Epicrealm Uses Vague Patents to sue Web Sites

An anonymous reader writes "InfoSpinner/epicRealm holds two patents that basically describe every dynamic Web site in existence and is now using them to sue companies like eHarmony. This patent seems to describe a standard web/application server setup. This one describes 'dynamically generating a Web page in response to the request, the Web page including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources.' If enforced, these patents could shut down almost every dynamic site on the Internet, including the USPTO."

Ahhh Europe rules

[Ckwop (707653)]

If enforced, these patents could shut down almost every dynamic site on the Internet, including the USPTO

Ahh the wonders of living in Europe. Let's just hope it lasts.

Simon

I just found that ironic.

[jZnat (793348)]

Well, I think it's a good thing to happen because of the massive irony it introduces. Now, the US Government itself can be sued due to a vague and shitty patent! If this doesn't introduce any sort of patent reform, then someone will need to patent "the act of patenting something".

Not another stupid subpoena

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

This looks like its going to be my third stupid patent subpoena this year.

I have prior art from 1992.

MIT has prior art from 1994, the open meeting.

HA!

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

Filed in 1996? Are they out of their freaking minds? There is so much prior art, it's hard to even quantify it.

I think there should be a special type of punishment for people who apply for patents like this, long after the technology has gone into use, and it should go double for any moron who approves it. Perferably something with ants, fire, or boards studded with nails.

Re:HA!

[coolgeek (140561)]

I agree in principle, although I propose an alternate punishment. They should be punched in the face many many times by a rather large fellow wearing the pets.com sock puppet on his fist.

Re:I just found that ironic.

[Frymaster (171343)]

ow, the US Government itself can be sued due to a vague and shitty patent!

you just gave me an awesome idea!

i'm going to rush out and apply for a patent for a system "of social control wherebey a body of individuals holding a monopoly on the sole legitimate use of force (hereafter refered to as "the state") authorizes another group of non-technical people (hereafter called "the patent office") to allocate the legitimate use, distribution or communication of highly technical ideas, conepts, plans, schematics and other 'know how'".

once i get that baby rubber stamped, i can just sue them out of existence!

Re:USPTO can't be sued for infringement...

[daremonai (859175)]

See United States Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 91, Section 1498. This actually covers the claim procedures when the government makes use of a patent, but if you use this to key some Google searches, you'll get plenty of background on what it is about.

EU wants patent infringement to be a crime

[NigelJohnstone (242811)]

Wake up,

EU Commission is busy trying to make patent infringment as crime (it was in that Criminialise-all-IP-infingements directive they just released). Not only could they close down the EU Patent office website, they could get them locked up for up to 4 years if this patent existed in Europe.....

The EU Commission really has to be raked in before its too late. How about their power to propose directives is removed. That would be similar to a proper Parliamentary directive where the civil servants don't create the laws.

Quick! Someone get them to hire Darl McBride!

[suitepotato (863945)]

Then get him good and soused and get him to sign off on a lawsuit against the USPTO. Should be good for five years worth of Slashdot fun.

Re:Quick! Someone get them to hire Darl McBride!

[tobiasly (524456)]

Dear Epicrealm,

It has recently come to my attention that you are using some vague and obscure patents in an attempt to blackmail legitimate, innovative businesses for large sums of undeserved money.

Unfortunately for you, I hold a patent on this business model and take any infringement on my intellectual property very seriously. However, I will allow you to purchase a "make money by being a litigious weasel" license for $2M which will allow you to pursue your current course of action. Otherwise, you will be sued for patent-infringement patent infringement.

Sincerely,
Darl McBride

Suing eHarmony?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Well, there goes their chance of finding a lasting, loving relationship.

Re:Suing eHarmony?

[tomhudson (43916)]

Actually, that is where I met my wife.

... and so did a bunch of other guys - but they all ran away after finding out that "Francine" is really "Frank".

... or don't you remember - "The Internet, where men are men, women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents".

Re:Suing eHarmony?

[Keith Russell (4440)]

Tolerate the day pass to read this article at Salon: [salon.com]

"Finally, after increasingly aggressive phone calls to the site's outside publicity firm, here we were, talking at last. It was hard to believe that we would have many of [eHarmony.com founder Neil Clark] Warren's 29 dimensions of compatibility to work with. I am a pagan, single 30-year-old feminist with strong suspicions about the ever-creeping tentacles of the religious right. Warren is a married psychologist grandpa with a divinity degree, a Californ

Re:Suing eHarmony?

[Facekhan (445017)]

Is that why they refused to match me? I thought it was because I was weird. It actually happened I will post the text I got after completing the test.

eHarmony is based upon a complex matching system developed through extensive testing of married individuals. One of the requirements for it to work successfully is for participants to fall into our rigorously defined profiles. If we aren't able to match a user well using these profiles, the most considerate approach is to inform them early in the process.

We are so convinced of the importance of creating compatible matches to help people establish and enjoy happy, lasting relationships that we choose not to provide service rather than risk an uncertain match.

Unfortunately, we are not able to make our profiles work for you. Our matching system is not suitable for about 20% of potential users, so 1 in 5 people simply would not benefit from our service. We hope that you understand that we regret our inability to provide service for you at this time.

You can still receive your free personality profile by clicking here.

It will only get worse

[Nuclear Elephant (700938)]

If enforced, these patents could shut down almost every dynamic site on the Internet, including the USPTO

Perhaps that would facilitate some change. It seems that, throughout history, things only got better after they got much worse. Gas prices will probably continue soaring until we have a Boston Gas Party (which will probably be a lot more fun than the Boston Tea Party - at least in the south). The combination of asinine software patents and litigious bastards will most likely continue on too, at least until things get so bad that some as insane as suing the USPTO actually does happen - or until we have our own little patent reform party =)

Re:It will only get worse

[alvinrod (889928)]

I absolutely agree. Eventually the weight of legal cases that are self-evident bullshit will break the camel's back. Until that time, however, coorperations won't even be able to cross the street without having someone sue them.

If the big companies in favor of software patents are at all interested in keeping those patents I suggest that they help the system out by getting rid of vague patents that can apply to almost anything, much like the case here.

Judges should also start fining corperations that bring frivilous suits against other companies based on such patents. Offending companies will pay a fine of at least $100,000 as well as paying for the legal fees associated with the case. Money collected will go to education for the poor. Lawyers dumb enough to file said suit will be barred from practicing law in the United States for a period of time no less than 2 years and possibly deported to the sun.

Foreign countries (like China) should blatantly ignore other patents of asshat corperations that practice patent litigation for profit effectively eliminating an oversees business for that company. If they complain, a letter comprised of the 372 ways in which that person/company is a complete asshat/fuckwad/douche/other derogatory name will be sent back to them at their own expense.

In times like these it is society's responsibility to discourage this type of moronic behavior be any means necessary. Maybe once the world has gotten it drilled into the thick skulls of these moronic bufoons that such behavior is frowned upon, we can go back to business as normal. Until such a time, soulless goons like these will continue to take advantage of the system at the expense of everyone else.

Re:It will only get worse

[Bayleaf (809062)]

Unfortunately there is no country in the world who could build a rocket (unless they allowed something like an Orion) big enough to carry all the lawyers.

Re:It will only get worse - About That Gas Party?

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

until we have a Boston Gas Party

Is that right after the Boston Baked Beans potluck?

Re:It will only get worse

[Rakshasa Taisab (244699)]

Actually, gas prices will continue to soar. We are at, or have already passed, peak oil production. The remaining oil reserviors will be more expensive to extract, demand will keep rising as production plumets.

You can have as big a party as you want, it won't solve the problem. About patents?... Dunno... Seems to me those with capital are getting more and more political power as regular people keep watching Idol.

Re:It will only get worse

[HangingChad (677530)]

The remaining oil reserviors will be more expensive to extract, demand will keep rising as production plumets.

You are probably right but consider an historical example. In 1850 most homes were lit by whale oil lamps. As the supply of whales dwindled and the price of oil shot up it was only a matter of a few years before alternatives became more economical. Within a few years most homes had switched to smokeless kerosene and the market for whale oil tanked. The economic hammer fell on the whaling industry.

Oil is a little different but already gas prices are motivating a change in consumer car choices (try to buy a hybrid right now) and the auto industry is retooling as fast as they can shift production. That trend will accelerate as gas prices rise and we'll use less, the supplies will increase and the prices will sink again. Although this time the Chinese will likely soak up any extra capacity, so we may see permanently higher gas prices. SUV's didn't make a comeback until gas hit .90 cents a gallon a few years ago.

What should be a bigger concern is our dependence on foreign oil. But if you think that's going to be a priority for an oil family that's good buddies with the Saudi royal family, then you're kidding yourself. Imagine where we could be in alternate energy sources if we'd made that a national priority in the wake of 9-11.

With patents I think we're going to have to reach the wretched extreme before anything changes. Actually, I think we're already there. It doesn't get much more wretched than Epicrealm.

Nothing to see here, move along

[Ignorant Aardvark (632408)]

Slashdot, being completely free of any and all dynamic individuals, will be completely immune to anything Epicrealm can throw at it.

RTFP (Read The Fine Patent)

[jevvim (826181)]

This isn't a patent on dynamic page generation, but about a dynamic server farm where a primary "web server" distributes dynamic page generate requests to one or more "page servers", and where each page server can maintain a cached version of the output of the dynamic page request.

As such, I'm not as concerned about "woe unto all dynamic web sites," but if I managed one that offloads and caches page generation work (i.e., Slashdot, LiveJournal, and probably a lot more) I'd probably be calling my lawyer this morning.

Re:RTFP (Read The Fine Patent)

[jevvim (826181)]

I was doing this in 1997. The patent is dated 1999.

And the patent application was filed on April 23, 1996. "Prior art" must predate the filing date (04/23/1996), not the date the patent was granted (04/13/1999).

Re:But, they licensed it out...

[Svartalf (2997)]

You completely missed the point- because you are looking solely at the patent and naught else because you apparently think you know more than someone who WORKED for these people in the past.

You don't know how they accomplished what they did- you couldn't have, dude. It was the patents that covered epicRealm's content delivery network- and it was Squid that was used to accomplish the same. By the way, they're not patenting dynamic page generation per se, only cached thereof- and as such, you'd need a cobbled up Squid or something similar to accomplish it along with a hacked together DNS server network and telemetry transponder network.

I know, I was one of the people working on the modifications they made to accomplish it. As for unlicensing things, you don't get to re-license the stuff if you breach the agreement, they were substantively in breach of the licensing grant given by the GPL in 2000. They continued to distribute systems that included this code throughout at least 2001 and 2002 before apparently ceasing operations (They pulled the signs from the building they were operating out of and their website went black around that timeframe...)

Prior Art

[BBCWatcher (900486)]

CERN had the first Web site to integrate with a backend system. According to history [web.cern.ch], back in 1990 CERN developed a Web site that provided dynamic access to a VM FIND application. Thus the world's first Web application integration project provided Web access to an IBM mainframe application. (It's also true that the world's first Web server outside Europe was installed on Stanford's IBM mainframe.)

Seriously, mainframes are so cool. And they offer patent protection, too.

Excited!

[rcbarnes (875915)]

I'm frankly excited about the suit. No sitting judge could possibly hope to rule in favor of Epicrealm (at least not without an embarassing overturning by another judge). Every loss by a software-patent holding party weakens the whole idea of software patents, and hopefully expedites the severe restriction/outright end thereof. Kudos to Epicrealm for fighting for the right side, even if it is only accidentally.

My turn!!

[loconet (415875)]

From their Claim #1:

1. A computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server, said computer-implemented method comprising the steps of:
routing a request from a Web server to a page server, said page server receiving said request and releasing said Web server to process other requests wherein said routing step further includes the steps of:
intercepting said request at said Web server and routing said request to said page server;
processing said request, said processing being performed by said page server while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests; and
dynamically generating a Web page in response to said request, said Web page including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources.

Have no fear, I shall patent the word 'said' and venge the Web!

Software

[alecks (473298)]

Should they be suing the company that made the server software, instead of the client who purchased it? Unless eHarmony developed they're on webserver, in which case, how did they find out??

Web Company?

[mystik (38627)]

For a company that makes a web product, they have a pretty scarce web presence:

www.epicrealm.com == 'under construction'

www.infospinner.com == non existant

the only thing Googling for either name turns up press releases ...

Blame the Lawyers

[ribblem (886342)]

I recently filed for a patent through my company. It wasn't an overly complex invention and I thought I described it very well with a one page email. By the time the lawyers where done with it that one page had turned into 45 pages of text that I hardly understand. There is something wrong with the system when the inventer has a difficult time understanding the invention that is being submitted to the patent office. After seeing how much the company lawyers obfuscated the facts I'm not surprised that the patent office sometimes lets bogus patents through.

Re:Blame the Lawyers

[NoOneInParticular (221808)]

And how does the studying of patentese further the progression of technology? If a patent cannot be understood by a person skilled in the art, it is 100% useless as a means of disclosure of an invention. As disclosure is the reason we have patent law in the first place, this argument seems to contradict the existence of patents.

Unreal Property

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

We need a high-profile case of a patent abuser getting a stiff fine. Or even frogmarched to jail for a stint. If I got the County Clerk to hand me a title deed to some "real property", without proper boundaries drawn on it, then went around the countryside demanding rent, there would be hell to pay. The first time, I'd probably just get a spanking from the cops and the District Attorney. After that, I'd be in jail for harrassment. And if the Clerk did that more than once, they'd be fired. If not, their boss would be fired. If not, then the obvious collusion to enable me to harrass and defraud property owners would send them to jail, too. If I were doing this to collect rent on land that no one owned, like a public forest, I'd go to jail the first time around.

Patent abuse is not only a fraud exactly like that scam. It also destroys the fragile system defended only virtually, without the actual land that backs real estate, and makes the whole economy more solid. Patents, the office that issues them and the laws that back them are already pretty stupid and abusable, even when they're administered as carefully as possible - particularly on software. Now it's obvious that they are a tool for interfering with "progress in science and the useful arts", rather than promoting it. Heads must roll before the crooks are running the entire landscape.

I have patented sex...

[toonces33 (841696)]

All of you guys owe me money. Oh, wait. This is slashdot. Never mind...

Patently Obvious..

[reg (5428)]

Maybe it's time that the OSS community began to get 'investors' to patent obvious ideas...

The concept is simple: Start a dynamiclly driven web site (Oops... ;-), which lets users add ideas for patents and vote on what they think are the most likely to actually be implemented. Then find donors to fund the EFF to write patent applications, and to submit them.

If the patent succeeds, licence it under an OSS licence, that gives unlimited use unless the site's portfolio is challenged in court. If this happens, all users must come to the rescue of the site.

But the better outcome is that the patent office rejects the patent as 'obvious'. If the average /.'er can think of it then it must be obvious ;-)... And then when you get sued by someone, you can take your site and the rejected 'obvious' patent and ask the court to rule how that someone else's patent is not obvious, because you implemented based on what the patent office already declared obvious...

Regards,
-Jeremy

Submarine Patent : The board game

[denis-The-menace (471988)]

Coming soon:
Tagline: "patent or be sued!"

Object: Patent everything you can and profit from the work of others.

Method of play:

-Everybody starts with venture capital of $100,000.
-As you go around the board you collect cash (via sales cards), Patents (via patents cards)that you can buy if you want, and inventions (via inventions cards).

-sales cards: gives you the option to sell a product if you have the invention card for it.
-patents cards: You buy them If you want. Any patents not bought are put into the "Public domain" pile. A player can only hold a patent card for up to 10 turns, after which they go the the "Public domain" pile.

-invention cards: Are free when you land on the square on the board. If the "invention" is already patented by another player, that other player CAN sue for the cost of the patent. The patent owner can also not reveal that he/she hold that patent cards for up to 10 turns. The player with the patent card can, at the time of his choosing, sue the player with the Invention card for twice the "Sales" that player has received.

Note: If a patent card is bought and another player already has the "Invention card", each place $10000 in a pile and each spin their own USPTO wheel (Patent Wins - Invention wins -settlement). Both wheels must match. If not, each player adds another $5000 to the pile, and spin again. This can continue until one or both players run out of money. If Settlement is the outcome, the pot is split between players.

Re:Submarine Patent : The board game

[Lord Ender (156273)]

You forgot that each turn, players pay $10,000 to lawyers until everyone runs out of money and the system collapses.

Fun with Anagrams

[chefmonkey (140671)]

epicRealm pretty much imploded a couple of years ago. I suspect all that remains is a holding company that retains the IPR associated with their patents. (I worked with a couple of the guys that pretty much shut the lights off on their way out of the company -- some of the most brilliant engineers I've had the pleasure of working with).

Another very useful observation about epicRealm is that the letters of its name can be rearranged to spell "Ripe camel." I can't take credit for this observation, however; that honor goes to an anonymous employee who made that physical rearrangement of their official logo on the entrance to their main offices around the time everything started going down the tubes.

HTML ONLY!

[Fareq (688769)]

The patent specifically limits itself to sites that dynamically generate HTML.

Simple solution, use XHTML.

Re:By hand

[Knome_fan (898727)]

Well, I'm sure many slashdotters are quite familiar with doing certain things by hand and probably would agree that it can be kinda fun, but doing /. itself by hand, no, doesn't sound to great imho.

Re:By hand

[ceejayoz (567949)]

Fucking "Ajax". IT'S A CLEANING PRODUCT!

I think the Greeks had the cleaning product beaten by a couple thousand years.

Re:Paying for use of other patents...

[IHateSlashDot (823890)]

Those patents just represent known "prior art". They are essentiallly patents that are related to the described invention. There is abosolutely no implication that the current patent uses the technologies described in the "prior art".

In fact, it just the opposite. Any claims that would already be covered would not be allowed in the current patent. So they do not need to pay anything for the other patents referenced since their invention has been found to be different from all of those.

Of course, they do n

There are better examples

[jd (1658)]

IIRC, there was a demo CGI script that came with the NCSA server for accessing the finger daemon and another for accessing a whois server. Both of these generate dynamic output, access multiple sources, etc, etc, etc.

Even further back, the search engines for the Gopher and WAIS systems were much the same way. Methinks Epicrealm's website does NOT predate Gopher.

Re:prior art

[surprise_audit (575743)]

AltaVista: Delivers Internet's first Web index (1995) [altavista.com]. Search results page generated dynamically, based on input from the user.

Re:prior art

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

The patent is a continuation in part from Apr 23 1996. The prior art neest to be before Apr 22 1995.

I know of plenty of prior art from that period. Like several hundred items.

Re:prior art

[Temsi (452609)]

OK, that's pretty simple.

IMDB

According to the imdb history [imdb.com] their system was created in 1990 and the website was launched in 1993.
So it looks like IMDB was getting hundreds of hits a day, 3 years before these numbnuts filed their bogus patent application.

Re:prior art

[I8TheWorm (645702)]

Inventors: Lowery; Keith (Richardson, TX); Levine; Andrew B. (Plano, TX); Howell; Ronald L. (Rowlett, TX)
Assignee: InfoSpinner, Inc. (Richardson, TX)
Appl. No.: 636477
Filed: April 23, 1996

AND wrong party...

[TiggertheMad (556308)]

In addition, shouldn't they be suing the person who created the product, not the user? I would think that they should sue Microsoft (ASP, MS-SQL) or the Apache/PHP teams, since they are the partys creating the patent violating technology.

Or perhaps they are afraid of what will happen when they file a suit like this against MS...

Re:Patented.

[tnk1 (899206)]

I hereby patent any/all form(s) of thought(s). You all owe me $.02 for each thought you have. Gotta love being able to put a patent on something you didn't come up with, especially since it's virtual, and not even physically existent.

You're patenting thinking? You're about to make a lot less money than you think you are.

And no one in the USPTO is going to be the least worried about having to actually pay you... they don't use your product.

Re:Patented.

[aardwolf64 (160070)]

How old are you? If you're younger than 27, then I can claim prior art. :P

Re:This effects everyone

[servoled (174239)]

The patent date is January 1999, so this could be a very real barrier to many companies. IANAL

Obviously not. If you were a lawyer or knew any patent law you would have looked for priority data, such as:

This application is a division of Ser. No. 08/636,477, filed Apr. 23, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,554.

Both of these patents have the same effective filing date (the date you have to beat for something to qualify as prior art under 35 USC 102): April 23, 1996. The second patent is a division of the first