More Patent Madness - Ajax next Liability? | The Coffeehouse

phreaks

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/03/25/ajax_patent_auction/

Article wrote:

it is claimed that pretty much the whole of the web uses this method to operate AJAX-based applications. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple and eBay are identified as among those whose products "potentially" infringe on the patent

...

The claim centers on the way AJAX uses background processes: "Most significantly, the patent is directed to the core concept fundamental to AJAX: extra data requested from the server may be loaded in the background, through an asynchronous data request channel, thereby ensuring that there is no interference with the display and behavior of the existing page".

/The world really is going to hell in a handbasket?

GoddersUK
I CAN has cheezburger and you CAN'T has stop me!

Article wrote:
Ocean Tomo auction president Andrew Ramer said simply in a statement ownership of this patent presented a "unique opportunity" to secure the existing development efforts and provide "long-term competitive advantage" for developers, internet companies and sites in AJAX and Web 2.0.®

Would someone like to explain exactly how?

wisemx
Live it

Reminds me of the Embedded media threat against Microsoft. Perplexed

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Wait a minute.

I hold the patent of auctioning off patents that are granted by brain-dead patent offices. For which I can get $$$ right now for those patents that I have to possibility of ever collecting on.

The b@stard. I'll sue his pants off!

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

What will define the method? Using the XHTTPRequest object?

Or what if I just invent some crazy Ajax type way?

Stupidity 1.0 brought to you by Humans.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Cybermagellan wrote:
What will define the method? Using the XHTTPRequest object?

Or what if I just invent some crazy Ajax type way?

Stupidity 1.0 brought to you by Humans.

Sounds to damn generic. Although, I still claim that only the big boys (IBM, MS, ect...) can fix this problem by losening up their portfolio of patents. Maybe they just need this one bad patent to cost them $$$ billions before they act. Got to break some eggs, you know...

Shining Arcanine

Minh wrote:

Cybermagellan wrote:What will define the method? Using the XHTTPRequest object?

Or what if I just invent some crazy Ajax type way?

Stupidity 1.0 brought to you by Humans.
Sounds to damn general. Although, I still claim that only the big boys (IBM, MS, ect...) can fix this problem by losening up their portfolio of patents. Maybe they just need this one bad patent to cost them $$$ billions before they act. Got to break some eggs, you know...

I do not see how they could fix this with their portfolios. The fact of the matter is someone holds a patent on an idea that he might or might not have had first. Unless some idiot at the patent office granted the same patent twice, there is not much that can be done about this.

Shining Arcanine

Perhaps it might be best to get rid of software patents and have software operate on trade secret laws. Just about everyone who knows a decent amount of programming is capable of having this idea (and ones like it) and implementing it. Patents are supposed to go to the inventor of a whatever they patent, and the inventor's identity with regard to software is not possible to ascertain as a consequence of how the computer industry works.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Shining Arcanine wrote:

I do not see how they could fix this with their portfolios. The fact of the matter is someone holds a patent on an idea that he might or might not have had first. Unless some idiot at the patent office granted the same patent twice, there is not much that can be done about this.

Here's my plan.

1) Create a new patent office that has 10x the current budget with 9x of that goes to the software division.

2) Have an arm of the new patent office actively go after B.S. software patents. Probably not practical, but the threat will be enough for the next point.

3) Hold a consotium of major patent holders to have them voluntarily relenquish their B.S. patents (like "IsNot"). This way, they get to wear the good guy white hat, and avoid having to tie them up in long B.S software patent reviewing process.

Just make me dictator of the world, and it'll so much better. I promise to be so benevolent.

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

Minh wrote:

Cybermagellan wrote: What will define the method? Using the XHTTPRequest object?

Or what if I just invent some crazy Ajax type way?

Stupidity 1.0 brought to you by Humans.
Sounds to damn generic. Although, I still claim that only the big boys (IBM, MS, ect...) can fix this problem by losening up their portfolio of patents. Maybe they just need this one bad patent to cost them $$$ billions before they act. Got to break some eggs, you know...

The problem I see with this is the big boys give up their patents and then are at risk from any fringe wacko who wants a have a go. The whole lot has to go at once.

Just hope that this isn't the start of a bad trend over here has well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7307375.stm

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

PerfectPhase wrote:

Minh wrote:

Cybermagellan wrote: What will define the method? Using the XHTTPRequest object?

Or what if I just invent some crazy Ajax type way?

Stupidity 1.0 brought to you by Humans.
Sounds to damn generic. Although, I still claim that only the big boys (IBM, MS, ect...) can fix this problem by losening up their portfolio of patents. Maybe they just need this one bad patent to cost them $$$ billions before they act. Got to break some eggs, you know...

The problem I see with this is the big boys give up their patents and then are at risk from any fringe wacko who wants a have a go. The whole lot has to go at once.

Just hope that this isn't the start of a bad trend over here has well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7307375.stm

That is exactly what would happen...look at the "Touch" interface patents....who gets them?

IMO, when it comes to broad spectrum patents (like a XHTTPRequest patent) I think the local university closest to where the patent is won (IBM/MS/AOL/Yahoo, etc) should actually get it...

Kinda like charity...

elmer
I'm on my very last life.

Software Patents are just a stupid idea.

Copyright to protect against plagiarism and content theft is one thing, but stopping people from having ideas and creating solutions because someone else thought of it, or part of it, before...

I sure wish I held the patent for the concept of music.

ZippyV
Fired Up

I remember Bill saying that ajax was already possible since IE4 so I think this patent is invalid.

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

This is where you discover the patent covers the entire concept of asking for more information in the background. And hence almost all software developers everywhere owe them money.

stevo_
Human after all

Massif wrote:
This is where you discover the patent covers the entire concept of asking for more information in the background. And hence almost all software developers everywhere owe them money.

Yes but that doesn't mean the EU won't use it against Microsoft.. all they need to do is take it to some old coot judge and tell them that this patent + microsoft = violation = evil .'. microsoft = evil

Ka-ching! €€€!

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

stevo_ wrote:

Massif wrote:This is where you discover the patent covers the entire concept of asking for more information in the background. And hence almost all software developers everywhere owe them money.

Yes but that doesn't mean the EU won't use it against Microsoft.. all they need to do is take it to some old coot judge and tell them that this patent + microsoft = violation = evil .'. microsoft = evil

Ka-ching! €€€!

Of course pointing out that the EU doesn't have software patents would introduce some facts into an anti-EU rant. So I won't then.

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

blowdart wrote:

Of course pointing out that the EU doesn't have software patents would introduce some facts into an anti-EU rant. So I won't then.

Best not to really, might start an argument.

stevo_
Human after all

blowdart wrote:

stevo_ wrote:

Massif wrote: This is where you discover the patent covers the entire concept of asking for more information in the background. And hence almost all software developers everywhere owe them money.

Yes but that doesn't mean the EU won't use it against Microsoft.. all they need to do is take it to some old coot judge and tell them that this patent + microsoft = violation = evil .'. microsoft = evil

Ka-ching! €€€!

Of course pointing out that the EU doesn't have software patents would introduce some facts into an anti-EU rant. So I won't then.

When have they ever? they act as advocates for anyone else who does have patents and believes they mean anything..

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

stevo_ wrote:

When have they ever? they act as advocates for anyone else who does have patents and believes they mean anything..

When have they ever what exactly? (And please, it's not like the US isn't protectionist either; there is no such thing as the global free market)

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

stevo_ wrote:

blowdart wrote:

Of course pointing out that the EU doesn't have software patents would introduce some facts into an anti-EU rant. So I won't then.

When have they ever? they act as advocates for anyone else who does have patents and believes they mean anything..

I don't think the point is so much that the EU holds patents, more that EU law doesn't have such a thing. Software is specifically excluded from European patent law.

stevo_
Human after all

My point was that the EU doesn't need to since they don't initialize anything their selves, only on behalf of someone else..

It was also a joke.. EU doesn't have anything to do with this.. but this is equally on the same level of bullshit, thus the link..

Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

Let's sue the interw3bs!

Madness indeed.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

Shining Arcanine wrote:
Just about everyone who knows a decent amount of programming is capable of having this idea (and ones like it) and implementing it.

A patent is only granted when there is proof that the concept is nonobvious and original and so while everyone may be capable of inventing this process, the question is "is it non-obvious and original"?

You may well be nodding vigourously and saying yes by now, but I'd like you to note the date of the patent: 1999. When this patent was released George Bush was yet to get into power and Windows 98 was hot off the shelves. The DotCom crash had just totalled a significant section of the fledgling internet businesses and it is quite possible that the concept of asyncronously loading data from the internet as part of a webpage might very well be non-obvious and original.

ZippyV wrote:
I remember Bill saying that ajax was already possible since IE4 so I think this patent is invalid.

That's what we have patent courts for.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

evildictaitor wrote:

A patent is only granted when there is proof that the concept is nonobvious and original

Ideally yes. In reality? Not a hope, the US patent office doesn't cross check until a patent objection happens.

In reply to {0}

Download:[Pending]