Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents The Internet Your Rights Online

Yahoo! Settles Patent Dispute 164

theodp writes "NCR has settled the lawsuit it brought against Yahoo! last December for infringing on 10 patents related to e-commerce technology. The case, discussed earlier on Slashdot, was especially significant because it involved broad patents covering basic Internet functions. As part of the settlement, Yahoo! is now licensing the technology. Terms of the settlement and licensing agreement were not disclosed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo! Settles Patent Dispute

Comments Filter:
  • Urgh. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BJH ( 11355 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:17AM (#6568848)
    From the law.com article:

    The patents at issue in the Yahoo case cover "ordering and downloading resources from computerized repositories;" a "computer system for management of resources;" and a "mechanism for dependably managing Web synchronization and tracking operations among multiple browsers," among other claims.

    Great. Just great. So now ordering stuff over the Internet is patented. Fine for Yahoo, Amazon or other large companies who can afford to license this crap, but what about smaller businesses?

    Just one more step towards making the Internet a worldwide version of the Shopping Channel. Thanks, NCR. I'll remember you in my prayers tonight.

    • Re:Urgh. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:36AM (#6568917) Journal

      mechanism for dependably managing Web synchronization and tracking operations among multiple browsers,
      That last one looks an awful lot like "logins and passwords". IANAL.

      I should patent "Method for creating a repository of methods to create goods and services reserved for use by their original designers for a predetermined period ". Then I'd sue the USPTO. Imagine the irony.
      • by BJH ( 11355 )
        "Logins and passwords" + "Database backend" is my guess.
      • I should patent "Method for creating a repository of methods to create goods and services reserved for use by their original designers for a predetermined period ". Then I'd sue the USPTO. Imagine the irony.

        I think the USPTO wouldn't have a whole lot of trouble proving prior art.

    • by patch-rustem ( 641321 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:40AM (#6568929) Homepage Journal
      Stop complaining and join the fun. There's loads of patents to be found at reasonable prices [ebay.com]
      Buy a few and start sending out those threating letter yourself. Easy money.
      The SCO way, is the only way.
    • Thanks, NCR. I'll remember you in my prayers tonight.



      Dear Lord, Please Smite down NCR with thy Might Hand.

      Amen

    • Re:Urgh. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      15 Years ago my 5 line bbs had software that allowed folks to order software and subscriptions to the BBS and allowed use of a credit card and or checks to pay for the transaction. I could also sell other things such as faster modems ( I did ) so the 1200 baud folks could upgrade to a more modern 9600 baud ( ok so that is slow now it screamed back then ) modem and such. So it sounds like maybe the folks who wrote the software for TBBS's subscription management system might have prior claim to parts of NCR's
    • Lots of people in this discussion seem to pay too much attention to the titles of patents. The title is not the specific invention being patented--it's a general description of it. You have to look at the claims. So just because the title says "computer system for management of resources," it doesn't mean that all computer systems that manage resources are covered.

      That being said, these patents may or may not be frivolous. I haven't read the claims. Have you?

    • "a computer system for management of resources" could mean pretty much anything, including EVERY operating system (including DOS).. so there's some prior art.

      "ordering and downloading resources from computerized repositories" basicly could mean each and every database ever built which involves some kind of client/server concept (so we can get the downloading too).. some prior art there too, since a "SELECT"-statement is basicly an order on what to download.

      Now, the third part in common English reads "se

  • So if NCR sued Yahoo and Yahoo was the one infringing, why is it that " Yahoo is now licensing the technology" instead of NCD doing the licensing?
    • You are simply misinterpreting the summary. Yahoo is bending over and assuming the position for NCR.
    • by digitalunity ( 19107 ) <digitalunity @ y a h oo.com> on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:28AM (#6568890) Homepage
      They are licensing the technology from NCR. I guess this way ended up cheaper than the lawsuit. That's sad too. The board of directors looked at the two options and chose the cheaper option, not the right one.

      In this case, doing the Right Thing(TM) cost more than doing the cheap and easy thing. It's sad because they can afford to license this technology from NCR, yet many small companies are left in the dust. And, the fact that they are now licensing these frivolous patents only gives the patents credibility, making it even harder for the little guy to escape.

      I realize, corporations are financially self-serving; but that doesn't make it right.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        In this case, doing the Right Thing(TM) cost more than doing the cheap and easy thing...the fact that they are now licensing these frivolous patents only gives the patents credibility, making it even harder for the little guy to escape.

        If they settled and licensed it's because their lawyers told them to. In this country, just about any court case can be won given infinite time and money but when the numbers start looking astonomical, somebody just says "fsck it let's settle - i'm getting tired of this top
      • So basically, only Yahoo Shops customers will be able to legally conduct business on the web? Maybe Yahoo knew what they were doing when they licenced it. It makes them one of the only legal ways for small business to perform transactions on the web.
    • That would be because you speak English, as opposed to Timothy, who sort of makes things up as he goes along.

      Obviously NCR is licensing the technology. Since they are the claimed owners they are the only ones who can do such licensing.

      Yahoo! is buying a license.

      While the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs is dying in English, Americans like to shoot them with a bazooka and then pretend it never happened.

      KFG
  • Boo! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Angry Pixie ( 673895 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:20AM (#6568858) Journal
    "ordering and downloading resources from computerized repositories;" a "computer system for management of resources;" and a "mechanism for dependably managing Web synchronization and tracking operations among multiple browsers,"

    So technically everyone who runs a dynamic database-driven website that serves up content is violating at least three of the ten patents NCR holds.

    Yet another reason to hate ATM machines...
    • Re:Boo! (Score:3, Informative)

      by mericet ( 550554 )
      Not necessarily, these seem like the patents titles (e.g. 'a method and system for ordering and downloading resources from computerized repositories') and not the claims.

      Titles are usually overly borad, but have no legal imlications, in a patent, only the valid claims have legal imlications and they are usually much narrower.

      P.S. IANAL...

  • how long until somebody buys these guys to get hold of the patents.

    Looks up the genome for Chinese people and quietly patents it
  • not disclosed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:22AM (#6568866)
    "Terms of the settlement and licensing agreement were not disclosed."

    They always say that, eh!?

    I'd like to see a law passed where any time anyone settles out of court, the terms have to be disclosed.

    Just because...
    • It's probably because their terms included some kind of plot against Microsoft for use of other "basic Internet functions" like having to actually set your browser's front page to Yahoo.
    • Re:not disclosed (Score:3, Interesting)

      by glwtta ( 532858 )
      Well anyone, any time might be overdoing it a bit, but when it comes to corporations settling over matters that affect an entire industry, it might be a very good idea.

      Though I doubt that's legally possible, even if corporate regulation was popular around here.

    • by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @05:39AM (#6569224) Homepage
      They don't want to show how much of their soul they have sold

      Rus
    • Re:not disclosed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ratamacue ( 593855 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @06:22AM (#6569346)
      Great, let's propose MORE government to solve a problem that was created by government in the first place.

      The solution is to abolish the laws which are exploitable and invite people to adopt force as a business model. The problem in this case lies in the exploitable nature of existing US patent law, not because of a lack of some law.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Great, let's propose MORE government to solve a problem that was created by government in the first place.

        Seriously, it's probably time for a grass-roots push for a Congressional Inquisition (oooo, he said "Inquisition" and even capitalized it!!!!) into the patent crisis that is contributing great harm to our economy.
      • The solution is to abolish the laws which are exploitable and invite people to adopt force as a business model.

        Yeah, that's right, lets settle IP disputes with gun battles! That would sure be better than an exploitable legal system!

      • Great, let's propose MORE government to solve a problem that was created by government in the first place.

        Boy, that sounds remarkably similar to what we do with technology !
    • But they wouldn't disclose the terms of that.
    • Re:not disclosed (Score:2, Insightful)

      by smueller ( 520174 )
      The terms are zero money and an indefinite license for the ridiculous patents. NCR knows they would lose a court case. So by settling this way, they assure Yahoo they won't even try to take them to court.. and they put fear into every other company on the internet. Now they can say, "Yahoo already realized it was pointless to fight us and they settled."
    • Not Disclosed (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There are some significant antitrust issues [ftc.gov] related to the non diclosure of patent settlements (although probably not in this particular case).

      Settlements between competitors in patent cases raise important and sensitive antitrust issues. The issues are important because patent settlements may create or maintain monopoly in technology and innovation markets and may also effectuate a monopoly or cartel in a related goods markets. Antitrust risks are highlighted by the fact that, absent the patent rights, p

    • I'm sure Michael Jackson would have loved that idea.
  • by unixwin ( 569813 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:25AM (#6568878) Homepage


    The link [slashdot.org]
    or just the quote below...

    Differently seen companies chasing their tails in copyright infringments,
    trade protocol violations and intellectual property rights
    are generally the ones which are going to fall pretty soon.

    Short on cash and not being able to earn/fund the millions
    they were used to in the dotgone era they are metamorphosing into scavengers and opportunists ....
    SCO is a shining example

    The crummy economy is bringing out the best in a lot of Companys, their legal team thinks, "we are getting irrelevant (as a team) , lets think up something to make some money and make sure we dont' get laid off," "hmmm... patent # 5551212 seems to be worth looking into" and there starts their Road to Hell [lyricsdepot.com]

    Easy money (or so they think) ,lot of publicity (for sure) and a lot of hits on their website , so there's a new concept for you

    the legal team is now the marketing team
    • or diabolical conspiracy if you must. I was trying to figure what was going on with all this outsourcing and stuff. If you can move companies around and staff them with commodity workers and infrastructure, what exactly is a company? What prevents anyone else with sufficient capital from doing exactly the same thing and becoming an instant competitor and displacing the first company in the marketplace? The answer is IP and increasingly, business model IP.

      It used to be a company's business model was la

    • the legal team is now the marketing team

      I always recommend having the sales prevention department run your marketing program. It's a lot like having accounting handle merchandising or sales run R&D...

  • by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:28AM (#6568889)
    Just a few quotes:

    Indeed, for those of you who were here this morning and listened to the people in the software industry talk about how threatening this is to their businesses, as I see it, patents today are often entrenching the established at the expense of allowing the newcomer to come in. I question today whether a Steve Jobs could start an Apple or a Bill Gates could start a Microsoft in view of the web and thicket of patents that is out there.
    Joshua Kaplan, Intouch

    Oracle Corporation opposes the patentability of software. The Company believes that existing copyright law and available trade secret protections, as opposed to patent law, are better suited to protecting computer software developments.
    Oracle 1994

    The mind has always been sacrosanct. The claim that intellectual processes and logical procedures (that do not primarily manipulate devices) can be possessed and monopolized extends greed and avarice much too far. Algorithmic intellectual processes must remain unpatentable -- even when represented by binary coding in a computer; even when executed by the successor to the calculator.[..]The company for which I am speaking, Autodesk, holds some number of software patents and has applied for others -- which, of course, remain secret under current U.S. law. However, all are defensive -- an infuriating waste of our technical talent and financial resources, made necessary only by the lawyer's invention of software patents. Autodesk has faced at least 17 baseless patent claims made against it and has spent over a million dollars defending itself, with millions more certain to pour down the bottomless patent pit unless we halt this debacle. Fortunately -- unlike smaller software producers -- we have the financial and technical resources to rebuff such claims.

    Jim Warren (Autodesk) 1994

    The time and money we spend on patent filings, prosecution, and maintenance, litigation and licensing could be better spent on product development and research leading to more innovation. But we are filing hundreds of patents each year for reasons unrelated to promoting or protecting innovation.
    Robert Barr (CISCO) 2002

    Please help the Europeans to avoid Arlene McCarthys patent directive legislation. You shall sign the Eurolinux-Petition http://noepatents.org and support FFII http://swpat.ffii.org or other groups http://softwarepatents.co.uk

    Talk to your EU representatives and tell them what you think about software patents, what they mean for your business. Stop the sausage machine as MEP Rothley (pro-swPat] denounced parliament legislation.

    More information [ffii.org] about swpat-legislation in the EU.
    • I think the best way to counter stupid laws is by abusing them. Let's start patenting everything that "may"be usd in the future, products that don't exist today because of technicalities, etc... Like: Method to use multiple keys to extend keyboard capabilities (Shift+a = A) Method for finding substrings in a great quantity of text (grep)
  • Ok so I have had it. Using a dictionary (computer based), and a web browser, and a little programming, isnt it possible I could write a program to use random key words to do a patent search, and then have the results of non patented key words using phrases in a sort of smart order like noun, adjective, adverb, noun, or something like that to figure out all the non patented combinations and then submit those?
    Like: computer bottling swiftly beer?

    Patents suck.
    • Like: computer bottling swiftly beer?

      Unless you look in Japan [engrish.com] I guess
    • A better idea would be to make an automated program to grab records out of the existing patent database, append " using a computer" or " on the internet" to the title, and sprinkle vague, technical sounding terms throughout the body of the patent.

      You've also got a sure chance of it being accepted. For example, everyone (or at least the patent office) understands that "Method of swinging on a swing" [uspto.gov] is different from "Method of swinging on a swing using a computer " or "Method of swinging on a swing
  • by lee-irving ( 236740 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:37AM (#6568922)
    This is the reason why we need to fight software patents within the UK and EU. Please email, write, telephone your local MP , MEP and let them know that software patents will kill our industry.


    I am not sure but if the EU starts to accept software patents will the US patents be enforceable through WIPO or similar. If so then the EU will already be at a loss as all the US patents will come into force and by typing this I am probably breaking a few of them :)

    • Eu-Parlamentarians [eu.int] Search engine.
      /*I am not sure but if the EU starts to accept software patents will the US patents be enforceable through WIPO or similar. If so then the EU will already be at a loss as all the US patents will come into force and by typing this I am probably breaking a few of them :)*/

      This will be the next step. See FFII swpat AG [ffii.org] for comprehensive details or join a Mailinglist patents@Aful.org or bxl@ffii.org
    • by Anonymous Coward
      A huge problem is that there are already around 40.000 illegal patents registrered in the EU, which will suddenly become legal patents the day software patents become legal.
      75% of those patents are owned by companies outside the EU. Now, this is what I call protecting your national software industry.... Or not!
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I am not sure but if the EU starts to accept software patents will the US patents be enforceable through WIPO or similar.

      No. Patents are only domestically enforceable. What happens with WIPO (and the "International Patent") is that multiple domestic patent applications are simultaneously filed through one, agreed upon filing mechanism. That is to say, you file one patent application, designate the States for which you desire protection, and then prosecute each of those applications according to the laws

  • by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @03:44AM (#6568944) Homepage
    "computer system for management of resources;"

    what would ANY computer system be if it DIDN'T "manage resources"?!

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Microsoft Windows 95"
    • And on a bit narrower scope, practically every single, relatively modern FMS (flexible manufacturing system) house has been writing software that just exactly this. For years. Many years.

      Tracking the current amount of goods, the throughput rate of said goods, transporting required goods to work locations from an automated warehouse, possibly even ordering needed goods automatically, ... - Hell, I have worked for one company that does software for this. It was never original, just practical application of

    • Not that I support NCR or anything, but in fairness, "computer system for management of resources" is just a title, not the complete invention. At least, my understanding is that the actual invention is far more specific, including specific methods for managing resources or whatever. The patent doesn't cover all computer systems which manage resources, just ones that do it in a certain way which they claim to have invented. This is why patent names always sound absurd -- people for some reason think that
  • Someone could just patent the OS, or enough principles within, and be done with it. But that has not happened.

    Why do companies get away with patenting stuff which is reasonably obvious? The whole thing reeks of ridiculousness to the extreme. It's like the nightmares of post dot-com boom stress disorder in flashback.

    The scariest thing is this: if Yahoo! are not big enough to stand up to stupid patents about web application technology, then who is? Take the Internet away, and this patent suit would surely

    • The scariest thing is this: if Yahoo! are not big enough to stand up to stupid patents about web application technology, then who is?

      Microsoft, maybe? What we need is some loonie with a patent to sue Microsoft and refuse to settle (that's where the loonie part comes in :->). Microsoft might have enough money and legislators to bring the system down.

  • by little1973 ( 467075 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @04:14AM (#6569021)
    As far as I know when somebody sues you and he/she lost against you then he/she also has to pay (to a certain ammount decided by the court) for your lawyer in many countries. In such a case as this you may not have to pay in advance to your lawyer, because the lawyer knows you can't lose this ridiculous case and he can get his money from the plaintiff.

    Why does it not work this way in the USA?
    • by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @04:47AM (#6569100) Homepage
      In such a case as this you may not have to pay in advance to your lawyer, because the lawyer knows you can't lose this ridiculous case and he can get his money from the plaintiff.

      There are a lot of ifs and mays in that reasoning. As far as I know it is fairly unusual for the judge to order the defendant attorney fees to be paid by the losing party, especially when the dispute is between companies. Furthermore, it is not at all obvious that they would win this, more ridiculous suits have been won (probably even by Yahoo itself). Win or lose, court battles are still orders of magnitude more expensive then settling; especially in these cases where the suing company wants a settlement to establish precedent, and make sure that the settlement terms aren't too burdening. In such a scenario the only reason left to fight would be on principle, and you'll find that American companies (as in most of the world) aren't that great in that arena.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      In general, there is the "American Rule" and the "English Rule" when it comes to attorney fees. Under the "American Rule", each side pays their own cost of litigation. Under the "English Rule" the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of all reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees. When it comes to frivolous lawsuits, the "English Rule" is a major deterrent, whereas the "American Rule" is a matter of wallet. This distinction no doubt accounts for the plethora of lawsuits in the U.
    • The negative outcome of that kind of rule is that individuals will never dare to sue big companies, because losing would bankrupt them.

      Sometimes, a lawsuit is a good thing, and this might prevent good lawsuits.

  • RIP (Score:4, Funny)

    by CuppaJoe ( 568699 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @04:59AM (#6569129) Homepage
    Uh, wait a minute. So basically, NCR just successfully patented the internet? Wasn't Al Gore smart enough to do that when he invented the thing to begin with?
  • ... ad absurdum (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the bluebrain ( 443451 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @05:15AM (#6569168)
    I always wonder whether it wouldn't be possible to demonstrate the absurdity of the system in a "real-world" way.

    The point it that things are being patented that contain no innovation and require no research to develop. Sometimes they're not even developed at all, but still patented - just wild ideas.

    Now it you look at the free software environment, there's tons of development going on all the time, including some substantial innovation - but hardly any of it registers on the economic "IP screen". The best one can hope for is that it can be used as prior art to shoot down some particularly silly patent.

    To shortcut the argument: imagine the FSF or some such organisation going up to MS, SCO et al and being able to go "uh, no, dude, that's covered by such-and-such basic-tech-stupid-patent which belongs to - er, that would be us. Cash will be fine please. Repeatedly." - basically until it becomes clear to every last one of them that the economic environment just isn't going to work like this.

    It all breaks down at the point that it sucks to formulate the patents, shove them through the [$laywer]-filter, have them registered etc. etc., and defend them. Plus, it costs a bit. And no, I'm not offering myself as a volunteer.

    Ah, well.
    • There are a lot of absurd patents out there. Three that I can think of off the top of my head are:
      • A patent on swinging sideways on a swing
      • A patent on entertaining a cat with a laser pointer
      • A patent on ... um ... entertaining a lady in a hottub. This one I believe is owned by Penn Jilette, of Penn and Teller fame.

      These are all things that should be obvious to anyone with a pulse, and yet they all got patented. The system seems broken, doesn't it?

      These are all bona-fide US patents. I would look up the

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @05:21AM (#6569177)
    What sort of moral foundations are behind so many of these companies today? Can they even be considered moral entities? I'm at a loss as to how to quantify the behavior I've seen the past few years with all the patenting, compromising government with bribes, outsourcing, and overall sleaze.

    Animals at best. Monsters even.

    If a city had wild and dangerous animals wandering the streets, they would waste no time addressing the problem. Why is it that these powerful creatures allowed to perform intellectual, legal, monetary, and diplomatic harm to the US without any action being taken?

    They're becoming mad dogs, doing harm to all they touch while crying out the whole time "We must remain profitable."

    Well, that raises an interesting question:

    If a corporation pays little or no taxes and refuses to employ Americans, does it really matter to the United States if they remain profitable or not?

    Time to have a good look at some of these mad dogs and seeing just how much they deserve government contracts, tax exemptions, and other little perks.

    If they want to dump Americans and not contribute to the economy, lets dump them. What harm could it do to get rid of a few leeches? A little bit of political pressure, get rid of a handful, that's all that would be needed. the rest would fall into line. Just like how the IRS targets high profile tax evaders and the RIAA targets the rich kids.

    I know IBM is kind of popular around here. I kind of liked them myself until recently. But 3 million outsourced jobs? FUCK YOU IBM. You evict that many people form their jobs and that's kinda mass murder. The pain of 3 million people out of work. If all of them cried out at the same time you could probably hear them clearly from coast to coast, no matter where you were at.

    There's an undertone of barbarism to all this. Brutal and cold hearted people who could give a fuck what happens to the rest of America so long as they get their golden parachute and stock options.

    Corporations are given a lot of responsibility and power in this country. And in the course of the past 5 years alone, we've seen scandals that stretch the imagination from just about every sector. A bunch of evil children running amok with the keys to the nation.
    • by Eric Ass Raymond ( 662593 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @07:07AM (#6569502) Journal
      But 3 million outsourced jobs? FUCK YOU IBM. You evict that many people form their jobs and that's kinda mass murder.

      Bollocks. And where does it say that you have the right to a job - in particular to the same job you've held previously? The primary function of a corporation is to thrive financially and generate wealth for the society. If outsourcing is a realistic alternative, then that's what should be done. If it does not, there'll be soon no jobs for anyone. Better 3 million outsourced jobs so that at least some may stay.

      There is no obligation for anyone to start a business. It's voluntary. Jobs are created as a positive side effect but corporations are under no obligation to provide SECURE jobs.

      I am 32 and my job is on the line every 6 months and I'm not complaining. If my employer can't afford to pay me, there is no point in complaining. I don't have any expectations that I'll be working here in 24 months - but then again I rather like it that way.

      Planning for the inevitable period of unemployment, stashing away money for a bad day and learning new skills outside the scope of my daily job keeps me sharp. I like being sharp, versatile and not getting too comfortable with my life.

      I shudder when I think of people who think they have their life worked out at 25. They've got a degree, a secure job, a wife/husband, an idyllic house in suburbia, a car and 2.5 kids who are nice, clean and obedient and love you very, very much. All the goals they set themselves when they were 16. Nothing to look forward to? No unpredictability? No change. No growth. No improvement. Just living without being alive.

    • > But 3 million outsourced jobs? FUCK YOU IBM.

      IBM doesn't even employ 3M people - you're not even in the same order of magnitude. If they outsource 3M jobs, they are *employing* an extra 2.75M people. Sounds like it'd be good for the world as a whole.
    • If a corporation pays little or no taxes and refuses to employ Americans, does it really matter to the United States if they remain profitable or not?
      Well since the majority of the stockholders are americans who are paying taxes, yes. Remember individuals almost always pay a higher rate than corps do. Also more and more, companies are becoming commodities, consider this, workers from sub-contractors, company a building subs, company b doing finals, company c final packaging an another doing distibuting; th
    • Sounds like Scope Creep to me!
  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @05:31AM (#6569200) Homepage
    Start taking law courses at night school. Now.
    • What is the point? No matter what you do, you will be subject to bogus patents and absurd agency regulations. It is getting to the point where it is impossible to follow all the rules and avoid (or pay royalties for) patents. Even if you represent yourself, you will lose a major portion of your life in the court defending against the "a means of trasportation by putting one leg in front of the other" patents.

      A better solution would just do business on the black market. Yeah, sure, you might be killed or p

      • I didn't mean become an engineer who knows the law, I mean become a lawyer. All the engineering jobs are moving to India anyway. In twenty years, we'll be a nation of lawyers, politicians (I know that's redundant) and towel boys.
        • Even so, how will becoming a lawyer turn out any different? If there are only lawyers, politicians and "towel boys" (whatever they do ;-), then none of the essential services will be done. I don't see contracting out our legal services to other countries as a viable option--they'll have their own lawyers (and probably decent laws so they don't need many). Politicans can't be contracted out at all...well unless they are being paid to betray their country. Towel boys? Let's see them compete with a $0.05/hr As

  • An idea.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by MoOsEb0y ( 2177 )
    Someone should patent a "systematic way of scanning peer to peer networks for the purpose of obtaining evidence for use in copyright litigation". Then we'd just sue the RIAA/MPAA whenever they use our patented method :)
  • time for change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @05:40AM (#6569226) Homepage Journal
    Software patents are bad ideas all around. It will not be long before some idiot is awarded a patent for A + B = C it seems. Maybe it's time for a SEC investigation into the patent office to check for bribery and other criminal actions.

    It would be better for companies to defend their products as innovative, not the functions within them that make things work. Disney has done very well with copyright laws instead of resorting to patenting the process of stuffing winnie the poo dolls.
    • The next version of Civilization is going to include a wonder known as the "US Patent and Trademark Office." Basically every technology you discover blocks anyone else from the benefits of the technology, even if they had discovered it already, or you simply stole it.

      The problem is the gold required to maintain it is atrocious, and your corruption rate goes through the roof.

    • Not necessarily a bad idea - they should make them prove it by creating the software. That would stop a lot of this crap.
    • Maybe it's time for a SEC investigation into the patent office to check for bribery and other criminal actions.

      You think you'll get the government to watch over itself? Good luck. Sometimes it happens, but not often. I may be good to try, but I wouldn't bank on it.

      It would be better for companies to defend their products as innovative, not the functions within them that make things work. Disney has done very well with copyright laws...

      Yeah, but look at Disney's use of trademarks. Look up trademarks fo

  • Bread and Circuses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowardNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @05:45AM (#6569244) Journal
    This story has a nasty, nasty feel about it.
    NCR is the company where Thomas J. Watson Sr. learned the dirty tricks he needed to found and run IBM. By 1920, NCR had already perfected the techniques of capturing customers and smashing competitors (often literally, with sticks and stones). IBM did the same in a slightly genteeler way, Microsoft did the same a generation later.

    So NCR is back and has cornered one of the few Internet success stories. Next, Google and Amazon? The patents appear to be so basic that they apply to every commercial web site, nay, every commercial software application.

    Evil, dangerous, and cynically positioned to take advantage of other people's hard work and sacrifice.

    Why does this kind of parasitical behaviour go unpunished? Because the ones doing it are part of the system, not outside it. Not only does the system allow this kind of abuse, it has pretty much evolved to support and protect it.

    Conclusion: the modern political body is corrupt and survives by manipulating public opinion. Nothing new... two millenia after the fall of the Roman Empire, we are treated in the same way as the emperors treated their subjects.
    Give them bread, and they won't complain.
    Give them circuses, and they won't notice.
    Give them security, and they won't fight.
    Human nature lets such things happen, for a while. But eventually it revolts and the further it has been pushed one way, the more aggressive and reactionary the revolt.

    If you want my website, you're going to have to prise it from my cold, dead hands.
    • Our political body is corrupt because it's become a career and not "serving the people". NCR is just exercising there rights. You really can't blame them. It's our (Americans) fault. People don't get involved so bad laws happen. As I've said before - companies should be made to come up with a prototype before they can patent it. If a company cannot prove they had a prototype then the patent should be revoked.
      • As I've said before - companies should be made to come up with a prototype before they can patent it. If a company cannot prove they had a prototype then the patent should be revoked.

        Um, I think you're missing the point. The problem with most of these type of patents (haven't looked at these specifically, but I'm assuming), is not that they are so hard to implement that the "inventors" are too incompetent to implement them. No, the main problem is the reverse - they are too easy to implement, and hence a

  • Get on the bandwagon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @06:39AM (#6569389)
    I have to say that this sounds like a great way of making money.

    Generate a bunch of very broad ideas, get the patent office to grant patents on them and then contact all the big web based companies and offer to license the Intellectual Property to them, or else.

    Tell me again why everyone isn't doing it?

    • "Tell me again why everyone isn't doing it?"

      Probably because most people have at least some moral fortitude.

      SB
  • heres a link to the patent for yr interest. Read the patent [uspto.gov]
  • by silverhalide ( 584408 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @08:41AM (#6570060)
    People should just quit hiring attornies and start hiring assasins instead. When someone tries to sue you for letting people login to your website, have them killed. Problem solved! Probably cheaper than a lawyer too. What does a typical assasin run these days?
  • Any votes for a /. interview the USPTO and see what they have to say?
  • 1. Patent teleportation
    2. Wait X number of years
    3. ...
    4. Profit!!! ... == File a lawsuit.

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Working...