Oprah Sued For Infringing "Touch and Feel" Patent 249
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Oprah Winfrey, or to be more precise, Oprah's Book Club, is being sued by the inventor/patent attorney Scott C. Harris for infringing upon his patent for 'Enhancing Touch and Feel on the Internet.' So Oprah's Book Club is now one of many people and entities being sued over this patent because they allow people to view part, but not all, of a book online before purchasing it. Mr. Harris also sued Google Books for infringing upon this patent. He actually was fired from his position as partner at Fish & Richardson for that, because Google is a client of that law firm and they had conflict of interest rules to uphold." It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system.
Update: 01/07 22:03 GMT by KD : The blog author Joe Mullin wrote to point out that the lawsuit was not filed by the inventor, Scott C. Harris, but rather by the shell company Illinois Computer Research, which seems to exist for the purpose of filing lawsuits based on this particular patent.
Update: 01/07 22:03 GMT by KD : The blog author Joe Mullin wrote to point out that the lawsuit was not filed by the inventor, Scott C. Harris, but rather by the shell company Illinois Computer Research, which seems to exist for the purpose of filing lawsuits based on this particular patent.
HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)
He filed a frivolous law suit against....Oprah
Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.
Of course she will fight it. She will also win. A mouse just picked a fight with a dragon.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's going to get roasted. I've been waiting for a patent troll to piss off the wrong person. Looks like that day has arrived. I guess I never thought it would be Oprah Winfrey though.
Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)
The big content providers would likely love to see a much looser patent system, then they wouldn't need to pay royalties to the patent holders of e.g. MPEG for all the content they distribute.
Re:Would she fight it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, she's not going to publicize this. It's too technical for the masses, and people have a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude these days, especially with digital media. I'm thinking she sweeps this under the rug, maybe settles out of court.
I really, really hope she doesn't settle this out of court, and does the world a favor by stepping on this rat for everyone to see. It's not like she's on the verge of bankruptcy and can't afford a few dozen high-powered lawyers to launch a counterattack.
This is like hijacking cases. If you give in and pay the money, you'll only encourage more of the same behavior. Send in the Marines / black ops / ninja death squad / pirates of penzance each time it happens, and suddenly it doesn't seem like such a hot idea.
Prior Art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Would she fight it? (Score:5, Insightful)
She makes money from the media, and the media companies like the current patent and copyright laws. No one in that business is going to step forward and say 'the system is broken.' I hope she does, but I don't consider it very likely.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
We'll see. I would tend to think she doesn't need the negative publicity, and she certainly has plenty of money to just pay the guy to go away.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Would she fight it? (Score:4, Insightful)
While she may be a media icon and corporate power in her own right, do you think her handlers are silly enough to let her counter attack this guy? She makes money from the media, and the media companies like the current patent and copyright laws. No one in that business is going to step forward and say 'the system is broken.' I hope she does, but I don't consider it very likely.
She's in a position where if she does have "handlers", they probably need her a lot more than she needs them.
Also, saying "this is an abuse of the system" isn't necessarily an admission that the system is broken, only that it is imperfect. She could take the stance that fighting this is equivalent to working within the system to correct an abuse of it and that therefore it's not so broken at all. I'm not saying I personally feel this way, only that this is not necessarily the losing proposition you describe.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the thing though, I'm surprised more companies don't fight the trolls just to get a reputation among trolls that you're willing to go Thunderdome on them on occasion. Then they'll get the message to find someone else to mess with. The way I see it, the only reason patent trolling is profitable is because companies take a short term view of it and just settle, encouraging the prospect of a death by a thousand paper cuts.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the companies often ARE the trolls.
They just do a slightly different version of trolling.
Fighting sets precedents. precedents set decisions, and while you may want a decision one day the next it will hurt you.
Oprah will settle out of court (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes it will come down to business -
The question will be - Is it worth the cost of defending this in court or should we settle?
There is also the question of P.R. a court case could dig up something dirty and Oprah has a spotless image.
Throw enough Mud and it sticks !!! (Bad Oprah)
going on past court cases most large companies like to settle out of court. I cant see why this will be any different.
01101011 01101001 01100011 01101011 00100000 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01101111 01110000 01110010 01100001 01101000 00100000 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:1, Insightful)
Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.
When will Americans stop confusing their country with the whole planet? This reminds me of the silly name "World series" for some American baseball tournament. At least for Europeans, the name Oprah hardly even rings a bell, and I'm pretty sure it's the same in most of Asia, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, South America, and perhaps even Australia.
Seriously, less people than you think give a damn about what goes on in your shitty country. Much, much less. The world only cares about what the US does abroad, like war and murder and corruption and exploitation and stuff. TV hosts... not so much.
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop.
Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That....
But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something.
So, essentially, this patent is... "Something that's already happened for hundreds of years... on the internet"
Why Oprah won't become a patent reform spokeswoman (Score:3, Insightful)
...at least, not initially.
Her lawyer will tell her not to comment on the case, and she will follow that advice. She's not stupid.
However, once the dust is settled it might get more interesting. Some other posters were speculating that "big content" it to Democrats what "big oil" is to Republicans. Perhaps that's true; but this is a patent case we're talking about. Big Content is fueled by copyright, not patents. I don't watch Oprah. Has she tackled pharma companies in the past? That might provide some clue as to whether or not she'll become an advocate for patent reform.
The Root (Score:2, Insightful)
When will we start fixing the root of the problem: suing and firing moron patent officers that grant amazingly stupid patents, followed by investigations and possible nullifications of the patents they have granted?
Fight the war on two fronts: kill the patent trolls, and also fire the idiots who keep feeding them!
Seriously, I know a lot of bullshit must come across their desks at patent offices, but you would think that they'd have figured out how to assign patents of specific types to specialist patent officers. Larry on floor three does digital patents, Ed on floor two does software patents. Some of these patents look like they've been granted by juries that have been allowed to be brainwashed by RIAA lawyers into thinking that 1 + 1 = patent. Are our patent officers being bribed to grant stupid patents? Are they themselves stupid or incompetent?
I want blood! (Or at least sufficient litigation and layoffs to fix the problem).
Re:Prior Art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Read a bit of the book. Get a feel for it. Don't sit there and read the WHOLE damn thing, though.
Mod "Insightful", not "Funny" (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of the underlying ironic humour in the parent post, Kalriath really comes across (to me at least) more as insightful than funny. This case is another prime exemplification of how bizarre the legal situation becomes once any activity takes place via the internet, as if engaging in business online somehow changes everything (beyond just the medium of exchange).
Cheers,
Re:Would she fight it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop mixing patents and copyrights together, It's making people confused. They are completely different, and while the media industry sure likes the copyright system, they have nothing to do with patents.
Re:Only in America. (Score:4, Insightful)
In this economic depression, it only makes sense for people with no skill or talent to take money from companies that actually provide tangible benefits to society and take part in our economy in exchange for doing no work and little forethought.
The American patent system is designed to reward inventors, even if they never have any intention or desire to make anything of their patent, by ensuring that anyone can patent anything. As a result the secret to success, like in relationships, is finding your perfect match. They're out there somewhere, and they're infringing on a patent that any sane person could come up with over a pint of Guinness and a plate of chips. Go get what you've earned, tiger!
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:2, Insightful)
s/on the planet/in the USA/
The rest of the world could care less, thank god.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:2, Insightful)
You have ignored the otherside of that idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, they maybe getting a reputation of being people who settle out of court.. but imagine if they fought and lost. It would be huge. Can they risk that? Im sure its an important part of their risk management assesment when deciding what to do.
The increased payout for a loss, the increased publicity showing your company losing, breaking the law. Its a huge risk to take, while its easy to think these cases are thin and you cant lose, thats not true, just check the news.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
When will Americans stop confusing their country with the whole planet? This reminds me of the silly name "World series" for some American baseball tournament. At least for Europeans, the name Oprah hardly even rings a bell,
Speak for your own corner of Europe. The name Oprah Winfrey most definitely rings a bell in mine.
Oprah is one of the richest, and therefore one of the most powerful women on the planet, simply because money gives you power. Various wealthy queens are also powerful for that reason, even if they don't hold any actual political power.
Oprah is obviously not as powerful as Angela Merkel, but that doesn't stop her from being one of the most powerful women in the world.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:2, Insightful)
Please go read some definition of theory and fact. Facts are PARTS OF a theory.
A theory explains facts.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree. If she fights it, it won't be for economic reasons. But that woman has principles too. And she may decide to go for it just to preserve her name. In that case, she'll have to walk a line here, for the fight won't be against the patent troll, but rather will quickly morph into a fight against the US patent office who granted such a patent. It'll quickly become political. Let's hope she is smart enough to handle it to her and our benefit.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
You din't have the nerve to include evolution, did you? You were probably right because the minute some idiot mentions it there'll be a long offtopic flamewar.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
Only in USA would someone call a talk show host with rather specific target audience (middle aged lower middle-class women) to be one of the most influential women on planet and putting her on the same lists as people like Angela Merkel.
Oprah is rich and her target audience is rather huge. The fact that a black single mother managed to become so popular amongst white lower middle class republican voting women, is significant. I say this not because of my prejudices, but the prejudices of those that are her fans.
I know a handful of middle class white women that didn't like it when black people move on their blocks. They love Oprah though. In some cases the black families were significantly more affluent than their own families. She managed to convince these women shes "black but not really black," when someone that lived a few houses down could not accomplish that.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
Except you have to look at the business she is in. Her career is using her life as a kind of laboratory for generating experiences that are novel, but rooted n approachable sentiments and ideas.
In a nutshell, Oprah is a professional middle-brow bohemian.
Doing something that is not entirely sensible because it appeals to a personal sense of what is right is different for her than it would be for you or me. If this makes her mad enough, it's her business to explore her feelings through trying things ordinary people wouldn't.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look at paris hilton! What did the 'infamous' sex tape do to her? Shot her popularity through the roof!
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:4, Insightful)
Take away her TV program and her power: would evaporate.
Her primary source of power isn't money, it's that people watch/listen to her. Until her power evaporates, no one is going to take away her TV program.
Re:The Root == The Money Trail (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really want to get to the "root of the problem", start shooting lawyers. If you follow the money trail, it really seems this entire situation was set up so that there would be MORE lawsuits, in which case, it's the lawyers that benefit in general.
All of american society is being screwed, to the benefit of the ruling class, aka lawyers. I'm sure it was a lawyer who first proposed ridiculous patenting of obvious ideas "on the itarweb", and it's lawyers who vigorously defend idiots who think they are going to get rich because they hold the patent for "breathing air while browsing".
And in the end, the only people making money off this completely screwed up situation are the lawyers.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually she is very popular with woman in the Middle East [nytimes.com]. In countries like Saudi Arabia copies of her "O" magazine are in great demand.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd go a step farther and say she's one of the most powerful people in the world, regardless of gender. Does she have a military, no. Industry? No. But she commands a legion of rabid, fervent devotees that would likely march into Hell on her command. And many of those devotees are powerful people in their own right.
Yes, Oprah does scare me a little.
He might have an interesting case... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, under the current patent infrastructure, he might have a legally sound case. And he might even win. This only proves (further) that the current scheme has gone nuts.
I hope some people take note on this, and push towards reforming the patent system. In my book, this would clearly sound as an obvious thing, not even an invention... Still, a patent was granted.
However, I do not hold very high hopes on it. I think this will be silently ignored. If anything, many media people will say, "oh, I didn't know I had to check for my ideas first". They will proceed on checking each of their ideas with costly patent-oriented lawfirms - It is not like they have ideas very often!
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
How is being the victim of an abusive lawsuit "negative publicity"? She could have paid to make the "beef libel" lawsuit go away, too, instead she moved her show to accommodate the trial, fought it, and won, and turned it into plenty of positive publicity.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but I don't see Paris being used to promote the Hilton brand. Oprah is on the cover over every O magazine and is the face of a company worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Even if the publicity wouldn't hurt her, I doubt there is much upside for her in getting involved in a protracted lawsuit. But I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:2, Insightful)