Troll Patents Lists In Databases, Sues Everyone

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.'"

First patent!

[conner_bw (120497)]

Anything below this line will sued.

Obviously

[the4thdimension (1151939)]

Wishlists are an obvious toy... used by everyone from little kids doing their Christmas list, to parents on their way to the grocery store. It only serves to follow that web based users wishing to track a list have it be stored on a database... considering there is no where else to reliably store it.

Re:Obviously

[malefic (736824)]

You'll notice they're not suing companies with lots of money who might fight back. I imagine the idea is that smaller companies will just pay up because it's cheaper than fighting it.

Re:Obviously

[the4thdimension (1151939)]

It's likely that one of them will have the money and legal prowess to fight the good fight. Not to mention, it seems like this would be a sure-fire win for anyone willing to fight it. Counter-sue for legal fees anyone?

I almost forgot to mention. My company keeps lists of highly desired features on our future releases in a database... does that count? The vaguery of the whole thing lends itself to ridiculousness.

Re:Obviously

[griffjon (14945)]

I keep a list of things I want to buy from ThinkGeek in a personal wiki, which itself is stored in a database. am I infringing?

Seriously; I see this as akin to a patent covering "The process of driving a nail into wood using a hammer"

Re:Obviously

[Fulcrum of Evil (560260)]

Or that they can make some precedent to go after the big fish with. If I were bezos' legal counsel, I might suggest funding the defense of one of these guys.

Re:Obviously

[TigerNut (718742)]

That's standard procedure straight from the Patent Troll Handbook. You build up your patent's credibility by getting a few helpless companies to roll over, and then you use that as ammunition when you go after the bigger fish.

Re:Obviously

[The Angry Mick (632931)]

I imagine the idea is that smaller companies will just pay up because it's cheaper than fighting it.

Either that, or they're shooting for a number of small victories to help buttress the arguments against a future giant with a load of small precedences.

Unfortunately, they are apparently operating on the assumption that these smaller companies exist in a communication free environment, and that they wouldn't dare discuss the case with anyone else in the world. This shows a SCO level of ignorance that alone should be enough to get the entire board of Channel Intelligence fired.

As the article notes, there's a ton of large companies like Amazon that use such wish lists, and it might be in their best interest to sign on to any litigation with an amicus brief in favor of stomping the shit out of Channel Intelligence on principle alone. At the very least, it would send a very strong signal to any other dumbasses contemplating similar moves.

Re:Obviously

[sm62704 (957197)]

Oh hell, I have to call my lawyer. I need to patent writing wish lists on paper with a pencil, another patent for a wish list with blue ink, another for black ink, and crayons... By golly when I get done with my patent trolling I'll be rich!

Drinks for the house!

Re:Obviously

[Culture20 (968837)]

Great going; you just wrote a wish-list of patents, which /. has stored in their DB. You just opened up /. to being sued.

Grr.

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

Spanging this guy and all other patent trolls like him in the face with a coal shovel is high on my personal wishlist, and Slashdot is now storing that information in their comment database. Sorry Taco!

Re:Grr.

[pembo13 (770295)]

I say go for soft meat with high nerve density, but also high tolerance to blunt force and lack of nearby vital organs. They are dicks, but don't deserve to die accidentally.

Re:Grr.

[Alpha Whisky (1264174)]

They are dicks, but don't deserve to die quickly and painlessly.

There, fixed that for you.

Patent Office

[clampolo (1159617)]

I'm less worried about the patent troll than the fact that the Patent Office allowed this crap to get through. I think it is time for some people to get fired.

Re:Patent Office

[spud603 (832173)]

from the comments of TFA:
http://www.peertopatent.org/ [peertopatent.org]
A joint project with the USPTO and NYU Law School that tries to public input on pending patents. Interesting and potentially very good idea.

Nonobvious Patent Requirement

[Nymz (905908)]

If storing data in a database is considered 'nonobvious' and patent worthy, then someone please tell me the 'obvious' method of storing data.

Re:Patent Office

[darkmeridian (119044)]

Haha! The average patent examiner would have voluntarily quit by the time you finished the paperwork necessary to fire him. The problem is that we underpay and overwork our examiners. Their supervisors yell at them for taking so long to grant patents. Examiners have a set number of hours to consider each patent application, and when that time is up, they get more applications dumped onto their plates regardless of how the original applications are doing. All the applicants know this, so their attorneys flood the examiner repeatedly until the examiner runs out of time. The incentive is to issue patents and get the applicant and his attorneys out of your hair.

You get what you pay for, and we don't pay a lot to our Patent Office and their examiners. We don't treat them well, either. We ought to pay our examiners more so we get professional career patent examiners, and also hire more examiners so there isn't such a huge rush on them to finish.

It's like my idea about paying more money to the IRS to increase enforcement of current tax laws: you get a lot of bang for the buck on investing on relatively unsexy things.

Not like it's a bunch of Einstiens working there

[Layth (1090489)]

Geeze, it's just some guys at a patent office

Quoting PJ.

[khasim (1285)]

I know some of you cynics think that there is no hope and that the courts are corrupt or run by nincompoops, but you know I don't agree with you.

The problem is that the patent troll gets to pick the court. Which means that they can slant it any way they want to. From judges that are pro-patents to judges that have no idea what the issue is and don't feel like educating themselves.

There are good judges out there. There are bad judges out there.

The trolls get to choose which ones they want to have their cases decided by.

And what happens if I ...

[jlowery (47102)]

1. Wish this wishlist on Slashdot
2. Wish this post is stored in database
3. Wish that troll sees it
4. Wish that troll sues Slashdot
5. Wish that troll wins case
6. Wish that I get credit for my efforts
7. Wish for profit from percentage of settlement

I got it!

[Nerdposeur (910128)]

Guys, all we have to do to stop the madness is get the proper patent. Let's see...

"A method for securing profits by describing an idea of sufficient generality and utility that its use is inevitable, then bringing legal claims against the most successful groups to implement it."

PWND!!

Santa!

[Tablizer (95088)]

Poor Santa Clause is going to be sued for 1.8 billion infringements.
   

And Slashdot can fix it:

[snl2587 (1177409)]

Ok, guys: the critical date is December 28, 2001.

First person to post prior art gets a big pat on the back!

Re:And Slashdot can fix it:

[martinw89 (1229324)]

Newegg had this in early December 2001, before the date. [archive.org]

Re:they don't understand

[locokamil (850008)]

patent is quite complementary to their one click "invention."

Fix'd your quoting