Slashdot Log In
Australian Gov't Moves To Block E-commerce Patent
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Jul 20, 2003 03:20 AM
from the ones-and-zeros dept.
from the ones-and-zeros dept.
ColaMan writes "Surfacing in the Australian version of GoogleNews,
moves are afoot to block a patent covering (it seems) general ecommerce practices on the internet. This comes after the recent strongarm tactics against New Zealand businesses by D.E. Technologies , holder of the patent overseas."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Perhaps... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
I cut'n'pasted the "And X related stories link...", and when it fell off the front of google, the link is no longer valid.
However , a news search for ecommerce patent [google.com.au] works just as well.
Common Sense? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh yeah, D.E. Technologies knows all about common sense.
Google link doesn't work (Score:3, Informative)
"Fight the Patent" site (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
e-Commerce patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
How is it possible for someone to patent something on a nationality-less object like the Internet?
How can they even enforce this, with the exception of AU based companies, what will stop my Bank in Zimbabwae from using their "patented" e-Commerce thinga-mawhatsits?
Or is it just one of those marketing things, like saying "Oxi-Clean is backed by a patented process..." Just so they look good?
Anyways, go Australia!
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
The western, industrialized nations are the biggest ecom players, so it really doesn't matter if some 3rd world nation is using the same patented methods with their software. You have to follow the trail of money on this one. It's a double-edged sword. You can get away with it, but then you can't conduct business in places where the trademark is effective (consequently this is where the biggest market is)
Parent
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:5, Informative)
Even worse, read the D.E. Technologies letter and try to imagine anyone doing any kind of business app on the Internet without violating that rubbish patent. "We displays stuff in yer language and currency, you selects stuff, we totals it, you give okay, we run the transaction, Bob's yer uncle!" People shouldn't be allowed to patent a common business transaction just because they added "computer", "internet" and "world-wide web" to the application. They matter as much as wearing clown suits.
Patent examiners need to be taught to use that big red rejection stamp "Fscking Obvious!" more often.
Parent
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:2)
All your base are now belong to us.
too late (Score:3, Insightful)
It happened first in the country called USA, who is the leader of the word economy, the country where most of government workers (if not most of citizens in general) lack seriously their education. After it (business method patenting) becomes a common practice in the US Patent Office it's too late to change an
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is kind of like asking "how is it possible that the government locks everyone with the letter 'e' in their name to prison?" Stupid things can be done. If a government agency grants a patent to such a method and other governments in the world agree and assist with enforcing it, then it is possible.
This has, of course, nothing to do with the purpose of the patent system. The purpose of patent system is to make inventors to share their inventions with the general public. In return, the general public grants the inventor an exclusive right to the method for a limited time. However, nowadays the idea of benefit to the general public has been completely lost.
Parent
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case , D.E. technologies has patented this method in 32 countries so far.
How the hell this could get past 32 patent offices without getting the great big "Get Fucked" stamp on it is beyond me.
Parent
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:5, Informative)
We don't know how many they've tried and failed in though, do we? In some countries (*cough* US *cough*), it doesn't take much more than a correctly filled out application to get a patent. It's not whether you can get the patent that matters but whether you can successfully defend it in court.
(With some luck, the US patent office is serious when it says it will change its evil ways)
Parent
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:2)
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:e-Commerce patents? (Score:2)
There goes my business (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not see how any company is going to come to terms with these high costs - more than likely they'll just adapt around the legals and leave the legal fees falling back on DET.
I only hope that the person/group/body whom approved the patenting of business-processes didn't envisage things happening like this, more than likely I'm deluded.
Re:There goes my business (Score:2, Interesting)
I work for a software development arm of 29 billion dollar financial processing business. And I can tell you that there is no way we (and other big fish in the transaction processing business) will take this lying down.
I wonder how many large businesses they have sent their writ to ? These opportunitists won't get a cent.
Re:There goes my business (Score:2, Insightful)
"If no one else can figure out how the heck you do it, then you can patent it". Once you've patented it, then people can licence it off you.
Re:There goes my business (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:There goes my business (Score:2)
Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Rus
Obligatory joke (Score:2)
You mean it? We'll be free?
No overlords? You're serious?!?!??!!!
No kidding!
Additional coverage in NZ (Score:5, Informative)
InternetNZ (the old Internet Society of NZ) is helping pay for a legal opinion on the matter also.
Surely it's about time we all got organised enough to stop this kind of nonsense before it costs someone an eye? Right? Amazon one-click/BT patents internet/etc...
Extra stories here from NZ Herald and Computerworld NZ - sorry about links, no time to pretty them up.
Lumbering reaction to software patent claim
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm
Patent threat to NZ e-tailers
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay
InternetNZ puts up cash for patent opinion
http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/n
Govt should act to save e-trade
http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/n
Re:Additional coverage in NZ (Score:2, Funny)
it's going to get worse before it gets better ppl. (Score:4, Funny)
which is in turn, easily less rediculous than comnpanies who actually PAID to use the hyperlinks.
Re:it's going to get worse before it gets better p (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
probably a more understandable article on this (Score:3, Informative)
Plans are afoot in Federal parliament to derail a controversial patent claim that could see Australian businesses charged millions of dollars to conduct international transactions over the Internet.
Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also sure Intershop might be able to give some dates in relation to their software, since I've used Intershop in 1999, and it was also developed before 1998 (probably even before 1997).
Patent Approval == Death to Small Businesses..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not too suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, I've been wondering about something. In general a patent covers a specific method of doing something. Like, a mouse trap is only covering that specific system, not the concept of catching mice.
With that MSN IM translation patent, shouldn't it only cover that method translating IMs? So if you were to figure out another way to do it, you'd be in the clear? Or with the one-click patent, does that patent cover "A method of buying stuff on the internet (with one click)" or is it "A method of buying stuff with one click (and here's some software to do it)"? If you implemented one-click shopping via some other method, wouldn't you be in the clear?
Re:Not too suprising (Score:2)
Re:Not too suprising (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that is how it is supposed to work. And indeed when many patent infringement cases have actually gone to court, either the patent got thrown out altogether, or the defendant was found not to be infringing because there were differences in the details of their method, like the British Telecom hyperlink patent case.
The two major reasons why patent holders can get away with suing anybody who does something remotely similar are: (1) Technically ignorant juries. There is no way eBay would have lost the case [msnbc.com] if the jury was technically competent and had common sense. (2) The lack of funds to fight it out in court. Even if the patent would get thrown out after a court challenge, many small companies cannot afford the cost of litigation so they cave in and pay up the license fee.
Rather than promoting innovation, software and business patents have become nothing more than a legalized form of extortion.
Parent
Questionable step. (Score:4, Funny)
How many Australian companies hold E-commerce patents ?
Well, this answer is: none.
So, while e-commerce patents are indeed questionable by nature the Austrilian goverment is lead by very different reasons to void them: They want to give their own Aussie based companies a commercial advantage over US competitors. Australian companies won't have to invest money into the development of innovative, high-tech business model and are protect from paying any patent fees by Australian law. Thus they gain a huge advantage by cutting their e-commerce cost by 20 percent.
I think the Bush goverment should finally remember their responsibilities and instead of providing their business buddies with cheap Iraqi oil, they should make pressure on the Australian goverment to take down these laws which are btw contradicting the WIPO agreement Australia signed itself, too. It's the duty of a goverment to act for the benefit of all citizens and not just their own supporters and conservative think-tank pals.
Re:Questionable step. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen US protectionism in IT year after year, and the entire world is locked into US-led companies such as Microsoft. Just last week, an Australian state wrote to reassure a software 'choice' thinktank (headed, of course, by Microsoft) that we wouldn't look at open source, but would lap up their software, pay through the nose for it and wag our tails like good doggies.
You'll have to forgive some of us who may not believe that the interests of the US are somehow magically the interests of the rest of the planet. Certainly the US feels no compunction to act honorably on any other agreements we may sign with them.
Think being a US ally gives us any advantages? Well, we're entering another round of 'free trade' negotiations (really, trying to get the US government to be a little less blatantly protectionist in regards to their agricultural and livestock industries) so we'll have to wait and see. I have a hard time seeing any favour we gain, over and above nations such as China (with their appalling human rights record, but their massive potential market).
We certainly don't get cheap oil, or if we do, the consumers never see any benefits (maybe the foreign owned oil companies get those benefits, flowing the profits back to England and the US). Our prices at the pump are higher than the US (allowing for exchange rates), so I'd have to say that you're wrong on that too.
Lastly, if the Australian government is looking out for Australian interests, that's actually a good thing. I know that the US gov't does the same thing for US interests, at the expense of any other nation.
If it comes down to screwing a US company over, then I say it's about time. I'm sick of seeing our business fail because of US gov't money propping up business that can't really compete on the level playing field that the US promotes but never actually attempts; I'm sick of seeing our gov't do every single blasted thing the US asks without question; I'm sick of seeing US interests driving our IT departments across this nation.
Apart from that tirade though, this is a horrible thing to patent, and makes a mockery of the entire patent system. Last year, someone managed to patent the wheel as a joke. This is a bit more complex, but is almost as foolish.
Parent
Re:Questionable step. (Score:3, Interesting)
Try a whopping 50% tax on petrol imposed by the au government. That is why I laugh when users grump about high pertol prices at the pump and cry unfair trading by oil companies. Rid the government tax and halve the cost of pertol.
Re:Questionable step. (Score:2)
Re:Questionable step. (Score:2)
Well, as it's only one pate
Re:Questionable step. (Score:2)
>By this I presume you mean all its own citizens
Um, excuse me, but...
Isn't it the duty of government to act in the best interest of its own corporations? Which is exactly what the US Government is doing.
A new and innovative way of patenting! (Score:2)
Now these guys have created a revolutionary method for patenting! Just take [insert any ancient or commonplace activity here] and do it "internationally!"
Re:A new and innovative way of patenting! (Score:2)
Now these guys have created a revolutionary method for patenting! Just take [insert any ancient or commonplace activity here] and do it "internationally!"
You should patent that method of generating patents.
Sounds a lot like (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe those in Chicago remember divine [zdnet.com.au].
They tried the same exact tactic last year using their broadly defined shopping cart patent. Let's hope this action ends the same way, divine was out of business 4 months later. (But succeeded in licensing the right to use a shopping cart for $25,000 to a couple dozen small companies before they went under)
My guess is this DE Technologies will soon be bankrupt, so I'd just ignore any of their demands. As with divine, I think the only company that's dumb enough to try something like this is one that is already going under and so has nothing to lose. These companies know their patents are bullshit and will never stand up in court, that's why their licensing fees are always in the $10k to $25k range, just low enough so that it's cheaper for the mom and pop shops they abuse to pay the license rather than hire a lawyer. Their worst nightware would be to end up in court, I don't think a company would even have to actually hire a lawyer to make them go away, just tell them you're not paying the license and will see them in court, they'll back off just out of fear of going to court and seeing their whole ponzi scheme fall apart.
What we can do (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't wait for someone like Amazon to be served notice over this patent. Hopefully it will be squashed like a little pest that it is.
I mean, what's next? A patent on discussion boards such as /.?
DE Technologies, Business plan. (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad Canada, Americas largest trading partner, hasn't got the balls to stand up and say enough of this bullsquat. I am afraid that the country I love has become another spineless, leave sleaping dogs lie, puppet. The future of commerce and innovation is in jeopardy if we alow this rediculous sherade to continue.
Re:Abuse, once more... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is really depressing, considering there are firms whose sole purpose is to beat the game and patent inevitable technology ahead of everyone else, which in turn, hampers technological progress.
The whole system is fucked beyond recognition.
Parent
Re:Abuse, once more... (Score:2, Insightful)
Like the Neem tree or parts of the human genome.
Re:Abuse, once more... (Score:2)
Math is around forever, we just discover it. Algorithms are the part of the math and they exist also forever. The source code is just a notation of algorithms, just like poem is a notation of emotions.
Patenting the ecommerce methods is like patenting the method of expressing emotions in poems. The fact the society is patenting such things proves that the society's progress is stopped.
Patenting the algorithms is like patenting the emotion. "Do you want love deep in your he
Re:Abuse, once more... (Score:3, Insightful)
Urban myth. The Neem tree is not patented, nor are 'parts of the human genome'.
The famous 'Neem tree patent' is actually a patent on a fungicidal formulation based on purified extracts from Neem seeds. The patent on that formulation has been ruled invalid by the EU but may still be in force in the US. There are NO patents on the tree itself, or on use of Neem seeds in traditional roles.
As far as patents on the human genome, what is patentable are isolated,
Worthy of a patent (Score:2, Insightful)
uspto.gov.
An international transaction system for operation over the internet/intranet provides a pre-transactional calculation of all charges involved in any international transaction. Upon the option of the customer, the goods can be viewed on catalogue sheets translated to a language of the customer's choice, and the price provided in a currency selected by the customer. The customer also has the option of initiating the order wi