Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online

Small Firm Claims Patents On e-Banking Processes 157

Posted by timothy from the so-very-broken dept.
bth writes "The New York Times has a report that DataTreasury Corp is suing banks over 2 patents that 'describe a way to store and retrieve transaction records electronically.' A patent search reveals US6032137 and US5910988, each having the title: 'Remote image capture with centralized processing and storage -- System for central management, storage and report generation of remotely captured paper transactions from documents and receipts.' From one of the abstracts: 'The system retrieves transaction data such as credit card receipts checks in either electronic or paper form at one or more remote locations, encrypts the data, transmits the encrypted data to a central location, transforms the data to a usable form, performs identification verification using signature data and biometric data, generates informative reports from the data and transmits the informative reports to the remote location(s).' It is good to know that someone has managed to finally invent a system that can store, retrieve, and securely transmit financial transactions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Small Firm Claims Patents On e-Banking Processes More

Small Firm Claims Patents On e-Banking Processes

Comments Filter:

  • Ya know. (Score:1, Redundant)

    by AltGrendel ( 175092 )
    I don't know about you folks, but I'm tired of this patent crap.

    • Re:Ya know. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by budgenator ( 254554 )
      Would be a shame if they just plain sued the wrong people, and the plaintif and his attornies showed up in court with broken thumbs and knee caps.
      Sooner or later some corp is going to take the "evil corp" stereotype seriously and decide to make a hobby our of make some greedy smuck's life a living hell. I'm not realy advocating violence here, but we're talking big money here and sooner or later somebody is going to get stupid, then somebody is going to get hurt.

    • Re:Ya know. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by killbill! ( 154539 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:18PM (#11181586) Homepage
      I don't know about you folks, but I'm tired of this patent crap.

      It's not a bug. It's a feature.

      Face it, the American industry is unable to compete on the merits of its products alone. European and Japanese companies design better products, and achieve a much better build quality. Chinese companies cannot be beaten on costs, and their quality is rapidly improving, too.

      So, if you're a CEO, how do you face this hopeless situation?
      You might want to compete on price, and outsource your manufacturing to China, and your services to India. The "only" issue is: how long will it take for the local subcontractors to start making the same product without giving you a cut?
      You might want to compete on quality. The problem here is that, unlike most German or Japanese companies, in which a sizeable share of directors have an engineering background, most American companies are led by marketers, accountants, or lawyers that don't know a single thing about what they're selling - yet they do not want to give up their power to those nerdy engineers.

      In other words: the American economy is shafted. But wait, there is one field on which America remains unrivaled! Lawsuits!

      Thus, as it was impossible to gain a real competitive advantage, corporate America decided to give itself an artificial one. Thus, the entire IP nonsense was born.

      Of course, the Chinese never intended to buy this crap - and it now appears that Europe doesn't want it, either. As a consequence, it will only add an unnecessary burden on the already beleagered American economy.
      • Hence the push to 'normalize' patent and IP laws worldwide, so that a US company can sue a company in another country and win. (And vice versa)

        Thankfully, we have seen the EU balk at software patents (a little bit, anyway), and I suspect many other countries will start to realize that 'Just Say No' is enough to stop this nonsense.

        We are supposed to be leaders in innovation- we *need* to stop thinking 'lawsuit' and innovate, damnit!

        • Re:Ya know. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:44PM (#11181844)
          Actually, from a pure R&D perspective, we are the leaders in innovation. We spend a truckload of money on R&D (government, private and institutional) which is why so many foreign scientists and engineers come here to work and learn (and often to take that knowledge back home.) In a way, it's just another example of America's generosity with foreign aid. However, we still have a lot of the world's best and brightest, which means that ideas are not in particularly short supply. No Sirree. However, what we are not, any longer, is a leader in commercialization. And that is the root problem, and this lawsuit-happy atmosphere is doing nothing but reduce our ability to take the fruits of our R&D investment to market. In fact, it is eliminating the very motivation to spend money on R&D.

          Congress doesn't seem to understand that there were damn good reasons why the original patent system was set up the way it was. I mean, it worked rather well for almost two hundred years, doing precisely what the Founding Father's wanted it to do. Frankly, even after all this time I trust the Founders judgment more than the current crop of Congressional weasels. If you want to get right down to it, much of the industrial productivity and standard of living enjoyed by Americans for most of those two centuries was due to that system, and the flood of creativity and invention that were the hallmark of the United States for so long.

          U.S. patent law has been under a continuing process of subversion for some time now (the removal of the "demonstrable prototype" requirement, for one) but it wasn't too badly broken until recently. So far as I'm concerned, software and gene patents are the straws the broke the camel's back. And now ... it's not only broken but dangerous because Congress wants to export it worldwide. I guess their philosopy is, if we're headed toward third worlddom we might as well take the rest of the industrialized world with us. Not that they'll fall for it, although the EU seems to be right on the edge. China and India seem to be taking the correct screw you approach to "harmonization", although it appears that Australia was just annexed by the USPTO, with the MPAA as a minor partner.
          • Sorry,

            but this is nonsense:

            Actually, from a pure R&D perspective, we are the leaders in innovation. That I can agnoledge. We spend a truckload of money on R&D (government, private and institutional) which is why here it starts getting wiered: so many foreign scientists and engineers come here to work and learn (and often to take that knowledge back home.)

            Most foreigners comming to the USA come there becaue they have an excellent education and/or a research interest which gets no funding in e
            • But really silly is your asumption those people would go back home, why should they?

              Well maybe because they don't want their children to go through an "edcation system on a low and cheap profile". If you believe these stereotypes then they probably do too. They come to our country that is inferior in every possible way to every other country, make a quick buck from our doomed economy, and get the hell out as quickly as possible. After all the US is the root of everything that is wrong in the world is it n
              • The USA has different kind of schools. People who are bright enough to make lots of money out of their brains in the USA, can also afford to send their children to quality schools --- which costs a lot. My wife's family includes a couple living in the USA, which made the 'American Dream' thing: from cleaning floors to running a chemical analysis lab and owning two houses. They are sending their daughter to a private school, because the quality of public schools in their are (around NY) is horrible. Europe m

      • Re:Ya know. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WebCrapper ( 667046 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:15PM (#11181761)
        There is a flaw with this way of thinking...

        I worked for a company that paid me a bonus (roughly) $800 a quarter, used no call prediction software, no outsourcing and paid a decent salary and we still where profitable.

        Now, this company has since merged with another and turned into a giant cash cow that pays almost no bonuses a year, uses call prediction software and outsources nearly 98% of its calls and they're having a hell of a time producing profits.

        Issue: internal spending and internal choices

        You figure that can't be true, with all the money they're saving now, I'm not giving the whole detail... You're right - the "new" company gives cell phones to all supervisors and up, 2 way pagers to all supervisors and up - and anyone else that asks, has given their CEO a raise of over 100k a year the last 2 years, spend time and money arguing with outsourcers over pricing (as well as sending employees on sight every other month to supervise operations), upgrade systems that are working perfectly fine to get extra features they don't even use, develop their own in house billing database only to find the original solution worked fine and spend more money to switch back.... I could keep going.

        This company is like so many others out there that decided that a few extra things wouldn't hurt, until they had to lay off most of their workforce and it became a perpetual cycle. If you took most of these "cash strapped" companies and put everything they did on paper (like a business plan), no one would invest in them before telling them to change a lot of things they do.
      • Oh, boy, the anthropomorphic reasoning game!

        Here's how to play! In the parent post, for instance, "CEOs" can as a whole reason and act with conscious intention. So, they desired patent protection for methods of doing business because of simple, human emotional foible of jealousy, as they "do not want to give up their power to those nerdy engineers."

        Also, it's cold out right now because the weather gods are angry. Piety, friends! Let us burn some incense to appease them.
      • The article isn't about competitive advantages, artificial or otherwise. It's about the IP infringement business model now common in the technology sector expanding to financial services.

        The clueless US Patent Office issues a patent on remotely storing and retrieving financial transaction in electronic form. This idea did not stem from DataTreasury Corporation but it does have the patent on it. Nor does it have an actual system that does any of that activity (although, they could probably cobble the equipm
      • > Thus, the entire IP nonsense was born.

        well, um, I think the US patent office got its start in the 1800's, maybe 1837? Other countries had patents before us, I think it evolved from British law.

        It started cuz too many engineers were keeping trade secrets and taking them to the grave. For instance, Stradivarius violins.

        You're talking about more recent events.

        And copyrights and trademarks are not going away anytime soon, or all of industry would vaporize. For instance, you get rid of trademark la
      • Face it, the American industry is unable to compete on the merits of its products alone. European and Japanese companies design better products, and achieve a much better build quality. Chinese companies cannot be beaten on costs, and their quality is rapidly improving, too.

        Oh, bullshit. Who is moderating this as insightful? This is flamebait pure and simple.

        The U.S. is competitive in any number of fields - especially software. The only major non-US software I can think of is SAP. Certainly Japan (whe
    • Especially with something that isn't that big a deal in reality because everyone uses it. The question is how they got the pantents.

    • Re:Ya know. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by StillAnonymous ( 595680 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:42PM (#11181643)
      Does this even qualify? I thought a patent had to be pretty explicit as to how something works, so that theoretically, somebody could build the device themselves by reading the patent. Vague sections like:

      "..transforms the data to a usable form.."

      and

      "..generates informative reports from the data.."

      Seem pretty broad to me. That doesn't describe anything, really.

      Someone's really gotta throw junk patents like this out before they even reach the (not yet existent) REAL patent examiners.
      • I thought a patent had to be pretty explicit as to how something works

        The language used in a patent can be pretty strange. They start with vauge description but then get more specific. That said lawyers like to keep it vauge so that the patent holder gains the maximum amount of coverage from the patent.

      • Re:Ya know. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @08:47PM (#11182712)
        Yes, but in terms of the damage such a patent can cause, it doesn't matter whether it is a good patent or not ... it was issued, given the USPTO's stamp of approval, so it is presumed valid (that's the problem with not having proper evaluation of patent applications up front.) So now, the issue becomes whether someone else can invalidate the patent, and that requires one hell of a lot of court time and expense. And the scary part of all this is that a court may very well uphold a completely brain-dead, overbroad patent. Wouldn't be the first time.
    • I don't know about you folks, but I'm tired of this patent crap.

      Why? Now it starts getting more and more interesting.

      If I would live in USA and was a /.er I surely had long ago founded a company and claimed trivia patents.

      With todays free software all around, its easy to make very fast a demonstration prototype for nearly any issue involving computers and/or data transmission.

      Found a small limited reliability company, patent something, start suing.

      I would make this a sportive competition amoung /.ers

  • Good lord. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 25, 2004 @02:51PM (#11181490)
    Is small business ever going to wake up and realize that the current IP regime is a direct threat to them? No...? Guess not. Guess they'll just have to get used to paying the protection money...

    After all, that's capitalism. Government-enforced monopolies on basic business concepts is, I mean.
    • If someone send me a lawsuit over an obvious process - I would call it RICO(Racketeering), Extortion and file a counter-suit. As Microsoft has found out - just because it owns the patent (even if the patent has merit) didn't get them out of the legal problems of anti-competitive behaviour. I believe a company should have to show a good faith effort to develope a process/technology, before filing a patent. ~Hostguy2004

  • anonymous exchange protocol (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 25, 2004 @02:51PM (#11181491)
    so is it time to patent the ski mask and note as a secure system for the anonymous transfer of funds?

  • Here's a tech headline we won't see in 2005: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot.stango@org> on Saturday December 25, 2004 @02:52PM (#11181499) Homepage Journal
    "United States Patent and Trademark Office Denies Patent for Something Completely Obvious"

    ~Philly
  • 1. See SCOs pioneering efforts in the field
    2. Dust off old patents
    3. ?????
    4. Profit
  • Then I can patent the wheel for my used car dealership. Then I will say, "Look it's a WHEEL!!! It is so cutting edge, I think it might catch on!!!!" Big deal.

  • Silver lining (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigox ( 158657 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @02:57PM (#11181515)
    This might actually be a good thing for fixing the current US patent fiasco. The banking industry has plenty of lawyers and political clout. Maybe some change will come out of this suit.

    • Re:Silver lining (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:06PM (#11181549) Homepage Journal
      The banking industry has plenty of lawyers and political clout. Maybe some change will come out of this suit.

      No. This will only be used by both sides to eliminate the smaller players. Patents do not help the small inventor, but only the large companies with resources to maintain legal fights.
      • Actually, it helps the big companies that have patent portfolios they can cross-license ... that way they keep the goodies amongst themselves, avoid any litigation, and still get to squeeze out the small guys.

  • someone call Poland... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 25, 2004 @02:58PM (#11181517)
    someone call Poland... :/

  • I hope they win. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:00PM (#11181526) Homepage
    Just means more anarchy to sit back and watch.

    Well that and I don't have investments in banks.

    Tom

  • Once again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SCHecklerX ( 229973 ) <greg@gksnetworks.com> on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:00PM (#11181529) Homepage
    We see the idiocy of process/software patents.

    Patents should be limited to physical inventions. They should also be REVOKED if the person/company filing the patent cannot provide a working prototype within a reasonable amount of time (ie, I certainly can't patent a warp drive, but I could patent something like a hocky puck that acts like a hovercraft to play with on a basketball court)..yeah, I came up with that idea and then a couple of years later, somebody had made that exact toy. DOH!!!

    Ideas and mathematical formulas (including computer programs) should NOT be patentable.

    • in the uk they aren't (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      in the uk they aren'tat least not at the moment
    • In order to obtain a U.S. patent, it was once a legal requirement that a working prototype be demonstrated to the examiner. That requirement was dropped. Things went downhill from there.
  • This patent mentions using biometric data (in conjunction w/ signature)..perhaps they shouldn't be using biometric data to authenticate for bank transactions anyways? If I don't recall, this is insecure TO THE MAX!

  • Surprised after reading the patents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:10PM (#11181559)
    After reading both patents and looking over all attached diagrams and drawings I'm surprised. The patents are completely devoid of any technical data at all. I can make flowcharts for a warp drive and a cold fusion reactor too. I thought a patent had to contain some technical detail about how the device being patented was supposed to work. E.g. where is the source code for any of this? I couldn't find it anywhere in the patents.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Reformed, yes ... but in a way that benefits the economy as a whole or just protects the financial institutions? My bet is on the latter.
    • What review? The current system relies on big money chasing invalid patent claims in court. The banking industry can certainly do that ... for a single patent that threatens them. As for patents that threaten the rest of us ... well, we'd have to come up with a war chest for the court battle, right?

      The 19th Century is returning to America, purchased by all the capital gains from the 20th. The "broken" patent system in America is just another manifestation of that. The rule of money and the rule of l
  • I mean come on! Paper receipts are just handy printouts of data transactions happening in some datacenter... the transaction was electronic in the first place, the receipt is just a convenience as opposed to lugging around a networked PC while shopping. Jeez, argumenting against this crap feels like feeding an über troll... bah!
  • throw our economy into a downward spiral led by IP lawyers.

    Human nature only recognizes the need for change once a given situation becomes catastrophically harmful.

  • Article Text (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Small Company Is Specializing in Suing Banks

    By JENNIFER A. KINGSON
    New York Times
    December 25, 2004

    It is a company whose only business, other than one client, appears to be suing other companies.

    The lawsuits contend patent infringement, yet the defendants are usually not electronic commerce companies, but a relatively new target: banks or others in financial services. The company, the DataTreasury Corporation of Melville, N.Y., has sued companies that it says have infringed on its two patents, which descri
    • a 1998 court ruling broadened the definition of a patent to include business methods

      Someone should just patent the "business method" of suing over patents, and then sue them!
    • From Business Wire [businesswire.com].

      Chief Executive Officer of DataTreasury Corporation Steps Down; Nationwide Search for New Chief Executive Begins

      MELVILLE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 10, 2004--DataTreasury Corporation announced today the resignation of President and CEO Keith DeLucia, effective immediately. DeLucia, who is leaving to pursue personal interests, departs after a number of notable achievements, and it is with regret that DataTreasury's board of directors accepts his resignation. DataTreasury founder Cl

      • Re:Related Article CEO Steps Down (Score:4, Interesting)

        by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:44PM (#11182020)
        Corporation is a privately held company founded in 1998, and it was issued US Patent No. 5,910,988 and US Patent No. 6,032,137 in 1999 and 2000 for image capture, centralized processing and electronic storage of document and check information.

        well, well--- I remember working for a financial institution long before this- they were in the process of installing a new system that scanned, stored, and retrieved information....hm. Maybe ScanOptics [scanoptics.com] might have something to say about this.

  • My dad & I just had this discussion today. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brad3378 ( 155304 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:22PM (#11181594)
    Paying for a patent is the cheap part. It gets more expensive to prevent enfringement. I have doubts about this company going up against the goliath corporations using this technology.

  • *THIS* right here is the most screwed up part.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Polarism ( 736984 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:27PM (#11181608)
    "It was a nuisance lawsuit to us, and it was the most efficient decision to settle it for a minimal amount," said Lesley Pool, a spokeswoman for Affiliated Computer. She would not say the amount, but an article in The Dallas Business Journal, which DataTreasury has linked to its Web site, said it was $50,000.

    What the hell? Is this what our legal system has come to? "Nuisance Lawsuits"?

    This is not sustainable, and the situation could harm our judiciary processes right to the very core.

  • Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)

    by NullProg ( 70833 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:28PM (#11181613) Homepage Journal
    Banks have been doing this for over twenty years. Remote machines scan documents (checks/statements etc), store them in a local central database. Then nightly these transactions are electronically moved by the FED.

    I hope IBM/NCR sue the crap out of this company.
    Merry Chistmas and enjoy.

    • It's at least 30 years.

      I'm sure there is plenty of discussion with congresspeople at this very moment. The question is whether the solution to the patent problem will addressed properly, or made into a larger mess.

  • A new google patent search tool (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LemonFire ( 514342 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:29PM (#11181615) Homepage
    Enter the idea you have and the Google "patent search tool" will tell you how many patents you would violate...

    Seriously, this has gone way too far and I can only see how this hurts business, consumers, innovation and the little guy.

    -- Thought I would put a SIG here but that would have caused a patent violation
  • Wow, if that's not innovation, I don't know what is. If there's no prior art pulled out in court, I would be astonished. Does anyone in the patent office even know what they're supposed to be doing all day? Do they simply not realize that to get a patent, not only can no existing patent have been issued, and the idea must be original, but that it also must be NON-OBVIOUS! Just another argument against total-state bureaucracy in favor of constitutional minarchy and common law...
    • You just mentioned prior art. Definately a cool idea an it would be nice if some were produced, but if it is, will we know?

      Slashdot needs a "Follow-up to Silly Patent" section so we can all see if prior art was ever brought up and whether or not it was successful in court or not.

      Now *that* would be a useful section..

  • What a mess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:31PM (#11181621) Homepage
    The point of IP is to allow the inventor of an invention profit from their creation. The other point is of IP is that because the patent is made public society gets to keep the invention once the IP has expired.

    A key feature of most IP implementations is that you can sell a patent to another company. A lot of the problems with the patent sharks could be solved if this were not possible.

    If a patent can't be transfered then sharks can't get hold of it. You should have to renew a patent every year.. making keeping huge portfolios expensive.

    In the software patent world, I think one small change would make it (more) aggreeable to FOSS. Make the time the patent lasts much shorter, like on the order of five years. That way, FOSS is protected. In software, if you haven't made your millions in five years then your not going to full stop. This would also protect FOSS from huge damages claims if they are caught infriging since the time to claim damages over is much shorter.

    While i'd like software patents to disappear in the US, it wont happen and therefore I believe a third way is needed. A compromise that restores sanity to the system. My suggestions would be a good first step.

    Simon.
    • You already have to renew a patent, and it costs money. The problem with that idea is that, again, it only hurts the little guy (like me). If you make the cost of renewal high enough that it will be of any consequence to an IBM or a Microsoft, that completely eliminates the small inventor. He'll never be able to afford to maintain the patent long enough to make anything of it (going through the already-considerable time and expense of acquiring a patent doesn't mean squat, if you don't have the resources

  • /. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FUD (Score:4, Informative)

    by back_pages ( 600753 ) <back_pages@@@cox...net> on Saturday December 25, 2004 @03:32PM (#11181625) Journal
    A patent search reveals US6032137 and US5910988, each having the title: 'Remote image capture with centralized processing and storage -- System for central management, storage and report generation of remotely captured paper transactions from documents and receipts.'

    The title of a patent is meaningless. I read one last week for "Remote Control Device" which was a high pressure hydraulic hoze/nozzle that could be aimed from a distance, used in mining operations. There is no legal weight in a patent title and while the intention is that they are informative, there is uneven enforcement of that rule.

    From one of the abstracts: 'The system retrieves transaction data such as credit card receipts checks in either electronic or paper form at one or more remote locations, encrypts the data, transmits the encrypted data to a central location, transforms the data to a usable form, performs identification verification using signature data and biometric data, generates informative reports from the data and transmits the informative reports to the remote location(s).'

    The abstract of a patent has no legal weight. The rules regarding abstracts are more evenly enforced than titles, as the abstracts are useful to examiners, but the typical attorney couldn't care if the abstract recited a recipe for meatloaf.

    Here are the patents under debate:
    6032137 [uspto.gov]
    5910988 [uspto.gov]
    Linking to the actual patent is trivial, however undermines the element of FUD which wins the submitter such karma and peer approval. (Rather than mod this as a troll, proving at least to myself how correct I am, feel free to explain to me why failing to link to the patents themselves helps an intelligent discussion rather than perpetuating the FUD.)

    The claims of a patent are the only part of a patent that undisputably carries legal weight. Any discussion about whether a patent should or should not have been issued that does not relate strictly to the claims is nonsense - it is directly analogous to praising Windows because you can use a mouse on a graphical screen. It is uneducated, pointless, and irritating to anyone who knows that other operating systems use mouse pointers and graphical screens.

    Further, these patents will come under extreme attack if they are used in court. Merely having these patents is meaningless. When these patents are used against someone, he would be a complete idiot to not first question whether the patents can be invalidated in court. This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000. Only the media and those who do not properly understand the existing system of patent litigation expect the USPTO to provide a perfect search of prior art for 2% of the market value of such a search.

    In conclusion, while there may be a great deal of problems with these patents, and plenty of legitimate complaints about the how the system works, the submitter of this story addresses nothing but meaningless and baseless fluff. There would be more substance to the complaints if he griped about the poor scan quality of the documents. Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing the merits of these patents, but rather pointing out that the submitter addresses no valid complaints because, by analogy, he's busy arguing whether the Windows is better than OSX by pointing out how pretty the Windows desktop is.

    But moderators, if you fear that facts might interfere with your self-affirmation, by all means convince me that I'm correct (regarding the subject line) and moderate this as a troll.

    • Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000.

      This is one of the things that is wrong with the patent system - no one but large companies can afford to spend that much money on a patent search - and most of those companies are covered by cross licensing. The only thing patents harm in the current legal situation is small firms who can't afford

    • This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000. And a small company that is allegedly violating patents is supposed to shell out those $100k to do what the PO should have been doing in the fist place? I can see how that suits the big players just well, but it strikes me as a perversion of the system that it is easier and cheaper to patent the obv
      • And a small company that is allegedly violating patents is supposed to shell out those $100k to do what the PO should have been doing in the fist place?

        Why do you think the USPTO should be giving out $100k prior art searches for $2k? Or do you think a patent applicant should be required to shell out $100k to apply for a patent? If so, are you aware of how the pre-American patent systems worked in Europe?

    • "Only the media and those who do not properly understand the existing system of patent litigation expect the USPTO to provide a perfect search of prior art for 2% of the market value of such a search."

      It's funny that calling up a buisness and telling them to give you $50000 or you'll burn down their property (worth $100K) is illegal, while calling up a buisness and telling them to give you $50000 or you'll make them pay $100K to challenge a bogus patent is perfectly legal.

      When the government hands someone
    • I don't need this story to prove patents are worthless. I and many other people already know that, all this does is just bolster our claim. People who dislike that should consider it as a punishment to be suffered for having a poorly thought out belief system.

      The fact is, when it is allowed for ANYBODY else to controll how inventions are used, problems like this are going to happen. Problems like corruption in the system, problems like poorly defined boundries when asserting patents, problems like unprod

    • Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NigelJohnstone ( 242811 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @06:04PM (#11182101)
      " trivial, however undermines the element of FUD which wins the submitter such karm.."

      Did you read the claims? The abstract is spot on. If you think the abstract or title is mislead, why are you attacking the submitter and not the abstract or title?

      "Further, these patents will come under extreme attack if they are used in court."

      Attacked by lawyers and adjudicated by judges. Neither of those has any technical grouding in software. Once these patents are judged in court, its a dice roll.

      "When these patents are used against someone, he would be a complete idiot to not first question whether the patents can be invalidated in court."

      Again, the court is not technical, it is a dice roll.
      Your side does eBanking and could face hefty royalties a catastrophic block on business, plus legal fees. His side faces only legal fees at most.
      Now roll the dice, but you'll find its weighted.

      "This is how the patent system works"

      No the patent office is supposed to filter this crap for obviousness, prior art and technical invention.

      "a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000."

      Its the USPTO's job to do that and since when has it cost $100,000? Thats a couple of man years work,a ridiculous figure pulled from the air.

      • Its the USPTO's job to do that and since when has it cost $100,000? Thats a couple of man years work,a ridiculous figure pulled from the air.

        A thorough prior art search conducted by a law firm in preparation for an infringement defense will often take over 1000 man-hours of highly skilled labor. The rest of your points demonstrate more of an infamiliarity with the patent system rather than a persuasive argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but a duck is a duck.

    • you miss the point that the electronic processing of this type has been done with checks for nearly 25 years now...mandated by the Federal Clearing System that clears all checks. Ever since checks have had MICR numbers the basics of this patent have been performed... The checks you write almost never were actually recieved by your bank anyway. The actual transaction has been performed by the Clearinghouses for many years now! The only new thing is that the "Check 21" system allows an individual business
  • So then I guess any site that is able to retreive transaction or record information electronically is gonna get sued by these retards? (Basically, the entire internet.) Paypal can retrieve past transaction info.. eBay can.. any online store can.. that's pretty stupid. You shouldn't be able to patent something that is so commonly used, like microsoft and their "your buddy is typing a message" thing.. they've got a patent on that, and they shouldn't be able to.
  • ...to realize that the patent system was not created to help inventors. It was specifically created to create a market where the very thought can be sold and bought. Any other explanation is naivity.

    • Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eckenheimer ( 730031 ) * on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:27PM (#11181793)
      Actually, back when patents were established in the US constitution over 200 years ago, the system did help inventors. But, ever since corporations attained legal "personhood" (over 100 years ago) the US has gradually become a "government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations."

      My apologies to President Lincoln -- though his comments on the topic are quite astute, not to mention prescient: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

  • This would effect the Check 21 Act (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:01PM (#11181722) Journal
    What they're claiming is that they own patents covering key processes that banks are required to implement as part of the "Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act [consumersunion.org]" (also known as Check 21) that recently went into effect.

    Seeing as that was a federally mandated act, I don't think congress is going to think too highly of this company's actions. This really might lead to patent reform, since the only two ways of getting congress to act seem to be to either pay them lots of money (or should I say "donate" lots of money to their reelection campaigns) or piss them off. The last time they really got fed up over something we got the do not call list which has been pretty successful.

    So more power to this crappy little IP company, I can't wait to see what remains of them after congress is done. :)

  • Instead of suing the banks they could have sued the software companies who developed the software for them?

    From now onwards, after developing the software I'm going to check how many patents does my software breaks. I don't want to see a lawyer at my doorsteps after the deployment claiming a huge amount for the efforts that I have actually put into the development.

    Can I patent the famous "$i=0;" code and all its variations?
    Then I can go and sue millions of companies and people. Boy, I will be rich.
  • a way to store and retrieve transaction records electronically

    Is it just me, or is that the most basic of definitions of a computer "database"?

  • Since the patent system was originally created as an incentive to reveal "trade secrets" to the public to spur greater innovation, I say if something is not useful as a "trade secret", it should not even be CONSIDERED for a patent.

    Or in other words, if withholding an idea from the public doesn't actually affect the public - as may be the case with this "patent" - then it's not really useful as a "trade secret". Since so many other people seem to have come up with implementations of this same idea already,

  • They could have gone after a small paypal-type company. But the BANKS? These are corporations here that are ROLLING in so much money they don't know what to do with it, the corporations that CHARGE YOU MONEY to borrow YOUR money so THEY can make money by investing or lending it. They've got gobs of cash, and grind this challanger into the ground.
  • You guys are all upset because you havn't filed such a bitchin patent yourselves. Jealousy!

    Seriously, these stories are getting boring. Could we have a summary story once a week? The "there is a stupid patent out there and its getting used to hurt businesses" story just isn't news anymore.

  • This could be fun! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 2A ( 841921 )
    Forget actually making anything anymore, the patent-sue method has become a full business model on it's own...

    wait... can't business models be patented now?! I gotta get me down to the USPTO!!!
  • Great! The more such stories, the less probable is that Europe will adopt software patents. Once again, we have the USA to show us what not to do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Byte your tongue.

Close