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

RE: Software Patents Prior Art: lack of due diligence by the LARGEST SOFTWARE COMPUTER IN THE WORLD

From: Richard M. Smith <rms@computerbytesman.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:21:26 -0400
To: "'web-plugins'" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005601c37165$e0cf3f60$550ffea9@rms>

You'll need to read over the claims section of the Microsoft patent to
see what they actually invented.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:09 AM
To: web-plugins
Subject: Software Patents Prior Art: lack of due diligence by the
LARGEST SOFTWARE COMPUTER IN THE WORLD



There is something terribly wrong with USPTO in regard to software
patents.
I guess I am not saying anything new here.  The Eolas patent should of
never
been issued.   I don't how Microsoft is having such a hard time proving
this, but I think I found out why:

Here is any another example of a patent that should of never been
issued:

Microsoft was issued this patent

6,327,617
 December 4, 2001
Filing date: April 25, 2000

Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a
remote computer

Abstract

Creators of computer software provide the most up-to-date versions of
their
computer software on an update service. A user who has purchased
computer
software calls the update service on a periodic basis. The update
service
automatically inventories the user computer to determine what computer
software may be out-of-date, and/or need maintenance updates. If so
desired
by the user, the update service computer automatically downloads and
installs computer software to the user computer. By making periodic
calls to
the update service, the user always has the most up-to-date computer
software immediately available. The update service may also alert the
user
to new products (i.e. including new help files, etc.), and new and
enhanced
versions of existing products, which can be purchased electronically by
a
user from the update service.

Now go to GOOGLE, switch to the groups and do a simple common sense
words
such as:

"Auto Update"

and BEHOLD, you will find the following prior arts as far as 1996.  At
least
57,000 hits!

Our product has been using an Auto Update Program system called the AUP
since 1996, and it is probably the only one in the industry that has a
successful fee based subscription system tied to it.   This is a level
many
software developers would like to get to - the ability to charge monthly
for
software updates!   The concept has been in place since 1996!   It
works!
Thank you very much!

Microsoft has been in one way or another has been very aware of our
WINSERVER product line.    They know we exist.  They had us listed back
in
1998 as a "Top 100 Windows Application.""  They told me that.  I didn't
make
it up!  I guess a lot of people our customers call them for tech
support!

Anyway, this is a prime example on how ridiculous the software patent
process has become.  This patent should had of never been issued.  It is
clearly not enforceable!

Sincerely,

Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 11:22:41 UTC

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