EP0973297 -- Patent on Embedded Web Servers?

M

Thread Starter

Mike Granby

Has everyone checked out the European patent application listed above?

The abstract is as follows...

"A measurement instrument is web enabled, enabling it to receive commands or information to effectuate an operation on the measurement instrument from a user using a browser executing on a remote client computer. In response, the operation is effectuated in accordance with the commands or information provided. Results of the operation, where applicable, are returned to the browser of the remote client computer for the user. The operation may be any one of a number of monitoring or control operations, and the
commands or information facilitate identification of the monitoring or control operation of interest."

This would seem to cover the incorporation of web server technologies in any instrument that performs measurement functions. So does that mean no PID controller with a web interface? No panel meters with a web interface?? Or PLCs with a web interface??? Or, at least, none of the above without a royalty.

Good questions that people might consider...

1/ Is there prior art on this?

2/ Is it obvious?

3/ Is it unethical?

I'm not expressing an opinion on these issues myself (or at least I'm not going to via a company email address!) but on the last point, it
strikes me that there is something strange about attempting to restrict the use of a universal technology on a given platform. Where does it end? How about a patent on web pages on gas cookers? Or toasters? Or a million other things? In fact, why not get a dictionary and list every noun together with the idea of serving web pages
there from, and stick it on a web site to establish prior art? Okay, that's dumb, but you get the point?

I'd be interested in hearing other people's views.

--
Mike Granby
Red Lion Controls Inc.
http://www.redlion-controls.com
 
Even without knowing the date of the patent, Spyglass comes to mind w.r.t. prior art. But the lawyers would have to look it over.

http://www.spyglass.com/

Best,
B.O. June 2, 2000
--
Robert Old, System Architecture, [email protected]
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., Landis & Staefa Division
1000 Deerfield Pkwy., Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513 USA
Phone: +1(847)941-5623, Fax: +1(847)419-2401
 
W
List,

It seems to me that CTC has the patent on this type of application in the US. I haven't been able to get any more info from them about
proposed licensing, though. We developed a web server with Ethernet interface in one of our valves with I/O in 1997; the general consensus at that time was, "Who would want such a thing?" Now
it seems rather obvious that this is indeed what people want. There are already many companies with such products out there.

I didn't think of patenting this at the time, as it seemed obvious. One nice thing about the internet is that it is open; patenting such uses of a web browser IMO is counterproductive to the proliferation of open devices. It will be interesting to see what happens with some of these patents, if and when they are challenged in court. At any rate, I'm going to keep on developing software which uses a web-browser interface for intelligent I/O, and let the lawyers deal with the legal issues. I have a feeling the legal issues will be dismissed by a prior art ruling.

Willy Smith
Numatico SA
Costa Rica
 
R

Rich Anderson

I don't think that this patent will stand up. If it does. I'm driving to the patent office and submit something called the wheel!

Rich Anderson
Automation Controls Programmer
Anamax Group
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

> Has everyone checked out the European patent application listed
> above?

One important piece of information was missing: Who owns the patent?

> 1/ Is there prior art on this?
>
> 2/ Is it obvious?
>
> 3/ Is it unethical?
>
> I'm not expressing an opinion on these issues myself (or at least I'm
> not going to via a company email address!) but on the last point, it
> strikes me that there is something strange about attempting to
> restrict the use of a universal technology on a given platform.

I'll be glad to express an opinion: the idea of being able to patent an embeddable web server is ludicrous. There certainly is prior art. It certainly is obvious. However, is it unethical to take advantage of the stupid government bureaucrats who don't know enough to realize
the absurdity of such a patent? I think it is, but I would guess by the amount of money spent on lobbying by businesses, that most people would not think it unethical.

> Where does it end? How about a patent on web pages on gas cookers?
> Or toasters? Or a million other things? In fact, why not get a
> dictionary and list every noun together with the idea of serving
> web pages there from, and stick it on a web site to establish prior
> art? Okay, that's dumb, but you get the point?

It ends by someone with a self interest and very deep pockets fighting the patent when the patent holder comes after them. The whole idea of being able to patent software is wrong-headed. This is
a good example. Another example is several years old already:

Immediately after patents were allowed on software in the US, an enterprising group of programmers (I don't remember the company name)
patented a piece of software for copying a video image from a buffer in memory to another buffer so that another image can be displayed within that buffer while the original can be copied back to the original buffer later to restore the image. This is essentially what ANY graphical user interface does to display a dialog box or to move something across a video screen. The whole patent rested on the assertion that software to copy bytes from one memory location to another was unique and patentable. Some poor boob of a patent clerk who probably never even saw a Nintendo machine let alone a computer approved this patent. The patent owner tried suing MIT over the X- windows interface (maybe some other people too). They did not win in court although I do not know specifically if they were "paid off" to drop the suit or not.

I would assert that there is not a single program ever written that did not violate this patent.

This illustrates one of the basic problems with software patents: the only prior art a patent examiner is obligated to use is previous
patents. There are numerous other logistical and philosophical problems with software patents.

Another way to end the absurdity is to abolish software patents. Copyright laws are sufficient to protect software.

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
R

Robert Lunnon

No chance... On prior art basis alone.

Good thing I live in Australia where such things cant be patented!
 
C

Colin T. Marsh

Yes, patent laws, ideally intended to protect and nurture innovation, can be easily misused. Patents are now an integral part of corporate America's business and legal strategy. Patents permit large companies to "trade" (the use of) their patents with each other, partly as a self-defence mechanism. Of course the same patents can also be misused and stifle competition and innovation by smaller companies.

Patent laws are also misused when a legal action is started without first performing a thorough technical evaluation indicating the competitive product really infringes. The onerous cost to defend a patent lawsuit is a very effective, anti-competitive, business weapon that can be used to short-circuit the ideals of patent law.

Am I biased? Unfortunately, yes! My company, DataLink Technologies, is the defendant in a 1997 patent lawsuit initiated by Allen-Bradley. A-B claims that DataLink has stolen their (DH+ /
RIO) technology and have insisted on a jury trial, while refusing DataLink's offers to determine the facts through independent
arbitration.

Jury trials make sense as juries usually assume that a large company's patents must be valid. If there are any doubts about the technical merits of a patent that could be uncovered during an
independent legal / technical evaluation, there may be a better chance for a "win" by insisting on a jury trial. Is this tactic really
unethical, or is it just a typical aggressive, winner-take-all, competitive business practise?

If our industry leaders are only willing (or able) to "prove" their cases in front of (technically unqualified) juries, shouldn't we also entertain serious doubts about the merits (and ethics) of many other patents?

Regards,
Colin Marsh,
President, DataLink Technologies, Inc.
 
R

Rich Anderson

"No chance.." to what? To the web enabled instrument patent to hold up? Or me patenting the wheel? Either way...

I was being sarcastic. I do NOT expect the web enabled instrumentation patent to hold up. NOR do I think that I could patent the wheel.

It was a joke. (Don't you get it...if he can patent that, then I should be able to patent this)

Was my note taken seriously? Or don't I understand your reply?

Rich Anderson
Automation Controls Programmer
Anamax Group
 
Maybe the message got lost in the translation from Australian to American :) I understood what Robert was getting at, but then I'm Australian. I
think the point he was trying to make is that irrespective of whether the patent would hold up to a challenge or not we are blessed with a more
common sense patenting system that would not allow such a patent to be applied for to begin with - makes it harder for our lawyers to earn
ridiculous incomes.

I suppose that is the beauty of lagging a bit behind the rest of the world, we may be sloooooooow on the uptake, but we make less mistakes :) (In case the humor is lost on you again, I am joking).

Cheers
Allan Dow
Embedded Systems & Solutions
 
I know of a company that has done just that, patented a wireless network, and remote data acquisition over the radio. They dragged
another company to Court based on this (claiming that attaching sensors to a data acquisition system, and this to a radio , is their invention) and the lawsuit is dragging since over a year at
astronomical costs. So yes, sadly, you could patent the wheel . Even worse, small companies would have a hard time defending simply because they'd need deep pockets to "prevail" as
somebody said earlier in this thread. Without lots of cash you don't prevail, you just go bankrupt even if you were sued for the infringing
upon the wheel patent. Incidentally, the patent I'm referring to lists web enabled instruments in the claims. The trick to patent anything your heart desires is to use technical terms in an inappropriate way, abusing their meaning. This would yield zero matches at a search based on key words for prior art. The company I'm referring to used the term cache memory instead of non-volatile storage to describe data logging devices, PIN codes instead of encryption key to
describe data encription, and so on. The poor souls from the Patents and Trademarks Office didn't have a chance against an unscrupulous patent lawyer.
 
C

Concerned Citizen

Mr. Marsh: Being part of a lawsuit I would only imagine is difficult at best because it distracts a company and its efforts to become successful. Best of Luck.
 
R

Ray Casterline

> Has everyone checked out the European patent application listed above? There is also an HP Patent for Embedded Web Servers. Search Delphion on the patent # for more info: http://www.delphion.com/simple Hewlett Packard Patent US5956487 Hewlett-Packard filed the following patent “Embedding web access mechanism in an appliance for user interface functions including a web server and web browser,” on Oct. 25, 1996. The patent was issued on Sept. 21, 1999. The abstract is as follows: Web access functionality is embedded in a device to enable low cost widely accessible and enhanced user interface functions for the device. A web server in the device provides access to the user interface functions for the device through a device web page. A network interface in the device enables access to the web page by a web browser such that a user of the web browser accesses the user interface functions for the device through the web page. This is a very broad patent that specifically mentions: printers, fax machines, copiers, communication and telephony devices, home entertainment devices such as televisions, video and audio devices as well as appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, security systems, automobiles, hot tubs, measurement instruments including oscilloscopes, and spectrum analyzers and other types of measurement devices. The patent also covers a large number of communications mediums: wired and wire less (infrared, etc.). Regards, Ray Casterline Principle Lighthouse Solutions, LLC [email protected] www.lhsolutions.com
 
Top