[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: dmca-discuss
Subject: [DMCA_Discuss] Judge Tosses BT Hyperlink Case
From: "Tammo" <burrbob () earthlink ! net>
Date: 2002-08-24 8:42:58
[Download RAW message or body]
Wooyah! EAt that you patent-claming losers!!!
From Wired News
---------------
Judge Tosses BT Hyperlink Case
By Michelle Delio
8:55 a.m. Aug. 23, 2002 PDT
U.S. federal Judge Colleen McMahon has dismissed a claim by British Telecom that it \
developed and holds a patent to the hyperlink technology used to whisk Web users from \
one site to another.
According to court transcripts, the British telephone company believed that every \
single hyperlink used on every U.S. website was utilizing intellectual property the \
company patented in 1976 and should therefore be subject to a licensing fee.
On Thursday, the judge ruled that British Telecom's beliefs were without merit.
The case began in February, when British Telecom sued Prodigy, the oldest online \
access service, claiming that by being the first company to offer public access to \
the Web, Prodigy was in violation of a BT patent that was granted years before the \
Web even existed.
McMahon had expressed doubts over the case's validity as the suit progressed, but on \
Thursday she decisively dismissed BT's claims in a summary judgment (PDF) that is \
both technically astute and leaves no question about the judge's opinion on the worth \
of BT's case.
"The Internet is, in short, an entirely different beast from the system described in \
the (BT) patent. Consequently, the Internet does not infringe the Sargent patent," \
McMahon wrote in the judgment.
BT's patent, referred to in court as the "Sargent patent," describes a system that \
allows text sent from a central computer to a terminal to include non-visible data, \
such as the programming code used in hyperlinks.
McMahon's judgment hinged on the patent's use of a central computer.
BT lawyers argued that a central computer does not have to be a single computer.
To support this contention, BT lawyers quoted a statement made by McMahon in a \
previous case, in which McMahon had ruled that IBM could not "escape liability for \
infringement by constructing two or three or even more multi-unit memory systems and \
somehow linking them together or causing them to operate together."
But McMahon said the flaw in that argument "was obvious" because in the IBM case she \
was referring to a "computer system, not a central terminal."
"A system is not the same thing as a computer, and I never said that it was," McMahon \
wrote in Thursday's summary judgment. "Moreover, I was doing so in the context of a \
patent that is not even remotely like the Sargent patent."
A summary judgment can be handed down at the request of litigants in a suit. \
Typically the motion for a summary judgment is presented after one side has concluded \
its case, and the other side petitions the judge to rule that the case has no merit.
Legal experts said that requests for a summary judgment occur in the vast majority of \
cases, but are rarely granted in whole -- specific aspects of a charge may dismissed, \
but typically the entire suit is not thrown out with a summary judgment.
But McMahon's judgment put a definitive seal on the case, certainly as it concerns \
Prodigy and most probably as it affects BT's claims on any other Internet service \
provider.
"I find that, as a matter of law, no jury could find that Prodigy infringes the \
Sargent patent, whether directly or contributory, either as part of the Internet or \
on its Web server viewed separate and apart from the Internet. Prodigy's motion for \
summary judgment is therefore granted. The Clerk is directed to close the file," \
McMahon wrote.
BT representatives had previously acknowledged that the trial was a test case whose \
outcome would determine whether the company could commercialize a potentially \
lucrative patent.
If successful, BT had intended to file suit against other U.S. Internet service \
providers. The patent is only valid in the United States.
"We believe we have a duty to protect our intellectual property, and we would expect \
companies to pay a reasonable royalty based on the revenues that they have enjoyed \
through the use of that intellectual property," a BT spokeswoman said in February \
2002.
According to court papers, in June 2000 BT had contacted 17 ISPs, including America \
Online and Prodigy, and requested the companies purchase a license to use hyperlinks. \
After receiving unanimous refusals, BT proceeded with its test case against Prodigy.
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Wooyah! EAt that you
patent-claming losers!!! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>
<DIV><BR>From Wired News</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>---------------</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Judge Tosses BT Hyperlink Case <BR>By Michelle Delio</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>8:55 a.m. Aug. 23, 2002 PDT <BR>U.S. federal Judge Colleen McMahon has
dismissed a claim by British Telecom that it developed and holds a patent to the
hyperlink technology used to whisk Web users from one site to another. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>According to court transcripts, the British telephone company believed that
every single hyperlink used on every U.S. website was utilizing intellectual
property the company patented in 1976 and should therefore be subject to a
licensing fee. <BR> <BR>On Thursday, the judge ruled that British Telecom's
beliefs were without merit. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The case began in February, when British Telecom sued Prodigy, the oldest
online access service, claiming that by being the first company to offer public
access to the Web, Prodigy was in violation of a BT patent that was granted
years before the Web even existed. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>McMahon had expressed doubts over the case's validity as the suit
progressed, but on Thursday she decisively dismissed BT's claims in a summary
judgment (PDF) that is both technically astute and leaves no question about the
judge's opinion on the worth of BT's case. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"The Internet is, in short, an entirely different beast from the system
described in the (BT) patent. Consequently, the Internet does not infringe the
Sargent patent," McMahon wrote in the judgment. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BT's patent, referred to in court as the "Sargent patent," describes a
system that allows text sent from a central computer to a terminal to include
non-visible data, such as the programming code used in hyperlinks. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>McMahon's judgment hinged on the patent's use of a central computer. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BT lawyers argued that a central computer does not have to be a single
computer. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To support this contention, BT lawyers quoted a statement made by McMahon
in a previous case, in which McMahon had ruled that IBM could not "escape
liability for infringement by constructing two or three or even more multi-unit
memory systems and somehow linking them together or causing them to operate
together." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But McMahon said the flaw in that argument "was obvious" because in the IBM
case she was referring to a "computer system, not a central terminal." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"A system is not the same thing as a computer, and I never said that it
was," McMahon wrote in Thursday's summary judgment. "Moreover, I was doing so in
the context of a patent that is not even remotely like the Sargent patent."
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A summary judgment can be handed down at the request of litigants in a
suit. Typically the motion for a summary judgment is presented after one side
has concluded its case, and the other side petitions the judge to rule that the
case has no merit. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Legal experts said that requests for a summary judgment occur in the vast
majority of cases, but are rarely granted in whole -- specific aspects of a
charge may dismissed, but typically the entire suit is not thrown out with a
summary judgment. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But McMahon's judgment put a definitive seal on the case, certainly as it
concerns Prodigy and most probably as it affects BT's claims on any other
Internet service provider. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"I find that, as a matter of law, no jury could find that Prodigy infringes
the Sargent patent, whether directly or contributory, either as part of the
Internet or on its Web server viewed separate and apart from the Internet.
Prodigy's motion for summary judgment is therefore granted. The Clerk is
directed to close the file," McMahon wrote. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BT representatives had previously acknowledged that the trial was a test
case whose outcome would determine whether the company could commercialize a
potentially lucrative patent. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If successful, BT had intended to file suit against other U.S. Internet
service providers. The patent is only valid in the United States. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"We believe we have a duty to protect our intellectual property, and we
would expect companies to pay a reasonable royalty based on the revenues that
they have enjoyed through the use of that intellectual property," a BT
spokeswoman said in February 2002. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>According to court papers, in June 2000 BT had contacted 17 ISPs, including
America Online and Prodigy, and requested the companies purchase a license to
use hyperlinks. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>After receiving unanimous refusals, BT proceeded with its test case against
Prodigy. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
_______________________________________________
------------------------
http://www.anti-dmca.org
------------------------
DMCA_Discuss mailing list
DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org
http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic