Says it ‘invented’ integrated text/graphics database

On Aug. 31, 1993, the U.S. Patent Office granted Compton’s NewMedia a patent for a computer search system for retrieving information from a multimedia database that includes text, graphics, sound, video and animation.

In a press conference scheduled for Nov. 16, Compton’s plans to contend that this patent, in effect, gives it a patent on multimedia. In essence, Compton’s claims that the ability to navigate through a database containing a variety of media types is the essence of interactive multimedia — and that this is precisely what it has now patented.

If Compton’s claims go unchallenged, or if it can sustain its patent in court, it holds what could prove to be one of the most important (and most lucrative) patents ever granted.

How can this be? The heart of Compton’s argument is the assertion that until the introduction of Compton’s Multimedia Encyclopedia in October 1989, no one had created an interactive title that allowed users to navigate through a fully linked text and graphics database. It contends that the then-existing “state of the art” included engines for text search or navigation through hyper-linked text databases and/or navigation through separate graphic databases, not navigation through an integrated database of text and graphic information with the ability to move freely between the media.

In addition to specific search methods and procedures, the text of the patent claims that the Compton’s “invention” covers:

“A computer search system for retrieving information, comprising:

• Means for storing interrelated textual information and graphical information;
• Means for interrelating said textual and graphical information; and
• A plurality of entry path means for searching said stored interrelated textual and graphical information.”

Although the initial embodiment used a CD-ROM database attached to a personal computer, the patent specifically claims to cover other electronic means of delivering information. “There is no intention, therefore, of limiting this invention to the exact abstract or disclosure presented herein. More particularly, it is contemplated that this invention can be used with any information which can be stored in a database.”

Compton’s believes that this includes everything from online delivery to interactive television systems as well as handheld devices such as PDAs. A “continuation in part” provision in the patent specifically seeks to apply the patent to new technology as it arises.

The Dolby of multimedia. Stanley Frank, president of Compton’s NewMedia, was most anxious to stress to us that “Compton’s does not want to stifle the multimedia market. We are anxious to grow the market to everyone’s benefit.”

Translated, this means that Compton’s does not intend to try to stop anyone from producing interactive titles. It just wants to use the patent to encourage everyone to do business with Compton’s — or, failing this, to pay Compton’s a “modest” royalty on everything they do. Compton’s will grant licenses to any company that:

• Forms an alliance with Compton’s. (Frank would dearly love to convince cable and telephone companies to use Compton’s user interface and search technology in their systems.)
• Signs up to let Compton’s be exclusive distributor of its interactive titles.
• Licenses Compton’s SmarTrieve developer’s toolkit.

Companies that do not have one of these business relationships with Compton’s will be asked to pay a royalty. If you sign up before June 1, 1994, Compton’s will ask a royalty rate of 1 percent of gross revenues from your interactive products or services. After that date, the rate will be even higher.

Is the patent valid? For this to work, prospective licensees will have to believe either that the patent is valid, or that the cost of obtaining a license is low enough (and the risk of being sued high enough) that it is worth making a deal with Compton’s as “insurance” against the nuisance of a suit.

But the patent office has granted plenty of patents that have been thrown out in court suits. Two more narrow multimedia patents are already being challenged. In August, Videodiscovery of Seattle, WA, filed suit in U.S. District Court to invalidate two multimedia patents granted to Optical Data Corp. in 1992. Videodiscovery claims that the patent office examiners do not have sufficient knowledge of interactive multimedia to evaluate prospective patents.

It is hard for us to imagine that someone will not take similar exception to the broad claims in Compton’s patent. The most likely grounds for attack would be: (a) that the claims that Compton’s is making are overly broad, (b) that the “invention” was obvious to reasonably knowledgeable people in the field; and (c) that there is “prior art” (other people were doing similar things before Compton’s).

Athough few people would question that the Compton’s multimedia encyclopedia was a milestone product, was this really the “invention” of multimedia? If you want to judge for yourself, get a copy of Patent 5,241,671 from the Patent office, put yourself back to 1989, and read it carefully. Think back on the work on interactive systems done in the 60s, 70s and 80s, re-read Ted Nelson, William Gibson and others, watch some old Star Treks, then decide.

Our conclusion? We can accept that some of Compton’s methods and implementations may have been original. However, we have a great deal of difficulty accepting the fundamental concept of patenting a linked text and graphic database with multiple access paths and multiple access methods — not in 1969, not in 1979, and, for heaven’s sake, not in 1989!

Jonathan Seybold