Slashdot Log In
BT To Enforce Patent On Hyperlinking?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jun 19, 2000 11:43 AM
from the you-gotta-be-kidding dept.
from the you-gotta-be-kidding dept.
Bazzargh writes: "This article
at nothingventured (annoying but free registration required) says that British Telecom have hired Scipher to enforce (in the US) an old patent -- predating the WWW -- that they hold on the concept of hyperlinking! Apparently they'll be seeking compensation from all ISPs. I've had a look on the IBM Patents Database but I can't see the patent referred to."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
BT to Enforce Patent on Hyperlinking?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 441 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Cease and Desist (Score:3)
Re:OK Cool, close but no cigar.... (Score:4)
Why wouldn't they? A webserver is a server, a browser is a way to display stuff on the client.
I just read the patent three times and cannot believe it. It's a real patent filed for in 1980 long before Tim-Berners-Lee proposed the world wide web [w3.org]. To put it simply British Telecom came up with the idea of hyperlinks first, simply not in the context of HTML, but this does not change the fact that they did. To all those claiming this is a sign that patent reform is forthcoming are probably right but for the wrong reasons, in 1980 this was probably an original idea.
Can you say "footnote"? (Score:3)
In an ideal world, the USPTO would laugh this proposal all the way back across the pond. Trouble is, some equally harebrained schemes have already been granted patents, so I don't hold out much hope
Re:Here is a link to the Patent (Score:3)
It's supposed to reduce the complexity of communication protocols, as well as reduce the document overhead transferred across the dialup..
Fortunatly, I believe Ted Nelson (of Xanadu) demonstrated a very similar system three years earlier. He'd been working on it since 1960, and was a prolific writer, so there is surely some hypothetical discussion of systems covered by this patent somewhere in recent antiquity..
Minitel may also predate the patent, with its linked MGS. They were rolled out in 82-83, but development was probably three to five years earlier (Telecom companies are notoriously slow!)
Besides, ISPs have no interest in licensing this; They provide text content, which is only intrepreted by the terminal (AIEE, Nutscrape, Opera). This patent covers hyperlinking and the terminal. The ISP does not infringe, therefore licensing is moot..
This is Bogus (Score:3)
First of all, the patent covers a custom terminal, with multiple ROM and RAM areas, and keypads hardwired to signal generators for modems. We have details about what type of information goes into what memory segment, what the ROM contains, and even the timing between the display and the memory.
For instance, the patent clearly states that the display text will be in the first transmission block, and will be loaded into one memory area, while the 'hidden information' will be in second block and will be loaded into another memory area. To the contrary, we all know that HTML is embedded, and all information is loaded into the same memory area. Once it is loaded, the appropriate text and graphics is generated for the displayed.
To Quote: "In the operation of the system shown, when a block of which is to be displayed is transmitted by the computer 1 to the terminal and routed to the memory A. The second part of the selected block is transferred to special memory B included in the computer 1 and associated with the input channel of the computer to which the terminal is connected"
The issue of the keyboard is also a problem. Not only is the keyboard used to communicate, but also it appears that they keyboard would be hardwired, though some signal generators, to memory and to the modem, or at least the acoustic coupler. Certainly T1 lines are not modems.
To quote: "Inputs from an operator to the terminal apparatus are entered by means of a key pad 12 which is connected to a signal generator 13 producing signals which after modulation in the modem 6 are transmitted via the isolation and protection circuits 5 and the switch 3 to the line 2, and through that line to the computer 1."
About the only problem I see is that they do talk about an index, which is probably the paragraph that all their lawyers will cite. Again, it only uses a keyboard, and again explicitly states the area of memory(the control area rather than the text area) that the address will be retrieved form. This statement is a bit fuzzy, but the intent is there.
To quote: "The complete reference (i.e. address) of the index items could be displayed on the screen and the operator could be required to press a number of keys on the pad 12 to select a particular item. However, it would be simpler for the operator if the items of the index displayed were simply numbered, say, from 1 to 9 so that all the operator had to do was to press a single key on the pad 12 to select a particular item"
Overall, this sounds more like a custom terminal hooked up to text retrieval service through an X25 line or something like that rather than a GPC connected to the Internet. Even then Kermit would probably do a better job than what they describe.
What is really patented here anyway? (Score:4)
The patent specifies a dumb terminal, and that the conection be done over a phone line. It claims rights to the dumb terminal, the CRT or "other obviously similar device* ( my paraphrase), the packet system of sending the information and the interface to make it easy to use for non computer users.
This isn't a patent for hyperlinks, it's a patent for WebTV!
Seriously, that's all it describes.
The CRT is obviosly prior art. So they arn't going to try to go for that. The packet system was already in use on the internet in 1989 and has its genesis in Hedy Lamar's spread spectrum broadcasting patent, which expired ages ago, so they can't go over that. Bell had the phone lines tied up a century ago, so they can't go after that. Dumb terminals have been around nearly as long as computers, so they can't go after THAT.
So, they're left with the interface and try to stretch that into hyperlinks, which noone really understands anyway, so maybe they'll get away with it?
Come on guys. You're pushing it here. Go after WebTV.
As for me, I'm using a computer, not a dumb terminal, and I'm accessing information over digital cable. Not even covered by your patent which specifically states the use of phone lines. Not even in your vague references to "other obviously similar" catchall.
Go away. You're bothering us.
Use a mouse! (Score:3)
The Register disagrees. It claims [theregister.co.uk] that the patent was filed (presumably in the UK) in 1976, which puts it before Xanadu went public. However, note that the BT patent covers hyperlinks which 'would be selected by the operation of a selected key of the keyboard.'. So by my understanding you're OK if you use a mouse.
Here is a link to the Patent (Score:5)
Jeff
Another overbroad patent (Score:3)
So surely this patent covers any client-server information access using any form of index like electronic library catalogues or any other form of electronically indexed database if only it has some form of visible index (this actually matches the description in the patent much closer).
It would also cover configuring the server side of a terminalconnection or any aplication running on a server the terminal is connected to via an option menu. This too is a much better match to the patents wording, small wonder, since the patent was thought of with a "one server, many dumb terminals" structure in mind.
Now it is very strange indeed, that the patent holders never tried for lincense fees from all those libraries, or anyone with a server-terminals structure setup for that matter. Maybe it was too easy then to dig up prior art. Or maybe they just got inspired by the Rambus Toshiba deal [slashdot.org] and just wait for someone who's paying before thinking.
Yet again... (Score:3)
-Compenguin
or just use good ole' fashioned (Score:3)
(you're welcome)
----------------------------
But "A HREF=" precedes link text... (Score:5)
The patent says that (paraphrased) the link text is the first part, the address is the second part.
In HTML, the address (HREF attribute) comes first, then the link text.
May seem silly, but Motorola patented cell-phones with flip-down microphones. So what did the competition do? They created cell-phones with flip-up earpieces.
I know I'm nit-picking, but maybe it'll work. Any thoughts?
This is an outrage! (Score:3)
Obviously, the people writing the browsers are the ones who are infringing on the patent.
They must sue MS! We must make this clear to them!
(cypherpunk, cypherpunk seems to work here, too)
Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:4)
Looking at the patent [164.195.100.11], I see that it was granted in 1989, 9 years (!!) after it was filed.
What an obscenety.
What the hell was the patent office doing sitting on this for nine year! If it had been granted in 1980, the patent would have expired in 1997 and this wouldn't even be an issue. Patents have long since outlived their purpose -- the market encourages innovation without government enforced monopolies. I don't know if this particular abuse will lead to reform or not, but even if it does, reforming the patenting system will simply mean tweaking a broken and destructive system such that the net negative effects become tolerable to a majority. It will still be a millstone around our collective neck, perhaps with a few pounds chipped off to appease us but still weighing us all down.
Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:4)
What this means is that the stalling "trick" you mention is no longer possible in the U.S.; holding up the issuance of a patent is no longer of any benefit to the patent holder.
The BT patent, though, was issued before the law changed, and thus is valid for 17 years from when it was issued in 1989.
See the USPTO website [uspto.gov] for details.
Here's a login. (Score:5)
--
Re:Granted 9 years later = a 26 year monopoly! (Score:5)
At your service (Score:3)
---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
This again?! (Score:3)
Dear England,
Every so sorry to inform you again, that we are not interested in paying taxes to you. I thought we made that clear in Boston. Again, I'm so sorry the message was not clear. That is something I cannot apologize for enough. Sorry, sorry, and sorry.
What I have trouble uderstanding is that after killing so many of your "red coats", how did we leave you with the idea in mind that we still wanted to be taxed. I fear we, here in the "states", are not good at communication.
Never the less, do have you people speak to ours. We'll setup a meeting, and "do lunch" as they say.
PS: Please be kind to us, after all we did help a little with that small Hitler problem. Thanks.
-- With love,
The States
Not "Fools!" -- They're Brilliant! (Score:3)
How much more so if the WWW is shut down! The US economy would just tank: all that e-business disappearing. Sales of pron, books, computer crap, auctions -- all stopped!
There's no way BT should ever have received a patent on hyperlinking, particularly in the USA, where there was plenty of prior art!
The US Government may finally be *FORCED* to deal with the joke that is the US Patent Office.
And *that* might save us all.
I figure either this is all a hoax, or BT is trying to help put an end to Internet patent stupidity.
--
Damnit (Score:4)
Bring Back Buzby! (Score:5)
This has GOT to be the most blatant scam BT has pulled in a long time. It's certainly comparable to their 35 GBP connect charges + time charges + packet charches + phone charges, for their early rival to the Internet, the International Packet Switch Stream.
The idea may have been patented, but "linking" has existed to the earliest days of man. A bit before BT's time! The idea of placing a reference, rather than a complete description, appears in early forms of writing, early naming systems (ever wondered how people got the surname of Cook, Baker, Smith, etc?), early artwork (cave paintings are essentially URLs to the animals being hunted), myths and legends (cross-references are everywhere in that stuff), and even appears in early architecture.
So, unless the patent can be shown to have been granted 10,000 years ago, in which case I'd check it's expiry date, it has been in common usage prior to the patent being granted, which is grounds for dismissal of the patent.
Does this remind anyone... (Score:3)
...of the attempt to enforce a patent on browser status bars a few years ago? That fell through, and this will, too. We have nothing to fear from this. The government wouldn't dare enforce this, because there's too much money invested in the Internet right now.
Which is a problem, if you think about it. The government will only pay attention to freedoms on the web whule there's money in it. And that's why the economic downturn among the dotcoms is bad (along with the unemployment it will cause, of course). As soon as it doesn't look like the Internet is creating multimillionaires capable of donating large amounts of cash to campaigns, and they can't be accused of stifling business opportunities (the businesses having already stifled themselves, and the opportunities having dried up), Congress will move to establish as much control as possible.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Actually this may be a good thing (Score:3)
Do you honestly think that AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, Earthlink, etc. will actually start paying royalties to British Telecom for something as lame as hyperlinks?!? Hell no. They're huge companies with a large influence in the federal government, and if they all get hit with this, I have no doubt that the patent system will be changed.
--
Re:This again?! (Score:4)
If you're so keen on avoiding patent payments to foreign-owned compaies, why do you award them patents?