Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Patent Cases Hurting Small Businesses 348

smudge writes "An Information Week article states that multiple small businesses with Web presence are being sued by PanIP LLC. The claims in these patents being asserted in the lawsuits refer to 'a computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services' and 'an automatic data-processing system for processing business and financial transactions between entities from remote sites.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patent Cases Hurting Small Businesses

Comments Filter:
  • Vague? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Manhigh ( 148034 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:39PM (#4501768)
    I'd think any patent that uses phrases like "a variety of" is too vague.
    • Re:Vague? (Score:5, Funny)

      by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:43PM (#4501793)
      Obviously, they didn't have a good patent attorney. Good patent attorneys know that they should say "a plurality of"--it makes the patent sound more serious.
    • by wanton ( 310689 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @01:28AM (#4502118) Homepage
      Actually, I checked out the patents, they do use the word plurality, however :) ...

      They're retarded. Both require that the 'textual' and 'graphical' content of the site be from a 'CD-ROM' or 'optical device'. I know of very few sites that do this. Additionally, the first patent defines that the device which essentially serves contents require a device for displaying graphical content. I guess the patent doesn't take into affect that some people host their shiznit on boxes without a monitor.

      So, fear not the whores.
      (I hope the lawsuits backfire on that blasted company)
    • Re:Vague? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by krazyninja ( 447747 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @01:51AM (#4502177)
      Actually, there are many patents out there which extend their claims this way. And having come across several patent lawyers myself, it looks like its standard procedure. All patents end with phrases like "experts well versed in this field would know that this invention is not limited to (whatever the patent mentions) but also to related fields". I am forced to believe it now :(
      I have a list of such patents here [geocities.com]

      • Re:Vague? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by k98sven ( 324383 )
        All patents end with phrases like "experts well versed in this field
        would know that this invention is not limited to (whatever the patent mentions)
        but also to related fields"


        Am I the only one thinking about the tale of "The Emperors new clothes" right about now?
    • I'd think any patent that uses phrases like "a variety of" is too vague.

      Vagueness such as this rarely helps the plaintiff. Consider Claim 1:

      1. A computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services, which comprises


      Ordinarily, the preamble is not read into the claim, although it certainly can be in appropriate cases. But here --assuming, a bad assumption, that it actually serves as a claim limitation--, the addition of the words "a variety of" works to the detriment of the plaintiff. (Consider the fragment with those words deleted). In the absence of the language, the fragment is far broader, referring to all information, goods and services. With the language, which must be read to mean SOMETHING, a narrower set of possibilities is considered.

      Does it mean: more than one thing, where each thing is either information a good or service; more than one thing, and different things, where each thing in one of the categories; or more than one thing, with things in two or more of the categories? Answers are found in the spec, the prosecution history and elsewhere, and it is stuff like this that gives defendants a chance.
    • Re:Vague? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PMuse ( 320639 )
      I'd think any patent that uses phrases like "a variety of" is too vague.

      Not that I'm defending these putzes, but using the word "variety" here is not entirely crazy. For instance, Amazon.com is well known for selling a variety of merchandise on the net. Do you think it makes any difference what gets sold when you're talking about how they sell it?

      If I patent an ink pen capable of writing in a variety of colors by extending one of several ink tubes out of an apature at the bottom of a pen, is it unpatentable because I used the word variety? No. It's unpatentable because people have been selling 4-color pens since at least the 1970s.

      I think this patent is ridiculous, but for other things, not for that.
  • by thenextpresident ( 559469 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:41PM (#4501784) Homepage Journal
    "The patents, No. 5,576,951 and No. 6,289,319, cover, respectively, an "automated sales and services system," and an "automatic business and financial transaction-processing system."

    Vending machines anyone?
  • by raydobbs ( 99133 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:41PM (#4501786) Homepage Journal
    Patent abuse should really be punishable. I mean, patents were made to stifle innovation, they were made to promote it. Now we've got every tom-dick-and-harry patenting blatently prior art things, or just commonplace market things, and attempting to sue people out of existance.

    Let's just make it that if you patent something that is reviewed, and sounds like a dug-headslap type thing - you get a toenail pulled out with a pair of pliers. On severe cases - just bring back public stoning (no, not drug induced bliss - bludgeoned to h*ll with big fu***** rocks) for the offending numbskull, and his/her lawyer.
    • by Soko ( 17987 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:52PM (#4501824) Homepage
      Let's just make it that if you patent something that is reviewed, and sounds like a dug-headslap type thing - you get a toenail pulled out with a pair of pliers. On severe cases - just bring back public stoning (no, not drug induced bliss - bludgeoned to h*ll with big fu***** rocks) for the offending numbskull, and his/her lawyer.

      Sorry, but I already have a patent pending on this exact method. You'll hear from my solicitor in the morning (never liked him anyway). :P

      Soko
    • The whole idea of software patents is pretty dubious to begin with, but don't they have anyone who knows a thing about systems and software? It seems to me that anything claimed in these patents was nothing more than obvious applications of HTTP technology. Maybe CERN could have patented it all in the beginning, but they made it available to all of us, and some idiot is claiming he owns some piece of that.

      Seems to me that the solution is somewhat obvious, and implied in the article. It is likely that they will try to sue some of the big players with deep pockets if they can collect enough in settlements. Don't you think Amazon would be well served to help these little guys squash this thing in the first round before it gets any momentum.

      • by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @08:16AM (#4503524) Homepage
        It seems to me that anything claimed in these patents was nothing more than obvious applications of HTTP technology. Maybe CERN could have patented it all in the beginning, but they made it available to all of us, and some idiot is claiming he owns some piece of that.

        For prior art see the Internet Shopping Network (now part of HSN) which was operating in '94, Also the UK Prestel system which operated in the early 80s.

        I don't doubt that we could have got a patent for HTTP, but it is only a more efficient transport than ftp. There used to be quite a few sites that used ftp to serve HTML.

        This type of extortion should be punished. In the UK you would be hit with a crippling legal bill for the defendant's costs if you lost so there is little point in filing vexatious patents. Also prior review means that the probability of getting a vexatious patent is much lower.

        The problem with the USPTO is that it speaks with a forked tongue. When it is justifying its racket it claims that a patent has to be 'novel', when justifying the actions of its franchisees it claims that their legal definition of 'novel' is 'anything at all, even something completely obvious'.

        Actually cases like these are the ones that might lead to reform. A corrupt senator bought by USPTO franchisees can ignore the complaints from the likes of Microsoft or slashdotters, but it is harder to ignore small business owners. And no, the judgemet against Microsoft on the disk compression patent was not any more justified than the present scam. What was being claimed there was not LZW but the idea of a compressed disk.

        Don't you think Amazon would be well served to help these little guys squash this thing in the first round before it gets any momentum.

        They have their own problems in this area, there are something like 2000 odd patent extortion scams going on and Amazon have their fair share.

    • by Raw Ostrich ( 619490 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @01:37AM (#4502142)
      There is a bright side to this. When it comes to immaterial rights, thigs need to get worse before they get better. The inertia of the status quo has to be overcome by unbearable stupidity and cost of the current legislation. I would urge everyone to seek patents whenever possible, as broad as possible and as harmfull to development as possible. Lets get it over with and move on...
    • by nemesisj ( 305482 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @02:08AM (#4502250) Homepage
      I've got a friend who has a friend that works in the USPO and he was telling me how ridiculous it is to work there. Basically, you're supposed to nail predatory patents like these obviously are, but this guy who works there gets creamed by his boss whenever he tries to deny a patent. His boss is involved in all sorts of payoffs and dirt - I literally couldn't believe the stories he was telling. He later got put on a committee that was trying to track fraud and they figured out that some really high percentage (don't remember exactly, but it was over half) of the patents are frivolous and completely bunk. One tactic lots of patent filers like to use is to send in a 25 page document, and the first 24 pages are garbage designed to lull the reviewer to sleep, then they slip in a couple of paragraphs that involve what they're really trying to patent at the end. So to sum things up, its his opinion that the whole system is completely out of control, which is too bad, and he also thinks its so broken it can't be fixed, which is where things REALLY begin to suck.
      • 25 pages? Amateurs! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by pommiekiwifruit ( 570416 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @04:45AM (#4502597)
        Biotech companies have been submitting patents of 140,000 pages in length. These may take some time to examine thoroughly.
        • by jdiggans ( 61449 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @09:28AM (#4504080)
          For biotech patents on genes or proteins the USPTO requires you include a 'sequence listing' describing the sequence of the gene(s) or protein(s) you're patenting. This must be submitted in a very structured format that increases the vertical length of the submitted content by a great deal, especially for long sequences (so I imagine this 140k page application was a small app with a giant sequence listing trying to keep the claims as biologically broad as possible).

          The PTO has finally gotten wise to the act of including everything but the kitchen sink in a patent listing (as was the industry's habit a few years ago) and now charges on a per-page basis for patent submissions. This ensures that if a company files a 140k page patent, they really mean it and are willing to pay for it.

          One of the FEW good ideas out of the USPTO in a long time; let's hope there are others.
          -j
      • by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @07:47AM (#4503300)
        His boss is involved in all sorts of payoffs and dirt - I literally couldn't believe the stories he was telling.

        I wouldn't be surprised - our (very small) company has been fighting a huge company over the violation of one of our patents, and they're using the strategy of delaying the reviews of our patent so that we can't go to court (and they are hoping that our little company will eventually die).

        We've fought off their challenges to our patent FOUR times (now going on a fifth reexamination), taking over 4 years now. Each time, the primary examiner has revalidated our patent - and then his boss overrides his conclusion & throws our patent out (the same boss each time), usually without a reason.

        Needless to say, we've got some questions about the motivations of the patent examiner's supervisor - but there isn't anything we can prove, and due to the rules of the Patent Office, we can't get anyone else to look at the case.

  • by babylon93 ( 611333 ) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `p33rc3d0c'> on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:42PM (#4501788) Journal
    Too bad these people seem so be trying to get their money from suing others rather than perfecting the magic of E-commerce, which they basically claim to have invented.
  • deja vu (Score:5, Informative)

    by outlier ( 64928 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:42PM (#4501789)
    PanIP has been mentioned [slashdot.org] in slashdot before [slashdot.org].



    It seems that the disease that is PanIP has been spreading...

    • I agree wholeheartedly. Pardon my French, but upon getting about halfway through the story, I thought "Oh man, not these fucks again..."

      Ass clowns like PanIP need to ... have something hideously painful and violent done to them. It's late, I can't be any more creative than that.
  • Is that so? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neksys ( 87486 ) <grphillips AT gmail DOT com> on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:42PM (#4501790)
    In that case, I'd like to assert my own patent on 'a physical system for selecting and obtaining a variety of goods and services' and 'a electronically assisted, human-run data-processing system for processing business and financial transactions between entities at a physical location.'"

    Namely - any store or business with a cashier.

    • What they REALLY patented was pretty much *ANY* database. It even looks like a series of labelled pictures in a word document would violate the patent as written.

      All it'll take is one person to take this to court to get the patents invalidated. They're atrocious.
  • by technoid_ ( 136914 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:44PM (#4501794) Homepage Journal
    Some one needs to phrase the job of the US Patent office really vaguly and then get a patent on it. Then sue the patent office for patent infringement.

    hmmm, wonder if i could make this into a business plan and get some VC behind me...

    • Filing as we speak: A government system for appropriating the obvious and awarding it, by order of legal expenditure magnitude, to corporate entities unable to compete without government-granted intellectual property monopoly.
    • "Method and apparatus for the protection of methods, procedures, and apparatuses by grant of exclusive rights by a governing body having executive authority over such rights" (Grant of Patent)

      "Method and procedure for the dismantling of civilized society by exclusive diversion with legistative processes" (making people so busy defending themselves against lawsuits to do anything productive)

      "Method and apparatus for the production of intellectual property and information by means of the exercise of a passive or active electromechanical or electronic relay causing the dissipation of energy in various ceramic, plastic, semiconductor, or organic elements, causing the semi-permanent organization of atomic or subatomic particles on a dielectric, metallic, organic, semiconductor, ceramic, or plasticine substrate, also causing the luminescence of phosphorescent or electronic optoelectrical or optoelectronic elements." (use of computer)

      Sorry I couldn't get any more vague than that.

  • by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:52PM (#4501823) Homepage
    is 1996 seem a little to recent to have a good claim for a patent? now if it had been around 1990 then sure I could see how they think they have a good patent, but 1996!!! my god....businesses were doing web sales for a few years before these yokels said "hey that sales system is not patented..."
    • by zurab ( 188064 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @02:36AM (#4502335)
      businesses were doing web sales for a few years before these yokels said "hey that sales system is not patented..."

      Even the article states:

      DeBrand, literally a mom-and-pop shop in Fort Wayne, Ind., has been selling its homemade chocolates over the Web "practically from the beginning, probably seven, maybe eight years...

      and several paragraphs later:

      The patents PanIP bases its lawsuits on were granted-the first in 1996...

      This makes no sense. The shop has been selling stuff online since 1994-95. USPTO, with its head buried in the dumpster, approves and hands the patent to PanIP in 1996 on the obvious prior art stuff that had been going on by thousands of companies/individuals for years before. PanIP turns around and sues small companies that can't afford to defend against patent infringement and would probably rather pay $5k.

      Note the following:

      1. To PanIP: the company that you are suing has prior art to your patent if your accusation is correct that they are infringing in the first place. They have been in business longer and actually *doing* what you patented couple of years later.

      2. I hope the judge sees (a) the obviousness and numerous prior art of the patents, (b) the ill intent of PanIP, LLC, (c) the frivolous and wrongful lawsuit brought by PanIP, and dismisses the lawsuit, awards legal expenses plus punitive damanges to the defendants, and orders to close down PanIP, LLC, put all its patents in public domain, and orders its founders/owners and laywers to spend 3 months in community service and 9 months living with GNU/RMS at their own expense!

      3. USPTO will approve any patent claim that contains the word "apparatus". It seems like this is one of the qualifying criteria for approval. I can probably get an approval for a patent for an "apparatus that hammers the nails in the wood", or an "apparatus that can roll in a circular motion on any surface". Hey! why not - check out the infamous method of swinging on a swing [uspto.gov] granted on April9, 2002?

      4. This has got to stop! Write to your local corporate representatives in DC and tell them this is devastating for local small and medium size business!

      5. USPTO database and website should be turned into a comedy and satire website and public entertainment source (Ok... done already), but remove most of their entries' legal implications. On a side note, when you are bored and have nothing to do try searching patents on your favorite activity. How about a tub for bathing [uspto.gov] granted on June 25, 2002 solely from the drawings?
      • ...and orders its founders/owners and laywers to spend... 9 months living with GNU/RMS at their own expense!

        Unfortunately, cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited by the Constitution, and this is certainly both.

  • Vague and foolish (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Facekhan ( 445017 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:58PM (#4501842)
    Can you imagine if this lawyering tactic and blatant abuse of an overburdened patent office had taken place 150 years ago. I could patent things like "a way to use electricity for an artificial light source" and then I could have sued Edison or perhaps I could have patented "a method of towing freight along metal rails" and the railroad and locomotives would have been sued into non-existence. Its insane.
    • You second patent would be easily circumvented. Just put the locomotive behind the freight.

      That is really the problem here. Where patents used to be almost complete inventions, with a working touchable product behind them. (So for instance the patent for the black-and-decker workmate involves technical drawing showing you how to build one.) Modern patents seem little more then concepts. (Yeah like maybe if I made somekind of raised surface with bits you can build things on).

      Sadly this seems obvious to all normal people. Problem is of course that normal people have little to do with this. Judges are famous for some pretty idiotic descions, in lower courts. And jury's must be specially selected for their unpredicatablity. Simpler to cough up the license fee then risk biting the dust and still having to pay the license fee, youre own attorny fee, the courts time, and the oponents legal fee, while all the time you can't run youre small business effectively.

      But considering their methods, if one of the defandents manages to win, couldn't PanIP be sued for racketeering?

    • The same tactics (not necessarily the same abuse) have occurred over the lifetime of the patent system. There was a previous /. story (I'm too lazy to look for it) about how patent litigation stifled the development of the airplane until in WWI the US government refused to honor the affected patents. Then innovation just took off, if you'll pardon the pun.

      Also, I believe Edison had several patents covering the light bulb [si.edu]. (And thousands of patents covering other things.) It may be obvious to you but it was certainly not obvious in 1879.
  • by thenextpresident ( 559469 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:59PM (#4501847) Homepage Journal
    Please file a protest for patents 6,289,319 and 5,576,951

    "1901.01 Who Can Protest
    Any member of the public, including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a protest under 37 CFR 1.291. A protest may be filed by an attorney or other representative on behalf of an unnamed principal since 37 CFR 1.291 does not require that the principal be identified."
    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac /mpep/document s/0841.htm#sect1901.01
    • Any member of the public, including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a protest under 37 CFR 1.291.

      Nice idea, but 1.291 reads:

      1.291 Protests by the public against pending applications.

      It's too late for this kind of action.
  • I seem to recall not allowing patents that were "utilitarian in nature" listed somewhere in law...I don't remember exactly where though. Might not even have been US law, but if anyone knows where this was from, let me know...now I'm curious.
  • How fun... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Crasoum ( 618885 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:00AM (#4501850) Journal
    The article also mentions patents about one click shoppign and name your price e-commerance... Who is to say slashdot couln't be sued for say.... using a image of a PDA?

    And yet another part of the article bothers me...

    Yet PanIP may not be simply going after low-hanging fruit. Some patent attorneys speculate that it may be looking to build a war chest to take on larger companies. It also may be looking for legal precedents for its patents-either decisions in court or a critical mass of settlements-that would bolster lawsuits against big E-commerce companies, such as Amazon.com Inc. or eBay Inc.

    It seems scarry how some coperation may potentially come after me, for me using a system I invest a mild amount of trust in, just because I -trust- the system. They coming after me, just so they can use me as a stepping stone to attack E-bay is even MORE frightening.

    And I was scared using my credit card online.... This may cause much worse damage.

  • by SexyKellyOsbourne ( 606860 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:02AM (#4501853) Journal
    In the United States, people currently can sue each other for any reason and any thing, and usually win, thanks to the corrupting influence of trial lawyers in Washington, DC.

    There is hope, however; tort reform is taking storm in many states, and it's preventing such frivolous lawsuits from taking place.

    If you don't want these small businesses to be persecuted, then drop the keyboard and write your state and federal Congressmen by snail-mail and demand that he or she fight in the Capitol for real, meaningful tort reform.

    Don't wait until tomorrow -- do it now!
    • by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:09AM (#4501882) Homepage Journal
      The problem centers around "nothing to lose" cases, where the plantiff has nothing to lose by losing the lawsuit.

      In many countries (US is not one of them), if you sue someone and lose (or get caught under perjury or something), you must pay for the defendant's legal fees, and get opened up to counter-suits from the defendant. In the US, unfortunately, the plantiff can just walk away from a lost suit as if nothing happened, despite how much work (and money) a defendant can put in to defend himself. This is especially true for lawyers that hire themselves out on contingency.
      • by broken_bones ( 307900 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:35AM (#4501963)
        The idea of "nothing to lose lawsuits" is a double edged sword. On one hand if these suits are allowed then you have to worry about the possibility of having to defend against one. On the other hand if a losing plaintiff is liable for the legal fees of the defendant it provides a severe advantage to large corporations. No little guy in his right mind would ever sue a megacorporation if he had to pay said megacorporations legal fees in the event of a loss. Losing without incurring that liability is already a very expensive proposition.

        Personally I think the key to tort reform is to remove the profit insentive to lawsuits by diverting punative damages to education. This would mean that if you sue Huge-Mega-Corp for something and win you would collect actual damages (ie restitution, money to compensate you for what you actually lost/suffered). Any punative damages (punishment, the bazillion dollar sums that are supposed to say "don't do that again") awarded would go to an education trust used to buy books, computers, college scolarships etc. for your state.*

        *This is the first time I have ever floated this idea to anyone. If you see holes in it please respond so I can avoid looking like an idiot in the future.
        • This would mean that if you sue Huge-Mega-Corp for something and win you would collect actual damages (ie restitution, money to compensate you for what you actually lost/suffered)

          It really depends on how you determine 'actual' damages. They should include reasonable legal fees and an assessment for interest for the time taken to settle. Having gotten about $3500 from the insurance company of the idiot that totaled a restored car that I had already invested about $8000 and a lot of time ...

          Things are pretty stacked in favor of the big organization with lawyers on the payroll in just about every situation. There's got to be a way to get a quick, reasonably fair hearing to set the baseline settlement (or throw it out completely like the examples from this PanIP). Then if one of the parties wants to challenge that, the one challenging should have some liability for the other's legal fees (within limits) if they still lose.

        • I think that if an organisations' claim for patent infringement is overturned then they should automatically have to pay for the legal fees for both sides. If the problem was due to a ridiculous patent, which was dismissed, then the organisation could then sue the patents office for causing the problem in the first place. That way :

          a) The innocent party is not dragged into a legal battle on an uneven playing field to try and recoup for the legal expenses.

          b) Perhaps the patents office might start to pay more attention to the patents they approve.
        • you have taken the Insurance companies bait, hook line and sinker.
          The insurance companies and huge corporations would have you believe that "punative damages" are where they really get hurt, however, this is not the case generally,
          in most law suits the actual damages are at least 85% of the total award, with barely %15 percent in punative damages (I know my father is an attorney, these are valid statistics of nearly 20 years of his private practice)
          recently in nevada they passed a tort reform, capping punative damages at 350,000. This means that in Nevada if your child dies because a doctor messes up, or if he dies in a car accident that is not your fault, you will only collect 350,000 (seems like a rather small sum for a lost child to me) because children have no wages, and therefore no "lost wages" and there is no way to guess as to how much they would have made in a lifetime.
          the insurance companies pushed this law through under the premise that they would then lower premiums, however as soon as it went through they said "sorry, now we'll have to study the effects of the law on our profits for the next 10 years before we can decide whether we can lower premiums". So basically everyone's screwed but the insurance companies. Tort Reform = make rich people richer, at the expense of everyone else.
        • by cybermage ( 112274 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @01:51AM (#4502176) Homepage Journal
          Personally I think the key to tort reform is to remove the profit insentive to lawsuits by diverting punative damages to education.

          A few of problems with that:

          First, as I see it, the truely disenfranchised (i.e., flat broke) victims of Huge-Mega-Corp's actions would not be able to attract lawyers willing to sue on purely contingency basis; and the lawyers who do so would be taking their cut out of the actual damages.

          Second, the flow of cash into an education fund like you describe would likely create a government agency to administer it. Give the government a source of money to play with and two things will happen: Much will be allocated as pork, and revenue will be sought to maintain the pork programs when the fund runs low.

          Third, restricting the punative damages to a single geographic area, if small enough, may give the tax payers who make up the jury a bias toward the plaintiff as it may reduce their school taxes.

          Instead, what might be better, would be a statuatory compensation rate for lawyers who are granted punative judgements (say 10%, up to $500/hour.) The jury could then allocate the balance of the punative judgement to government (local, state, or federal) and/or 501c3 charitable institutions suggested by the plaintiff(s). Obviously, the plaintiff's list would be submitted only after the jury reaches a verdict and determines the amount of the penalty.
        • The loser should pay the winners legal fees to prevent abuse. It works great in Canada. We also have caps on punative damages. This means there NEVER billion dollar awards for pain and suffering. You can get back whatever is required to make up whtever loss your are suing for, plus reasonable damages (the cap is around $100,000). These two simple rules make silly lawsuits very rare up her in the Great White North.

          This in no way stops the little guy from suing - when he is in the right. It makes it easier because when he wins he has NO LEGAL BILLS to worry about. Of course, if you are sure you are going to win you think twice about starting, but that is a GOOD thing.

          Big coprs still try SLAPP suits, but many jurisdictions have anti-SLAPP legislation. All in all, this system works very well, not just in Canada, but in many countires whose law is based on English Common Law.

    • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:12AM (#4501894) Journal
      Tourt reform is sponsored by the mega corps to reduce consumers right to sue. ITs all about profit for them. At least that is Bush's version of it. Polluters love tourt reform since its expensive to prove that the pollants they discharge cause damage and to prove it would cost tens of millions of dollars. Insurance companies also love it because they can charge the same price for insurance and rake in more profits.
      • On the other hand, modern consumer lawsuits are so random in application and award that rather than causing good behavior in large corporations, they instead create a climate of uncertainty which serves to sieze up the gears of capitalism through what amounts to a government mandated legal tax across the board, accomplishing little public good except the certain enrichment of the legal class and a lottery type system of enrichment of certain citizens through chance rather than meritorious conduct; structural reform may be impossible, therefore proposed tort reforms seek mainly to reduce the magnitude of the legal tax.

        Look, Mom, no periods!

        • > On the other hand, modern consumer lawsuits are so random in application and award that rather than causing good behavior in large corporations, they instead create a climate of uncertainty which serves to sieze up the gears of capitalism through what amounts to a government mandated legal tax across the board, accomplishing little public good except the certain enrichment of the legal class and a lottery type system of enrichment of certain citizens through chance rather than meritorious conduct; structural reform may be impossible, therefore proposed tort reforms seek mainly to reduce the magnitude of the legal tax.

          Unfortunately, the only tort cases you ever hear about are the ones with apparently unfair verdicts and/or extreme penalties. Yeah, there are abuses, but I'm not convinced that they amount to more than a small fraction of all cases. Based on my experience with being called out for jury duty, there must be hundreds or even thousands of tort cases in court every day. And most of them are the result of one company suing another, not of some deadbeat playing the courtroom lottery.

          Also IMO there is a grave risk associated with capping tort payouts. If we put a cap of, say, $1,000,000 on wrongful deaths we'll end up with corporate accountants trading lives for profits in the most direct manner imaginable. (I suspect this already happens, but the uncertainty of the tort system presumably encourages companies to lean a bit toward caution in the calculation of the profits/lives ratio.)

          For instance, I was formerly associated with the petrochemical industry. OSHA had rules for red-tagging valves on pipes when someone's life would be forfeit if the valve were opened. There were still too many accidents, so OSHA wanted to insitute a lock-out on top of the tag-out, to make it physically impossible to open the valve when someone's life depended on it staying closed. The petrochemical industry fought the new rule tooth and nail. Ask yourself why the owners of a $500,000,000 plant wouldn't want a chain on a valve even to protect a human life.

          Tort reform is simply a way of saying "your life is worth less than our investment". IMO the reform we need is to institute criminal liability, not to reduce financial liability.

          • In Canada there are laws that force companies to put chains on valves that would kill someone if opened. You would NOT be sued, you'd be going to jail if you did something like that as it would be a criminal matter. If companies are playing with lives where you live, you shouldn't be worrying about Tort reform, you should be pressing the government to pass some basic industrial safety regulations.

            Caps on punative damages help prevent 'lawsuit bingo'.

            All companies doing real risk analysis do have to put a price on human life. They never advertise the fact, but its the only way to do it properly.


      • > Tourt reform is sponsored by the mega corps to reduce consumers right to sue. ITs all about profit for them.

        Also, tort reform is the issue where I first heard about astroturfing. Way back 10-15 years ago a consortium of big companies hired a law firm in Florida to play middle man and piled zillions of dollars into small businesses' coffers in exchange for getting them to speak up in favor of a tort reform bill written by and for the biggest corporations. When the story broke the law firm didn't even try to deny it, though they did decline to name the players.

  • Several things. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ketamine-bp ( 586203 )
    IAPNAL (p for possibly), but:

    1. one doesn't need to be making sense to get a patent. you can find a patent relates to a algorithm that 'can compress arbitary data by at least 1 bit' (note that this results in compression of anything to 0bit (or even less.) upon recursion.

    2. revocation of patent is possible but usually impractical since this requires a lot of time and money (ask your peear who's doing as a law costs draftsman and they'll tell you that.)

    3. Somebody would tell you the availability of the overseas outsourcing possibility. this is still vulnerable as your business model does not change. you can help, however, if your company is based on somewhere which is not on the states though.

    4. Now, IAPNAL (this P stands for presumably) The heart of the case lies on the word 'automated' with its relationship to prior art.

    5. What we can do is write to progress (oh no, congress) to get somebody proposes a new patent system.

  • by Stlkr13 ( 619478 )
    If you read the patents that are the basis of the lawsuit the case has no merit. The patents are for video loan terminals, not internet business. I don't know how the two are the same?
  • by certron ( 57841 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:21AM (#4501922)
    OK, Amazon.com, Buy.com, bn.com, and anyone else who wants in should set up a fund to hire someone to club the kneecaps of everyone involved in this stupid, stupid lawsuit. My usual style would be to hit them in the face with a frying pan, since it is almost impossible to misinterperet that action as anything other than sheer and utter revulsion and hate, but sometimes the frying pan just doesn't do the job.

    I mean, seriously. This is one of those 'just when you had accepted the fact that things couldn't get any more stupid or pointless, you were harshly proven wrong' things. I'm going to patent candy and beachballs and start collecting royalty payments from kids, those pathological users of unlicensed intellectual property... (No, don't even try and apply logic to that one. Trust me, don't.)

    I'm ready to put in $20 for the hitman. Who is with me? Hey, it worked for the blender source code.

    (OK, I'm not an evil person. I really just wish they would drop the lawsuits and grow a spine and some clue. That would be far preferable to having to spend money on a hitman. I mean, uh, I hope nothing bad happens to them. But I'll probably smirk if something does. No, wait... If the police ask, I had nothing to do with it. Yeah, that's the ticket...)

  • Patents suck (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shnarez ( 541132 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:29AM (#4501948)
    Why do we need to stifle innovation of the entire society by granting a patent to an interested party, when said party usually does not implement their `idea' but really waits for someone else to do the hard work just so that they can sue them later?

    Why even have patents? Call 'em trade secrets. If someone can figure out what you did and do it better, faster, cheaper, and easier, tough luck, it's their achievement.

  • Long-Term Results (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Nynaeve ( 163450 )
    Think about it for a moment. What are the long-term results of what we see here? Patents are supposed to foster innovation by offering protection. This innovation, in turn, is intended to support capitalism and all of the nifty inventions we see every day. What we are now seeing is that _abuses_ of the patent system are feeding off of the energy provided to capitalism in the first place! What do you think will happen? Could it reach a point that businesses will be less willing to produce products for fear of litigation (one business already has, according to the article)? If so, what is the threshold of this point, and what forces could we emphasize in opposition to it?

    I don't want to see innovation stifled "in the name of IP" leaving us with a modern version of the Dark Ages. With the increasing emphasis of individual or corporate profit (Enron, WorldCom, et. al) to such levels that it tips the balance of capitalism, perhaps it is possible that the contribution of individuals and small business to the GNP could decrease significantly.

    Remember what fueled the Dark Ages (AD 500 - 700) - fear of prosecution/persecution. How is that different from what we see here?
  • How about from the no-shit-sherlock-thanks-watson dept.

    Seriously folks, these issues have been discussed before, and the most prominent of problems has been identified that the patent system was funded by -- and for -- large corporations. What small business is going to have the kind of funding needed to defend a patent against a large corporation?

    Additionally, a small business that knows it has rights on a patent issued by a large corporation is going to have a difficult time proving it -- financially, at least.
  • The PanIP [panip.com] seems to be runningn apache, so they can't be all evil. ;) Seriously, the website seems to be showing the index page for the empty web directory - go check it out - there is one link "stats" - which doesn't allow access without a password. First person to crack their site and put up some proof (e.g. "we are blood sucking vampires") gets all my karma, respect, and a vitual beer.
    • Or you could just go to Netcraft [netcraft.com] and discover that they are using Apache (and something called Rapidsite) on IRIX, and that their page was apparently created with Frontpage 5.0. In addition they use mod_ssl and OpenSSL.

      Now then, where is my karma/respect/beer?

  • Legislation Needed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GuruJ ( 604127 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:45AM (#4501997) Homepage
    It sounds like only Government legislation can fix these patent problems. Once people (and their lawyers) 'smell the money', the only way to prevent abuse is to close the loopholes.

    At a minimum, the government should legislate that the patent holder must prove there is a 'case to answer' before any defendents have to touch their wallets. Maybe small businesses should even be exempt from patent claims altogether.

    This whole thing reminds me of a recent set of high-profile cases where Australian local councils paid $100,000s for people tripping on a crack in the sidewalk!

    Once people figured out that it was generally cheaper for councils to pay them $10k to shut them up than to fight the claim, everyone jumped on the bandwagon, hoping for a 'lottery win' payout.

    The patent system will remain broken until the 'lottery win' mentality no longer applies.

  • by MrNybbles ( 618800 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:45AM (#4501999) Journal
    Most (if not all) of these bad patents we have been reading about lately in the news have to do with human leaches trying to get money without working for it (the lawyers do all the work).

    It's easy. For patents just come up with some broad, utterly asinine idea that people have been doing long enough that people will not stop.

    This works for the same reason that sending a bill for $15 to a large business works; the company will pay the small fee because it is cheaper to do so than to investigate every questionable bill.

    With these bad patents, if the price is low enough then most companies will pay the licensing fee instead of the greater cost to fight it in court.

    The only solution that could work is getting the people working in the patent office a clue. How about some redundancy so it would take at least 3 people to review patent. That way if we can get at least one of those three to be a person who has common sence, problem solved!

    Or is this just wishful thinking?
  • by sssmashy ( 612587 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @12:49AM (#4502006)
    PanIP's principal owner, Lawrence Lockwood, previously had filed suit against American Airlines in 1994, charging that the company's online reservation system infringed on other patents he holds. Lockwood lost that lawsuit, which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court

    This Lockwood guy sounds like a real pro. He's been at it for at least 10 years. He sniffs out broad new technological trends in business - the kind of thing you might read about in a Forbes article - and then cynically abuses the weakness of US Patent Law by patenting a vague expression of that trend. He never intends to produce anything with his "ideas"... he just slinks into his hole and waits for the real innovators to come along so he can extort money from them.

    He's going to lose any court case--that's almost a given--but in the meantime he's hoping that enough of his small, carefully picked victims cave in and throw him $30k, or at least a few grand to make him disappear.

    The key to wiping the smirk off his face is to make sure no more of his victims cave. Sure, lawyers aren't cheap, but the 30 companies have to realize that there is no way they can lose this disgusting and frivolous lawsuit, especially if they work together.

  • Well actually it's: "an organic system for extracting and concentrating oxygen from gases present in the atmosphere".... Or am I full of hot air?
  • Kathleen Walker, PanIP's attorney, will no doubt will be in touch in the near future with the guy who suggested hiring a hit man. These folks have probably received death threats already, and I'm sure they have *NO* sense of humor.

    But seriously, aren't we all thinking the same thing as we read about these assholes? I wonder how it feels to know that thousands of people would really, really love it if you dropped dead in the next 5 minutes?

    But of course, that's not going to happen. What is going to happen is they will just keep on doing this crap until it plays out. Maybe they will step on the wrong toes and actually have to go to court, or their patents will get revoked. But probably not. They seem to know exactly how to play this.

    PanIP might become an accepted institution, like Title Insurance companies, and everybody who starts a web business will toddle over to their site and fork over $5000 for permission to do e-commerce. Someday it might be common knowledge that PanIP invented e-commerce, right after Al Gore created the Internet.
  • youmaybenext.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by w42w42 ( 538630 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @01:11AM (#4502072)

    The founder of the chocolate company in the article and a group have created the websiteyoumaybenext.com [youmaybenext.com] to spread the word.

    Lots of appropriate information.

  • It's a VERY good thing patents expire quickly. Otherwise we'd still be paying massive royalties to every one of the distant descendants of the people who invented the wheel, the knife, etc... And car companies would use hexagonal wheels to try to avoid the royalties...

    There are certain things that any dumbass could have invented given the requisite technology, and shouldn't be patentable. The extremely general kinds of 'patents' asserted by that damned speculatory company fit into that category.
  • It's buried down at the end of the article, but they have a decent website [youmaybenext.com] with more info. Check it out.
  • Well, looks like its time to add this one to my list of "bad" patents [geocities.com]!
    This is similar to the one in which companies were threatened by a duo, for having the rights to advertise over the internet, and the JPEG patent and more.
  • by tuxlove ( 316502 )
    While this "description" might sound quite vague and overbroad:

    'a computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services'

    It might well not be. For those uninitiated in the ways of patents, this sounds like part of the abstract or title of a patent, and not a "claim". The titles of patents tend to be lacking in description and precision; the real meat is to be found in the actual claims of the patent. Patent claims tend to start broad and then become more specific as you traverse the list. Patents tend to have numerous claims, with the later, more specific claims depending on the earlier, broader claims. Claims do not tend to stand on their own, but rather a chain of claims describe what it is that is being claimed as novel and hence patentable.

    The lesson here is that you *cannot* understand a patent in the slightest by reading the title and/or abstract. Those are simply primers for understanding what the claims will be driving at with much more specificity. All too often I see people railing against particular patents here on /. after only reading the "headlines". I agree wholeheartedly that a patent that consisted simply of a single broad claim like "a computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information..." would be overbroad and frivolous. But I guarantee that this one consists of much more than that without having even read it myself.

    Note: I am not a strong supporter of patents, especially business patents. I'm just reporting the facts, ma'am.
  • Go here for a reality check. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/1418 165.stm I'd love to dispute this patent - if only I could find some prior art. :)
    • I couldn't find this link, but if this is the case that I think it is, it is what is called an "innovation" patent in Australia. These 'patents' aren't examined and are presumably fought in litigation. It's really just a registration system.

      It was filed by a patent attorney to point out how foolish an automatic grant patent system is - and it worked.

      So, it's not really the same as a normal patent. Pretty pointless imho - you just get a raft of dubious registrations most of which don't mean anything until someone tries to assert them.

      In any event at the end of the day, and this applies to real patents, if everyone is completely sure that the invention is not new, not novel and there exists a lot of prior art - ignore the patent. If you get sued, do pretty much nothing but file a few good examples of all the prior art which people raise in these discussions of clearly invalid web patents. Let the decision be decided on the papers and wait for the case to be dismissed.

      (I know this probably can't happen in the US..)

  • You know... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NeuroManson ( 214835 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @02:00AM (#4502217) Homepage
    By supporting all these lawyers, you're essentially depriving the US military of valuable personnel on the frontlines. All the judges, juries, and yes, the lawyers, are prevented from doing their patriotic duty by fighting for freedom in the Middle East, Europe, and wherever else we decide to bomb the crap out of...

    When you file lawsuits, you're support terrorism.
  • The process of applying and filing critical intellectual property rights under civil or governmental systems, utilizing metal boxes (known as "filing cabinets") and pressed and printed wood pulp composite materials (known as "paper", and paying with either printed or handwritten and printed wood pulp composite materials (known as "money" or "checks").

    Patent that, and watch the IP system implode as it runs around in circles, trying to sue itself into oblivion...
  • by squared99 ( 466315 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @02:05AM (#4502232)
    what are the current job reqs for the patent office? Do they have different division? Meaning is there a patent division for internet technology, a patent division for genetic pateneting, etc?

    Decisions about patents are obviously being made by people who have no idea how these things work in their respective fields. Are they just checking the patent claims for grammer, and that all the checkbox's are filled in? We need people working there that actually have a vague idea of what is being patented. I dont understand how anyone semi tech-literate could allow these pass, hell I dont know how anyone literate could let these pass?

    Imagine if people start claiming necessary carpentry skills like 'the process of putting a a variety of small steel spikes in a piece of wood' - that'll cover hammering, screwing, etc. Or 'method of subdividing wood into smaller pieces.' - sawing.

    How is this any different?
    • by ProfBooty ( 172603 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @08:06AM (#4503439)
      there are general divisions for chemical, electrical, mechianical, biotech and business methods. from there, there are breakdowns into specific technologies, such as sporting equipment, telephones, tyres etc, nearly every catergory of invention.

      At least BS is requried, for some techonolgies, more is required for education/job experience.

      the people who work at the PTO probably know far more than you do about a specific technology. The problem is you have to read how the claims are written. The claims define the actual invention. If the law firm does a good search prior to filing a patent, they can word the claims so that the examiner can't find it. Likewise after a non-final rejection, the attorney can ammend the claims to not read on the art the examiner cited.

      "Imagine if people start claiming necessary carpentry skills like 'the process of putting a a variety of small steel spikes in a piece of wood' - that'll cover hammering, screwing, etc. Or 'method of subdividing wood into smaller pieces.' - sawing."

      The article poster only quoted the preamble, not the actual invention, so the slashdot article is misleading. Likewise the passage from the above poster is inaccurate. That is called the preamble and is not the actual invention. The actual invention portion of the claim would likely read something like this:

      1) A method if inserting small steel spikes in a piece of wood, wherein said wood is composed of pine. ETC with more and more detail AFTER the preamble portion

      I'm pretty tired of slashdot people, who are entirely uneducated in the patent process, critizing a process which they don't even fully understand.

  • Patent system (Score:2, Insightful)

    I always wondered why the american patent system is so wierd. The european system is so very simple.

    You invent, then you patent, then publish. When you first publish or try to patent something that already is commonly used, forget it. It's not your idea, you could have found it anywere, so no patent is granted. Easy, simple and stupid actions like this can be prevented.

    BTW the legal system is pretty wierd to... is that why coffee cups state that coffee is hot... Overhere we complain when it's cold, coffee should be hot and a normal thinking person only drinks coffee when it's not to hot. WHen you burn yourself, you're to stupid to drink coffee. (but in america you're smart and start sueing the supplier)

    IMHO these rules, in patenting and the law, really prevent the Joe Common to use it's brain... Wait a minit... america is producing the biggest army and will start to invade every country that still doesn't listen... that's it. Keep the people stupid so you can use them...

    Be afraid... for hot coffee. ;-)
    • This is (somewhat) offtopic, but here goes.

      You misunderstood the nature of the original McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, as did most people. See the very informative site here [lawandhelp.com] for details, but basically it boils (no pun intended) down to the fact that McDonalds keeps it's coffee at 185 degrees F. Standard restaurant coffee temperature is around 165 degrees, but the coffee stays fresher (hence having to be re-made less often) at 185. At 165 degrees, a spill will probably cause first degree burns, but nothing serious. At 185 degrees, it causes third degree burns in under two seconds. You know, the kind that leave you with scar tissue for the rest of your life? McDonald's probably wouldn't have been found negligent if it was just the temperature, but prior to the famous lawsuit they had settled over 700 scalding claims relating to this practice. They admitted they knew it was a hazard. And the 81 year old woman only sued them because they refused to pay the medical bill for the skin grafts and 7 days in the hospital she suffered.

      There are problems in the system. Major problems. But you need to find a new example to throw around. (That, or specify which case you're referring to. Feel free to refer to this [roanoke.com] coffee case instead of the famous one that got the labels put on. :)

  • is what comes to mind when I read "a computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services"...
    These small businesses should be able to defend themselves sans lawyer.

    J

  • by richard-parker ( 260076 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @03:39AM (#4502471)
    The PanIP Defendants web site mentioned in the article has a list [youmaybenext.com] of the 50 companies that have so far been sued by PanIP. Interestingly, despite the large number of e-commerce companies in California, none of the defendants are located in California.

    Since the patent holder, PanIP, is located in San Diego the cases are taking place in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Since all of the companies being targeted are small out-of-state companies they are unlikely to already have an established relationship with an attorney licensed to practice in California. I wonder if PanIP is specifically targeting companies that are not in California, perhaps on the theory that out-of-state companies will be more likely to settle when faced with having to litigate a case far from home?
  • prior art (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dnight ( 153296 ) <dnight&lakkadoo,com> on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @07:19AM (#4503100)
    I was implementing EDI [xmledi-group.org] 15-17 years ago.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Working...