Automated Patching Patented

[Krakrok]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040713/sftu076_1.html

So how long before these clowns start rolling out lawsuits or licencing against MMO companies that use automated patching (gee that is about all of them isn't it). The patent was filed for in May 2000 which post dates the EQ and UO patchers but there may be a 'first used' date in the patent. IANAL but I think there may also be a patent issue where if you're prior art wasn't publicized or at least spelled out it doesn't count towards invalidating a patent.

[daveNYC]

Example #431,453 why allowing the patenting of business concepts is a very bad thing.

[kaid]

Hurm pretty sure that eq started in 1999 and UO I think 98 both of which predate that filing. Got to love how carefully the patent office pays attention to prior art.

Also antivirus programs arguably have had that same kind of patching ability since shortly after their creation.


Kaid

[Dren]

Having a few patents myself, I've learned a bit about the process.  The patent office does not take any responsibility to make sure that a patent is defensible.  A patent is by no means a guarantee that you will not be taken to task to show why you deserve distinct ownership of the idea/design.

If they get the patent, the owner of the patent will have to approach each company that is infringing (in his/her opinion) and ask them to stop.  The companies will then review the patent.  If they feel they can win by fighting it, they will put a case together and do that.

Normally inventors will do the work up front with a patent lawyer to make sure the patent can be defended somehow.  Our company does this quite thoroughly since they don't want to waste the money keeping patents that mean nothing.  Our competitors take us to court all the time to prove that the patents can stick.

The patent process is more or less a means of communicating that you think you have a design that is unique and should not be copied.  It also details out what about that design is unique and should not be copied.  As to its credibility, that is up to the courts if the question is raised.

[Venkman]

This is as silly a patent as Microsoft patenting double-clicking. Right now, there's no real reason to contest the patent because everyone would affect has probably been grandfathered permission to continue as usual. I see these sort of patents though as an attempt to gain revenue flow from licensing fees from new people that come along. Things should get interesting in about a year...

[eldaec]

across multiple systems

So a MMOG patcher would not be prior art.

Windows update might be.

Either way, it's still a dumb patent and a supreme waste of everyone's time.

[HaemishM]

Fucking patent office. They make the Immigration Department appear to be the model of effciency.

[Krakrok]

across multiple systems

So a MMOG patcher would not be prior art.

The way I read it multiple systems would be each piece of client software on a user machine connecting to the company server for the patch. Based on their software products this is exactly what they mean.

"Software Distribution, Everdream PatchControl(TM) and Everdream Patch Management. Everdream's Software Distribution service is a secure and reliable method for distributing software updates and packages to systems connected to the Internet."

In effect it is a NO CLICK patent LOL.

But wait that's not all, they already have three other similar patents and 14 more patents in the pipe to lock it all down.

"This is the fourth in Everdream's portfolio of U.S. patents in the field of Desktop Management Services. Fourteen additional related patents are pending."

[eldaec]

Come to think of it, the global sinister megacorporation I work for, like all global sinister megacorporations these days, distributes all PC software and updates through a logon script patcher that does it's stuff everytime I boot up. That would be multiple PCs and multiple packages, oh and all done over the internet.

This really is a dumb patent.

The "Intelligent Patch Checker" patent describes a method, used by Everdream, in which a software agent automatically scans the local computer system for the file version information of installed software and sends this data to a server. In response, the server compares this information to a software catalogue and, if appropriate, automatically delivers the update to the local system. Utilizing this automated process dramatically reduces costs and the time it takes to administer the software updating procedure.

My office PC has been doing this since at least 1998.

[Fabricated]

The instant the retards that got this patent attempt to sue anyone they'll be laughed out of court and lose the patent due to prior art.

[Calantus]

Is it even possible to patent something like that? As far as being able to defend it against competent lawyers/not getting it throw out of court? Seriously, it doesn't take genious to think up multiple updating. Sure they should be able to patent a particular METHOD if it's not braindead obvious, but the whole concept? If they can... then the system is horribly, horribly broken.

As far as this patent goes, it isn't going anywhere. They can wave it around as much as they like, but the second they try to use it, they'll lose it.

[geldonyetich]

I think Dren describes the feasibility of the situation pretty well.

I wonder what happened to the patent made awhile back regarding copyright of the MMORPG concept.   You'd think somewhere there'd be a court record of the patent imploding.

[daveNYC]

The instant the retards that got this patent attempt to sue anyone they'll be laughed out of court and lose the patent due to prior art.

All they really have to do is make their licensing fee less than the lawyer's bill for taking the case to court.

[Dren]

This is as silly a patent as Microsoft patenting double-clicking. Right now, there's no real reason to contest the patent because everyone would affect has probably been grandfathered permission to continue as usual. I see these sort of patents though as an attempt to gain revenue flow from licensing fees from new people that come along. Things should get interesting in about a year...

Grandfathering doesn't exactly work that way.  Yes, the installations that are existing or had existed would not be touched, but once this company told you to stop updating in this manner, you would have to or fight it.  It affects newcomers and grandfathered much the same.  Only in a few situations have companies had to backpay and that is usually because it was proved the company knew they were infringing, but kept providing product/services anyway.

*Edit* If you fought it and proved you were practicing in this manner prior to the patent application, the patent would be ruled null and void.  I believe this happens more often than people think.

As to the question, "It is so obvious! It can't be patented."  Yes it can be patented if you thought of it first (or even think you thought of it first) and took the correct steps (take good notes, apply right away, pay your fees, etc.)  Just do a search sometime in the patent database on your favorite subjects.  I guarantee you will run across a ton of patents that make you think "That is so simple.  Why did anyone spend the time to patent it?"

The answer:  Greed.

[Dren]

The instant the retards that got this patent attempt to sue anyone they'll be laughed out of court and lose the patent due to prior art.

All they really have to do is make their licensing fee less than the lawyer's bill for taking the case to court.

This would be true for the medium to small company, but for the big boys, ANY licensing fees on their products or services would be death for them.  Pure volume would make them take the other company to court.  

Just another red tape maze that keeps small businesses down.  

Small guy will pay the licensing fees until the big guy gets rid of the patent by going to court to keep costs down for their high volume product.  Of course, if the small guy doesn't have lawyers on staff to watch this all happening, they may continue to pay the license fees even though they don't have to.

Just the cost of doing business, eh?

[daveNYC]

Just the cost of doing business, eh?

I have a lawyer friend who does labor law, don't get me started.

And patenting ideas and concepts is evil.  If the patent office had allowed this to happen from the beginning, no progress would have taken place.  Imagine Henry Ford patenting the concept of a car, the very idea of motorized transportation.

[HaemishM]

Sure they should be able to patent a particular METHOD if it's not braindead obvious, but the whole concept? If they can... then the system is horribly, horribly broken.

You haven't been paying attention to the patent office lately, have you?

They gave some muppet a patent on CLICKING ON A LINK, for fuck's sake. I believe it even happened something like 7-8 years after the creation of the World Wide Web.

These aren't Mensa motherfuckers we're talking about. These guys eat dinner with a cork on their fork.

[eldaec]

Just the cost of doing business, eh?

I have a lawyer friend who does labor law, don't get me started.

And patenting ideas and concepts is evil.  If the patent office had allowed this to happen from the beginning, no progress would have taken place.  Imagine Henry Ford patenting the concept of a car, the very idea of motorized transportation.

This would have been espeicially dumb since someone had already patented cars....

January 29, 1886  For his three-wheel motor carriage Karl Benz receives the patent DRP No. 37435, the "birth certificate" of the automobile.

(Henry Ford didn't start building cars till 20 years later)

[daveNYC]

The phrase "Die in a car fire." seems appropriate.

Point was, while Benz patented his car, in the modern patent system someone could patent the concept of motorized travel.  Something that could cover anything from mopeds to big rigs.

[WayAbvPar]

I also invented gum!

[Calantus]

Sure they should be able to patent a particular METHOD if it's not braindead obvious, but the whole concept? If they can... then the system is horribly, horribly broken.

You haven't been paying attention to the patent office lately, have you?

They gave some muppet a patent on CLICKING ON A LINK, for fuck's sake. I believe it even happened something like 7-8 years after the creation of the World Wide Web.

These aren't Mensa motherfuckers we're talking about. These guys eat dinner with a cork on their fork.

Yeah I understand the point that they'll let anything in, and let whatever happens, happen. My point was more towards the idea that if this sort of thing can't get thrown out by the average lawyer for cheap/thrown out by a judge whenever someone contests it, then it's broken. It's still stupid that they even can put it up for patent, but if it would be upheld (or be overly expensive to contest), that's where things get broken.

[Dren]

From what I've seen on the manufacturing side, we use patents to slow the competition down.  It never stops them completely.  They just find a way around certain patents to do the same thing.

We patent even the stupidest things just as long as they look like they'll stand up in court.  The only reason is to make it harder for the competition to just out and out copy designs.  We are having a hell of a time with Asian companies on this one.  Hell, most the time they just copy it and worry about the problems later.  It is our responsiblity to call them on it afterall, so it is in their best interest to be reactive rather than proactive in this case.

As far as patenting ideas or concepts?  I'm pretty sure they get thrown out quite regularly or aren't even defended.  Remember, it costs the patentee money to defend them too.  If he/she doesn't really think the concept can be defeneded, they just won't do it.  Actually, many times they stop paying to keep the patent current.  That doesn't take the patent off the books, but if you look into it, you can find out if it is still being maintained.  If it isn't, you don't have to worry about it.

[MrHat]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/21/HNmsapplesued_1.html

This just in, apparently Tron has just become the richest person in the world, quote:

"I'm rich beotch."

Interesting story up there, it seems that the company holding the patents is making good on it's promise to cash in from the likes of Microsoft, Apple and "a number of unnamed software vendors."

[schild]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/21/HNmsapplesued_1.html

This just in, apparently Tron has just become the richest person in the world, quote:

"I'm rich beotch."

Interesting story up there, it seems that the company holding the patents is making good on it's promise to cash in from the likes of Microsoft, Apple and "a number of unnamed software vendors."

What a motherfucking leech. I hope Microsoft hands it to them they've never been handed it before. They are in dire need of a wakeup call. Automated patching is near to the internet equivilent of air. You can't license that shit, everyone quite literally *needs* it. For being so stupid as to go after Microsoft and Apple first, his family deserves to suffer. Had he gone after GAIN or some other equally vile outlet, it may have been ignored for a while. Greed is a tough animal to control, I guess.

[Phred]

One of the tests for patentability is "not obvious to someone skilled in the art". If M$ and Apple can't find 2 dozen people who didn't briefly consider this idea within a week of the first 8 computers hooked up to ArpaNet, they aren't looking hard enough. Early unix development was driven largely by patches circulated on the early net. I'm sure many sysadmins briefly considered automating this process. The first ftp client was drivable from shell scripts which could have trivially unpacked and installed patches if wanted, but most sysadmins wouldn't want it done while they weren't around. Various mirroring schemes have been around for as long as the net has to pull patches and software updates to a local repository. I think if Apple and M$ want to beat this they can. Whether they want to open the whole non-obvious can of worms regarding their own patents remains to be seen.

[Dren]

Here is the actual patent #6,557,054

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,557,054.WKU.&OS=PN/6,557,054&RS=PN/6,557,054


Filed April 20,2000
Issued April 29,2003

The specifics on this one seem to be (without reading too much into it) that the practice of displaying a list of components in the software that the user does not already have installed.  The user can then pick the items they want to install and then do it.

This is different than the "forced" installs from before 2000 such as the UO updates.  You didn't get a choice on those.

This patent does not cover the act of installing patches over the Internet.  You have to be giving your customers a choice from an list before this patent is active and you can get sued by these guys.  That would match how Microsoft does their updates now.

Here's the title and abstract for those that like to torture themselves with legal speak.

Method and system for distributing updates by presenting directory of software available for user installation that is not already installed on user station


Abstract
A method for distributing information to a plurality of uncoordinated user stations each of which is configured for communications with a multiplicity of independently-operated servers via a non-proprietary network includes steps for providing a distribution service that distributes updates for a plurality of different products, and providing a transporter software component to each of the plurality of uncoordinated user stations, wherein the transporter software component at each user station automatically effects communication sessions with the distribution service via the non-proprietary network for the purpose of obtaining updates for each of at least a subset of the plurality of different products that are installed on that user station. Moreover, a user station, which includes a storage medium, a plurality of different products installed on the storage medium, and transporter software installed on the storage medium for automatically effectuating communication sessions with a distribution service via a non-proprietary network in order to obtain updates for each of the plurality of different products, and a distribution service that distributes updates for a plurality of different products to a plurality of uncoordinated user stations via a non-proprietary network, are also described.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Krakrok]

My original post was about Patent 6,751, 794 B1, "Intelligent Patch Checker," though (view it here).

sending a request for an upgrade to a server system connected in a network, the upgrade being for a plurality of software applications installed in a client system connected in the network, the request sent from the client system, the request comprising a unique identification associated with the client system, the unique identification recognized by the server system as belonging to the client system;

receiving at least one instruction from the server system in response to the request for the upgrade, the server system having a knowledge of the software applications installed on the client system, the at least one instruction directing the client system to collect application information about the software applications installed on the client system, the server system having no knowledge whether most-updated upgrade packages available for the software applications have been installed on the client system;

[/size]

[Dren]

True, but the one that was in the article linked by Mr. Hat is the one being used for the lawsuit.  They probably understood that the patent you mentioned just wouldn't stand up.  That other patent that I referenced might have some legs, thus they are using it to get some cash.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Isnt this the same company that wanted to patent email and some sort of internet IP architecture that basically would declare it the owner of the internet?