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

81–90 of 93 posts

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

#81

Post by adventured »

amelius wrote: post #75
rwmj wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every big software company does this. It's a ridiculous arms race, but you have to play or risk getting sued to oblivion by a patent troll.

Why don't big companies lobby for better patent laws then?

Sometimes they do, very successfully. Several prominent tech companies backed efforts to neuter patent trolls in the prior decade, to positive effect. Patent trolls are one instance where big tech's interests are largely aligned with smaller tech companies, as both hate them.

In the recent case of TC Heartland vs Kraft Foods, some large companies (Apple, eBay, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Walmart) supported the effort to abolish being able to file patent lawsuits in most any venue (a concept which helped lead to East Texas becoming the capital of patent lawsuits in the US). Often you'll have big companies fight eachother in situations like that, as big pharma was on the other side of that, arguing in favor of being able to sue in any venue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Heartland_LLC_v._Kraft_Food...

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

#82

Post by todd8 »

One of IBM’s most important patents was filed around 1987–I don’t remember the date exactly-it covered the cookie.

Even back then IBM was subject to patent trolls patenting things like using the ctrl key, etc. and then going after IBM. They liked having a huge collection of patents and even disclosed inventions that were not patented but instead published in a publication (I think it was called something like The IBM Invention Disclosure Bulletin) that was available in only a handful of public libraries, like the New York public library. That way if they wanted to use a technique that they had already disclosed they could use these publications of proof of prior art. I filed a few ideas that they said they weren’t interested in that didn’t even qualify for this level of disclosure.

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

#83

Post by Bubbadoo »

goatinaboat wrote: post #62
lokedhs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did exactly this in 1996 when we implemented a case management system with a web-based frontend. It used a home-grown webserver written in Perl that was talking SQL to a Sybase instance. And it was definitely not something unique. This project started because I was asking (probably on Usenet) for advice on what GUI framework we should use, and was recommended to build the application using web technologies. The fac…

Perl that was talking SQL to a Sybase instance I remember Sybperl, since everyone was using Perl for CGI in the 90’s anyway it was a no-brainer to use it for that. Sybperl was released in 1990!

Yes, and after sybperl, DBD::Sybase/DBI became all the rage in the late 90s. The IBM patent is obsceleted at this point, though I still try to see how many lines of code I need to do same thing with perl/sybperl/dbi on other platforms using other languages such scala/mysql.

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

#84

Post by FpUser »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #72
FpUser wrote: post #40

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 brea…

Welcome to the big leagues. Patents are big part of every mature industry. Software isn't special. You should see how fierce the patent wars are in the automobile industry, medical devices, electronics, materials science, adhesives, brake pads, throttle cables, fasteners, tooling, construction/building materials, to name a few.

I do not want into "big leagues". I said that the patent system no longer serves its original purpose and it is virtually impossible to write any meaningful piece of software without violating some patent.

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

#85

Post by akhilcacharya »

loeg wrote: post #48
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.

Every big corp pays employees to file patents. I don't know that it's a factor for promotions at my employer; certainly not up to Eng 3 or 4, and no manager has told me that I would be promoted if I filed patents.

It's definitely not all big corps, Amazon does not for instance.

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

#86

Post by adrianN »

bdowling wrote: post #58
adrianN wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every invention is just a combination of existing things with maybe a new twist somewhere. James Watt wasn't the first person to build a steam engine, he just introduced a separate condenser to an existing design. It's really hard to find a good line of what should constitute a patentable invention. Personally I think that no software should be patentable, ultimately because I don't think that Mathematics should belo…

> existing things with maybe a new twist somewhere. To be valid, a claim must be novel (new) and non-obvious over the prior art. So there absolutely must be a new twist somewhere.

I can still build a machine entirely from off-the shelf parts, connecting them exactly in the ways they're built to connect to each other, and claim to have invented it.

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

#87

Post by bdowling »

adrianN wrote: post #86
bdowling wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> existing things with maybe a new twist somewhere. To be valid, a claim must be novel (new) and non-obvious over the prior art. So there absolutely must be a new twist somewhere.

I can still build a machine entirely from off-the shelf parts, connecting them exactly in the ways they're built to connect to each other, and claim to have invented it.

If the resulting combination is a machine that is useful, new, and non-obvious, then I'd call that an invention.

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

#88

Post by cafard »

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.

Ages ago, Robert X. Cringely (an earlier avatar) had a column about just this. It concluded, as I recall, "So weep not for IBM. They may hold a patent on it."

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

#89

Post by bdowling »

FpUser wrote: post #84
pnw_hazor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the big leagues. Patents are big part of every mature industry. Software isn't special. You should see how fierce the patent wars are in the automobile industry, medical devices, electronics, materials science, adhesives, brake pads, throttle cables, fasteners, tooling, construction/building materials, to name a few.

I do not want into "big leagues". I said that the patent system no longer serves its original purpose and it is virtually impossible to write any meaningful piece of software without violating some patent.

> impossible to write any meaningful piece of software without violating some patent.

Even if that were true, the existence of a patent shouldn't necessarily stop someone from infringing that patent. If a startup infringes someone else's patent and makes a profitable business doing so, then they have access to enough money to either fight the validity of the patent or pay a royalty. If the patentee is a non-practicing entity, then it would usually rather have some royalties than fight a lawsuit challenging validity, so there should be plenty of room to negotiate. If the patentee is a large company that wants to exclude competitors and refuses to license, the startup may have patents on improvements that the it could use as leverage in addition to the threat of a lawsuit. Such a dispute might end with an acquisition, which might be a nice exit for the startup.

The exception to this strategy would be patents that are likely difficult to challenge (e.g., foundational patents on new technologies or some drug or chemical patents). Most patents (including software patents) don't fall into that category.

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

#90

Post by bdowling »

bdowling wrote: post #89
FpUser wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not want into "big leagues". I said that the patent system no longer serves its original purpose and it is virtually impossible to write any meaningful piece of software without violating some patent.

> impossible to write any meaningful piece of software without violating some patent. Even if that were true, the existence of a patent shouldn't necessarily stop someone from infringing that patent. If a startup infringes someone else's patent and makes a profitable business doing so, then they have access to enough money to either fight the validity of the patent or pay a royalty. If the patentee is a non-practicin…

> the existence of a patent shouldn't necessarily stop someone from infringing that patent

I should clarify that I'm not suggesting that anyone knowingly and willfully infringe any patent, because there may be liability for doing so. I'm only suggesting that some entrepreneurs worry about possible infringement far more than they should.

Post reply on HN