Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Claiming He Invented the Internet Sues

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the all-due-credit dept.

The Internet 326

wiedzmin writes "A low-profile Chicago biologist, Michael Doyle, and his company Eola Technologies, who has once won a $521m patent lawsuit against Microsoft, claim that it was actually he and two co-inventors who invented, and patented, the "interactive web" before anyone else, back in 1993. Doyle argues that a program he created to allow doctors to view embryos over the early Internet, was the first program that allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window. He is therefore seeking royalties for the use of just about every modern interactive Internet technology, like watching videos or suggesting instant search results. Dozens of lawyers, representing the world's biggest internet companies, including Yahoo, Amazon, Google and YouTube are acting as defendants in the case, which has even seen Tim Berners-Lee testify on Tuesday."

cancel ×

326 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (5, Interesting)

Synn (6288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972463)

It's come to this now? How bad does it have to get before the entire system is scrapped?

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972685)

The big guys would just love this. They pay this guy $500 million and then never have to worry about another Google coming out of nowhere and redefining everything again. In Europe it was called the guild system, and it kept knowledge and power in the hands of the ruling elite.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972807)

And by the patent linked and our shitty system, he is right.

Re:Really? (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972697)

It's come to this now? How bad does it have to get before the entire system is scrapped?

Unfortunately the same guy who claims he invented the internet also claims to have a patent on scrapping the patent system, so we'll never find out how bad it would have to get.

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973065)

Unfortunately for him, entering text with a keyboard was my idea (and I have a few friends who remember me saying it) so he owes me royalties for that patent petition!

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973171)

Well, looking at his patent claims, it's a lot more like he's patented the use of something like Applescript to let a browser control an external application. In fact in 1994 this was quite common in the Apple world, Applescript being introduced in 1991. In fact I think quite a few people were viewing medical imagery and multimedia (remember when that was a buzzword?) stored in "databases" like FileMaker and (ugh) 4th Dimension. It was commonplace stuff in the Apple environment while the Microsoft-centric world was still banging the Windows 3 rocks together (remember Windows for Workgroups?).

The web, however, was not commonplace in 1994, so he may well have been the first to file for the use of this technique with a browser. However the technique was so commonplace it would be hard to imagine that it was *original*, especially if he used a browser with the necessary IPC mechanisms built-in. Why else *would* they developers have made an Applescript-aware brower *but* to interact with other programs? If they wrote the browser themselves, then they might have a claim that an IPC-aware browser was a novel thing.

In any case, unless I'm mistaken the patent doesn't describe built-in multi-media capabilities, or multi-media capabilities through plug-ins. It covers controlling an external program with a browser.

I wish this guy success though. As you suggest, this will gore enough oxen that somebody with money will care that the system is broken.

LIAR (-1, Redundant)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972493)

Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Internet.

Re:LIAR (1, Funny)

wizkid (13692) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972543)

This joke is sooooooo Old!

The only saving grace is that it never gets old :)

Re:LIAR (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972581)

This guy claims he "allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window" ?? So a web browser was invented before the web itself? Can we ask him if the chicken or egg came first?

Re:LIAR (4, Interesting)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972675)

Add to that what image file format did he use.

Re:LIAR (2)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972831)

Can we ask him if the chicken or egg came first?

Or is this more like claiming the chicken omelette came before either?

Re:LIAR (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972965)

What I want to know is: "How did 'inventing a web browser plugin' get turned into 'invented a network that has been in place since 1969'?" Seriously, I want to stab samzenpus in the face for letting this through. What's next? Will Bill Gates be said to have invented the microchip?

Re:LIAR (1)

msheekhah (903443) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973099)

Bill Gates inventing 1 and 0?

Re:LIAR (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972585)

Al Gore would probably have a better claim than this guy (if he actually made such a claim, which he didn't).

Re:LIAR (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972945)

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That is a direct quote from Al Gore in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on March 9, 1999. Now, his wording was off, and he later corrected himself by saying that he meant he helped promote the internet, and he pushed bills that moved the internet forward--he did not mean to claim actual credit for it's invention. However, the joke is still funny, and he DID claim it (albeit through poor wording).

Re:LIAR (4, Informative)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973031)

That is a direct quote from Al Gore

Taken out-of-context and by your own admission, not what he meant to say. That's why it tiring and not funny any more.

Re:LIAR (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38973069)

Ah, so someone shouldn't be held responsible for what they DID say, only what they MEANT to say. I'll remember that in the future.

Not what he meant to say, yes. Taken out of context, no.

Re:LIAR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38973127)

Oh piss off. Everyone knows the situation, Tom Brokaw.

If we didn't think it was occasionally funny we wouldn't mod him up. Leave people alone.

Re:LIAR (1)

msheekhah (903443) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973141)

he took the initiative in (acquiring funding for) creating the internet

Re:LIAR (1)

Etdashou (1400737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972883)

I've been told it's Chuck Norris.

Re:LIAR (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38973167)

no, chuck norris had the internet before it was invented.

Re:LIAR (3, Funny)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973043)

Wow! You must have a whole team of comedy writers behind you to come up with such original wit.

Re:LIAR (4, Funny)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973149)

I filed for a patent on this joke in 1999, and, as soon as it is approved, I plan to sue everyone who ever used it into bankruptcy.

HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972503)

HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

Interested to see what the companies do... (4, Interesting)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972507)

Many of the companies named has defendants have used patent laws to their advantage. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, especially since Tim Berners-Lee, who is completely against software patents, is set to testify.

Re:Interested to see what the companies do... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972593)

I vote that the lot moves to Europe and disbands all US based operations.

Why would (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972511)

Why has Al Gore gone mad? Why is he suing so many companies?

I'd like to take a moment... (0)

dakkon1024 (691790) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972515)

... to notify you that I have already patented the process of posting to this post. Please send royalties to P.O. Box....

Re:I'd like to take a moment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972707)

Did you patent the process of posting before there was a place to post? You'd be that guy if so.

Re:I'd like to take a moment... (1)

dwillden (521345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972927)

I'm sorry but I have to inform you that I have the patent on receiving royalties at P.O. Boxes, so if you'll just remit your received royalties to me I'll allow you to continue receiving royalties to pass on to me.

Re:I'd like to take a moment... (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973213)

I'm sorry but I have to inform you that I have the patent on remitting received royalties so you'll have to remit your received remitted royalties to my totally not a P.O.Box.

there has to be some statute of limitations... (4, Informative)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972527)

I mean... if you file your claim decades after everyone was violating your patient isn't that your fault at a certain point?

I know big companies are basically forced to defend their trademark and copyrights or else risk that other people can do it with impunity. There's some requirement that you protest when this sort of thing happens.

So... shouldn't he have protested like... forever ago?

For the sake of argument, if his claims are all valid, they should be void now because he didn't act on them until now.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972603)

I know big companies are basically forced to defend their trademark and copyrights or else risk that other people can do it with impunity. There's some requirement that you protest when this sort of thing happens.

That's only true with trademarks. Copyrights and patents have no such rule.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972615)

Depends, if it's a patent that was being infinity appealed and just now made it though then he would only be able to make the claim now.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972625)

I know big companies are basically forced to defend their trademark and copyrights or else risk that other people can do it with impunity.

I don't know if you just have no idea what you're talking about or if it's something else, but the summary mentions absolutely nothing about trademark and copyright.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (5, Informative)

stating_the_obvious (1340413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972643)

RT(F)A -- Suit originally filed in 1999. Since the claim is specifically against image interaction, rather than simply hyperlinks, the timing is just about right.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (3, Interesting)

larien (5608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972687)

See Wikipedia on Submarine patents [wikipedia.org] . Notably:

The ruling was upheld on September 9, 2005 by a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under the doctrine of laches, citing "unreasonably long delays in prosecution"

So, it seems there's a chance that waiting too long can invalidate your claims.

Compare with trademark law where you have to defend it whenever it may be seen to be infringed (see the case where Hoover corp lost the right to have the exclusive rights to the term "hoover"); the same doctrine should apply for patents. Of course, the whole patent system is a mess these days as it was designed in a different age with different industries. Scrapping patents isn't the solution as they provide valuable protection to inventors who put effort into designing something, but they're horribly abused by various parties.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (3, Informative)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973089)

From TFA:

While the Microsoft suit was underway, the company applied for a second patent, which it received on Oct. 6, 2009. The same day, Eolas filed suit — in East Texas — against more than 20 big companies

No limitations here.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (5, Interesting)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972775)

If you'd read the article, you'd see that there has been some back-and-forth with the patent office. Most of his claims were invalidated and some were then later reinstated. He had semi-successfully sued Microsoft, had the judgement overturned, and then later reached a settlement (undisclosed, but estimated to be in the realm of $100 million). Worth noting is that Microsoft was not allowed to present evidence of prior art at trial. Why that would be, I have no idea - I'm not a patent lawyer. In any event, in terms of this guy not acting on his claims, that's just an indictment of how slow the legal and patent processes move.

Certainly, there's no question that by the time his patent application was publicly published, much less granted, everything in there was in common use. Frankly, if you strip out all of the buzzwords like hypermedia, it boils down to something as simple as downloading and running a script. That's it. And there's plenty of prior art that existed in 1994 for all of the claims listed in the application.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973155)

Worth noting is that Microsoft was not allowed to present evidence of prior art at trial. Why that would be, I have no idea - I'm not a patent lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer or an American, but as I understand it (from previous discussions on Slashdot), in America you can only defend yourself by saying that you don't infringe the patent. If you want the patent declared invalid, you have to sue separately for invalidation (which Microsoft did) then appeal demanding that the original judgement is overturned. I believe that the US is the only place with this (frankly nuts) system.

Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972835)

I'm not sure that raping and pillaging has a statute of limitations... you did mention violating patients right? doctor anyone?

Turd sandwich... or Gidnt Douche? (0)

gavron (1300111) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972529)

Giant Douche.

Google and Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972547)

Redundant, Google OWNS youtube

Re:Google and Youtube (1)

beowolfschaefer (2451564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972599)

You think that means they share a legal department and legal responsibilities?

gopher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972549)

I was using that shit in 1992.

Missing a letter (5, Informative)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972553)

I believe the company is actually Eolas [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Missing a letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972621)

I believe the company is actually Eolas [wikipedia.org] .

Sure it's not flesh eating Ebola?

Re:Missing a letter (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972765)

I believe the company is actually Eolas [wikipedia.org] .

You're right, oops.

Let's have him killed. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972555)

Let's have a SEAL team go in there and kill him. Dangerous sociopaths like him are more dangerous to freedom than Osama bin Laden ever was.

signs of inflation (4, Funny)

shellscriptz (2478426) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972557)

I think this is a sign of the times, because if $521 million isn't enough, I blame inflation. This troll is obviously starving and homeless because there not a bridge in existence big enough. Also, I invented the light bulb in 1995. Pay up bitches.

what? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972559)

i thought that fucking idiot steve jobs was dead - is this crap from beyond the grave or something?

Al Gore (1, Informative)

davydagger (2566757) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972563)

I was about to say he can take it up in court, but I think AL Gore already has claims on this. dating back to 1983/4?

Again, more reasons for IP reform, IP needs to be redefined, and a good number of vauge and overly generalized patents need to be thrown out.

the review proccess for granting patents needs and overhaul, as well as restrictions and background checks on who can be a patent clerk and stingent enforcement.

Then we might see the end of frivolous tech law suits which only harm actually developers and artists.

Re:Al Gore (0)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973003)

Jesus F. Christ, give this a rest. This wasn't funny the first time I heard this bullshit in about 1999, and it sure hasn't improved with age.

Bad post title (4, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972605)

"Internet" != "Interactive Web"

Why sensationalize this lawsuit? It's absurd enough on its own merit.

The whole summary is gibberish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972933)

Bad post title? The whole summary is gibberish written by someone who doesn't understand the difference between a highway and a Ford truck.

Slashdot allegedly once had 'editors', but apparently these days they only employ brainless cut-and-paste monkeys.

Slashdot has really gone to shit in the last few years.

You have to be really braindead. (5, Interesting)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972613)

So you not only sued Microsoft, you actually won 500 million. Regardless of whether this was a dick move on your part or not, good for you, you are now set for life (or 3).
Now why on Earth would you risk it all by going into litigation again?

Re:You have to be really braindead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972897)

Most of the loot went to lawyers and the University of California to pay off his student loans. The poor guy is still broke.

Re:You have to be really braindead. (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972899)

He settled the MS suit, actually (for an unannounced amount, but in the millions at least). I would assume that, like many people who find themselves with undeserved money, he blew it all on private jets, hookers, and blow, and now is looking for more (rather than going back to work). Also, TFS doesn't mention it, but quite a few companies have already settled. This is (one of) the problems with the legal system: it's easier and cheaper for big companies just to pay a few million than actually do the right thing and blow these stupid patents right the hell up.

Re:You have to be really braindead. (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972931)

Sorry, I meant to say: he initially won the MS suit, but it got overturned on appeal, and then settled it out of court. I wasn't clear.

No Prior Art -- Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972623)

Compuserve, Prodigy, BBS systems, FTP, modems, Visual Basic, WordPerfect

Let him succeed (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972633)

His patent is about as valid as 99.999% of all computer-related patents from the last 25 years. Maybe if he sues the entire planet into oblivion, someone will admit how screwed up software patents are.

Ah, how I love my afternoon fantasies...

Hahahahaaa !!! (1, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972635)

So the circus had finally started for REAL at last ...

Here we go again (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972637)

PUH-LEEEZ /.'s only post neutral, unbiased, non-hyperbole containing headlines, summaries and links to articles that are characteristically the same way. "Patent Troll Claims Ownership of Interactive Web – And Might Win" clearly shows bias and ad hominem towards the subject of the article by the author and publisher. It's probably just me, but that offends me and hampers my ability to only read fair and balanced information on the internets.

Patent Lifespan? (3, Interesting)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972651)

On a practical note, since this was an 'invention' in 1993, wouldn't the patent expire next year anyway (20 year patent life?) In that case, won't somebody like IBM just tie this up in the courts and give the lawyers something to chew on until it runs out anyway?

Re:Patent Lifespan? (5, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972751)

It doesn't matter to the courts if the patent expires during the course of the case. The damages, if legitimate, were done during the period the patent was active. He just won't accrue any additional damage once the patent expires.

Re:Patent Lifespan? (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972803)

I think they only filed for the patent in 2006 or something like that. The scary part that it was granted.

So can it get tied up in court for a year? (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972657)

If it gets tied up in court until 2013 the patents will have expired, would he still have the ability to use after that point?

Re:So can it get tied up in court for a year? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38973021)

No, because the world ends in December 2012, remember?

The Wheel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972663)

And next someone will claim a patent on the wheel. This is total BS.

Oh, please. (2)

stonith (928478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972667)

I was interacting with images (masturbating to porn) on my computer way before 1993 (BBS's in 1985).

What's next ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972681)

Kodak filing suit for using your eyes to look into the past.

With his winnings from 2003 Microsoft lawsuit (3, Insightful)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972699)

He may as well "let it ride" and sue everyone for everything.

Kinda late ? (3, Interesting)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972735)

Even if combining file transfer [ftp] and image scrolling is patent-legally considered "novel", there is the question of damages. 1993 patents ran out (in the US) in 2010, so he cannot get any ongoing damages.

Optaining "back-damages" would be highly dependant on legal procedure, but I doubt he would be entitled to [m]any if he did not inform the alleged infringers during the period of their alleged infringement. It's not like browser coders were hard to see, find or email. Just another troll.

Universities (4, Insightful)

rhysweatherley (193588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972823)

And this is why universities like UC should be forbidden by law to apply for patents and required to put all discoveries in the public domain. It makes them or their former faculty pull stupid stunts like this where protecting revenue from commercial spin-offs is more important than doing science and research.

"interactive web" != "internet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972825)

One would hope that on Slashdot of all place that an article whose subject is claiming to have invented the "interactive web" would not be transformed into a headline with him claiming to have invented the "internet".

One would be wrong.

2012 screw him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972843)

Where's his patent huh? 1993 patents would have ran out in 2010.

Boneheaded crazy derp. Gopher predated the in 1991 web http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol) , and yes it feels like browsing todays web in Lynx.

Prior Art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972847)

Umm... ARPANET? Isn't that like 20 or so years too late to patent that... there's serious prior art here. How could this guy win?

My god... (1)

Marble68 (746305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972875)

Trolling so hard... it's full of stars!

Dammit (2)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972885)

Internet != Web, sheesh. The Internet was around long before Doyle or Sir Tim or whoever invented the Web in 1993.

You'd think editors might know that by now, even here on /.

Re:Dammit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972993)

What's your point, other than being a pedantic twit?

Javascript / HTML (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972901)

Am I understanding the patent correctly in that it requires an external application to be infringing? So that something like ActiveX or QuickTime plugin would infringe, but pure HTML5 and Javascript (because there is no Interprocess Communication) would be non-infringing?

Based on the claims in this Patent, can anyone explain how Eolas is not in the right? I mean, I get that they didn't implement anything, but this was filed in 1994. It seems like anyone supporting the patent system would have to admit defeat on this (i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc). If you're generally against software patents, that seems like the only argument. I don't see anything obvious about this from 1994.

It seems like the ViolaWWW would have been prior art that nullified this patent, but apparently the claims were not clear enough?

Hire Steve Ballmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38972915)

Like Ballmer says, if you can't beat them, buy them, if you can't buy them kill them.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ceo-im-going-to-fing-kill-google/2005/09/03/1125302772214.html

Read amusing story:
http://pastebin.com/ekaNkT2Q

Prior Usage. (4, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972947)

Back in them Old BBS days we Had RIPScript and RIPScript 2
There was also a Graphical BBS Engine called Roboboard and its upgrade Roboboard/FX
There were systems like Prodigy, and AOL which had images...

Prior art (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38972971)

Note that someone seems to be confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web, so I am not sure which he is claiming IPR on. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web (WWW) at CERN in 1989. The Internet dates at the latest to the start of the NSFNET (1985). Either way, this seems to indicate that a patent issued in 1993 may have some issues with prior art.

Re:Prior art (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973103)

Having read FTA, he is claiming IPR on part of the interactive part of the web, the company seems like a pure troll (they make nothing), and he might, just might, win.

html (1)

number6x (626555) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973153)

Hypertext had been around since the 1980's. Apple II hypercard [wikipedia.org]

anyone? There were many products before that.

Berners Lee released HTML by early 1991 [w3.org] .

mo3 down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38973035)

for a moment and 3eRst. Individuals are about 7000/5 in ratio of 5 to

I hope he wins. (2, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973071)

He should win. Then finally it will become blatantly obvious that copyrights and patents must be abolished.

Re:I hope he wins. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973185)

Copyrights have nothing to do with this lawsuit.

Re:I hope he wins. (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973205)

doesn't matter, they have hurt everybody plenty in every other way, and they will be used to destroy the Internet as well, SOPA was just the beginning.

Possible defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38973085)

There were hypertext documents before WWW.
    Like an encyclopedia on a cd.
          Some of these ran special programs when you clicked on some tabs.
                    Like to show a recriprocating engine.

Bringing Hypertext to the internet (IE WWW) is prior art for their patent.
      They are claiming bringing downloading and running a program to display a page.
          Seems like expected functionality (given the encyclopedia example) once you start moving the Hypertext concept to the network.

counter sue (0)

amunds0n (2562195) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973087)

Al Gore should counter sue.. i think it has been proven many times that he gave the idea to Tim Berners-Lee.

Patents are like property (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973097)

And so prescriptive rights [wikipedia.org] should apply if the patent holder doesn't defend his/her rights for an extended period of time.

Kids, this is what we call a "submarine patent"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38973137)

5 simple steps for a submarine patent:

1. Patent something.
2. Do nothing for years, even decades until everyone is using it.
3. Out of nowhere sue everyone in existence as they haven't licensed your "patented proprietary invention".
4. ????
5. PROFIT!!!

The US Patent Office may be full of idiots, but they've still created laws to specifically prohibit this. If you make no attempt to protect your patent then you lose it.

Interesting, considering my prior art (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973169)

But then, that was on ARPA NET.

He owes me royalties.

Trojan Room Coffee Pot (4, Interesting)

jtara (133429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973183)

The Trojan Room Coffee Pot cam predates this by two years, though that was on a local network and didn't use a web browser. It didn't appear on the Internet until November, 1993.

The Netscape Fishcam shortly followed. I believe the first outdoor cam was at an antartic research station shortly after that.

Moving images were enabled by the "server-push" feature in Netscape's server and client. I'm assuming this used that technology, which of necessity would have pre-dated this claim. I would think the use case would be obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot [wikipedia.org]

Who invented the Internet? (1)

sumergo (2510518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973191)

Anyone ever hear about Ted Nelson? He invented hypermedia in the mid-'60s - it just took another 20+ years for the wires and connections to physically realize it as the internet.

"Only in America" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38973201)

And some people still wonder why even big (in)famous American companies start to take their businesses to some other country (even if it is only on paper)!

Patent Section 16 Fig 9 (4, Interesting)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 2 years ago | (#38973221)

The "patent" fig 9 discusses how to get the NCSA Mosaic 2.4 browser to display his object. He did NOT invent the Internet. He did NOT even invent NCSA Mosaic. He claims to have invented a way to view *his* 3D imaging object within a standard (at the time) browser. While there are some applicatons for viewing 3D within a browser, but I don't think they all need X-Windows protocols and the specific framework laid out in this patent to work within that particular viewing paradigm. Lets not panic just yet.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?