Microsoft, Google Sued Over Hyperlinks in Documents

[ivyanev]

I really have to patent fire or wheel i am certain they don't have patent yet.

 

[digiex]

I am using hyperlink since the 1990's.

 

[shqtth]

So all thisDocuments had link in them ever since the day of the internet was born. So did help articles. HTML had links ! HTML are documents. Word and google docs use xml/xhtml which comes from html. Also google docs is on the web, so in a way everything is converted to html for the browser to see.

So I don't understand how anyone could parent links when html was designed with links in the first place.


Also outlook, was able to insert links. And basically since its a program on the pc, and email in this way is a document. frontpage (html editor) created html files with link. So microsoft using links was nothing new back in the good old days.


Also word documents have indexes, in a way these are mini links to different parts of the document, same with html. So the idea of links is nothing new in documents.


Another interesting thing, words was able to create html files. also IE, is able to save html files frm the internet locally (internet document), same with safari for the mac. THese internet documents had links. So, links in documents were used a long time.

 

[shqtth]

Wow looks are that guys website, what a big parent troll.


He probably even parented the idea of spam. Or method for shit in a burning brown paper bag on the front door step while the door bell rings.

 

[silverblue]

Anyone else think it's time that an independant body was set up as a sanity check for patent infringement to determine whether said patent(s) is/are valid prior to anything going to court? To hell with the patents office, it's screwed up everywhere.

We need some common sense to deal with the waves of human stupidity once in a while.

 

[craig_1000]

British Telecom owns this patent...Was registered 20 years ago... WTF how can it just be granted. There is a long standing joke about when they are going to sue all the websites on the internet for this.

 

[molo9000]

Software patents need to go!

 

[drwho1]

In other news: Tomshardware has been added to the list of that same lawsuit for including LINKS on THIS article.

Note: I typed this with my straight face on.
LOL as I leave this page.

 

[law shay]

They are talking about dynamic links -- links that changes with who is viewing the document.

There is clearly some prior act since we'd had our JSP, ASP technologies etc.

 

[hetneo]

Well this suit will fail because of new US patent regulation which is granting patent rights by "first built" rule and not "first filed" rule. First time I saw hyperlinks in documents was in MS Office, I think back in 2001.
Bovine Scatology patent trolling at its finest.

 

[bustapr]

this has been around since before 2006, somethings not legal here

 

[TeraMedia]

Anyone take a look at his patent list? Here's a gem:

6052667: Method and apparatus for selling an aging food product as a substitute for an ordered product

No, really, it's just fine with me if you don't ship me the food that I ordered. Ship me some mouldy old stuff instead.

I hope Walker Digital's employees all manage to be "beneficiaries" of that patent.

 

[bustapr]

how about method and apparatus for entertaining callers on cue. Patent troll...

 

[silverblue]

Eh?

 

[gokanis]

So much for the warp jump gate I was building on the dark side of the moon, don't wanna get sued........sigh

 

[silverblue]

But there is no dark side to the moon... as a matter of fact, it's all dark.

 

[chomlee]

I know this would never happen but all the companies that have lost money from the patent trolls should be able to sue the US patent office. I used to work for a company that submited patents all the time. Certain basic rules apply. A patent search has to be performed to make sure there is no other patent on the same concept.

The other rule is the one that all these patent trolls have been able to bilk the system for and I have no idea why. The other rule was that the idea could not be something that is readily available to the public already, otherwise people could patent breathing and then sue everybody who breaths because they were the first to patent it. This is where I don't get it. All the recent patent stuff lately covers things that have been used in one for or another for years but yet some group of scumbag, bloodsucking, bottomfeeding, no use to society lawyers get together and are able to sue for something that everyone already uses. I dont get it!!!!

 

[gogogadgetliver]

When does it become cheaper to hire hitmen rather than lawyers?

 

[zak_mckraken]

I'll patent the idea of personnal space travel. I don't have any space, engineering or physics knowledge, but the day someone else with actual skills will make it possible... cha-ching!

 

[TeraMedia]

I still say, "Use it or lose it." If you file a patent, and you fail to market a product using that patent, then the idea behind your patent should be usable by others without royalty or license fee until such time as you manage to do so. I understand that it sometimes takes time to commercialize an idea, so I'm willing to allow for a small number of years for the filer to achieve this. But honestly, if another company can develop the idea faster, then aren't all people better off if the filer transfers the patent to a tech developing company up front to avoid the "lose it" factor, and then the developing company markets the product quickly, then everyone wins. Much better than the alternative: several tech developing companies who are aware of the squatting patent market technology anyway (because they have no alternative to some of these stupid patents), and eventually get sued by the squatter for a ridiculous amount, ultimately costing society millions or even billions in license payments, penalties, logistics, court time, etc. because of some blood-sucker who managed to write his name on a patent application.

This might also be a better way to gauge the "true market value" of patents, because inventors would auction them off to tech development companies for the purpose of inclusion in products, rather than to IP-aggregating legal firms who have every intention of maximizing their return on IP investment, and do so by extorting license payments from so-called "violators". Companies are forced to pay more to these vampires because in the face of an injunction the alternative is going back to square one on their product's design, which for many companies is a death sentence. If a squatter were to sue Boeing for a violation incorporated into just one of their aircraft, and in so doing achieved an injunction, Boeing would go out of business.

We have RAID and DEET for mosquitos. What do we have for these bloodsuckers?