Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Patent on displaying SQL data in HTML, granted to IBM in 1998

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Patent on displaying SQL data in HTML, granted to IBM in 1998

#11

Post by slfnflctd »

stan_rogers wrote: post #7
aidos wrote: post #3

I never understand where patents start and end with the bit they claim to be new. Where is that in the patent document? In this case they’re talking about executing sql and rendering as html. Ok. Fine. Phpmyadmin was already doing that in 1998. But they also talk about these macro files that you’re executing by substituting variables into them. As that the new thing? Are these just stored procedures? I feel like we w…

The patent application was in 1995 (the patent is expired now). Like a lot of (even most of) IBM's generalizable patents, it is and was defensive. (Non-obviousness had gone out the window long before this, and they'd already been bitten by trolls. Basically, they patented everything that wasn't already patented by anyone just to avoid infringement suits. To my knowledge, they never actively protected anything that sh…

This would make for a fascinating book, with the right interviews. Seems like a very thorough case study and a must-read for anyone dealing in the U.S. with potential patent concerns. There are likely some dissonant takeaways, too, and that's always fun.

Re: Patent on displaying SQL data in HTML, granted to IBM in 1998

#12

Post by tempodox »

auxym wrote: post #8
aidos wrote: post #3

I never understand where patents start and end with the bit they claim to be new. Where is that in the patent document? In this case they’re talking about executing sql and rendering as html. Ok. Fine. Phpmyadmin was already doing that in 1998. But they also talk about these macro files that you’re executing by substituting variables into them. As that the new thing? Are these just stored procedures? I feel like we w…

The important bit is the claims. However, you still have to know the legalese codewords. Every word has a very specific definition. For example, "a plurality of things" explicitly excludes from the claim an implementation where only one "thing" is used. NAL, but something a patent attorney explained to me once.

Yep, terminology in legal documents can be quite misleading when interpreted as colloquial language. Something to keep in mind when reading any Legalese.

Re: Patent on displaying SQL data in HTML, granted to IBM in 1998

#13

Post by nsajko »

aidos wrote: post #3

I never understand where patents start and end with the bit they claim to be new. Where is that in the patent document? In this case they’re talking about executing sql and rendering as html. Ok. Fine. Phpmyadmin was already doing that in 1998. But they also talk about these macro files that you’re executing by substituting variables into them. As that the new thing? Are these just stored procedures? I feel like we w…

The "Claims" section is what you're looking for, it seems to be missing from the scanned part, but it's there in the OCR'd part (on the right).

Re: Patent on displaying SQL data in HTML, granted to IBM in 1998

#16

Post by ekidd »

stan_rogers wrote: post #7
aidos wrote: post #3

I never understand where patents start and end with the bit they claim to be new. Where is that in the patent document? In this case they’re talking about executing sql and rendering as html. Ok. Fine. Phpmyadmin was already doing that in 1998. But they also talk about these macro files that you’re executing by substituting variables into them. As that the new thing? Are these just stored procedures? I feel like we w…

The patent application was in 1995 (the patent is expired now). Like a lot of (even most of) IBM's generalizable patents, it is and was defensive. (Non-obviousness had gone out the window long before this, and they'd already been bitten by trolls. Basically, they patented everything that wasn't already patented by anyone just to avoid infringement suits. To my knowledge, they never actively protected anything that sh…

IBM is alleged to have have used dubious parents very aggressively back in the day: https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

> As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.

> An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

Re: Patent on displaying SQL data in HTML, granted to IBM in 1998

#18

Post by ludamad »

wisecoder wrote: post #17

IBM pays their company employees to file patents. It is also one of the key factor for promotions. That's why you can see lot's of stupid patents out there in IBM name.

For comparison, Red Hat does too, but that's redundant now :)

Re: Patent on displaying SQL data in HTML, granted to IBM in 1998

#20

Post by unlord »

wolco wrote: post #14

Does anyone have a good software patent story? Where a small company was able to use for good or to fight off a bigger player.

You may be interested in reading the license page for the royalty-free Opus audio codec:

https://opus-codec.org/license/

Full disclosure, I am a member of the Xiph.Org Foundation.

Post reply on HN