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.'"
Vague? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vague? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Vague? - nah, just lame (Score:4, Informative)
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? - nah, just lame (Score:4, Insightful)
So I'm guessing they think the patent covers anyone who took pictures of their product and put them up on their website.
Re:Vague? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a list of such patents here [geocities.com]
Re:Vague? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Defendants love such language (Score:3, Insightful)
Vagueness such as this rarely helps the plaintiff. Consider Claim 1:
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)
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.
Vending machines... (Score:4, Insightful)
Vending machines anyone?
Re:Vending machines... (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay - this is getting stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Okay - this is getting stupid (Score:5, Funny)
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).
Soko
The patent office is looking pretty stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The patent office is looking pretty stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The patent office has looked stupid for years (Score:3, Interesting)
The Patent Office is unequivocal. "All patents are presumed valid once they're issued," says Brigid Quinn, deputy director of public affairs.
This would be funny if it wasn't true, but there decisions are legally binding until challenged, as you say.
I was talking to a friend about a more libertarian or maybe even anarchistic legal system where the government wouldn't be the only entity with the legal standing to represent the public at large. I know, there could be real problems (like SLAPP style prosecutions for any law they can find on the books). He's really much more libertarian than me, since I think there really is a constructive role for government to play, if only they were effective and actually represented the people.
He was telling me that there is a legal mechanism where you can try to force the state to take legal action. I forget the technical legal term, but it basically translates as "do your job", and he was telling me about an example (which I also forgot). Maybe the patent office can be sued under this framework, but you still have the basic catch 22 that they didn't do their job in the first place, so it will be difficult to enforce an effective remedy.
Re:The patent office has looked stupid for years (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I like smoking weed with my friends too.
Re:The patent office has looked stupid for years (Score:4, Informative)
Writ of Mandate. aka Writ of Mandamus A court order to a government agency, including another court, to follow the law by correcting its prior actions or ceasing illegal acts.
(BTW, IANAL, but more details can be found here [law.com] in a legal dictionary)
Re:Okay - this is getting stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Okay - this is getting stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
25 pages? Amateurs! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:25 pages? Amateurs! (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re:Okay - this is getting stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Okay - this is getting stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that, but we are technically winning each re-exam so we do not have the standing to take our case to the Appeals board, but then the examiner's supervisor keeps letting the big company submit "a little more" prior art (BS stuff which is easy to refute) to force a new re-exam, which lets them delay the court case for 4-8 months (the judge doesn't want to do anything until he gets a firm "patent is valid/not valid" indication from the Patent Office).
We are hoping that because this is the 5th re-exam (and four were in our favor), that the judge will decide that "enough is enough" and let the case go forward (in which case we're expecting to kick butt), but in the meantime we're just a small company with our IP in an uncertain status trying to stay afloat in a bad economy.
Re:Okay - this is getting stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Just make everyone who unsuccessfully sues to defend a patent pay for all the court costs for both parties.
don't re-invent the wheel...PATENT it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:don't re-invent the wheel...PATENT it (Score:2, Funny)
Re:don't re-invent the wheel...PATENT it (Score:2)
deja vu (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that the disease that is PanIP has been spreading...
Re:deja vu (Score:2)
Ass clowns like PanIP need to
Is that so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Namely - any store or business with a cashier.
What's scary, is if you read the actual patent... (Score:3, Interesting)
All it'll take is one person to take this to court to get the patents invalidated. They're atrocious.
Re:Is that so? (Score:2, Funny)
patent patents? (Score:5, Funny)
hmmm, wonder if i could make this into a business plan and get some VC behind me...
Re:patent patents? (Score:2)
Re:patent patents? (Score:3, Funny)
"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.
is it just me or.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:is it just me or.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:is it just me or.... (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited by the Constitution, and this is certainly both.
Re:um hello did you read the patent it dates to 19 (Score:3, Informative)
Eh? What patents are you looking at? Either you are a troll or you didn't check them yourself:
Patent 5,576,951 [uspto.gov]:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037)
Appl. No.: 210301
Filed: March 16, 1994
Patent date November 19, 1996.
Patent 6,289,319 [uspto.gov]:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037)
Appl. No.: 347270
Filed: November 30, 1994,
Patent date September 11, 2001.
Where did you get the 1988? I am wondering if you are referring to the parent case text with abandoned applications that were referenced there? If so, the dates go back to 1984 and 1986. However, I am not aware of the rule that prior art has to pre-date any of the abandoned patent applications!
Vague and foolish (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Vague and foolish (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
It did (Score:2)
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.
To file a Patent Protest... (Score:5, Informative)
"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/pa
Re:To file a Patent Protest... (Score:3, Informative)
Nice idea, but 1.291 reads:
1.291 Protests by the public against pending applications.
It's too late for this kind of action.
utilitarian (Score:2)
How fun... (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet another part of the article bothers me...
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.
The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:2)
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.
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:2)
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.
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:2)
Look, Mom, no periods!
Re: The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:3, Interesting)
> 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.
Re: The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: The whole legal system needs to be changed (Score:2)
> 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.
Re:NO (Score:2)
Several things. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
It could be worse... (Score:2, Funny)
This makes no sense (Score:2, Insightful)
That's it. Call your Uncle Tony... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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?
from the we-got-patent-pending-on-that dept. (Score:2)
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.
PanIP website (Score:2)
Re:PanIP website (Score:2)
Now then, where is my karma/respect/beer?
Legislation Needed (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Bad Patents = Easy Money (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
How does he make a living? "I enforce my patents" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I'm going to patent the lung... (Score:2)
Aren't we all thinking the same thing? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Patents run amok (Score:2, Funny)
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.
PanIP Defendents' Website (Score:2)
Oops, it's Defendants (Score:2)
List of bad patents! (Score:2)
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.
Some notes on patents (Score:2, Informative)
'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
Note: I am not a strong supporter of patents, especially business patents. I'm just reporting the facts, ma'am.
Re:Some notes on patents (Score:2)
I have compiled here a number of patents [geocities.com], which I see as not credulous.
Re:Some notes on patents (Score:2)
The wheel also has been patented..... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The wheel also has been patented..... (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
When you file lawsuits, you're support terrorism.
Patent # 22683764-C (Score:2)
Patent that, and watch the IP system implode as it runs around in circles, trying to sue itself into oblivion...
Job Requirements for patent office (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Job Requirements for patent office (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Patent system (Score:2)
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. :)
Relational database and SQL (Score:2, Interesting)
These small businesses should be able to defend themselves sans lawyer.
J
PanIP targeting companies not in California? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
USPTO has been in a cave. (Score:2)
...
pant pant pant
[/end_rant]
Well, kind of. (Score:4, Informative)
So please don't put all the blame on the patent examiners; while there are plenty of idiot examiners, a lot of this also has to do with bureaucracy's normal functioning: higher-ups trying to cut corners and save a buck.
Granted != Applied (Score:4, Interesting)
It boggles the mind to think about what kind of qualification process would keep letting through all sorts of patents that any semi-competent engineer would recognize as obvious and/or prior art. Maybe it is just easier to rubber stamp the applications so they can get to the bar early.
Re:Granted != Applied (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the big one to email your Rep and Sen about. Get them to change the budget based on the work necessary (i.e. reviewing patent applications), not on the number of awarded.
And for the other, those people who believe what is legal is therefore ethical, well. . . nerfbats. An army of properly wielded nerfbats would go a long way to 'splainin' things 'round here.
Moekandu
"It is a sad time when a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs."
Re:Why not just take out a patent on ..... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry. I really don't think you can patent the U.S. Patent Office itself.
Soko
Re:time to step up to the plate... (Score:2)
I don't think one-click Amazon has any interest in invalidating ridiculous patents, and I don't think this ridiculous patent holder has any intention of harassing the big guys. At least not until someone not capable of putting up a sound legal defense looses in court first, setting a precident.
Re:Is Vend/Minivend prior art? (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL either, but I do hold 12 patents and know a little about what prior art is.
Prior art simply is art that is in practice or was publically disclosed at the time the inventor claims he made the invention.
The fact that MiniVend was released in 1995 probably does not qualify it as prior art. The PanIP patent was ISSUED in 1996. The invention (and prior art) must occur BEFORE the original filing date which is in this case in 1984.
Unless you can come up with prior art in this time frame you aren't going to get anywhere.
Now what is particularly interesting in this case is the long string of CIP's. It would be rather interesting to learn what the expiration date of this patent is - it may be relatively soon since one of CIP's issued as a patent.