Web standards group scrutinizing Apple patent

The World Wide Web Consortium is opening the possibility of pushing back against an Apple patent on software updates that Apple had refused to license royalty-free for use in a proposed Web standard.

The W3C announced June 12 that it's seeking prior art relating to Apple's patent No. 5,764,992--in other words, examples of the patent's technology in use that predate the patent itself. The patent, which Apple applied for in 1995 and was granted in 1998, involves this scenario: "a software program running on a computer automatically replaces itself with a newer version in a completely automated fashion, without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer."

The consortium, which oversees standards including the HTML for Web page publishing and the Portable Network Graphics (PNG) image format, is working on a draft standard called Widgets 1.0: Updates that governs how Web-based applications can update themselves. Apple in March said it wasn't willing to include the patent's 30 claims in the royalty-free licensing requirements of W3C standards.

To deal with the patent matter while continuing with development of the standard, the consortium set up a patent advisory group (PAG).

"The PAG seeks information about software update systems available before June 1995 that offer a viable solution that may apply to the use of updates in Widgets," the W3C said about the prior-art search. "Such information could suggest ways to define a specification that can achieve the working group's goals without implementers infringing on the disclosed patent."

Finding prior art could help overturn the patent, but W3C spokesman Ian Jacobs said the consortium hasn't yet concluded what measures to take.

"There are lots of options once we have more information," Jacobs said. "One possible outcome, should we find prior art, is the patent might be re-evaluated. If it turns out there is prior art, that will be fodder for the next discussion."

Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Work on the draft specification can continue while the advisory group deals with the patent, Jacobs said, but the patent does complicate matters. "Does it cast a shadow over the specification? The answer is yes, until we have a better sense over the scope of the patent."

Via Dion Almaer

Corrected at 5:15 p.m.: This story initially misstated which standards the W3C oversees. It oversees HTML, Portable Network Graphics, and others.

[Vegaman_Dan]

This came up in the news elsewhere this morning. Apple's patent covers any / all instances of a software package 'calling home' as it were to check if there were new updates available and if so, update the software in place. This was applied for back in 1995.

This method applies to all software including things like operating system updates for Linux, Windows, etc, as well as any application that does updates like Adobe's entire product line. Apple to date hasn't taken any steps to enforce this, and that brings up the question as to if challenged, would it stand up? Why hasn't it been brought up before?

WC3 is looking for examples of prior art to 1995's filing to invalidate the patent.

[dhavleak]

I don't get it...

For prior art -- couldn't most antivirus software be configured to do that, even in 1995?

[The_happy_switcher]

"Apple to date hasn't taken any steps to enforce this. Apple to date hasn't taken any steps to enforce this, and that brings up the question as to if challenged, would it stand up?" Patents are not always filed for the purpose of enforcement. They are also used for defensive purposes.

BTW, any third party can request a re-exam if they can show that the patent office missed obvious prior art and provide examples. The PTO usually grants a re-exam and it's usually the cheapest way to challenge a patent--usually the first line of defense. However, the drawback is that if you the PTO upholds the patent you will have to pay more damages for a longer period if you are found to infringe the patent.

[Aaron Kempf]

great.. so now Apple doesn't just bully customers-- now they bully other innovative companies.

I'd like to see Apple sued out of existence.. for having the audacity to push safari browser on me (just because I had iTunes, doesn't mean I accept / want Safari).

Now-- I won't use Safari, I won't use Quicktime..

And anyone that uses Apple should wake up to the fact that Apple is 10 times more abusive than Microsoft ever was.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Keep in mind that Apple has had this patent for over a decade and not done anything with it. They could have 'sued out of existence' many companies that have this feature in their software but have not at this time.

Let's wait for Apple's response (if any) before jumping to conclusions.

[vmlenigma]

You should of bought a piece of crap Zune.

[ckurowic]

Oooookay, someone is taking their MS drugs I see.

[3tire]

"great.. so now Apple doesn't just bully customers-- now they bully other innovative companies. "

What in this article makes you say that? Could you point it out?

[dukeoconnor]

I'm a switcher. So far I haven't been bullied by Apple. On the contrary, my experience with the company has been excellent.

[Seaspray0]

@Aaron Kempf. While I can understand (and agree with) your frustration with getting safari without asking for it, it's not very relevent to the article.

[puterhead]

Am I missing something in your post or this article?

This patent covers practically everything out there these days for updating schemes and yet they haven't gone after anyone for infringing on it to date. Yet for some reason they should be sued out of existence for not giving something they developed and patented 14+ years ago for free because someone at the W3C asked them to nicely.

So what you are saying is that Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, IBM and everyone else that has ever patented any software should be taken out of business if any standards body asks them to sign away their patents and they refuse?

BTW did you appoint the W3C to be the standards body of the whole worlds internet? I know I didn't, and I have a problem with people or companies that self appoint themselves to dictate what other companies are going to do with the results of their research and development.

[Riquez-001]

Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web, HTML & founded the W3C. So they do have some reason to be setting the standards.

[stevicus]

No one is talking about suing anyone out of existence. As Dan pointed out in the first post, the W3C is simply trying to invalidate a patent that Apple (for whatever reason) has never used as a weapon.

[puterhead]

You forgot the HTTP client/server protocol. He is a remarkable guy there is no denying. But what I am saying is that the internet is more than just what he developed as the Wrold Wide Web. He invented web pages (server and client) and the HTML mark-up language. The internet itself is made up of a lot of other protocols in each of the different layers, the majority of which were created long before the WWW came to be. A program can use the internet without using HTML or HTTP, so it makes little sense that they position themselves to dictate things about all software that uses the internet, or any network for that matter.

[unknown unknown]

"This patent covers practically everything out there these days for updating schemes and yet they haven't gone after anyone for infringing on it to date. Yet for some reason they should be sued out of existence for not giving something they developed and patented 14+ years ago for free because someone at the W3C asked them to nicely."

Where in this article did it suggest suing Apple for anything. In fact I am curious how you even came to such a conclusion based on this article. Finding prior to invalidate a patent is not the same as suing a company. If the patent office agrees that there is prior art they declare the patent invalid, and if such ruling survives the appeals Apple no longer has patent.

"So what you are saying is that Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, IBM and everyone else that has ever patented any software should be taken out of business if any standards body asks them to sign away their patents and they refuse?"

No, you missed the point big time. The standard body asks them to sign a royalty free agree, and if they refuse the standard body looks for prior art to invalidate the patent. Lossing a patent is not putting a company like Apple or Microsoft etc out business..far from it.


"A program can use the internet without using HTML or HTTP, so it makes little sense that they position themselves to dictate things about all software that uses the internet, or any network for that matter."

They do not dictate anything, as they do not have any legal authority to do so. W3C creates benchmark and companies attempt to meet so there is some consistency between different peaces of software. Again, W3C does not dictate anything.

[unknown unknown]

nvm I see where you got the bit about suing. You meant it as a reply to Aaron Kempf, but hit "Add Comment" instead of "Reply to this comment".

[Kyanar]

Puterhead, the W3C only writes standards related to the World Wide Web (HTML, etc). They don't even maintain the HTTP standard! In their domain lies HTML, and pretty much that's it, so "it makes little sense that they position themselves to dictate things about all software that uses the internet" is pretty disingenuous, since they don't. Widgets is a feature of HTML5, and they're trying to sort out a way for widgets to be upgraded when a newer version is released. But they can't, because Apple has patented it. This is another of those stupid obvious patents that should never have been granted in the first place.

[hetzbh]

There's tons of prior art for this..
Look at Redhat for example: You could upgrade automatically from one version to another, just select what you want to update and off you go, and that was available since Redhat 1.1 (see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/History)
SGI's IRIX, Sun's Solaris, IBM's AIX - all of them had an update function that inform the user about the update and would auto update all the stuff that needed, so I don't see the problem here of getting prior art.

[alan_06]

Fire the patent issuer. I don't see much innovative in self updating process. Calling home to download the patches - even a kid would come up with that solution. Why should such very basic & generic thoughts be allowed to be patented?

[Thomas, David]

Read between the lines.

The Apple refused to include "30 claims". I do not believe for one second it's as cut and dry as some of you think. Of course, my interest is highly piqued, and I'd like to know what those 30 claims are :-)

[adamcarley]

I thought patents had to be non-obvious. Does Apple's patent really meet this standard?

[Vegaman_Dan]

At the time of filing, it was not obvious at all.

1995... Netscape was just coming around as the world moved from Lynx to this 'world wide web'. Apple was still hanging back though, insisting the world information would be distributed through Hypercards.

Times change.

[The_happy_switcher]

I'd be surprised if IBM didn't already have something like this with an earlier filing date. EG, I didn't look very hard and found this: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=q-EgAAAAEBAJ&dq=software+updates+automatic&as_drrb_ap=b&as_minm_ap=1&as_miny_ap=1980&as_maxm_ap=12&as_maxy_ap=1994&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=

There are probably others. Remember this was done back before examiners had access to databases and probably had to search manually through books.

[The_happy_switcher]

A compaq patent filed before the apple one: Patent number: 5586304
Abstract: bstract
A method for use in upgrading a resource of a computer from an existing version of the resource to a later version of the resource. The method includes the steps of (a) digitally storing upgrade information which identifies the later version and describes features of the later version relative to one or more earlier versions of the resource, (b) digitally storing in the computer information identifying the existing version, by computer, automatically determining which of the earlier versions is the existing version, and (c) based on the results of the comparing step, automatically determining, or displaying to a user at least some of the upgrade information to aid the user in determining, whether to perform an upgrade. The upgrade information may be stored on a portable medium along with copies of the resources and the upgrade information may include instructions, in accordance with a predefined common syntax, for installing each of the resources.

Claim 1: 1. A method for use in changing a resource of a computer from a first version of the resource to a second version of the resource, comprising:

digitally storing replacement information that identifies the second version and describes features of the second version relative to one or more other versions of the resource,
digitally storing information identifying the first version,
by computer, automatically determining which of the other versions is the first version, and
based on the results of the determining step, automatically determining the importance of replacing the first version of the resource with the second version.

I'm no patent attorney but do patent research. I'm sure I could find others if looked hard enough.