Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

International Trade Patent 191

Posted by Hemos from the stop-the-insanity! dept.
Luminous writes "According to the Wall Street Journal and this article from MSNBC, the U.S. Patent office is reviewing a patent on all computer-to-computer international trade transactions. 'When and if Mr. Pool's patent becomes final, lawyers hired by his company, DE Technologies LLC, say anyone conducting computer-to-computer international trades over the Internet without the permission of DE Technology will infringe on the company's intellectual property.' " This submission has been coming in a lot - it's scary, but remember that this patent has not been passed yet - and hopefully with this negative attention, it won't be. The Patent Office has notified him that it will be issuing the patent, however.It should be noted that BusinessWeek had this story a a month ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

International Trade Patent More

International Trade Patent

Comments Filter:

  • I'll patent international trade over the phone (Score:5)

    by klund ( 53347 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:20AM (#821504)
    Okay, I'll avoid making the obvious stupid joke here about "I'm going to patent blah blah blah".

    Seriously, what would our economy be like if businesses had taken out patents on trade over the telephone at the begining of the century the way that they're taking out patents on trade over the internet now. It would be ridiculous. Imagine:

    Sears and Roebuck announce One Name Shopping(tm)! Using our patented technology, we will keep your name and address on file in our offices, so when you call, all you have to give us is your name. We will fill out the rest of your mailing label (for the bill and the shipped merchandise) automatically. Available ONLY at Sears and Roebuck. Call us at Pennsylvania 5-6000.

    Bleh. As much as I hate lawsuits and loathe lawyers, perhaps we need a Class Action Suit against the Patent Office for restricting free trade with this sort of nonsense. It's got to stop.
    --
  • I guess if there is a silver lining to this farce, this is it. Of course, sometimes the silver lining is actually a 727 in a free fall. A lot of people could get hurt before the dust settles on this one.

    What I really want to know is if a frontal lobotomy (sp?) is required before you can get a job at the patent office?

  • If software already exists to perform all these tasks, then his package would be very derivative, and not worthy of its own patent. Unless he's done something very unique or non-obvious with it, then I don't see the point.

  • Its www.detechnologies.com.

    Thanks. Leave it to me to miss the obvious... :-)

  • That should put a stop to all this silliness.
  • This isn't the same at all...the patent in question concerns a concept rather than an object or process. If Postel had patented SMTP, then who knows what would have happened...people would probably use some other mail protocol (they already do) for free, and Postel would reap nothing from his patent. In this case, there IS no such alternative...net-to-net trading is vital. I can't imagine a company reverting to phone transactions of telegrams to conduct business overseas as a way to avoid paying a tiny royalty to the knob who filed this patent.

    Sure, if the patent is frivolous and there is an alternative to the goods or services the patent covers, then the inventor will be penalized. On something this big, it's a sure win...the biggest reason why this patent should have been tossed from the beginning.

    -j

  • There are several obvious solutions:

    Don't grant any new ones, and let the existing ones' terms expire. This is by far the easiest

    Don't grant any new ones, and claim eminent domain on all existing ones. That'd require a lot of public funding to avoid a constitutional takings violation, and would effectively foist the burden of existing-patent royalties onto the federal government.

    Don't grant any new ones, and pass legislation restricting the use of existing ones. This may raise constitutional issues.

    It goes without saying that any of these would be difficult to come by, since not only can individual congressmen not remove their heads from their own asses, in fact Washington DC is itself one enormous ass -- seriously, have you smelled DC in the summer? -- and relocating congress's collective head would require relocating all of congress.

  • Oh, crap. Will you take a post-dated check?
  • Until we see the claims of this patent, all of the "sky is falling" discussion here is meaningless. I doubt the claims in this patent are particularly broad, and I especially doubt they are as broad as the owner wants to read them.

    The claims define the scope of the patent, not the abstract, not the description. Let's see them before we get too worked up.
  • The patent office is severely underfunded and was just forced to lay off something like 20% of their already meager staff. Of course, most of us would say that they should err on the side of caution when they don't have enough time to review patents, but the patent lawyers and patent seekers would probably prefer them to err towards leniency and those are the people who talk to the patent office more.
  • My new patent submission:

    Invention: Patently obvious action

    Abstract: A process by which a project, process, action or similar can proceed from a stage that could be described as 'slightly finished', 'partially finished' or 'Just started' to a stage that could be described as 'Mainly finished', 'nearly finished' or 'totally finished' by a route that has specific and obvious merits in terms of time, cost or quality that are not present in other, less obvious routes or actions. Also appliccable to other situations and processes.

    What do you think? Will I get the patent?

    Michael

    ...another comment from Michael Tandy.

  • I see one major problem with this system. How do you prove/disprove original invention of a similar system vs. pirating somebody else's idea? For example, if you invent a compression algorithm, and distribute it under the terms of your new patent law, and the GNU Foundation or FSF "happens" to invent a compression algorithm that is identical or very similar, how do you prove they copied yours instead of thinking it up themselves? Or how do they prove they thought it up on their own? Who has the burden of proof? And if you then modify the law to indicate that the "new" invention has to be clearly different from the "old" invention, so that it is obvious it isn't a derivative work, how would it be so radically different from the patent laws as they stand.

    In principle, I think this is a decent idea, since the intent of Patent law should be to prevent other entities from capitalizing on the monetary and research investment you put into producing a new technology (so, if they invest and produce it independently, they could have as much right to it as you do). However, in practice, I don't think the distinction could be drawn clearly enough to make it radically different from the laws we already have.

    Do not teach Confucius to write Characters
  • No wonder it thinks anything with 'on a computer' is non-obvious!

    "The USPTO is not yet equipped to handle general email correspondence. General inquiries should be directed by telephone to 800.786.9199 (800.PTO.9199) or 703.308.4357"
  • based on judgement? It seems to me that all the patent office does is check to see if the patent doesnt break any rules. So say someone were to patent breathing and it was leagal somehow, they wouldnt be able to deny it based on the fact that it is wrong? If anyone knows how this works I would be glad to find out.
  • Remember that a patent is just a license to sue someone. Back in the 70's somebody had a patent on a crt using a cursor (or something similar - it was over 20 years ago - I don't remember the exact patent.) He sent it to our company demanding royalties. Basically we just ignored him - so did everybody else in the computer industry.

    Just because somebody gets a ridiculous patent doesn't mean he is able to enforce it. Mostly these kind of patents die when the lawyers inform the patent holder that the patent would likely be overturned in the courts if a case ever gets to trial.

    In other words, people like this are running a bluff - seeing if they can get the gullible to give them some money without a fight.

    Get concerned, when and if, he starts winning law suits against companies with good lawyers and lots of money. Until then, a patent like this is just a boogie man.


  • this doesn't seem so far off ;)

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpaten ts.html

    i recently had an argument w/my own father about how the patents are out of hand,.. he didn't seem to agree. i couldn't get it through his head that the record companies wouldn't collapse just because you can download songs for free...

    he would switch it to movies and say who is going to go see movies at the theatre for $8 when you can see them at home for free on your computer?

    and i said 'well the prices of tickets would come down, which is a good thing,... and no one's home system, no matter how good, can really compete with a 50' screen... '

    there's gotta be some big changes soon..... :)
    ...dave
  • This case reminds me of The Onion's [theonion.com] satire on Micrsoft's pending patent [theonion.com].

    I do believe the patent office has way too much power to control the flow of the economy. While I support every effort to make sure someone doesn't get ripped off for their efforts, I can't imagine this being having been a difficult concept to come up with. A copyright on the softare and then selling that system would have made more sense.

  • Whatever became of that guy who had the Y2K Windowing Patent? He was going to cut licensees a break if they applied before Y2K rolled around and then raise the price for a license massively. Has anyone heard tell of him recently?

    That patent and this one surely have a similar amount of prior art associated with them. This one also has a lot of "Obvious to someone in the trade" mojo associated with it. Why are they giving out patents for moving old bookkeeping type operations to computers. One would think that would be an obvious step.

  • Why doesn't Slashdot patent news? Or, News over the internet...

    Should pay for that OC-48 in no time.... (Need a router guy? 8-)
  • Imagine. This will effectively patent international bank transactions. Imagine the lawsuits (and legal machinations) that will go on if this patent is granted.

    Oh well. There goes my idea for filing for a patent for the idea of exchanging goods for other goods of like value. Can I patent money...?
  • I am postiong this comment, shutting my box down, and never turning it on agian. The fact that this is even being considered just makes me long for the days when we did nothing more than sit outside and bang rock together.

    You want to hear a really sobering thought, this kind of crap happens in every sector of interests. We see crap like this because we are computer/internet geeks. If there are any model airplane geeks, you may have heard that you need emmisions controls on your engines. If you are in some other area of interest (I suck b-cus I can only think of two things I like), you will see this happening everywhere.

    My point is that we might as well sit outside and bang rocks unless things change soon.

  • Prefabricated Building... (Score:4)

    by ScottBrady ( 60469 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:24AM (#821525)
    Working from his one-room office in a prefabricated building

    Can you say mobile home?

    I can just see it now:

    "Yee Haw Billy Bob Joe! Now we all can buy a double wide!"

    I can't wait for "Silicon Valley Hillbillies"...

  • This sickens me. Not the fact of the patent itself - I know it will be broken, it's just laughable in that regard.

    It's the fact that if this is passed and upheld, it is passed and upheld by the US patent office.

    I'm not american. Hell, "I'm Afraid of Americans" (david bowie song for those of you who don't know). Why should the US be able to regulate the rest of the world's trade?

    I can understand it havin authority over straight American transfers and whatnot, but I don't see how they legally can have any authority over me as a Canadian. Or someone else as an Australian or Japanese or Russian or Lebanese, or anywhere else.

    Once again, it's the US acting as the world's leader, whether it's "subjects" want it or not. Pretty hpyocritical to run a democratic system on top of such.

    So, I'll just laugh if this gets through and stays that way. And I'll start an internet business, and not pay these people. And see if I can be stopped.
  • "its a patent on a single software packages that integrates the entire process of making an international purchase."

    Integration is not innovation, it costs very little to accomplish, and everyone does it by straight-forward principles. Hint: Puting a nail into a piece of wood is integration. He's done nothing more than that.

    Or another example, you can patent an engine, you cannot patent a car.

    He's patenting a car.
  • how the heck is this blatant piece of incitement to molestation "insightful"?
  • mod this up dammit! this is hysterical!

    ----------

  • Only Covers Buyers, not Sellers! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Check out the claims. Looks like he loses by virtue of hiring cut-rate patent atty. Here's Claim 1:

    1. A process for carrying out an international transaction over EMF communication links using computer to computer
    communications compromising the steps of:
    (a) selecting a language in which to view catalogue information on products;
    (b) selecting a currency in which to obtain a price of the products;
    (c) selecting products to be purchased and a destination for said selected products to be purchased thereby
    triggering a calculation of all costs involved in moving said selected products to said destination based upon
    said destination and said selected products; and,
    (d) ordering said selected products thereby triggering an electronic funds transfer authorization and generation
    of electronic title configured to define ownership and facilitate passage of said selected products and pay-ments
    of international taxes and duties.

    Note that this process is the one used by the *buyer*. Even if it is upheld, sellers don't infringe and don't need a license.
  • From http://www.detechnologies.com/contact.htm [detechnologies.com]:

    Edward Pool

    Phone: (540) 576-3555

    DE Technologies
    12110 Old Franklin Turnpike
    Union Hall, VA 24176

    Email: info@detechnologies.com [mailto]

    I say we all give him a phone call and send him an e-mail. No threats or anything like that, of course, just to let him know what we think of scum like him who try to patent ideas which have been around for years...

  • Al will just point at the problem, say "there's no controlling legal authority on the internet"

    actually, it won't be as simple as just point to the problem for Al. It'll take him awhile, because I don't thikn he can bend his arms at the elbows. He's like a GI Joe, that guy.

    But seriously, if Pool and have a patent on international internet trade, why can't Al have a patent on the internet itself?

    ----------

  • Proving I am more than just a computer geek; I am an accumulator (8-bit!) of useless information!

    Seriously, waaaay off-topic, I think you meant pennsylvania 6-5000, and that was actually the phone number for, IIRC, a hotel in New York. I could look up the name for it, if anyone cares; I read this interesting tidbit on James Lileks' site. (http://www.lileks.com)

  • This get-rich-quick scheme seems somewhat viabile given the brain-damaged USPTO, but his strategy is fundamentally flawed.

    The most strategic use of bullshit patents such as this one can only be applied by large corporations with billions in their coffers. This is the 'spiteful' approach, where the barrier imposed by the patent itself is not in its contents, but the expense of fighting it. Big companies can afford to vigorously defend even fundamentally unsound patents, and this presents a large roadblock to smaller organizations who wish to challenge it.

    Then you have this idiot. If the criminally stupid USPTO does grant him his patent, he's gonna get trounced by the big boys' virtually unlimited legal funds...

  • Now you're talking about copyright, not patents. Not that I don't agree with you.
    ----------
  • That's what hackers do right? Exploit the vulnerablities in order to get them fixed? Oh, wait, they just get sent to jail while the corporations or govt bureaucracies do nothing to improve the system.

    no, that's what happens to crackers.

    ----------

  • Let me support this. Nothing rude, not at all. Just be polite, and enquire after the nature of the patentability of something which, on the face of it, is predated by approx. 1 hillion jillion grillion examples of prior art. Perhaps he actually had a unique idea. Doubtful, but possible.

    Nothing like slashdotting a mailbox. Just like protesters sending nasty things to senators and congressmen. We could even write scripts to do this sort of thing; go to www.slashdot.com/protest, fill out thy name and hit `Complain where complaints are needed.' Nothing like a constant daily mailbombing to deny service legitimately. 'Course anyone intelligent would simply blacklist the server sending the mail. But how intelligent are most of these people?

    But be polite.

  • I don't believe that a process has to be 'non-obvious' to be patented. I know that in the drug industry, processes are routinely patented in order to slow down competetors who are making me-too drugs.
  • This is true of so many technologies. Imagine someone patenting delivering goods with a motor vehicle (as opposed to on foot or horse).
  • I have to disagree, it is neither novel or non-obvious. Is a boat a novel, non-obvious way to tavel on water? When the first one was used, yes. But using computers to calculate shipping and foreign currency fluctuations is not because that is what computers have been doing. Yes, Ed Pool did develop a software system that allowed for combining these calculations into one application, and he should have been licensing it from the start.

    But claiming a patent on international trade via computers is far too broad. His patent should only extend to his specific system and not to the entire process.

  • Darren "Gav" Bluel, the artist who draw the comic strip Nukees [nukees.com], has attacked this very same absurd patent issue.

    One of the characters (Suzy G.) got a patent on energy use (A system by which energy can be converted to different forms within a closed system...). The main character, Gav, is now using this to sue every person in Earth.

    Kinda makes you wonder, huh?

    PS - You need to go back a few weeks to catch the entire storyline.

  • Lawyers love this sort of thing. Patent attorneys get fabulously wealthy on stuff like this. Regardless, of what the technical community thinks, the Patent Office, obviously can find no prior art, nor considers this to be obvious. The major flaw here being the technical qualifications of personnel in the Patent Office. Patents were meant to allow a person to reap the benefits of their talents and personal investment in an invention/process. In the beginning, Thomas Jefferson and the Patent Office were very skeptical of issuing new patents, and you could count the number of patents issued in the first 20 years of the US on your fingers. Unfortunately, today if you have time to write it up and pay the patent fees, they'll issue you patent. The Clinton Administration doesn't make this any better. Mr. Clinton's stated response to the ever increasing conflicts between technology and patents and copyrights, is to let the parties fight it out in court (typical lawyer response). This leads to the never ending saga of lawsuits, since each case is decided on its own merits versus an existing law to cover everything. More importantly, it allows those with the money to litigate others into bankruptcy reaping the benefits of a flawed patent system. As a taxpayer and consumer I would prefer the Patent Office be held to more stringent standards than have to bear the extra expense of these legal battles and have to pay increased prices on products resulting royalties on questionable patents. Unfortunately, Congress isn't any better as evidenced by increases in patent and copyright duration, and such laws as the DMCA.
  • If a company gets sued under such a broad claim, all they have to prove is that someone (doesn't have to be them) was using that method a year or more before the patent application was filed.
  • Since they seem to be giving them away I would like to patent math please.
  • Am I missing something here?

    Nope, don't think you are, the patent office is missing several things though, they're called: intelligence, common sense, and a freakin' clue!

    Of course, knowing the way that the patent office works they probably had them at one point, then someone patented them and they haven't been able to afford the royalty payments ever since...

    -GreenHell
  • I am not so sure this is a bad thing. Even if the patent is granted, this guy is taking on legal departments backed by billions of corporate dollars. Whatever patent is granted will doubtless be mired in years of litigation, and it might just be enough for this country's corporate lobbyists to get Congress to knock some sense into the USPTO. Sometimes the pendulum has to go way too far before it swings back to a reasonable place... -db
  • Put Ed Pool up there with Sam Khuri for "most annoying people on the Internet."

    Maybe DE Technology will start exporting Benchmark Print Supply's recycled toner cartridges to the whole world...

    -Chris

  • Patently absurd... (Score:4)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:27AM (#821548) Homepage Journal
    Isn't the word "non-obvious" supposed to apply to potential patents? Filing trade documents via computer-to-computer transfers is hardly an innovation. It's simply an application of existing technology, in a way that's already taking place in a wide array of business practices. This guy may have made a nice product that he should market to import-export firms, but to expect that everyone doing electronic forms transfer for international shipments should somehow owe him license fees is, well, patently absurd.
  • The patent is being filed as a business method, rather than a software algorithm or specific technology. The patent would cover businesses who wish to use any software-based system that handles currency conversions, shipping rate checks, etc., to automate international commerce.

    This class of patent is different, but every bit as insidious as the more general technological ones. I have to agree with the poster above, though, in feeling that this patent would best serve the common good by being granted, so that the major international business players can start leaning against the patent office and Congress a bit harder.

  • So if I understand it correctly, the following activities will all be taxed by Mr. Pool's flash of genius:

    Registering a domain name from any country other than the US?

    Buying a book from Amazon.com from abroad?

    Buying software from Microsoft or anyone else from abroad?

    Unbelievable!! I'm sure Mr. Pool is really going to collect from Amazon or Microsoft or InterNIC.

    What if I'm working abroad and I buy a US Savings bond or something? what if I use eTrade on a business trip to London?

    Is this guy on drugs? How clever this bozo is: I invented international trade on the Internet.

    Who is he? Al Gore's cousin from Virginia?

    Can I get a patent on domestic trade on the Internet?

  • Re:suddenly,... (Score:3)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:29AM (#821551)
    > he would switch it to movies and say who is going to go see movies at the theatre for $8 when you can see them at home for free on your computer?

    You should have asked him whether two generations of free movies on television killed the theatre, or four generations of free music on the radio killed the music industry.

    --
  • How long has IBM been doing this? I think their order system has been doing all this for international mainframe ordders for a long time but their system also send the DOD a letter showing who is ordering what and why for some countries.

    Also Didn't Apollo have a completely automated ordering system and I know they did internatnal order. They went away before this clown invented his stuff. I know I could dig up lots of similar piror art from 1990 on since I was writing such a system for a client.

    I wonder if this is an attempt by someone in the Patent office it kick congress into fixing the patent laws. Most of what we bitch about invovling the Patent office, may be based on stuff that congress has done.
  • I don't know patent law specifically, but my understanding is that if an invention is widely known about and understood, then you can't patent it. That's pretty much a way of saying that if overlapping prior art exists, you haven't invented anything.

    But in this case:
    1) "Randolph N. Reynolds" is not the general public.
    2) Researchers do not work in a vacuum. Generally other people unrelated to the work know about the project. In this case, Pool hired others to create the method for him. So others know about it, but it's not a problem. It's fairly contained, unique (allegedly), and not generally implemented.

    I believe you can publish a paper on an invention and then file a patent within a year. That makes sense, since the patent process is much longer than the time to publication and timely publication is, in many ways, more important than a patent.
    -----
    D. Fischer
  • First of all, everything is obvious in retrospect: after someone tells you how to do something it is obvious.

    However true obviousness in an invention requires that it be something which an average practitioner 'familiar with the art' would figure out to do.

    Question: did people start doing international e-commerce because they heard about what this patent applicant was doing and then copy his actions - or did everybody reinvent his process independently because it was obvious? Clearly the answer is the latter: his invention IS OBVIOUS therefore, and his patent is invalid.

    As far as publication goes: you don't write about the obvious - you only write about the non - obvious. That is why the patent office requires publication to invalidate for prior art. Obvious cases like this patent don't require pre publication to invalidate them.

  • Of course, this is all speculation until we see the patent, but here goes:

    My assumption is, that the pantent covers the complicated procedure involved in exporting goods, so what it focuses on is completing all the customs paperwork for you. So:

    • Prior art: I think they would have to show that people were not doing international computer to computer transactions before the inventor came up with this invention.
    There may not be any: if this covers a long and complicated process, this may well be the only, or the first, software that does this.
    • Obvious: If people are doing "domestic" computer transactions I can't see how anyone could successfully argue that "international" computer transactions are not a logical and obvious next step.
    If the patentable idea is the fact it covers the customs procedure, then the part of the software patented may not exist in domestic software packages at all.

    I would hope that the patent would fail in the courts for being far too damn obvious, but for a reason other than the one you give. They may be the first people to get a computer to carry out this process, however I would say that taking a commmon knowlegde process that a human being can complete, and simply implementing this in code, is a pretty obvious step.

    If my guesswork is correct, I would expect the patent to be awarded, but hopefully be unenforceable.

    G

  • > Just you all wait until my patent for electron transfer goes through. I'll have the whole world in my hands...

    Speaking of having the whole world in your hands, I just put in an application for a patent on jacking off.

    Prior art is no problem; nobody admits ever having done it.

    --
  • Out of curiosity, when was the last time you saw a patent that you think was truly novel over the prior art?

    You mean you don't think that the motorized ice cream cone [ibm.com] is novel?

  • In an interview with the USPTO director it was indicated that the only prior art they check are previous patents and selected professional journals. The patent office understaffed, underfunded, and run by idiots. Looks like I'll have to move to canada before the decades out...

  • Interesting.

    AFAIK, new patents won't be issued for implementation details. (eg. using CMOS rather than TTL chips) So why isn't "over the internet between countries" considered an implementation detail?

  • Read the article, and you'll find out that the lawyer is being paid on contigency. He spins it by saying "What an opportunity, I wanted to be right there from the beginning."

    What isn't being said, is that GOOD patent lawyers likely ignored the potential to work with Mr. Pool, since they understood the dubious nature of the patent.

    This lawyer is just like Mr. Pool - trying to make a buck without working. Unfortunately, he should have realized he's just wasting his time - as the other lawyers surely did.

  • Re:kill the idiots! (Score:3)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:34AM (#821590) Homepage Journal
    He's so stoopid he thinks 'Pat Pend' was the world's greatest inventor.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • Does the patent office have any e-mail address where we can claim preusage?
    I really really doubt they were the first.
  • Business that do these kinds of patents and other such stuff should be boycotted as much as possible. Obviously that won't directly hurt them. There are ways to make it do so. Those who run (the policy of) DNS servers and block them. Those who run (the policy of) routers can firewall them. And this can be applied even to companies that enthusiastically deal with them.
  • I tried searching Google [google.com] for "DE Technologies LLC", and didn't get a single match. Looks like this Ed Pool doesn't even have a website for his "company". What a loser.

  • Protection of Trust rather than I.P. (Score:4)

    by LionKimbro ( 200000 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @10:19AM (#821606) Homepage

    I've been doing a lot of thinking about intellectual property recently. What I have synthesized is that the government should protect agreements and trusts ("He said he wouldn't copy this, he did; He's breaking the law") related to intellectual constructions (works of art, inventions), rather than treating intellectual constructions as property (single owner, police can kick out intruders).

    I think that it is a good thing that we are able to legally enforce a trust: We can say, "I'll show this technology/image/report/whatever to you on the grounds that you promise not to copy it for anyone else." If you break one of these trusts, there should be a legal punishment/compensation system.

    I think it's a terrible and shameful thing that we say, "Nobody else can think up this idea as well." (Patents)

    This way, we can simultaneously protect and capitalize on our investments by using licenses. Artists and Inventors can exchange a license (which forbids reproduction and/or retelling) for money, and make a living.

    But no one else is prohibited from inventing on their own.

    So lets say I invent a compression algorithm and put it in a program. Anyone who uses it is placed under a legal trust not to tell anyone else about it/misuse it/reverse engineer it/etc.,. But the GNU foundation is *NOT* prohibited from thinking it up on their own, since they never agreed to/partook of the license in the first place.

    Now there is the question: What about worked sprayed onto the public? For example, Mickey Mouse is placed all over the place by Disney, but they never received my consent; I never agreed that I wouldn't copy Mickey Mouse on my own, or agreed that I wouldn't make Mickey Mouse hats. In that case, we make a general public trust that we all agree to: You may put something into the public space, but at the cost of *FORFEITING YOUR CONTROL* of it w/in 5 years. That's the price you pay for distribution without collecting signatures/signing agreements/breaking seals.

    This is my synthesis so far. In some ways, it is stricter (gives the license writers more controls) than what we have now, in many ways it is looser (you *must* aquire consent; and you are not granted a monopoly) than what we have now.

    What do you all think?

  • All of you who think that this patent is obvious should stop your belly aching and act! It's easy. The patent has not yet issued. In the U.S. there is a rule (37 C.F.R. 1.56 [bitlaw.com]) which obliges a patentee to disclose ALL prior art of which he or she is aware. So, find some prior art, and email it to the company. They will then be obliged to disclose this prior art to the Patent Office. If they fail to do so, the patent may be invalidated under Rule 56. How's that for an easy solution?

    Thalia
  • You're confusing apples and oranges, or rather patents and copyrights.

    In patents, no one cares whether you ever saw the other invention, or whether you made a copy. The first person to invent a new thing can exclude all others (for 20 years from filing +/-) from making that thing. The fact that the second inventor never even heard of the first one is irrelevant.

    In copyrights, on the other hand, provides protection to a new creative expression. Software has been held to be a creative expression. In copyright the burden of proof is on the copyright holder to prove that the alleged copier had access to the copyrighted material, and that there are substantial similarities between the original and the alleged copy. Then, the alleged copier can attempt to prove that he or she came up with the expression without copying.

    Hope that clarifies it all.

    Thalia

  • There should be a rule... (Score:3)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @10:22AM (#821610) Homepage
    There should be a rule... that if a person sues 100 organizations immediately after getting a patent, then there was obvious prior art (unless the person can prove that the companies just started infringing).
  • Mod this up.
    Damn good point.

    "If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.
  • It woudl be nice to see what the claims of his applications are. I'd imagine that they'd have to be very specific. Computer to computer transactions have been around for well, a while not I imagine, and there cannot be that much diference between transactions between the US and another country as opposed to between US and US or maybe lets say France and Germany. Also it woudl be good to know when he applied for this patent to know when we need prior art to make this obsolete. I imagine that companies like M$, IBM, and Oracle will chanllenge this, as well as many others.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I don't want a lot, I just want it all ;-)
    Flame away, I have a hose!
  • It is obvious to anyone familiar with the art of the Internet, and computer communications in general that a computer can be used to communicate ANY TYPE of data to another computer.

    ANY computer patent based upon unique data being communicated between machines is obvious and invalid - since that unique data is a subset of 'ANY TYPE' and is therefore obvious to an average practitioner familiar with the art. Any business patent based on specific types of data being transferred from one machine to another is also invalid for the same reasons.

    The Internet is a medium like the air. Utterances, whether verbal in the air or digital on the Internet are not subject to patents - at the most they may be copyrighted.

  • Lots of us bitch and moan about these ridiculous patents and lots of us bitch and moan about how corporations are taking over the internet that used to "belong to us."

    However, if these silly patents hold up and are enforced, perhaps it will slow over-commercialization of the internet as companies are forced to re-implment their infringing services.

    It may also hurt those companies that hold some of these patents. By restricting the use of their "technology", the technology may fall into disuse.

    If Jon Postel had patented the SMTP protocol, would internet email be ubiquitous today, or would several incompatible systems have proliferated instead?

  • (It's already filed so I can discuss it) I have recently filed a patent on the idea of filing a patent on an existing idea that everyone is already using and then charging them for it. I figure if I charge $25k per patent like this one I will be rich in no time. Everyone in the world will have to pay the people using my method and all of them will be paying me. Of course I will have to allow some trade sharing so that I will not have to pay DE to transfer funds from one bank account to another. But hey that is why I have my patent.
  • > By this time removing said head from said ass is going to be extremely painful. Don't expect it to happen without a big fight.

    Yeah, I think about that sometimes. Suppose someone forcibly removed the TPO's and the Congress's collective heads from their collective asses, and they quit issuing patents for algorithms. What's going to happen to all the ones already issued? If they tried to revoke them, the people that have paid big bucks to scoop them up would scream bloody murder. But how could TPO/Congress let them stand if they admitted the whole idea was bogus?

    I guess the obvious solution is for them to never look back. We're in for the long haul, folks.

    --
  • I am not being sarcastic when I say this would great news if the patent were issued. We all know the patent system is deeply flawed, as is our current conception of intellectual property. What better way to change the system by issuing patents so idiotic and encompassing that every large multinational company in the world will have its legal teams working to break the patent, or better yet, to lobby to have the entire system changed and overhauled.

  • How can this affect the "big companies"? You know the ones I mean... the ones who have local subsidiaries in the other nations... IE, does a transaction between Company XYZ's computer in New York and Company XYZ's Euro office count as an international transaction??? The big companies are expert at hiding profits in this venue. Hey, this kind of accounting gives the US IRS fits!

    Also, how will DE apply the royalty to international companies doing business totally outside the US? Does Mr. Poole expect royalties there too? I sure hope not, since he won't see any.


    Gonzo

  • Original ideas (Score:3)

    by Kissing Crimson ( 197314 ) <jonesy@@@crimsonshade...com> on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:14AM (#821634) Homepage
    I thought the idea behind patents was to give the originator of an original and unique idea the ability to control and benefit from that idea for an appropriately short period of time. It seems like patents are being granted to the first person/company/whatever that thinks of patenting something, regardless of whether it is original or unique.

    Am I missing something here?

    Coincidence is the Superstition of Science

  • The patent office has become nothing more than the personal validation stamp for anyone who wants to extort (yes extort) money out of people these days.

    The "fortunate" thing is that some of the people he's trying to extort are governments (as well as organised crime). If this goes through he's going to have to make a lot of pay offs to avoid at best jail.

  • How cant this go through? (Score:5)

    by DzugZug ( 52149 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:14AM (#821638) Journal
    I cannot imagine how this pattent could possibly be accepted.

    • Prior art: I think they would have to show that people were not doing international computer to computer transactions before the inventor came up with this invention.

    • Obvious: If people are doing "domestic" computer transactions I can't see how anyone could successfully argue that "international" computer transactions are not a logical and obvious next step.

    • Of course, this is the pattent office and they have approved dumber pattents over the years.

  • Well, if the Patent Office continues with its past behavior, then this patent is in the bag and Mr. Pool will be a very, very wealthy man.

    He's more likely to become a dead man than a wealthy one.
  • When will the US patent office grow a brain?

    When they can afford the licence fees covering the patents for "brain growing". (Then they'd need even more for the "brain operation" set.)

  • Chris: Good evening. Tonight: "patents". I have here, sitting in the studio next to me, an elk. Ahhhh!!! Oh, I'm sorry! Anne Elk - Mrs Anne Elk

    Anne:Miss!

    C: Miss Anne Elk, who is an expert on pa...

    A: N' n' n' n' no! Anne Elk!

    C: What?

    A: Anne Elk, not Anne Expert!

    C: No! No, I was saying that you, Miss Anne Elk, were an , A-N not A-N-N-E, expert...

    A: Oh!

    C: ...on elks - I'm sorry, on patents. I'm ...

    A: Yes, I certainly am, Chris. How very true. My word yes.

    C: Now, Miss Elk - Anne - you have a new idea for a Patent.

    A: Can I just say here, Chris for one moment, that I have a new idea for a Patent?

    C: Uh... Exactly... What is it?

    A: Where?

    C: No! No, what is your Patent?

    A: What is my Patent?

    C: Yes!

    A: What is my Patent that it is? Yes. Well, you may well ask what is my Patent.

    C: I am asking.

    A: And well you may. Yes, my word, you may well ask what it is, this Patent of mine. Well, this Patent, that I have, that is to say, which is mine,... is mine.

    C: I know it's yours! What is it?

    A: ... Where? ... Oh! Oh! What is my Patent?

    C: Yes!

    A: Ahh! My Patent, that I have, follows the lines that I am about to relate. [starts prolonged throat clearing]

    C: [under breath] Oh, God!

    [Anne still clearing throat] A: The Patent, by A. Elk (that's "A" for Anne", it's not by a elk.)

    C: Right...

    A: [clears throat] This Patent, which belongs to me, is as follows... [more throat clearing] This is how it goes... [clears throat] The next thing that I am about to say is my Patent. [clears throat] Ready?

    C: [wimpers]

    A: The Patent, by A. Elk [Miss]. My Patent is along the following lines...

    C: [under breath]God!

    A: ...All Patents are original at one end; much, much non-obvious in the middle and then original again at the far end. That is the Patent that I have and which is mine and what it is, too.

    C: That's it, is it?

    A: Right, Chris!

    C: Well, Anne, this Patent of yours seems to have hit the nail right on the head.

    A: ... and it's mine.

    C: Thank you for coming along to the studio...

    A: My pleasure, Chris.


    (with apo's to Monty Python)


    Ah, if only one could patent Patenting. Maybe then there'd come some sense into it all...

    --

  • I think I'm going to apply for a patent for the following invention:

    1. A system by which an organism inhales air that may have come from a neighboring zip code.

    I hope all of you are ready to prove that the air you breathe diddn't come from the next zip code or get ready to cough up the dough!
  • I would patent stupidity, but there's too much prior "art".

     Since when does prior art matter to the USPTO?

  • I'm going to patent bitching about patents. Gonna make a lot of money off you lot.

    -

  • I believe, in the US, you have some amount of time (I want to say a year) from the time of the first public disclosure to the time you file.

    Of course, it doesn't make this patent any less goofy.
  • Isn't the word "non-obvious" supposed to apply to potential patents?

    IANAL, but I used to hang around with a couple. "Non-obvious" means something different in patent law than it does for the layperson; in particular a well-defined set of criteria need to be satisfied for something to be "non-obvious." In this regard it is similar to many scientific and technical fields. (A hard drive isn't the 405 at rush hour?)

    Undoubtedly a lawyer will post and say "this is what it means for something to satisfy non-obviousness," and we'll see, much to our amusement, that the definition itself is non-obvious.
  • Unfortunately, the fault, as I can see it, lies not in Mr. Pool, but in the patent office for granting a patent on such an ephemeral thing as an idea.
    I think they're both at fault here. Sure the patent office seems to be almost mind-numbingly incompetent, but that doesn't make abuse of the system (thereby screwing everybody ) right. Not that I don't understand why a person would be tempted to do so...
    --

  • Alternatives? (Score:3)

    by evocate ( 209951 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @09:07AM (#821658)
    I've read a number of posts here criticizing the dim state of affairs at the Patent Office. What I haven't seen from this august body of patent law experts (snicker, snort) is anything resembling a workable alternative. Sure, the patent process needs to be overhauled! But do you really want to leave it up to the members of Congress to come up with a better solution? The same Congress that brought you UCITA and other fine pieces of legislation? I didn't think so.

    Law is like the Open Source code for democratic society. You've found a bug, and you have the source. Let's see if you can hack a fix for it.

  • I am not so sure this is a bad thing. Even if the patent is granted, this guy is taking on legal departments backed by billions of corporate dollars. Whatever patent is granted will doubtless be mired in years of litigation

    It's very unlikely that he will see any years of legal happenings. Some of the people he will be attempting to extort money from will take great offence to his attemption to get into their kind of business.
  • This man is patenting a method for a constant determination of price in a market with rapidly fluxuating relative costs. This is both novel and non-obvious

    Unless this market has recently come into existance or the method is very different from the methods currently in use. Then it certainly isn't novel or non-obvious.
  • for Mr. Ed Pool to be eaten alive by wild lions in a public place?

    Contact your local mobster, before he gets shot.

    And can we then patent that as a process for dealing with frivolous patent applicants?

    There's a 2,000 year old prior art claim for this method...
  • Go to petition.eurolinux.org [eurolinux.org] and register your opposition to this kind of crap spreading to Europe.

  • Sure, that's one solution... (Score:3)

    by Jon_Sy ( 225913 ) <big_guy_ AT hotmail DOT com> on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:17AM (#821667)
    I suppose you could expose the faults in the system by exploiting every single one of them. Then again, when someone patents the judicial system, you might have to pay them to take their stupidity to court.

    If you honestly think a catastrophe is what it takes to bring the framework down, just remember, it took the Holocaust to get the Nazis to Nuremburg...

    -j

  • There is nothing intellectual about this! (Score:4)

    by truesaer ( 135079 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:18AM (#821670) Homepage
    This isn't intellectual property....calculating a shipping rate is calculating a shipping rate....just because it runs between two computers seems irrelevant. If it was a patent on the software's METHOD of calculation that would be one thing.

    This seems to me like saying that you could patent the "Operating System" and then any new operating system that is programmed (be it MS, *NIX, etc.) is subject to royalty. What a crock of shit that is.

    Maybe I'll get a patent on "Person to Person Communication via the vibration of vocal chords" and then charge you a royalty every time you speak!

  • Hmmm....this could work (Score:5)

    by JazzManJim ( 196980 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:18AM (#821671)
    Well, if the Patent Office continues with its past behavior, then this patent is in the bag and Mr. Pool will be a very, very wealthy man. Unfortunately, the fault, as I can see it, lies not in Mr. Pool, but in the patent office for granting a patent on such an ephemeral thing as an idea.

    I'd be interested on the history of this precedent, if anyone can be helpful enough to provide it. Until then, I've some business processes to patent. :-)

    -Jimmie
  • The current head of the US Patent office used to work for a law firm dealing in intelectual property and patent law. (A company whos job it was to get abusive patents like these approved.)

    It is quite obvious that there is a severe conflict of interest going on here. The process as it now stands is not designed to be "fair" or "rational" or do anything else but make money for IP lawyers.

    It is time to replace the person in charge of the patent office.
  • from these articles, any of them, precisely what is the scope of the patent. Without seeing the claims, absolutely nothing whatsoever can be said. Many of the cases concerning software patents thus far have hinged dramatically on narrowing claim constructions that have effectively neutered the patents for all but the most slavish copiers.

    A narrowly claimed patent may well be valid, even though the broad subject matter of the claims may have been described in the article fairly, but the patent may not be harmful, let alone have any significant impact on commerce, except in some sense in which it may in fact be truly innovative.

    Too many patents are smeared in Slashdot solely by reference to the general subject area of the patent. Hang in there, friends, time will tell. The more ludicrous the claims, the more likely the patent is invalid -- the narrower, the less likely it will matter. In between, there may well be sound arguments on both sides as to whether the patent is good, bad or ugly.

    But we won't know until the patent is published. Time will tell.
  • Actually, there might be a good side to this. If international computer trade is "patented", then "data smuggling" will become big business. Any geek along the coast, running a cable, will be able to smuggle packets from overseas for vast sums of money, as big businesses realise that they can no longer operate without international e-commerce.

    Further, those biology texts won't be shippable, which'll kill the idea of pay-per-use books.

  • 1997? (Score:3)

    by jabber01 ( 225154 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @09:19AM (#821684)
    There is no way in Hell that international computer-to-computer transactions did not exist before 1997. The World Bank, Western Union and any large business with an international branch or supply-chain has been using computerized transactions since at least the mid-80's... Some as far back as the 60's..

    Please! The people behind this patent should not only be denied their claim, they should be tared, feathered and run out of town in a wheel-barrow!

    Just as we NEED a frivolous law-suit penalty, we also should make the filing of frivolous patents punishable.

    Click here [164.195.100.11].

    The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196

  • The Patent office needs reform (Score:3)

    by mcwop ( 31034 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:19AM (#821687) Homepage
    It seems that many common sense practices may become patented unless the US Patent Office gets a clue or someone reforms the laws. Of course I guess that we must accept that the Government really knows what they are doing (sarcasm not trolling). Here is a link to DE Technologies' web site page [detechnologies.com] with detailed info on their patent app etc. You can download the patent docs for your perusal.
  • I wonder what effect a patent like this would have on the US economy. Seeing as this is the US patent office this shouldn't have effect on ecommerce taking place entirely outside it's borders. I can imagine the US marketplace getting cut off from the world market and becoming two distinct identities. A Frenchman (for example) would be forced to buy from a Canadian online store instead of an American one.

    Anyone with any brains would not let this patent get past the front door, but remember we're dealing with the US patent office here. (Of course this scenerio is way too extreme to happen but it's just a thought)

  • May already be invalid (Score:5)

    by General_Corto ( 152906 ) on Monday August 28, 2000 @08:19AM (#821692)
    From the article:
    When he described the system to Randolph N. Reynolds, vice chairman of Reynolds Metal Co., whom he met through a government-sponsored program for small exporters, he says Mr. Reynolds told him: "Patent it, son. Patent it." Messrs. Pool and Mauer, who together own DE Technologies, filed their patent application in 1997.

    He *described* the system to a third party prior to patenting it. Certainly in the UK, that would invalidate the patent application, as the process was now public knowledge. I don't know how things work in the US, as I don't hail from there, but I think he's on shaky ground.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry up is not nailed down. -- Collis P. Huntingdon, railroad tycoon

Close