Patent US7779046 - Web server and method to provide web-pages to manage devices | Hacker News Reader

Patent US7779046 - Web server and method to provide web-pages to manage devices

google.com

60 pointstoni31 comments

Prior art much? It's fascinating how the system feeds on itself and frivolous "inventions" are patented to protect companies from similarly frivolous claims (and also that the patent office grants them). Of course, none of this is new, but the issue continues to manifest itself and waste billions of dollars in settlements to frivolous litigation threats and to support the whole legal machinery associated with patents.

> Prior art

I remember the good ole days, when that phrase had meaning.

It's owned by Samsung but I don't think they'll use it. They've been in many law suits and most if not all companies suing them are infringing this patent. They could just counter-sue with this but they haven't. Even if they sue some one for this I doubt a judge would take it seriously, but I don't live in the US so I guess anythings possible.

I read statements like this and imagine large companies playing a game like Pokemon or Magic: The Gathering, but instead of monsters they have patents.

"I choose you Patent of Phone which uses Glass!"

"I'm going to counter with the Patent of Electronic Things"

That is sadly a very apt analogy for the current patent situation in software.

"I doubt a judge would take it seriously"

That seems to make some sort of sense but I don't think that's how it works. Judges have to enforce the law. They can bend and play with interpretations but there's a limit to that.

In these patent cases, they're supposed to figure out if the patent is not supposed, not questioning the validity of the patent when someone sues for patent infringement. There is a separate process for invalidating a patent, but the judge is supposed to assume that the patent is valid.

The courts are too far from where the problem is (laws, international treaties, patent offices) to be of much use.

> Judges have to enforce the law. They can bend and play with interpretations but there's a limit to that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/books/the-baseball-trust-b...

money quote: """ Mr. Banner, who teaches law at the University of California, Los Angeles, is himself a sure-footed historian and a legal writer of exceptional grace and clarity. His evident love of baseball does not seem to cloud his judgment.

It would be hard to say that of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, an avid fan. Called upon to decide a major antitrust challenge to organized baseball in 1915, he instead did nothing for a year, effectively destroying the fledgling league that had filed the suit and forcing it to settle.

The law would have required him to rule for the challengers, he later explained in open court, but he did not have the stomach to destroy a national institution. “I decided,” he said, “that this court had a right, if not a right a discretion, to postpone the announcement of any such order.” """

When the judge can openly admit that he sat on your case and bankrupted you because, while the law was definitely on your side, he didn't like you personally, there may be too much discretion.

This was some time ago - have judges been restricted since?

Nice example.

I don't know.

Maybe Samsung won't use it, but patents are actively bought and sold. Who knows what the next owner of the patent might do?

> I don't think they'll use it.

It all depends on how zealous their lawyers are. Or if they sell it to patent trolls, if they are in their normally litigious mood. They don't usually get to court, just the mere threat of litigation is usually motivation for the defendant to settle out of court for a tidy sum.

The supporting graphics with the patent are ridiculously awesome. Nothing like an image that refers to "RAM", "ROM" and "Web Browser" as equal parts of input to clear things up.

Nice, every single network device ever with a web interface (think of your home's router) infringes this patent.

This is plainly bullshit.

PS: Of course also printers, but I feel like that is what they were actually trying to patent. Which is bullshit too, though.

Nope. All networking devices outside US are not infringing this patent.

Well, yes, you are right. Still, a patent war in the US can have worldwide consequences.

High five grammar nazi!

My first summer job in 1990 was with a company than had then contract (then) to digitizing all USPTO patent applications.

As a shipping clerk I got to see a lot of hair-brained patent apps. Picture a diagram of a shoebox decorated to look like a mailbox and the words "KIDDIE MAIL" scrawled on the side. Yeah, somebody was trying to patent that. Most applications were like that one--complete wastes of everybody's time and money.

Seems like we've replaced "Kiddie Mail" with "RAM" and "ROM" but not much else has changed, except, presumably, the volume.

I think you mean "hare-brained" although I admit, the patent we're talking about now could also be called "hair-brained" :-)

Was this Patent granted? Is that what the Publication Date specifies? I really hope not, it's very generic and poorly written.

Well, the Publication Type is Grant so...

At least the priority date only goes back to 2006, so hopefully there's plenty of prior art.

I wanna smoke whatever USPTO guys smoke

Patent US420420420: Water filled smoke cooling device. A storage device that can hold water. A cylinder, square, or tube like structure that acts both as a pipe and transmitter of smoke and air into the water storage device. Another access/control point into the water storage for sucking. Storage device can be any water storing devise : vase, hollowed out pumpkin, yard gnome, etc. Device specialized for USPTO anxiety medication found in break room by Mario Cart.

powder of cockroach's crust

Even if this was granted, it would be easy enough to defeat with prior art references from all over the place. Windows WMI management framework includes transport over http for example.

> it would be easy enough to defeat with prior art references

Yes in theory. In practice, it all depends on how much the parties want to lawyer up, and not settle out of court.

Software is inherently modular - the whole point is to combine and produce unique configurations that might produce business value. The USPTO likens this to an invention, but its really more the like creating a unique looking house - and obviously you can't patent the act of making a house.

That's how companies work, you count the amount of patents you have, and that's part of what you're worth. You can ignore this...

This sounds alot like a client server architecture with the web as a business object server.

Is it just me or does the abstract seems like it was written by some grammar retard?

Patents, and their abstracts, are written in very particular language, that was originally meant for mechanical devices and configurations. It's law + engineering, basically.

What's a workform? Look at the claims, people.

I tried to read the patent summary with an open mind, but that was some convoluted phrasing. I have idea what claims they are making beyond that a web server and terminal devices are involved, and some information is used to do something.

[updated] BTW, reading the "getting started" doc for "SmarTrhu Workforms" provides a clearer picture of what Wokforms are:

http://www.samsung.com/au/newsletters/dealers/october08/pdfs...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com