Chocolatier Fights PanIP Uber-Commerce Patent

synerr writes "In October, Slashdot reported how PanIP sued 10 companies. Since they were so successful, they have launched 50 more lawsuits. The Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel has an article about how one local small town chocolate company, DeBrand's, is planning to fight back against San Diego based PanIP LLC's claim that they hold the patent over any automated commerce done by text and graphics on a video monitor. The owner of DeBrand's has even set up a web site to organize the different e-merchants, www.youmaybenext.com."

Re:When will this stop?

[PinkStainlessTail]

Because mainly people are settling before it ever gets to court. Those of us with souls know this by the name "extortion." It's fun!

If you would have read my post of 2 weeks ago...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

I wrote [slashdot.org]:

...to ask about contributing to a defense fund (after reading about this on /. a few days ago). Here's what they had to say:

Thanks for your support. We are currently in the process of setting up the Group Defense and the PANIP Group Defense Fund. We hope to have it set up by the end of this week giving people a chance to contribute online through a PayPal account. The response has been very encouraging.

Stay tuned in and help us spread the word. PANIP thought they could extort money from small businesses without them making much noise. They were wrong.

Timothy Beere
DeBrand Fine Chocolates
http://www.debrand.com [debrand.com]
http://www.youmaybenext.com [youmaybenext.com]


I'll also pick up some chocolates for my wife at their site...that way I can help their business and score some points with the bride at the same time. Double bonus!

Anti-Karma Wh0re

[Anonymous Coward]

Link at the google cache. [google.com]

Accordingly

[da_Den_man]

The original Patent was filed in 1993. However, it would appear that it was directed towards travel and credit applications (i.e. Travel agent bookings and Credit applications) rather than geared towards an online "sale" of actual merchandise. [uspto.gov]The Patent can be found here, and several interesting items of note:

RIOR APPLICATIONS 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. This is also a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 08/096,610 filed Jul. 23, 1993, which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/752,026 filed Aug. 29, 1991 which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 168,856 filed Mar. 16, 1988, which is a continuation 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. This is also a continuation of the combination of the above-cited applications Ser. No. 08/116,654 filed Sep. 3, 1993 and Ser. No. 08/096,610 filed Jul. 23, 1993.

As it appears this has been trying to be processed for quite sometime before it was accepted, and also relies on several prior works.

Not how patents work

[0x0d0a]

The abstract is intended to clarify the patent. The claims are what are legally significant here. Look a bit lower...anything that violates even *one* of the claims infringes on the patent.

Re:No judge has ruled so far

[DivideX0]

There is a new law that was signed on November 3rd regarding the review of patents with the a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that will make defense against a patent such as this much cheaper.

More information can be found here:

http://www.kilstock.com/site/print/detail?Articl e_ Id=1136

Sorry I don't have a link to the offical gov notice, but my company is already using this new law for a patent search service.

Re:Dates

[McFly777]

Unfortunatly the filing date is March 16, 1994, so you would have to find prior art to that date.

This patent app was also a continuation to several older applications, some as early as 1984. I am not sure if you have to show prior art to those application dates or not.

Re: Docterine of Laches

[SirSlud]

here [converium.com]

Its been awhile since I've read it, but I believe the thing is .. you can selectively enforce patents, but you also cannot purposely _delay_ litigation protecting your patents such that the delay harms the accused infringer.

Basically means "You are not responsible for policing the marketplace and cannot lose enforcability of your patent by not actively protecting it; however, you are also not allowed to purposely delay protecting your patent. If you become aware of an infringer, you can't sit around for a rainy day when you really need the money to commence an infringement suit."

Write to the San Diego District Attorney

[joshamania]

I wrote a letter to the San Diego DA (posted it on my web site). You should too. The email address is "[e-mail]". I told a bit of the story, included some hyperlinks and suggested that the DA lay down the law on PanIP. If not for extortion, then for jaywalking, or speeding, or littering, or anything to make these assholes stop extorting money from the public.

Re:Three words: Class Action RICO

[leviramsey]

WTF?

How is the parent post "Funny"? There's nothing funny about RICO (the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations act). By suing under this act, the people who PanIP have sued can get triple damages from the officers of PanIP and seize assets, freeze accounts and do all sorts of other kinds of nifty financial punishments. They could also try for criminal charges under RICO and have the officers of PanIP jailed.

Respond with Criminal Charges.

[zentigger]

It looks like a pretty good case could be made for extortion under the Hobbes Act. More details are available here. [usdoj.gov]

The gist of it is something like this:

1. Did the defendant induce or attempt to induce the victim to give up property or property rights?
   
2. Did the defendant use or attempt to use the victim's reasonable fear of physical injury or economic harm in order to induce the victim's consent to give up property?
   
3. Did the defendant's conduct actually or potentially obstruct, delay, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in any (realistic) way or degree?
   
4. Was the defendant's actual or threatened use of force, violence or fear wrongful?
   

Naturally item #4 is the tricky one, however: Generally, the extortionate obtaining of property by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force or violence in a commercial dispute requires proof of a defendant's intent to induce the victim to give up property. No additional proof is required that the defendant was not entitled to such property or that he knew he had no claim to the property which he sought to obtain. See United States v. Agnes, 581 F.Supp. 462 (E.D. Pa. 1984), aff'd, 753 F.2d 293, 297-300 (3d Cir. 1985) (rejecting claim of right defense to defendant's use of violence to withdraw property from a business partnership).

So it would seem that PanIP has already behaved criminally by collecting money from other businesses through through the treat of financial damage! Arrest the bastards and throw them all in jail!!!

What about the NABU Network in Ottawa

[farrellj]

They did "e-commerce" with NAPLPS terminals, and Ohio Scientific CP/M systems. Surely this is "prior-art"!

ttyl
Farrell

Web Site Insecure

[BrianWCarver]

I was half-way through the checkout process at debrand.com, buying some nice chocolates to help support these guys in their fight. Then I noticed on the page where I'd put my credit card number...It's not encrypted. I sent them an e-mail about this and hopefully it'll be fixed soon. Just a warning to those who have also had the good idea that we can support them and score points with the wife/girlfriend/mom/grandmom/etc. at the same time!

San Diegeo Union Tribune article

[pompetti]

The San Diego Union Tribune has an article in today's edition about PanIP. The writer asks questions why PanIP is only suing small companies outside of CA.
Here's a link to the article http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/bauder /20021105-9999_1b5bauder.html