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."

LMAO

[apathy maybe]

Patents suck, but it is slightly amusing to note that Apple is being stung here. The article states that Apple had been asked to licence, they then pulled the item from the USA, and then a year later came back with something similar. Obviously the lawyers thought at the time that the "Utah couple" first offered to licence, that the patent was the real deal, otherwise they would have just ignored them.

Anyway I hope Apple get done, it does appear (if the article is correct) that they knew that the card system infringed on a patent, and yet went used it anyway.

(It isn't that I hate Apple or support patents, it is just that I hate capitalism. Can't you see the connection?)

What more is needed?

[Serious Lemur]

If more than this story is needed to explain the problems with U.S. patent law in particular and the concept of a patent in general, I'd love to see it.

Re:Its a new invention because its online

[Brian Gordon]

If they had patented the original idea of a "gift card" that would let you buy vouchers with purchasing power, and big players picked up their idea and started making millions then I'd be a little more sympathetic. But come on, this is obviously an example of prior art, and you're right- why tack on "...on the internet" other than just to dodge the prior art bullet a bit.

Re:LMAO

[cenonce]

I think it is more likely that Apple's lawyers pitched some offers to this couple to "make them go away" and couldn't work anything out. Then they just went about their business of setting up the service (this service through Starbucks was probably already well in the works - doubtful the "delay" was some tactic against this couple, though they might perceive it that way and allege it in the complaint). This patent seems silly - and in my mind, the longer it goes the worse the deal gets for the Plaintiff. Apple can counterclaim that it is an obvious "invention" and then not only does the couple have to prove infringement, but defend a valid patent - they might not even get in front of a jury on that one.

I don't know what I hate about capitalism more: patent trolls trying to make a buck off of big companies and raising the cost of products for everyone, or insensitive corporate clods who try to stomp on the little guy to keep the price of their products inflated. Either way, the consumer loses.

Gift Vouchers?

[Schiphol]

How is this different from gift vouchers in general? Is it because the internet is involved? So, can I patent gift vouchers if they are to be redeemed only in Polinesian straw huts? I find it truly incredible that someone thinks she has invented the buy-here-redeem-there scheme; even if the "there" in question is the internet. Of course, it's even more incredible that a patent has been granted upon this.

My Prior Art for the NBA

[Doc Ruby]

In 1995, I invented a magstrip card sold at all 700 Shoppers Drug Mart convenience stores in Canada. The card was good for a pair of tickets to either a Toronto Raptors or Vancouver Grizzlies game, the 2 new NBA teams we were hired to help launch. In the SDM store was a kiosk that was a Mac with Netscape on a a private TCP/IP network identical to the Internet, but not connected to it, just to its own hosts around Canada. Some of these hosts had the webservers and DBs running the ticket dealing app. Swiping the card unlocked the kiosk, navigating the websites sold the tickets, which when printed deleted credit from the cards.

That app and those cards were precisely the same as these music gift cards, for a product that happened not to be music, but otherwise identical - a trivial difference. So this post constitutes my notification of prior art. Apple and Starbucks can pay me now to use it invalidate these Utahrds' entire patent.

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

[carleton]

Seriousily... I had a former coworker who had previousily worked at the Patent Office and he strongly implied the exact opposite of your claim; they're expected to be able to either accept or reject a quota of N (for some reasonable value of N I've forgotten) patents per week and that his boss _heavily_ leaned on him to reject as many patents as possible. One of his favorite rejections was where someone had tried to patent some Windows technique (and had stolen the description of how to do it directly from a book my coworker had read and just done find-replace). Coworker also mentioned that good patent workers frequently build up a queue of rejected patents (i.e. week 1 they find a way to reject 3N patents; they then release just enough rejections each week to meet their quota and spend the rest of their time getting a patent law degree or similar or browsing the web depending on their ambition level. Also, patent office is one of the few parts of the gov't that makes a profit.

Re:Its a new invention because its online

[monxrtr]

Somebody should look into suing the Managers and Examiner's of the USPO. There's a pattern of massive abuse and fraud that should be shut down completely by court order. Let's start listing names of individuals who examined and certified these patents, freeze their bank accounts, and take them to court for negligence, RICO violations, and Sarbanes-Oxley violations. Perhaps a Patent Examiner whistleblower can receive 50% of all profits netted by any bogus patents. If legiltors can be sanctioned and punished for bribery, why can't they be sanctioned and punished for conspiracy to violate the Constitution?

There are attorneys

[tyrantking31]

What this article is unaware of is that both James and Marguerite Driessen are attorneys. She is a former Brigham Young University Law School professor and he attended the law school while she was teaching there. With that in mind it is difficult to know precisely what is going on here. She is not licensed to practice law in Utah, although that would have no effect on this pro se case. Either way, it doesn't seem like they know their patent law very well; and she didn't teach patent or intellectual property law at BYU. http://driessenlaw.com/ [driessenlaw.com]

Re:Its a new invention because its online

[j_l_cgull]

but once the patent is granted it can be used for anything.

How about when the law suit is settled and the patent is ruled invalid/revoked/whatever, the USPTO should pay the fees of both parties, as it can be argued that it was the USPTO's incompetence that led to all this ? And the USPTO should not be dipping into the taxpayer's bag for this. One can dream ...