If HTML Were Invented Today, Someone Would Try To Patent It
from the patently-pointless dept
Another day, another silly patent application. John points us to a blog post about a a bizarre patent application to patent what the <script> tag is often used for. The patent application in question is for a method of <script> based remote JavaScript function call of web page. The blog post is by Brent Ashley who notes not only is the patent quite obvious, on a technique that the tag was designed to do and is used by many people, the actual code used in the patent application just so happens to have been copied directly from his own published code. So, not only are they trying to patent a patently obvious idea, they’re using someone else’s code to do so. Has anyone tried patenting HTML yet?
Comments on “If HTML Were Invented Today, Someone Would Try To Patent It”
patent
I would like to submit a patent for first post.
I want to claim patenting for any programming languages that uses the word “Print” “Cout” “Display” as a command for outputting basic texts.
XCetron – Ive already patented “select” and “echo”
I got dibs on the qwerty keyboard layout
i own “method of input by use of digits” FTW
I want Alt-Ctrl-Del….. Ooops! Bye!
Not so fast there people...
You all owe me a ton of money. I own a patent on “0” and “1” – “A method for representing information using a non decimal radix.” PAY UP!!!
Can you patent a language? I’d think that would need to be covered by copyright. Now the parser/interpreter/compiler for said language could be patented (and this has been done many times over by various people and companies). You can also patent specific processes using said code so long as they are non-obvious. But the language itself? I think not.
Re: Re:
Can you patent a language?
Re: Re: Re:
I like this comment, call me a n00b but is it specifially possible to patent catch words, phrases or combinations of linguistic words? This would then be analogous to patenting code snippits.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Catch words, phrases, or combinations of linguistic words” cannot be patented. They do not fall into the Patent Act’s requirements for statutory subject matter since they are not useful; the law says they lack “utility.” The reason that the use of tags was considered to have utility in the patent at issue here is that the tags were used to accomplish a task in a program. (BTW, you cannot copyright slogans or small phrases, so you would not be able to copyright catch words, phrases, or combinations of linguistic words either.)
Re: Re: Patenting a language
I hate to say it, but yes and no. As one poster correctly stated, one cannot patent English since it is a natural language. As to artificial languages, e.g. a new programming or scripting language, the actual language specification _by itself_ would be quite unlikely to merit protection. Thus, you will likely fail to get a patent if you merely submit BNF for a language, along with some additional description and a few claims. However, one probably can claim _uses_ of novel features of an artificial language if they have so-called utility.
I own the patent on the
patent, I own the patent on the patent by virutre of my great uncle’s fartehest away great grandfather from before the world was color, and he invented the patent, so patent on patent.
Blink
I patented the “blink” tag and that’s why it has been depreciated and no longer used.
I have a patent for the alphabet.
You all owe me. >_>
I’m currently applying one for life, the universe and everything. Except for the number 42, because Doug Adams owns it.
Re: Re:
Odd… one usually tries to patent the answers to the questions and not the other way around, yes?
You can't control every shmuck...
… who tries to patent hot water. The problem is if the patent gets granted.
Re: You can't control every shmuck...
The point here is that this patent *has* been granted.
Re: You can't control every shmuck...
I patented hot water.
Cold showers for you bud.
Re: You can't control every shmuck...
I own the patent on starting a sentence in the subject line, and finishing it in the comment line. And have declared it nooby and banned from use. Cease and desist, noob.
In 1963 I patented a progam called ‘Hello World’
Re: Re:
I thought that a patent lasted only for 20 years. So it would be expired by now.
my patent
Just mailed in application to patent 3 mouse clicks in a second
3 mouse clicks in more than a second and less than 2 seconds
3 mouse clicks in more than 2 seconds and less than 3 seconds…
I have a patent on the highlight function. So all of you copiers and pasters who use my highlight, pay up. Actually, I patented the copy and paste function too. Someone else already got the “Cut” portion of it, but I came away with “Paste”!
I have a patent on the patenting process. Everyone who has a patent, pay up.
I claim a patent on patent litigation. Everyone who collects on a patent… pay up!
I patented God and all of his creations billions of years ago, let’s see, with interest…. you each owe me 42^50000000 dollars!
Patents
i patented the |337 word w00t! everyone who has used it and ais using it, pay up!
We Owned the Other Team
w00t – We Oned the Other Team
We Owned the Other Team
w00t – We Owned the Other Team
You're Fired
Has the script been patented? Well, just like , you’re giving money to PJ!
Didn’t “The Donald (Trump)” patent “You’re Fired”?
P.S. I just patented post 22, while connected wirelessly on the toilet! (I patent any forms of misinterpretations to my patent)
You're Fired
Has the script been patented? Well, just like , you’re giving money to PJ!
Didn’t “The Donald (Trump)” patent “You’re Fired”?
P.S. I just patented post 22, while connected wirelessly on the toilet! (I patent any forms of misinterpretations to my patent)
You're Fired
Has the script been patented? Well, just like , you’re giving money to PJ!
Didn’t “The Donald (Trump)” patent “You’re Fired”?
P.S. I just patented post 22, while connected wirelessly on the toilet! (I patent any forms of misinterpretations to my patent)
That is like trying to patent the English language, you just can’t do it.
Timing and obviousness of the patent at issue
Without commenting on the actual validity of the patent, two observations: First, the issued patent claimed priority to a provisional “placeholder” application filed on Dec. 1, 2000 – this means that the patent examiner at the PTO evaluated the merits of the patent application based on what was available before that date. If the examiner did not find evidence that anyone was “doing” what the patent applicants claimed as of Nov. 30, 2000 or earlier, he or she would have come to the conclusion that it was novel. This seems to be shored up since Brent said, “Numerous people have ‘discovered’ and exploited the value in using the script tag to get code and data on the fly since that time.”
Second, Brent wrote, “It’s an obvious logical use of the functionality for which it was designed.” Apparently, this is where the obviousness assault should have been levied by the examiner. It could be that this is where any successful invalidity challenge in court would occur. Brent correctly notes that the patentee “has the upper hand;” an issued patent is presumed valid and can be found invalid in the face of clear and convincing evidence that it was not novel or it was obvious. This is a tough standard to meet, but note that more than one patent litigation has terminated very early if there is clear evidence of prior art which renders a patent invalid.
So, it could well be that this particular patent will not survive if challenged.
Sounds like he’s trying to patent the same technology that AJAX uses and will try to collect on anyone using AJAX to call a server side function.
I have the patent on technology that AJAX uses
I was always told that a thing could not be pattented if it had been in common use for more than a year and a day. Any attorneys able to comment?
Re: "year and a day" statutory bar
Phlatus asks if “thing could not be patented if it had been in common use for more than a year and a day.” In fact, according to the Patent Act statute 35 USC 102(a), if the invention was known or used by others in this country anytime before the idea was conceived of by the patent applicant, no patent should issue.
The year long “grace period” is what Phlatus is thinking of. This refers to the statutory bar 35 USC 102(b) which says you cannot get a patent if “the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.”
There are many other aspects to 35 USC 102, but that covers the question generally.
Gary Gex:BTW, you cannot copyright slogans or small phrases, so you would not be able to copyright catch words, phrases, or combinations of linguistic words either.
Can’t you trademark them tho? Like Pat Riley did with the phrase Threepeat?
no small phrases?
Gary Gex:BTW, you cannot copyright slogans or small phrases, so you would not be able to copyright catch words, phrases, or combinations of linguistic words either.
Can’t you trademark them tho? Like Pat Riley did with the phrase Threepeat?
BTW: I patented the trademark. oh, and cut and paste. yeah, that’s it.
oops...
i also patent duplicate posts!
I own a patent for patents.
PWNED.
Re: Re:
I own the patent on patenting patents.
too late now fool
TM for no small phrases?
The question posed by Anonymous and “No One” is : “Can’t you trademark [short phrases] tho? Like Pat Riley did with the phrase Threepeat?” Yes, one can associate a phrase as a common law trademark designation with goods or services for sale without any governmental agency approval (TM vs. SM, respectively, plus some other categories not worth going into, like the Goodhouse Keeping seal of approval which falls into a different type of mark) . One can also seek federal trademark registration from the Patent and Trademark Office, which permits legitimate use of the ® symbol if the PTO grants you the mark. But the thing to remember is that a trademark is merely a device to permit vendors the ability to distinguish their goods or services from those of other vendors. Think branding. A strong trademark affords the right to keep others from passing off goods with your mark, but it is not the same type of protection afforded by patents; patents give the right to exclude others from practicing the invention, and is a stronger protection than copyright or trademark. That is one of the policy reasons why patents have a much shorter duration than copyright. On the other hand, trademarks can have potentially infinite duration, but if you don’t use it to sell your goods/services, you lose it.
I patent breathing and oxygen. Pay up or learn to hold your breath!
I can’t believe all the retardedness in this country from greedy little pigs trying to get rich by STEALING ideas and taking their use away from the people of this country. I remember back when stupid patents were just bad ideas. (like the toilet snorkel or the Fish Bath (From http://www.totallyabsurd.com/))
I own a patent on meta patenting: the patenting of the patenting. all you commenters who thought you were being witty, pay up!
i hold the patent on the enter key. so pay up biiiiatches
obviousness
I think the obviousness argument in this case comes down to this:
If the patent process is working properly, the general public’s first understanding of this technique should come from reading the patent itself, since it is the expression of a unique unobvious patentable idea.
The fact that this particular technique is in wide use and has been for 5 years means that either:
a) everyone’s knowledge of the technique has come from the revelations contained in the patent
or
b) it was obvious enough than many other people arrived at the same technique without having been exposed to the patent.
If b), then the patent should be found to be invalid by reason of non-obviousness.
As a person who has taken great interest in this field since 1998, I contend that b) is how it played out.
Did the patent examiner read the spec?
Here’s what the spec says:
So basically, this guy (or group) has now got a patent using a technology in the way that it was intended to be used: to load data from the server. This is a shameful oversight by the USPTO and opens the door for a rash of patent applications for using specific parts of a language for their intended usage. I, at this moment, am filing a patent application for using XMLHttpRequest to retrieve data from the server.
BT longly tried to claim patents on HTML
see http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955001.html for whole story
Didn't Al Gore already get this patent?
see the link for details and more.
Stupidity
The stupidity generated by this thread astounds me.
Re: Stupidity
I totally agree with you, oh master of what is intelligent and knows everything. You truly are a genius and should spread you knowledge to those among us who do not take thing seriously.