Troll Patents Lists In Databases, Sues Everyone 305
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A Florida patent troll called Channel Intelligence is suing everyone from Lemonade to Remember the Milk for infringing on patent 6,917,941, which covers storing a wishlist in a database. Amazon and eBay are absent from the list of targets, even though they very likely store users' wishlists in a database. With any luck, perhaps one of the defendants will get to use that precedent PJ found the other day from In re Lintner, which said, '[c]laims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on non-obvious subject matter.'"
And Slashdot can fix it: (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, guys: the critical date is December 28, 2001.
First person to post prior art gets a big pat on the back!
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Grr. (Score:2, Informative)
Have fun! [tinyurl.com]
Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, Amazon's wishlist thing has been around longer.
Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (Score:4, Informative)
Probably any database configured prior to 2001 could be given as an example of prior art. Even their claims regarding the structures used, the link between objects and identifiers is nothing new (although not clearly obvious). To me it looks like the natural way any one would build such a database using basic structures.
November 1999 (Score:5, Informative)
November 1999
-- Amazon.com launches its Wishlist service. Countless customers get presents they actually want for the holidays.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=502658&highlight=wishlist [corporate-ir.net]
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Informative)
Besides I'm pretty sure that there is prior art of this...
Say a paper with hand written flat file database (aka. A list) for your grocery list on it from 20+ years ago?
Re:Obviously (Score:2, Informative)
Interestingly enough, that US patent (5,987,808) is for a fisherman's stringer. Which is ironically about as humorous as the above fictional example.
Re:Quoting PJ. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Obviously (Score:2, Informative)
$100,000/year x 5 years = $500,000 = $1 million/2
$100,000/year x 6 years > $500,000
And Nintendo is the latest victim (Score:2, Informative)
The just lost a bid to overturn a $21 million patent-infringement verdict. They might face a ban on all Wii console sales.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&sid=aZmETSiEwaKE&refer=law [bloomberg.com]
gets paid either way/grant rate has dropped (Score:5, Informative)
During prosecution, the PTO gets paid for just about anything the applicant files. That being said, after a patent is granted there are renewal fees.
You would think that examiners would simply allow allow allow, but that hasn't been the case in a while. The patent grant rate has actually dropped in the past few years.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/PatentlyO2006059.jpg [patentlyo.com]
This is inpart due to greater focus on quality, and that allowance of an application is now reviewed multiple times even for primary examiners. In the same time period the backlog has grown as the result of a hiring freeze a couple years ago and fairly high attrition, and perhaps as part of a lower allowance rate.
Dear Unmarried Nerds (Most of you) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Informative)