Patent on displaying SQL data in HTML, granted to IBM in 1998 • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by patentatt » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

praveenweb wrote: post #28

How does one developing a product find out if they are infringing a patent? Apart from the Apple/Samsung patent battle few years ago and to an extent Google/Oracle battle, I don’t remember anything in the tech space leveraging this. Is there a list of companies that got screwed by giant companies because they unknowingly infringed a patent?

What you would need is called a freedom to operate search and opinion. However, that’s not so much a thing anymore due to the risks involved and the state of patent validity proceedings mostly at the PTAB. And, at the end of the day, you could never know for sure if someone out there wouldn’t have a different opinion than yours and they’d sue you anyways. The system isn’t very efficient.

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

#32

Post by dathinab » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

praveenweb wrote: post #28

How does one developing a product find out if they are infringing a patent? Apart from the Apple/Samsung patent battle few years ago and to an extent Google/Oracle battle, I don’t remember anything in the tech space leveraging this. Is there a list of companies that got screwed by giant companies because they unknowingly infringed a patent?

Due to the US patent amt granting all kind of patents which should never have been granted (due to e.g. priority art or triviality of the patent) it's basically impossible today to do anything in tech without braking patents.

For example one person patented the wheel and got the patent granted, or recently I found that some company on zooming in and out on a graph or automatically shutting down computers when they are not used.

Normally large tech companies don't use any of this patents, it's not in their interest to make it obvious how broken the patent system is. But the problem starts once a company starts to fall and now tries to make money no matter what. Or this patents are bought up by patent trolls.

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

#33

Post by patentatt » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

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.

It’s more nuanced than that, and it depends on if you’re looking at it from a validity standpoint or an infringement standpoint, and different venues (federal court or the PTAB) have slightly nuanced approaches. For the uninitiated, start by reading the words of the claims as you would source code, not colloquial English. Approach it very analytically, every word has been chosen for a specific reason and effect.

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

#34

Post by cowmix » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

pcurve wrote: post #27

It may look silly now but the patent was first filed only a few months after first Netscape browser was released. Back in 1995. I remember the web in 1994 and 1995. I don’t blame for filing it.

Nope, stupid patent. People were rendering SQL results in HTML for at least two years when that patent was filed.

When I say people, I mean me. On publicly available websites. :)

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

#35

Post by dathinab » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

JackC wrote: post #26

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…

This wikipedia section is a good place to start seeing how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_c... What I remember from law school is: let's say you're drafting a patent, and you want it to cover as much as possible without getting invalidated by prior art. So you're going to write some claims, and each claim can stand or fall on its own (each claim could be rejected by the patent of…

> "HTML on a computer with foo and bar"

But here it's where the patent system is broken. Doing conceptually trivial combinations of on itself non patentable thinks should _never_ be patentable, at lest for software but probably for anything. Sure patenting a specific complex mechanism for combining two thinks might be patentable but in case of software this is hardly ever the case, most times its more or less trivial glue code.

So e.g. Face recognition + smartphone + unlock screen might all be patentable by itself. Especially a faceregocnition algorithm which works especially good for smartphone usecase might be patentable. Bu using existing face recognition on a smartphone to unlock the screen shouldn't be patentable. They are all existing components and combining them is conceptually trivial. In the end patents where meant to protect research investments, not random ideas.

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

#36

Post by dathinab » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:39 PM UTC

peey wrote: post #2

This is comical. It patents the entire system from HTML forms to get the input to prepare the SQL query, to server sending data as formatted HTML back to client. This has been the bread and butter of PHP for two decades. I'm glad no one tried to enforce this to take away like 99% of the internet.

Just because a patent had been granted doesn't mean you can enforce it. But you might be able to pressure companies into paying anyway because a law suite would be more expensive even if they win.

The US (and other countries) law are missing IMHO two parts:

- really serve penalties for abusing the patent systems

- serve penalties for abusing the copyright systems

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

#37

Post by miahi » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

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.

That reminds me the story of one of my friends, who worked for IBM in a 3rd world country. Basically the role of their whole department was customer support + QA, fixing low-level bugs on IBM products developed by other teams (in different countries). They received a visit from one of the higher-ups in IBM, for an all hands meeting with the basic message of "We checked our statistics and we don't see any patents issued by this department. What is happening? Surely you do a lot of innovation, why don't you patent it?!"

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

#38

Post by _bxg1 » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

JackC wrote: post #26

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…

This wikipedia section is a good place to start seeing how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_c... What I remember from law school is: let's say you're drafting a patent, and you want it to cover as much as possible without getting invalidated by prior art. So you're going to write some claims, and each claim can stand or fall on its own (each claim could be rejected by the patent of…

> Doesn't cost you anything if those ones don't stick.

This sounds like the central problem, to me.

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

#39

Post by perl4ever » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #24

tempodox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

On the contrary, legal documents are like code - you have to read them exactly as they are worded. They may use complex grammar and obscure vocabulary, but slow down, read every word and pretend it is code. There are no extra words, every "or" and "and" really is a boolean operator that impacts how to interpret a sentence. If you are a coder, extracting an accurate meaning from legalese should come naturally. Just sl…

`every "or" and "and" really is a boolean operator'

In my experience, not being a lawyer, but working with people with legal educations on queries for document review, they didn't generally seem to "get" logical concepts like the idea that precedence of boolean operators matters to interpretation.

Maybe people who went to top tier law schools are better or something.

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

#40

Post by FpUser » Sat, Jun 06, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

I think that the patents in it's current state (in the US at least and in the software area in particular) are outlived their usefulness. It was an artificial construct to begin with with the goal that small people can invent things and rip some benefits. Now it is a large scale tactical and strategic weapon amassed by large corporations. If followed to the letter small person/company can not do f..k all without breaking some obscure patent's clause. If enforced to the letter the players that are not big enough would not be able to create any meaningful software. And the cost of filing a patent has risen to the point that small person can not really get meaningful patent (speaking from personal experience of trying to get not software related patent in the US).