eBay in 'Buy It Now' Patent Dispute 292
smooth wombat writes "The Office of the Solicitor General of the United States has filed a brief with the Supreme Court, taking the side of MercExchange who is in a patent dispute with eBay over eBays Buy It Now feature. Two lower courts have already upheld MercExchange's patents including finding that eBay had willfully infringed on the Buy It Now patent.
Later this month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments. The Office of Solicitor General is arguing eBay should be barred from using Buy It Now due to the decision of two lower courts that upheld MercExchange's patents. eBay is arguing that infringements should not automatically result in injunctions and shutdowns."
The Details (Score:5, Informative)
Where I think eBay is in trouble is that in a few of these patents, MercExchange references the idea of two different specified prices, with "buy at" or "sell at" similar to eBay's "Buy it Now" price. Taken from their patent on dynamic pricing information [espacenet.com]: There is a lot to read in their patents but the reason this case is so compelling is that MercExchange patented a very descriptive and complete dynamic pricing scheme and hierarchy to auctioning online in patent US6856967. I'm very confused as to why the date on the patent reads 2005-02-15 unless this is a renewal date.
I'm not a lawyer but I do wish that articles covering patent cases would link to the actual patent documents themselves so that the public can become aware of the extreme legalese that enshrouds patents.
What will be interesting is what the lawsuit may entitle MercExchange to receiving. eBay has had this feature for quite a few auctions and I wonder if MercExchange is going to demand a cut of eBay's cut for each auction transaction completed where this feature was available. That's quite a bit of cash.
Honestly, it looks to me like this will hold up in court. Any real lawyers out there have any comments to make? I'd ask you to read the patent and tell us what you think but I lack the $250/hour you charge.
Re:The Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Details (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Details (Score:4, Interesting)
The price on the tag could be considered the "buy it now" price at which the store owner has already indicated they'd sell.
Re:The Details (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Details (Score:4, Insightful)
I made the store where I bought it an offer of 7.5% below their price, and they accepted. THey asked why I did that, but noone looked funny at me, rather, the clerk had to check with his boss and then made the deal..
Oh, and if you ever get to places in South East Asia, people won't look funny at you at all for sucha thing, rather, they laugh their ass off behind your back for not doing it (you often end up paying twice or more of what you should)
At any rate, that such concepts can be patented is one of the best signs I've seen so far that the USPTO approves things that it really really shouldn't, and again makes me doubt the level of understanding and intelligence of those who approved this patent.
Prior art + prior well known motivation == obvious in the legal sense. Both clearly exist in this case (not to mention the concept is obvious in the common sense of the word as well)
Re:The Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly the sticker price for a car is the "buy it now" price, even though the vast magority of people will make a counter-offer that the car dealer will accept.
Re:The Details (Score:3, Insightful)
This concept is not exclusive to e-commerce and is likely as old as the concept of auctioning. It is certainly as old as the concept of haggling. Regardless, an existing concept does not become unique or non-obvious simply because it is implemented online.
Any practice that has been used in trade for over 100 years is obvious and has over 100 years worth of prior art. Using suc
Re:The Details (Score:2)
I believe it follows under 'business model' patents, which I believe should not be allowed in the first place.
Re:The Details (Score:3, Informative)
The root of the problem here is that the USPTO definition of 'obvious' is not the usual understanding of the term. I did an essay about this recently [blogspot.com]
In particular the USPTO thinks that taking an obvious idea and taking the obvious to any idiot step of d
Re:The Details (Score:2)
But seriously, who doesn't think that the patent system is a joke?
Re:The Details (Score:2)
I think it's more of a farce myself
Really though, there are alrealy analogues to this in the real auction world, so couldn't that be considered prior art? I mean the method can be patentable I suppose, but the concept has been around forever in farm auctions:
Bid on equipment at the auction, or "buy it now" by paying the asset holder (the bank) the retail value.
-nB
Re:The Details (Score:2)
Certainly. If Ebay wants to establish a case to be put on the record that could in turn be used to invalidate all of their own patents.
Re:The Details (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, the good old days. Concepts have been fair game for years and things just got worse last September. The courts have said you can't patent abstract ideas, but business method patents have been patentable for years.
Recently, the patent office issued a ruling that removed the so-called "technological arts" requirement. For many years, business method patents have been limited by this requirement -- essentially, if a business
Re:The Details (Score:4, Insightful)
It's using those pieces in novel ways that constitutes invention.
Consider: a lever is one of the "basic machines". It occurs in copious numbers in a wide variety of machines. But supposing I find a place in the drive train where adding one doubles fuel economy. Would it not be an invention because it combines two things that already existed?
By analogy (which is how legal precedent works after all -- analogy to paradigmatic cases), just because some commercial mechanism already exists doesn't mean that you can't patent adding that mechanism to a business method, provided it hadn't been done before or is not otherwise obvious.
You're completely right! (Score:3, Insightful)
Without question, you are correct.
Now, please tell me how assigning a retail price to an item is novel and I'll gladly concede that MercExchange isn't a pack of frickin' thieves that would have been dragged out and shot in less litigious times.
Re:The Details (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the great thing about software patents. Change three words and voila, a new patent.
Re:The Details (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, there is ton of prior evidence. Shoot, I myself have said "I'm selling my xyz thing, to whoever offers me the most for it. But if you give x $$$ I'll give it to you now."
I don't see the validity of patents like these. The workflow already existed. Just cause it's incorporated in a different medium does not seem to have validity before my eyes.
It's crap, everyone knows it....and in some ways, I am just waiting for enough of these crappy patents to happen that we say !@#$% the whole patent system and re-write the whole damn thing.
Re:The Details (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe there should be a clause in the patent code that says, "if it is so stupendously obvious that any fucktard would have eventually thought of it you can't patent it."
Re:The Details (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Details (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Details (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, if you've ever looked through the classified ads and seen something listed for sale at "$50 OBO", then you are looking at an informal auction with a Buy It Now price. The idea that they can patent it because it is via an automated web-based system is just more of the same asinine "[old idea]...on a computer" patent nonsense.
How is this an "Invention"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, they are existing ideas or "business methods" applied to a new medium. There's nothing novel or unique about them. Someone just said, Hey, you could do auctions on the Internet, let's patent that! or Hey, you can do email on a cell phone, let's patent that!. I might as well start applying for patents for Email in Space! or Auctions in Space! That'll make me rich.
These things are so stupid and obvious I'm surprised that Judges will uphold them. Technically I suppose they're probably just following the law and their hands are tied. But that just means that the law needs to be changed - fat chance of that though considering the lobbying power of the large patent holders.
Re:How is this an "Invention"? (Score:5, Funny)
You should limit your statements to newspaper print only. You are violating my patent on editorializing via electronic media.
Re:How is this an "Invention"? (Score:3, Insightful)
If more things CAN be patented, then more things WILL be patented. That means the patent office needs more people. Supervisors in the government are paid based on how many people they supervise. If they expand the job description of the bureaucracy they manage, that means raises, and eligibility for promotions into even larger fiefdoms.
Next up: patenting biological pro
Re:How is this an "Invention"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this an "Invention"? (Score:3, Insightful)
A biological process can be patented. A gene can be patented, even if it occurs naturally. A corporation can look at your DNA, say "Hey, that's a neat gene, it might help cure cancer one day", and patent it. That way, if anybody ever discovers some medical cure based on that gene, or the protein it encodes, they can wait 5-6 years, then sue them for 125% of their profits for patent infringement.
The good news is that biological patents are granted special exceptions. A living being cannot be charged f
Re:How is this an "Invention"? (Score:3, Interesting)
The average person has no ide
Re:The Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, MercExchange has dressed this simple idea up in excess verbiage to disguise the fact that it's neither novel nor non-obvious. EBay would probably rather not point that out as they have a bunch of similar patents on non-novel ideas.
Re:The Details (Score:5, Informative)
The 2005-02-15 date is the issuance date, i.e. the date at which the application became a patent. The real date(s) you want to look at is the application date (and the priority date if there is one). In this case, the application date is 1999-10-21 and there is no priority date. Therefore, to qualify as prior art someone would have to have been published or sold to the public prior to 1999-10-21.
Re:The Details (Score:3, Informative)
The patent issued on 2/15/2005. The patent was filed on 10/21/1999. There is no disclosed priority date that predates the filing of the U.S. application.
To "qualify as prior art"*, someone would have to show that the claimed invention was "known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent." (35 U.S.C. 102(a)). Since you cannot know when the cla
Re:The Details (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not a lawyer, exactly, but I have some law school under my belt.
That said, I think the patent in question would be US5845265 [espacenet.com]: "That when a bona fide purchase price is tendered by a participant 900 or another retailer 902 the legal title to a good as represented by the record will transfer to the buyer with an immediate or nearly immediate finality to the transaction." That is, the listing closes the instant the fixed price is met.
Note that this is one of the earlier ones listed; the patent you gave actu
Re:The Details (Score:3, Insightful)
The district court and the Court of Appeals have already decided that eBay is infringing the patent. The patent is a business method patent, and as with most business method patents, it is fairly obvious. Nevertheless, the Patent Office is in the unfortunate habit of granting these stupid patents.
So, eBay is infringing. The Supreme Court will not even be reviewing that fact. The real question in the case is whether or not MercExchange can get a pe
Non-obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:2)
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:2)
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, a simple "buy it now" on an online auction seems obvious now. It is. Would this have been obvious in 1994? I would argue not.
The problem is that their patents are quite obvious to anyone who is a serious web developer (or any sort of developer at all really). They make them look technical and specific because they go into great detail about how a database and website actually works. But databases and websites already existed and were already being used in exactly the manner they describe. Th
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:4, Funny)
Like email on a cell phone. I should patent that! Errr, wait, did someone do that already? OK, I'll patent auctions in space and email in space, I don't think anyone's done that yet.
It's all just a load of crap.
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:2)
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Well I'm an inventor (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH there is a poor boy solution that probably
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:2)
A technical requirement is needed but the USPTO refuses to adopt one.
http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl [ffii.org]
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
The nonobviousness requirement is a legal requirement that has a particular meaning in patent law. It's not the same as the ordinary words "not obvious".
Often people would take the words "not obvious" to mean "hard". But this is a mistake. For example, the term "non-increasing sequence" does not mean a decreasing sequence. It means a non-increasing sequence. Similarly, the term nonobvious simply means something not obvious, and doesn't mean it's necessarily very hard.
What it really means in terms of the law is that the invention would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, sitting in a room at the time of invention, with all the then-existing relevant references in the world arrayed around him. In practical terms, to be obvious, all the elements of the invention must have been disclosed at the time of invention in some reference, and there must be shown some motivation or reason to combine disparate references to create the invention.
For instance, if one reference taught a razor, and another reference taught a harvester with three blades and blade-guards, without more the invention of a modern three-blade razor would not be obvious, because there is no motivation to combine those references. Now, if the razor reference had said "I looked at some farming technology in developing the razor", you might be able to say it's obvious.
One problem in evaluating obviousness is that courts often improperly evaluate obviousness in hindsight, while the proper consideration is whether it would have been obvious at the time of invention. But on the other hand, it is harder to prove obviousness than other invalidity arguments, because it involves multiple references, and requires a motivation to combine them.
Wave bye-bye to karma... (Score:4, Funny)
To be followed by... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why stop at that? (Score:2)
"critical mass" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"critical mass" (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, great, another one of these "bad thing X is *really* good because it could lead people to better prevent X" arguments. That rhetorical trick is good for scoring on sophomore girls who don't know any better, but not fo
So this is why... (Score:5, Funny)
This explains my inability to get laid in high school: It never occurred to me to discuss the politics of patent law with my dates...
Re:"critical mass" (Score:2)
The idea of "defensive" patents used soley for trading purposes works well... as long as the other company wants or needs to trade. When t
It won't go critical; it just becomes an oligarchy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe, maybe not... (Score:2)
You don't understand. At one point in time bolts and any improvements to them WERE patented. In fact, some still are, though the early patents have long since expired. bolts [patentec.com]
Re:"critical mass" (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate to tell you, but this is alreay at critical mass. Look at the number of big-time patent fights that are going on now:
The list continues to grow. Somewhere, someone is writing code in the warm little cocoon of ignorance and once they have released it into the wild, they
Buy it now - NOW! (Score:5, Funny)
Solution, put the 'Buy it Now' patent on sale on eBay using the 'Buy it Now' feature for $50 million. Ebay will buy it then, and the problem is solved.
Re:Buy it now - NOW! (Score:2)
Perhaps not an injunction... (Score:5, Insightful)
If eBay patently (no pun intended) infringed on the patent, then they must reach settlement with the patent holder, no doubt. But - I don't think the business activity should necessarily be shut down until such a settlement can be reached. (Please bear in mind that I'm over-simplifying to stimulate the point here...)
If a patent holder wishes to interrupt the business of an alleged infringer, there should be a fixed set of things that must occur before the alleged infringer must cease the patented activity or product. OTOH, two judges have already agreed that eBay is infringing. Are the judges' decisions enough evidence for suspension of activity or product?
Re:Perhaps not an injunction... (Score:2)
Constitutional Import (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head. This case would not be heard by Supreme Court unless there was a matter of law that needed clarification in regard to its constitutionality. From what I gather this is the only matter that the Supremes will be considering. From the article:
EBay filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments later this month. In its filing with the Supreme Court, eBay argued that infringements should not automatically result in injunctions and shutdowns. The company also pointed out that MercExchange has not been in the online auction business since 2000, so eBay's use of Buy It Now was not sufficient to merit an injunction.
So it sounds like the issue is "when is an injunction a fair remedy?" Unfortunately, it does not sound like they will be considering whether business methods, virtual devices, etc. are patentable, which is of course what most Slashdotters are debating here. If someone has more detailed insight, that'd be great to hear.
Re:Constitutional Import (Score:4, Insightful)
The brief makes a pretty good point about why that's not appropriate in terms of the financial services industry. I'm not sure that the fact that ebay has a ton of customers who could continue to auction things without a 'buy it now' price means an injunction would be inequitable. If ebay is considered a willful infringer, it seems like you have to enjoin them in circumstances short of huge disruptions to non-parties.
Re:Perhaps not an injunction... (Score:2)
1. A Judicial finding that the activity infringes on the patent(s).
2. Economic damage if the infringing activity isn't halted.
Those are the basic requirements to receive an injunction.
If MercExchange can convince the Judge that the ongoing ac
Injunctions are designed to encourage settlement. (Score:2)
Real store patent? (Score:3, Funny)
Waaah (Score:3, Funny)
"Yeah, we know we've been found guilty of using something illegally... but that doesn't mean we should be stopped from using it! C'mon!"
erm ... shops (Score:5, Insightful)
What astounds me is that there is a person out there, who has managed to stand up on his hind legs, and is stating that this is his invention. How does this guy interface with other people? How does he stand being laughed out of every conversation where his job or his "abilities" come up? Is ripping off one of the rare successes from the internet bubble a legitimate career now? Do these guys have no pride whatsoever?
Re:erm ... shops (Score:2)
Welcome to Business 101.
Re:erm ... shops (Score:2, Interesting)
Involve consumers (Score:2, Offtopic)
I know me as an ebay customer, I would be royally pissed off if ebay suddenly had to pull an important feature just because of some jackass patent dispute.
Re:Involve consumers (Score:2)
Re:Involve consumers (Score:2)
Re:Involve consumers (Score:3, Insightful)
Workaround (Score:5, Funny)
A button that says:
Buy it... wait... Ok, now
In other news. . . (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news. . . (Score:2)
Anyone else noticing a trend of filing lawsuits (for whatever number of re
Business Method vs. Business Technology Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
If you can "patent" a method of doing business, isn't the first company to ever use a cash register entitled to receive business method patent royalties from all the copycats who started using them later?
Re:Business Method vs. Business Technology Patents (Score:2)
Re:Business Method vs. Business Technology Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
No. The auction is not capped at the BIN price. Once a bid has been placed (provided the reserve price, if there is a reserve has been met or exceeded), the Buy It Now option goes away, and the item goes to the regular auction format with no upper limits.
I myself have been pleasantly surprised the few times I have had items end up going for higher than what the Buy It Now was. And in a few instances, I have been amused to discover that the winning bidder in those instances ended up being the one who initially bid and popped the Buy It Now, paying more in the end than what he would have paid had he just made the purchase with BIN.
Patents -- the true evil arm of government (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at any average device patented today -- cell phones, TV remotes, even your fob for your remote keyless entry. How many of these patents really protects something completely unique that was invented without using a previous invention as a source? How quickly do other companies use the exact same technique with a slight change to work around the patents of others, and then patent this technique with the change?
Patents can not work to help the individual -- there is no ability to fix this system. In the long run, this will work counter the original intent: instead of protecting individuals, it has created a cartel of patent attorneys who will be happy to help the ultrawealthy find ways to keep the average inventor out of the market.
Patents create incredible high costs to enter any market nowadays. When I sold paintball markets ("guns") at retail, I was amazed at the amount of lawsuits between various manufacturers all protecting the same basic idea. Do a search for "Smart Parts Patent" to see the most ridiculous patent around -- the electric switch.
Want to level the playing field? Just give up the patent schemes entirely. Let people admit that their inventions are based on the prior inventions of others. Making something better doesn't create a marketable product: the invention itself is only a small part of bringing something to the consumer. I believe the patent process is the reason we see fewer inventors and less research and development. $1 for R&D means $5 for the patent attorneys.
Re:Patents -- the true evil arm of government (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm against software and business method patents,
Re:Patents -- the true evil arm of government (Score:2)
Re:Patents -- the true evil arm of government (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies do that all the time.
Company A has a dozen patents on manufacturing widgets. Company B has a dozen patents on manufacturing widgets. Neither Company A or Company B can manufacture widgets without infringing, so they cross-license their patents to each other.
So patents don't prevent Company B from 'copying' Company A's products. They're just a government-mandated monopoly to prevent Company C from entering the market, because they have no patents to trade. Patents then become a subsidy to company profits and a major cost to consumers who have to pay higher prices than they would in a free market, nothing more.
Re:Patents -- the true evil arm of government (Score:2)
On top of what was said above, I have always considered items I couldn't patent that could easily be copied, but required real work to copy.
I ran retail stores for years -- nothing prevented anyone from opening up across the street selling the same products for lower prices. Why shouldn't we have government-protected business plans? In India, I recently found out that they do have an anti-competition board that does exactly this. The end result: guess who runs businesses?
Thinkin
Re:Patents -- the true evil arm of government (Score:4, Insightful)
Either patent something new or pay the licensing fee.
Hard to patent something new if you don't have the cash or existing patents to defend yourself with. They can tie you up in very expensive litigation for years. Hardly an incentive for innovation. The patent system is out of control now. Someone needs to seriously reign it in. Getting rid of business-method patents, probably software patents, and going back to the working prototype requirement would be good starts. Raising the bar (a lot) for obviousness is essential as well.
Patent Link (Score:4, Informative)
Patent information.
Buy It Now and dealers are killing eBay (Score:5, Interesting)
The article clearly states that eBay was in negotations to license this patent but negotiations broke off. eBay then went ahead, knowing that someone else held the patent to this service, and instituted Buy It Now anyway.
Further, Buy It Now is becoming the norm rather than the exception. When eBay started they were an online auction company. People put up stuff to sell and let the market determine the price.
Now, Buy It Now is overtaking the auction feature and dealers are holding sway. For example, I'm looking to add to my camera equipment. When I do a search for my particular type of lenses I get 11 pages back. Of those pages at least half are Buy It Now from dealers.
Do a search for lens accessories and 3/4 of the pages are from dealers. Camera cases? 90% of the listings are from dealers using Buy It Now.
I was fortunate enough to pick up a lens last weekend. I took a look at the bid history and checked the last person to bid (2 seconds before the auction closed). Sure enough they were a dealer and everything the person had for sale on their site was Buy It Now.
This is alot like flea markets nowadays. In the past the people selling stuff were like you and I. Now when you go there are dealers galore.
I'm not against the market system, that's what eBay was originally founded on. However, by allowing people, particularly dealers, to set a specific price, defeats the whole purpose of an auction.
Yeah, yeah, I know. If you don't like it, don't buy from the dealers. I don't. The point is that when dealers control the vast majority of the listings that will drive the price up for everyone else since there will be fewer true auction listings for people to choose from.
Personally I can't wait to see Buy It Now be done away with.
Re:Buy It Now and dealers are killing eBay (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing wrong with the buy it now in an auction, provided that the feature dissolves as soon as the first bid above any possible reserve price is received. Also, buy it now should NOT be allowed (in an auction) when the reserve price is equal to the buy it now price (or less than it by an amount less than the bid increment). This case is NOT an auction, it is an online store, and the seller should be forced into such (with higher selling fees).
Finally Ebay should allow the buyers to have the search engine ONLY find auctions, online stores, or both at the buyers choice.
Re:Buy It Now and dealers are killing eBay (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as an eBay seller, it seems that eBay wants it to be this way -- at least for small items -- and I'm not happy. I, for one, would prefer to use the classic bid option to sell my photographs [ebay.co.uk] but with the way eBay nickel and dimes you to death, it's just too costly by the time I'm done with gallerly fees, category fees, initial price fees, final price fees and paypal fees. I'm hoping the ebay killer comes along soon so
add ".. on the internet" to fortune cookie (Score:5, Funny)
Except this is the business model.
Add "on the internet" to your fortune or anything else.
It is patentable, unless someone beat to to it.
Examples:
Fortune says: "Don't wait for happiness, buy it now"
Patent: Buy it now
Fortune: Do not sell your horse, if you can instead sell you cat.
Patent: Online cat bidding system
Would it be possible... (Score:2, Interesting)
How about patenting "look both ways"? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Buy it now" is just OBVIOUS and should be revoked as a patent. It's ridiculous that business methods are patentable in the first place. Who ever thought "You can't do business in the same way that I do!" was a good idea? Has someone patented the idea of "do a good service for your customers?" That would go a long way to explain why so many industries do not seem interested in good customer service.
I'm hopeful that the business method and software patents are continually blocked in the EU. The EU is our last real hope as possibly reversing the damage that has been done to the system in the U.S.
Re:How about patenting "look both ways"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm thinking I should patent the use of a crescent(r)(tm) wrench as a hammer!
Does it REALLY matter that much which tool you use? The whole "...with a computer..." rings like that joke where you add "...in bed" to the end of anything you read on a fortune-cookie (which I have already patented).
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Look over there! (Score:3, Funny)
Can I patent this? (Score:3, Funny)
Easy way around this. (Score:4, Interesting)
These patents are just so f'ing stupid.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
How about, all no decisions are final, no legal challenges allowed, and all inventions must be inventive. Legal challenges to yes decisios will be allowed and its up to the patent holder to prove that they're right.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
And due process would probably not allow that rule to stand. When the law indicates that an invention should be patentable, but the invention is rejected by the PTO anyway, there is a reason people go to the courts; it is because the US government is required by law to give them a patent when certain criteria are met, and it is trying to get out of this duty. Sometimes the applicant is wrong about that, and sometimes they're right. But it's important th
Re:My new patent is the best of them all (Score:5, Funny)
Would just calling it something different such as deploying the troops or dropping the kids off at the pool be a way around your patent?
Also, you could probably get this patent passed easier if you make it "Taking a crap on the Internet." Then again, there's some prior art for that (spammers, AOL, and Internet Explorer, for example).