Slashdot Log In
San Diego Company Owns E-Commerce
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Oct 23, 2002 05:17 PM
from the only-we-may-sell-online dept.
from the only-we-may-sell-online dept.
Kernel Panic writes "Looks like you can now be sued for using graphical and textural content on your e-commerce site. As everyone who has an e-commerce site does. A company in San Diego was granted one patent for using graphics and text to sell things on the web and another for accepting information to conduct automatic financial transactions via a telephone line & video screen. They have started their crusade with smaller companies that do not have the financial resources to fight back so as to build a "war chest" to take on larger companies like Ebay and Amazon. One site has taken the offense after becoming one of the first defendants of 50 companies so far. Curiously it appears the company was formed in March of 2002, less than a month before filing for the first lawsuit."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
And we wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And we wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And we wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't Al Gore have prior art?
</HUMOR>
(And yes, I know it's an urban legend [snopes.com], hence the HUMOR tags).
Little guys can't afford to fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
Think they'd try this with walmart.com or Amazon? The article implies they are considering it, but you know that's just bluster.
These sleazeballs aren't stupid enough to pick on sombody who could fight back.
Typical abuse of our legal system.
Parent
No way (Score:3, Funny)
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet that if they had tried really, really hard, they just might have been able to come up with a teensy weensy little bit of prior art.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like the Patent Office web site may infringe on PanIP's newly granted patents.
How ironic.
Parent
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Funny)
Look at this [uspto.gov] and laugh, or weep, or both.
The link is from this [nytimes.com] article by James Gleick (of "Genius" fame) which has been discussed [slashdot.org] on Slashdot two years ago.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Um, probably the same kind they hire to be slashdot editors, they do as much checking for prior art when approving a patent/article.
Parent
Rehash! (Score:5, Informative)
thats another repost of a story less than a week after its initial posting...
come on guys...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10
thats ridiculous!! 1 day!
come on
Re:Rehash! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Rehash! (Score:5, Funny)
I've patented that idea, so don't make me sue anyone.
Parent
For my next trick: (Score:3, Funny)
someone should patent patent lawsuits (Score:4, Funny)
What a great company website! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent Directory 23-Oct-2002 15:17 -
[DIR] stats/ 23-Oct-2002 03:33 -
moderated -1 - redundant (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, no. Mod +1 Funny, +1E6 Scary. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:No, no. Mod +1 Funny, +1E6 Scary. (Score:3, Funny)
IE6 is scary, yes!
my order form for PANIP (Score:3, Funny)
Let's /. em! (Score:4, Funny)
Thats right.. let's
First 50 Defendants... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First 50 Defendants... (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.buysecure.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/dickso
wow.. (Score:5, Funny)
Even if you don't agree with the patents, you surely have to agree that these people clearly excel at the fine art of creating bullshit.
If only my English teacher could be as easily duped as the U.S. Patent Office.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
How would the founding fathers feel about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How would the founding fathers feel about this? (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with the gist of your post, but Jefferson didn't believe any of those things (writers would not write, etc). He was, in fact, against patent & copyright as general ideas. His writings on these issues in the Constitution represent the ideas of others involved in the process whom Jefferson grudgingly compromised with.
Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
I better get in line to buy a license to this patent of theirs if I'm going to start my own web businesses. I'll just add this to the 'One-Click' and 'hyperlink' license expenses.
I'm having trouble finding an order form on their web site, though. Seems to be down or something. I better keep reloading until I get it. Any of you other
A question for the legal experts... (Score:5, Interesting)
In Germany, and I believe in other EU countries, there is a law against mass lawsuits clearly designed to get money -- this is called an "Abmahnwelle" in Germany (literally means "wave of suits"). If some lawyer or company tried something like this, they'd get reprimanded and possibly even disbarred in Germany.
An example: about a year ago, a couple of clients of mine got notice of a lawsuit from some newly founded organization claiming to protect consumers; the clients' websites were supposedly in violation of an obscure and archaic bit of German law (basically they failed to note specifically on the site that information sent via an e-mail form is stored -- well, duh). Because of the "potential damage to consumers" due to "infringements on their privacy" (i.e. the theoretical number of consumers who could use the site was astronomical), the suit was valued by their lawyers at a high amount, thus theoretically forcing the clients to pay a minimum amount of damages to the organization if they chose to settle.
Word got around quickly that just about anyone with an e-commerce site got just such a letter, complaints were filed against said lawyer, and the lawyer got seriously shat on (and the suits were withdrawn) and the organization was dissolved.
Anything like this in the US?
Cheers,
Ethelred [grantham.de]
An answer from a layman. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
PanIP is... (Score:5, Informative)
5935 Folsom Drive.
La Jolla, CA 92073
619/454-4475
According to this brief [ipcreators.org].
He lost a prior suit for the same patent against American Airlines in 1994, charging that the SABRE online reservation system (and the Travelocity offshoot) infringed on his patent, according to this article [supplyht.com].
I'm still hunting for other information.
Bigger companies (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be ironic... (Score:3, Funny)
To be more specific... (Score:5, Interesting)
It should be noted that the patent which was granted seems to apply specifically to sales-content which is tailored towards specific users.
"individualized sales presentations created from various textual and graphical information data sources to match customer profiles" -- USPTO #5,576,951
Since most small e-commerce sites using GPL'd commerce software like Agora.cgi don't even support customer login, they'd be less affected by this than the big boys like Amazon and Ebay. (Not that this will ever hold up anyway).
Sue the patent office? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sue the patent office? (Score:3, Informative)
No, but you're on the right track (Score:4, Interesting)
But it IS a time-honored sport to challenge the validity of patents (in a lawsuit against the patent owner) and then seek to take depositions of the patent examiners who were involved in the grant of the patent. Though the Patent Office will try to limit the examiners' testimony to essentially zero, it still REALLY tweaks them no end to have their examiners called to the witness stand.
This patent, by the way, looks like a complete piece of garbage that had claims tacked onto it years after the fact. These later-thought-up claims had virtually no relationship that I can see to what was actually disclosed when the thing was originally filed.
It's an ABOMINATION.
Parent
System needs remodeling? (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding of the system they make it fairly easy to grant patents. Since all inventions filter into the patent office, it would be hard for them to get anybody who could make informed choices on everything. The technology is just too varied. How many folks here can speak on Nuclear facilities, chemical enginerring processes, and medical tools and be able to say which is good and which is bad? Besides, by definition, patents tend to have a lot of new stuff, that there are no experts in yet. How can you make a judgement if somethings a real invention, or just snake oil? You can't.
A granted patent isn't a guarantee. It is something that can be fought and contested. Here is where the system determines value. The good guy is supposed to win these. The problem is that the fight has costs. Even if you know you should win, you have to hire attorneys. You have to take depositions, find prior art, all that fun stuff. So a lot of folks with little cash take the only choice they can see, capitulate.
The problem is that we can't legislate ethics. there's no real law against somebody being a patent shark. Sure the guys a jerk for doing it, and the lawyer's a jerk for taking a case with no merits, but we'll always have slimeballs. You'll have low end companies filing nuisance suits, and big companies with more $200 an hour lawyers than you have total employees doing it.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a patent attorney. I am curious as to whether this is current practice.
I'd like to see the Venture Capital pitch.... (Score:5, Funny)
VC: "So what's your great new idea?"
Future CEO: "Oh, we don't need a great new idea...we just patented an great old idea."
VC: "And how are you going to make money off an old idea?"
Future CEO: "Simple...we just sue everybody. No engineers, no tech support, no salespeople, no advertising, just lawsuits"
VC: "Brilliant! We'll make millions! [to secretary] Lisa, Get my army of lawyers in here...and call my congressman, I need to pass a few new laws."
Flimsy (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting... the main focus of the primary patent is the Airline Reservation industry. The later patent adds the "Finacial Industry."
It should be interesting to see how this partnership group stands against a company like Oracle. Because, by this partnership's defined attack, Oracle is a prime target. And I know the Oracle folks have a ton of patents protecting their technology, which basically is the backbone of e-commerce.
In addition, Micorsoft's FrontPage is in direct violation of this patent. And we all know that Microsoft has its own wing at the patent office.
Should make for some serious attorney's fees for some lucky companies.
I do hope someone takes these clowns to court and challenges the incredibly flimsy patent upon which they rely.
And if they don't challenge an Oracle or Microsoft, maybe Oracle or Micorsoft should challenge them...
Just run this for a while... (Score:4, Funny)
This is precisely what I mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Life should not be patentable.
Business models should not be patentable.
Its fucking bullshit.
Minitel in the 80's (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it may be invalid. I worked on Minitel in France in '86. Minitel did the same type of thing that this patent describes. There must be a few patents that pre-date and invalidate this.
If I recall correctly, minitel was initiated in 1976. It grew into a major structure by the early 80's in France. It was called teletext and you could buy online using a graphical interface.
Of course, I am not a researcher. Don't have time to spend on this.
Maybe one of you energetic folks could pick up the ball on this point.
patents should be eliminated (Score:3, Interesting)
A) Patents secure investment.
Bullshit, making profits secures investments. If you spend millions developing a drug, then sell the drug and make your money back. Sure someone else can just reverse engineer it, but you went to market first and you should be able to copyright the name, etc. If you patent it, realize you can't make money, then it just sits there and you make money off nothing. Sell you research, data, etc.
B) Patents encourage invention/invation.
Again BS, making money does that, plain and simple. Patents seem to be only applicable to small things these days anyways. You can't patent something like MS Word, or Winamp, that's what copyright is for. No, you patent the MP3 codec, or some stupid alogrithm that calculates grammar.
Copyright servers the real purpose, not the patent.
It has been a long time since something was such a great new idea that it deserved a patent. Even new transitor technology doesn't deserve it, mainly because it is based on years and years of others time and thought. Without all the academic bodies working on these things do you think we would really be at 90 nm manufactoring processes. Intel and the like may make it a reality, but they sure as hell don't deserve all the credit. Patents take away the credit.
Anything worth patenting would require years of R&D. Someone maybe able to reverse engineer for a fraction of the cost, but more then likely would rather just pay you for the data, etc.
Even if someone bumped his head on a toilet and invented a time machine, I still don't think it should be patentable, why, because with most technology it should be very carefully handled. Coroporations care about bottom line, and rarely about the right and wrong of something.
I'd be willing to compromise and just change the laws. Pretty simple. Can't patent a naturally occuring substance, ie. a gene, and can't patent a concept, must have a working prototype in order to obtain the patent, and no prior art. Also, the law should patchable. Basically allowing congress to easly remove a concept or an idea from being patentable. If the law was already that way, it would be easy for congress to pass an amendment saying genes couldn't be patentable.
This speaks loads... (Score:4, Funny)
- Someone can get granted a patent for doing something that's already being done at the time of the filing. It may not hold up, but it provides ammunition for lawsuits, and isn't that enough for most people? Enter the almighty dollar.
- It takes years to get a patent. During this time, the "innovative" thing you've thought of becomes commonplace, and by the time you actually have the patent, other people have gotten so rich off the idea that they can sue you into the ground.
- People are so afraid of lawsuits and lawyers that they're willing to hand over good money to avoid your countrys' legal system, regardless of whether they're wrong or right. Doesn't that say enough right there?
And, for the obligitory joke, I now intend to file a patent for "stuff", which will "facilitate doing things in some manner", for the purpose of "getting things done, via this stuff paridigm." My revolutionary "stuff" lawsuit will ensure that no-one can ever again do "things" without my express, written consent. And, further, I plan to use my newfound economic power to push for digital copyright restrictions to be placed on "stuff", to ensure that the "things" facilitated by unlicensed copies of my "stuff" cannot be completed. Then, when everything is running on licensed copies of my "stuff", I will the AutoUpdate feature authorized in my "stuff DCP" EULA to sneak in fixes that will not let "stuff" work without calling home to tell me what "things" it is doing. And then, finally, I will take my fortune, close the company, and shut down the server, ensuring that "stuff" cannot call home to report its' "things", and making all the "stuff" shut down across the US.
Then, maybe, with no "things" to do or "stuff" to do them with, all the idiots who made this mess will get their "heads" out of their "ass" and start using their "brains".
10 DO end_rant; GOTO end
Article has it wrong (Score:5, Informative)
It is more along the lines of using these elements to create a customized presentation based on an individual's profile. To quote the first line of the patent (Emphasis mine):
"A system for composing individualized sales presentations created from various textual and graphical information data sources to match customer profiles."
So it's not quite as absurdly broad as the article makes it out to be. Not quite, I said.
Two words: Prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
"automated sales and services system,"
Prior to their patent, In 1988/89 I coded a program that did just that for a Food Distributor. Salesmen would dial a 800 number, and without any human intervention, the program would take the sales order, process it, and service it by adding the items to the stores next delivery. The salesmen were using symbol barcode readers with 300 baud modems.
"automatic business and financial transaction-processing system."
This is the patent that confuses me the most. I worked for a Bank. I moved money through the FED nightly. Our own patent office doesn't recognize how the FED works?
Is this company prepared to sue the FED???
I have source code available for lawyers to review once they have cleared it with my previous employers.
Ok, calm down, have a beer (gulp). Enjoy,
Re:It's a fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately not, read further this is heavilly submarined:
This is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/116,654 filed Sep. 3, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,309,355 which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/396,283 filed Aug. 21, 1989, which is a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/152,973 filed Feb. 8, 1988, which is a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 822,115 filed Jan. 24, 1986, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 613,525 filed May 24, 1984, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,567,359.
The bastards have been using the Lemelson technique. Under the corrupt rules of the USPTO the inventors are presumed to have invented the stuff thery described in their 1994 filing in 1986.
The US is the only country in the world where you can backdate a patent claim in this way. This is how Lemelson got his corrupt bar code patent, after bar codes were invented he added them to his 1950s paten on 'machine vision'. Fortunately the bastard is deservedly dead and you can't libel the dead in the US so we can describe him in the terms he deserves.
I don't think that the pan-ip claim would stand an actual lawsuit. The prosecution history of patents that have been submarined tends to be full of exclusions and limitations that are not present in the actual patent.
But no, the fact is that the US patent system is far more corrupt than even the average slashdot user would think. Forget the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft, the USPTO is the real enemy.
Parent
Re:Comment from Pan IP (Score:5, Insightful)
A tiny minority of people, on
Not everything should be patented, copyrighted, or trademarked. There are some ideas (e.g. "buying and selling things over the Web") that are a) not the invention of any one person or group of people, b) immediately obvious to anyone with a brain, and c) so widespread that any attempt to enforce IP law on them would have crippling economic effects. Generally speaking, I think falling into any two of those three categories ought to be enough to remove something from IP protection. I'm particularly concerned about (c) because it seems to be something that a lot of IP vultures Just Don't Get: when a bunch of people are doing something and nobody's bothered to file an IP grant application on it, just because you did file the application does not give you the right to deprive a whole bunch of other people of their livelihood.
And, oh yeah, on the off chance that you actually are "a senior executive at Pan IP": you and others like you are scum who contribute nothing to the world in which you live. You create no value of any kind, and would be of more service to humanity shoveling shit.
Parent
Re:Comment from Pan IP (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents can provide a valuable service. I work for a non-profit research company who takes out patents on medical treatments to insure they are available for everyone to benefit from. To specifically prevent some hoser like you from keeping people from benefiting from innovations just to pad your pocketbook.
How the heck are your patents "protecting people who create value from those who would steal it"? You freely admit you didn't even do any of the inventing! You just pick up patents from others, and exploit them for your own profit!
How is this "protecting" anything? The only thing it's protecting is your greedy, greasy little hands.
Parent
Re:Patent Abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Without things like this there is no way Joe Public will ever realise anything is wrong
Parent