Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: British Telecom owns Hyperlink?
 Somebody sent me this ... BT could face legal action over hyperlink claim <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk">The Register</a> Posted: 21/06/2000 at 12:55 GMT BT could face legal action if it pursues its claim over the ownership of hyperlinks. Anger against BT's patent - predominantly in the US where the intellectual property specialists are currently talking to ISPs over issuing licences - has flared quicker than hooligans rioting after a game of basketball. Some experts quoted in the British press this morning claim BT has a strong case and could reap millions from US ISPs. Ironically, it's an action welcomed by some. Donavon J Pfeiffer Jr told The Register: "As an American citizen, steeped in greed and raised on profit motive and litigation, I am hopeful that BT wins this lawsuit. "I and my cyberbuddies will then launch a class action suit against BT for every broken link we've ever had to deal with using product liability as the basis for the suit. After all, one load of bovine fecal (UK spelling faecal) matter deserves another. It's also been suggested that since the patent was registered by the then state-owned General Post Office (GPO) and not a private company (BT), then the telco should have lost all rights to the patent years ago. Critics of this, no doubt, would argue that intellectual property - like real estate - would have been transferred to the new operation as a matter or course. Others have pointed out that the hypertext and hyperlink concept pre-dates that of even Ted Nelson's 1970s reference. Apparently, it goes at least as far back as Vannevar Bush's article, "As We May Think", published in the July 1945 edition of Atlantic Monthly <http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm>. Elsewhere, one former BT employee wrote to provide an insight into the company's culture and offers an explanation as to why the patent has only now been unearthed. "You ask the question 'why did BT only decide now to capitalise on its intellectual property?' which betrays a certain lack of understanding about the internal culture of BT," according to this one-time "saltminer". "The illusion of a single-purpose or controlling strategy within BT is risible at best. It is a seething collection of warring little tin pot empires, more intent on crushing the opposition in the next office than facing the competition in the telecomms marketplace. "It staggers me that anyone in BT even found this old patent. The fact that it exists doesn't surprise me - BT holds patents on some wide-ranging (and often very tenuous) stuff. It's a regular occurrence at Martlesham Heath, when a manager is feeling a bit insecure, to post off the contents of a filing cabinet to the Intellectual Properties Unit (IPU) for them to pick over. Then at the end-of-year performance review, they can point to their score of XX patent applications as if this was some form of realised objective. "No doubt the eager IPU beaver who spotted this will be suitably rewarded with a book token or BT-branded tie. "When you think about research in the telecomms business, just ask yourself the question - how many Nobel Prizes go to Bell Labs and how many to BT?" No doubt BT's claim on this essential part of the Web will continue to spark comment and reaction. Ram Mareddy Architecture Specialist Siebel Systems, Inc. Phone: (650) 295-6092 1855 South Grant St. Fax: (650) 295-5128 San Mateo, CA 94402 Email: rmareddy@s... -----Original Message----- From: Dan Mabbutt [mailto:Seigfried@m...] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 3:06 PM To: Bob Kline Cc: XML Developers List Subject: RE: British Telecom owns Hyperlink? I read the original posting. My real point was that there are lots of possibilities. Here are some more. - BT Management knows they don't have a chance and they don't care. They're automatons responding to a stimulus (the suggestion, generated somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracy, that they just might be able to collect money from this). Some suggestions, no matter how silly, must be given a response, to avoid the possibility of being held liable for NOT giving a response. - They don't know they don't have a chance because most of them know so little about computers that they still require someone else to logon for them. - They have no idea this is going on in the first place because the whole thing is being carried out from one bureaucracy to another far beneath the management level. They're too busy attending each other's Important Events. - They know they have just about zero chance, but they have calculated that a very tiny probability multiplied by a very huge number (licensing fees for hyperlinking) is worth it anyway. After all ... Univac (I know they're not Univac anymore) collects fees for the GIF compression algorithm after years of "public domain" use. All right ... I admit it ... they're all pretty pathetic ... but my second point is that we're all pretty pathetic for putting up with it. (Where's the guillotine and the bullet pocked wall when we need it?) -----Original Message----- From: owner-xml-dev@x... [mailto:owner-xml-dev@x...]On Behalf Of Bob Kline Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 2:56 PM To: Dan Mabbutt Cc: XML Developers List Subject: RE: British Telecom owns Hyperlink? On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Dan Mabbutt wrote: > OK ... Thinking Dilbert, I can imagine one reason why BT did this > that doesn't put them in a pathetic light. (If my idea has any > truth to it, all of us are in a pathetic light for allowing it to > happen.) > > My experience is that lawyers will sue for any cause that might > yield fees for themselves. If a lawyer can convince a court to > entertain a suit against management for not protecting an "asset" of > the company (the hyperlink patent rights), fees can be generated. > What if BT management is simply protecting themselves from frivolous > lawsuits by filing frivolous patent applications? I think you must have missed the original posting. According to the news report, BT isn't just filing patent applications, they're trying to (or pretending to try to -- according to the Dilbert theory) collect royalties. If they're not pretending, then I don't understand how their actions could be construed as anything but pathetic. You don't for a moment suppose that they have any chance after all these years of convincing a court to force everyone who uses hyperlinks to pay BT for the privilege, do you? -- Bob Kline *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ *************************************************************************** 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
