Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online

Canadian Company Claims RDF Patent 188

Posted by timothy from the patenting dept.
quinticent writes: "Looks like they are at it again. Companies seem to like to let a standard become, well, standard before pulling out the lawyers to claim they own a patent on it. Now some Canadian company is claiming they own a US patent on RDF (doesn't Slashdot use RDF?). When will the US government realize that allowing patents on common ideas is just wrong? The CNet article is here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Company Claims RDF Patent More

Canadian Company Claims RDF Patent

Comments Filter:

  • Yep, slashdot has it (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cheetah86 ( 136854 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:30PM (#2782733) Homepage
    (doesn't Slashdot use RDF?)

    Here it is. [slashdot.org]

  • Slashdot.org patent (Score:4, Funny)

    by torquil ( 228219 ) <torquil@rockbridge.net> on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:34PM (#2782744) Homepage
    So, any bets as to how long before [Read More...] on slashdot stories is copyrighted?
  • Supposedly the patent is "method and apparatus utilizing bond identifiers executed upon accessing of an endo-dynamic information node."

    WTF does that mean?

    D/\ Gooberguy
    • I think that's the trick. File a patent with a bunch of obscure phraseology like "method and apparatus utilizing bond identifiers executed upon accessing of an endo-dynamic information node", wait for a technology that remotely could be stuffed into the obscure phraseology, then claim a patent on it. Easy.

      -
      • I would _hope_ that the patent defines the terms. I don't want to spend the time reading it to find out, if that's how they write. And of course, it is quite possible that between 1994 when they filed the patent and 1997, they discovered which way the RDF team was going and added the appropriate definitions to the patent...

        If I was on a jury concerning this patent, that language would certainly put me on my guard and predispose me to find something wrong with it. In my experience, made-up words like these occur in four ways:

        1) The inventor or scientist is doing something so new that it is necessary to invent words to describe it. However, serious inventors and scientists don't make up words like "Endo-dynamic information node."

        2) The "inventor" is a crack-pot.

        3) The "inventor" is utterly unaware of existing work in the area, so does not know the proper terminology and makes up his own. He also doesn't know about prior art. And, to make up words like that, he is either a crack-pot or his marketing side is a lot stronger than his technical side, so I'd wonder about whether he really can invent anything.

        4) The non-standard terminology is deliberately used so that no one doing a patent search, is likely to find it. This lets the patent holder wait until someone has committed their business to using this technology, instead of working around it by changing the implementation, and then spring the patent on them. If that's not fraud, it ought to be.
      • All very well, but you can't patent something this general. I'm reminded of the guy who tried to claim a patent on air-to-surface torpedoes early last century (I typed that as early *this* century the first time, it's still disorientating...) based on a "likely" technology.

        That patent was not upheld, because no torpedo existed that could survive being dropped into the water from a plane, and no plane existed that could safely carry such a torpedo. Simply saying that such things could be developed from existing technology is not enough, you have to be able to produce a practical demonstration (ie. prove the idea works with the technology currently available).
    • This is from the RDF specifications [w3.org] available from W3C:

      The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax.

    • Re:Can someone tell me what this means? (Score:4, Informative)

      by XBL ( 305578 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:52PM (#2782831)
      Well, I suppose that *MAYBE* this could be interpreted as an RDF triple.

      bond identifier == URI
      endo-dynamic information node == a Resource

  • I Think You Said It Best Yourself (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:37PM (#2782761)
    When will the US government realize that allowing patents on common ideas is just wrong?

    That's the problem. Say company A creates something and company B is jealous. Well, company B could simply say "Oh yeah, we came up with that too, and so did company C and D and E. It's common!". Thus, there would be no patents.

    Note if you don't think patents should exist, please don't argue about it on this thread, I'm just pointing something out.
    • then you could look at records in the patent office and see if company A registered the patent before companys B, C, D, & E.

      Its really very simple. Of course if there is prior art, or if it is a common idea, or obvious, or does not work (the patent office used to require working prototypes - or at least implementation details) the patent office should reject the patent.

      If company B (or individual F) is sued by company A for patent infringement, and for some reason the patent office had not done its job, then it is a simple matter of producing prior art or demonstrating it is an obvious invention, etc.

      As far as I know, there hasn't yet been an issue where patents were wrongfully enforced where it wasn't patently (sorry) obvious unless it was a complex invention. Even software patents.

      The problem lies in the corrupt judicial system. The corrupt (and lazy) patent office is a secondary player -- like blaming the zoning department for not putting up a stop light at an intersection where someone is hit by a drunk driver.
      • The problem is that the judicial system is based on trial-by-combat. (A slightly better choice than basing it on trial by ordeal.)

        The purpose of the legal system originally was to limit the occasions of out-and-out internal wars breaking out. Thus a display of strength would be used, and whoever looked as if they would actually win was awarded the victory by the state, which then backed this up with the threat of addtional force. "We don't like internal fights, and if you fight him, then he'll win. So we'll come in on his side if you do, just to get it over with quickly." It worked reasonably well for this purpose, and over the decaded it became more and more a pro-forma matter. This is why british lawyers are called esquires. The word is from squire. During the 1600's and 1700's it became more and more a matter of displaying fancy arguments. Sometime in the 1700's a guy who faced loosing showed up in full armor and challenged combat. He won, but the right to do that was quickly removed. The MAJOR purpose, remember, was to limit internal conflict. This is the basic concept behind the brittish/american idea of justice. Now instead of fancy armor the champions wear the "proper" suits, and speak with the "proper" accents. This protects them from damages. And it does. A lawyer who showed up in jeans and a tee shirt wouldn't even be allowed to speak. A client might well be charged with contempt of court (at the whim of the judge), and to that there is no appeal.

        This system has been carried in it's reasonable extension into the Patent Court system. A patent is descendant from a "special favor" awarded by the King. For this to not cause unrest among the powerful, it must almost always be presented to the powerful. Knights in charge of breweries to awarded by the crown, etc. (I understand that the original Carlberg brewery is actually on royal lands in Denmark.) This special award was called a patent. So was the award of a rank in the nobility. And this would have been clearly known (and recent history) among the people who devised the word patent to describe a limited monopoly issued by the state. That's what patent meant to them. The unique difference was that it was supposed to be a reward for a useful invention. But this was the creation of a group of men who largely believed that only land-owning males should be allowed to vote. (Again, think of it as an attempt to ensure stability by giving those with power the right to have a say in what choices would be made, if only indirectly.) Even originally the very powerful were not satisfied with an equal say, and used various schemes to undermine the nominal equality. As they were learning to cope with this (buying votes via indirection, favors to politicians that weren't considered bribes, etc.) the franchise was extended to a larger and larger segment of the populace. Now in the US this has reached the point where almost everyone is allowed to vote, but where who they are allowed to vote for has been sufficiently constrained that it nearly doesn't matter. Would Gore really have been any better? He probably would have been less arrogant. He probably wouldn't have gone out of his way to offend other countries. He probably would have been more concerned with a positive image. But he showed signs of being just as devoted to the increasing centralization of political power. And that's the big evil of the current government. He was at least as dedicated to surveillence of the populace. (That was one of his campaigns as vice president.)

        So corrupt isn't the correct word. It's a basic matter of system design. This system was designed from the initial steps to be stable. Currently it is undergoing a profound, and I believe dangerously misguided, centralization of power. To me this looks as if the stability is being sacrificed for the sake of temporary power. But corrupt doesn't to me appear to be the proper concept.

  • Common Idea? (Score:2, Troll)

    by Sc00ter ( 99550 )
    When is a common idea common? There are so many things that are patented, various types of paper bags, slightly different bottle caps.. Different type of tires that are almost exactly the same as other types of tires.. It's very easy to claim that something is a common idea once it's been invented and patented.


    It just seems silly that all the geeks are bitching about common ideas on patents now when common stuff has been patented since the beginning of patents.

    • Re:Common Idea? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cato the Elder ( 520133 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:59PM (#2782857) Homepage
      Clearly, if you can patent a bunch of "slightly different bottle caps" then the patent is not common, but specific. The problem with many patents, especially software patents, is that they are specific things interpreted very broadly. For instance, I think that extended there concept of a "bonding identifier" to include (I presume) the nesting that defines parent-child relationships in XML to be very sketchy. You're supposed to be able to patent methods, not goals.

    • Re:Common Idea? (Score:4, Informative)

      by DonnarsHmr ( 230149 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @11:21PM (#2783123) Homepage
      The deficency in the US Patent system isn't one of "common ideas". As has been mentioned, tires, computers, and many other things are all "common ideas". The problem is patenting *general* ideas. It's reasonable to patent a specific solution to the problem of getting to work (say, each of the parts in a Ford Explorer). It is *unreasonable* to allow a patent on the idea of using internal combustion to move people around. It is also reasonable to patent processes like a specific method of refining crude oil into gasoline. However, the Patent Office would never patent the *idea* of turing crude oil into gasoline. The breakdown of the US patent system came when it was extended into intellectual property and CS concepts. The Office has not drawn a distinction between a specific algorhythm and an idea that encompasses an entire range of solutions.
    • The newly reinvented safety pin was protected by a US patent issued in about 1850 despite these items (fibulae [vroma.org]) having been widely used a couple or three thousand years earlier. Look close: that thing's a fancy safety pin. The small item above it looks like a variation.
  • The article states:
    But the charges did not receive much press until this week, when a developer posted a message on the W3C's Web site claiming he had received paperwork from a law firm regarding the patent

    How long have they been at it? This press release [pearlltd.com] shows that they've been at it for over two years.

  • If you're going to blame someone... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    blame the USPTO (and hence the Americans), they are the ones who actually awarded the patent.
  • The Patent Enforcement and Royalties Ltd. (PEARL) sponser plenty of this so called "patent investments" take a look here. [pearlltd.com]
    • Looks like this company is sham and nothing else. Reminds me of Rambus, only Rambus actually invented some of the stuff they're suing over. Reading through the parent link (http://www.pearlltd.com/content/investments.html) , it appears they pay for the right to defend patents for people and get a portion of the winnings.

      The most recent date even mentioned is May 2001 and even tho they've been attempting to sue folks over these things since 1999 they've only won $200,000. Unless PEARL is one person, I highly doubt this even covers operating expenses. Hope they have day jobs.

  • Hmmm :-) (Score:2, Funny)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 )
    wonder if I can patent the patent process ... now that'd be funny.

    • Though it'd be funny and appropriate, I think a few hundred years of prior art are going to kill you on this one.

      • Re:Hmmm :-) (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "I think a few hundred years of prior art are going to kill you on this one."

        That never stopped anyone before. I heard that someone successfully patented the coat hanger for Christ's sake! Some Australian guy even successfully patented the wheel as a joke.

    • Re:Hmmm :-) (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RedWizzard ( 192002 )
      wonder if I can patent the patent process ... now that'd be funny.
      It might take something similarly disruptive for legislators to realise what a mess the system is in. The obvious candidate is BT's claim on hyperlinking. I'm sure someone in power would notice if the US Internet economy took a big hit due to hyperlink license fees.
  • "Now some Canadian company is claiming they own a US patent on RDF (doesn't Slashdot use RDF?)."

    Just like Rambus tried to leech on the enormous computer memory market, it's quite plain that these crazy canuks just want a share of the huge revenue stream generated by slashdot.org.

  • Vancouver-based UFIL Unified Data Technologies, a private company, claims that it owns U.S. patent 5,684,985, a "method and apparatus utilizing bond identifiers executed upon accessing of an endo-dynamic information node." The patent was awarded in November 1997.



    Didn't we pass a bill to make English the official language of the United States? Wouldn't that make this patent null and void?



    Makes me wish I'd voted for that stupid idea...



    To quote Mark Twain (Huckleberry Finn): "Huck, if a Frenchman is a man, why don't he talk like a man?" (With apologies to French-speaking slashdot readers. :) )



    I just don't see what "a method and apparatus utilizing bond identifiers executed upon accessing of an endo-dynamic information node" has to do with RDF, but I'm sure the U.S. patent office knows better than me.

  • Endo-Dynamic (Score:5, Informative)

    by adamy ( 78406 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:41PM (#2782785) Homepage Journal
    They sure love that word.

    As endo means inner and Dynamic means changing, I guess they are sayinga an internally reconfigurable system.Or a system that can react without external interference. Sounds like anything that is based on
    an interpreter/parser to me...but anyway

    (a) generating an information structure and relationship in the memory of the computer as one or more Endo-Dynamic Sets (EDS), the EDS comprising a list of one or more Endo-Dynamic Information Nodes (EDINs), the EDINs each representing an atomic component of data, and the EDINs each comprising a subject identifier, an attribute identifier, and a bond identifier, wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers;

    OK, we got a two objects, and a relationship between them. Hashtable, anyone?

    Maybe there is some subtlety hidden in all that gibberish. I am a programmer, and I have trouble reading it, I feel sorry for the poor bloke at the patent office that had to struggle through it...assuming one did.

    I realize that most computer programs, converted to english, would probably translate as well as that one did. Wopuldn't it be eiser if they just tried to patent their original source code.

    • Re:Endo-Dynamic (Score:3, Informative)

      by XBL ( 305578 )
      Well, after reading this comment, and really looking at what they wrote, I am beginning to agree with their claim somewhat that what their patent is actually RDF...

      In RDF, the relationship would be a URI (typically represented in URL format). The two objects are called Resources. This is the "bond identifier" they speak of.

      A Resource "subject identifier" can be an object that contains some fields, "attribute identifiers" with references to other resources, a collection of elements, or a literal that contains actual data.

      • Re:Endo-Dynamic (Score:2, Interesting)

        by junklight ( 183583 )
        Aren't the ideas in this also embodied in Marvin Minskys frames though. Can't remember the date but he invented these in the 60's

        mark

    • Re:Endo-Dynamic (Score:2, Informative)

      by Shadowin ( 312793 )
      Wopuldn't it be eiser if they just tried to patent their original source code.

      Because you copyright sourcecode. That would be the same as patenting a book. Instead, you patent the process. I'm amazed there hasn't been an author (such as Steven King) patent his/her story-making process.

      • Re:Endo-Dynamic (Score:4, Funny)

        by Erris ( 531066 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:10AM (#2783634) Homepage Journal
        That would be the same as patenting a book. Instead, you patent the process. I'm amazed there hasn't been an author (such as Steven King) patent his/her story-making process.

        I'm amazed some greedhead is not trying to patent the multifolio codex with ink encoding as a means of conveying page indexed information.

  • Common Idea? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:42PM (#2782786)

    What kind of a remark is this? What determins a "common idea"? Would you say that polaroid's patent on self-developing film is a "common idea", just because everyone knows how it works? Protecting ideas is the whole point of patents. Just because an idea is common NOW doesn't mean it has always been so.

    Not that I support this RDF patent (it's just an application of XML, and XML isn't patented. What, are we going to start patenting every DTD out there now?), but this statement is absurd.

    • I think there's a difference between patenting a technology and it's implementations (The implementation being the common idea.)

      Patenting a technology (be it XML or Instamatic Film) would almost make sense (though I'm rather glad XML is an open standard)

      Patenting their uses - as this seems to be is ridiculous.

      Lets say Guttenberg didn't patent the printing press, but some yutz came along three years later and was able to convince the USPTO to allow a patent for a "Method of communicating using text produced by a printing press"

      We'd all be set back a thousand years.

      This sort of profiteering could seriously hinder innovation. Really. Not just in M$ speak.

      • Re:Common Idea? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by stubear ( 130454 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @10:29PM (#2782966)
        "Lets say Guttenberg didn't patent the printing press, but some yutz came along three years later and was able to convince the USPTO to allow a patent for a "Method of communicating using text produced by a printing press""

        This can't happen because Guttenberg, or anyone else for that matter, could prove prior art.

        I think the original question has merit. What is a common idea? Isn't instamatic film an idea? The patent covers the implementation itself but it's nothing more than an idea.

        RDF is an implementation of XML and XML is nothing more than an idea of ways to make data seamless. It's the DTD that is the actual implementation of which RDF is one, and it is patented.

        The problem is not with the patent, it's with the process by which patent claims can be checked and with the way with which courts allow patnet owners to lie in wait before filing a law suit. The patent process needs to be revamped, not what gets patented.

    • Re:Common Idea? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Samrobb ( 12731 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @10:16PM (#2782925) Journal
      Would you say that polaroid's patent on self-developing film is a "common idea"...

      No, because they didn't patent the idea - they patented a method (probably multiple methods) of producing self-developing film.

      The patent gave them a temporary monopoly on producing self-developing film using those methods. If someone came up with another way to produce self-developing film, then hey! - they could patent that method and tell Polaroid to go take a flying leap, because the patent was for how something was done, not the idea of doing it.

      With software patents, the exact opposite happens - ideas are patented, methods are not. The actual method by which an idea is implemented is essentially irrelevant in a software patent. If you allowed these types of patents in other fields, you'd see things like Merck patenting "a method of utilising chemical compounds to increase serotonin levels in brain tissue" and filing a patent infringement lawsuit against every other pharmaceutical company that makes antidepressants.

      • I remember an article in New Scientist from years ago about a company that was the first to succesfully genetically engineer cotton claiming a patent on all genetically engineered cotton - just the sort of excess you complain about.

        I've said this before: patents should distinguish between means and ends, and one may be patentable when the other is not.

        Examples:
        Self developing film: obvious end, inobvious means.
        Hula hoop: obvious means, inobvious end (so the developers could prevent loops of hose being sold as a toy for swinging around one's body, but not loops of hose being used for other means.)
        Rubic's cube: inobvious means, inobvious end.
        One-click shopping using cookies: obvious means, obvious end.

      • Re:Common Idea? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by istartedi ( 132515 )

        And the patent system worked as it should in this case. Polaroid thought they could rest on their patent forever. They failed to innovate and paid the price. [yahoo.com]

        A few days ago I saw an ad for some product they were releasing in vain hope of rescuing the company--yet another instant film camera. So sad. Two years before the introduction of Sony's Mavica, I was discussing the idea of a floppy-based digitial camera with my friends. Polaroid just kept cranking out those stupid film cameras and never saw the light. I have a Polaroid that's been sitting in my closet for 6 years now...

    • Would you say that polaroid's patent on self-developing film is a "common idea", just because everyone knows how it works?
      Polaroid's patents on instant cameras would be design patents protecting the specific design of the film and camera, not a patent on an idea at all. These software patents are an entirely different thing, they are utility patents on a process. In the language of patent law a patent can be granted to anyone who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof". Originally "new and useful process" meant manufacturing process, not computer (or mathematical) algorithm. The law's being applied to cases it wasn't envisioned for.
      Protecting ideas is the whole point of patents.
      No, protecting inventions is the point of patents. In this case it seems (and I haven't studied the patent in detail) that the ideas are fairly obvious as the first draft of the (allegedly) infringing standard was developed within a similar timeframe to the patent. The problem is that through all that obfuscating language it's difficult to determine exactly what is being patented, let alone whether it's novel and non-obvious.
      • Actually in the US the point of patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" At least thats what the constitution [usconstitution.net] says. I guess you might b able to argue common law, but I think the constitution just might trump that.

        Of course I use this to argue for a completely new patent/copyright system, but that is neither here nor there...
        • "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" At least thats what the constitution [usconstitution.net] says.
          That section of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws for that purpose, it's not the law itself. Specifically, while the aim of patent law may be to "promote the progress ..." the patent law itself protects invention.

          Still I never claimed to be an expert in US law. I'm just going by what the people who hand these damn things out claim [uspto.gov].

      • The problem is that through all that obfuscating language it's difficult to determine exactly what is being patented, let alone whether it's novel and non-obvious.

        The point of such obfuscating language is to make even very old (i.e. the sort of things the Romans would regard as "historic") ideas appear to be new. (In the same way that things such as food products change packaging and name.)
        A sensible patent process would simply reject (or even make a handling surcharge) for patent applications which did not use the simplist language possible (and include a glossary for needed technical terms.) Unfortunatly the USPO does not work this way.
    • There is a big difference between having an idea and actually have the product. AFAIK, the whole patent process is to protect your investment on developping the product, or at least it should be. This means that several companies/people can come up with a different solution to a problem and compete with each other. If one company develops a method and others just copy it, then they would be violating a patent, if there is one.
      I don't know the entire background of the Kodak self-developing photo (I remember some company having to take back all their products because of it) but if they got the patent just for the idea, then I can just say that IMHO the patent bureau screwed up again.

      It would be to easy to have someone develop an entire proces to solve the problem/idea you have and then clame that you thought of it first.

  • What's here to patent? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:42PM (#2782789) Homepage Journal
    If you can patent new TAGS , you can probably get away with anything! This is just a set of markups - and an OBVIOUS one, as it is simply usining a subset of SGML in exactly the way it was intended. Being "non-obvious" is a key requirement for an invention to be granted a patent.

    Great Idea (tm):
    Why doesn't the guy trying to patent the HyperLink sue the fellow patenting RDF?

    • Re:What's here to patent? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by XBL ( 305578 )
      RDF is two different things. 1st, and most important, it's a data model. 2nd, it is an XML specification.

      Their patent claim is on the data model part. After reading the patent, I have to agree that they have stated the basics of the RDF data model. See my comments in elsewhere in this discussion.

  • Patenting Mathemetics? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:43PM (#2782790) Journal
    The first working Draft of RDF was submitted Oct 1997 [w3.org]

    The Patent [uspto.gov] was awarded November 1997, but was filed in Dec 1994.

    Scanning through the patent, the patent seems to be filed on a mathematical system. of course I may have this wrong, but the language of the patent is filled with it.

    It is like trying to patent arithmetic, but making it so complex that it is not obvious to most people looking at it.

  • I own the patent on all files ending with .txt. No, I do not accept PayPal, and yes, this is a joke.

  • blah! (Score:1, Troll)

    by loraksus ( 171574 )
    Someone meeds to stop by their headquarters and throw a friggin brick through the biggest window in the office. Then take pics, post them to freenet.
    Seriously, stupid shit like this has got to stop, companies like rambus doing their patent fairy dance, the fuckin tivo/sonicblue bullshit, shit like trying to take a domain name away from a person who registered the name years before the company existed...
    http://save.unicom.com/

    I'd think the courts in this country would realize that pulling this sort of crap is not cool. If you're gonna make something propriatery and want to keep it secret
    Of course, this is assuming that there is a pre-school level of technical ability / understanding in the patent office.
    Fuckin' lawyers. . .
  • Check out http://www.nukees.com/d/20000811.html

    A great poke at our patent system, and by one darn funny comic. Make sure to read the whole storyline... The LawBot 0.92 is one of the funniest things I've ever seen :)
  • This just in. God patents existence. PEARL will be "executing" the patent enforcement at dawn. Enjoy your evening...

  • Ah (Score:1)

    by MrSloth ( 544065 )
    Ahh, that's the Capatalist way, wait for something to get big then claim you own it. That reminds me, I have to tell everyone that I was the first person to think of Napster, but left just before things started going bad.

    • Re:Ah (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by liquidsin ( 398151 )
      Such a typical stupid fucking slashdot reply. If you read the article, you'd see that the patent was filed in 1994 and awarded in 1997. RDF wasn't even a spec until 1998 and was a W3C recommendation by february 1999. So how the hell does that equal "wait(ing) for something to get big then claim you own it"? At least do the rest of us the favour of reading the material before you blindly comment and subject us to your uninfomred drivel.
      • Simple. think about it in other terms, though. Rather than simply manufacturing a claim after the fact, these guys have patented something. I don't say something because I'm unaware of what their patent concerns, but rather because that's all it is. A patent so ambigiously phrased could be manipulated after the fact. If you would read the patent information, as provided in the article, you'd see that the patent is not truly that similar to RDF. In fact, the section where they began referring to its applications in the field of operating systems should have been your first clue. Their patent concerns something referred to as an IOS, or Information OS, not RDF. Having failed in succeeding in this legitimate endeavour, they now seek to make money on their patent by suing for infringement. This conclusion is bolstered by the prolonged absence of their website from the internet. Try a search. I doubt you'll find it. I couldn't even get a google cache. I found only the links to PEARL, and a link describing the IOS of the company. The link to their corporate site fails, by the way.
      • I think what he's referring to is how the company didn't step in and notify anyone of their patent until RDF became a standard.

        Notice he didn't say anything about patenting existing technology.
  • I skimmed the patent, and I can't understand why they are even bothering. The RDF model (ignoring the syntax) is just that, a graphical model. Now, if I could see some diagrams of their idea in the patent, then maybe I could give them some credibility. However, all I see is Figure references without the figures! That really sucks.

    There doesn't even seem to be any mention of something like a 'triple', one of the foundations of the RDF model. All I see here is mentions of information be both static and dynamic. Umm, sorry but this is very general.
    • After reading another post that had a good quote from the patent, I have changed my mind... I think they do have the basic idea of what RDF is written down here. Howevever, I don't think they should get any royalties.

      ---

      generating an information structure and relationship in the memory of the computer as one or more Endo-Dynamic Sets (EDS), the EDS comprising a list of one or more Endo-Dynamic Information Nodes (EDINs), the EDINs each representing an atomic component of data, and the EDINs each comprising a subject identifier, an attribute identifier, and a bond identifier, wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers

      In RDF, a relationship between two objects would be a URI (typically represented in URL format). The two objects are called Resources. This is the "bond identifier" they speak of.

      A Resource identifier is the "subject identifier" they speak of. These would contain some fields, "attribute identifiers" with references to other resources, a collection of elements, or a literal that contains actual data.

      After recognizing all of this, there is this: "wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers". This is exactly what an RDF triple is, and is basically the building block of the RDF model specification.

      So, I do agree with their claim that this is RDF, but I really don't think they should get any royalties from it. If they were that concerned, how could they let the RDF specification reach recommendation in 1999, and just now in 2002 finally say something?
      • So, I do agree with their claim that this is RDF, but I really don't think they should get any royalties from it. If they were that concerned, how could they let the RDF specification reach recommendation in 1999, and just now in 2002 finally say something?

        Well, that's just the way patents work. That's why I think patents suck, but that's entirely another story. The point is, whoever implements something is responsible for finding out about any relevant patents, not the patent owner for telling the implementor about the patent. This is unlike trademarks - you can actually lose a trademark by failing to defend it. With patents this just doesn't hold.

      • So you think because their newspeak matches the definition of the RDF data model, so they are right? This data model is just a directed labled graph. They could have as well have patented the idea of a set, and sue Oracle for using it in their databases.

    • The bottommost blue button, Images [uspto.gov], at the top of the patent's web page, links to page images of the figures and text of the patent.

  • This is just the latest example in a very common problem: there is exactly 0 value in "a generic method to blah blah". The value is in the network: lots and lots of companies (in this case way more than the 45 alleged in the claim BTW) using the same methods to blah blah. So in this case the patent brings 0 value to the World, the standard is what creates value. Now will the courts share this opinion is anybody's guess...

    Incidently there are 2 ways by which lots and lots of companies do things the same way: through open standards (TCP/IP, the Web, RDF...) or through a dominant player (read Microsoft) imposing its method (MS Word, passport...)

  • RDF vs RSS (Score:5, Informative)

    by burtonator ( 70115 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:49PM (#2782825)
    Slashdot does not use RDF.

    What you are thinking of is the slashdot RSS feed [slashdot.org].

    This is not true RDF. This is actually Rich Site Summary.

    Early in the development of RSS there was a slight intermingling with RDF.

    The only current remant is the shared RDF namespace that RSS 1.0 uses. Slashdot uses RSS 0.9 so I can understand the confusion.

    True RDF is REALLY cool and I hope this patent gets knocked back to /dev/null where it belongs. RDF can be used to create very complex graphs which computer systems can understand.

    We are working on a distributed Reputation system [openprivacy.org] and RDF graphs will probably play a major role.

    Also. If you are interested in doing some cool stuff with RSS I would recommend checking out Reptile [openprivacy.org]

    Kevin

  • Searching for prior art... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wavicle ( 181176 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @09:52PM (#2782832)
    So has anybody actually read their patent and care to speculate about prior art that may exist?

    Reading through the claims of the patent in question, I think that SNMP may be an instance of prior art. SNMP contains all that atomic, compound, "endo-dynamic" and static information contained in an hierarchical identification node schema. Take the data returned from an SNMP tree walk and put it in XML and you have something nearly identical to what they've patented.

    Anybody seen this?
  • Ok I work with EDI.. It's yet another 'standard' way of formatting data for exchange between different systems.

    Do the SLIGHT variations really matter enough to garner a patent? A previous poster noted that different bottle cap designs are patented. That's absurd.

    The idea of HTML is no different than the idea of XML. Formatting data. One type has tags for viewing, the other has tags for data type.

    EDI is like XML. In fact there's talk of XML replacing EDI, but I really could care less, it just a fucking format. That's like converting from comma delimited to fixed width fields.

    OHHH Fixed width! That's a NEW IDEA, and needs to be patented..

    Or am I completely off the mark?
    • You're at least somewhat off the mark.

      One of the challenges in bottle cap technology is designing a device that is guaranteed to seal despite rather gross variations in the bottle top.

      Some of the designs to compensate for these variations, while still ensuring a positive seal against outgassing, are pretty darn innovative. Certainly worthy of patenting.
      • One of the challenges in bottle cap technology is designing a device that is guaranteed to seal despite rather gross variations in the bottle top. And to do it very, very cheaply. That's where the real inventiveness comes in. Anyone can seal a bottle with $1.00 worth of rubber, but to handle variations in the bottle top for half a cent, that's tricky.

        Anyway, these bottle top patents apply only to a very specific design. If you can improve upon a patented cap at all, you've probably changed it enough to be non-infringing. To get a general patent on the idea of sealing a bottle, you'd have had to file in 5,000 BC or so...

        However, software patents often claim to be about that general, in most cases without much justification. IANAL, but what I've seen looking at those that I could to some extent read is:

        1) The RSA patent (now expired) would once have been questionable because it patents a mathematical algorithm (if performed by computer), but it did cover a specific and genuinely new idea. Not too bad.

        2) Patents describing one specific implementation of a not-especially-new idea, coupled to claims alleging to cover all implementations of that idea. (I haven't looked up the hyperlinks patent, but what else could it be?) The implementation is probably patentable, but easy to work around. The claims are, IMO, way too broad and cover lots of prior art. Bring these guys to court with evidence of prior art, and their claims will get trimmed way back. But why in heck should it be necessary for you to pay lawyers to take the case to court just to continue doing what you were doing before the patent was filed? The problem is, (1) the patent office is out of its depth in evaluting these claims, and (2) there is no penalty for ridiculous claims. So why not make the claims ridiculously broad and see if you can scare someone into paying royalties? My suggestion: loser pays, plus you can lose the valid part of the patent by over-reaching with overly broad claims. That is, if two claims in a patent are invalidated, the whole patent is invalid.

        3) Patents filed for ideas the applicant cannot actually implement at the time of original filing, in the hopes that eventually someone will implement it, then discover that they owe you money. This ought to be disallowed in total, on the grounds that if you can't make it work, you haven't _invented_ anything yet! But the USPTO has not been enforcing that in the last few decades.

        In addition, the way US patents were handled until recently, it was possible to file an application and keep it in limbo for decades with continual small amendments, changing it to match technical developments, and then finish it up and spring it after the technology had matured. And it stayed secret until then. Hence we got applications first filed about 1960 and 1970, becoming patents in the 1980's claiming to cover integrated circuits (in general) and microprocessors (in general). These were not from the engineers who actually designed the first IC's and uP's in production. And somebody had to go to court to fight them.

        4) This "RDF" patent seems to be a new class of "stealth" patent: whatever the actual history and whether or not there was prior art, it looks to me like they used obfuscating language to ensure that no one would realize they were infringing on it until the patent owners started sending out threatening letters. Looks pretty close to fraud to me. (It probably also wasn't truly implemented -- since technology like RDF isn't much use until it is public.)
  • RDF is the Resource Description Framework [w3.org], a W3C recommendation for making web content understandable by machines. Slashdot's RDF is here [slashdot.org]. Slashdot uses other sites' RDF to do slashboxes.

    There was a thread on RDF [slashdot.org] on 02-15-01 with more info.

  • ...a system for encapsulating and transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide through an extensive network of branching tubes.

    The sad thing is, the US Patent Office just might indulge me. :-\
    • Don't hold your breath, ... er, branching tubes.
    • ...a system for encapsulating and transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide through an extensive network of branching tubes.

      How about "A process for storing energy using organic phosphate compounds"?
  • Im really looking forward to reading this topic to see how many ppl post anti-Canadian remarks when its YOUR goverment that YOU elected that allows ANYTHING to be patented (re humane genes and stuff like that)

  • Sonofa... (Score:2, Funny)

    by ahoehn ( 301327 )
    Damn, there goes my plan for fleeing to Canada.

  • this patent (Score:3, Informative)

    by Syre ( 234917 ) on Thursday January 03, 2002 @10:02PM (#2782874)
    This patent is so general that it could 'protect' any mark-up language or indeed any hash or indexed data structure.

    IMHO it's clearly invalid.

    If you look at what they say below, they are describing a hash or indexed data structure in memory in their first claim. There is clearly prior art which invalidates this claim. This patent is bunk:

    ---------

    1. A method for dynamically organizing and processing data in a computer having a memory and a data storage device coupled thereto, the method comprising the steps of:

    (a) generating an information structure and relationship in the memory of the computer as one or more Endo-Dynamic Sets (EDS), the EDS comprising a list of one or more Endo-Dynamic Information Nodes (EDINs), the EDINs each representing an atomic component of data, and the EDINs each comprising a subject identifier, an attribute identifier, and a bond identifier, wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers;

    (b) associating each bond identifier of an EDIN with an organizational structure of data stored in the memory of the computer; and

    (c) traversing the organizational structure of data in the memory of the computer through the EDINs.
  • "We consider it to be quite important that fundamental technology specifications such as RDF should be able to be implemented on a royalty-free basis," he said. It looks like all the comments they got in response to their RAND licensing proposal made them decide to stay with the royalty free clause :) Hooray slashdot! David
  • Since, I have done a lot of work with RDF, this article has really tripped my trigger. After pondering this, I am now agreeing that they do have a patent on the fundamental ideas of RDF. See my post here. [slashdot.org]

    Here [pearlltd.com] is a document from October 1999 announcing the enforcement of the patent. Seems that they started this process a long time ago. Considering that the RDF specification reached recommendation in February 1999, it seems they noticed.

    I really hope that they receive something out of this (at least some recognition), but charging royalties on RDF at this point is impossible. RDF is a great web technology that is going to be put to free use for possibly decades. They snoozed, they losed.
  • My great-great-great grandfather back in 1802 patented the "use of any human male sex organ with regard to a female orifice". I'm just biding my time until I clean up, lawyers at the ready.
    • Um dood did you forget that patents expire after 20 years so your g-g-g-grandfathers patent would only have mattered until 1822.
      and even then it would only matter to prostitutes who were breaking the law anyways.
      or maybe I didn't get the joke
    • Ya know, I think his father can prove prior art here...
      • yeah.. the patent is way to broad ALL female orifices will not work. Now I think I'll go and patent aural sex. If you meet me again... speak loudly..

        //rdj
  • There ought to be some way for standards processes to include a period of time after which any patent claim which is supposedly infringes on the standard is automatically considered a null claim on the basis of prior art. In this way the burden of protecting a patent must occur _during_ the standards processes. I think that's fair!!!
  • Boy, Steve Jobs is going to be pissed that someone patented the Reality Distortion Field.

    {future sig in the making:
    "I was talking to my self and said 'two words: seek help' "}

    .
  • Call me an ignorant fool, but I've never heard of " RDF " before. The only company I could possibly see this attached to is Apple or Pixar. The Reality Distortion field is the only thing I'm aware this could stand for.

    ________________________________________________ __
    This one is big. Bigger than anything we've done before.
  • I'm almost certain that Steve Jobs already has the patent on Reality Distortion Fields.

    mmm, kool-aid.

  • If so, what's Jobs going to do next Monday at the keynote? It certainly seems like Apple has been infringing a lot lately, if the patent holds up. And, will Gates license it?
  • The process of taking a basic patent and then lodging in the patent office pipeline a lot of iterative "improvements" can cause problems. In legal parlance, these "submarine patents" are kept under wraps until products they cover come to market, and then create a legal minefield as the patent holder seeks licensing.

    I would note that perhaps we should set specific hurdles for software patents ... at a bare minimum it should be demonstrate that there is a period of continuous (or near continuous) improvement/development/implementation. Ie, use it or lose it. If the idea is so great and thus worth the expense of patenting it, then why are they sitting on it? Waiting for someone else to do the hard work of debugging and actually convincing the rest of the market to adopt it (the hardest problem in todays software world) and then taking a slice of the action is nothing more than parasitic behaviour.

    Perhaps another reform should be the more innovative a software technique is, then the longer the period where it could be held by the originator.

    LL

  • A modest proposal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by markmoss ( 301064 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:52PM (#2786747)
    As badly as the patent office is doing, (and at least the USPTO never allowed a patent on the wheel), we might consider simply removing the "checking" function from them entirely and just have them run a public on-line database. Applications get posted.

    There is a public comment period during which anyone can see the patent and send in examples of prior art, or whatever tends to limit or invalidate the patent. The office appends this to the on-line file. At the end of this period, the filer may withdraw the application and only be out a few $ for the posting fee, but it stays in the database as public-domain prior art. The filer can amend and re-post it just once, but the history is retained. Or the filer can assert that it _is_ a valid patent. There is no government certificate that the patents are any good.

    If you still think the patent is invalid, you can sue in a (special, technically savvy) court. You don't have to possibly break the law first by infringing and wait for them to sue you. Both challenges and infringement suits are judged under these rules:

    1) Obfuscated language will be interpreted to the advantage of the challenger. (See also "defend it or lose it")

    2) If the patent does not contain a specific implementation that was workable at the time of filing, it's invalid.

    3) Claims (defining the actual reach of the patent) may be broader than that specific implementation, but overly broad claims are penalized so that someone searching the database doesn't have to manually examine dozens of patents for whether the patent is validly that broad. Any claim that applies to something that was either obvious or had prior art or publication at the time of filing is completely invalid. Two claims invalidated will invalidate the whole patent. And it costs money -- see "Loser Pays".

    4) Loser Pays: If any part of the patent is invalidated, the filer must pay all court costs, legal fees, and a penalty to the challenger. (Bad patents are a big enough public nuisance to make it worthwhile allowing lawyers to profit from knocking them out.) Invalidated patent applications, or parts thereof, stay in the database, marked either as public domain or with a cross-reference to the earlier patent. If the patent is upheld, the challenger pays, and the database notes that it was upheld and points to the court record.

    5) Defend it or Lose it:
    (a) Statute of limitations for damages for infringement: 1 year before the defendant is formally notified that he is in infringement, or 2 years befor suit is filed, whichever is less. (Exception -- if it is proven that the defendant knew of the infringement and attempted to conceal it while continuing to infringe.)
    (b) Delay in defending patent: If defendant was openly in infringement for two or more years before patent holder notified them to cease, defendant gets one year of royalty-free operations for every two years before notification.
    (c) Obfuscating the search process: If it is shown that the use of non-standard terminology in the patent kept it from being found in a reasonably thorough automated search, this is not only a valid defense against damages for infringement, but it will also allow the defendant to continue producing infringing products for at least two years.
  • Isn't there a single Mac user in the USPTO? At least in the Mac community, it is well knows that Steve Jobs invented the RDF. See http://www.appleturns.com/scene/?id=96 [appleturns.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close