Broad blogging patent. discuss. October 16, 2001 2:05 PM   Subscribe

Someone just got a patent on a "System and method for building a web site using specific interface". Read the description: it pretty much covers all site-building software, and blogging tools. How the fuck did this one get through the prior art checks, if it was filed in 1998? I was using rudimentary templating stuff in 1995. (via Scripting News.)
posted by holgate to General Weblog-Related at 2:05 PM (14 comments total)

posted by rebeccablood at 4:22 PM on October 16, 2001

Really? I suspect that Vignette might have something to say about that.
posted by holgate at 4:48 PM on October 16, 2001

What prior art checks? It was my understanding that the PO basically doesn't do any.
posted by rodii at 5:10 PM on October 16, 2001

no, no. "someone just got a patent". it's international business machines. that's IBM, isn't it?
posted by rebeccablood at 6:06 PM on October 16, 2001

Is it possible to sue the PO for patent stupidity?
posted by Neale at 6:24 PM on October 16, 2001

Yes, it's IBM. I simply didn't see the company name while trying to place the names of the "inventors".

Let's just say that if IBM even hints at trying to enforce it, the case might kill software method patents dead. So here's hoping. Though with Big Blue's lawyers behind them... phew.
posted by holgate at 6:29 PM on October 16, 2001

Just shows how stupid software patent laws are in general, let alone the PO.

"using specific interface", indeed ... bastards ...

posted by walrus at 1:54 AM on October 17, 2001

Jesus. And to think we were worried about a mere proposal for including patents in W3C recommendations. This is staggering.

I'd encourage you to run this on the front page, holgate - this effects more than just the blogging world.
posted by rory at 6:17 AM on October 17, 2001

Um, affects. (So much for Preview.)
posted by rory at 6:18 AM on October 17, 2001

Slashdot on the IBM patent. Probably no need for a MeFi front-pager, then. But still... man.
posted by rory at 8:18 AM on October 17, 2001

My understanding (through our company's lawyers) of patent law is that the PO will grant the patent, and it is up to the people that think this is a bogus patent to strike it down after if they think there was prior art. This usually happens when you get taken to court for infringement.
posted by nprigoda at 9:01 AM on October 17, 2001

It's on the front page now.
posted by rodii at 9:16 AM on October 17, 2001

Er, sorry... Didn't think to search MetaTalk.
posted by mrbula at 10:20 AM on October 17, 2001

I don't think it's a problem, mrbula. It's a good front-page post.
posted by rodii at 10:54 AM on October 17, 2001

« Older has anyone else noticed an increase in nimda...   |   Two newbies have a miscommunication. Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments