Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Oprah Sued For Infringing "Touch and Feel" Patent

Posted by kdawson on Wed Jan 07, 2009 01:03 AM
from the where-the-money-is dept.
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by yotto (590067) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:06AM (#26353959) Homepage

    It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system.
     
    It's more likely she'd just give him a car.

    • HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:12AM (#26354001)

      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.

       

      • Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:4, Interesting)

        by religious freak (1005821) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @02:24AM (#26354449)
        Oprah is very rational in her business decisions, I've studied them a bit. Many times, in these cases, it doesn't make economic sense to hire defense lawyers - cheaper to settle... so I wouldn't count a settlement out. However, if this gains enough publicity (and I think it may have), she'll be forced to fight it, so as not to invite other frivolous lawsuits from those looking for a quick buck.
        • Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @02:53AM (#26354625) Homepage Journal

          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.

    • by _Hellfire_ (170113) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:51AM (#26354255) Homepage

      It's more likely she'd just give him a car.

      Oprah and this guy are in the pre-trial conference...

      Oprah: "Look under your seat!"

        • by muridae (966931) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @02:12AM (#26354395)
          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.
          • by causality (777677) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @02:51AM (#26354623)

            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.

  • Wide? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:07AM (#26353963)

    Did anyone else read that as : "It would be entertaining to see Oprah get very wide" ?

  • by greentshirt (1308037) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:32AM (#26354147)
    Republicans always find a way to blame something on Democrats. Democrats always find a way to blame something on Republicans. Jews kill Arabs, Arabs kill Jews, people sue over patent infringement and lawyers are often assholes. Oprah seems too busy talking about getting fat again (and acting like it's some kind of horrible fate worse than death) to really do much publicizing of anything else. Tonight on Larry King live, he had 3 guests, Oprahs personal trainer, her spiritual adviser and some other guy, talk at length about GASP, OPRAH GETTING FAT. What the hell is wrong with our world, I don't know where to begin anymore.
    • by McGiraf (196030) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @03:48AM (#26354907) Homepage

      "Tonight on Larry King live, he had 3 guests, Oprahs personal trainer, her spiritual adviser and some other guy, talk at length about GASP, OPRAH GETTING FAT. What the hell is wrong with our world, I don't know where to begin anymore."

      TV != World.

      I do not watch TV. So I can't judge of the state of the world by watching Larry King show. There is not much Oprah in my world, fat or thin.

  • Only in America. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joocemann (1273720) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:33AM (#26354153)

    The land of too many lawyers without enough viable work to find.

    Oh the opportunities that have been missed or shut down for fear of litigious people and the grinning lawyers that represent them.

    As true as this is, I will probably be modded a flamer.

  • by Michael Woodhams (112247) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:49AM (#26354237) Journal

    I've just skimmed the patent. The basic situation is they have the entire book on computer, you can choose any pages to view, but once you've viewed a certain number, it won't let you view any more. There was also a bit of stuff about supplying image and text in different formats/resolutions, and (I think) using keys to scroll around the image of one page.

    How do they know that it is you, not someone else asking for more pages? They specifically include the use of cookies, but allow for other methods. There is no mention of (e.g.) using IP addresses, but I expect this would be covered. The interesting problems (How do you know the user isn't deleting the cookies? How do you know whether there are 200 people behind that single IP address?) are not addressed.

    IANAL, and I didn't read it carefully, so I might be wrong about some details.

      • Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kalriath (849904) * on Wednesday January 07 2009, @03:10AM (#26354713)

        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"

        • by zooblethorpe (686757) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @04:20AM (#26355121)

          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:Unlikely (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jbolden (176878) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:22AM (#26354057)

      This is patent not copyright. Big content would love to see the patent system tightened up. With the possible exception of drug companies and the democrats already hate them.

      • Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jonwil (467024) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:40AM (#26354191)

        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:Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2009, @02:03AM (#26354341)

          You have to be careful with regard to "loose" and "tight" w.r.t. the patent system. Patent lawyers tend to view a "loose" patent system as one which allows patents on everything and a "tight" one as one that's very restrictive about what can be patented. People who oppose patents (i.e. any sane programmer or engineer) tend to view a "loose" patent system as one that allows a lot of actual progress to be made - i.e. strongly limits what can be patented, and a "tight" patent system as one that is very restrictive to people who want to just get things done - i.e. allows patents (monopoly grants on doing stuff by definition) on everything.

          Thus, both sides were initially calling for a "less restrictive" patent system in the european software patent debate, thoroughly confusing politicians - the pro-software-patent patent lawyers and corporate types were talking about a patent system that allowed them to patent more stuff i.e. was less restrictive about what can be patented, and the anti-software-patent software writers and such were talking about a patent system that was less restrictive to people who write software due to not allowing software patents.

    • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)

      by value_added (719364) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @01:30AM (#26354135)

      Yes, that would be entertaining -- but most unlikely. The sad truth is, Big Content is to Democrats as Big Oil is to Republicans.

      Actually, the pertinent truth is that she is being sued, and if her lawyers are doing their jobs, they've advised her not to say anything publically that would jeapordise her case.