1. 88
  1. 19

    I am actually angry. Which patent examiner granted them the GB patent here? Did they at least get a nice bribe for it or was it just incompetence? Software patents are not valid in the UK and EU.

    1. 11

      The first examination mentions:

      I cannot be certain, until the above clarity issues have been addressed, that your application is not excluded from patentability under section 1(2) of the Act, e.g. as a computer program “as such”. For example, I cannot yet determine whether the contribution – what the invention has added to human knowledge – amounts to anything more than a web-browser “plug-in”. I reserve the right to return to this matter once the above objections have been addressed.

      Which was countered with:

      a complete client/server computing environment, a client computing environment, and a server computing environment, each suitably arranged to carry out the (respective portions) of the previously claimed method. There claims therefore relate to physical items that are definitely more than a computer program as such

      And as far as I can see it’s not mentioned any further again. Reading through the application, I don’t really see how the “physical items” claim applies.

      As the article mentions, the patent expired in 2019 because they didn’t renew it, and wrote to renew it in April of this year:

      This patent was allowed to lapse unintentionally on account of financial hardship and ill health, as follows:

      I am the sole directory of a small company, Datawing Limited. In 2019 at the time of renewal of the above patent some 90-90 of my company’s income was coming from one customer, Gower Consultant’s Limited.

      Unfortunately by June 2019 Datawing Limited was owed a substantial amount in unpaid invoiced [ remainder of paragraph redacted ]

      Gower Consultants seem to provide services and software for “cemetery and crematorium administration”; so I assume this ScriptLock thing was used in their software product. Gower was also taken over by Manuscripti in late 2019, so it seems they ran in to some trouble in 2019 explaining the unpaid invoices.

      It seems that this is a small company that ran in to problems and then decided to use the patent “asset” and turned themselves in to a patent troll. I’m not even sure CSP is covered under the patent: the letter uses pages of text to describe how the patent applies, but I’m not so sure it does, aside from, you know, software patents don’t apply in the first place. I think it’s telling that the letter is sent by the company (which is just a single person) itself rather than through a solicitor’s office. It kind of reeks as an act of desperation from someone fallen on somewhat hard times.

      1. 5

        So Hanlon’s razor may apply. Which may still make one angry, but means righteous indignation is out of place.

    2. 7

      Someone did a very good dive into the archives (starts here https://twitter.com/sirdarckcat/status/1429833886385725441) and it looks like the solution has been described years ahead of filing. IANAL, but hope there’s enough ammunition there to invalidate the patent.

      1. 2
        1. 1

          I don’t think, and I am definitely not a patent lawyer, that is necessarily “prior art” in the strictest sense - that’s controlling whole script files. Their claims are that their server-generated secrets “reconfigure” the environment for the scripting language according to those secrets allowing different “scopes” of access to different “identities”.

          But I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more prior art out there - it’s not like permissioned conditional execution of chunks of code was a new idea in 2011 (although the replacing of functions to do that might be?)