Microsoft, Google Sued Over Hyperlinks in Documents

The patent system is so flawed...
It needs to be redesigned in order to prevent obvious patent trolls from occurring.

whiskey tango foxtrot...

So now what any sources i have cited in an electronic word document are now subject to getting sued over. I'm going to sue him for killing the freedom of education.

original thinking. How original can it be if hyperlinks have been around since the 60's and several companies come out with there own way of adapting it to there documents.. Patenting just an idea is and always will be an horrible idea. If you dont have a working model by the time your patent actually goes in for review you shouldn't be able to get a patent.

First to the market should win period. If its an secret thing then dont tell anybody till its ready.

Linking to something else within a document is an original idea? LOL NOT
This is such a basic concept, the suit needs to be thrown out on its face.

Patent troll companies have little to do with original thinking.

Ok.... so the patent was filed in 2006. I'm pretty sure prior works using such tech were in place long before then. Didn't Works, Word, WordPerfect, and most other major apps (including e-mail) have this functionality before 2006?

If we can now patent and sue in the face of prior works I'd like to go ahead and get patents on respiration and reproduction... or at least copulation.

Hmmm...

Something isn't right. The company filed for the patent in 2006 long after hyperlinks were used in digital documents. The patent was granted two days ago. I wonder why it took so long.

Were hyperlinks in digital documents considered to be some sort of open source? Should make an interesting "prior art" case.

Oh for gods sake....

Another stupid court case

I need to quit reading these articles. All I ever get from them is more anger and internal face-palming.

Walker Digital, Episode 1; Attack of the Patent Trolls

Will for the interest of thought or idea to say at a time within interest of such would probably be more placed within copyright then a patent. Given for a patent would be within concept within itself at a time, but could still be placed probably within some means though saying a concept can't be taken.

The issue is probably that of rather what basically isn't done can be placed as something viable to say its something "different" within its own self or the like. The likelyhood of that happening against just say the interest of just of a finished product taking place for say documentation is probably hard placed.

Patenting on the idea if almost non-viable given the inital interest of such. To say Copyright is a lesser though isn't probably as fitting. But whats the difference though really? Other then the say affordability and attainability for one or the other then most probably at anytime.

The agurement almost within itself is own for its own place of issue probably given intial interest of use despite any difference of arguement or not. But of so though within arguement is that of which is placed within use that is without though. But for it though to say that any others have its place for one without one, is probably its own arguement again to say, but maybe not.

But on ideas of concepts though would gind its place as such, given an idea as a concept is subjective and perspective. Given a concept is usually within an idea. So for the royalties I think would still be valid I think if found say plausabile for whole of idea. But of it though if placed within interest of say issue within difference of hardware and say software within interest of idea and/or concept is probably placed within the difference, which would probably be a royalty or say fee, tax, and/or the like.

Probably alot to argue of course at a time, but to say that one is valid is hard placed given say the interest of such is probably a broad one at times for one. But again to say that most ideas of concepts within themselves as an idea or just idea within itself to be placed within interest before say final interest of such is more placed is probably more complicated to do then otherwise. Given also thats most does find its place of interest within thought of such more then not. So copyright to say would seem more fitting, given that much has its place of say interest of copyright. Though given interest of say "documentation" has more of a place for one. Rather say paper or digital. Can or could say at a point the interest of arguement extends itself at a time, but think it left to the intial interest at a time unless say otherwise.

For place of argue though again is more placed for ideas of lessers ones probably more then not as well. But for it though as think placed within article and/or comments, if interest of what is say patented and/or copyrighted is probably within interest of when "able" to do so. At a time within interest of say ideas or concepts, is probably limited to a point, but not maybe all points. Be like saying the idea or concept that counting in a row is useful or just counting in a row and not really expecting much interest of the idea or concept anywhere. But to say there could be more specifics then not though, yes?

Not trying to say its a broad interest, just of it though does have a basic one probably within itself that might find a place of being broad on the idea or interest of use that can be placed probably within a more specific means of interest of its say own limited say rights. There probably a few ideas within itself that might be of similar or difference/same-difference or again the like that might or is not the same.

Electronic does seem to have a place of interest at a time though probably as well within say arguement for thought or idea/concept that might say precede itself given an intial difference within say usage at anytime. To think of for say any interest of such is probably as placed only within the interest of say issue or arguement, if not interest within itself of topic and/or subject.

Hard telling or saying really hve the time though too as well, but of such probably does have a more fitting place then not. But still does argue rather to say the interest of idea within itself would place itself for itself without the say interest of idea or concept "alone" to itself. Might leave itself to sill say being viable for itself of course, but does have it place of say interest or issue or arguement otherwise probably at a time or a time. Also saying others thoughts to a point or ideas and/or concepts are also placed within themselves to say as well with or without say other thoughts, ideas , and/or concepts. Kinda off on that on but still. Cn say that there is a "system" of interest within idea of interest within itself or not. Might be better off or not for the interest of say arguement and/or issue. Maybe neither at a time.

WALKER DIGITAL PATENT PORTFOLIO LIST BELOW:

http://www.walkerdigital.com/innov [...] folio.html

I seriously want to phone this guy up and ask about his "inventions"

How is someone ever awarded a patent for that idea? That's like patenting 'the underline', or putting flyers on lampposts.

I am going to patent underwear. Anyone who wears one will have to pay me royalties!!!!

And I thought RAMBUS was bad.

I really have to patent fire or wheel i am certain they don't have patent yet.

I am using hyperlink since the 1990's.

So all thisDocuments had link in them ever since the day of the internet was born. So did help articles. HTML had links ! HTML are documents. Word and google docs use xml/xhtml which comes from html. Also google docs is on the web, so in a way everything is converted to html for the browser to see.

So I don't understand how anyone could parent links when html was designed with links in the first place.


Also outlook, was able to insert links. And basically since its a program on the pc, and email in this way is a document. frontpage (html editor) created html files with link. So microsoft using links was nothing new back in the good old days.


Also word documents have indexes, in a way these are mini links to different parts of the document, same with html. So the idea of links is nothing new in documents.


Another interesting thing, words was able to create html files. also IE, is able to save html files frm the internet locally (internet document), same with safari for the mac. THese internet documents had links. So, links in documents were used a long time.

Wow looks are that guys website, what a big parent troll.


He probably even parented the idea of spam. Or method for shit in a burning brown paper bag on the front door step while the door bell rings.

Anyone else think it's time that an independant body was set up as a sanity check for patent infringement to determine whether said patent(s) is/are valid prior to anything going to court? To hell with the patents office, it's screwed up everywhere.

We need some common sense to deal with the waves of human stupidity once in a while.

British Telecom owns this patent...Was registered 20 years ago... WTF how can it just be granted. There is a long standing joke about when they are going to sue all the websites on the internet for this.

Software patents need to go!

In other news: Tomshardware has been added to the list of that same lawsuit for including LINKS on THIS article.

Note: I typed this with my straight face on.
LOL as I leave this page.

They are talking about dynamic links -- links that changes with who is viewing the document.

There is clearly some prior act since we'd had our JSP, ASP technologies etc.

Well this suit will fail because of new US patent regulation which is granting patent rights by "first built" rule and not "first filed" rule. First time I saw hyperlinks in documents was in MS Office, I think back in 2001.
Bovine Scatology patent trolling at its finest.

this has been around since before 2006, somethings not legal here