W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > November 2003

Re: 906 Patent Re-Examination

From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:59:27 -0500
Message-ID: <001201c3a1c7$44fd2330$dc1a5141@FAMILY>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>


There is only one problem.  It wasn't a "innovative invention," hence the
dispute, hence the right in our democratic society to question the claims of
a USPTO patent.

I agree with your point on whether this will "open a open of worms" on
reexamination of software based patents.

My take is the USPTO guidelines should make it more difficult to file
"software based business method" patents.  They are getting out of control.
The major problem is that many of the claims seem to be based on an
"internet" society, as it was the only thing to exist and nothing else
before then didn't matter.   That's one of the problems with 906. It seems
to want to hit the browser market forgetting the fact that the concept
already existed in many non-internet forms of client frontend systems, such
as our Wildcat! Navigator system to name but just one of nearly a dozen or
more prior arts.  For this reason alone, I have full confidence that this
906 patent holder can not make a claim against our system.

In addition,  there is a mountain of precedence to illustrate that a good
bit of the recent claims are all based on prior art.   The USPTO should
review its policies and not make it so easy to patent software, especially
the $85 Provisional Patent option that allows you to submit a single sheet
application, allowing you to say "Patent Pending" and then give you one year
to decide whether to file a real patent.  I have discovered that many are
using this new form of patent as a "Marketing tool" to feel the market place
and also scare off any other potential competitor in the mean time even if
you don't intend to file.

It is not a coincidence.  In 1996, the USPTO did relax the patent laws (and
began to offer Provisional Patents) making it far easier to file software
patents as "business methods,"  such as the ludicrous "One Click" Amazon
patent.   Would you believe that if you have an electronic CHAT and talk
business on the CHAT, that it could violate one of their new recently issues
"Chat" patents?    In other words, it seems Amazon has patented the
electronic form of a traditional phone based sales call. Before 1996, this
would not be a patented concept because it already existed.  Trust me,  you
should see the avalanche of new software patents are coming out.  They are
all based on prior art items and worst yet, make the word obvious, obsolete.

I believe I read somewhere that the USPTO has began a review process of the
patent guidelines to make it more difficult to patent simplistic software
based "business methods."

Finally, I have no problem with truly revolutionary software based patents.
In this specific case, it was quite clear there was prior art, hence the
dispute.  We should be thankful someone took the lead on this particular


Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harold Wray" <hpwray@sbcglobal.net>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:27 PM
Subject: 906 Patent Re-Examination

Regarding Eolas's patent I would like to say that the W3C should be
ASHAMED of the acts they are taking to destroy 906.  We live in a
country where innovation is the upmost importance and one of the few
ways we protect and encourage intellectual property is with patents.
How is anyone EVER going to be encouraged to think and come up with new
ideas if they will be later invalidated.  If anyone of these companies
or people patented or protected this idea first they would be acting
the complete opposite.  906 patent has been decided and WE ALL have to
move forward.  We all will adapt.  If you are going to find prior art
or another loophole to make patent No. 5,838,906 invalid you should go
through every other patent first and confirm there validity.  Every
person knows of someone who came up with the invention way before it
was patented.  Does that make every one of those patents invalid?  I
suggest each of you think about all the innovations you ever dream up
in your life meaning NOTHING.

Harold Wray
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 23:59:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:03 UTC