PDA

View Full Version : BTG And Teleshuttle Sue Microsoft And Apple


MacBytes
Jul 20, 2004, 03:13 PM
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: BTG And Teleshuttle Sue Microsoft And Apple (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040720161308)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

shamino
Jul 20, 2004, 03:25 PM
So what are the infringing technologies?

It's not nice to issue a press release saying "we're filing suit, go figure out what for on your own".

bousozoku
Jul 20, 2004, 03:42 PM
Considering that Apple doesn't use a web-enabled but an internet-enabled updating system, it should not infringe. Microsoft's is more clearly a target.

michaelrjohnson
Jul 20, 2004, 03:50 PM
Considering that Apple doesn't use a web-enabled but an internet-enabled updating system, it should not infringe. Microsoft's is more clearly a target.

I would agree. The patent clearly states the use of an HTML based distribution system. That would make Microsoft, not Apple liable. Granted, the concept is virtually identical. Perhaps then the folks over at Mozilla.org are also in defiance?

swmooretiger
Jul 20, 2004, 04:02 PM
when did apple first use software update though? and same with windows? was it prior to 1998? if so, this guy is another nut, in the same line as SCO just tryin to make $$ on stupid software patents. patenting generic concepts for profit is just nuts. anyone should be allowed to update software using the internet, what's the big deal in that?

shamino
Jul 20, 2004, 04:15 PM
So what are the infringing technologies?

It's not nice to issue a press release saying "we're filing suit, go figure out what for on your own".
OK. I found another article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040720/tc_nm/tech_btg_lawsuit_dc) that explains it in a bit more detail.

This sounds very fishy to me. If you believe the press release, this guy has a patent on anything that updates itself over the internet, and all offline browsers, and anyhing that displays web content on your desktop.

Considering that all of these have been widely available for many years, it makes you wonder what rock this guy was hiding under that he didn't say anything back in 1996-97 when all of this was first introduced as a part of Internet Explorer version 4. If he was waiting for the tech to become ubiquitous in order to jack up the amount of a possible settlement, the court may decide to dismiss the entire suit altogether. (It's generally understood that someone trying to defend a copyright/patent is not allowed to encourage continued violation in order to get more penalties.)

This is just another example of what's broken with the patent system. Allowing someone to patent an idea without any actual invention does not contribute anything to humanity (the supposed reason for having a patent system) but simply allows people/corporations to lay trapdoors to later extort money from the rest of the world.

shamino
Jul 20, 2004, 04:25 PM
when did apple first use software update though? and same with windows? was it prior to 1998? if so, this guy is another nut, in the same line as SCO just tryin to make $$ on stupid software patents. patenting generic concepts for profit is just nuts. anyone should be allowed to update software using the internet, what's the big deal in that?
Microsoft's "windows update", offline-browsing and active desktop (the subjects of the two suits) were all introduced with Internet Explorer version 4. This was initially released for Windows 95 and was later bundled with Win98. I don't have a copy here to fetch an about-box date from, but I'm certain that this was released in the 1996-97 time frame.

If he was granted a patent before MS shipped IE4, and no other prior art can be found, then he has a case. Which, if he actually developed anything, would be morally correct. Someone who invents something unique should be able to profit from that something without big corporations stealing the idea. That is the purpose of a patent system.

This guy, however, like so many others before him, doesn't seem to have developed or tried to sell anything. The sum total of his "invention" is an idea on paper. Trying to profiteer in this fashion stifles invention instead of encouraging it. Personally, I think these kinds of patents should not be permitted - go back to the old standard where you actually have to show a working device before you can get a patent.

bousozoku
Jul 20, 2004, 04:30 PM
when did apple first use software update though? and same with windows? was it prior to 1998? if so, this guy is another nut, in the same line as SCO just tryin to make $$ on stupid software patents. patenting generic concepts for profit is just nuts. anyone should be allowed to update software using the internet, what's the big deal in that?

It wasn't prior to 1998 but the man began his association with BTG in 1998. It says nothing of when he applied for the patent. It looks as though they're out for quick cash and some sleazebag lawyer is willing to help.

webplummer
Jul 20, 2004, 05:26 PM
It was only a matter of time before all the wide-ranging crap patents filed about web-enabled things would come and bite software makers in the butt.

The fact that some organizations simply buy patents and the sue companies ten years later--after someone else had done all the work to make it successful--strikes me as simple internet-panhandling.

Perhaps patents should work the way internet domains do. If you're simply squatting, you got no case.

Golem
Jul 20, 2004, 07:56 PM
OK. I found another article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040720/tc_nm/tech_btg_lawsuit_dc) that explains it in a bit more detail.
(It's generally understood that someone trying to defend a copyright/patent is not allowed to encourage continued violation in order to get more penalties.)
.

A trademark you have to defend or lose it. A patent you can sit on for 19 years if you want and then sue everybody with one year to go.

, in the same line as SCO just tryin to make $$ on stupid software patents. ?


SCO is about fud not patents. SCO is suing Autozone for copyright,IBM is counterclaiming SCO for copyright and patents, Redhat is suing SCO over copyright. Everything else they are suing is over a few words in various contacts.


As for the topic patent it looks pretty wide which means their is a good chance of prior art somewhere.

docpsycho
Jul 21, 2004, 02:32 AM
funny, but I remember that the update via internet for microsoft was introduced on their consumer os as a key feature of Windows 98. And any MAc freak will know that it existed pre os X. yet the date of the patent is from 2003. but the accused had been using the ability well before the year of patent. If I were the judge, I'd be telling some one to get lost, you are a few years late.

swmooretiger
Jul 21, 2004, 02:51 AM
bottom line, the patent shouldn't have been issued in the first place...yet another case of the US patent office issuing bad patents, esp. software ones. they're understaffed and behind on technology, serious funds need to be allocated to take care of this issue.

bousozoku
Jul 21, 2004, 11:49 AM
funny, but I remember that the update via internet for microsoft was introduced on their consumer os as a key feature of Windows 98. And any MAc freak will know that it existed pre os X. yet the date of the patent is from 2003. but the accused had been using the ability well before the year of patent. If I were the judge, I'd be telling some one to get lost, you are a few years late.

I think you'll find that it was Windows 98 Second Edition that included Windows Update.

More important than the date of issue on the patent is the date that it was filed and that was in 2000, after the two software updating schemes had already been put into action.

shamino
Jul 22, 2004, 09:46 AM
I think you'll find that it was Windows 98 Second Edition that included Windows Update.
The first release of Windows that incorporated it. It actually shipped earlier, as a part of Internet Explorer version 4 - providing Windows update for Win95/98/NT users.

It was also IE 4 that introduced off-line browsing and the active desktop to Windows. (At least from a Microsoft source.) These are the two other features that quack is trying to sue Apple and MS over.