Now they can even patent Remote Scripting...

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Now they can even patent Remote Scripting...

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

Quoting Ajaxian.com:

Douglas Crockford points out at the top of his blog that a patent was applied for in 2001 and awarded late last year covering using the <script> tag as a remote scripting transport.

Numerous people have “discovered” and exploited the value in using the script tag to get code and data on the fly since that time. It’s an obvious logical use of the functionality for which it was designed.

Of course, once a patent is granted, arguments about obviousness or originality can fall on deaf ears - the patent owner has the upper hand and it could cost you a lot to prove your case in court.

Beyond the obviousness, inspection of both the client and server side code for the patent reveals that most of it is copied directly from my JSRS library, published a year earlier, not only without attribution, but claiming it as their own “NetGratus Remote Scripting”.

It’s rather ironic that the appearance of this patent will have had exactly the opposite effect that a patent should: Rather than the patent informing the world about a hitherto unknown invention, explaining its workings and contributing to the furtherance of knowledge, the patent in this case informs the masses of people who came up with the same obvious idea that they had better stop using this technique in order to reduce their liability regarding the injunctive power of the patent holder.
I'm hardly alone in thinking the US Patent office consists of the most ludicrous process in the world... Why is it that Patents continue to be awarded for things which are either a) obvious, b) impossible according to known physics or c) preexisting, and nothing ever seems to be done to fix the root problem - whoever does the awarding is a Gobsh***?

One of these days someone will patent little men with green coats and red hats and run the whole Irish Economy into the ground ;).
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

The peer review board for software patents was formed to take care of these sort of things.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/11/03/0023220.shtml
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

I read the linked to article, Feyd. It's good something is being done...in 2007. A comment was worth a laugh or two:
Microsoft EULA wrote:Subsection: The User agrees that s/he will not use the Software to disprove, dispell, reject, invalidate, or otherwise hinder patent applications submitted by Microsoft or Microsoft's affiliates. The User hereby agrees that, in the case of Microsoft's patent applications, prior art does not exist. The creation of documents that claim to show pre-Microsoft prior art with the Software constitutes a violation of this License.
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Post by alex.barylski »

OMG...I seriously hope that's a joke...I'm a proponent of patents...when they are clearly an "invention" or "innovative" but this is rediculous...I stumbled across RPC using IFRAMES a long time ago...so I assume this patent is claiming that <script> tag is there own?

The concept of RPC is rather obvious and was only a matter of time until someone discovered it...which they did...regardless of whether they use <script> or <iframe> WTF...?

What a silly patent claim...it's why everyone see's patents as rubbish...
timvw
DevNet Master
Posts: 4897
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Leuven, Belgium

Post by timvw »

I don't think there's an issue with the concept of a patent.. But i think it's overly clear that there is something wrong with the patent system... (I while ago i read an article where a couple of law firms expressed their concern because another firm had recieved a patent on a way of handling lawsuits *sigh*)

[edit]i think http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/19/ ... rris20.php is the one...[/edit]
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Post by alex.barylski »

^^^ Agreed...

I fully respect credible patents but it seems the US patent office is so over-worked they simply don't have the resources to properly grant them...or deny them for that matter. So anything that sounds credible (without research) is granted and the world suffers for it.

It's like NetFlix patenting a business process...come on...thats silly...it may have been new, but certainly not considered or thought of before hand...even as a little boy I envisioned being able to one day rent movies over the internet (BBS at the time)...not in DVD form but downloading...I should have patented my idea :P

Zero scientific merit behind most patents these days...it's silly...Same with genetics...that shouldn't be patentable...simply because...we all share the same genetic code...just don't understand it the same as geneticists...but still we all own it and share it...

Cases like this make me irate :evil:
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

Hockey raised one point I absolutely agree with. I find the idea that any corporation can patent a Gene. I'd go so far (since they are readily more numerous and important) to include proteins. It's the dumbest thing ever. When Gene Treatments become viable (many of us just might see that day!) will we be prosecuted for fixing our own Genes if we don't pay a royalty?
I don't think there's an issue with the concept of a patent..
Not everyone would agree...;). Patents are being used in situations to provide blanket protection where a copyright is far more suitable. Unfortunately a patent is far more profitable, and getting one just seems to require a technical document that's next to impossible to decipher forwarded to the US Patent Office.

I agree its all down to limited resources, not having the appropriate professional personnel, and having little credibility as a result continuing the cycle. I do have to question a peer review board. It doesn't strike me a solution to have the folk who hold and control a lot of such questionable patents peer reviewing everyone else's applications. Will they peer review existing patents? Of course not...
User avatar
m3mn0n
PHP Evangelist
Posts: 3548
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 3:35 pm
Location: Calgary, Canada

Post by m3mn0n »

I feel the same way as Hockey. A variety I like, things like this though are just an absolute farce.
Post Reply