Patent Issued Covering Phone Notifications of Delivery Time and Invoice Quantity 60
eldavojohn writes: The staggering ingenuity of the U.S. Patent system has again been showcased by the EFF's analysis of recent patents. This week's patent and follow-up patent cover the futuristic innovative idea that when you order something, you can update your order and add additional amounts to your order while it's being processed. But wait, it gets even more innovative! You may one day be able to even to notify when you would like it delivered — on your phone! I know, you're busy wiping all that brain matter off your screen as your head seems to have exploded. Well, it turns out that inventor and patent holder Scott Horstemeyer (aka Eclipse IP, LLC of Delray Beach, FL) found no shortage of targets to go after with his new patents. It appears Tiger Fitness (and every other online retailer) was sending notices to customers about shipments. Did I mention Horstemeyer is a lawyer too? But not just a regular lawyer, a "SUPER lawyer" from the same firm that patented social networking in 2007, sued Uber for using location finding technologies in 2013 and sued Overstock.com as well as a small time shoe seller for using shipping notifications in 2014.
A related article at Vox makes this case: "The primary problem with the patent system is, well, the patent system. The system makes it too easy to get broad, vague patents, and the litigation process is tilted too far toward plaintiffs. But because so many big companies make so much money off of this system, few in Congress are willing to consider broader reforms."
Prior art (Score:1)
Doesn't the fact that something existed prior to the patent invalidate suing for patent infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
These IP trolls usually calculate how much it would cost for their victims to fight the patent, win or lose, then make a settlement offer slightly below that.
IMHO, the patent system isn't flawed, it's the lackluster way patent offices grant new patents.
They should be held accountable for bad patents.
Re: (Score:1)
IMHO, the patent system isn't flawed, it's the lackluster way patent offices grant new patents..
The patent office isn't part of the patent system??
Re: (Score:2)
If the USPTO actually applied the required standards of nonobviousness and nontriviality, these stupid patents would never have been granted.
Unfortunately, their incentives are diametrically opposed to common sense. There is literally no downside for a USPTO examiner to rubber-stamp everything on his or her desk. They get to go home early to beat the traffic, while productive society is left to deal with the legal fallout. The net effect is to devalue legitimate IP while rewarding the trolls.
This, I thin
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, their incentives are diametrically opposed to common sense. There is literally no downside for a USPTO examiner to rubber-stamp everything on his or her desk. They get to go home early to beat the traffic, while productive society is left to deal with the legal fallout. The net effect is to devalue legitimate IP while rewarding the trolls.
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS
It's because of this and copyright abuse that I think, sometimes, that we should just chuck it all and rely on trade se
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, their incentives are diametrically opposed to common sense. There is literally no downside for a USPTO examiner to rubber-stamp everything on his or her desk. They get to go home early to beat the traffic, while productive society is left to deal with the legal fallout. The net effect is to devalue legitimate IP while rewarding the trolls.
Alternatively, so many patents are filed that in order to work through them an examiner must spend the minimum time possible as well s avoid re-examination if he or she refuses it so the rational thing to do is approve all unless it is obviously not patentable. The legal system can then sort out what is valid and what is not.
A solution would be to hire more examiners or make a patent case loser pay if the holder loses the suit but that would involve Congress actually looking at realistic solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
These jerks are not just poisoning the well, they're throwing dead goats in it.
Is that before or after they sodomize the goat?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long have businesses been communicating with customers via text messaging?
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, he filed the patent years ago, and then filed a series of updates to it. Each update delays the final "approval date" and allows him to modify the patent. Over time, he can craft a vague sounding patent and/or one that covers existing technology. Then, his "prior art date" is from a year before when he INITIALLY filed the patent. So while the final patent might have been considered innovative if filed as-is on the initial filing date, patent trolls abuse the "update" system to draw their patents out until they are hard to beat via prior art.
Or, even more likely, the patent examiners said "We'll approve this and let the courts sort it out." Meanwhile, the courts are likely to say "Well, the patent examiners wouldn't have approved this if it wasn't a valid patent."
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, he filed the patent years ago, and then filed a series of updates to it. Each update delays the final "approval date" and allows him to modify the patent. Over time, he can craft a vague sounding patent and/or one that covers existing technology. Then, his "prior art date" is from a year before when he INITIALLY filed the patent. So while the final patent might have been considered innovative if filed as-is on the initial filing date, patent trolls abuse the "update" system to draw their patents out until they are hard to beat via prior art.
Simple fix for that would be that any time an update is submitted that date becomes the new intial filing date of the patent. The better fix would be to get patent examiners who actually do their jobs and investigate and think about whether a patent should really be granted instead of jsut spending 5 minutes on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, he filed the patent years ago, and then filed a series of updates to it. Each update delays the final "approval date" and allows him to modify the patent. Over time, he can craft a vague sounding patent and/or one that covers existing technology. Then, his "prior art date" is from a year before when he INITIALLY filed the patent. So while the final patent might have been considered innovative if filed as-is on the initial filing date, patent trolls abuse the "update" system to draw their patents out until they are hard to beat via prior art.
That's simply not true. While patent applicants can file continuation applications with revised claims, they must have support in the originally-filed application, and the applicant cannot modify the original application at all. If anything is added that wasn't in the original document, then the "prior art date" is moved to when the modification was added. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#Continuation [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly -- TFP [uspto.gov] says it claims priority to an application filed in 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing prevents suing, and a lot can prevent winning a lawsuit even if the law is unambiguously on your side.
Re: (Score:1)
I just can't believe that FedEx/UPS isn't already doing something like this. Each driver carries a "mobile device" for which package pickup instructions are sent. "Please pickup 1 item at Business X" and later "Please pickup 2 items at Business X" Plus when the driver delivers the package they scan the item to mark it as delivered.
I know that Police cars and Fire trucks are "mobile things" - which are tracked and they know when they arrive at destination. AND - the Seattle bus system already tracks
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, nothing invalidates suing anyone for anything. As long as defense is expensive, extortion will be an option.
Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
Does this conflict with my patent for sending a message to mom asking when supper's ready?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your mum's so FAT32...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but all patent reviewers are incompetent. That's the job description these days.
They don't give a fuck as long as the check clears.
I am filing two patents today (Score:2)
one for a query system (hey, WTF is this?) and a response system (a thing!). I'll take 15% gladly from a patent troll as my share. I believe my language is broad enough that it covers all communications in any mode.
What?! (Score:1)
Re:What?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
+100 Funny
Re: (Score:1)
Especially the "demonstrate" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you patent something that's already in production and exists?! I'm gonna patent farting!
You're too late ... sort of. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you patent something that's already in production and exists?!
To discover that you have to read the patent. Now, lucky for you, this particular patent seems to be devoid of any real distinction, but most of the time you see a story about a patent here on /. the headline says "Apple patented farting!" but the patent itself actually says "Apple patented a valve that makes a user's farts smell like Granny Smith Apples" that few, if any, are likely to infringe on. Unfortunately the former generates more ad-revenue.
Re: (Score:1)
Inventions vs. Engineering (Score:2)
I heard the acute problem aptly summarized recently: "Patents are supposed to cover inventions, but what they're being issued for is mere engineering."
This is a better metric than the "obviousness test" - what is the essential and genius inspiration that led to a the idea of putting a delivery message in a SMS message? There is none - no patent.
I realize the entire system has evolved into one giant mechanism to enrich entrenched corporate interests, but it's still a good insight into how maybe the system c
Re: (Score:3)
It would be interesting to see the percent rejections over time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the patent office initially rejects 90% of patents, but that figure is slightly misleading. The patent submitter simply has to rework, rework, appeal, and you can still get it approved. What percentage of patents are *eventually* approved after the resubmissions and appeals? In 2012 that number was calculated at 90% approved!
Moreover, the patent filing fee is kept even if the patent is rejected, and fees are also required to resubmit or appeal. So, there's financial incentive to first reject
Re: (Score:1)
nc (Score:2)
nuff said
WTF (Score:2)
Wasn't getting a patent pretty hard in the past? I don't get how so many ideas seem to be patentable when they are obvious and vague. These patent lawyers are going to destroy innovation in America. Software patents pretending to be something else, patenting vague ideas, patenting processes that aren't really proprietary, this shit needs to stop. The USPTO needs to get a fucking backbone and preserve the integrity of the free market and we should create a fast track process for patent invalidation. A little
"Small time" shoe seller? (Score:3)
Shoes for Crews, which makes skid-proof soles for workers who toil on slippery surfaces, has sold millions of pairs of shoes to workers at McDonald’s, KFC, Taco Bell, P.F. Chang’s, Ruth’s Chris Steak House and other restaurant chains. The company says its secret formula makes the stickiest soles on the market, but Shoes for Crews refuses to file for a patent, fearing the process would reveal valuable clues to rivals
Not really a small shoe store as Subby implied, but rather, a manufacturer and wholesaler which, according to LinkedIn, has between 200-500 employees. So, it's more like "patent troll sues multi-million dollar company", but that doesn't really get as much sympathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturing businesses with fewer than 500 employees are officially categorized as "small businesses" in the US. For some other types of companies like say, computer services, the amount of revenue is used as a metric, with the cut-off being $21 million average receipts for the past three years. The amount varies by the type of business.
Typical government... making a simple thing as whether a company is "small" or not into such a complicated issue [sba.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturing businesses with fewer than 500 employees are officially categorized as "small businesses" in the US.
And regardless of that, most people wouldn't refer to one as a "small shoe store".
You know the patent system is broken when ... (Score:1)
Blast from the past. (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
Surprised it has not happened yet. Or, has it?
Accountability (Score:2)
Something I've rarely heard discussed in any of the patent reform discussions is accountability. It would make total sense to hold the Patent office accountable for the patents they approve. Particularly when they are proven overly broad or killed off by prior art. Sure, you can't do it immediately, but if a patent is invalidated for legal reasons, then there should absolutely be blowback to the patent office that approve the thing in the first place. You would probably have to define some criteria for meet
"X, but on a phone" (Score:2)
There have been recent (good) rulings that saying "X, but on a computer" is not a valid patent. I hope that lower courts say that this is just "X, but on a mobile computer" so we don't have to have an explicit ruling also blocking "X, but on a phone".
On another note, I wonder if it would be worth having some crowd-funded anti-patent-troll fund. I know the EFF takes the fight when able, but that's usually after smaller companies/individuals have caved and paid the extortion fee. If there was a fund that woul
Re: (Score:2)
There have been recent (good) rulings that saying "X, but on a computer" is not a valid patent. I hope that lower courts say that this is just "X, but on a mobile computer" so we don't have to have an explicit ruling also blocking "X, but on a phone".
On another note, I wonder if it would be worth having some crowd-funded anti-patent-troll fund. I know the EFF takes the fight when able, but that's usually after smaller companies/individuals have caved and paid the extortion fee. If there was a fund that would take the patent-holder to court and pay out any ruling against the defendant, should the patent be deemed baseless (any patent, not just electronics), that would hopefully halt the trolls far earlier in the process and dissuade others.
Not really... Contrary to popular wisdom (and Subby's attempt to call a 500 person company a small shoe store), patent trolls almost never go after individuals, because individuals don't have any money. Unlike copyright infringement with the $150k per work, there are no statutory damages in patents, and damages aren't even 100% of profits - they're limited to a reasonable royalty. If even a small patent lawsuit costs $200-500k, and you can expect to get 5% royalties, you aren't going to sue someone with les
Please tell me... (Score:2)
Patently Absurd (Score:2)
I can't wait... (Score:1)