Apple, Starbucks Sued Over Music Gift Cards

Trintech writes "A Utah couple acting as their own attorneys have filed a lawsuit against Apple and Starbucks over the retailers' recent Song of the Day promotion, which offers Starbucks customers an iTunes gift card for a complimentary, pre-selected song download. In a seven-page formal complaint, James and Marguerite Driessen of Lindon, Utah say they developed in 2000, and were granted a patent in February 2006 for, an Internet merchandising utility dubbed RPOS (retail point of sale). The concept, which forms the heart of the infringement lawsuit, would allow gift cards for pre-defined items that can be sold at a brick-and-mortar store but used online; customers could redeem a card for a dining room set or a DVD, for example."

Anything goes ..

[hebertrich]

Yet another patent we can all live without.
The patent office is really more of a nuisance than anything nowadays.

Eh .. i got an idea .. lest get a patent in for an office that
would examine and grant patents .. see if it passes .. seeing how dumb
they are .. we got a shot at it .. 8)

Re:Anything goes ..

[Brian Gordon]

Better idea: Not if I first get a patent for applying for patents covering patent offices!

To keep this from spiraling out of control I also offer a metapatent. A patent covering the patenting of patents. Related to patents. You can still patent patenting other things.

Re:What about S&H Green Stamps as prior art?

[vtcodger]

Clearly, you have failed to research the method used by the USPTO in evaluating patents. It involves converting the patent to electronic form then scanning the text for the phrase "perpetual motion". If the phrase is not found, the patent is awarded.

No, I'm not sure that I'm kidding.

Re:US Patent 7003500

[ozbird]

And kudos to the US for using a simple sequentially-numbered system for the patents instead of an indecipherable code involving numbers, letters, and probably hyphens in between every few of those other symbols.

Maybe if they had used an indecipherable code, there wouldn't be so many bogus US patents.

Patent Troll 1: I wonder if anyone has patented "watching grass grow on the Internet" yet?
Patent Troll 2: Let's see: Patent No. 1337-RTFM-OMGWTFBBQ discusses growing plants ...
Patent Troll 1: Whoa, too much for me. How about we sell penis-enlargement pills instead?

Re:I must rush out

[tomatensaft]

Why would an honest man use encryption anyway? To hide something illegal, no?

Re:Its a new invention because its online

[elrous0]

Well shit, there goes all my work on my pending "A card that can be exchanged for gifts" patent.

Re:Anything goes ..

[Jason Levine]

No, no, no. That would never fly. Now stick an "online" at the end, make the wording a bit more vague as to what you really mean, and you've got yourself a million dollar patent idea!

Kill the underdog

[russotto]

Somehow, it just feels wrong to hope that a big, faceless, corporation crushes a couple of small inventors into dust with the power of their legal department. But in this case, I have to say "GO GOLIATH! CRUSH THOSE PIPSQUEAKS! WATCH OUT FOR THAT SLING!"