DVD-by-Mail Services Cleared In Patent Troll Case

eldavojohn writes "Media Queue holds the rights to patent 7389243 which is simply a patent on the notification system (like e-mail) to users of changes in the status of their DVD rental queues. Of course, they filed suit in a random place against Netflix, Blockbuster and everyone else sending e-mail updates about DVD-by-Mail services. It was later moved to California and was dismissed last week. In related news on the ailing patent system, the USPTO unveiled a new plan to reduce backlog in its system by offering pending patents special examiner status if the holder abandons another co-pending unexamined application."

Re:

[cmiller173]

So the submit a flowchart demonstrating the algorithm as part of the filing.

Re:

[sakdoctor]

Don't even think about it. Patent troll Ltd holds a patent on "method and apparatus of generating flowcharts".

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, but we can buy that patent for some shiny beads.

Re:

[tuxgeek]

Excuse me ???
Correction: We already bought that patent for some shiny beads
As an incentive we also got Manhattan island in the deal

Common sense?

[X.25]

It is incredible that we have laws for everything, but judges are seemingly not allowed to simply use common sense.

Re:

[Midnight Thunder]

Define common sense.

The problem with USPTO new proposal is probably going to be more patent applications. People are going to submit two, and then cancel the second one, suddenly giving special status to the other one. If you are a patent troll, then it is worth the risk.

Re:

[X.25]

Define common sense.

That is the whole point. Common sense can not be defined, and it can't be put into laws and regulations.

Common sense would be judge saying "Get lost" when case like this even comes to the court.

Re:

[Manax]

You are being simplistic. Just because you don't understand any of the details behind a case, doesn't mean the case is really "obvious".

It's easy to only have a couple of details of a case, and come to a snap decision, and claim that it's "obvious" and groan about how if only someone would apply "common sense"...

Reality is often more complicated. Case in point. Woman burns herself with coffee from McD. If you only have that information, maybe you blame the woman, but it turns out there are more detail

Re:

[Manax]

Fine, I won't argue the specifics of that case, but the point is, which I think still stands, is that you don't know whether or not there are more details without investigation. If there are none, then of course one can come to a simple conclusion because there isn't anything else to consider, but if a judge spends time on it... maybe there is more to it that they are at least considering.

Sometimes the simplest path happens to be correct, but it's more coincidence than good practice...

Re:

[Mister Whirly]

You can argue specifics of the case, but to me common sense tells me coffee is hot, and you should take care when handling hot liquids. I don't know all the details of the case either, or whether or not it had merit (but my gut tells me getting a burn is not worth millions of dollars unless you can prove that much actual damages) but was merely commenting on the "common sense" angle.

Re:

[Mister Whirly]

I agree some sort of compensation should have been awarded due to negligence, but millions of dollars? How is that not frivolous? They should have paid her medical bills, cleaning bills, and paid for any work time missed. Justifying millions of dollars for "emotional stress" or however the lawyer defined it is just plain insanity, and a demonstration of a legal system that is not fair.
The funny thing is, there have been other cases where people have assaulted others with hot liquids, intentionally trying

Re:

[agrippa_cash]

The amount was chosen because it was McDonalds coffee sales for a day (or week or something). It wasn't to compensate the woman, but to punish McD for perceived uncivil behavior. Think the Pinto writ small (pint size you might say. Because , see the cups...)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[ckaminski]

If the hot coffee isn't melting the styrofoam cup, it's not melting anyone's clothes.

Re:

[Chees0rz]

If the hot coffee isn't melting the styrofoam cup, it's not melting anyone's clothes.

I wear chocolate panties for the ladies.

Re:

[clone53421]

Skin has the same melting point as polyester?

PET has a melting point of 260 C, FYI.

Re:

[ckaminski]

I never said it did (skin having same melting point as polyester).

And 260C is pretty far away from 100C hot coffee. I think you're just reinforcing my point.

Re:

[clone53421]

What is your point?

FYI, liquids at 190 degrees F (the temperature of the coffee) take 2-7 seconds to cause full-depth (3rd degree) skin burns. Good luck getting those clothes off quick enough to avoid painful skin grafts and reconstructive surgery.

Re:

[clone53421]

It was kept at 180-190 degrees, not 160 degrees. [slashdot.org]

Re:

[Mister Whirly]

700 times out of the millions of cups of coffee McDonalds has served over the years is hardly a lot of cases. And even if she wasn't originally gold digging, she ended up being a gold digger. Sorry, but no amount of "stress" caused by getting a second degree burn that you are partially responsible for (McDonalds didn't spill it on her, she spilled it on her) is worth millions of dollars. And like you said, McDonalds would rather settle lawsuits than serve cooler coffee, so really what was the end result of

Re:

[clone53421]

No. I too have researched this, and I’d like to see the research you did.

From what I saw, it was evident that (a) the coffee was kept dangerously hot, and McDonalds knew this; (b) the reason for the extreme temperature was to make the coffee odour stronger, because coffee drinkers who smell coffee will tend to want some and (c) at the temperature that the coffee was served, it was capable of causing third-degree burns in three seconds.

If you don’t think that’s dangerously hot, try getting

Re:Common sense?

[Andy Dodd]

If you RTFA, it appears they are only applying this to outstanding patent applications filed before October 1, 2009.

Re:Common sense?

[cmiller173]

RTFA? Thats just crazy talk!

Re:

[aztracker1]

TFA is under copyright, there's no patent on R that I am aware of.

Re:

[Thansal]

FTFA.
Use 2 seconds of this "common sense" that every one is complaining that no one uses.

Yes, the patent system is horrible currently, that doesn't mean that the people in charge are TOTAL morons and wouldn't think of this idea.

Re:

[Main Gauche]

True, but ...

"The procedure is being temporarily implemented and will only be effective until February 28, 2010. Upon review, the Office may extend the procedure in time or may extend the set of applicants that will be able to file for special status under the procedure."

Just vague enough to allow the possibility of another round of this procedure. It could just mean they retain the option to extend the Feb 28 filing deadline. Or, it could mean that they extend the Oct 1 cutoff, the possibility of which

Re:

[cmiller173]

Of course you missed the next part, refile the patent that was pulled, perhaps with a minor change.

Re:

[PerfectionLost]

What makes you think having the "special status" is going to be any better then regular status? This is the patent office we are talking about.

Re:

[Joutsa]

Allowing judges to use common sense is not really different from allowing them make arbitrary decisions based on their gut feeling, prejudice, bribes, etc.

Re:

[Clover_Kicker]

The legal system constrains judges by design.

If you give them too much leeway they might abuse it, not enough leeway and they are forced to do nonsensical things (insert favorite mandatory minimum story here).

The legal system has been trying to find the right balance for a long time, the system we have in English speaking countries is a bastardized mongrel that has been evolving since the Norman Conquest.

Re:

[shentino]

I think part of the problem is that to be a judge you have to work your way up through the sharktank of lawyerdom first, where your primary obligation is to go for your client by every trick in the book that isn't unethical or illegal.

Boom, suddenly you are a custodian of justice itself. Big change. Almost like if the worlds best boxers were suddenly hired as referees at the Golden Gloves.

Maybe if we hired judges that were trained AS JUDGES instead of career lawyers we might have some sense.

Re:

[timothyf]

I dunno, I'd personally think that having judges that know all the tricks is a good thing. Why would they have any reason to favor a lawyer who tried to pull those tricks on them?

Re:

[shentino]

You would think that smart juries would be a good thing.

Yet for some reason BOTH sides want them dumb.

Which just goes to show you the courtroom is just a dignified arena.

Re:special status means more work, not less

[Anonymous Coward]

This only applies to things filed before October 1st, 2009. RTFA.

Re:

[Princeofcups]

This only applies to things filed before October 1st, 2009. RTFA.

Doesn't matter. If you filed one good patent, you are screwed. You cannot get special treatment. If you filed 100 bad patents, then you now have 50 with special status that will have to get processed before the poor guy that filed his one good one.

Re:

[jeffmeden]

Yeah it seems like it will only really help the patent writers (who will get to charge double for each patent idea they write up) and, hence, the companies with fat enough wallets to spend twice as much on the patent process. The losers will be anyone trying to get a patent on a budget. Yay, progress!

Re:

[Rogerborg]

A very tiny bit of work. Just file the exact same patent twice, then drop the second one. It's not like USPTO Inc. will check, or care, as long as they make more money out of it.

Re:

[cmiller173]

Since they didn't file in east Texas which is the patent troll mecca any other place would be random.

Re:Random Place?

[jedidiah]

Yes infact.

Unless there is a tech company somewhere in sight of the relevant courthouse, then it is a fantasy juridiction that has no relation to any of the actual parties. If the relevant judge were acting with any sort of maturity he would tell both parties to get lost and find a venue that has some relation to either of them.

Whereas California or Delaware actually represent places where (tech) companies are incorporated or actually do business.

Re:

[clone53421]

Media Queue is an Oklahoma LLC.

Re:

[WCguru42]

Whereas California or Delaware actually represent places where (tech) companies are incorporated or actually do business.

Blockbuster and Netflix don't do business in Oklahoma? That's news to me.

Re:Random Place?

[DustyShadow]

The thing about patent law is almost every district court in the country has personal jurisdiction over the parties. You can be sued anywhere you have normal business activity. General Jurisdiction [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[jedidiah]

...except that is rather thin and any mature federal judge should acknowledge it as such.

They should be less petty and self centered and everyone else should expect better of them.

Re:

[DustyShadow]

If you don't want to subject yourself to courts of a state, don't do business within that state.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

The thing about patent law is almost every district court in the country has personal jurisdiction over the parties.

The question of whether a district court has jurisdiction is different than the question of whether the district is the most appropriate venue.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

If the relevant judge were acting with any sort of maturity he would tell both parties to get lost and find a venue that has some relation to either of them.

Well, I think the mature way would, actually, be to the follow the law and, if one of the parties sought a change of venue to a more appropriate place, grant it. Which, you know, is exactly what the judge did here.

But apparently, to some people, "maturity" involves unprofessional and capricious conduct.

Silly patent holder

[russotto]

Everyone knows that if you're going to try to enforce your ridiculous patent, you don't file suit in your own jurisdiction or the defendants jurisdication. Real patent trolls file in the Eastern District of Texas. Had they done that, they would have gotten their settlement.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Everyone knows that if you're going to try to enforce your ridiculous patent, you don't file suit in your own jurisdiction or the defendants jurisdication. Real patent trolls file in the Eastern District of Texas. Had they done that, they would have gotten their settlement.

Well, its worth noting that the judge before which the case was being heard up until that same judge granted Netflix's motion for a change of venue to the Northern District of California issued an order that "the Rules of Practice for Pat

Re:

[abartlett_219]

Everyone knows that if you're going to try to enforce your ridiculous patent, you don't file suit in your own jurisdiction or the defendants jurisdication. Real patent trolls file in the Eastern District of Texas. Had they done that, they would have gotten their settlement.

Exactly. File in E.D. of Texas, where nothing any tech company would care to touch is (a bunch of woods all within 3 hours of Houston, Dallas, or Shreveport, LA so no real reason for field offices/etc there). While Texas has lots of tech firms in the DFW, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston metros (the major cities of the 3 other court districts), the ED is pretty much a no man's land. If they had to file in say the West District in Austin or the North District in Dallas, they'd be screwed as the pool of ju

USPTO is a joke

[thelonious]

Half of the things they allow as patents are in my opinion common sense applications of technology that should not be limited in it's usage. A patent for updating customers via email notification that DVD order status has changed? Brings to mind Microsoft's patent on displaying images based on file creation date or some other such 'duh' idea. The fact that companies can get these patents just seems utterly ridiculous. Wasn't Amazon at one time in a patent dispute over their 'one click buying' which esse

Re:

[Bigjeff5]

...you end up with someone that doesn't even know what a cookie is.

Nonsense! Everyone knows what a cookie is!

My favorite is a nice, soft chocolate chip right out of the oven.

This is dumb

[Geoffrey.landis]

From the summary: "the USPTO unveiled a new plan to reduce backlog in its system by offering pending patents special examiner status if the holder abandons another co-pending unexamined application."

Dumb!

They're basically saying, if you want your patent examined fast, submit some other "dummy" patent applications that you can then abandon as needed to get special status. They don't understand that telling people to submit more patent applications if they want faster service will result in more work, not

Re:

[Bigjeff5]

Yeah, and if you hurry now you can submit that dummy application before the 10/1/2009 deadline!

Oh wait...

Re:

[Bigjeff5]

How are you going to go back in time and submit your dummy app before the October 1, 2009 cutoff date though?

I think there's a flaw in your plan...