San Diego Company Owns E-Commerce

Kernel Panic writes "Looks like you can now be sued for using graphical and textural content on your e-commerce site. As everyone who has an e-commerce site does. A company in San Diego was granted one patent for using graphics and text to sell things on the web and another for accepting information to conduct automatic financial transactions via a telephone line & video screen. They have started their crusade with smaller companies that do not have the financial resources to fight back so as to build a "war chest" to take on larger companies like Ebay and Amazon. One site has taken the offense after becoming one of the first defendants of 50 companies so far. Curiously it appears the company was formed in March of 2002, less than a month before filing for the first lawsuit."

And we wonder

[circusnews]

why our founding fathers had such a dim view of IP rights.

Re:And we wonder

[ralphus]

I have just applied a patent for the method of accepting cash for goods and services. with my army of lawyers, I'll soon be the richest man on the planet and after that, King of the world!

Re:And we wonder

[billd]

I've just applied for a patent for a system of extracting oxygen from atmospheric air, using things called "lungs" I expect a lot of people will be wanting to use my IP and have to pay me royalties.

Re:And we wonder

[Amazing Quantum Man]

<HUMOR>
Doesn't Al Gore have prior art?
</HUMOR>

(And yes, I know it's an urban legend [snopes.com], hence the HUMOR tags).

Re:And we wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, so dim that they included copyrights and patents in the constitution. Please.

The real issue is the patent office will grant just about anything, as a result of not enough knowledgeable people and a specific case several years ago involving State Street Bank, in which the courts said business process patents were valid.

Re:And we wonder

[grimmfarmer]

To read the patent claims, it sounds as though Lockwood has patented a) the principle of RDBMS, b) the microcomputer, and c) the World-Wide Web. It also sounds as though certain aspects of the patent could be circumnavigated by using a monolithic binary to handle everything, and by storing the info on DVD (the only optical medium mentioned in the older patent is CD-ROM), but that's my uninformed opinion.

My more informed opinion is that we should assemble a group (like www.youmaybenext.com [youmaybenext.com]?) to sue the Patent and Trademark Office for issuing stupid patents, the recommended remedy being to shorten the life of technology- and pharmaceutical-related patents to six months. =P

Little guys can't afford to fight back

[xenoc_1]

They know it won't stand up. That's why they're going after real small "mom and pop" businesses. Somebody who doesn't have lawyers on retainer, who can't afford the time away from running their business to fight it.

Think they'd try this with walmart.com or Amazon? The article implies they are considering it, but you know that's just bluster.

These sleazeballs aren't stupid enough to pick on sombody who could fight back.

Typical abuse of our legal system.

No way

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's sell off San Diego to Mexico!

Patent Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Something must be done... this is wholesale abuse
of the patent system. Patents and copyrights are
necessary to further innovation, but if this sort
of filthy lawyer abuse continues we may lose these
rights. Abuse a right, and lose it.

Re:Patent Abuse

[Fembot]

Actualy I think this is a good thing.. the more ludicrous patents like this the more general public are likely to realise how plain wrong the patent system as it stands is (eg: swinging sideways on swings, genes etc..)

Without things like this there is no way Joe Public will ever realise anything is wrong

Ridiculous

[shadowj]

What sort of imbeciles is the patent office hiring these days?

I'll bet that if they had tried really, really hard, they just might have been able to come up with a teensy weensy little bit of prior art.

Re:Ridiculous

[billd]

Not sure, but...

It looks like the Patent Office web site may infringe on PanIP's newly granted patents.

How ironic.

Re:Ridiculous

[frozenray]

> What sort of imbeciles is the patent office hiring these days?

Look at this [uspto.gov] and laugh, or weep, or both.

The link is from this [nytimes.com] article by James Gleick (of "Genius" fame) which has been discussed [slashdot.org] on Slashdot two years ago.

Let's tell them what we think!

[Rareul]

From the website:

MAILING ADDRESS:
PanIP (Pangea Intellectual Properties, LLC)
329 Laurel Street
San Diego, California 92101-1630 USA
PHONE: [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail], [e-mail]
FAX: [phone]


PANIP LEGAL ADVISOR:
Kathleen M. Walker
3421 Thorn Street
San Diego, California 92104
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]


LP/LLC INFORMATION:
PANIP, LLC
NUMBER: 200207410071
DATE FILED: 3/12/2002
STATUS: Active
JURISDICTION: California
AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS:
William G Wilhelm
[phone]
California State Business Information


RESEARCH TEAM:
CHI Research Inc.
10 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035 USA
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]
WEBSITE: www.panip.com

Re:Ridiculous

[G-funk]

What sort of imbeciles is the patent office hiring these days?

Um, probably the same kind they hire to be slashdot editors, they do as much checking for prior art when approving a patent/article.

Rehash!

[pavera]

Geeze
thats another repost of a story less than a week after its initial posting...
come on guys...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/ 22/015241 &mode=thread&tid=155
thats ridiculous!! 1 day!
come on

Re:Rehash!

[tomgilder]

And it was originally posted in May [slashdot.org]

Re:Rehash!

[kiolbasa]

That was the first time that PanIP filed some lawsuits. They have filed more, 10 defendants at a time, most recently on Oct. 4. This is an ongoing issue, so you can expect to see it posted on Slashdot a few more times.

Re:Rehash!

[chimpo13]

I'll read through the original two posts that /. posted on this story, and repeat all the high ranking comments. Man oh man, I'll be famous.

I've patented that idea, so don't make me sue anyone.

Re:Rehash!

[ShavenYak]

I'll read through the original two posts that /. posted on this story, and repeat all the high ranking comments. Man oh man, I'll be famous.

I've patented that idea, so don't make me sue anyone.

Hah! I don't fear your patent, there's plenty of prior art!

For my next trick:

[SecGreen]

I plan to patent the process by which you can render a undesirable company's website effectively useless by repeatedly posting stories about it to /.

It's a dupe!

[FattMattP]

I already know this because I read slashdot [slashdot.org].

someone should patent patent lawsuits

[dunkelfalke]

and sue all those companies which are abusing the current patent law system 'till a new one is ready.

What a great company website!

[jazzmanjac]

Parent Directory 23-Oct-2002 15:17 -
[DIR] stats/ 23-Oct-2002 03:33 -

Re:What a great company website!

[Shamanin]

Apparently they don't want to infringe on their own patent (you know, these guys would sue anyone).

moderated -1 - redundant

[kraksmoka]

yes, panIP sucks. no, it won't hold in court. yes, ip laws are awful. next . . . .

No, no. Mod +1 Funny, +1E6 Scary.

[Louis_Wu]

I wish that we (OK, I'll settle for just me :) could moderate stories. I'd mod this as +1, Funny, and +1E6, Scary. I laughed out loud (at work) when I read this, but if this idiot actually has some success suing companies, we're in a deeper world of hurt than that we currently are in. . . . [incoherant rage] . . .

Just let me mod stories, that'd be fun.

Re:No, no. Mod +1 Funny, +1E6 Scary.

[jericho4.0]

The sad thing is, panip has already had success doing this. Many victims settled out of court, as they couldn't take the financial risk. Of course, if they don't settle, panip mysteriously stops bothering them. This is blackmail, pure and simple.

Re:No, no. Mod +1 Funny, +1E6 Scary.

[dimator]

1E6 Scary.

IE6 is scary, yes!

Court doesn't matter

[siskbc]

Look, this doesn't have to hold up in court. What he is doing is extorting - many companies have already settled. These are small companies that have limited resources, and that's who they pick on. Finally, a group of defendants is pooling resources, and yes, he will lose. But not before recouping his costs of the patent, and a whole lot more.

Of course, all of this was in the original article...is there any way ./ can IP restrict the comment page to those who actually READ the article?

Re:moderated -1 - redundant

[reallocate]

panIP sucks, it won't hold in court if someone countersues, but my IP is mine until I say otherwise.

my order form for PANIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear PanIP:

You may choose one of the following, for a small fee, which you may pay with your credit card:

LICK MY ANUS: * $14.95
BITE MY NUTS: Oo $29.95
SUCK MY COCK: B==D $99.95

I hope this post (which uses text and graphical representations of items) doesn't infringe on your BULLSHIT PATENT!

Re:my order form for PANIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe when they bite your left nut, they can bring it down to the size of the right one.

That's some serious testicular asymmetry, man!

Let's /. em!

[McFly69]

Mess with the best, die like the rest. - Quote from the Movie Hackers.

Thats right.. let's /. em and show them how it is to mess with us online folk!

First 50 Defendants...

[aftk2]

From the the list of the defendants [youmaybenext.com] mentioned:

www.dicksonsupply.com

Apparently there's a space for everything on the web...

Re:First 50 Defendants...

[NotAnotherReboot]

Yeah, just look at their fine line of "PureTouch" models.

http://www.buysecure.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/dickson /W ebShop.cgi?config=/var/wwws/htdocs/dickson/cfg&uid =QBOwuQAA1027433451&command=link--Moen7850

wow..

[NotAnotherReboot]

And I thought I could BS a paper..just look at all of the crap in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" for both patents.

Even if you don't agree with the patents, you surely have to agree that these people clearly excel at the fine art of creating bullshit.

If only my English teacher could be as easily duped as the U.S. Patent Office.

It's a fraud

[NetDanzr]

One patent has been filed on November 1996, the other on September 2001. As the hyperlink patent controversy showed, all you need to do is to prove that the concept that's been patented preceeds the date the patent has been filled. I became an Amazon.com customer in August 1995 - more that a year before the initial patent has been filled. As such, the patents will be overturned as soon as a single entity challenges them.

Re:It's a fraud

[Zeinfeld]

One patent has been filed on November 1996, the other on September 2001. As the hyperlink patent controversy showed, all you need to do is to prove that the concept that's been patented preceeds the date the patent has been filled. I became an Amazon.com customer in August 1995 - more that a year before the initial patent has been filled. As such, the patents will be overturned as soon as a single entity challenges them.

Unfortunately not, read further this is heavilly submarined:

This is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/116,654 filed Sep. 3, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,309,355 which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/396,283 filed Aug. 21, 1989, which is a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/152,973 filed Feb. 8, 1988, which is a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 822,115 filed Jan. 24, 1986, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 613,525 filed May 24, 1984, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,567,359.

The bastards have been using the Lemelson technique. Under the corrupt rules of the USPTO the inventors are presumed to have invented the stuff thery described in their 1994 filing in 1986.

The US is the only country in the world where you can backdate a patent claim in this way. This is how Lemelson got his corrupt bar code patent, after bar codes were invented he added them to his 1950s paten on 'machine vision'. Fortunately the bastard is deservedly dead and you can't libel the dead in the US so we can describe him in the terms he deserves.

I don't think that the pan-ip claim would stand an actual lawsuit. The prosecution history of patents that have been submarined tends to be full of exclusions and limitations that are not present in the actual patent.

But no, the fact is that the US patent system is far more corrupt than even the average slashdot user would think. Forget the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft, the USPTO is the real enemy.

Re:It's a fraud

[ProfessorPuke]

And not just September 2001, but September 11, 2001.

What kind of person finishes paperwork on September 11, 2001? Must be some kind of traitor!

(So don't worry, the PATRIOT act will take care of the jokers at PANIP)

In related news...

[DaytonCIM]

the US patent office announced today that indeed, their collective heads are up their collective arses.

How would the founding fathers feel about this?

[User 956]

This patent nonsense is getting way out of hand. When Thomas Jefferson put the idea of intellectual property into the Constitution of the United States, he did so because he realized that information leaks; once people learn something, they can reuse that knowledge. Jefferson believed that if there was no protection to intellectual property, people would not be encouraged to share knowledge with others. He believed writers would not write, inventors would not invent, artists would not create art. So in the US Constitution, it says:

Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The reason why this is important is spelled out in Jefferson's own writings:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it...He who receives an idea from me, receives instructions himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should be spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature ... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

How far are we going to let this patent nonsense go? We need to remind people that patent law, like most IP laws in the US, is a balance between two forces, and the scale should not be tipped too far to one side.

Re:How would the founding fathers feel about this?

[MisterFancypants]

Jefferson believed that if there was no protection to intellectual property, people would not be encouraged to share knowledge with others. He believed writers would not write, inventors would not invent, artists would not create art. So in the US Constitution, it says:

I agree with the gist of your post, but Jefferson didn't believe any of those things (writers would not write, etc). He was, in fact, against patent & copyright as general ideas. His writings on these issues in the Constitution represent the ideas of others involved in the process whom Jefferson grudgingly compromised with.

Wow.

[Dannon]

I had no idea anyone had patented this.

I better get in line to buy a license to this patent of theirs if I'm going to start my own web businesses. I'll just add this to the 'One-Click' and 'hyperlink' license expenses.

I'm having trouble finding an order form on their web site, though. Seems to be down or something. I better keep reloading until I get it. Any of you other /.ers getting anything?

A question for the legal experts...

[Ethelred Unraed]

In Germany, and I believe in other EU countries, there is a law against mass lawsuits clearly designed to get money -- this is called an "Abmahnwelle" in Germany (literally means "wave of suits"). If some lawyer or company tried something like this, they'd get reprimanded and possibly even disbarred in Germany.

An example: about a year ago, a couple of clients of mine got notice of a lawsuit from some newly founded organization claiming to protect consumers; the clients' websites were supposedly in violation of an obscure and archaic bit of German law (basically they failed to note specifically on the site that information sent via an e-mail form is stored -- well, duh). Because of the "potential damage to consumers" due to "infringements on their privacy" (i.e. the theoretical number of consumers who could use the site was astronomical), the suit was valued by their lawyers at a high amount, thus theoretically forcing the clients to pay a minimum amount of damages to the organization if they chose to settle.

Word got around quickly that just about anyone with an e-commerce site got just such a letter, complaints were filed against said lawyer, and the lawyer got seriously shat on (and the suits were withdrawn) and the organization was dissolved.

Anything like this in the US?

Cheers,

Ethelred [grantham.de]

An answer from a layman.

[Apuleius]

No. The American Trial Lawyer's Association has Congress giving it sexual favors. Laws against vexatious litigation are weak and unlikely to be strengthened any time soon.

Re:A question for the legal experts...

[BlueUnderwear]

In Germany, and I believe in other EU countries, there is a law against mass lawsuits clearly designed to get money -- this is called an "Abmahnwelle" in Germany (literally means "wave of suits"). If some lawyer or company tried something like this, they'd get reprimanded and possibly even disbarred in Germany.

But then, how does Gravenreuth away with doing exactly that?

Re:A question for the legal experts...

[angeles13]

yes. it's called filing frivolous lawsuits. the lawyers involved can be fined and disbarred. it's just proving that the lawsuits are not legit.

also, just because they are filing the lawsuit, doesn't mean it will actually go to court. judges have been known to through cases out without merit.

and i am aware of several lawyers that have been fined and disbarred for doing this

Re:A question for the legal experts...

[Fnkmaster]

Yes, unfortunately, at the surface of it, this is a lawsuit based on a patent that WAS ISSUED by the USPTO. I am not sure if a lawsuit can be deemed frivolous just because the patent it is based on was frivolous. There seems to be very weak tie-in on this sort of issue in our judicial system. IANAL of course. It would be nice if SOMEBODY could be punished for applying for or issuing such FUCKING ABSURD patents, but right now, nobody gets held accountable, and nothing stops these people until they lose in court (the only way to actually prove that a patent is absurd due to prior art, or triviality of claims, etc.).

Re:A question for the legal experts...

[ender81b]

IANAL blah blah blah but there is barraty, which is a *Criminal* offense:

BARRATRY - The practice of instituting groundless judicial proceedings - a crime in a number of jurisdictions.

In old law French barat, baraterie, signifying robbery, deceit, fraud. In modern usage it may be defined as the habitual moving, exciting and maintaining suits and quarrels, either at law or otherwise.

A man cannot be indicted as a common barrator in respect of any number of false and groundless actions brought in his own right, nor for a single act in right of another; for that would not make him a common barrator.

n. creating legal business by stirring up disputes and quarrels, generally for the benefit of the lawyer who sees fees in the matter. Barratry is illegal in all states and subject to criminal punishment and/or discipline by the state bar, but there must be a showing that the resulting lawsuit was totally groundless. There is a lot of border-line barratry in which attorneys, in the name of being tough or protecting the client, fail to seek avenues for settlement of disputes or will not tell the client he/she has no legitimate claim.

The problem, as usual is that barraty is nearly as hard to prove as libel/slander making it a very, very rare thing to see much like Libel/Slander cases.

Gravenreuth (Part II)

[Ethelred Unraed]

You're apparently referring to none other than Freiherr Gravenreuth [gravenreuth.de], a lawyer in Munich. That was one of the more spectacular suits he's done, apparently. He seems to be able to dance on the line of what's legal and what's not and get away with it.

There is an interesting FAQ [klostermaier.de] about Graventreuth (in German) that you might want to read.

Cheers,

Ethelred [grantham.de] (who's glad he has legal insurance and a good lawyer)

PanIP is...

[NotesSauceBoss]

Lawrence Lockwood
5935 Folsom Drive.
La Jolla, CA 92073
619/454-4475

According to this brief [ipcreators.org].

He lost a prior suit for the same patent against American Airlines in 1994, charging that the SABRE online reservation system (and the Travelocity offshoot) infringed on his patent, according to this article [supplyht.com].

I'm still hunting for other information.

Where does Lockwood get his crack?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

SABRE????? The same SABRE from the 1960s that every OS textbook in the world uses as an example of an early timeshare system? This guy is on more crack than /. moderators!

Re:PanIP is...

[Zeinfeld]

He lost a prior suit for the same patent against American Airlines in 1994, charging that the SABRE online reservation system (and the Travelocity offshoot) infringed on his patent, according to this article

SABRE! That thing is so old that the patents would have expired before UNIX came along. SABRE was the very first airline reservation system and the first large scale computerized anything.

Bigger companies

[TheRealFixer]

If some of the larger companies, such as Amazon and eBay, were smart, and thinking ahead, they'd help fund some of these smaller companies defense funds, and back them up in court. Cut these idiots in San Diego off before they can build their "war chest".

Why isn't amazon et al. getting on this.

[jericho4.0]

In the last story on these guy (last week), it mentioned that amazon 'had no comment' on the ongoing lawsuits.

If I was in charge of an e-biz, and had a bit of cash in the kitty, you can be sure that it'd be going to the panip defendants war chest. This threatens every company in the world. Panip has decided that they are going to patent every piece of obvious technology left on the floor, and try to leverage themselves towards a big payday.

You'ld think there'd be a law or something.....

Re:Why isn't amazon et al. getting on this.

[Aqua OS X]

I agree, I think thebig boys should spend a few bucks to screw these guys now while they're small

There should be laws against this type of obvious

[mao che minh]

It is ridiculous that law can be bent and twisted in in such a way as to allow such vile ventures. I could have sworn that there were specific stipulations concerning patents that prohibited such treacherous tactics. It is obvious, should the information concerning the granting of the patent is correct, that this is the under-handed work of slime balls that did not actually create any specific technology themselves but rather found a loop hole in the system that grants them control over broad and sweeping technologies (the internet in general, web browsing technologies and all of the things that go along with it, the various technologies that allow such transactions to occur from server to client - such as web servers and things like PHP and mySQL - hell, I could go on all day).

I don't see how this can be allowed to happen. I am dumbfounded.

Prior Art

[MAXOMENOS]

I know for a fact that there was a bookstore in New Orleans that sold books via email .. I was impressed in particular because they had free shipping and would order anything you want. Alas, I don't remember the name of the store. This was back in May 1994; I was there helping by brother pack his things (he had just completed his first and only year at Loyola of New Orleans).

Anyone else?

Re:Prior Art

[blincoln]

CD Connection [cdconnection.com] has been around since 1990. I used to order imports and other discs from their server over telnet. I'm not sure when they first fired up their actual webserver, though.

Wouldn't it be ironic...

[wazzzup]

...if somehow Panip's servers were attacked using a type of machine that's connected to a telephone line and utilizing a video display?

To be more specific...

[popo]

Not this makes the granting of this patent any easier to swallow, but...

It should be noted that the patent which was granted seems to apply specifically to sales-content which is tailored towards specific users.

"individualized sales presentations created from various textual and graphical information data sources to match customer profiles" -- USPTO #5,576,951


Since most small e-commerce sites using GPL'd commerce software like Agora.cgi don't even support customer login, they'd be less affected by this than the big boys like Amazon and Ebay. (Not that this will ever hold up anyway).

Tell the Patent office how you feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell 'em directly.

[e-mail]

800-786-9199 (U.S. and Canada)
703-308-4357

Sue the patent office?

[LordNimon]

Is it possible to sue the patent office for approving such an obvious patent? After all, the defendents against this patent need to spend time and money in court because the PO royally screwed up. Someone needs to take this issue to court, get the patent thrown out, and then use that as a basis for a lawsuit against the PO. That would be a major wake-up call.

Re:Sue the patent office?

[u19925]

In US, you can't sue any government office for making any law, enforcing any law or passing judgement unless you can identify individual or agency acted in bad faith deliberately. Thus you have to prove that USPTO employees or officer had some personal interest which resulted into acceptance of this patent (or something else which indicates possibility of crime).

No, but you're on the right track

[dilute]

As the poster above pointed out, the government is generally IMMUNE from these kinds of suits.

But it IS a time-honored sport to challenge the validity of patents (in a lawsuit against the patent owner) and then seek to take depositions of the patent examiners who were involved in the grant of the patent. Though the Patent Office will try to limit the examiners' testimony to essentially zero, it still REALLY tweaks them no end to have their examiners called to the witness stand.

This patent, by the way, looks like a complete piece of garbage that had claims tacked onto it years after the fact. These later-thought-up claims had virtually no relationship that I can see to what was actually disclosed when the thing was originally filed.

It's an ABOMINATION.

From the patent....

[cyberon22]

Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created.

If they sued me, I'd ask them to prove that an "infinite number" of customer profiles can really be created. Realistically, I think that would probably deserve a patent.... ;)

Innovation Dead?

[Shadow Wrought]

Could this really be a harbinger of something larger?

Already our movie screens are chock full of ideas that were created a generation or more ago, TV is full of shows following formulas that were moderatly successful the season before, and all we can think to patent is stuff that already exists.

My $0.02

It seems to me that this is yet another symptom of our country reaching towards equilibrium with the lowest (and I do mean low) common denominator.

System needs remodeling?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

We'll see a lot of "dumb patent clerk" posts. But I think the problem is fundamental to the patent system and can't be fixed with smarter patent clerks.

My understanding of the system they make it fairly easy to grant patents. Since all inventions filter into the patent office, it would be hard for them to get anybody who could make informed choices on everything. The technology is just too varied. How many folks here can speak on Nuclear facilities, chemical enginerring processes, and medical tools and be able to say which is good and which is bad? Besides, by definition, patents tend to have a lot of new stuff, that there are no experts in yet. How can you make a judgement if somethings a real invention, or just snake oil? You can't.

A granted patent isn't a guarantee. It is something that can be fought and contested. Here is where the system determines value. The good guy is supposed to win these. The problem is that the fight has costs. Even if you know you should win, you have to hire attorneys. You have to take depositions, find prior art, all that fun stuff. So a lot of folks with little cash take the only choice they can see, capitulate.

The problem is that we can't legislate ethics. there's no real law against somebody being a patent shark. Sure the guys a jerk for doing it, and the lawyer's a jerk for taking a case with no merits, but we'll always have slimeballs. You'll have low end companies filing nuisance suits, and big companies with more $200 an hour lawyers than you have total employees doing it.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a patent attorney. I am curious as to whether this is current practice.

Re:System needs remodeling?

[nege]

so perhaps the problem also lies in the legal system defending the patents? Should it reasonably cost you so much to simply enforce part of the "system" if you are indeed correct? Was this our founding fathers vision? Perhaps so, or perhaps not there are a lot of things in this country that work this way, so I simply pose it as food for thought.

Re:System needs remodeling?

[Sajarak]

For a start you could prevent people taking out patents on things like business practices and software algorithms. Allowing patents on these sorts of things does little to promote innovation (most of the world outside the USA does quite nicely without software patents) and works vastly in the favour of big companies who can use their warchests of patents to hold small companies' ideas to ransom.

Re:System needs remodeling?

[CaptainCarrot]

So you don't have one person reviewing all patent applications. Even a non-specialist ought to be able to determine the discipline best suited; so this person directs the patent applications to the appropriate staff specialists who are qualified and able to make the determination. Yes, this is possible. Even if an idea is totally new, the theoretical underpinnings ought to be clear enough that a specialist in the field can understand and evaluate them. The patent that establishes an entirely new field of knowledge that no one other than the inventor has any expertise in has never been filed, and never will.

And yes, you can too legislate ethics. We do it all the time. That we have not yet done so in such a manner as to effectively prevent these frivolous lawsuits is a symptom of the broken US tort law.

I'd like to see the Venture Capital pitch....

[Dr. Bent]

...for these companies.

VC: "So what's your great new idea?"

Future CEO: "Oh, we don't need a great new idea...we just patented an great old idea."

VC: "And how are you going to make money off an old idea?"

Future CEO: "Simple...we just sue everybody. No engineers, no tech support, no salespeople, no advertising, just lawsuits"

VC: "Brilliant! We'll make millions! [to secretary] Lisa, Get my army of lawyers in here...and call my congressman, I need to pass a few new laws."

Them & the RIAA??

[dogfart]

So they "purchased" Intellectual Property fair-and-square, and are now aggressively going after anyone who is "stealing" their property?

So tell me what makes them different from the RIAA? If they are successful, will they get Congress to pass laws extending the life of patents indefinitely? Will famous celebrities (Britney, etc.) do public service announcements telling people not to violate these patents by patronizing the evil scofflaws that run e-commerce sites? Will we see ISPs forced to provide customer information, as they track down violators? Will sites providing free open source ecommerce software be taken down?

PanIP, meet Hillary Rosen

Flimsy

[DaytonCIM]

This invention is directed to data processing systems designed to facilitate commercial, financial and educational transactions between multimedia terminals such as automated sales workstations, information dispensing networks and self-service banking systems. Specifically this invention is directed to a tool for augmentation of sales and marketing capabilities of travel agency personnel in conjunction with computerized airline reservation systems. This invention also relates to financial service application processing, and interactive delivery of informative, educational and recreational audio-visual programs to the home, school or office.

Interesting... the main focus of the primary patent is the Airline Reservation industry. The later patent adds the "Finacial Industry."

It should be interesting to see how this partnership group stands against a company like Oracle. Because, by this partnership's defined attack, Oracle is a prime target. And I know the Oracle folks have a ton of patents protecting their technology, which basically is the backbone of e-commerce.

In addition, Micorsoft's FrontPage is in direct violation of this patent. And we all know that Microsoft has its own wing at the patent office.

Should make for some serious attorney's fees for some lucky companies.

I do hope someone takes these clowns to court and challenges the incredibly flimsy patent upon which they rely.

And if they don't challenge an Oracle or Microsoft, maybe Oracle or Micorsoft should challenge them...

Just run this for a while...

[MlBruehlly]

Remember the May 13 post? Try this script:

while : ; do
while : ; do
echo GET /case-pat-cit.htm HTTP/1.1
echo Host: www.panip.com
echo Connection: keep-alive
echo
done | telnet www.panip.com 80 >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
done

stand up to them

[bonovoxpsu]

its very sad that we have people who would actually use and abuse a system put in place that give freedom to people who have REAL AND WORTHY ideas. all we hear now are the people who ruin the system for everyone else. but if this really pisses you off, go to http://www.youmaybenext.com [youmaybenext.com] and help out if you like. its a site with good info on this jacka**.

Two Words...

[T3kno]

Justifiable Homicide

This is precisely what I mean...

[dh003i]

When I talk about the scope of patents and copyrights being outrageous.

Life should not be patentable.

Business models should not be patentable.

Its fucking bullshit.

BWAHAHA!

[The_Shadows]

Kudos to everyone on /.! We've successfully eliminated them! I can't even get to their website anymore! BWAHAHAHA! First Panip, tomorrow someone else!

Never underestimate the power of /..

Bounty Quest

[namespan]

Wasn't Bounty Quest [bountyquest.com] supposed to help fix this problem?

What happened?

Anyone know of any countercartels of small businesses organizing to put this stuff to rest?

Where are our lawmakers?

Minitel in the 80's

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey guys. Took a quick look at the patent.

I think it may be invalid. I worked on Minitel in France in '86. Minitel did the same type of thing that this patent describes. There must be a few patents that pre-date and invalidate this.

If I recall correctly, minitel was initiated in 1976. It grew into a major structure by the early 80's in France. It was called teletext and you could buy online using a graphical interface.

Of course, I am not a researcher. Don't have time to spend on this.

Maybe one of you energetic folks could pick up the ball on this point.

I want that job

[Jezza]

Ok people, how do I get a job in the US Patent Office? This looks like the easiest damn job in the world. Some asks for a patent, I give it to them. I could do THAT.

Gizzusajob!!! Flippin' heck - is this the most stupid thing you've ever heard?

I'm amazed, truly amazed.

patents should be eliminated

[Twillerror]

These keep coming up and up and up. When they first started I was still convinced that patents where needed, but after a few years to think about it, I don't think they are good for anything. The usual arguments are

A) Patents secure investment.
Bullshit, making profits secures investments. If you spend millions developing a drug, then sell the drug and make your money back. Sure someone else can just reverse engineer it, but you went to market first and you should be able to copyright the name, etc. If you patent it, realize you can't make money, then it just sits there and you make money off nothing. Sell you research, data, etc.

B) Patents encourage invention/invation.
Again BS, making money does that, plain and simple. Patents seem to be only applicable to small things these days anyways. You can't patent something like MS Word, or Winamp, that's what copyright is for. No, you patent the MP3 codec, or some stupid alogrithm that calculates grammar.
Copyright servers the real purpose, not the patent.

It has been a long time since something was such a great new idea that it deserved a patent. Even new transitor technology doesn't deserve it, mainly because it is based on years and years of others time and thought. Without all the academic bodies working on these things do you think we would really be at 90 nm manufactoring processes. Intel and the like may make it a reality, but they sure as hell don't deserve all the credit. Patents take away the credit.

Anything worth patenting would require years of R&D. Someone maybe able to reverse engineer for a fraction of the cost, but more then likely would rather just pay you for the data, etc.

Even if someone bumped his head on a toilet and invented a time machine, I still don't think it should be patentable, why, because with most technology it should be very carefully handled. Coroporations care about bottom line, and rarely about the right and wrong of something.

I'd be willing to compromise and just change the laws. Pretty simple. Can't patent a naturally occuring substance, ie. a gene, and can't patent a concept, must have a working prototype in order to obtain the patent, and no prior art. Also, the law should patchable. Basically allowing congress to easly remove a concept or an idea from being patentable. If the law was already that way, it would be easy for congress to pass an amendment saying genes couldn't be patentable.

This speaks loads...

[Cervantes]

There are a few things here which speak loads about the US business/legal model (and no, this isn't meant to be US bashing)

- Someone can get granted a patent for doing something that's already being done at the time of the filing. It may not hold up, but it provides ammunition for lawsuits, and isn't that enough for most people? Enter the almighty dollar.

- It takes years to get a patent. During this time, the "innovative" thing you've thought of becomes commonplace, and by the time you actually have the patent, other people have gotten so rich off the idea that they can sue you into the ground.

- People are so afraid of lawsuits and lawyers that they're willing to hand over good money to avoid your countrys' legal system, regardless of whether they're wrong or right. Doesn't that say enough right there?

And, for the obligitory joke, I now intend to file a patent for "stuff", which will "facilitate doing things in some manner", for the purpose of "getting things done, via this stuff paridigm." My revolutionary "stuff" lawsuit will ensure that no-one can ever again do "things" without my express, written consent. And, further, I plan to use my newfound economic power to push for digital copyright restrictions to be placed on "stuff", to ensure that the "things" facilitated by unlicensed copies of my "stuff" cannot be completed. Then, when everything is running on licensed copies of my "stuff", I will the AutoUpdate feature authorized in my "stuff DCP" EULA to sneak in fixes that will not let "stuff" work without calling home to tell me what "things" it is doing. And then, finally, I will take my fortune, close the company, and shut down the server, ensuring that "stuff" cannot call home to report its' "things", and making all the "stuff" shut down across the US.

Then, maybe, with no "things" to do or "stuff" to do them with, all the idiots who made this mess will get their "heads" out of their "ass" and start using their "brains".

10 DO end_rant; GOTO end

hmmm

[the_other_one]

I'm going to patent closing up shop in the US and moving operations out of the country.

But, seriously, if enough tax revenue starts leaving the country the US gov't may start to consider patent reform.

What it takes to work at the Patent Office...

[teamhasnoi]

Be Your Own Boss! Fuck Off all Day! Lower your IQ! Bring Small Business to its Knees! Learn How to Use a Goddamn Rubber Stamp! Sleep All the Time! Drink and Smoke Dope on the Job! Jerk Off in the Files! Help Patent EVERY FUCKING THING THAT ANYONE WILL EVER DO, SEE, EAT, SMELL, READ, MAKE, TOUCH, and EXPERIENCE! Go Home and Tell Your Mom You Worked Hard Today! [uspto.gov]

Don't forget, I have a patent on working for exchange of money, goods or services.

Re:What it takes to work at the Patent Office...

[teamhasnoi]

You might want to call or email this guy and let him know what you think, since by the link in the parent post, he's the one in charge of letting all these dumbasses patent their 'lawsuits':

Electronic Commerce
[e-mail] [mailto] (703-305-9643)

I hereby patent...

[Arcturax]

Duplicate articles!

Oh, stop whining

[vsprintf]

For instance, the fictitious loan officer may ask, "Are you familiar with our loan repayment schedule?" If the customer desires to read the loan repayment schedule, he would indicate his choice. The loan schedule would then be textually displayed. After reading the text, the applicant would proceed to more questions 147 presented by the fictitious loan officer. The customer could continue to additional textual displays about legal responsibilities of obtaining a loan or return to the fictitious loan officer who would continue the presentation.

It seems pretty obvious these people have locked up a completely new form of electronic communication. Let's see . . . where's that "fictitious" button? All I see is preview and submi

The ultimate and Final solution...

[s-orbital]

I think I will patent the litigation process, so that no one can sue, except with my permission...

Muhahahaha!!!!!

I definitley dont want that GPL'd!

Article has it wrong

[Wraithlyn]

Well, from a brief glance at the patent in question, it appears to NOT be a patent on "using graphical and textural content on your e-commerce site." as the writeup claims.

It is more along the lines of using these elements to create a customized presentation based on an individual's profile. To quote the first line of the patent (Emphasis mine):

"A system for composing individualized sales presentations created from various textual and graphical information data sources to match customer profiles."

So it's not quite as absurdly broad as the article makes it out to be. Not quite, I said.

Consolidation

[rice_burners_suck]

I learned a really cool word once: Consolidation. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, It means:

1. the act or process of consolidating : the state of being consolidated
2. the process of uniting : the quality or state of being united; specifically : the unification of two or more corporations by dissolution of existing ones and creation of a single new corporation
3. pathological alteration of lung tissue from an aerated condition to one of solid consistency

(Aside: I have a feeling the third definition doesn't fit in this current discussion. Link: http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictiona ry&va=consolidation [britannica.com].)

I'm pointing out this vocabulary word because I'm trying to say that all these VICTIM companies must band together in an effort to wipe out these criminals, and furthermore, to take legal action against the government for allowing a ridiculous patent, which was OBVIOUSLY issued in malice, to be issued in the first place.

Oh yeah. And don't forget to spell "consolidation" twenty five times and to use it in three sentences.

Two words: Prior art

[NullProg]

From the article:

"automated sales and services system,"
Prior to their patent, In 1988/89 I coded a program that did just that for a Food Distributor. Salesmen would dial a 800 number, and without any human intervention, the program would take the sales order, process it, and service it by adding the items to the stores next delivery. The salesmen were using symbol barcode readers with 300 baud modems.

"automatic business and financial transaction-processing system."
This is the patent that confuses me the most. I worked for a Bank. I moved money through the FED nightly. Our own patent office doesn't recognize how the FED works?

Is this company prepared to sue the FED???

I have source code available for lawyers to review once they have cleared it with my previous employers.

Ok, calm down, have a beer (gulp). Enjoy,

i work for a company sued by by them last year

[schwartzon]

i worked for a company in horseheads, N.Y. called IST (www.istcorp.com) developing their new webpages. We got this lawsuit and were all astonished about its vagueness and absurdity. So astonished, in fact, that i sent a post in to slashdot asking to start a dialogue about this. needless to say, being that the moderators of this board are soo friggin stuipd, they didnt deem it worthy. needless to say, i did some investigation on my own. The owner of these patents is one Lawrence Lockwood, who i tracked down and tried to call. If you do some reasearch online, this guy had sued a few companies a few years ago, and appearantly won. We got this lawsuit, and after seeing that all of the patents have to do with airline ticket distribution systems. We figured that what they were doing was "shotgunning" their lawsuit. By that I mean, they were planning on suing a lot of smaller companies who cant stand for themselves, and hoping that they would settle out of court. Well we didnt, we called their bluff. And appearantly that was the last we heard of them.. mewonders if they got more persistant?

Re:Comment from Pan IP

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The "a senior executive at Pan IP" bit is almost surely bullshit, but the post is worth answering, because it represents some common misconceptions about both what IP law is for and about the "average /.'ers" feelings on the matter.

A tiny minority of people, on /. or anywhere else, feel that IP laws (patent, copyright, trademark) are fundamentally wrong and broken and should be done away with. I'm not one of them. The Constitution spells out the purpose of IP law very nicely; "to promote ... progress" and "limited time" are the key phrases. Good grants of IP protection serve this purpose, by rewarding the genuinely innovative thinkers who keep our world moving forward. Bad grants of IP protection, such as those used by PanIP, do precisely the reverse.

Not everything should be patented, copyrighted, or trademarked. There are some ideas (e.g. "buying and selling things over the Web") that are a) not the invention of any one person or group of people, b) immediately obvious to anyone with a brain, and c) so widespread that any attempt to enforce IP law on them would have crippling economic effects. Generally speaking, I think falling into any two of those three categories ought to be enough to remove something from IP protection. I'm particularly concerned about (c) because it seems to be something that a lot of IP vultures Just Don't Get: when a bunch of people are doing something and nobody's bothered to file an IP grant application on it, just because you did file the application does not give you the right to deprive a whole bunch of other people of their livelihood.

And, oh yeah, on the off chance that you actually are "a senior executive at Pan IP": you and others like you are scum who contribute nothing to the world in which you live. You create no value of any kind, and would be of more service to humanity shoveling shit.

Re:Comment from Pan IP

[rknop]

You create no value of any kind, and would be of more service to humanity shoveling shit.

Or, to quote a certain Klingon, being shoveled AS shit.

Folks like these PanIP folks should be locked away for the rest of eternity. They are a clear and present threat to the USA. Of course, so is the patent office, which should just be closed down. I'm sure they do some good, but at this point it's overwhelmed by the harm they do. I mean, heck, the DC sniper probably helped an old lady across the street once in his life, but it hardly makes him a boon to society.

-Rob

Re:Comment from Pan IP

[Daniel Dvorkin]

We need a patent office, or something like it. We also need a copyright and trademark office, or something like it. It may be that the current setup is broken and needs to be done away with, but it's not fundamentally evil. Actually, I think blaming it on the bureaucrats who have to deal with increasingly absurd and self-contradictory laws while their funding is being slashed to pay for blowing the shit out of illiterate peasants on the other side of the world isn't quite fair ... The best solution would be a complete, ground-up rewrite of IP law based on the Constitutional principles authorizing it, and the money to enforce the law properly. Given the influence of the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, TLA, etc. on "the Senator from Disney" and other key political players, don't hold your breath.

Re:Comment from Pan IP

[TheRealFixer]

If you really are an "executive" of Pan IP...

Patents can provide a valuable service. I work for a non-profit research company who takes out patents on medical treatments to insure they are available for everyone to benefit from. To specifically prevent some hoser like you from keeping people from benefiting from innovations just to pad your pocketbook.

How the heck are your patents "protecting people who create value from those who would steal it"? You freely admit you didn't even do any of the inventing! You just pick up patents from others, and exploit them for your own profit!

How is this "protecting" anything? The only thing it's protecting is your greedy, greasy little hands.

Re:Comment from Pan IP

[davidb54]

In my view, patents provide a valuable service in our society, protecting people who create value from those who would steal it.

No, in your view, patents provide a way to make money. If you were really interested in protecting those who create value, you'd be focusing your efforts elsewhere. No value was created by the filing of the patents that you are now trying to "enforce". The real value was created by the architects of HTTP, SSL and HTML, as well as the multitudes of programmers and web designers who actually put in the work to make the World Wide Web what it is today. What did your client contribute to this edifice? Nothing, and you know it - if not now, then soon, when you're sued into oblivion. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Perhaps you should take up something easier, like selling Amway products?