Dynamic Webpages? Patented!
from the ugh dept
Phil writes in with the latest examples of patent silliness. Apparently Epicrealm has a series of patents on things such as dynamic webpage generation that they're now using to sue plenty of companies, including eHarmony. Of course, eHarmony isn't without its own patent silliness as well, having patented the secrets to successful relationship. Isn't the patent system great?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Excuse me?
Excuse me? I've patented criticism of the patent system. You're going to want to either remove that or pay some damned royalties. Think you can freeload off of my original ideas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excuse me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I patented lame business plans...
My first suit will be against RAMBUS, who, as you already know, tried to sue RAM manufacturers after patenting a process that was already "open" and in discussion in standards groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From one who lived through the web boom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad you didn't think it up
In this way, you will personally solve the "obvious patent problem" and free yourself up to address more important issues in technology, this making techdirt the true hero of the intellectual property "problem".
This should not be a problem for you, since all of these ideas are so obvious. I have tasked my teenagers with the same challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad you didn't think it up
You seem to be working under the mistaken assumption that prior art will be considered.
Please explain EXACTLY how this 'prior art' is to be delivered to the patent office so it will be considered.
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad you didn't think it up
FIG. 2 illustrates a typical prior art Web server environment.
FIG. 3 illustrates a typical prior art Web server environment in the form of a flow diagram.
FIG. 4 illustrates one embodiment of the presently claimed invention.
FIG. 5 illustrates the processing of a Web browser request in the form of a flow diagram, according to one embodiment of the presently claimed invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad you didn't think it up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad you didn't think it up
Anyway, as I said above, there is a big difference, and if the natural progression of things leads multiple people to the same conclusion then it's hard to see it as unique enough to deserve a patent. That doesn't mean we *ALL* need to know what those things are. In fact, in many cases (such as the ones being pointed out here) the ideas seem *SO* obvious that the very concept of patenting them is ridiculous that it makes no sense to even list them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad you didn't think it up
The issue of "obviousness" is really subjective. If the patent office was given the right to block applications due to "obviousness", we really would have a mess. The question would always be, "obvious to who...and why". So unless you stop issuing patents of all kinds, "obviousness" will never be a criteria.
I do think you are correct that there seems to be a sort of collective intelligence where people in the industry conclude independently of each other that certain methods of doing things make more sense than the others. Even in software, as complex as it is, there are only so many ways to skin a cat. I guess where all the angst about the patent situation comes from is that some individuals figure out one of those cat skinning technics before the collective, and file a patent on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad you didn't think it up
So, if you agree that there's a collective intelligence leading to the same conclusion, why is it fair that the guy who comes up with it a day before someone else (or, worse, just files it hours before someone else) should get a 20 year monopoly on the idea? What if the second guy uses that extra day to do a *better* implementation of the same idea -- one that the market greatly prefers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad you didn't think it up
In the meantime, are you honestly suggesting that these patents are non-obvious and therefore deserving of a patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
The creation of sounds in structured order meaning anything specific.
Typing on the keyboard while touching it with fingers and/or hands.
Also the patent for walking from A to C through B is validated.
and ohh duh, forgot I also have a pantent on breathing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
MUHUHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I'll be nice and just take 50% of everyone's yearly income...or you must stop breathing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exactly
I've lost the will to live to actually look into the prior art... perhaps a patent attorney could pay me to do the investigation. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exactly
Oh, now I see the source is Slashdot. Well, there you go. It may be about time to drop techdirt from freshnews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exactly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]