Slashdot is running a story stating that Morfik, an Ajax development platform we covered recently on Read/WriteWeb, has filed a patent dated September 2005 for the compiling of high-level languages into AJAX apps. The timing of the news is interesting, because Morfik is just about to release its version 1.0 - after 8 or more years of development.
To remind you of what Morfik is. Morfik allows developers to use high-level programming languages (which give the developer more power - e.g. BASIC, C#, Pascal) to create web apps. It does this by converting apps from high level language INTO Ajax code. The Slashdot story states that Morfik has actually patented this technology, as of September 2005. According to Slashdot the patent covers virtually any high-level language, including "Ada, C, C++, C#, COBOL, ColdFusion, Common Lisp, Delphi, Fortran, Java, Object Pascal, SmallTalk, Visual Basic, and Visual Basic.NET".
It seems that Google and its Google Web Toolkit is the primary target of the patent, because Google (more than any other big Internet company) relies heavily on Ajax apps.
This rumor of a Morfik vs Google battle has surfaced before. In fact I covered it back in May 30th, 2006 on my ZDNet blog (which is now run by Alan Graham, hence his pic is on the story). The story from May '06 started:
"A couple of weeks ago Google released its Google Web Toolkit (GWT) and almost immediately there were rumors of an alliance between Google and Morfik, the Web OS vendor which has a Javascript converter as one of its main products. The reason? GWT bore more than a casual resemblance to Morfik."
My post in May '06 went on to note that Morfik had a patent pending on their Ajax compiler and that Morfik had issued a press release in defence of it.
While the rumors of a Morfik-Google alliance were eventually scuttled and the press release came to little, it's clear that Morfik and Google is in some kind of protracted battle - or negotiation - about the Ajax compiler technology. There has also been talk that Morfik is under NDA with Google - about what, I don't know.
It may be that Morfik ends up being acquired by Google, or at least licenses the Morfik technology to Google. Or perhaps Google will battle Morfik in the courts instead. It is an interesting story to follow, no matter what the eventual outcome...
A Morfik prototype of a desktop version of Gmail, which has the ability to check email offline.
UPDATE: I emailed Fuad Ta'eed from Morfik to see if he would like to respond to the following comment I saw on Slashdot: "your patent is invalid. (Thank God, too. This patent appears to be overreaching and far too broad. It could prevent an entire industry from developing.)" Fuad has just gotten back to me and here is his response...
"In response to your question.
The application for this patent is very specific and is neither overreaching nor too broad.
The United States is one of the few countries in the world to have a system where patents are granted on a ‚Äúfirst to invent‚Ä? system rather than a ‚Äòfirst to file‚Äô see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent on the basis that no prior art exists. This significantly more complex process requires people to read patent applications with due care and attention, and not just glance at the first few opening paragraphs. In this case, author's statements [i.e. the slashdot commenter] suggest that he has not done that yet, nor fully understood the difference between, ‚Äòfirst to invent‚Äô, ‚Äòfirst to file‚Äô, 'priority date' and ‚Äòprior art‚Äô. It may be worthwhile remembering that patents are written for the purpose of unambiguously defining what the patent excludes, just as much as what they include.
Further, there is a general misunderstanding on how patents work and who it aims to protect. Startups are generally very small and easily trodden upon by giants who may not ‘want to do evil’ but nevertheless can kill them just by simply rolling over to sleep on their other side. Startups need some kind of flashing light so they have an opportunity to live and continue to contribute. Morfik is a startup and the patent is there to permit it to live and grow, presumably exactly what the author wants.
Morfik is making every effort to be the ‘Robin Hood of Ajax’. For example, the pricing of Morfik is fully free for non-commercial use and chargeable only for commercial use. Does this sound like an entity which using its patent to try to prevent an industry growing? (Do search engine providers offer free advertisement for non-commercial entities and charge for commercial entities?) If there are any suggestions on how we can strengthen the marriage between open source and commercial entities we want to hear it. Please let us know."
That was Fuad's response to the Slashdot question. I'd be interested in what R/WW readers think about this issue of patents - particularly the comment from Fuad that "Morfik is a startup and the patent is there to permit it to live and grow."
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2097
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
I don't think this threatens Google - there are many ways of doing this, and this is just one way.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | April 2, 2007 3:46 PM
Yes but Morfik seems to think theirs is the *best* way. Also they claimed in the previous R/WW post that Google's GWT isn't even good enough to develop its own web apps (Gmail etc) - the implication (from Morfik) being that Morfik's technology is far better than GWT.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | April 2, 2007 3:54 PM
Actually, if Alex understand how GWT or Script# works then he should take sometime to read the patent...it seems this 'just one way' is 'the way' they are all using...so it is a problem. And for sure if it is granted, and my money is on it being granted, then they will have to resolve it between them so that we can all continue with our application development.
Posted by: Andrew Jackson | April 2, 2007 5:14 PM
This is interesting in that it shows they weren't bluffing when GWT first came out... they already had a provisional according to the patent doc shown on slashdot.
I'm in two minds about this, it's good to see a little company (from my neck of the woods no less) stick up for what they believe is right, even if I don't necessarily agree with the use of software patents.
In this case if Andrew is right and there is "just one way", that counts against Morfik's claim - if there have been multiple implementations developed independently shows that it doesn't really pass the "not obvious to a practitioner" test for inventiveness, as well as leaving open the possibility for prior art.
(You could argue that not many software patents do these days, which is the point where I start buying you drinks...)
It will be interesting to see what comes of this... if there's a continuation of what seems to be aggressive posturing from Morfik, I can't see them being acquired, but who on earth would willingly pick a fight with google's army of lawyers.
Posted by: warren | April 2, 2007 6:14 PM
Unless someone with deep pockets is behind Morfik, I would say filing a patent solely in order to sue is 1) a sign of desperation and 2) long, drawnout, painful legal suicide.
Google wouldn't actually have to make a case. Just draw it out and let the legal bills mount.
If it's really superior, then fine, go for it! Small companies can compete with the biggest if they use their nimbleness to their advantage. But relying on the patent courts for a full frontal legal assault? Yeah, good luck with that.
Posted by: John Milan | April 2, 2007 6:44 PM
@John:
exactly. You don't sue someone and hope that they will buy you to make the lawsuit go away. There's just no way that anyone behind Morfik has pockets that deep, they're pretty much unheard of in their own state, let alone the rest of Australia.
As for having an NDA and "negotiating" with Google... that's not a big deal I can tell you first hand.
It's a long way from there to acquisition talks though, and one recently granted patent with potential prior art floating around isn't exactly going to change the score.
Posted by: warren | April 2, 2007 7:02 PM
@Andrew There is likely to be many ways to transform one language into another. Also, in the patent this broad there are always going to be loopholes and nuances unless its impeccably crafted, which is very rare.
Posted by: Alex Iskold | April 2, 2007 7:42 PM
This patent has more holes than Windows. It's not even internally consistent. Several times it specifically mentions object-oriented languages are the defined source languages, then includes C and COBOL in the list!
It's proven that Turing-complete languages can be algorithmically converted between one another, so this patent seems little more than a desperate, and rather malicious, attempt at patenting an algorithm. And as Alex says above, there are so many holes in this one that skirting around the definitions (if this patent was ever enforced) would be simple.
Posted by: Peter Cooper | April 2, 2007 8:05 PM
Please note the update from Morfik's Fuad Ta'eed, in which he defends their patent. I've just updated the post (see after the Gmail image).
Posted by: Richard MacManus | April 2, 2007 8:11 PM
um who the do these people think they are? they are effectively saying "hey look at us we invented code writing, give us money"
guys as much as i like the little guy you can all just f**k off
this sort of reminds me of the time British Telecom tried to claim that they invented the hyperlink and everyone would have to pay them royalties (and the judge laughed them out of court)
Posted by: Steve Boyd | April 2, 2007 11:25 PM
er in thatt last one i meant to say (automatic) "code writers" not "code writing" ;]
Posted by: Steve Boyd | April 2, 2007 11:27 PM
It might be just a defense step. Having filed a patent means that if someone form the IDE makers companies (like Microsoft, Adobe, etc.) sue them they will have something to fire back with.
And can someone, please, CONFIRM the patent is granted? Or is it just filed?
Posted by: pong | April 2, 2007 11:47 PM
Just a question: If they where americans, would you all see them the same way?
Posted by: Marco Mugnatto | April 3, 2007 5:51 AM
A couple of things here: 1) I'm the guy who submitted the story to Slashdot. I realize nobody has any reason to believe me, but whatever. That doesn't have a big impact on the rest of this post other than to get it out publicly. Richard might be able to verify my identity from my email address and other sources. Sorry for getting you and everyone else all excited, dude. 2) The patent has NOT been granted. This is a patent application. There is a detailed discussion on Slashdot about the patent process, during which I realized that I (like about everyone else) was fooled into thinking that this was actually awarded. I believe the title for the page at USPTO includes "application". That said, it appears that it is the first and only patent application for any technology related to this process, for what that's worth. 3) Obviously, from the discussion at Slashdot and elsewhere, there will be a pretty big battle before this is granted. Judging by the vitriol that has been demonstrated so far, it should be fun to watch. 4) When Morfik went to the Web 2.0 conference in 2005 and showed off JST, I don't think I was the only person who said "Oh, crap. Somebody did it". 5) I can't speak from a legal standpoint, but I can say for myself that the facts don't seem to support the opposition. If there's prior art, why aren't we using it? Why didn't all this prior art suddenly get updated when Google maps and Gmail came out so we could all quickly and easily build Ajax apps like those? Why are we still coding Ajax apps by hand? If it's obvious, why is it that there is one and only one RAD/IDE tool for creating Ajax apps, and that's Morfik, despite the the fanfare after Mofik's appearance at the Web 2.0 event 18 MONTHS AGO? Hell, even Google, with all its resources, took almost six months after that appearance to cobble together GWT, which, IMHO is a sad excuse for a ripoff of on portion of JST, and it still hasn't integrated Pages so that you have a single Ajax app. building tool! Novelty also seems to have been met. Oh crap. Somebody did it.
Anyway, sorry for creating all the confusion, excitement, and consternation.
Posted by: MikeyTheK | April 3, 2007 7:28 AM
GAH! I have to proofread more before I post. That's "of A portion", not "of ON portion".
Posted by: MikeyTheK | April 3, 2007 7:33 AM
"Why are we still coding Ajax apps by hand?"
Very good question! That's why I made the question on my post above. I can't help thinking that if MOrfik was an american product, we would all be using it. Their product is to me the AJAX done the right way, and still their site has only a small number of comments from users. I just can't understand that.
But I do understand why Microsoft and Google doesn't have a similar tool:
Microsoft because they simply DON'T WANT to go into the Web app era. They earn lots of money by selling software that you have to install for it to work, and that means hassle to try products from other companies.
Google doesn't do it because, believe it or not, they simply don't have the required technical skills yet (maybe when they buy the Morfik team)
Posted by: Marco Mugnatto | April 4, 2007 11:04 AM
This is a test...
Posted by: adas | April 5, 2007 8:52 AM