Epicrealm Uses Vague Patents to sue Web Sites 397
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Not another stupid subpoena (Score:5, Interesting)
I have prior art from 1992.
MIT has prior art from 1994, the open meeting.
HA! (Score:3, Insightful)
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! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:HA! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I just found that ironic. (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:2)
Re:USPTO can't be sued for infringement... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ahhh Europe rules (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ahhh Europe rules (Score:2)
Re:Ahhh Europe rules (Score:2)
Re:Ahhh Europe rules (Score:3, Informative)
Neither Russia nor Turkey are European countries, neither geologically nor culturally.
Both have holdings on European soil, but that is insufficient to make them European countries - after all, USA has military bases in Europe, but it most certainly is not an European country. The majority of both Turkey and Russia are in Asia and Middle-East, respectively.
As for culture, Russia never made the transition to democracy the European countries managed, and is arguably sliding back to dictatorship after a ver
Re:Ahhh Europe rules (Score:3, Interesting)
As for history, the Russia monarchy has a long history of blood ties with Western European monarchies. Up until the late 1800s, Russia was just as European as any European country - sure, they might have fallen behind on democracy, but so has Belarus; would you consider that "not European"? Does the past cen
EU wants patent infringement to be a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
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! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Quick! Someone get them to hire Darl McBride! (Score:5, Funny)
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
Not the USPTO... (Score:2)
In other words, the goverment can simply ignore them (and it will be legal too). Of course every other site on the planet is in trouble.
Suing eHarmony? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Suing eHarmony? (Score:2)
For those of you who don't know, eHarmony is a sort of a "stealth" christian dating service. It is really a christian dating site, which dropped the moniker "christian" to appeal to a wider audience. If you say you are an atheist, the site will politely refuse to match you with anyone. The pseudo-science of the matching people based on "the 29 dimensions of pe
Re:Suing eHarmony? (Score:2)
Re:Suing eHarmony? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Suing eHarmony? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tolerate the day pass to read this article at Salon: [salon.com]
Re:Suing eHarmony? (Score:3, Funny)
... or don't you remember - "The Internet, where men are men, women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents".
prior art (Score:2, Informative)
Interesting (Score:2)
There are better examples (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:prior art (Score:2)
Re:prior art (Score:3, Informative)
I know of plenty of prior art from that period. Like several hundred items.
Re:prior art (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Assignee: InfoSpinner, Inc. (Richardson, TX)
Appl. No.: 636477
Filed: April 23, 1996
AND wrong party... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or perhaps they are afraid of what will happen when they file a suit like this against MS...
It will only get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It will only get worse (Score:2)
The problem is: it takes too long, and too many people get hurt along the way. I think it's time for a civil revolt NOW... oh, wait...
Re:It will only get worse - About That Gas Party? (Score:5, Funny)
Is that right after the Boston Baked Beans potluck?
Re:It will only get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Boston Patent Party! (Score:2)
I guess we could just burn them, huh?
Re:Boston Patent Party! (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:5, Funny)
RTFP (Read The Fine Patent) (Score:5, Interesting)
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) (Score:2)
Re:RTFP (Read The Fine Patent) (Score:2)
Don't call your lawyer, just give the hell up (Score:2)
Bill Gates, are you out there? Here's a suggestion that will forever alter my opinion of you and of Microsoft -- in fact alter it to one of unconditional positive regard. Please save us, and donate all of
Re:RTFP (Read The Fine Patent) (Score:3, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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...)
Patented. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patented. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
Re:Patented. (Score:3)
Prior Art (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, mainframes are so cool. And they offer patent protection, too.
Patent Madness... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Patent Madness... (Score:2)
Of course not. He was a patent examiner in Europe.
Who wants to see this headline? (Score:2, Funny)
Excited! (Score:3, Insightful)
My turn!! (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:My turn!! (Score:2)
USPTO will take care of themselves... (Score:2)
Software (Score:3, Insightful)
I Give Up (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Web Company? (Score:5, Interesting)
www.epicrealm.com == 'under construction'
www.infospinner.com == non existant
the only thing Googling for either name turns up press releases
Yeah, they WERE a web company... (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps (Score:2)
But probably not. It's cheaper and easier to throw money around the problem then to actually do the real work fix the problem. Hell, the US Govt doesn't even seem to think that any patent reform legislation is necessary AFAIK.
*sigh*
Re:Perhaps (Score:2)
Links? References? (Score:2)
Blame the Lawyers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Blame the Lawyers (Score:2)
Unless you are a registered patent agent, or have studied patent law, saying you can't understand the claims without studying how to is like saying you can't understand french without studying how to.
Re:Blame the Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFP (Score:2)
It's
Sorry. Google has prior art (Score:2)
Hopefully eHarmony et al. counter-sue for whatever charge it is you can leverage for frivolous lawsuits.
I got sued once. (Score:2)
The moral of the story is: anybody can sue anybody for anything. It means nothing. If they obviously have no case, just
Re:I got sued once. (Score:2)
Then it turns these frivolous lawsuits into a very expensive endeavour.
Filed 9 years ago (Score:2, Informative)
Assignee: InfoSpinner, Inc. (Richardson, TX)
Appl. No.: 636477
Filed: April 23, 1996
Submarine patent? Or not? Just lucky, I guess - will will now see how much law is an ass more than the SCO case.
Unreal Property (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Unreal Property (Score:2)
Cowards! (Score:2)
If these cowards were out for something more than extortion they should be suing Microsoft for selling the tools (ASP, .NET, IIS) for doing exactly this.
Come to think of it, what tools have they used to build their own web-site that implements these patents?
This is pure FUD (Score:2, Informative)
Nonsense. Even if they had enough money to go around suing every dynamic site on the internet (think 8,168,684,336 web pages indexed by Google and divide by, say, 1,000), it would halted by the court which would find these patents "obvious" and with "prior use" and invalidate them. They have to prove all this stuff, and of course, it's simply not possible.
Now, let's have an actual look at the patent, shall
Don't forget those intercaps! (Score:2)
OK... (Score:2)
"Epilcream uses Vague Patents to Sue Web Sites"
???
I guess my mind must be stuck on depilatories too much lately.
I have patented sex... (Score:4, Funny)
Patently Obvious.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Fun with Anagrams (Score:4, Funny)
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! (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple solution, use XHTML.
Yet more prior art (Score:3, Informative)
Re:By hand (Score:3, Funny)
Re:By hand (Score:3, Informative)
I think the Greeks had the cleaning product beaten by a couple thousand years.
Re:Paying for use of other patents... (Score:2)
Re:Paying for use of other patents... (Score:2)
Re:Paying for use of other patents... (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Paying for use of other patents... (Score:2)
But they do. They do. If you don't cite some prior art (with the aim of demonstrating how your invention differs from and extends upon previous inventions) the patent office might just reject your application for incompleteness. Hence, to give your application some effect, you must cite.
On the other hand, one cannot simply patent an already existing invention. If the claims are not sufficiently distinct from what exists in the prior art,
Re:This effects everyone (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously not. If you were a lawyer or knew any patent law you would have looked for priority data, such as:
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
Re:This effects everyone (Score:2)
Someone please mod the previous post up as informative.
Re:Epicrealm? (Score:2)
Or hair removal.
And you don't want to get those two mixed up!