Well, we're all screwed.

June 19, 2000 12:31 PM

Well, we're all screwed. Seems like BT patented hyperlinking years ago, and they plan to aggressively enforce it in the US. Anyone know how to setup blogger for gopher? (free registration is required to view article)
posted by Jairus (9 comments total)

The Register is also carrying the BT patent story. It'll be interesting to hear more about any prior art and how wide ranging the patent is.
posted by tomalak at 2:41 PM on June 19, 2000

What about Vannevar Bush? He conceived the idea in 1945! What about Andy van Dam? D.C. Englebart? Hello? Anybody?

More info here.
posted by wiremommy at 2:58 PM on June 19, 2000

Or Ted Nelson? This patent is the stupidest yet. Though it might hold water in Europe: I can't remember what the distinction is exactly, but I know that the European (and Japanese) patent systems are fundamentally different than the US & Canadian ones. As I recall, prior art is irrelevant. Whoever applies for an receives the patent first wins it all. (Again, I can't remember exactly — someone here must know.)
posted by sylloge at 3:05 PM on June 19, 2000

Based on the language the Register quoted, it'll be tossed in the US as 'overly broad'.

Are BT *really* this stupid?

"Hey, Boss! Wanna own the Internet?"
posted by baylink at 5:43 PM on June 19, 2000

Not just the Internet, either. This could apply to any application that allows you to access another screen of information by clicking in a certain place in your current screen. Icons, menus, basically every element of a GUI.

Does the international patent stuff work that way? Does a British-granted patent have to stand up to US standards to be enforced in the US? I thought our treaties were cozier than that.
posted by Freakho at 6:36 PM on June 19, 2000

It'll be fun watching them bankrupt themselves trying to enforce this. At last count there were sixteen million domains registered.
posted by jbushnell at 8:15 PM on June 19, 2000

> Though it might hold water in Europe: I
> can't remember what the distinction is
> exactly, but I know that the European
> (and Japanese) patent systems are
> fundamentally different than the US &
> Canadian ones.

Re: "First to Invent vs. First to File":

"In the United States, a patent is granted to the person who conceives the inventive idea first. This is the major difference between patent laws in the U.S. and the rest of the world..."

This could be the major obstacle facing BT as far as U.S. courts go, it seems. But check this:

"Under the auspices of the WIPO, a draft Patent Harmonization Treaty has been adopted covering many aspects of the different patent laws practiced in the PCT member countries. If this treaty becomes effective, U. S. patent laws will have to undergo a fundamental change from the 'first to invent' to 'first to file' principle."

In any case, it seems certain that universal enforcement of such a patent will be impossible (c.f. the LZH/GIF patent fiasco from a while back). I seem to recall that Illustrator and Photoshop's splash screens mention something about licensing the algorithms, but no end user has ever really had to tangle with GIF patent matters (or am I under-informed?)...

Ehh, BT can take a number in the "Don Quixote" line, right behind Lars.
posted by letourneau at 2:01 PM on June 20, 2000

None of it matters, for there is demonstrable prior art.

ALL of it was described by Ted Nelson in the book "Dream Machines" (which, by the way, is the first book to contain the word "hypertext", which Ted Nelson invented for that book), and "Dream Machines" predates the BT work by at least five years.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:13 PM on June 20, 2000

According to the BBC website this morning, most of the patents in individual countries have expired. In the US, BT's patent expires in 2006, and they were focusing on the "service providers" to pay them royalties (a la image editor producers paying royalties for using .gifs)
posted by julen at 2:18 PM on June 21, 2000