``Based on the identified templates and supplied data, the tool generates
the customized Web site without the web site creator writing any HTML
or other programming code.''
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=10&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=HTML&OS=HTML&RS=HTML
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> ``Based on the identified templates and supplied data, the tool generates
> the customized Web site without the web site creator writing any HTML
> or other programming code.''
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=10&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=HTML&OS=HTML&RS=HTML
I haven't looked at this yet, but based only on the quote above,
Harlequin's WebMaker (I don't think Xanalys still sells it, but it
does own it) would be a potential example of prior art (and written in
Lisp, no less). And doubtless there are other such examples.
If this really is a patent of what it says above, and if it's still
the timeframe for doing so, it should be challenged.
"Kent M Pitman" <······@world.std.com> wrote in message
····················@world.std.com...
> ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
>
> > ``Based on the identified templates and supplied data, the tool generates
> > the customized Web site without the web site creator writing any HTML
> > or other programming code.''
> >
> >
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netaht
ml/search-bool.html&r=10&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=HTML&OS=HTML&RS=HTML
>
> I haven't looked at this yet, but based only on the quote above,
> Harlequin's WebMaker (I don't think Xanalys still sells it, but it
> does own it) would be a potential example of prior art (and written in
> Lisp, no less). And doubtless there are other such examples.
>
> If this really is a patent of what it says above, and if it's still
> the timeframe for doing so, it should be challenged.
>
Geez, that could describe MS Frontpage or any other wysiwyg website tool. I
think IBM is taking its lesson's from Jerome Lemelson, the "Patent King"
Coby
--
(remove #\space "coby . beck @ opentechgroup . com")
* Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com>
| I haven't looked at this yet, but based only on the quote above,
| Harlequin's WebMaker (I don't think Xanalys still sells it, but it
| does own it) would be a potential example of prior art (and written in
| Lisp, no less). And doubtless there are other such examples.
It appears from discussions I have had with intellectual property lawyers
that the practical definition of "prior art" has been shifting towards
"prior patent claims", partly to _encourage_ the use of the patent system
for inventions in computer science, again partly because the cost of
proving prior art after the fact is so much higher for all parties
involved than applying for a patent. Even if a patent is not granted,
making the invention available to the patent office (i.e., the public)
makes it so much easier for their officers to consider it "prior art".
From the point of view of the patent system, computer science inventions
are seriously under-patented, and this means that old-hat techniques are
granted patents _many_ years too late. The value of this approach eludes
me, but I believe the _purpose_ really is to cause more people to patent
their inventions. Patents can really only be beaten by publishing your
inventions, and the primary legally recognized mechanism to do that _is_
the patent. That it is not technically recognized by computer scientists
and professionals is a very sad state of disharmony.
///
--
The United Nations before and after the leadership of Kofi Annan are two
very different organizations. The "before" United Nations did not deserve
much credit and certainly not a Nobel peace prize. The "after" United
Nations equally certainly does. I applaud the Nobel committee's choice.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: IBM patents macro expansion.
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3wv1ugmpk.fsf@cley.com>
* Kent M Pitman wrote:
> I haven't looked at this yet, but based only on the quote above,
> Harlequin's WebMaker (I don't think Xanalys still sells it, but it
> does own it) would be a potential example of prior art (and written in
> Lisp, no less). And doubtless there are other such examples.
Isn't this also pretty close to what Paul Graham made a lot of money
doing?
I also was peripherally involved in a system which was going to
generate advert-type pages using templates and cleverness - in fact at
least two of them.
> If this really is a patent of what it says above, and if it's still
> the timeframe for doing so, it should be challenged.
Can't it just be overturned on grounds of manifest silliness?
(I think someone should propose legislation such that the *patent
office* pays substantial expenses to the overturner for any patent
which it is clear should neve have been granted (need a suitable
definition of that). Perhaps this would make the current situation
less insane.)
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> > I haven't looked at this yet, but based only on the quote above,
> > Harlequin's WebMaker (I don't think Xanalys still sells it, but it
> > does own it) would be a potential example of prior art (and written in
> > Lisp, no less). And doubtless there are other such examples.
>
> Isn't this also pretty close to what Paul Graham made a lot of money
> doing?
>
> I also was peripherally involved in a system which was going to
> generate advert-type pages using templates and cleverness - in fact at
> least two of them.
Oh man, I just read the patent and it's not much less trivial than how
the excerpt sounded. I've personally made two systems that would be
covered by this patent -- and I don't regret that one made good money
for someone else, because part of patent law is *supposed* to be that
it's a novel invention. This is something that a reasonable engineer
would come up with, faced with a similar problem, which is exactly
what they're *not* supposed to be. It was filed June 19, 1998, so it
would be *really* painful and difficult to overturn, and any prior art
would need to be, I think, from before June 19, 1993.
> > If this really is a patent of what it says above, and if it's still
> > the timeframe for doing so, it should be challenged.
>
> Can't it just be overturned on grounds of manifest silliness?
>
> (I think someone should propose legislation such that the *patent
> office* pays substantial expenses to the overturner for any patent
> which it is clear should neve have been granted (need a suitable
> definition of that). Perhaps this would make the current situation
> less insane.)
As someone with a "general education" as they once said, I don't see
how our current patent system can possibly be justified under the
clauses that allow a patent system in the US Constitution. There's
all sorts of reforms that would have to be made before it would be
sane at all, and I think there's about 0% chance of that happening,
since no administrations is going to do that, and the courts seem to
take their traditional
don't-care-if-it's-constitutional-if-it's-expedient position on patent
law. For what it's worth, I've talked to lawer friends who can't see
how the patent system is constitutional, either. But then, who really
expects the courts to care if it benefits big capital.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
> (I think someone should propose legislation such that the *patent
> office* pays substantial expenses to the overturner for any patent
> which it is clear should neve have been granted (need a suitable
> definition of that). Perhaps this would make the current situation
> less insane.)
AFAIK, the patent does not have to be overturned, it has to be upheld
when and if a patent holder comes after you. So just ignore any patent
you think is silly, the burden is on the patent holder to undertake a
lawsuit against you. Caveat: I am not a patent lawyer, but this is what
I remember one saying.
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > (I think someone should propose legislation such that the *patent
> > office* pays substantial expenses to the overturner for any patent
> > which it is clear should neve have been granted (need a suitable
> > definition of that). Perhaps this would make the current situation
> > less insane.)
>
> AFAIK, the patent does not have to be overturned, it has to be upheld
> when and if a patent holder comes after you. So just ignore any patent
> you think is silly, the burden is on the patent holder to undertake a
> lawsuit against you. Caveat: I am not a patent lawyer, but this is what
> I remember one saying.
I thought there was a period when a patent is first issued where it can be
challenged in order to avoid zillions of nuissance suits.
The problem with an IP suit against you is that the registered owner
gets their attorney's fees and a very large settlement paid if they
win. I'm told that even a person with a valid defense will often
prefer to pay off the person to avoid the high risk of having the trial
go the wrong way.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: IBM patents macro expansion.
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ofn6gkz8.fsf@cley.com>
* Kenny Tilton wrote:
> AFAIK, the patent does not have to be overturned, it has to be upheld
> when and if a patent holder comes after you. So just ignore any patent
> you think is silly, the burden is on the patent holder to undertake a
> lawsuit against you. Caveat: I am not a patent lawyer, but this is what
> I remember one saying.
I think this is right. The trouble is if IBM comes after you (and not
defending patents you have is, I think, not a good thing to do) you
may die before you win. Your investors may also run away because they
can see this huge blue steamroller coming to crush you.
What I'd like is that the patent-granting system (ultimately, the
government) was slightly responsible - making *them* pay if a
patent got overturned would seem to be a good incentive to prevent
them granting so many silly patents.
(or maybe this wouldn't work I don't know)
--tim
Here is a different approach:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2001/nf2001035_724.htm
Story about bountyquest.com, where $10k rewards are offered for prior
art citations to be used in patent challenges. Sorry, no bounties listed
under "software". :)
Guess who's a founder: Jeffrey "1-click" Bezos.
kenny
clinisys
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
> > AFAIK, the patent does not have to be overturned, it has to be upheld
> > when and if a patent holder comes after you. So just ignore any patent
> > you think is silly, the burden is on the patent holder to undertake a
> > lawsuit against you. Caveat: I am not a patent lawyer, but this is what
> > I remember one saying.
>
> I think this is right. The trouble is if IBM comes after you (and not
> defending patents you have is, I think, not a good thing to do) you
> may die before you win. Your investors may also run away because they
> can see this huge blue steamroller coming to crush you.
>
> What I'd like is that the patent-granting system (ultimately, the
> government) was slightly responsible - making *them* pay if a
> patent got overturned would seem to be a good incentive to prevent
> them granting so many silly patents.
>
> (or maybe this wouldn't work I don't know)
I think a much better solution would be to make it easier to overturn
patents whenever prior art can be uncovered (stress on "whenever").
In this way there would be a disincentive to (a) file frivolous
patents, and (b) go after somebody because your frivolous patent is
"infringed".
On a second note, remember that making "The Government" pay, means
making *you* pay with *your* taxes (unless you are in a tax bracket
usually targeted for tax breaks :) ).
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> On a second note, remember that making "The Government" pay, means
> making *you* pay with *your* taxes (unless you are in a tax bracket
> usually targeted for tax breaks :) ).
Yes, exactly so! So governments which promised to de-fuck the patent
system would be able to lower taxes, and thus be more likely to get
elected!
--tim
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@cley.com...
> * Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> > I haven't looked at this yet, but based only on the quote above,
> > Harlequin's WebMaker (I don't think Xanalys still sells it, but it
> > does own it) would be a potential example of prior art (and written in
> > Lisp, no less). And doubtless there are other such examples.
>
> Isn't this also pretty close to what Paul Graham made a lot of money
> doing?
>
> I also was peripherally involved in a system which was going to
> generate advert-type pages using templates and cleverness - in fact at
> least two of them.
>
> > If this really is a patent of what it says above, and if it's still
> > the timeframe for doing so, it should be challenged.
>
> Can't it just be overturned on grounds of manifest silliness?
>
> (I think someone should propose legislation such that the *patent
> office* pays substantial expenses to the overturner for any patent
> which it is clear should neve have been granted (need a suitable
> definition of that). Perhaps this would make the current situation
> less insane.)
In Europe such patents *should* not be granted (though, I'm afraid, some
bright layers have found ways to do it anyway). European citizens, who have
not done it yet, should sign the petition against software patents in Europe
: http://petition.eurolinux.org
Marc