too worried about this.
Re:Already set to die on arrival (Score:2)
it is widely known that Xerox has a strong case for prior art.
Also didn't some guy use the hyperlink idea back in the 60's on a project I think was called Xanadu or similar.
Re:Already set to die on arrival (Score:2)
Re:Already set to die on arrival (Score:4, Funny)
Harassment as a business model... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, just because you DO have a patent doesn't mean you should always attempt to enforce it.
Re:Harassment as a business model... (Score:2, Interesting)
BT started off from a monopoly several years ago, and have maintained this position though bullying and attacking the rest of the marketplace. BT are terribly complacient and it shows though thier buisness stratagy. From their failure to recognise the burden their debts have placed on the company (which worried the city no end) right though to the running battles they've had with other service providers over local loop unbundling (i.e. giving flat rate charges to other competitors to access last mile)
Oftel (the UK offical telecoms regulator) have been having running battles with them ever since thier creation.
I don't think BT really give a damn about getting this kind of bad press. Those people that listen already know their aggressive buisness tactics, though that don't care...well, don't care.
Re:Harassment as a business model... (Score:2)
As to the person below who said you shouldn't be able to patent software, well, they're not, they're patenting the idea of computers providing an easy to navigate function to arbitrarily reference, and allow you to go to another machine. Sounds like on-site linking isn't covered by this patent, but any link to another website is. Sucks to be a search engine.
Re:Harassment as a business model... (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, I think anyone trying to inforce a patent on hyperlinks, 40 or more years after the concept has been in common use, is rediculous.
Re:Harassment as a business model... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course they don't. But suddenly things like this have a MUCH bigger impact when their ISP sends them a bill that looks like something they might receive from the telephone company, listing every link they've clicked on with its itemized cost. When at the end they have to pay $249 for the month instead of $14.99, they'll really start caring. Not to mention the fact that somebody was invading their privacy and actively tracking their links to pr0n. Yeah, I think PR is going to be a big big issue. If BT loses this, I really hope that our courts issue a rather acid remark about frivilous lawsuits. Maybe somebody at BT will be looking for a new job soon, although not likely.
Very similar to an Onion article... (Score:4, Funny)
Except the for fact that the current article seems to be based in fact.
what do they have to lose? (Score:3, Troll)
they will lose this case and they will probably go bankrupt soon after. Its just a money grab that is doomed to failure.
Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:2)
The article says "BT is determined to prove that a patent lodged with the US patent office back in 1980". That's 22 years ago. Doesn't that mean it's already expired even if it were valid (which I doubt)?
Is BT Government-run like the BBC or are they a completely private entity?
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:2)
That's what I was wondering about - why does it last an extra 6 years in the US? Did they wait 6 years to file the patent in the US? Or is there a special "Intellectual Property" law in the US that gives them extra time? (I wouldn't think so, but knowing what's gone on with IP in the US, I wouldn't be too surprised...)
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, US courts are just now beginning to consider that failure to enforce a patent for an unreasonably long time (like while the patented technique becomes industry standard practice, with no royalties), may constitute "prosecution laches" and make the patent unenforceable. See this. [law.com]
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:2)
Thanks again!
Moderators - mod parent up. Excellent info!
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the whole patent thing, I've no idea when the patent runs out, and I'm not even going near the question of if its defendable. Let the lawyers argue that one out.
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing pisses me off more on
From the actual article, (you know... what you didn't read)...
"The UK patent has already expired so ISPs in the UK would escape having to pay anything. But in the US, the patent does not expire until 2006. "
Also, to answer your second question (which is also IN the article you didn't read,) BT used to be a part of the Post Office, but it no longer is so.
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:2)
No need for snide remarks - I DID read the article. As I clarified further down, I wanted to know how they got an extra 6 years in the US vs. the UK.
Incidentally, "Not being part of the post office any more" doesn't automatically make them a private entity, rather than a 'spinoff' government agency.
People seem so EAGER to be "pissed off" these days....
UID Discrimination? (Score:2)
What do you have against low UIDs?
Re:UID Discrimination? (Score:2)
Re:Patent filed in 1980?... (Score:2)
I am quite certain that US companies could keep this thing alive in court until 2006, if they had to. But I doubt they'll have to worry about it.
Might have merit... (Score:3, Informative)
HTML's roots are in SGML, the markup language primarily used by tech writers to create modular documents from multiple sources (ie, a car manual and related sales material would pull from the same source). A hyperlink is a logical extension once you place a markup language in a networked environment - by jumping from page to page you're, in essence, creating a modular "book" just as a tech writer could create a car manual.
Again, there may be some merit, but precious little, IMHO...
Techno/Industrial Wars? (Score:4, Funny)
What beef does BT [cdnow.com] have with the group Prodigy [cdnow.com]?
Re:Techno/Industrial Wars? (Score:2, Informative)
n.b. Some, all or none of the above is complete bollocks.
Re:Techno/Industrial Wars? (Score:2, Funny)
I would have to disagree.. I would imagine that Prodigy's past success outshadows that of BT. For instance, consider the industry-changing success of Prodigy's 1997 CD release of Fat of the Land [cdnow.com], which spawned dozens of copycat artists in Europe AND America, to BT's moderate success enjoyed by massive radio play of his y2k single release of Never Gonna Come Back Down [cdnow.com], which IMHO was outdated years before its release.
Personally, I don't think they have a snowballs chance in Hell...
Well I should think not, considering that snowball IS going after The Firestarter!
It would bode lots of companies to rally around Prodigy and give them a hand with legal costs.
Well you have to remember that Prodigy's front man, Keith Flint [skip.to] isn't the most upstanding of a character, and many companies may fear a PR backlash from their supporting him
Even the EFF might be interested in this one.
I don't think that the Electronica Frontier Foundation will get involved in this. They believe, as do I, that there is equal merit in Industrial and Club variants of techno.
Interesting that they don't hit someone big (Score:2)
Why aren't they taking on someone like Adobe ? Or AOL?
This seems like a bully on a playground move
Re:Interesting that they don't hit someone big (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, it's kind of like a bully picking on the weakest kid in class to keep all of the other kids in line when it comes time to collect the milk money.
Not that I would compare this software patent lawsuit to schoolyard bullying and extortion. That would be scandalous wouldn't it? You can take that risk and expose yourself to possible libel suits, but I won't since I know that saying that all of those Important People in Expensive Suits protecting their Valuable Intellectual Property are just like punks who pick on little kids? That would be very rude of me. So I won't say that this lawsuit is like a bully picking on the little kid in class so that the rest of the kids will give up their lunch money without a fight.
But, even if they do win, the intersection between voters and people who have made webpages is probably pretty high. If you could only get the message out to all of those people that they're Patent Violators for using this patented technology without BT's permissions, perhaps the laws would be changed. After all, patents only exist because laws let them. They could be taken away. Unlikely...but you never know.
The password is... PRECEDENT (Score:2, Insightful)
Either way, if they win they establish a precedent that will simplify the process as they go after the bigger fish.
BTW - I hear a bunch of lawyers for Rambus are looking for a new "righteous IP cause" to sign on for...
Think the RIAA has it tough... (Score:2)
You, good sir, are a liar! (Score:3, Funny)
Geeks don't have girlfriends. You are at most a technically gifted person, who has a girlfriend.
Re:Think the RIAA has it tough... (Score:2)
my girlfriend...
Tagline is hilarious (Score:5, Funny)
'See "internet links" for the text of BT's patent. There is no charge for doing so.'
*snicker*
(-:
If they win (Score:2)
Re:If they win (Score:2)
Why would you need a FOSSIL driver for Linux? They only provided a standard interface to serial devices, whether it was an ordinary COM? port or one of the intelligent serial cards that a larger multiline BBS might use. Back when I ran a Linux-based BBS that talked to FidoNet, all the software involved talked to ordinary /dev/ttyS? devices, which would've been set up by the kernel and by whatever getty you used (IIRC, I used mgetty).
Others would be better able to say if FidoNet is still around. I think it is, but I shut down my BBS toward the tail end of '94 and quit calling around to other BBSes sometime in '95 or '96.
Re: If they win... (Score:3, Funny)
Why mess around with around with FidoNet? Why not just go back to using uucp and start an underground Usenet. Might be fun.
Not an expert in patent law. (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I do this legally? Patent something, hope someone else develops a similar technology, say nothing for 20 years until the patent is about to expire and economies depend on my product, then just raise my hand one day and say, "Excuse me! You have to pay me now".
I know the patent holder can selectively choose to license that patent for no charge and they coudlnt' come back later and change their minds retroactively. What about in this situation, where they've said nothing. Done nothing to enforce it. Didn't even realize they HAD the patent. Its almost as if they were purchasing patents for the sole purpose of hoping one of them would be a huge breadwinner in the future.
However, at least they had an actual product tied to the patent. Its not as bad as the idiot who patented "downloading music off the internet" as an idea with no product to back it up and trying to extort money out of companies as a result.
-Restil
Re:Not an expert in patent law. (Score:4, Informative)
Can I do this legally? Patent something, hope someone else develops a similar technology, say nothing for 20 years until the patent is about to expire and economies depend on my product, then just raise my hand one day and say, "Excuse me! You have to pay me now".
Yes, they can do that - trademarks have to be actively defended, patents do not. Consider Unisys and the gif (lzw?) patent.
Re:Not an expert in patent law. (Score:4, Informative)
I think you should add the IANAL eh?
Well, sure - IANAL. This isn't a legal forum, either. Deal.
Trademarks do NOT have to be actively defended. They should be actively defended, especially if you have the resources. However they do NOT have to be actively defended.
Copyright does not have to be actively defended. Trademark does. Consider:
- Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the use of the trademark (unlike, for example, copyright law, where the copyright owner is the copyright owner, always is, and always will be unless he willingly relinquishes ownership, and even THEN he ends up having rights).
This is nasty, because it means, for example, that a trademark owner has to be shown as caring about even small infringements, because otherwise the really bad guys can use as their defense that "hey, we may have misused it, but look at those other cases that they didn't go after, they obviously don't care.."
(Linus Explains Linux Trademark Issues [slashdot.org])Go ask a lawyer, I did. In fact, I asked 3 of them on this exact topic.
Sorry. You probably asked the wrong question. Among other things, you're probably confusing prior art (a patent issue) with unopposed infringement (a trademark issue).
Re:Not an expert in patent law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Yes, you can do it, if the 'similar technologies' truely fall under your patent's umbrella and nobody else has prior art (or you ensure that you find the prior art first, and 'bury' it somehow). Shit, companies file multiple patents 'around' existing patents, and then sue the original patent holder (provided they are small fry enough) for infinging on their umbrella. It's common practice. Patent laws are fucked up, but with less stringent patent laws, numerous entrenched patent-oriented industries, legal practices, etc, etc would also be fucked up. Ergo, there is little chance of going backwards. As usual, we've got so many doctors at the bottom of the cliff that we can't afford to teach people how to NOT WALK OFF THE CLIFF anymore. Too many people lose too much money and too many jobs, etc, etc
Thats my understanding. IANAL, YMMV, and I'm sure you've all got cousins with personal stories that can debunk my raving lunacies
Re:Not an expert in patent law. (Score:4, Informative)
here [techsearch-llc.com]
Interesting stuff - kinda shows how the current patent climate actually causes people to focus more on exploiting patents and their lucrative pay-offs rather than focus on actually inventing shit.
Re:Not an expert in patent law. (Score:3, Informative)
From the research we did already to see if previous patents existed for our product idea, I could tell that most people filing patents are "fishing for lawsuits", as opposed to having a real interest in selling a product.
We didn't find anything that was exactly like our idea, but we found close to 10 patents for various methods of accomplishing pieces of what we needed to do in our product. Most made a vague mention of having a possible application in the general area of what we're trying to do. All of these patents were apparently thrown out there by tinkerers who made a single, crude attempt at performing a function with parts taken from the basement or garage - and then nothing more was ever done with them. Considering the cost of filing patents on them, I can only assume that they're hoping someone comes along and builds a successful product using a basic concept similar enough to theirs, so they can come out of the woodwork screaming "I have a lawyer! You owe me!"
It's depressing, really....
Re:Not an expert in patent law. (Score:3, Funny)
I couldn't agree more, but try convincing a market (the economic equivilent of the spoiled brat that gets what it wants, no matter how bad it is for itself in the future) of that. Everyone's a little too distracted by the amazing special effects, 500 channels and the 'rewindless VCRs' (DVD players) we've invented! Yay!
Patent Death Pool (Mutually Assured Destruction) (Score:3, Insightful)
The nice thing about patents is that it works both ways. Yes the trolls and extortionists can stop the little guy, but if enough little guys get together, we CAN get enough patents to stop everyone else. No cross-licensing, no licensing period. Just stopping progress. But wait, there's more. Since patents can only be used to stop someone from doing something, and since this plan wouldn't need to be implemented unless software development is impossible, they can't sue you for patent infringement because you already aren't doing anything! (Because as we all know, writing software and getting software patents are two activities with "softare" in their descriptions, but are totally separate things!)
Sure, the courts might throw these patents out, but since patents are given to individual inventors, how can the courts just arbitrarily decide to say that these certain people cannot enforce their patents? Would they say that anyone who got a patent using PDP (Patent Death Pool) money cannot enforce their patent? That wouldn't be very nice. Also, you can stop someone else from using your patented idea, even if you have no intention of using it yourself!
Hopefully, the rest of the world would then ignore software patents and charge ahead as we in the US just stagnate. Then people in the US might wake the fuck up and force Congress to get rid of patents on uses of machines.
But, then again maybe not...but at least the rest of the world would be going on ok.
Re:Not an expert in patent law. (Score:2)
Yeah, when a company fires all its workers and moves someplace cheaper or decides to outsource, it's tough shit, but if rich people are going to lose their jobs then we can't possibly allow it.
God invents hyperlinking (Score:2, Funny)
God Alimigty, Pope cried, was the definite inventor of what we now regard as the means of travel on the Internet. God, apparently envisoned the need for his slaves to find where they are and where they would go, thus he created what is now known as a pointer (or the index finger).
Furthermore it was also suggested by the Vatican technical commity that God defined the pointer as a pointer to unsigned long. Where long is defined as the number of days (See day definition on first page of bible) the universe would exist.
Copies of this declaration has been sent to the USPO and other such offices.
Please disregard any fake stories of hypertext invention and linking from now on.
Father Amaa Fui (Phd. CS and Deutology)
Brits... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, I was working over in Europe and I happened to catch a British commercial...for a personal injury lawyer.
"Did you slip on a tin of Spam at the local market? Was your kid injured during a game of rugby? If so, you may be entitled to damages. For more information, call (whatever)."
(some guy dressed up in a rugby outfit)
"I received £10,000 pounds for (whatever)"
Looked and sounded *exactly* like an American personal injury lawsuit commercial, except the voiceover had a British accent.
They are getting as ridiculous as we are. It's a shame, really. I always admired their stiff upper lip and total hatred for whining.
Things they are a-changin'
Knunov
Re:Brits... (Score:2, Interesting)
The companies providing these "services" have been the subject of numerous documentaries and consumer affairs programs on UK TV, and regularly exposed for the rogue outfits they so obviously are. Most of the "victims" only recieve a tiny amount of compensation, while the law firms reap the real rewards.
It is absolutely pathetic; people seem to want to take no responsibility for their own lives any more. I still don't believe the UK has decended to the level of litigeousness of the States as yet, but some of the bottom feeders are slowly but surely crawling their way there...
I have no other problems with America, by the way, just its legal system, patent system and Bill Gates
With any luck... (Score:2, Funny)
They'll win, then we can all sue them for the time wasted clicking on broken links...
--
Mod -1, I shouldn't be allowed to post when I'm bored.
Prior rights to hyperlinks - from old /. articles (Score:5, Informative)
1965 [slashdot.org]
1940's [slashdot.org]
And alot more [slashdot.org]
The list goes on and on. Let them squander their money. To quote a recent game - "If theyre deadset on squandering prescious resources sabotaging their own [] efforts, I say we let em do it."
Along the same vein I cant believe Xerox hasnt made a stink about this. You think they would have learned their lesson after not screaming about the mouse, GUI, etc . . .
that may not be prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:that may not be prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
I, probably like many /.'ers, watched a few of those videos and thought something along the lines of "man, those guys were so far ahead of their time, they had everything already done back then! Screw BT and their specious patents!". But go back and watch the demo [stanford.edu] again. Then scan the patent [164.195.100.11] again. Doublas Engelbart's demo kept referencing hypertext within the same information store (computer). I couldn't find a reference to a local reference to remote information. Networking and even remote sessions are mentioned but never the context of a local link to a remote chunk of data. BT's patent appears to focus on hyperlinking menus being included with each chunk of data to allow easy access to further information.
Now, having said that, there are some key differences between the hyperlinks we know and love today and the system described in BT's patent. Links in the form of http://, ftp://, etc are known as URLs because they abstract away the differences in local and network locations and various protocols used for transmitting the data. It may be argued that hyperlinks are abstractions of a local data store, not a remote menuing system. Also of interest in BT's patent is the reference to the VIEWDATA system, some quick internet searching reveals [demon.co.uk] systems that used color coded links that may qualify as prior art. Another major factor is the use of a mouse. BT's patent doesn't seem to mention anything besides keypad input methods while today's interaction with hypertext is primarily with some sort of pointing device.
Another thing to consider is BT's first major target in this. While other reports mention up to 17 ISPs being asked to pay royalties, Prodigy has gotten the majority of the attention. Wasn't Prodigy one of the larger online services back in the '80s? Might they have had an early interface system that consisted of numeric menus linking to additional information? Is BT going after one of the only true violators of the patent, hoping to scare the rest of the world into paying royalties? Are they deliberately setting up smokescreens, hoping to distract from the real issues in the case?
So, after a closer look, I still think that Mr. Englebart and his peers were way ahead of their time and I still say "Screw BT and their specious patents!", just for slightly different reasons.
prior art 1968 (Score:5, Informative)
Given BT's cash problems I think they are trying it just in case they can get some money.
Re:prior art 1968 (Score:2)
they time it would take to search all data in the world would be to long and costly.
It is up to the individule to fight the patent either by going through the patent office's proceedure, or defeating it in court.
It seems the BT has forced prodigies hand, and thus forced a court case.
as a side note, I thought BT had the British patent offices seal of approval, as it were?
I have never been throught thr British patent process, so I'll reserve comment.
Re:prior art 1968 (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a convenient excuse for the USPTO. ``Gosh... it'd be too hard to really do our job of verifying that this claim is original. So we'll let the courts sort it out.'' Or do they honestly believe that the prior art has to exist in a patent description?
If there wasn't a good reason for the technical competence of the people doling out patents to be dramatically increased then I don't know what would be. Plus the emphasis on pushing a large number of applications through, and rewarding employees on meeting these numbers, is a major problem. It's better to get a lot of things done poorly than it is to have gotten a fewer amount done well.
Anyone know of any studies done on the retarding effect of frivolously issued patents on the technology segment of the economy? I'm betting that there is a demonstrable effect.
Re:prior art 1968 (Score:2)
If I had major cash problems, I wouldn't try launching a patent infringement suit on a technology with prior art going back at least 34 years, especially when the defendant is basically everyone with a website. Not even Microsoft is running with the kind of cash you'd need to face that kind of opposition.
BT has done it before... (Score:2)
Who here remembers Sun's YP - excuse, me NIS?
"NIS was formerly known as Sun Yellow Pages (YP) but the name Yellow Pages(tm) is a registered trademark in the United Kingdom of British Telecom plc and may not be used without permission."
NIS HOWTO [ibiblio.org]Re:BT has done it before... (Score:2)
for example, ford could come out with the Ford XP, and Microsoft could not sue for trade mark infringment. hence AMD XP.
The lawyers must be proud (Score:2)
BT needs to hire a Director of Choosing Your Battles.
Re:The lawyers must be proud (Score:2)
There are some "good" lawyers. Maybe not many, but a few.
If you think of the convoluted legal code that lawyers have helped legislatures build up, you can think of it as a really complicated weapon, that requires special training to use.
There ARE lawyers out there who enjoy using this metaphorical 'weapon' on behalf of actual victims of real crimes. Sometimes this takes creativity (I recall reading of a case where a man abducted a woman and, among other bizarre things, made a small cut in her foot(?) and drank some of her blood...but didn't go far enough to be charged with 'rape'. The lawyers for the prosecution managed to get him charged with "robbery" - he stole some of her blood.)
Granted that modern law has become so convoluted and lucrative that it attracts far to much of the 'wrong sort of person' to the trade, just to make a pile of money, but there are a few left who actually enjoy getting 'bad people' put away.
BT (Score:2)
WE INVENTED HYPERLINKING, SHOW US THE MONEY...
Yeah, we found out that we own this patent and we decided to release it for free for the greater good of the community.
OK, so they pursued option 1. They look like the greatest losers and dickheads. Oh yeah; and they'll never see a cent in the first place. They also wouldn't see a cent with option 2 of course, but would be a really geeky and cool carrier (ok, that's a bit of a stretch for our UK readers) instead of complete jerks, that can't distinguish their arses from a hole in the ground.
Hypertext was invented in 1945 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hypertext was invented in 1945 (Score:2)
How ever the 1968 deminstration is still a good example that the idea, concept, and invention, did exist priviouse to 1980.
when did Ted Nelsen think of hyperlinks? (Score:2)
Those fools. (Score:4, Informative)
http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.ht
He even demoed a shared display system between two geographically separated terminals. If I was BT and saw Englebart on the defence's witness list, I would sue for peace immediately. 1968 for Pete's sake! Those guys need to be slapped upside the head with a wet mackeral.
these people are desperate. (Score:3, Informative)
"BT stumbled upon the patent during a routine update of its 15,000 global patents in the summer of 2000."
They didn't even know they had it, first of all. Their patent expires in the year 2006 in the US. What happens if you don't defend a patent (I am not a lawyer, I am curious if anything changes if you don't defend a patent)
Plus, this patent is so general. And here is their evidence:
Prodigy's unlikely saviour comes in the form of a fuzzy black and white video which shows a 1968 demonstration by Stanford computer researcher Douglas Engelbart apparently demonstrating hypertext linking.
I would like to see this video... Seriously, though, I think this is going to be a huge PR disaster when this blows up in their face. Not only do they look like desperate bastards, but also like idiots trying to claim a patent like "the flying machine" entitles them to the royalties of airplanes, helicopters, gliders, etc. (Ana analogy the article pointed out.
how low cna you go?
Re:these people are desperate. (Score:2)
You do not have to defend a patent to keep it. If you want to charge people retroactivly, you will have a tough row to hoe.
British patents can be very vague, compared to US patents.
here [stanford.edu] is the link you requested.
wow the British comment... (Score:2)
In the USPTO they should get rejected as being 'vague and indefinite' if they are to vague. This is a basic patent rejection. So if the language of this patent is to vague to understand today that should be sufficient to invalidate the patent. Boy would that suck for them to be told that the patent is no longer valid and never really was.
Re:wow the British comment... (Score:2)
Re:wow the British comment... (Score:2)
what about .doc files? (Score:2)
BBC Humor... (Score:2, Redundant)
I loved the bit at the end of the article:
See "internet links" for the text of BT's patent. There is no charge for doing so.
Well, it amused me, anyway. It would appear that the BBC has a sense of humor..
Re:BBC Humor... (Score:4, Funny)
The people responsible for the humor have been sacked.
-
Re:BBC Humor... (Score:3, Funny)
No llamas have been found to be involved so far.
Over-riding Patents (Score:2)
So I can see a government that would force a takeover of the patent even if they win.
Or Maybe everyone would force them to sue first.
I can see the peasants storming the castle now.
Time for another tea party... (Score:3, Funny)
What if hyperlinks went away? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that if you kill hyperlinks, you pretty much kill the whole http-based World Wide Web.
Where does that leave us? Well, for starters, it gets a whole lot of companies back off the internet, where they don't really belong. I think that the last decade has proven that the e-commerce model doesn't really work when brick-and-mortar sales models are more efficient. There are a few, very specialized business who manage to do business over the internet, but these are almost always in the same area that phone and mail-order business have always dominated. The major auto manufacturers are a good example of companies who don't belong on the internet. The music industry is probably another good case, since they absolutely refuse to embrace the sharing model that the internet and P2P apps have made so popular. They don't want to do business on the internet. They want to use the internet to make their brick-and-mortar businesses more profitable.
So, let's say that all these companies get off the internet. What's left of the internet?
E-Mail, for one. Despite the popularity of the web, E-Mail still accounts for the vast majority of internet traffic. FTP is another. Just because graphical websites go away doesn't mean that we can expect FTP sties to go away as well. FTP sites after websites, however, can be expected to have much, much more in the way of content. We can expect 'pub' directories to have much, much more in the way of specialization and indexing. Personal FTP sites would have vast amounts of things the site's owners would like or find interesting. MP3's, images both conventional and pornographic, movies, text files like e-books and fan-works, applications... The list goes on and on.
This model for MP3 sites was almost the way things worked. In 1993, there were about an equal number of FTP- and Web-sites. HTML was so much more versatile than an FTP site, so it dominated.
I think we'll also see a resurgance in the use of Usenet, which has been supplanted in many ways by weblogs and online message boards for BBS-type use. We may even see a resurgance in telnet-based BBS's. That would be cool.
The thing I think we'll see the most of if the web magically went away, would be the proliferation of internet sites that use Post-http era technology. This includes any of the P2P protcols like Gnutella or FastTrack, CVS, Freenet, streaming music and video, distributed problem solving like Seti@home and Folding@home, and many, many more.
The web is stagnant already, so this process is already beginning. Just look at the statistic figures for Gnutella or FastTrack to get an idea. I don't think BT will win their lawsuit, and I don't think that the web is going away anytime soon.
I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing if it did.
I guess I just didn't understand patents... (Score:2)
Extortion and Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm cynical enough to think that maybe BT gets Prodigy to settle this for some ridiculously small amount of money ($10, or even $100,000) to make it go away, and both parties aggree, as part of the settlement, to keep the details of the settlement private.
Now BT goes to work for Prodigy trying to go after their competitors. Just like the RAMbus nonsense, the first few get to settle on generous terms. But after that it starts to get expensive even to just settle. Because now BT has precedent on their side. "well look, all these other companies have settled to license our innovative hyperlink technology."
The benefit to Prodigy is: A cheap settlement. The lawsuit goes away. BT goes after their competitors.
The benefit to BT: They establish precedent. They might even get a little trickle of money ($100,000 to settle?). They get really big settlements later from the others who didn't settle early.
If Prodigy settles, what do you want to bet that they keep the terms of the settlement a secret? Now why would they keep something a secret? What possible motivation? Obviously, it must be hugely in their interest to keep it a secret -- because it would be embarrasing to settle for such a small amount, because that would make most people realize the true evil movies of both parties. Gee, could they even agree to this under the table in advance? Okay, I'll agree to let you sue me and settle for cheap with an unlimited nonexclusive license in return. Okay, maybe now I'm being too cynical.
CompuServe to the rescue ? (Score:2, Interesting)
(for the guy that invented
a "free" algorithm found in an ACM journal
that later turned out to be patented) and
keep in touch with people over there (CompuServe/AOL) from time to time.
At one point, AOL had retained the ex-Compuserve CTO to do historical research into patentable
things that the company had done. I would lay money that CompuServe/AOL will challenge this
if it goes very far.
I'm Confused... (Score:2, Funny)
specific to keyboards? (Score:5, Interesting)
But yeah, this is really insane. Also, so many patents like this seem like they don't pass the "not obvious to a practitioner of the field" test.
*sigh* (Score:2)
/Brian
I approve of THIS patent (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like an interesting article (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like an interesting article, but I didn't click on the link to read it for fear than I was infringing on somebody's hard earned patent.
First I had use lynx so that I wouldn't inadvertantly see any GIFS, but I suppose now I'll have to find a text-based browser that doesn't show any hyperlinks as well.
A "flying machine"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that if the patent were for "a flying machine," every court in the world would see through it and realize what a farce it was. In the realm of computers, unfortunately, even such broad idea proposals are taken as some kind of intellectual accomplishment.
Who will they sue... (Score:2)
...after they're done with Prodigy? Individuals who have web sites or the ISPs that host them?
Since the US patent expires in 2006 and it'll probably be some time after that broadband becomes widely available in the U.S., I guess that most of us that have ever thought about hosting their own web sites will be safe, eh?
BT has been a pain in the keister for a long time. I had the unfortunate experience of having to deal with them about ten years ago when my employer was setting up EDI. They were a pain then and, apparently, haven't gotten any better. Geez, the arrogant comments made by the BT CEO would make me want to switch from them as a supplier even if their service didn't rank near dead last.
Let's hope that what ever judge hears this case, is astute enough to recognize prior art when s/he sees the Englebart tape. And if s/he does, I'd just love to hear the exchange between the judge and the BT lawyers as they try to wangle a case for the originality of their patent claim. Can Prodigy load the gallery with people to snicker and roll their eyes when BT laywers present their arguments?
I'd love to see them win (Score:2, Funny)
It could pretty much shut down the Web in the USA, or at least severely disrupt it, by forcing people to pay BT tax, or come up with some disgusting work-around.
Of course, this would not apply to most of the rest of the world, because we still haven't quite given into the lobbying of the WTO and USPO types that want the rest of the world to adopt US patent silliness.
So briefly we'd have BT holding the USA to ransom.
Pretty soon after that the public outcry against the USPO might finally reach the ears of enough US politicians, to result in the USPO being beaten up in the manner that they've clearly deserved for years.
The final result being that people would have their eyes opened to the stupidity of allowing patents on software and business methods.
So, join the "BT for Web supremacy" campaign today!
Stupid, stupid... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're supposed to go after a small fry evil hacker [slashdot.org] first, so as to set a precedent.
Instead, BT is going after Prodigy, who is owned by SBC, one of the three remaining "Baby Bells", who certainly has enough ca$h to defend themselves properly.
P.S. No offense to Mr. Corley or 2600 with the "small fry" remark. It referred strictly to company size/resources.
Quite frankly... (Score:3)
Depressing quote from UK patent office: (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are meant to protect useful inventions! Which HAVE been invented! What a sad commentary that this guy has lost sight of the whole idea and has caved, and simply accepts the current state of what patents have *become*.
OT but Related: Patenting Salted Fries (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:quite within their rights (Score:2)
You ideut. Funny how lawyers are not afraid of making sure they're needed to make large sums for large companies.
Re:quite within their rights (Score:2, Insightful)
You didn't read the read article which plainly states that Prodigy has video-evidence of a man demonstrating hyperlinking in 1968.
their lawyers are not afraid to defend their intellectual property against scoundrels and freeloaders such as Prodigy
Since when did Prodigy become a freeloader? Perhaps I am mistaken but everything I've seen about them indicates to me that the internet would still be in its infancy if they hadn't struggled to build it.
Re:quite within their rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes there were some smart guys there, but taxpayers subsidized this innovation. BT the company shouldn't reap the rewards
Re:quite within their rights (Score:2)
I know they have 15000+ plus, but again it is there responcibility. If they have to create a department to do this, then it is time they do so.
Re:quite within their rights (Score:2, Informative)
Patents do not work like this. They do not have to be actively defended to be kept valid. In this case, though, Prodigy has an even earlier prior art video which shows the technology BT is suing Prodigy for using. If the patent system were more effective in finding prior art, this hyperlinking technology patent would've never been awarded to BT in the first place.
Greg
Re:My patent (Score:2)
Re:My patent (Score:2)
Oh, only the process. I'm not sure if bodily excretions are patentable. But the way things are going, perhaps they will be one day...
Is it possible to have, like, a holding patent, for something that isn't currently patentable but will be once the megacorps finally decide all laws in America? I guess if there is then the Megacorps will have already done it. They'll have like a Meta-patent that covers everything.
Way too much coffee.
BT are in MAJOR debt! (Some interesting info) (Score:2)
BT are in a shitload of debt and the managers have been told to screw every last penny out of the consumers.
How do I know?
Because BT made a major cock up with its internet billing over a year ago and gave some customers free internet access.
BT are now trying to claim back money from users who surfed for free, even though BT legaly havent got a leg to stand on.
They are hopeing that customers will just give in and pay money they dont legally have to by being heavy handed. Have a look at this BBC news article [bbc.co.uk] for details.