Slashdot Log In
AT&T Sues PayPal and eBay for Patent Infringement
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Nov 20, 2003 08:09 PM
from the we-got-patent-pending-on-that dept.
from the we-got-patent-pending-on-that dept.
theodp writes "AT&T on Thursday fired the latest shot in the escalating Web patent wars, filing suit against PayPal and eBay. AT&T issued a press release alleging that the PayPal and BillPoint payment systems infringe on AT&T's 1994 patent for the mediation of transactions by a communications system. Besides e-Payments, the AT&T patent purports to cover e-Voting, e-Auctions, e-Gifts, e-Donations, e-Wishlists and e-Referrals. e-Gad! e-Yikes!"
This discussion has been archived.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.
This is the second time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently this would also cover 2checkout and other paying services as well. The question is, can Microsoft and other browser makers be sued for being able to submit credit card info through their browsers? It seems overly broad but then again aren't all tech patents?
What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 28 different claims as to what the system patented by ATT is. A cursory layman's look gives the impression that it covers all kinds of commerce done over telcommunications networks.
I am seeing a situation where ATT would require licensing for every credit-card accepter on the Internet. That's not so fun.
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
AT&T has tried to screw the american public since it's inception and the usual
Most of these companies had better shapeshift some of their mindsets and reasoning or they'll just die, and take out the rest of the interconnected world as they go.
just my 2 bits.
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
"Telecommunications" are thus non-medium-specific. They can be wired or wireless, and consist of sounds, images or data in general.
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Claim 1 says 'a communications routing system of a type which functions generally to establish connections with arbitrary ones of a plurality of entities'. That could cover yodelling credit card info over the alps as much as anything else.
Later on it gets into 'special phone numbers' -the core of the patent is really about humans-on-phones, but unless those primary claims are junked then we are in trouble.
Claim 5 says "the communications routing system is a switching portion of a telephone system;"; the internet may or may not be this, depending upon implementation details. If you disprove this and the previous claim 'any routing system' then ebay have a problem.
On the bright side, I think claim 1 is way too broad. There are lots of places -like many italian shops- where the payment person is split from the billing person, so the mechanism claimed for has existed in the physical world for ages.
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a scary thought. Sounds alot like what SCO is doing (I know but I had to say it). IANAL however I have spent some free time reading through the laws regarding this sorta junk. I'm getting the impression that suing a 'user' of a product for use of a product isn't legal.
For example, if I read the New York Times and come across material I have no right to read am I liable? From what I've gathered it's not my fault nor my problem. The New York Times will be liable for their product not me the consumer.
On topic now... most of these patents look rather vague. I've looked over a couple of them already and it's about as undefined as you can get. What is the patent office doing? Accepting money and issuing a patent without looking at what they did?
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:3)
And: the best bit, the sequence is too tight. It says
1. get id known to the approving entity (like a visa card) from the customer
2. get a debit value from the vendor
3. send (id,debit) to the auth system
4. get approval from the auth system
5. forward that to the vendor.
Here are some easy workarounds
a) get a range like (4.00 and 4.03) from the vendor; pick one.
b) get a limit from the auth system, then OK it w
What about banks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Needs to satisfy all claims, not any (Score:5, Insightful)
5. The method set forth in claim 1 wherein:
the communications routing system is a switching portion of a telephone system; and
the step of receiving a transaction specifier includes the steps of:
receiving a special telephone number in the switching portion; and
using the special telephone number to derive the transaction specifier.
6. The method set forth in claim 5 wherein:
the step of receiving a transaction specifier further includes the step of using the special telephone number to derive a telephone number of the vendor and
the step of responding to the transaction specifier includes the step of using the telephone number to obtain transaction information concerning the transaction from or provide transaction information to the vendor.
Claim 7 is similar.
In other words, to be a valid patent violation, the parties must use a telephone number to identify eachother. I don't know about you, but I've never given nor received anyone's telephone telephone numbers on paypal.
Now, AT&T may argue that IP addresses are a "special" telephone number... Which is utter bunk, as VoIP is after 30 years of IP just starting to exist. But even then, Paypal does not connect independent parties with eachother via IP address, but rather e-mail address. Any respectable judge would throw out of his or her courtroom a lawyer that attempted to argue that "telephone number" meant any system that involved routing, including IP, E-mail, Telegraph, AIM, Kazaa, and Shared Printers.
Overall it looks like the original patent wasn't quite that bad... A shared telephone authentication system based upon the telephone company's then-new caller ID system as an identifier. As AT&T noted in their patent application, this is a way to mediate a transaction over the telephone while shielding the buyer's information from the seller. What's bad is then taking this and attempting to apply it to all internet transactions.
You filed your patent application. It was accepted because it was sufficiently narrow. Don't go whining now because it wasn't as broad as you would like.
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Insightful)
not overly-broad at all...
In one word: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In one word: (Score:5, Funny)
That's it. I'll see you in court.
Parent
I can't fucking believe this crap. I'm outta here. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can't fucking believe this crap. I'm outta he (Score:5, Funny)
No you're not. I've got a patent on that:
Parent
e-Sex??? (Score:3, Funny)
PLEEEEEEEASE Please please NOOOOOOooooooo.....
Re:e-Sex??? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you're talking about Teledildonics [teledildonics.com]? ;-)
Parent
semantics to the rescue! (Score:4, Funny)
problem solved!
e-Bullsh!t.... Did that on Usenet back in 1990.... (Score:5, Insightful)
USPTO in complete and utter chaos (Score:5, Insightful)
If we haven't posted it once, we've posted it a million times; the USPTO is in complete and utter chaos with these tech patents. I don't the USPTO is equipped, or ever has been equipped to handle these technological patents (at least in regards to say computers and/or the internet technologies).
They need to set up a separate repository of information to store for computers, computer programs, and internet technologies that are looking for patents. They need to hire a staff that can handle the various searching for prior technology (prior art) for this very advanced stage of patent registrations. They probably also need to setup a complete different sort of organization of information to do/handle this.
Until the USPTO gets straightened up, I see a never-ending line of lawsuits for copyright and patent infringement with regards to computer technologies and internet technologies!
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent reform is long overdue. There was an article on Slashdot a couple of weeks ago from a few government agencies suggesting reforms. But until we get our representatives to pay attention not much will happen. This isn't a democrat or republican thing. There are "bad guys" on both sides. However this really does that the potential to slow the growth of innovation especially in the tech sector.
Scope of patent (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a book from several years ago in in which a cyberpunk lawyer (it was a very strange piece of fiction, yes) used the theory of adverse possession (What's that? [lawyerviews.com]) to claim title to a piece of intellectual property left unimproved by its owner. I'm starting to think that implementing such a theory in IP law, as insane as that is, would be an improvement over the current situation ....
Re:Scope of patent (Score:3, Interesting)
This could possibly be the saftey net for most e-commerce sites.
Most sites collect the card info and pass it off to the processor (mediating party) and get an approval (authorization) so this "should" not be covered under this patent as the customer does not directly provide information to the mediating party.
Of course
Eminent Domain? (Score:3, Insightful)
-braddock gaskill
Joy... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, seeing as my company is small, I have no real worries. Oh, sure, they may sue once they have something big to sue for, buy by then, I can afford to fight back. Hopefully, PayPal will fight for me. By fighting AT&T's patent, they could make it difficult for AT&T to sue for it in the future.
Of course, PayPal could also just make a deal, and this won't get taken care of in court.
Oh, the fun of e-commerce. You know, makes me want to patent some of my ideas, not to sue people, but just to make sure people don't sue me or my company. Patenting to defend yourself...hrm, maybe I could patent that? Of course, that is probably been said on
It's an Obvious patent (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the key is that it was obvious at the time that payments would be accepted online. The same goes for a lot of the technologies they claim are covered by this patent. So a bunch of people found a means to accomplish this obvious goal that was almost *expected* at the time simultaneously.
I don't know much about patents but might this fall under the category of "obvious" which I think is supposed to be unpantentable?
Western Union should sue (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
Re:Western Union should sue (Score:3, Funny)
<OB_SOUTHPARK:BUTTERS>
Translation into American:
"the Simpson's did it."
</OB_SOUTHPARK:BUTTERS>
I think I'll patent applying for silly patents.... (Score:3, Funny)
Where's the surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare these patents with drug company patents (Score:5, Insightful)
a better IP system (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad trend (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to be cynical, but reality has overtaken me.
USPTO - my corrective actions (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not distribute the examination positions around the country? Submissions are mostly electronic now, at least at my company. I'd take some training - even if I had to travel to DC for it - to look over patents and applications in my specialty and be paid per piece. Maybe with thousands of part-time examiners to complement the regular staff, more specialists would be available to point out prior art way before it gets to the lawsuit stage.
Oh yeah - remember, this is my IP. It has no Unix code in it.
What about Western Union? (Score:3, Interesting)
zerg (Score:3, Funny)
Good grief (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Courriel (Score:3, Funny)
Are you from Nigeria, by any chance?
Re:they'll know we want a pizza! (Score:5, Funny)
and here's a link that will still work [penny-arcade.com] when they put up friday's comic in 7-10 hours.
Parent
(OT.) Re: Get done with it, already! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:(OT.) Re: Get done with it, already! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the transcript doesn't lie...
CNN "Late Edition" Transcript [cnn.com]:
Now granted, he doesn't claim to have INVENTED the internet. Instead, he claims to have CREATED it. What he REALLY did in 1986 was articulate somebody elses vision of widespread connected computing, and he introduced a follow-up bill to facilitate more widespread access to the network. I don't want to take away from his accomplishments because they ARE significant, but claiming to have created the internet alludes to illusions of grandeur. So yes, Al deserves to pretty much be mocked for the rest of his career over that statement.I think most people agree that, historically speaking, the Internet evolved as a result of the work done during the early 1970's on the ARPANET project, where TCP/IP was developed. The WWW concept, which makes the Internet much more useful, was developed primarily by Tim Berners-Lee of CERN.
Parent
Re:(OT.) Re: Get done with it, already! (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to argue he's a terrible speaker, I can't fault that. But it's absurd to suggest that he was trying to make people think that he, a politician, created the world's most significant network. That was clearly not his intention.
And Vint Cerf, who with Jon Postel can be genuinely described as one of the co-inventors of the Internet, certainly disagrees [interesting-people.org] with the "He said he invented it" spin on the subject. To quote:
I think Gore is being unfairly maligned here.Parent
Re:(OT.) Re: Get done with it, already! (Score:3, Interesting)
No, he claimed to have taken the initiative to get the funding for us. In that he was entirely correct.
If there is anyone who has a right to get upset about the issue it would be Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and fifty to a h
Re:(OT.) Re: Get done with it, already! (Score:3, Informative)
The ARPANET was a research project to design a network. The funding for ARPANET was about to end.
The Gore bill did much more than simply continue the original research funding, it was funding for a network to be used as a tool by academics.
The term Internet predates Gore's interest, but not by much. Without the funding of the US govt the Internet would never have exist
Re:I've got a great idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
In today's society, finding a prior art for thinking would be tough, so I'd say that's a safe patent... breathing, now that's a different matter...
Re:ATTgoing down hill? (Score:3, Interesting)
The real facts. (Score:3, Offtopic)
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamou
Re:The real facts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in som
not so fast AT&T... (Score:5, Funny)
"A method of maximizing the returns of any large-scale finanical-enrichment scheme which utilizes courtroom-based justice-mediated settlements as a method for increasing cash flow, increasing the possiblities for success through the aquisition of patents for the most extremely fundamental and obvious aspects of every-day existence."
Nice try though.
Parent