IBM Sues Groupon Over 1990s Patents Related To Prodigy (arstechnica.com) 123
An anonymous reader writes: IBM is pushing big internet companies to pay patent licensing fees in part because IBM invented the Prodigy service, a precursor to the modern web. Yesterday, Big Blue filed a lawsuit against Groupon, saying the company has infringed four IBM patents, including patents 5,796,967 and 7,072,849. IBM inventors working on Prodigy "developed novel methods for presenting applications and advertisements," and "the technological innovations embodied in these patents are fundamental to the efficient communication of internet content," according to the company. The Prodigy patents were filed in 1993 and 1996, but they have "priority dates" stretching back to 1988. "Despite IBM's repeated attempts to negotiate, Groupon refuses to take a license but continues to use IBM's property," IBM lawyers write. IBM says it informed Groupon that it was infringing the '967, '849, and '346 patents as early as 2011. As for the '601 patent, IBM says that Groupon should have been on notice of that once Priceline got sued last year.
Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
You're thinking design patents. These would be utility or method patents. It used to be 17 from the date of issue. Now it is 20 from the date of application (not counting provisionals).
The length gets fuzzy for stuff filed in the couple of years prior to 1995. Some of these patents fall into the "longer of the two" category. File something in '93 and have it issue in '99 (an unusually long review process) and maybe it could be enforceable today.
There are also adjustments to length due to snafus. Sort of a "Oops, my bad. How about we add/subtract X days?"
1996+20 = 2016 (Score:2)
Seems like even in that regards they're barely valid?
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like even in that regards they're barely valid?
If you think a little bit about what it said in TFA, you should know that IBM contacted Groupon in 2011. Even though the patent '967 has been expired since August 17, 2015 (iffy rule for this patent -- 17-year from issued date [08-18-1998] v. 20-year from filing date [11-26-1993]), it was still in effect when IBM attempted to collect loyalty from Groupon back then.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator#heading-5
These are the rules that seem to apply:
In 1861, Congress again changed the term to 17 years with no extension.
In 1994 the US signed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act changed the date from which the term was measured. Because the term was measured from the filing date of the application and not the grant date of the patent, Congress amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to provide for applications filed after June 7, 1995 that the term of a patent begins on the date that the patent issues and ends on the date that is twenty years from the date on which the application was filed in the U.S. or, if, the application contained a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 USC 120, 121 or 365(c), twenty years from the filing date of the earliest of such application. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 154 was amended to provide term extension if the original patent was delayed due to secrecy orders, interferences, or appellate review periods.
*IBM isnt manned by Thinkers and Inverntors (Score:1)
It's been taken over by Lawyers and Profiteers..
Re: (Score:2)
It's been taken over by Lawyers and Profiteers..
IBM has always pulled this crap
https://archive.is/6Qk0I [archive.is]
There they are with a patent on how to draw fat lines.
I'll get pilloried for saying this but (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't really that crazy to believe that IBM pioneered techniques for internet activity. It was not at all obvious back in the days of prodigy when people used things like Gopher and Archie more than WWW protocols. The were investing in the technology and they patented it.
About the only thing one might complain about here is not the patents but the fact they submarined this. Surfacing decades later and then suing ordinary users just is lousy. But as long as the patents are legit, it may not be unreaso
Re: (Score:2)
Following up my own comment in the late 80s and early 90s most people were not thinking or doing dynamic apps over a network. The real hotbed of that sort of thing was Sun. (and Java was a natural extension of that). But Sun's bussiness was mainly about local networks, not retail web-like services to consumers and bussinesses like prodigy. THings like time-share were very old school but those were the standard remote access model. These patents actualy describe the modern webpage which is served, clien
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, though... when people did need to "think or do dynamic things over a network," they probably didn't rely on the teachings of some obscure IBM patents to do it. They probably just sat down at a computer and started typing, after perhaps consulting some textbooks and papers first.
So what exactly is the benefit to society that we get from granting IBM ownership of these concepts for 20 years?
Re: (Score:2)
The first person to invent the incadescent electric light gets a patent on electric lights. THe second person may come up with the fluorescent bulb as an implementation but the basic idea of the electric light was already thought of. THe prodigy patents showed the way. It doesn't really matter if someone came up with another implementation if the way itself can be patented.
Re: (Score:2)
But what's the point? That kind of progress is inevitable.
Anytime there's a foot race to the patent office, the consumer is the loser.
Re: (Score:2)
the point is that inventions are valuable - and profit is an excellent motivator for innovation. The statutory balance (as opposed to market-driven licensing, which is its own balancing mechanism) between the interests of the inventor and the interests of the public happens when the patents are granted a reasonable but not indefinite exclusivity to the work.
Yes, progress happens - but without an impetus to the inventor(s), it is not always inevitable - and certainly not within short timeframes.
Re: (Score:2)
The progress in question only seems inevitable because it has already happened. We can see in the hindsight the "Of course!" and "Why didn't they think of that sooner?" moments because the logic of the thing is there for all to see. At the time it was happening, it was neither a foregone conclusion, nor trivial. The fact that several people have the same idea at the same time doesn't mean the idea itself is inevitable. The idea may be waiting, so to speak, to be discovered from first principles, but its dis
Re: (Score:2)
It has already happened in multiple times and places.
Let that sink in for a few minutes, think about what it means.
Re: (Score:2)
The convergent evolution of ideas strongly suggests the validity of those ideas. It does not demonstrate that the ideas in question must always come to light. I'm thinking about calculus, specifically. Two Europeans who had no contact with one another both developed calculus, but how many ancient cultures did not discover it? The Chinese did not, nor the Persians, nor the Arabs, nor the peoples of South Asia.
In short, just because something requiring human creativity has happened in one way (or even severa
Re: (Score:2)
In short, just because something requiring human creativity has happened in one way (or even several ways) does not demonstrate that the laws of the universe require it to happen at all. We simply cannot know that. If, however, you are right, and certain kinds of progress are inevitable, why then we should all sit back and wait for the laboratory equipment at Intel and AMD to spontaneously generate new CPU architectures. At the same time, we can wait for the computers at Apple and Microsoft to write new sof
Re: (Score:1)
Actually apparently the ancient Babylonians figured out something pretty much like it.
http://news.discovery.com/hist... [discovery.com]
Also this indian guy in the 14 century seemed to have a pretty good go at it too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think the light bulb example isn't good - a fluorescent lamp would almost certainly not infringe on a patent for an incandescent lamp. As a real world example, Sony didn't license any of the RCA patents on shadow mask colour TV tubes when they started making colour televisions - the Trinitron tube they came up with was substantially different and didn't infringe, even though the end result was still a colour picture tube.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends.
If you patent an edison style bulb specifically then sure, a fluorescent bulb isn't covered.
If you patent an elongated-sphere shaped-device with contacting points on one end which fits into a receptacle that has a threading mechanism to effect electrical contact and securing said device which is designed to emit light...then yeah, you're screwed. Welcome to recent patents.
Instead of designing a light bulb and patenting it, companies draw up a vague representation that covers every and any imag
Re:I'll get pilloried for saying this but (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the so called inventions. They are obvious and natural conclusions. There is no revolutionary idea or inspiration. Patents are to reward and motivate people to develop ideas, implement and produce useful products. These inventions were inevitable. If you could wipe everyone mind in the world and all evidence someone would "invent" it within a week if not days. There is no need to reward these "inventions". It is not revolutionary. It's nothing like the invention of transistors or semiconductors.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the so called inventions. They are obvious and natural conclusions. There is no revolutionary idea or inspiration. Patents are to reward and motivate people to develop ideas, implement and produce useful products. These inventions were inevitable. If you could wipe everyone mind in the world and all evidence someone would "invent" it within a week if not days. There is no need to reward these "inventions". It is not revolutionary. It's nothing like the invention of transistors or semiconductors.
Right. That's why the real race is to identify the problems of the future. Once you know the problem, the solutions are often obvious. But getting there first is good enough for the patent office. The patent lawyers have twisted the test of obviousness to 'can you show someone thought of it before' which is hardly different to originality.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the so called inventions. They are obvious and natural conclusions. There is no revolutionary idea or inspiration. Patents are to reward and motivate people to develop ideas, implement and produce useful products. These inventions were inevitable. If you could wipe everyone mind in the world and all evidence someone would "invent" it within a week if not days. There is no need to reward these "inventions". It is not revolutionary. It's nothing like the invention of transistors or semiconductors.
Every invention is inevitable given enough time. That or something else gets invented that performs the same function. As an example, take the invention of printing. The Chinese and Koreans were said to have invented some form of printing hundreds of years before Gutenberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but Gutenberg didn't qualify for a patent on the idea of a printing press, but on the specific implementation of the Gutenberg Press.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prestel springs to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Another once-great company descends deeper into the mire. As if their overpriced under-delivering consulting services weren't bad enough, now they are grubbing money with patents.
THINK to TROLL (Score:1)
-----THINK
-----Chink
-----Chins
-----Coins
-----Joins
-----Joint
-----Point
-----Paint
-----Pains
-----Pairs
-----Hairs
-----Hairy
-----Dairy
-----Daily
-----Drily
-----Drill
-----Droll
-----TROLL
Re: (Score:2)
Thine
Chine
Chile
Chill
Shill
Swill
Twill
Trill
TRILL
Re: (Score:2)
When I worked for these bums (Score:2, Interesting)
A substantial part of the annual employee review depended on how "innovative" you were.
Guess how that was assessed? Spot on. That's a large part of their business model.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, I patented this kind of aggressive trolling. Pay up or my attorneys will confiscate your mother's basement, including your extensive hockey-mask collection.
Re: (Score:3)
With a 5-digit UID, your patent probably expired by now.
Shut 'er down folks (Score:2)
Your lawsuit papers are in the mail and should arrive in the next day or two.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh how quickly we forget. British Telecom used to claim ownership of the web. In 2000 they sued Prodigy, claiming that Prodigy infringed its patent (U.S. Patent 4,873,662) on web hyperlinks. Prodigy has already been sued for this type of crap.
Re:Shut 'er down folks (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to burst their bubble, but hypertext systems predated both their claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You think this is new behavior for IBM? Ignorant much?
Trollander (Score:2)
There can only be one.
IBM wants theirs before Groupon declares (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IBM wants theirs before Groupon declares (Score:5, Interesting)
No IBM wants to get paid because they are trying to hit some super ridiculous profit margin growth targets. They are laying off 10's of thousands of US employees right now and it's going to be the death of IBM IMO because they are selling out the future for short term profits. They are going to turn into the biggest patent troll the world has ever seen but their profit margins will be phenomenal when the only employees are lawyers!
Re:IBM wants theirs before Groupon declares (Score:4, Funny)
Did they get a patent on that?
so conflicted (Score:5, Funny)
i hate patents but i really hate advertising. i don't know who to root for!
Re: (Score:2)
Wither IBM (Score:3, Funny)
Patent trolls now? Wow. Charles Flint is rolling over in his grave.
Re:Wither IBM (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry but patent 1,234,567 explicitly documents posthumous rotational corpus per subterranean casket. Would you be interested in licensing our technology? If so please make a check out to:
Ignoramus
Blackmail
Methodology
patent trolling (Score:5, Interesting)
when real business ideas have failed and rats a re leaving ship.
Re: patent trolling (Score:1)
Patent Trolls in all sizes (Score:1)
Heck yeah Prodigy (Score:2)
Mad Maze was the best.
Claiming patent on web pages with javascript? (Score:4, Insightful)
Patent 5,796,967 looks like a patent on programs which send page templates and executable code to a client machine to display a dynamic user interface with buttons and text and stuff.
Doesn't this kind of mean they're claiming they've patented the dynamic web in general?
New IBM strategy, perhaps though up by "No Shit Sherlock" the top-secret successor to Watson:
"What is: Laying off our innovation staff and relying on wild-ass patent trolling for profit, Alex?"
Re: (Score:3)
How is that patent not expired?
filed in 1993, published in 1998, priority date is 1988
Its over 20 years from the filing date, and over 17 years from its publication date.
It should be expired right?
So are they suing groupon for license fees from at least a few years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM's basically excised everything important for the long-term functioning of their company, in the name of 'cutting costs'. They've got to monetize their few remaining assets somehow, and patents and lawyers are probably the most obvious to the beancounters. Sue everyone who looks like they might be infringing an IBM patent (And there's a lot of such patents); profit!
Inventing new products, systems, services? Fuck that. That takes long term investment, there's huge costs paying for labor that can't simply
WTF (Score:2)
So IBM apparently invented forms and frames/windows? Can they now sue any website that uses frameset/frame HTML tags now? Granted, there are not a lot of those any more, but still, WTF? It's a common design pattern. How is this non-obvious to be patentable?!
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, it's non-obvious now. 30 years ago... I dunno? Cannot speak with much authority about computers back then.
Re: (Score:2)
""the technological innovations embodied in these patents are fundamental to the efficient communication of internet content," according to the company."
If it's the only way to do a particular thing ("fundamental to the efficient communication of internet content" sure sounds like it) then it's not patentable - is a "mis en scene".
Also, the X Windowing System predates these patents - 1984.
Then there all the text-based UIs that had windows, title bars, drop boxes, list boxes, and buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be that the UI instructions came over the network. Is X Windowing networked (honest question)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: WTF (Score:2)
Is it actually possible to run something like KDE, Gnome, or Cinnamon, as well as apps written to use them, on a remote X server? I last tried a few years ago, and got the impression that you could (very, very tediously) configure some specific apps to run over networked X, but even if you managed to get the desktop environment itself to display over it, none of them can natively launch arbitrary programs with remote X (including the file explorers themselves, so forget about opening a drive window by doubl
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, you have not read the comments in any story about Wayland.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's ruining performance in general which may be why people started looking for a way to speed things up. A modern desktop on an eight core 4GHz machine should not be slower than a better looking just as functional desktop (E 0.16) on a Pentium 60 (60MHz single core).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought frames was SW Bell or was it SBC claiming they got that patent when they bought some holding of SW Bell... I don't remember.
frames were VERY non-obvious to Microsoft in 1990s (Score:5, Interesting)
In the early 1990s, Microsoft spent something like a hundred million dollars developing a technology suite which was immediately eplaced by the html tags , , and .
This is one of two reasons that Microsoft absolutely freaked out when the web started becoming popular - it did the same thing as their new "killer app", in a MUCH simpler way. Their new COM technology was a newer version of something they called Object Linking and Embedding (OLE). The web had a much simpler way to link and embed documents.
For a little while, Microsoft even tried to stop the web from becoming popular. When it was obvious that wouldn't work, they tried marketing COM as a web technology, under the name ActiveX.
Anyway, they had invested very heavily in trying to solve the same problem that frames solved, but their solution was a super- complex solution that took years to develop and an 800 page book to explain. A solution so simple as wasn't obvious to Microsoft.
frame, embed, a, and img tags (Score:2)
Slashdot stripped the "html" out of my post rather than that encoding it. The html tags frame, img, embed, and "a" did essentially the same "object linking and embedding " as Microsoft's complex solution did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: WTF (Score:2)
It must be very narrow to avoid being priored by VT100, X11, ANSI, heck maybe even 3270, all of which have been used to draw applications and present advertisements of some type (not necessarily product advertisements, but words have meaning).
Re: (Score:2)
So IBM apparently invented forms and frames/windows? Can they now sue any website that uses frameset/frame HTML tags now? Granted, there are not a lot of those any more, but still, WTF? It's a common design pattern. How is this non-obvious to be patentable?!
No, actually, apparently Prodigy did. Ironically, one of the big examples of prior art is from IBM. Their glass terminals were smart and knew about form fields, and you'd fill in the form and hit a key and it would submit to the mainframe for processing. Then you'd usually wait, and wait, and wait :)
Pay up (Score:4, Funny)
Watson arrives (Score:2)
This is the newest application for IBM Watson. They found that while it could win at game shows, it couldn't get paid, so here they are, cognitive technology in action.
I'm starting to worry about this (Score:3)
Prior art? (Score:2)
Just like Peter Jackson with the Hobbit (Score:2)
I 'like' IBM for the most part, but it's important to remember that a good chunk of it's existence is owed to keeping hundreds of lawyers billing hours for decades. At least until recently, there were guys there who have literally never practiced law outside of their IP department getting ready to retire.
Did IBM hire the SCO lawyers? (Score:2)
Huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a two man scam.
Deliberately drive a company into a solid wall and take it to the second man for repair bills.
I miss the innovative IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
I miss the IBM that created innovative mainframes, personal computers, floppy disks, commercial laser printers, UPC Codes, type writers, and other great inventions.
Now IBM's plan is to squeeze weak companies like Groupon with questionable patents?
after years of fighting SCO... (Score:2)
So much for fond memories (Score:2)
How the mighty have fallen (Score:1)
IBM used to be such a powerful and respected company, and now they are nothing more than a patent troll. It's kind of sad.
Comment removed (Score:3)
IBM - Lays off workers, becomes a patent troll (Score:2)
Long live SCO!!!!!
Layoffs and lawsuits (Score:1)