NCR Patents the Internet 448
An anonymous reader writes "We all know about NCR's lawsuit against Palm & Handspring, but I haven't seen much press about patent infringements they are claiming against some of the biggest sites on the planet. According to documentation that a friend's company has recently received, their patents protect everything from keyword searching to product categorization. Patents to look for (and filed in 1998) include 6,253,203, 6,169,997, 6,151,601, 6,085,223 and 5,991,791 . IMHO, this is absolutely outrageous and is likely to cause billions in both legal fees and eventual licensing fees (eBay, Amazon and MSFT have already licensed from NCR). How is this not the lead story on every site? every day? Maybe because no one wants to get sued for having an online business."
It's about time... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Funny)
That's why they wouldn't let me patent creationism! Damn them all to hell!
Re:It's about time... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not really (Score:4, Funny)
Patents are overrated.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patents are overrated.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that this is going to screw over a whole lot of people before laws are enacted to end this legalized extortion.
What makes this especially ugly is that it's going to have a disproportionate impact on smaller web-based retailers, because they are going to have neither a legal department nor the hundreds of thousands of dollars a legal battle of this scope would cost--the only real choice will be to either pay the extortion money or not do business on the web. Everyone but the patent holder loses.
Three Words: "Class Action Lawsuit" (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents ARE legalized extortion. That's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
What everyone forgets is that if anyone in the US was doing what your patent describes before you filed for the patent, then your patent is no good. And it doesn't cost billions of dollars to get a patent invalidated. First you need to get sued for violating a patent. Then you need to show some proof that at least one person was doing whatever the patent says before the filing date. Then you win. Given that it costs a minimum of $20k to get a patent, all this company has done is waste lots of money. If it ever tries to bring suit it'll spend even more money and it'll have nothing to show for it because these patents all seem to cover stuff that people've been doing with computers for a while. I doubt you will ever see a suit on any of those patents. It's like the guy who patented swinging. He spent at least $20k to prove that he doesn't understand the patent system. All I need is to bring in some witnesses that'll say they were swinging before Nov. 17th 2000 and he has officially wasted a lot of money. Patent examiners can only work with what they find in literature and trade journals etc. Courts can use anything you bring them.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6368227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6368227&RS=P N/6368227 [uspto.gov]
They missed one (Score:2, Funny)
Re:They missed one (Score:3, Funny)
Wow! Good thing you didn't get FP, or you might have gotten sued!
Another example of WHY the US Patent office sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:5, Interesting)
If jokes get into the US PTO database, that makes the system a joke. After all, if it is a joke and not marked as such, how do I tell a joke? Perhaps the patents referenced from the main story are all jokes?
At this point, I hope you see the folly of your comment.
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:3, Informative)
Well, of course. That's the whole issue, isn't it? Haven't you heard about this [uspto.gov]?
However, many patents that sound like a joke to most people have turned out to be quite serious, unfortunately.
At this point, I hope you see the folly of your comment.
At this point, I hope you feel pretty stupid for attempting to prove to me that the USPTO is one fucked up nest of clueless bureaucrats, which I really didn't need. But thanks, anyway.
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:3)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:5, Funny)
Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.
It does however have one redeeming quality - it's one of the most readable patents I've ever seen
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:4, Funny)
Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.
Licenses are available from the inventor upon request. "
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:5, Informative)
"A method, apparatus, article of manufacture, and a memory structure for storing and retrieving data in a database implementing privacy control is disclosed." (Abstract of 6,253,203)
I think a filesystem with permissions would be prior art for this... Who the hell would sign off on this patent?
Further on...
"1. A data warehousing, management, and privacy control system, comprising... a database table comprising a plurality of data columns and at least one data control column... information reflecting consumer privacy parameters"
exactly passwd which contains a "customer's" password hash and his/her home directory and shell.
"5. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a customer interface module providing access to the database table via the privileged view and to permit specification of the consumer privacy parameters."
A file system with permissions.... (eg. AS400 whose fs is *actually* a database)
Can anyone else see anything that's origional about this patent? I'm looking through all the claims and they all fit with either a filesystem or a rdbms.
Why the hell would anyone take an infringement law suit seriously from these patents?
Sometime the profound stupidity of businesses really hits me. Like the time an old boss of mine wanted to patent the ability to write libraries so that the implementation could change without changing the code written against it (ie. API's). This was in 2002.
It's broken, but I don't see it getting fixed in this life time
-RB
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:3, Insightful)
What they do not check is unpatented prior art. That is left to the courts.
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets assume that I patent something very used but not patented, and start asking licences to everyone. Until someone decide to lose more money than my licence and get me to the courts, I only win, and after that (if a prior art or in the court emerges that my patent or claims are unreasonables) I only stop wining, nothing more, but don't lose a penny in all of this.
I wonder why all "make rich fast!" schemes don't include patenting common sense or widely used ideas and technologies, you can't lose with that.
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't necessarily know everything that is public knowledge, so it's unfair to say that you didn't invent it. And you may well have patented it in good faith. But if you aren't willing to accept reasonable arguments that there is prior art, then you deserve to be hit hard with bills. After all, that's what you're trying to stick onto your adversary.
That said, the current patent system is so broken that we would be better off without any patent system at all. Yes, it's appropriate to have some patent system, but the current one is so bad that everyone who works for it should claim that they work as telemarketers or prostitutes, to hide their shame.
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another example of WHY the US Patent office suc (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I think there's a major backlash campaign being given unspoken support from all the old-money dow-like companies. The internet is something they have never understood, and view it only as a threat to thier way of doing business.
The legal system in no way supports the proliferation of free technocratic society, but serves only to perpetuate old-money institutions.
You will never find a retired programmer on the bench. You will find a trial lawyer of some 30 years experience whos outlook is based entirely on precedent(think 1970s and 1980s). This was a time of farms, banks, automobile production, petroleum embargoes, and cold war.
90% of the serving officials in the 3 branches of government were lawyers before being elected senators, or supreme court judges, or in many cases presidents. Very very rarely will you ever see an engineer or scientist turned politician.
We are a fundamentally misrepresented class of people. Our priorities are largely askew from the priorities of the "majority voting public". All we want is unlimited bandwidth, unlimited computing power, and to be left alone. These 3 things are very much within our technological/finacial means as a nation. If the $200billion spent on the defense budget was poured into building a broadband infrastructure we would have it. And we all know how quickly processors and storage mediums improve. Simply said there are no real technological bariers towards the implementation of what the majority of us here want.
But none of this will happen because old-money has become aware of the threat of giving abundant resources to "everyone". They will use the legal system as a means of slowing/crippling/dismantling the "internet" until it is no longer functional.
Said again, the "internet" is under siege from old money...and it is nothing if not a war. Throwing file-sharers in jail, patenting hyper-links, all of this is insanity...but in war you use whatever means necessary to destroy your enemy. We, and what we represent, are the enemy of old-money institutions....and they will leverage every resource in thier means to destroy us.
Re:It's all right, I've just solved the problem! (Score:3, Funny)
But I just patented the idea of patenting patents!
You owe me money!
And we're all REALLY going to pay (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And we're all REALLY going to pay (Score:5, Funny)
Can't Al Gore claim prior art?
Nonobvious? (Score:2)
The nonobvious exception is of course nonobvious [lawnotes.com] in appplication. And the USPTO doesn't always get it right -- though the eventual litigation might.
Certainly this sort of discussion is nothing new [w3.org].
Last Post (Score:2)
evidence please (Score:5, Insightful)
(eBay, Amazon and MSFT have already licensed from NCR)
Is there proof of this?
Re:evidence please (Score:5, Funny)
Of course...! Ask any of our customers who have increased their penis size by at least 3". And all the millionaires that made their money from the internet and have retired comfortably...
Act now and you may have the same licence that Ebay, Amazon and MSFT has at 1/2 the price they paid! This is not a scam!
This was my first reaction anyways. No proof and this claim sound suspiciously familiar to spam I regularly receive...
Re:evidence please (Score:3, Informative)
Re:evidence please (Score:5, Informative)
The closest I could come up with is a lawsuit [law.com]filed against yahoo late last year about online ordering.
It doesn't go into details, but it appears the NCR's claims, at least in this case (and according to the yahoo attorneys) are as crazy as the slashdot headline suggests. No mention is made of anyone paying them license fees, however.
I think that the first time they try to use it (Score:2)
Man o man (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Man o man (Score:5, Informative)
Next NCR patent to be discovered... (Score:5, Funny)
Abstract:
"We own the Internet and anything connected to it."
Patent Stupity (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait, there's too much prior art. Err, then again, if it didn't stop NCR, why should it stop me? :-)
It looks like they're patenting database "filters" (Score:5, Insightful)
If Borland could find an old copy of PowerBase they could probably get this patent thrown out for prior art, and have their own patent rejected for coming 20 years too late.
I dunno. Whining about incompetently issued patents is like whining about Microsoft or the DMCA. Good for a few quotable flames, but no real news. Move along, nothing to see here.
Re:It looks like they're patenting database "filte (Score:2)
Re:It looks like they're patenting database "filte (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It looks like they're patenting database "filte (Score:4, Interesting)
Getting a patent re-examined (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish it worked like you say. But for these patents (since they were filed before the law allowing new forms of examination came into effect in 1999) the only choice is to have an Ex Parte Examination, which by default assumes that the patent is valid given all prior art. Therefore, litigation is the only way for these to go, unless you can think of something new which breaks the patent. (Not exactly sure how that is supposed to work, but thats what the article says)
Re:It looks like they're patenting database "filte (Score:5, Insightful)
America's #1 passtime is 'settling out of court'
Not only is lady justice blind, she's also sitting at home watching financial interests undermine her purpose. It's become cheaper to sell out to your sworn enemy than actually figure out who's on the correct side of the law.
I'm all for these guys... (Score:2)
Now, to get this out of the technosphere and onto the front page of the NY Times.
Lets quickly patent everything! (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing you can do is publish every idea you have no matter how stupidly obveous. (Cat overclocking hats [man.ac.uk] for example).
when will the insanity end? (Score:2)
patents should reward true innovation, not extensions of common sense or general techniques....
Just another set of overly broad patents (Score:5, Informative)
You can't stop the future, you can only simulate it by stopping progress.
eRalph (Score:4, Insightful)
How ironic... (Score:5, Interesting)
At least, by making patents available on the internet like this they make them sort of "open source" so that stupid patents like this one will be challenged as soon as someone finds out.
Shouldn't be hard to disprove. (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn' t this what search engines such as Yahoo! [yahoo.com] have been doing since at least before 1996???
Don't Worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that they are. Ebay, Amazon, etc are licensing these patents. Why? Because it's easier than fighting in court.
But I still used to say "Don't worry... eventually, this will get bad enough, and real reform will come."
Except the people with the money to change things are also benifiting from this situation. See Amazon's "one click" patent.
So now I say, "start worrying." I get the very bad impression that things will get much worse before they get better.
So, what needs to change?
1. The legal system makes it more affordable to lie down and take it than to stand up to those who more than likely have no legal leg to stand on. This has to change.
2. Patents protect just about everything possible. If you can do it with a computer, chances are someone, somewhere, has a copyright that you are infringing. I once saw a patent on nested for lops, for crying out loud. Software and business practices shouldn't be patentable.
3. Lobbyists have got to go. People buy legislation. That is not democracy, and it is not right.
4. Parties. "Go ahead, waste your vote on a third party candidate. Muahaha!" We should not have to choose between Republicrates, Democans, and Hopeless.
Re:Don't Worry (Score:5, Insightful)
This thing in Iraq is caused by the same PROBLEMS (you described) that are causing the USPTO to become so damned ridiculous.
Re:Don't Worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Ebay and friends are not chosing to pay because its cheaper than fighting in court. They are chosing to pay because they know lots of their competitors can not. Get it?
Lets patent the patent process! (Score:2, Funny)
Has anyone ever tried to patent the patent process itself? Heck, since such stupid things as using laser pointers as a cat toy are patentable, why not do something completely insane and patent the actual process of getting a patent.
I can just see the waves of patent lawers out in the street screaming about how they have to now pay ME the holder of the patent on patenting royaltee's everytime they file a patent.
As stupid as an idea this may sound, look at how stupid the patent office is already. I think someone with the balls and cash should do it, just as a wake up call to the USPO.
Of course they got patented (Score:3, Insightful)
EXAMPLE: (Score:4, Insightful)
Roughly translated:
Currently, a web site stores Internet data indicating file access status for the files that have been accessed in response to requests from web browsers.
A log.
Unfortunately, the Internet data are kept as a set of separate and non-correlated data records that are chronologically arranged according to the times at which the requests have been received and processed.
A chronological log.
Consequently, the [log] not arranged meaningful to management and business operation.
Ok, so Boss, Pointy Haired couldn't read it. It's just a server log after all. Fine. What'ya gonna do about it, NCR?
Well...
The present invention correlates web page files (HTML, SHTML, DHTML, or CGI files) with subject areas (such as sports, news, entertainment, restaurant, shopping, computing, business, health, family, travel and weather).
Cool! We can take an "Internet Data" (sorry, log) and split it up, no doubt by looking at other components of the path.
Finally...
In this way, the [log is] presented in a format meaningful to management and business operation.
GEE WHIZ! They patented log file analysis.
Go to hell NCR, and take US Patent #6,169,997 with you.
Jeez ... the gall! (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking up a URL in a remote database and then using it - that describes just about everything usefull on the net (including Slashdot).
This is definitely both in the "obvious to the prectitioner in the art" (as shown by all the people who've gone off and done it) - and also prior art (because of all the DB driven web sites out there prior to 1998)
Hey wait... (Score:2, Funny)
6,169,997 is about WebSite LOGS (Score:3, Informative)
The abstract:
This is not a claim on the whole of the Internet. I haven't read the rest of the patents yet (and probably won't, if the first two were this harmless), but I'd be a but suprised to find a claim covering "all of the Internet".Is NCR really AT&T (Score:3, Insightful)
1991 - AT&T and NCR signed a definitive merger agreement in May, and the merger was completed on September 19. Product introductions included: the NCR 3600, the most powerful general-purpose computer on the market; NCR Document Management System, a general-purpose imaging system based on microprocessor technology and open, scalable systems; the NCR 3120, a notebook computer designed for mobile professionals who want feature-rich computing both in and outside the office; the NCR 3125, an advanced pen-based notepad that is the first mobile automation tool with true handwriting-recognition capabilities; and NCR Fourth Generation Self-Service Systems, which offer retail banks an unprecedented availability level of up to 99.9 percent. Charles E. Exley retired and Gilbert P. Williamson assumed the position of chairman and chief executive officer. R. Elton White was named president.
1992 - Teradata merged with AT&T on February 28 and was functionally integrated into NCR. Groundbreaking on a new development facility for massively parallel computing takes place in San Diego. NCR and AT&T recognize one-year anniversary of successful high-tech merger. 1992 Democratic National Convention delegates vote using NCR 7054 Integrated Touch Screen Systems. Product introductions included: the NCR 3170, successor to the Safari notebook computer; the 3130 NotePad computer; the System 7000 family of MIPS RISC-based symmetric multiprocessing systems running UNIX System V 4.0; the 5688 drive-up ATM; and new ATMs capable of reading AT&T smart cards.
Re:Is NCR really AT&T (Score:2, Informative)
On December 31, 1996, AT&T Global Information Solutions (which was originally known as NCR) was spun off from AT&T into an independent company known as NCR Corp. For information about NCR's products and services, visit the NCR website.
Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)
Every web site
6,169,997: Method and apparatus for forming subject (context) map and presenting Internet data according to the subject map
WebTrends
6,151,601: Computer architecture and method for collecting, analyzing and/or transforming internet and/or electronic commerce data for storage into a data storage area
WebTrends
6,085,223: Method and apparatus for providing database information to non-requesting clients
Marimba/Castanet
Take that to court!
MSFT? (Score:2)
Official Cease And Desist! (Score:2)
Find a new joke.
Keyword search? (Score:2)
Does Ken Thompson know about this?
KFG
Sky Falling: Film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe, just maybe now, because it's a complete non-story. If these patent claims are so ludicrous then they will never stand up to a serious challange. You say the USPTO grants some silly patents? So what else is new? Call me back when any of these manages to survive a day in court.
Isn't this story early? I thought we did patent hysteria on Thursdays.
Re:Sky Falling: Film at 11 (Score:2, Funny)
Nope. That's duplicate story day.
Re:Sky Falling: Film at 11 (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, the courts tend to assume at the beginning of ANY legal action that the USPTO issued the patent correctly. This places the burden of proof( and a very heavy burden, at that )on the hopeful patent-breaker to prove( more or less to the same standard of "reasonable doubt" in criminal law )that the patent's claims are invalid due to illegality or prior art.
Obviousness is a VERY difficult argument to win once a patent has been issued.
So in a nutshell, if the USPTO has already issued a patent, it's really damn hard to get it reversed. It takes lots of time, money, and a HELL of a lot of evidence and valid argumentation.
Good News, Add Fuel to the Anti-Patent Fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this type of patents is also good news for large corporations. Sure they might have to pay a few dollars here and there, but it keeps that pesky innovation from the small players at bay, and that's the biggest threat to the established order--not patents from another stagnant mega corp. So it's dumb for a big company to fight this kind of patent. For them, patent payments are just musical chairs.
fails obviousness (Score:2)
This patent amounts to "select * from tbl where tbl.give_my_email_address_to_others = false".
Seriously. That's the whole thing. Read it.
Patents can't equal ideas. (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyrights are for a particular expression of an idea.
Should I be able to patent a song? What about one about DCSS? Can I patent an office furniture layout? How about one that improves productivity? Can I patent Grep? How about a perl script that does the same thing?? What is the dividing line between copyright and patents?
All this points to needed overhaul of the US Patent system. Why haven't they changed it? Hell, let the companies and individuals fight it out, as long as the Patent office gets money, and too much of it as well.
recoupable costs (Score:5, Interesting)
This gross negligence on the part of the patent office is costing companies and consumers millions of dollars, while adding absolutely nothing to the general pool of knowledge. If the underfunded patent office found it was more resource-efficient to hire competent personel than it would be to simply fail at their appointed task, then we wouldn't have these sorts of problems.
I say we get a class-action suit against the patent office. Any lawyers with me?
Re:recoupable costs (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers on
Nothing is going to change until we start suing the patent office to recoup costs on claims related to gross negligence on the part of the patent office.
An excellent idea. Unfortunately, this wouldn't work. The patent office being horribly underfunded, as you said, there would be no money to gain by suing it. This doesn't really mean that suing it would be unsuccessful--after all, by taking away what little money it has we would obvioulsy punish it and make it stop this stupid behavior, and we might be able to shut it down entirely. However, the fact that no money would be awarded to us means that no lawyer would want to take on the case.
Find a lawyer who'll work for free, and this'll become a viable idea. That should happen sometime around when hell freezes over.
Re:recoupable costs (Score:3, Informative)
I know that they ignore most parts of it, but you can be sure that that's one part they won't ignore.
The US Patent Office website violate this patent. (Score:5, Funny)
Do-it-yourself patent ideas: (Score:5, Funny)
NCR Corporation provides us with some examples to get you going:
- Exactly like a database, except it's on the Internet.
- Exactly like a secure database, except it's on the Internet.
- Exactly like a commerce database, except it's on the Internet.
- Exactly like a database client, except it's on the Internet.
- Exactly like computer security, except it's on the Internet.
Thanks, NCR!In Australia Someone Patented the Wheel (Score:3, Informative)
What are we doing tonight, Brain? (Score:3, Funny)
I think I will patent a system for the production of specific enzymes through the use of transportable and duplicable molecular combinations through polymerase enzymes.
I will then demand license fees for the operation of DNA in every lifeform on Earth.
something like this just happened to a client (Score:3, Interesting)
unfortunately, they had to settle eventually to get back to business. We did put together a website to try to help fight Divine, and intend to continue the effort ourselves. And expect to get targeted by divine as well.
scum sucking lawyers are making most of the money off of these things, not the companies who hold the patents.
check out the history of the divine issue here:
http://www.divineintervention.biz/
The Government should sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
It is ILLEGAL to steal money and to cause monetary damage to other companies (*ahem*hacking,sharing mp3s,violating DMCA*ahem*) and this is no different. They should be held responsible for their actions.
All those things existed before '98 (Score:3, Informative)
Let them patent it all. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick Question (Score:3, Funny)
Here's the prior art: (Score:5, Informative)
A database containing personal privacy prefferences.
I distictly remember setting AOL privacy prefferences in 1996...dont even try to tell me they didn't use a database to track that
#6,169,997 - January 2, 2001
Category viewing of portal content such as News, Sports, Weather, etc instead of simple chronological organization.
I signed up for my Yahoo! ID in fall 1997.....
#6,151,601 - November 21, 2000
This one uses the words "collecting" "transformation" "organization" and "transmitting" so many times I can't even understand it. However, it appears to be for using a database system to analyze network traffic at the ISP level.
I don't know the inner workings of AOL or any other major ISP, but I'm betting they've been using these type of systems for a loooong time.
#6,085,223 - July 4, 2000
This is for connecting a client to a database through a seperate step, seperating the client and the database.
One acronym to defeat this one: ODBC
#5,991,791 - November 23, 1999
A database system to catalog a bunch of stuff...whether digital or not, and to deliver it when requested..
My local public library had everything on an electronic catalog waaaaaay back in 1990. And vending machines delivered me content on request as well.
There's your prior art - run with it
thank goodness (Score:3, Funny)
The real problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
The US patent system is being used as a land-grab operation. Companies that are unable to actually create anything for themselves just patent any old idea and then wait for the license fees.
There should be a return to the old days. If you want a patent, turn up at the patent office with a working example of your idea...
Re:Don't understand... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just like searching something by keyword. I wonder if libraries are going to get sued because of the Dynix based searches using keywords.
Re:Don't understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
It just makes me sad. NCR was founded on pure innovation. They built the very first cash register. Ever. They built some of the very first computers. IBM beat them out on the early gov't contracts, but they weren't slouching. The company was also (at least back in the day) a very good place to work. Corporate day care in the 1920s?!?!?
And now, through failure to adapt, they are reduced to this.
Don't Despair... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Informative)
**quote** Method and apparatus for providing database information to non-requesting clients Abstract A method and apparatus for providing access to object data stored in a database management system to a receiver client. The method comprises the steps of receiving a database query from a submitting client on a first communication path, transforming the database query into database management system commands, transmitting the database management system commands to a database management system, receiving a response from the database management system comprising a media object locator, compiling an answer set comprising the database management system response, and transmitting the media object locator to the receiver client on the first communication path. **/quote**
That being said, it seems to me that a we were able to do this w. dBase back in the '80's over a lan, w. netware serving as the communication path, etc.
Re:And if this isnt enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently most people don't understand Prior Art (Score:5, Interesting)
In summary: prior art doesn't mean you can't have a patent. It just means you have to list it in the "prior art" section of the patent and licence the old patent to implement your "improvement" to the old invention (assuming the original patent is still valid).