I thought there was some expectation that patent holders should at least attempt to enforce their rights in a reasonable time period, 20 years seems a little excessive as the hyperlink even if proven to have been originally owned by BT has long since become effectively global public domain.
I expect the US court will throw this out as it is obvious BT certainly knew the Hyperlink was being used all over the globe, what they appear to have forgotten is that they claimed to own it and that it was therefore being used without their permission or licence. Even if ownership were established they can be accused of a deeply dodgy bait and switch tactic by allowing something to appear to be open source and thus allowing it to gain wider acceptance, adoption and cynically potential greater revenues for them at a later date.
Competence? .. you claim to own something, you should remember you own it and not wait 20 years after someone has stolen it and are using it all over the world to start to whinge about it.
If anybody makes anything out of this it ought to be the grand old men like Doug Engelbart [bootstrap.org] or Ted Nelson [sfc.keio.ac.jp].
Edited - Thank you Google
Did you mean: vannevar bush ? - yep :)
[iath.virginia.edu...]
[theatlantic.com...] - his original article.. "as we may think" 1945.
In the chance that they could win this case, I wonder how much $ it is worth to them?!
Ive read the patent (well, most of it), poor English I must say!
>>>>The display is of the form of a page of data and is reproduced on a cathode-ray tube screen which may be part of a domestic television receiver or may be a special purpose apparatus for this function. Instead of a cathode-ray tube screen, a special purpose alphanumeric display may be used
So, they explain the idea of the hyperlink
>>>Difficulties arise in such a system, however, because of the need to ensure the simplicity of operation of the terminal, bearing in mind the likelihood that the significance of particular keying inputs may need to be varied in dependence on the data being displayed. It is an object of the present invention to alleviate the above difficulty.
Alas, the hyperlink
In short, Id put money on them winning this case. It seems silly that they can have such an audacious claim, but nonetheless, the whole Internet/hyperlink/html that makes the web today had an origin, and this was part of it :)
who wants to put a wager on it :)
What I still don't understand then, is how they want to get anything from an ISP. After all, the hyperlinks are implemented in the browser software, not in the networking infrastructure. The real targets would be AOL/TW/Netscape, Microsoft, and a few minor players.
Or do the ISPs also have to pay license fees for transporting GIF files over their lines? The software manufacturers do.
1) They might win. $$$$$$!!!! Its highly unlikely, but games theory says its worth a punt
2) PR. Such a high-profile claim is bound to generate millions of pounds worth of exposure. It got play in the national press, we're all talking about it now... I'm sure you get the picture
In short, Id put money on them winning this case. It seems silly that they can have such an audacious claim, but nonetheless, the whole Internet/hyperlink/html that makes the web today had an origin, and this was part of itwho wants to put a wager on it
ok, i'll bet you a beer that BT lose.
and if people think BT's patent is ridiculous, British Rail patented the Unidentified Flying Object way back in the 60's or 70's .........
So why shouldnt it have an owner? Someone had to invent (and alias patent) the method of connecting documents between remote computers, the same sorta way that Tim Berners Lee brought about a standard in HTML
So i'll live to your bet, a beer!!!