PanIP Drops E-commerce Patent Lawsuits 104
Darlok writes "Back in October 2002, PanIP sued 50 small businesses, claiming patents over basic E-commerce functions. One of the defendents set up a group defense fund, and in the last week, contributors to that fund have been notified by e-mail and this notice on the fund's homepage that PanIP has agreed to drop its lawsuits without any licenses being issued. The U.S. Patent Office is currently reviewing the patents in question. Hopefully this will set some sort of precedent ..."
More questions than answers about PanIP (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what it says about it:
The message board and all the pages within the site are now gone, and there's only one single page that briefly outlines what happened.
But big fat question marks are all over the place. What happens now? The fifteen or so defendants who banded together to fight are off the hook, at least as far as PanIP is concerned, but what about the dozens of others? Has PanIP dropped all of its suits, or just the ones against the members of that group?
At the bottom of the page is a sort of cryptic quote: "Don't let the things you can't do stop you from doing all that you can," which I take to mean that among the things that couldn't be done was to utterly defeat PanIP and prevent its founder from continuing his campaign of lawsuits against e-commerce companies.
Back in January, the founder of the PanIP Group Defense Fund had placed a warning on the site that PanIP was sending threatening letters out to businesses who had previously been left alone. Were those letters a last-ditch effort by PanIP to generate the capital necessary to continue the fight over its patents? Or was PanIP anticipating settling its way out of paying the $19,000 in legal fees awarded to the defense group following a determination by at least one judge that PanIP's defamation lawsuit against the group was an illegal SLAPP under California law?
Should e-commerce businesses breathe a sigh of relief that PanIP has backed off, or should they be more worried than ever? If PanIP starts up its campaign of lawsuits anew, will the next round of targeted companies similarly band together to fight off the suit?
The former website of the defense group states that both of PanIP's e-commerce patents are facing re-examination by the USPTO. The "automated sales" patent has been under review since August, according to the old version of the site, which never mentioned that the other patent was actually under review. If they are indeed both under review, can PanIP even file any new lawsuits?
I do not mean to denegrate the defense group in any way... standing up to PanIP was, in my opinion, the correct and brave thing to do. And, at the same time, carrying on the fight when an olive branch is offered with few, if any, strings attached would have been foolish. I don't blame the defense group for opting out of a longer, uglier fight, and I salute them for standing tough as long as they did. Just getting the patent office to re-examine both the patents was quite a feat, one that very well might get both patents invalidated and send PanIP packing in the end, after all.
But if the patents are re-affirmed, you can bet that a whole lot of businesses who'd never heard of PanIP or its patents will be hearing all about them real soon.
Great News! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Probably not... (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, lets take a look at their patent....
Beyond the fact that they are using big words to say "Sell stuff on the internet using computers", and using a search engine.... What the bloody fscking heck does synergistically mean?
Maybe their should be a rule at the USPO that anyone that uses Synergy, let alone synergistically in their patent application should not only have their patent denied, but should be banned from ever filing for a patent again EVER!
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRG! Really! What the Fsck are they thinking! (or is that the point)
Maybe I'm just too sensitive. But their shareholders should sue them for being Fscking Idiots who file patents that just don't make sense.
That person that filed the patent actually lives near me. I should find him and kick him in the ass.
Re:Probably not... (Score:3, Interesting)
No business has a fudiciary duty to use unethical means to extort money from anybody. Some may choose to do so, but they don't have a duty to do so.
And yes, using bogus patents to extract license fees is unethical, even though it isn't illegal.
Re:McDonald's frivolous lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent Law - who's fault? (Score:2, Interesting)
A legal system that discourages the use of ideas (remember the eolas v microsoft patent)
The white settlers of a large part of North America thought that patents of nobility were a tyranny.
Now you can get a patent for a file layout that is based on a standard.
Whose to blame?
Those taking advantage of the system?
Those who enforce the system?
Those who created the system?
Those who elected the creators of the system?
Stupid corporate execs. (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing that sets legal precedent is published appellate court case results. Since this didn't go to an appellate court (it sounds like it didn't go to any court), this isn't going to set any kind of legal precedent.
Perhaps you mean, "Hopefully, this will enlighten stupid fucking multinational corporations, whose board of directors thinks they are entitled to eternal perpetually increasing profits at the expense of others, that they can't fuck with this community."
The only thing that would create a precedent... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anything less will still leave a door open for legal thugs to try and mug small businesses on the grounds of ridiculous claims on abusively granted patents (on obvious business methods and such).
The business world would be a safer place with those jailbirds slammed to where they belong.