Priceline & Expedia Patent Battle Heats Up 184
swilson writes "Not to be outdone by Amazon, Priceline has sued Microsoft and Expedia for patent infringement of their "name-your-price" business model. You can check out the story on The Standard." To get the facts straight, Priceline sued Expedia in October, and now Expedia/MSFT is filing a motion to dismiss the suit. MSFT is saying that Priceline stole the idea from someone else originally, which is an interesting argument in itself. I think we should make a comic book called "Patent Wars". It'd be like "Secret Wars", except duller.
Hey! (Score:1)
microsoft can't fight a patent... (Score:1)
Nice headline (Score:1)
Software Patents for Ideas are Ridiculous (Score:1)
I am very excited about the idea of RealTime economics. The invisble hand of commerce will move even swifter, but it would be truly ironic if the conduit strangles itself.
Destroy Corporations.
what-ever (Score:2)
this sounds just like the Apple suit against Microsoft (and Xerox), both of which they lost.
Can't they realize that good ideas are a renewable resource? Instead of wasting their time with lawysuits, they could keep ahead of the competition by continually raising the bar. fools!
Stupid Patents (Score:3)
My 2Cents
Wow, add a computer, get a patent (Score:3)
If Microsoft had stolen unpublished code, customer lists, internal design documents or the like, I would wish Priceline well. But from where I sit, it looks to me like MS is simply trying to compete in the market niche that Priceline defined.
Lawyers, the great equalizer? (Score:1)
The name-your-price is terrible anyhow... (Score:3)
There was no way I was going to name my price, enter my credit card number and automatically buy the ticket before I even was saw what airline it was on. Priceline gave me no way to just shop around for prices - you name the intenerary, name a price and bam, you are charged and you have no choice about anything after that. So, I went to travelocity, where I could actually shop around a bit.
I think this name your price thing is lame, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to fight over it. Especially since they are planning on extending the paradigm to commodities such as groceries - who wants to haggle over a can of soup? Or lose out becaue they were willing to pay more than the going rate, without ever knowing the going rate?
Anyway, this is another case where MS shines in lack of originality. Have they ever thought of anything for themselves? Good ideas or bad, I don't think they have.
Buyer-driven commerce patentable? (Score:1)
> an obscure San Francisco company called Marketel International is also staking a claim to U.S. Patent No. 5,794,207.
> In a suit filed in January, Marketel claims it came up with the idea for this type of buyer-driven commerce and shared it with Walker years ago under a nondisclosure agreement.
Oh sure, some naysayers will say that's a bogus patent, after all, there's plenty of places using "seller-driven commerce", the business model whereby the store sets the price of the item and the consumer is offered the choice between buying it at that price or taking his or her business elsewhere has been done before, there's plenty of prior art. Feh! I say it's revolutionary and innovative, and the USPTO will agree because they're too overworked to actually read any of the patents people apply for anyways! It's mine! ALL MINE, I SAY! MINE! 3Y3 0Wn U A77!
Go ahead, mock my "seller-driven commerce" patent all you want, but the day you offer any goods for sale at a specified price, I'll be seein' you in court.
(Do you have the money to hire the patent lawyer it'll take to prove I'm full of shit? No? Then pay up, suckers.)
I have to go with MSFT on this one (Score:1)
I look at this as a lesser of evils, do I fear the evil of Microsoft squeezing other businesses, or do I fear stupid pattents more?
Honestly, I fear stupid pattents more. While I disagree with the ethics of MSFTs usual tactic of "if we can't buy you we'll copy and under-price you and trample all over you", I don't disagree with the practice of competing products.
If MSFT develops a similar product they have the right to market it. They do NOT have the right to say "sell us your company or be crushed." They do NOT have the right to say "stop persuing this type of business." They do NOT have the right to say "we're going to make sure no one does business with you." They do have the right to compeete fairly.
The problem with pattent law is, if we don't attempt to reform it soon, there won't be many companies left to fight the legal battles necessary to reform it. (It WILL become even a larger problem).
The use of patents (Score:3)
Looks like the new guys don't completely understand such a system. Too bad...
Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:4)
Some people have suggested the idea of having an online database of ideas, as a way of providing ammunition to fight patent suits: if you can provide evidence that such-and-such an idea existed prior to such-and-such a date... you get the idea.
I like the idea, but the big problem is that a database in and of itself doesn't really provide much evidence. So I've been trying to think of a practical way of implementing what (for lack of a better term) I call an anti-patent. It would essentially be just like a patent, except that it would be used to prove prior art in patent infringment cases. That way, anything that is covered by an anti-patent you can use with impunity in free software with little fear of litigation (hopefully).
The way it would work is that you would make a submission (like an application) and some research would be done to verify the viability of the submission, then if it "passes", evidence would be collected, dated, notarized (or whatever is legally neccessary), and put into a searchable database.
So far the main problems I've run into revolve around financing the system. How can you make the system cheap enough to be practical, but still provide enough revenue to administer the program? I know that some people would probably volunteer for the project, but in addition to the administration costs, it would be necessary to build up a war chest to fund legal challenges/defenses. How much would people really pay for this (especially since they might already be sacrificing potential income from patenting their idea)? How else can this be funded?
Pantenting business ideas? (Score:3)
It's clear that there are enough bullshit patents filed for slashdot to run one of these stories every day. It's also clear that patents are a pointless and costly system in an information-centric world.
But it would be nice to see some of the stupidity of the patent system be aired a little more frequently outside the relatively enlightened forum of Slashdot. A bit of grass-roots evangelization is needed. Consequently, I am planning to put up a webpage with a few pointed rants about the present system, and ideas about what it could be replaced with. If you have any views on this that you would like to see aired, mail me at:
mike@mikera.net
Why shouldn't they sue? (Score:1)
My last best hopes for clearing up the patent mess is either a clear patent policy dictated by the next president or some intelligent legislation comming from congress. Do I think either of these will happen? Of course not.
Re:The use of patents (Score:1)
THEN they both made nice and Intel bought Digital's technology.
Re:what-ever (Score:1)
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
Microsoft says "But the other kids do it" (Score:1)
Apple made a nice gui... mostly from Xerox code but still did alot with it... they didn't steal it.. they took something they knew would be big from someone who wasn't going to take it in the direction it needed to go in. And I believe they bought it.
So Microsoft steals the MacOS idea and turns it into windows and pisses off jobs (who doesn't). Gates responce is "You stole it from Xerox so we can steal it from you."
This is the standard excuse they seem to be throwing out. The only difference between Microsoft and these people they steal from is those other companies are creating beauty and innovating. Microsoft is just buying and incorporating.
Money can go a long way but I think we all see they are losing their grip.
Here we go again.... (Score:1)
Personally, I still think patents on software are out of control. Someone, somehow, *really* needs to step in and put a leash on the USPTO. As someone in another comment pointed out, this is a ridiculous patent in the first place! The idea of naming one's price is far from original, and the method isn't, or shouldn't, be patentable. How many more of these battles are we going to have to watch? How many patents are they going to give out before they realize that they're crippling internet/software development instead of encouraging it?
All these companies are carving out their little niches, stealing or borrowing obvious ideas, putting patents on them, and trying to create monopolies for themselves. I don't know about you, but that's *just* what I wanted to see from the Internet.
Mother Goose(tm) (Score:3)
Once upon a time, there lived three patent lawyers - Daddy Patent Lawyer, Mother Patent Lawyer and Little Baby Patent Lawyer.
One day, Mother Patent Lawyer half-baked them a case, for breakfast, but it was too hot to handle, so they decided to go for a walk through the Trademark Woods.
That same morning, Goldybanks went for a walk through the woods, when she came across a fabulous mansion, complete with swimming pool and wraught iron gates. Being a cracker, it didn't take long to bypass the locks on the gates. (It was using Windows NT.)
Going in, she found three bowls of cooling* bowls of legal cases.
(* Cooling is a process patented by the Santa Claus Christmas Corporation)
She tried the first bowl, and it was too hot. Too much Microsoft. She tried the second bowl, and it was too cold. No money in it. But the third bowl was just right. A dash of e-commerce, and a sprinkling of good PR opportunities.
Pointless... (Score:1)
Re:microsoft can't fight a patent... (Score:1)
Microsoft makes money off of operating systems, not patents....
It'd annoy them to have their patents invalidated, because then they'd have more competitors using their technology, but.. They'd still be making money...
I warning all of you (Score:1)
So cut it out, everyone.
Re:The name-your-price is terrible anyhow... (Score:1)
It's Mine All Mine! (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft says "But the other kids do it" (Score:1)
Arrgh this lawsuit is stupid. If I go to a car lot and say I'll offer $1000 for that car that you have priced at $2000, isn't this what Priceline is trying to patent? Like they really came up with anything that hasn't been around for millions of years. I think I'm going to go patent selling lemonade at a lemonade stand now.
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:1)
Patent Wars Comix (Score:1)
Both 'secret wars' and these 'patent wars' are riduculously contrived even given the extreme faux-realities of the participants. The public audience doesn't seem to care regardless of the amount of mustered bluster. And the authors would have people believe these battles decide the 'fate of the world'.
not sure if anything could be duller than secret wars,
-rob
Re:The use of patents (Score:2)
As m. o said, The real problem started when people began to use the patents in court. So long as the understanding is there and everyone knows not to call the bluffs, work gets done and everyone is at least doing something. When the bluffs start getting called, work grinds to a halt as the legal departments have to wade through all the work different groups were doing. The researchers can't get work done, the products may not be able to be sold, and the engineers are just supposed to fix a problem that is so far out of the specifications of what they are doing that it just isn't even funny. After both companies do this, one has to pay damages and the costs are simply phohibitive. The almost universal answer was to quickly write up an out-of-court agreement as to how things would work. These usually included a price for which the non-patent-holder would purchase the rights to use the patented idea for $X amount. The contract would then stay in effect for Y years. Usually, it was a trade off. Both sides had something patented and the other side got to use the patent that they stole.
Engineers and such had nightmares about patent stuff actually going to court. It was simply understood that you don't do that unless no other options are available. The only case where the threat was not a bluff was where the patent holder was some huge company that could afford the process, and the target was some little company making too much money by breaking the "rules".
B. Elgin
Control of creative ideas by legislative fiat (Score:3)
Unfortunately companies can measure #patents but not intangibles like goodwill but which is more important in the long-term?. Unfortunately (or maybe deliberately so) consumer education for complex technical stuff like computers has still a long way to go when people can still confuse MHZ (effectively the RPM of the CPU) with the total software/hardware package (ie motor + comfort + millage). Perhaps consumer education is one area where Linux can be more effective, especially in warning against the long-term hard that frivilous patents can cause.
LL
patent abuse website (Score:2)
The site could also provide a series "boycott patent abusers" logos (general, and specific ones for the biggest offenders) that website builders could put in their pages. This would help spread the word on the problem for those who would like to boycott these compies ALA RMS.
Andover/slashdot and company would be a perfect place to host such a website, IMNSHO, as slashdot deals with stupid patents on a frequent basis, anyhoo.
What do you think, sirs?
kids. (Score:3)
Now I see here at the top it says "Children's rules to toys"... somehow though I don't think it applies to children anymore...
Re:Hey! (Score:2)
Re:The name-your-price is terrible anyhow... (Score:1)
Actually, with groceries this system makes more sense than with, say, hotel rooms. The big advantage is that you know exactly what you are going to get -- you bid for a specific brand-name item.
And there is no haggling -- you go through a web page checking off boxes...
P.S. No, I'm not a Priceline user, but I saw their grocery pages.
Kaa
What???? (Score:1)
Maybe I should go and apply for a patent for this great idea: Big store, shelves organized into various sections for different types of merchandise, similar items would be close together, then there would be multiple booths where total cost is calculated, and payment and change made. These booths would empty out an exit that conveniently leads to a parking lot.
If name your price can be patented, so can that.
Re:microsoft can't fight a patent... (Score:1)
You mean Microsoft has an operating system?
Re:Stupid Patents (Score:1)
Of course, there are good patents out there, for truely novel and inventive ideas, but they are more than drowned out in the sea of trivial and obvious patents on the legally unpatentable.
A combination of the patent office's willingness to patent anything, and the expense of fighting illegal patents, means that patents are an excellent method of preventing competition.
Even if every slashdotter wrote their congressperson, it would be lost in the noise of checks being written by large companies. Unfortunately, in the american political system, money speaks MUCH more loudly than constituants.
Re:Patent (Score:1)
If I can read the legalese right, this means that the Patent Office is in violation of patent 5,991,780, since their own web server is a "Computer based system, method, and computer program product for selectively displaying patent text and images".
Copycats (OT?) (Score:2)
Because they don't have to.
When you are in the lead, you don't take chances. You don't innovate. You do exactly the same thing as everyone else in order to stay in the lead.
For example, take a sailing race. Once you are in the lead, you should always be able to win. You just do EXACTLY the same thing as your opponent. Even if you think he turns in a stupid direction, you follow him, just in case it turns out to be a good move. In this way you can stay the same distance ahead, and never lose ground. In fact, its considered very amateurish to NOT match your opponents moves.
By following the crowd you are guaranteed to come out where everyone else does. This applies to everything: software, sailing, stocks, life.
Its stupid to take risks when you can let others take them for you. Of course, patents are meant to protect inventors and encourage innovation. In this way, they are good. Unfortunately, as people keep pointing out (you Karma whores!) patents are diluted and becoming more and more abused. Oh well.
Not very topical, but ah well.
You know, if MS were following this strategy (which they probably should), it would mean that it would be appropriate for them to introduce a MS Linux distribution. Just a thought. :)
Re:kids. (Score:2)
As long as we're on the subject:
Anything not nailed down is mine.
Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.
Are they allowed to do this? (Score:1)
Someone is trying to sue Microsoft (a very large corporation) about some obvious 'technology' - surely there is no debate. Small companies are not allowed to sue Microsoft, and this rebellion must be crushed, or maybe a large conglomerate might suffer?
I MEAN - Who do they think they are?!?!?!?!?
Grass-roots evangelization (Score:2)
- Union for the Public Domain: their page on Business Practice Patents [public-domain.org].
- The League for Programming Freedom: their page on Software Patents [mit.edu]
- freepatents.org [freepatents.org] for activism in the EU
- Phil Karn: his "The US Patent System is Out of Control" [qualcomm.com]
Any others? If all of these forces could be united with help from slashdotters...Can you say LAWSUIT! (Score:1)
Re:What???? (Score:2)
have 10 bucks, do you have a thing x for 10 dollars? '"
Yeah, but that's where Priceline's model is superior to yours - if you went into a store and said, "I need a toothbrush. I only have $1 billion. Do you have a toothbrush for $1 billion?" the store would then be forced to sell you a toothbrush for $1 billion! Priceline brilliantly did away with such nonsense, thereby adding value.
how about no patents period (Score:1)
Re:Similar.. (Score:1)
These days, throw "Linux" or "wireless" or "business to business" in a press release and you will get a jump on the stock...
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
Another Lawsuit (Score:1)
Re:Stupid Patents (Score:2)
I recall hearing somewhere (can't remember the source, but I remember it was a congressional staffer - can any one else place this?) that it takes on the order of four (that's 4, 2*2, IV) handwritten letters to make a someone in the house/senate take action on an issue.
So perhaps, instead of emailing your congresscritters, you might want to take the 2-3 minutes it takes to write them a letter on the subject.
Re:The name-your-price is terrible anyhow... (Score:1)
Other then this trick, the only way to play is to see what everybody else is offering and try to save a few bucks at priceline.com.
Open Source Patents Project? (Score:3)
We all know that one way to break a patent is to demonstrate "prior art". However, this doesn't have to be an actual implementation of an idea, it can be a description of an idea placed in the public.
Mighty corporations all have a patent process in place. They encourage their staff to generate patent applications for monetary reward. These applications are then assessed by specialists in said mighty corporations to see if they are worth pursuing seriously. The ones chosen get sent on to the Patent Office.
But the rest don't get thrown away
The OSS community should do they same thing. Have an Open Ideas Database where potentially patentable idea (however "obvious") can be made public and thus no longer patentable.
You don't need to invest the $$$s to get a patent yourself to stop someone else getting one. If the OSS community is serious about long term survival then we need such a database. (Remember MS's Halloween threats to use the "patent weapon".)
Regards, Ralph.
Lets patent our NAMES while we're at it... (Score:1)
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
Yes, Andover.net majorly whored out Open Source (Score:1)
Linux. Open Source. The builders of the Internet know where these trends are leading, and how this will shape the future of the Internet. That's why they come here. Andover.Net is the leading Linux/Open Source destination on the Internet. Its network of web sites provides an independent, unbiased source for content, community and commerce for the Open Source and Linux communities.
Of course, Andover.net's web servers run a decidedly non-Open Source operating system (Solaris), but it's all about the Benjamins, eh? Hell, even Apple's eating their own dog food now that OS X Server is out.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Info from USPTO (Score:3)
Re:what-ever (Score:1)
After all, collaboration and teamwork is what brings us forward, not selfishness and paranoia.
Re:Hey! (Score:1)
Reality check (Score:1)
The lawyers are already on retainer (this is M$ after all). Its not as if the lawyers (the ones whose time is be "wasted") would be busy doing R&D if they weren't doing this. Legal action such as this is far less expensive than what passes for innovation at most large corporations, and there is much money to be gained.
Incedentally, this probably does seem like a good idea to Bill and the boys, and I have no doubt that they will pounce on any other such 'good ideas' the lawyers might come up with.
Re:microsoft can't fight a patent... (Score:1)
"No! This can't be happening!"
The minds of Slashdotters will spontaneously combust as they try to grok the notion of the Evil Empire fighting for the cause of goodness. Is Emperor Palpatine suddenly deciding to give the rebels aid, or is it just a trick to lure them in?
Nooo, I can't take it anymore. Losing mind. Must... get... back... to the ship. Scotty, Beam me up. I said energize, dammit!
Ok, time to back off on the caffeine.
Re:Patent (Score:2)
The US Government is immune from Patent Infringement.
Maybe thos congresscritters aren't as stupid as you think..
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:1)
Re:what-ever - I thought that was MS's investment (Score:1)
Re:Control of creative ideas by legislative fiat (Score:2)
Your point being? People always give credit for inventions to the first person to develop the idea. Hell, I had the idea (quite independently) for the complex number plane when I was a 5th grader. Is it called the Eric Surface now? NooooOOOOOooo. Some other dude came up with the idea a few hundred years earlier.
And by the way, Metcalf's law is a crock, and a gross underestimate of the truth. Network connectivity scales O(N^N); thus the EXPONENTIAL (NOT O^2 or parabolic) growth of the internet. If we were doing (O^2) growth, we'd still be less than a million hosts.
If you want to argue that patent law should not be applied to (genomes, business models, software) fine. But leave all this other poorly thought out booshwaw behind.
Re:Copycats (OT?) (Score:2)
If you're following this example I can always beat you by exploiting any difference in our positions and forcing you to act in my favor.
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:2)
Based on what I read on their pages I ask: Why not?
Nonsense. Invalidity is determined case by case. (Score:3)
Here in
It is common for companies in patent-intensive businesses to be both plaintiffs and defendants, with little consequences derived from positions they have taken in earlier matters. Microsoft will win or lose based upon prior art they actually find and demonstrate, or upon inequitable conduct they can show, or upon proof of non-infringement. These things are argued case by case and things stated in one rarely have an impact on another, unless it is another case relating to the same patent or family of patents.
Arguing merely that the patent is a *bad*, nasty software patent is not something that they will do for three important reasons: (i) it cannot win the case; it cannot win the case; and (ii) it cannot win the case.
At least... (Score:1)
Re:The name-your-price is terrible anyhow... NOT! (Score:2)
I think Priceline provides a very decent service, providing cheap fares to consumers and filling otherwise-empty airline seats. If you choose jet aircraft only, you'll be flown on major airlines: AA, USAir, Delta, TWA, et al. If the specific service or frequent-flyer miles matter to you, this is not for you - as a penniless (ahem) grad student, I'm glad to be flying round trip across the country for less than $100. Yes, I gave them a credit card number before I knew the airline, but I'm flying on United, which was (probably still is) offering the same flight for $200...
Think of it as an analog to arbitrage in the commodities market. (Or am I waaaay off base here?) As for "is it patentable?", well, given the current climate at the PTO, whyever not? Yes, its stupid, but that's not stopping anyone else, apparently.
Re:Copycats (OT?) (Score:2)
Only if you can figure out how to set things up so that you can cause more damage to the other person and not achieve a Pyrrhic(sp?) victory for yourself.
Besides, if you assume that your opponent is at least as smart as you are (always a good assumption when you're in competition), they aren't going to follow the "do what you do" strategy blindly - once they realize that your change in strategy is designed to affect them directly, they will probably be able to temporarily modify their own strategy to nullify yours (with superior resources if necessary).
Frankly, once a company has achieved "leader" status in a field, they can only really lose it through 1) the whole field gets depressed, 2) either a few large or many small mistakes, or 3) the rest of the field gangs up on the leader to overcome its superior resources.
Reverse Auction (Score:1)
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:1)
Re:Lets patent our NAMES while we're at it... (Score:2)
Let me try to express the idea of the basic principle of a patent as simply as possible.
A patent is a contract between the inventor and the government to give you exclusive rights for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an invention rather than keeping it secret.
Now suppose the great Maharaja Nimoji came up with the idea for One-Click Shopping in the year 300 B.C. but didn't let his court scribe write down the idea in the Great Scroll of Nifty Sanskrit Inventions because he didn't want the other Maharajas using the technology.
Nobody can use the idea as a basis for further development of technology BECAUSE IT WASN'T PUBLISHED. The idea of the patent is very specific - IT IS TO ENCOURAGE THE PUBLICATION of technological ideas so that if the inventor croaks the idea won't be lost for 2295 years, like the M. Nimoji's invention of One-Click Shopping.
Nobody cares if One Click Shopping was invented but not recorded. It might as well not exist. The idea is to get people to release inventions to the public domain after some fixed period of exclusive rights so that they DON'T get lost, and people can freely use them.
People in the OSS don't seem to get this at all, but Patents really were designed to encourage the OPENING OF TECHNOLOGY. A patented idea in fact becomes public domain or FREE after a period of time.
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:1)
First part:
The patent concept* should be replaced by GPL Patent (GPLP) which means that every patented idea were also released under the GPL.
(*I talk about patenting of algorithms, programs and such.)
Basically it would give the option to either use it as a GPL'd resource, and so the derived work/idea would be also released to the public or to pay a licensing fee and use it commercially in any way.
This would not solve the problem of having one-click patents and such but at least would protect the little guy and universities for example. (It was said that universities might be required to pay licensing fees related to gene research, study material etc.)
I know that I did not describe it fully but the idea is that for example a not for profit organization could use any software without fearing patent infringement, since they would use the GPL variation and would declare that their output belongs to the public domain too.
This whole process would require the official recognition (on government level) of the GPL and because its involvement it would soon become easy to invalidate a patent because of prior art in the form of a referring to previous GPL-d ideas.
But the real killer for the stupid patents is in the:
Second part:
The patent application process should have a phase where the applicant should prove that actual research was done on the problem.
So they should ask first and if noone can solve their problem in say 30 days then a patent can be granted. Clearly if an answer comes up in less than 30 days then it is not really required much R&D.
Take the one-click patent. They would post in a journal and/or the web that they need a solution to do the shopping in one-click etc. I guess someone would come up with a solution in less than 30 days...
The posting requironment can be dropped if previous research can be proved. For example a new compression algorithm would fall into this category, since research on compression has been done for a while (publications etc.), therefore something faster or more efficient would be easy to patent. Same with better speach recognition, longer battery life for electric cars, etc.
Of course patenting most business models would be impossible since it would not fit in with the idea of previous research requironment.
So what I want to avoid is the following: someone comes up and says I spent 3 years of research to do something and someone else says it is trivial. If the question/problem is made public beforehand then the second guy will have a chance to air his views at the right time.
Oh, well it will not happen anytime soon.
Matyas
Re:Info from USPTO (Score:2)
I don't know where you got that document, but it is obsolete. The USPTO has been granting business method patents for a while now.
Microsoft and Morality (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft says "But the other kids do it" (Score:1)
No, get your facts straight. They did not buy it, they took it. Xerox was none too happy about it.
Apple has no ownership of the GUI. (Im not saying that you can copy THEIR GUI, but anyone can make a GUI).
"You believe" because you hope and you want to perceive Apple as a shining white knight when it did nothing more honorable than the other dozens of GUI products that followed it.
When windows was released, other GUIs besides Apple were being pushed. Remeber OS/2 ? DesQView ? DR GEM ?
Windows and MAC have survived, the others didn't
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:1)
Anyone care to comment ?
Slashdot misses the real story.. (Score:2)
patent before first running off at the mouth???
The only one I could find listed at IBM's Patent Server is this:
US5897620: Method and apparatus for the sale of airline-specified flight tickets.
IT IS NOT A PATENT ON REVERSE AUCTIONS
It is in fact a technology related patent for
processing certain kinds of airline ticket
purchases. As far as I know, this idea was actually an original invention by Priceline, and they deserve to get a patent on it.
Claim 1 reads:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
viewing, using a computer, special fare listing information for air travel to a specified destination location from a specified departure location within a specified time range, said special fare listing information excluding a specified departure time; transmitting, using a computer, a request to purchase a commitment for carriage corresponding to said special fare listing information; receiving a commitment for carriage, including an obligation by an airline to provide a seat on a flight, that satisfies said request but does not specify a departure time;
accepting said commitment for carriage; and receiving at a time subsequent to said accepting an identification of said departure time.
This patent is so narrow that anyone that is not just out there COPYING what other people are doing (like Microsoft often does) should be able to avoid it.
There have been other stories [excite.com] in the media about Microsoft attending venture capital meetings with Priceline and failing to reach a business agreement. (That I submitted and
All of this is so similar to the previous rapacious behaviour of Microsoft there is no way I can find fault with either the patent system of what Priceline is doing.
Get off of your computer! (Score:1)
Re:The use of patents (Score:1)
Then would they be willing to help solve the problem for both themselves and others by actually coming out and agreeing to one of the Options (say number 4) of the Open Patent License [openpatents.org]?
The idea of the license is that if those who say "we only use our patents defensively", explicitely give each other permission to use those "defensive" patents uhm, err, defensively, then they'll all have the effective benefit of a much larger portfolio.
(Actually, it's a little more complicated than the description above--there are 7 Options to cover different sorts of cases, but that's pretty much the basic idea.)
If you have any comments or suggestions about the www.openpatents.org [openpatents.org] site, please let me know, or subscribe to the mailing list.
Re:Open Source Patents Project? (Score:1)
Re:Open Source Patents Project? (Score:1)
I thin the site you were talking about is www.openpatents.org
Re:Stupid Patents (Score:1)
I'm sure Sentator Schumer could care less about your petrified Natalie Portmans.
So there 8-P
My two cents, prior art (Score:1)
1) Open Source authors need to keep all their CVS archives, this is the best proof of prior art.
2) This might be far fetched, but Dejanews with it's 5 years of Usenet archives, could be a nice place to look for prior art too, or at least that the idea has been around for some time.
Re:Stupid Patents (Score:1)
I'm sure Sentator Schumer could care less about your petrified Natalie Portmans.
Re:Open Source Patents Project? (Score:1)
If you are referring to my Open Patent License project atwww.openpatents.org [openpatents.org], then it's still going. I'm getting comments and help from a few folks on the license, but I've slacked off on my contacts. (Been sick.) During the Holidays and especially right before Y2K is probably not the best time to be talking with legal folks at technology companies, so I'll probably hold off until after the new years to resume that. (Unless the world comes to an end *and* everyone starts suing one another. Then I'll hold off a couple more weeks. :-) ) Of course, if anyone has any patents or suggestions to contribute, there's no need to wait until after the new year to let me know, or to join the mailing list.
That's being done at the Software Patent Institute [spi.org].
(As a side note, neither a cross-licensing proposal nor a prior art database needs limit itself to OSS-type ideas. The OSS/Free Software and proprietary worlds are both at risk by software patents, and IMHO any solutions to these types of problems should be inclusive of both groups.)
Re:The name-your-price is terrible anyhow... (Score:2)
http://www.epinions.com/trvl-review-13D3-FD30C0
In brief, the really big catch is that you have no control whatsoever on flight times. So if you're staying an hour and a half away from the airport, and they put you on a 7:25 am flight, you're going to have to get out the door at 5:30am and still barely make it.
In my rush to make the flight, I lost both my cell phone and camera battery charger. Oops.
Don't use Priceline unless there's no other way in the world you can travel.
D
----
No, add the web(!), get a patent (Score:2)
While we're getting the hang of rooting for Microsoft for once, does anyone know how things are going vis-a-vis Cleartype, the Microsoft flat-panel font-rendering techniqe that eerily resembles something an Apple engineer did on CRTs 20 years ago?
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:1)
I guess that the fundamental flaw of this idea is that the playing field is not level because we are not the government. Patent law seems harder to subvert than copyright law, unfortunately, making some version of the GPL less effective. Maybe we just need to move to a country that doesn't recognize US patents.
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:1)
This could have two uses, that I can see. First of all, when someone files a patent-infringement lawsuit against you, you can look at the Anti-Patent site and maybe send them back a little notice saying, "Oh, I'm sorry, but it appears that Anti-Patent #34278954 clearly predates your almost identical Patent #354665354. If your patent isn't thrown out on the basis of prior art, then the Anti-Patent can at least help establish that the Patent is obvious." While this wouldn't prevent abuse of the legal system, I can't help thinking that it would discourage it to some degree, especially as the Anti-Patent site gains in reputation.
The second idea is that after a really stupid patent is awarded, anyone could email the USPTO with a nice friendly pointer to the pertinent prior art on the Anti-Patent web site. Eventually, (again, once the site gains some reputation,) the Patent Officers will probably consider the Anti-Patent database a tool to help them decide whether or not a new patent application is valid or not.
At first I thought that maybe there would be a problem with people submitting ideas that were already patented or had clear prior art. But then I realized, it doesn't matter. If someone submits an Anti-Patent that a previous patent applies to, a note could just be added to the Anti-Patent pointing to the previous patent. That could actually strengthen the Anti-Patent. If there seems to be no usefulness to the Anti-Patent because it is exactly equivalent to a previous patent, it could be removed to reduce clutter in the database, but even that is not really necessary. It's not illegal to print something that has already been released to the public in the form of a patent. (Unlike copyright... but that is the province of the GPL!)
This seems like it would make an excellent open source project. Also, it wouldn't require too much in the way of resources until it got really large, and then maybe donations could support it. Basically it just has to be a moderated, searchable text database freely available via the web.
Does anyone else like this idea?
slashdot eats its own dog food. (Score:2)
Andover's sole connection to the open source world is in buying various open source-oriented web sites, and as far as I know, all of them have run open source operating systems.
That being said, I don't see running Solaris as being an unforgiveable sin. Sun isn't without flaw, but it's no Microsoft.
D
----
Re:Patent (Score:2)
OK, true, you go to the Court of Claims rather than a District Court for trial (and don't get a jury), but the same substantive law applies (except certain damages issues) and appeals still go to the Federal Circuit.
Re:Time for anti-patents? (Maybe a bit OT) (Score:1)
I mean common, a year ago would you have bothered to add the 'windowing' 'fix' for the Y2K 'bug' to such a database? It's just too stupid.
Of course, if someone can come up with an obvious programming idea which someone isn't already trying to patent, you can prove me wrong. Go on... try.
I'm afraid we'll have to continue with the "Hey, he can't patent that I did that 90 years ago!" comments and the "Well I patent air" comments until either some changes are made to the patent system or one of these patents is actually tried in court (and hopefully revoked).
"God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein
Re:Wow, add a computer, get a patent (Score:2)
and a spectacularly un-original idea.. (Score:1)
Hopefully these gorillas will serious damage to each other and prove to those with common sense that ideas, especially age-old practices, are ill-defined as "property..
btw.. upside has a related st ory [upside.com]:
Even if your company neither directly nor indirectly employs infringing technology in its business, you could potentially still be sued for inducement to infringe merely for helping to sell or promote the products or services of a company that does so infringe. Given that the Internet is nothing if not a vast bazaar of hyperlinked, cross-promotional Web sites, this could be a problem of staggering proportions.
It remains unclear precisely how important patents will ultimately prove to be in shaping the dynamics of competition on the Net. What can be said with absolute assurance, however, is that patent-driven business wars are soon going to be commonplace on the Net.
WHO CARES ? (Score:1)
ignorant behemoths ?
patents are pretty useless as this and many other cases have shown.
they enslave and restrict!?
Re:patent abuse website (Score:1)
please contact me at iowa_so8ng@hot8mail.com
(remove eights).
Re:Open Source Patents Project? (Score:1)
Seriously...I know that showing "prior art" will defeat an American patent, but will it stop a European patent? I hear that in Europe the patent goes to the first party to file, period. Who understands all this? Not me.
I think that VA Linux, Red Hat, Corel, and all the other companies getting rich off Free Software should pool together and sponser a Free Software Defense Fund or something. It would help give individual developers, university students, etc a chance against big evil corporations.
Of course, none of those companies will touch that idea with a ten foot pole without LOTS of pressure. But since they depend on a community of developers for their product, they have to listen to what the community says eventually. Someone should get organized.
Take care,
Steve
I HAVE SOLVED THIS WHOLE MESS (Score:1)
That'll fix em.
Patent abuse as a business model (Score:1)
Maybe this means the stock market could sue him.
The MS gimmick is pretty standard in patent law for dealing with patent abuse because a patent won't hold up if it's not original. It's also used by large corporations to monster-truck small competitors who have valid patents. ("You see, your honor, this obscure Frenchman in the 16th century had a similar notion, long before the 'Net was ever conceived." Try disproving that in court without millions of dollars and an armload of experts who claim to be "historians of science.")
Competing with Microsoft Expedia (Score:1)
I'm all for more competition, and I agree with dsplat that Microsoft should be allowed to compete in this sector. Just because Priceline defined the market niche doesn't mean that they have exclusive access to it.
The economic model that has been applied to cases like this is always the same - the incumbent (that would be Priceline) have the chance to establish a significant competitive advantage through experience by going as far down the learning curve as they can, as fast as they can, for that period of time in which they are the only company in the niche. They have a chance to build a real brand name for themselves and negotiate excellent arrangements with parallel businesses since they are the only ones in the market.
When competitors come in, the incumbent should protect their market share by being more competitive and by paying their employees enough to prevent competitors from "jumping" the learning curve by poaching experts.
More and more, we seem to find that just because something is done on the internet means that people feel justified in patenting entire business sectors. Some of them potentially extremely profitable. This is to the consumer's detriment.
Competition is cool - I checked out lastminute.com, priceline.com and expedia.com for my trip home this Xmas. Expedia came up with the cheapest ticket by far. This has nothing to do with copying other people's business, but with negotiating better arrangements with air travel suppliers. Are we actually saying that Expedia should not be allowed to offer me that ticket over the internet because another company thought of using that medium first? Where does that leave me? Patents exist to allow companies to recoup development and R&D costs, not to fleece customers and generate extraordinary profits. Having to buy a more expensive ticket because other companies are not allowed to offer that ticket price over the medium I am using is anti-consumer, anti-competitive and economically retarded.
Of course I didn't use the "name your price" model, but had I used that, it would have been a question of who had the least expensive tickets, and Priceline may still have lost. The next step is to allow robots to pick the cheapest flight prices across all internet suppliers and present those to me - then the consumer really would have near-perfect information and the tables would, in effect, be turned. The airlines would have to bid each other down for passengers, rather than passengers bidding each other up for tickets. Cool.
Remeber this line. (Score:1)
But does anyone remeber the line -
"How much were you look to spend?"
What is this a patent on an age old question?