Companies Eager to Review McAfee Patent
By David Worthington | Published August 7, 2001, 11:54 PM
Software companies have scrambled to analyze the possible legal repercussions of a recent patent issued to McAfee by the U.S. Patent Office. The patent is unusually broad, potentially giving Sunnyvale, California, based McAfee the rights to key technologies used by both competitors and partners alike. Some areas that fall under the jurisdiction of the patent include auto-updating, subscription services, and certain software that initiates downloads without prompting users. The company has taken a stand to protect its newfound ownership, telling the media that parties can either work with them or engineer around them.
When McAfee first applied for the patent in 1998, existing services such as Microsoft's Windows Update - launched June of that year - utilized technology to which McAfee now seemingly owns the rights. Makers of alternative operating systems such as Red Hat's Linux also provide similar update services. Furthermore, Web browsers such as Internet Explorer have included a behavior that allows customers to optionally open downloads without user intervention for years.
Services that offer online backups and disk utilities also fall under prey of the patent. Fundamentally, all software products that include auto-update functionality and self installation may be affected.
The cornerstone of Microsoft's future business strategy, .NET is centered on a subscription based business model were customers appear on the income sheet more than just for one initial purchase. When asked for comment, Microsoft spokesperson Jim Desler refused to discuss the patent, pointing out the special relationship the two companies enjoy in the development of .NET. McAfee is a .NET alliance partner.
Symantec, a competing provider of anti-virus solutions that sought to patent the process by which its LiveUpdate software kept virus definitions up to date, now faces the prospect of being in violation of the McAfee patent. But Symantec spokesperson Ted Price downplayed the possibility of McAfee taking action, telling BetaNews, "We don't believe their patent will have any affect on our business. Our development and legal teams are still going over the announcement, but we don't have anything to say beyond that."
In an interview with the Associated Press, a McAfee representative indicated that any company that is seen as "willfully flaunting the technology" may face legal action. McAfee could not be reached after repeated attempts, and has not indicated whether it will provide technical assistance to companies who are currently in violation of the patent prior to seeking a legal remedy.
The patent includes two key paragraphs that could have far reaching implications.
According to the patent filing, "In one aspect of the present invention, the server computer receives a request in the form of a data packet from the user computer, whereupon the server computer causes a first web page image to be displayed on the user computer via a browser program running on the user computer. If the user inputs identification and a secure password in the first web page and transmits the first web page to the server computer, the server computer authenticates the user information and opens a secure connection with the user computer. The server computer thereupon, with no additional input from the user, searches the user computer for pre-designated executable software, and if such software is not found or is found to be outdated, downloads to the user computer said software or upgrades to such software. Finally, the server computer causes the software to be executed on the user computer.
"In another aspect of the invention, the server computer stores user information received during an initial registration process and verifies the user information when a user requests the services of the server computer via the first web page."
Until corporate lawyers have analyzed the patent filing, the depth and scope of any possible violations can only be left up to speculation. However, the potential for strict consequences clearly exists, and McAfee is not shy about defending its interests.
I live in Europe
Correct me if I'm wrong... But this doesn't affect me!!!
Patent s on software and concepts... isn't possible in Europe (so fare)... and since this is mostly a concept, and maybe some software stuff as well, this patent is not affecting us in Europe...
The amazon.com patent, on ?1-click-sale?, is NOT possible here... and therefor NOT something we need to thing about here....
Score: 0
|Gee maybe I should patent a gasious (or sometimes suspended within liquid) substance that enters earth dwelling creatures' breathing organs and allows them to perform normal biological processes. Not too broad is it?
Score: 0
|Check this link: http://www.theonion.com/...1/microsoftpatents.html
Extremely funny stuff!
But it seems that McAfee has a trump card up its sleeve. They probably will not start suing everybody's arse right away, but this patent and being the owner of it sounds sweet. Wish I had it... ;)
* Applying knowledge is the reason one learns *
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|Score: 0
|Still reading through it but I noticed that it was filed on December 8, 1998. Now Windows Update (for one of many others I'm sure), used this method/process before that date as Windows 98 was released before December 8, 1998.
Score: 0
|Ok, I'm no expert on patent law but as far as I understand it, the only part that holds any legal merit is the 'claims' section. The description and other bits and pieces are irrelevant and won't hold up legally. Someone correct this if it is wrong.
Therefore, the precise method/process that macafee have patented goes something like this:
1. Directing an Internet Browser located on a remote computer to form a logical connection with some server. (Note: What is the definition of an Internet Browser? Anything that can connect/talk to a web server? Or anything that conforms to the HTTP standard? Love the vague terms!)
2. A software package is then delivered to the remote computer. This software package has to be encapsulated within a markup language and it is to be used for one or more maintenance tasks. (What is the definition of a maintenance task? If the software verifies the CRC on a file is that a maintenance task?)
3. Automatically executing the software package once it is delivered.
BUT these steps comprise of the following:
1. Downloading a web page located on a server. (Symantec is therefore fine as LiveUpdate doesn't download any webpage).
2. Entering an identifier and a secure password on said web page. Selecting an options presented on the web page to send the identifier and password to the server computer. (Windows Update and Symantec's LiveUpdate are both fine here as neither require the user to log in).
3. Nothing will occur if the identifier and password prove invalid.
There's obviously a lot of other quite specific details to the method/process which shows that Windows Update and LiveUpdate are fine as they are.
Score: 0
|So who is going to take this to the next step and patent something along the following lines:
"In one aspect of the present invention, the server computer receives a request in the form of a data packet from the user computer, whereupon the server computer causes a first web page image to be displayed on the user computer via a browser program running on the user computer. If the user inputs identification and a secure password in the first web page and transmits the first web page to the server computer, the server computer authenticates the user information and opens a secure connection with the user computer. Once the secure connection is established, the server computer causes a second web page image to be displayed on the users computer"
Or does someone already own the patent on that and are just waiting until they need some cash before calling in the license fees?
American law is so dumb, its very funny :)
Score: 0
|