Slashdot Mirror
International Trade Patent
Luminous writes "According to the Wall Street Journal and this article from MSNBC, the U.S. Patent office is reviewing a patent on all computer-to-computer international trade transactions.
'When and if Mr. Pool's patent becomes final, lawyers
hired by his company, DE Technologies LLC, say anyone conducting computer-to-computer international trades over the Internet without the permission of DE Technology will infringe on the company's intellectual property.' " This submission has been coming in a lot - it's scary, but remember that this patent has not been passed yet - and hopefully with this negative attention, it won't be. The Patent Office has notified him that it will be issuing the patent, however.It should be noted that BusinessWeek had this story a a month ago.
Okay, I'll avoid making the obvious stupid joke here about "I'm going to patent blah blah blah".
Seriously, what would our economy be like if businesses had taken out patents on trade over the telephone at the begining of the century the way that they're taking out patents on trade over the internet now. It would be ridiculous. Imagine:
Sears and Roebuck announce One Name Shopping(tm)! Using our patented technology, we will keep your name and address on file in our offices, so when you call, all you have to give us is your name. We will fill out the rest of your mailing label (for the bill and the shipped merchandise) automatically. Available ONLY at Sears and Roebuck. Call us at Pennsylvania 5-6000.
Bleh. As much as I hate lawsuits and loathe lawyers, perhaps we need a Class Action Suit against the Patent Office for restricting free trade with this sort of nonsense. It's got to stop.
--
My word processor was written by Stanford Professor Donald Knuth. Who wrote yours?
I guess if there is a silver lining to this farce, this is it. Of course, sometimes the silver lining is actually a 727 in a free fall. A lot of people could get hurt before the dust settles on this one.
What I really want to know is if a frontal lobotomy (sp?) is required before you can get a job at the patent office?
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
If software already exists to perform all these tasks, then his package would be very derivative, and not worthy of its own patent. Unless he's done something very unique or non-obvious with it, then I don't see the point.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Thanks. Leave it to me to miss the obvious... :-)
That should put a stop to all this silliness.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Sure, if the patent is frivolous and there is an alternative to the goods or services the patent covers, then the inventor will be penalized. On something this big, it's a sure win...the biggest reason why this patent should have been tossed from the beginning.
-j
Don't grant any new ones, and let the existing ones' terms expire. This is by far the easiest
Don't grant any new ones, and claim eminent domain on all existing ones. That'd require a lot of public funding to avoid a constitutional takings violation, and would effectively foist the burden of existing-patent royalties onto the federal government.
Don't grant any new ones, and pass legislation restricting the use of existing ones. This may raise constitutional issues.
It goes without saying that any of these would be difficult to come by, since not only can individual congressmen not remove their heads from their own asses, in fact Washington DC is itself one enormous ass -- seriously, have you smelled DC in the summer? -- and relocating congress's collective head would require relocating all of congress.
Oh, crap. Will you take a post-dated check?
Until we see the claims of this patent, all of the "sky is falling" discussion here is meaningless. I doubt the claims in this patent are particularly broad, and I especially doubt they are as broad as the owner wants to read them.
The claims define the scope of the patent, not the abstract, not the description. Let's see them before we get too worked up.
The patent office is severely underfunded and was just forced to lay off something like 20% of their already meager staff. Of course, most of us would say that they should err on the side of caution when they don't have enough time to review patents, but the patent lawyers and patent seekers would probably prefer them to err towards leniency and those are the people who talk to the patent office more.
Invention: Patently obvious action
Abstract: A process by which a project, process, action or similar can proceed from a stage that could be described as 'slightly finished', 'partially finished' or 'Just started' to a stage that could be described as 'Mainly finished', 'nearly finished' or 'totally finished' by a route that has specific and obvious merits in terms of time, cost or quality that are not present in other, less obvious routes or actions. Also appliccable to other situations and processes.
What do you think? Will I get the patent?
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
I see one major problem with this system. How do you prove/disprove original invention of a similar system vs. pirating somebody else's idea? For example, if you invent a compression algorithm, and distribute it under the terms of your new patent law, and the GNU Foundation or FSF "happens" to invent a compression algorithm that is identical or very similar, how do you prove they copied yours instead of thinking it up themselves? Or how do they prove they thought it up on their own? Who has the burden of proof? And if you then modify the law to indicate that the "new" invention has to be clearly different from the "old" invention, so that it is obvious it isn't a derivative work, how would it be so radically different from the patent laws as they stand.
In principle, I think this is a decent idea, since the intent of Patent law should be to prevent other entities from capitalizing on the monetary and research investment you put into producing a new technology (so, if they invest and produce it independently, they could have as much right to it as you do). However, in practice, I don't think the distinction could be drawn clearly enough to make it radically different from the laws we already have.
Do not teach Confucius to write Characters
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
No wonder it thinks anything with 'on a computer' is non-obvious!
"The USPTO is not yet equipped to handle general email correspondence. General inquiries should be directed by telephone to 800.786.9199 (800.PTO.9199) or 703.308.4357"
based on judgement? It seems to me that all the patent office does is check to see if the patent doesnt break any rules. So say someone were to patent breathing and it was leagal somehow, they wouldnt be able to deny it based on the fact that it is wrong? If anyone knows how this works I would be glad to find out.
"Cornflakes are not the innocent critters they seem"- Sterling Morrison
Just because somebody gets a ridiculous patent doesn't mean he is able to enforce it. Mostly these kind of patents die when the lawyers inform the patent holder that the patent would likely be overturned in the courts if a case ever gets to trial.
In other words, people like this are running a bluff - seeing if they can get the gullible to give them some money without a fight.
Get concerned, when and if, he starts winning law suits against companies with good lawyers and lots of money. Until then, a patent like this is just a boogie man.
this doesn't seem so far off
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpate
i recently had an argument w/my own father about how the patents are out of hand,.. he didn't seem to agree. i couldn't get it through his head that the record companies wouldn't collapse just because you can download songs for free...
he would switch it to movies and say who is going to go see movies at the theatre for $8 when you can see them at home for free on your computer?
and i said 'well the prices of tickets would come down, which is a good thing,... and no one's home system, no matter how good, can really compete with a 50' screen... '
there's gotta be some big changes soon.....
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I do believe the patent office has way too much power to control the flow of the economy. While I support every effort to make sure someone doesn't get ripped off for their efforts, I can't imagine this being having been a difficult concept to come up with. A copyright on the softare and then selling that system would have made more sense.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
That patent and this one surely have a similar amount of prior art associated with them. This one also has a lot of "Obvious to someone in the trade" mojo associated with it. Why are they giving out patents for moving old bookkeeping type operations to computers. One would think that would be an obvious step.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why doesn't Slashdot patent news? Or, News over the internet...
Should pay for that OC-48 in no time.... (Need a router guy? 8-)
Don't pick up the pho*(@)$*@&@!@ NO CARRIER
Imagine. This will effectively patent international bank transactions. Imagine the lawsuits (and legal machinations) that will go on if this patent is granted.
Oh well. There goes my idea for filing for a patent for the idea of exchanging goods for other goods of like value. Can I patent money...?
I am postiong this comment, shutting my box down, and never turning it on agian. The fact that this is even being considered just makes me long for the days when we did nothing more than sit outside and bang rock together.
You want to hear a really sobering thought, this kind of crap happens in every sector of interests. We see crap like this because we are computer/internet geeks. If there are any model airplane geeks, you may have heard that you need emmisions controls on your engines. If you are in some other area of interest (I suck b-cus I can only think of two things I like), you will see this happening everywhere.
My point is that we might as well sit outside and bang rocks unless things change soon.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Can you say mobile home?
I can just see it now:
"Yee Haw Billy Bob Joe! Now we all can buy a double wide!"
I can't wait for "Silicon Valley Hillbillies"...
--
Scott Brady
This sickens me. Not the fact of the patent itself - I know it will be broken, it's just laughable in that regard.
It's the fact that if this is passed and upheld, it is passed and upheld by the US patent office.
I'm not american. Hell, "I'm Afraid of Americans" (david bowie song for those of you who don't know). Why should the US be able to regulate the rest of the world's trade?
I can understand it havin authority over straight American transfers and whatnot, but I don't see how they legally can have any authority over me as a Canadian. Or someone else as an Australian or Japanese or Russian or Lebanese, or anywhere else.
Once again, it's the US acting as the world's leader, whether it's "subjects" want it or not. Pretty hpyocritical to run a democratic system on top of such.
So, I'll just laugh if this gets through and stays that way. And I'll start an internet business, and not pay these people. And see if I can be stopped.
"its a patent on a single software packages that integrates the entire process of making an international purchase."
Integration is not innovation, it costs very little to accomplish, and everyone does it by straight-forward principles. Hint: Puting a nail into a piece of wood is integration. He's done nothing more than that.
Or another example, you can patent an engine, you cannot patent a car.
He's patenting a car.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
how the heck is this blatant piece of incitement to molestation "insightful"?
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
Check out the claims. Looks like he loses by virtue of hiring cut-rate patent atty. Here's Claim 1:
1. A process for carrying out an international transaction over EMF communication links using computer to computer
communications compromising the steps of:
(a) selecting a language in which to view catalogue information on products;
(b) selecting a currency in which to obtain a price of the products;
(c) selecting products to be purchased and a destination for said selected products to be purchased thereby
triggering a calculation of all costs involved in moving said selected products to said destination based upon
said destination and said selected products; and,
(d) ordering said selected products thereby triggering an electronic funds transfer authorization and generation
of electronic title configured to define ownership and facilitate passage of said selected products and pay-ments
of international taxes and duties.
Note that this process is the one used by the *buyer*. Even if it is upheld, sellers don't infringe and don't need a license.
Edward Pool
Phone: (540) 576-3555
DE Technologies
12110 Old Franklin Turnpike
Union Hall, VA 24176
Email: info@detechnologies.com
I say we all give him a phone call and send him an e-mail. No threats or anything like that, of course, just to let him know what we think of scum like him who try to patent ideas which have been around for years...
actually, it won't be as simple as just point to the problem for Al. It'll take him awhile, because I don't thikn he can bend his arms at the elbows. He's like a GI Joe, that guy.
But seriously, if Pool and have a patent on international internet trade, why can't Al have a patent on the internet itself?
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
Seriously, waaaay off-topic, I think you meant pennsylvania 6-5000, and that was actually the phone number for, IIRC, a hotel in New York. I could look up the name for it, if anyone cares; I read this interesting tidbit on James Lileks' site. (http://www.lileks.com)
The most strategic use of bullshit patents such as this one can only be applied by large corporations with billions in their coffers. This is the 'spiteful' approach, where the barrier imposed by the patent itself is not in its contents, but the expense of fighting it. Big companies can afford to vigorously defend even fundamentally unsound patents, and this presents a large roadblock to smaller organizations who wish to challenge it.
Then you have this idiot. If the criminally stupid USPTO does grant him his patent, he's gonna get trounced by the big boys' virtually unlimited legal funds...
Now you're talking about copyright, not patents. Not that I don't agree with you.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
no, that's what happens to crackers.
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
I don't believe that a process has to be 'non-obvious' to be patented. I know that in the drug industry, processes are routinely patented in order to slow down competetors who are making me-too drugs.
But claiming a patent on international trade via computers is far too broad. His patent should only extend to his specific system and not to the entire process.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
One of the characters (Suzy G.) got a patent on energy use (A system by which energy can be converted to different forms within a closed system...). The main character, Gav, is now using this to sue every person in Earth.
Kinda makes you wonder, huh?
PS - You need to go back a few weeks to catch the entire storyline.
-----
"You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."
Lawyers love this sort of thing. Patent attorneys get fabulously wealthy on stuff like this. Regardless, of what the technical community thinks, the Patent Office, obviously can find no prior art, nor considers this to be obvious. The major flaw here being the technical qualifications of personnel in the Patent Office. Patents were meant to allow a person to reap the benefits of their talents and personal investment in an invention/process. In the beginning, Thomas Jefferson and the Patent Office were very skeptical of issuing new patents, and you could count the number of patents issued in the first 20 years of the US on your fingers. Unfortunately, today if you have time to write it up and pay the patent fees, they'll issue you patent. The Clinton Administration doesn't make this any better. Mr. Clinton's stated response to the ever increasing conflicts between technology and patents and copyrights, is to let the parties fight it out in court (typical lawyer response). This leads to the never ending saga of lawsuits, since each case is decided on its own merits versus an existing law to cover everything. More importantly, it allows those with the money to litigate others into bankruptcy reaping the benefits of a flawed patent system. As a taxpayer and consumer I would prefer the Patent Office be held to more stringent standards than have to bear the extra expense of these legal battles and have to pay increased prices on products resulting royalties on questionable patents. Unfortunately, Congress isn't any better as evidenced by increases in patent and copyright duration, and such laws as the DMCA.
If a company gets sued under such a broad claim, all they have to prove is that someone (doesn't have to be them) was using that method a year or more before the patent application was filed.
-- Richard Finn http://www.random-seed.com/
Since they seem to be giving them away I would like to patent math please.
Am I missing something here?
Nope, don't think you are, the patent office is missing several things though, they're called: intelligence, common sense, and a freakin' clue!
Of course, knowing the way that the patent office works they probably had them at one point, then someone patented them and they haven't been able to afford the royalty payments ever since...
-GreenHell
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
I am not so sure this is a bad thing. Even if the patent is granted, this guy is taking on legal departments backed by billions of corporate dollars. Whatever patent is granted will doubtless be mired in years of litigation, and it might just be enough for this country's corporate lobbyists to get Congress to knock some sense into the USPTO. Sometimes the pendulum has to go way too far before it swings back to a reasonable place... -db
Put Ed Pool up there with Sam Khuri for "most annoying people on the Internet."
Maybe DE Technology will start exporting Benchmark Print Supply's recycled toner cartridges to the whole world...
-Chris
Isn't the word "non-obvious" supposed to apply to potential patents? Filing trade documents via computer-to-computer transfers is hardly an innovation. It's simply an application of existing technology, in a way that's already taking place in a wide array of business practices. This guy may have made a nice product that he should market to import-export firms, but to expect that everyone doing electronic forms transfer for international shipments should somehow owe him license fees is, well, patently absurd.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
This class of patent is different, but every bit as insidious as the more general technological ones. I have to agree with the poster above, though, in feeling that this patent would best serve the common good by being granted, so that the major international business players can start leaning against the patent office and Congress a bit harder.
Registering a domain name from any country other than the US?
Buying a book from Amazon.com from abroad?
Buying software from Microsoft or anyone else from abroad?
Unbelievable!! I'm sure Mr. Pool is really going to collect from Amazon or Microsoft or InterNIC.
What if I'm working abroad and I buy a US Savings bond or something? what if I use eTrade on a business trip to London?
Is this guy on drugs? How clever this bozo is: I invented international trade on the Internet.
Who is he? Al Gore's cousin from Virginia?
Can I get a patent on domestic trade on the Internet?
I will feed him and then let him sit on my penis while I'm writing my manifesto.
If the synopsis provided by this posting is accurate, the issue seems pretty clear-cut. Rather than waste my breath griping about it here, I'd like to know what the best method of protest is. Contact the patent office? My state Congressmen? Are there any electronic petitions going around?
The heart has reasons that reason does not understand. - Jacques Bènigne Bossuet
exactly which politicians set out to create an omlette of the legal system? we need to have words...
How long has IBM been doing this? I think their order system has been doing all this for international mainframe ordders for a long time but their system also send the DOD a letter showing who is ordering what and why for some countries.
Also Didn't Apollo have a completely automated ordering system and I know they did internatnal order. They went away before this clown invented his stuff. I know I could dig up lots of similar piror art from 1990 on since I was writing such a system for a client.
I wonder if this is an attempt by someone in the Patent office it kick congress into fixing the patent laws. Most of what we bitch about invovling the Patent office, may be based on stuff that congress has done.
--
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
There's a nice Catch-22 to business process patents, as we were told by some friends at Testa Hurwitz at a Digital Commerce Society of Boston talk a year or two ago.
If you reduce a business process to software, you're absolutely reducing it to practice: you're literally making a machine out of an idea, which, by just about every definition of "patentable" you can come up with, is, in fact, patentable.
In fact, if you don't allow business process patents, you have to unwind almost every concept in patent law.
Isn't that *cool*?
(Hmmmm.... Let's see if I pull on *this* thread *here*....)
Cheers,
RAH
Hettinga's Lemma to Coase's Theorem: If it's encrypted, and I own the key, it's *my* intellectual "property".
---------- Financial Crypto is the Only Crypto That Matters
- making contracts,
- handling customs matters,
- transferring funds,
- making shipping arrangements,
- brokering transportation,
- agreeing to exchange rates, etc.
A Telex machine involved typing words and numbers into a keyboard for digital encoding and decoding and transmission of messages. In fact, I believe that various postal systems around the world, as "trusted third parties" were the first non-commercial services, besides Western Union and the AT&T, to offer similar services. There is nothing unique or original in this idea. In fact, I worked for a shipping company in the mid-80s that was already using IBM p.c.s for the same purposes.The idea that a patent could be issued on this so-called business method is completely ludicrous.
Sign me,
been there, done that
Ocean Barb
In the United States, prior publishing and/or discussion does NOT keep you from getting a patent. In most other countries, it does. Likewise, you can patent an algorithm (such as for encryption) here, and not anywhere else in the world. Both of these facts were taken advantage of by the people who patented LZW, the compression algorthim behind many ZIP utilities. It already was published, and was an idea, not a physical product.
I don't know patent law specifically, but my understanding is that if an invention is widely known about and understood, then you can't patent it. That's pretty much a way of saying that if overlapping prior art exists, you haven't invented anything.
But in this case:
1) "Randolph N. Reynolds" is not the general public.
2) Researchers do not work in a vacuum. Generally other people unrelated to the work know about the project. In this case, Pool hired others to create the method for him. So others know about it, but it's not a problem. It's fairly contained, unique (allegedly), and not generally implemented.
I believe you can publish a paper on an invention and then file a patent within a year. That makes sense, since the patent process is much longer than the time to publication and timely publication is, in many ways, more important than a patent.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
However true obviousness in an invention requires that it be something which an average practitioner 'familiar with the art' would figure out to do.
Question: did people start doing international e-commerce because they heard about what this patent applicant was doing and then copy his actions - or did everybody reinvent his process independently because it was obvious? Clearly the answer is the latter: his invention IS OBVIOUS therefore, and his patent is invalid.
As far as publication goes: you don't write about the obvious - you only write about the non - obvious. That is why the patent office requires publication to invalidate for prior art. Obvious cases like this patent don't require pre publication to invalidate them.
It seems to me like ideas can only successsfully protected when they are only "pretty good". What I mean by this is that if it is an earth moving, life changing thing, the idea will be stolen by
everyone, because it will need to be stolen.
Printed circuit boards are a good example --
Xerox (I think) invented a way to make cheap circuits instead of the old ball of wires,
got a pattent, and everyone stole the idea anyway.
It couldn't really be enforced because every
electronics manufacturer in the world stole
the idea as soon as they could. Xerox would
have been in court for the rest of time.
What I'm getting at here isn't whether you
can patent international comerce via the
internet, more that you can't stop anyone
from doing it even if you had invented it.
js
My assumption is, that the pantent covers the complicated procedure involved in exporting goods, so what it focuses on is completing all the customs paperwork for you. So:
-
Prior art: I think they would have to show that people were not doing international computer to computer transactions before the inventor came up with this invention.
There may not be any: if this covers a long and complicated process, this may well be the only, or the first, software that does this.-
Obvious: If people are doing "domestic" computer transactions I can't see how anyone could successfully argue that "international" computer transactions are not a logical and obvious next step.
If the patentable idea is the fact it covers the customs procedure, then the part of the software patented may not exist in domestic software packages at all.I would hope that the patent would fail in the courts for being far too damn obvious, but for a reason other than the one you give. They may be the first people to get a computer to carry out this process, however I would say that taking a commmon knowlegde process that a human being can complete, and simply implementing this in code, is a pretty obvious step.
If my guesswork is correct, I would expect the patent to be awarded, but hopefully be unenforceable.
G
'When and if Mr. Pool's patent becomes final, lawyers hired by his company, DE Technologies LLC, say anyone conducting computer-to-computer international trades over the Internet without the permission of DE Technology will infringe on the company's intellectual property.'
I have a patent pending on his pending patent to patent this.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The entire idea of patenting digital processes is completely silly, as I am sure that we all believe. While the truth of the matter is that when people patent a process they do not patent the result -- only the process. This is why Amazon.com and this smart cookie won't be able to get away. People can sue all that they want but frivolous lawsuits are still a mockery of the justice system and if I am not mistaken that can be deemed a fellony.
Just a lot of people are just trying to use the digital age to "get rich quick" off of our tax dollars...
I wonder who gave this shmuck the idea. BMaximus
Well it's like they say....if you want to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs.
but the obvious retort is you don't get to pick and choose there
the movie theatre actually loses in the field of convenience vs. downloading something online (assuming there was a community akin to napster/gnutella)... but like i said, i think the experience is so much better, people would still pay, the studios could still make their money,..
i know i would still go. especially if the prices dropped.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
> Just you all wait until my patent for electron transfer goes through. I'll have the whole world in my hands...
Speaking of having the whole world in your hands, I just put in an application for a patent on jacking off.
Prior art is no problem; nobody admits ever having done it.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So what have we learned from all of the recent patens and business moves?
Take an idea that is widely used throughout the world, general knowledge if you will, but that is not patented because, well either the person that invented it, did it for the sheer joy of creating, or thought that it was too blatantly obvious, and then take that idea and patent it and call it you own, because hey, you have the patent on it. Now try to force everyone into believing how great you are because you "invented" this great "new" technology.
What is wrong with everyone!!
.mincus
If you believe that it took the Holocaust to get the Nazis to Nuremburg, you are forgetting an important point. Sure, they deserved to be brought to trial at Nurmemburg because of the Holocaust. But their loss of the war was the reason it happened.
Lawyers are not the medicine for this insanity.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Not just IP patents, but silly, absurd, unenforcable, incorrect, and basic-communication type patents are what is pushing the boundaries of patentable ideas. And I think that very shortly, there is going to be a backlash. In our increasingly litigious society (as a world, not just the US, look at the WIPO) lawsuits fly faster than email. Why tell someone they're violating your IP rights when you can just sue them first? But, people and corporations are starting to fight back. As a whole, the tolerance for excessive civil litigation is dropping. I predict that in the next 5 years (at the max) but probably within 2, the US at least, will start a much more stringent Patent Review process to both weed out silly patents like this one and to rid the current Patent Office of patents like BT's "patent on the hyperlink" and other absurdities. The tide is changing, and you can't turn it back.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
You mean you don't think that the motorized ice cream cone is novel?
No kidding, this is like patenting international mail-orders. If someone tried to do that they'd probably be dragged out and shot.
Let's be honest.. This IS the US government we're talking about here.
The only people in the government who aren't morons are the ones ripping it off.
I mean, the USPTO is getting castrated, and the people left know not enough about the current trends in technology.
Oneclick? That's an obvious use of cookies and server-side CGI.
Reverse auctions? Didn't the Dutch resort to that once the tulip market failed? (After all, the sellers dropped their prices to attempt to get rid of the worthless bulbs.) Isn't that done in regular auctions, when the auctioneer drops the price to get a bid?
price of a congressman - $3 million
price of a senator - $10 million
amount spent by PACs and megacorps on politics - $20 billion
control of the government - priceless
"Some things money can't buy. Being able to do whatever the fuck you want with a government that will look the other way and ream the competition isn't one of them."
Support Campaign Finance Reform - Vote Nader
http://www.votenader.com
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
All I can see a ridiculus patent like this doing is driving US businesses offshore, and that kind of thing is real bad for the American economy.
Hell, here in NZ we're trying to keep business in the country, not trying to push them out with dumb patents (dumb economic policies maybe)!!
When will the US patent office grow a brain?
In an interview with the USPTO director it was indicated that the only prior art they check are previous patents and selected professional journals. The patent office understaffed, underfunded, and run by idiots. Looks like I'll have to move to canada before the decades out...
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
I am not an expert on patent law and my knowledge of it is sketchy but didn't the original patent law of 1940's work fine. Didn't it basically say that you kneeded(A. a physical working prototype) and that it would be void after a short time(I think 7 years was average). Since then technilogigal prosperity and inovation has soared. Now since the new patent law allows for people to patent IDEAS and gives that patent 100+ years of life(thanks DISNEY! :( ) Now people just patent anything they can think of and sit on their buts and wait till someone makes the divise they patented and then sues them for infringment. This is actually becomming an epidemic if you look the trend thats forming. I used to only hear about this about once every two weeks. Now I hear about it everytime I turn on the T.V. This scares me because I fear that one day innovation and motivation will stop because everybody will say "Why Bother to make something new...Its already been patented".
Well, technically all buildings are prefabricated, as one can't use what doesn't yet exist.
"Prefabricated building" is generally taken to mean one constructed before it's sold. The new modular housing is an example, and it's anything but "trailer trash."
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Its all pretty sad if you think about it..
UPS Sucks
I found an actual use for HTML email!! Before I thought it was worthless and outdated, but for the first time, I am using it. I am sending this guy an email that says "You are a Moron." in font size 36, bold.
Thank you Outlook for your stupid HTML email feature!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I don't *think* this is redundant...
From the article: "In the early 1990s, during a brief fling at importing goods from Russia, he commissioned a software program to help with logistical problems."
I read "commissioned" as meaning that he hired someone else to make it for him. I've read the rest of the article a couple times now and it doesn't seem to mention what, if any contribution Mr. Pool himself made to the process. How could he possibly patent something that he hired someone else to make for him?
-- Jason Stitt Rot13 to send E-Mail.
Read the article, and you'll find out that the lawyer is being paid on contigency. He spins it by saying "What an opportunity, I wanted to be right there from the beginning."
What isn't being said, is that GOOD patent lawyers likely ignored the potential to work with Mr. Pool, since they understood the dubious nature of the patent.
This lawyer is just like Mr. Pool - trying to make a buck without working. Unfortunately, he should have realized he's just wasting his time - as the other lawyers surely did.
Too funny! I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to pay me $19.95US for the use of humor in this post. Yeah, that's right I patented it, now pay up.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
He's so stoopid he thinks 'Pat Pend' was the world's greatest inventor.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That's what hackers do right? Exploit the vulnerablities in order to get them fixed? Oh, wait, they just get sent to jail while the corporations or govt bureaucracies do nothing to improve the system.
Does the patent office have any e-mail address where we can claim preusage?
I really really doubt they were the first.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Business that do these kinds of patents and other such stuff should be boycotted as much as possible. Obviously that won't directly hurt them. There are ways to make it do so. Those who run (the policy of) DNS servers and block them. Those who run (the policy of) routers can firewall them. And this can be applied even to companies that enthusiastically deal with them.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting.
http://www.e-gold.com
./ readers who want to actually try it still stands.
(Not that any of the news media has much noticed, preferring either vapor or companies that bleed a sea of red ink.) My usual offer to click a bit to
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
the more people try stunts like this, the more obvious it will become to all observers that intellectual property laws as they currently stand are a DETRIMENT to progress, innovation, and trade. make no mistake -- a real change will only occur once that perception begins to seep into the mainstream.
Internet killed the video star,
i could live a little longer in this prison
[This space intentionally left blank.]
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Frankly, I'm disgusted... not with Mr Pool, but with the Patent office. I mean, hey, credit where credit is due, if I coud patent breathing oxygen and then manage to sue/intimidate every living thing on this planet (except for certain bacterias and of course plant life) into paying royalties, you bet I'd do it... IF someone actualy LET ME GET AWAY WITH THAT, they should be tarred and feathered. I agree with others who have said that these Business method patents are getting rediculous. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago I read about British Telcom trying to claim they patented Hyperlinks?? (still trying to decide whether to laugh or cry)
The Digital Sorceress
1. Identify a specific application of a technology well-known so painfully obvious and easy to implement that nobody would even think it was worth distinguishing from any other use.
2. Quietly file patent, putting enough spin on it to make it sound special enough, but still broad enough to apply to every application of aforementioned technology
3. Reveal existence of patent once independently developed infrastructure becomes so ubiquitous, it would be impossible for an entire industry to exist without and proceed to charge up the nose or destroy the industry in the process.
Hey, it's working for Rambus
I think the thing to do would be to infringe. Then, defend partially on the grounds that software patents are unconstitutional.
we might consider taking up a collection to find cases where patents in fact have enough prior art to be bad.
or we could just waste the guy.
This is my sig.
I can think of one reason why copyrights might be made to last so long and that is that it could be possible that the author does not make any money from their creation and it may take some time after they died for any significant profits to appear. This money would obviously benefit his/her heirs. Why should the author's children be robbed of that? If you want an example, consider Edgar Allan Poe. He died pretty much broke. Consider how wealthy his heirs would be if their copyright rights had been protected as well back in the 19th century.
As for patents...I think the whole system is completely out of whack. The USPTO seems to be giving a patent to any tom, dick and harry who requests one regardless of the fact that the invention is obvious or trivial. I mean how long would it take to conceptualize the design of a system to do this international trade thing? What a couple of minutes? It's trivial.
Btw, I'm about to file my patent on a novel method of transportation involving a cluster of solid-phase matter objects isomorphic to a Poincare representation of a hyperbolic space (Hint: the wheel).
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
We have a new class of patents, not about licensing technology, or business methods, but about permission. This, Amazon's, and other patents basically require licensing permission from the patent holder to use your own technology. For one-click, paying for downloading music, and similar patents, you would not even want to license the technology if they offered it. It would be far easier to extend your own technology into infringement than to integrate their technology with your technology. The only thing they are offering and the only thing licensees are looking for with these patents is permission. Patents are supposed to be about creating technology. Any patent granted should contain technology worth licensing. We do not need to reward applicants whose patents have nothing to offer but permission.
This statement looks like they are declaring computerized international trading to be their 'turf', and you cannot do business on their turf without permission. The patent does have technology that might be worth licensing because it automates a 'tedious' business process. The requirements for implementing this process can be found in the code of law governing international trade. Similar technology has been independently created by others, so this should not be considered 'non-obvious'. We do not need the patent office granting any legalized rackets on the internet.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about intellectual property recently. What I have synthesized is that the government should protect agreements and trusts ("He said he wouldn't copy this, he did; He's breaking the law") related to intellectual constructions (works of art, inventions), rather than treating intellectual constructions as property (single owner, police can kick out intruders).
I think that it is a good thing that we are able to legally enforce a trust: We can say, "I'll show this technology/image/report/whatever to you on the grounds that you promise not to copy it for anyone else." If you break one of these trusts, there should be a legal punishment/compensation system.
I think it's a terrible and shameful thing that we say, "Nobody else can think up this idea as well." (Patents)
This way, we can simultaneously protect and capitalize on our investments by using licenses. Artists and Inventors can exchange a license (which forbids reproduction and/or retelling) for money, and make a living.
But no one else is prohibited from inventing on their own.
So lets say I invent a compression algorithm and put it in a program. Anyone who uses it is placed under a legal trust not to tell anyone else about it/misuse it/reverse engineer it/etc.,. But the GNU foundation is *NOT* prohibited from thinking it up on their own, since they never agreed to/partook of the license in the first place.
Now there is the question: What about worked sprayed onto the public? For example, Mickey Mouse is placed all over the place by Disney, but they never received my consent; I never agreed that I wouldn't copy Mickey Mouse on my own, or agreed that I wouldn't make Mickey Mouse hats. In that case, we make a general public trust that we all agree to: You may put something into the public space, but at the cost of *FORFEITING YOUR CONTROL* of it w/in 5 years. That's the price you pay for distribution without collecting signatures/signing agreements/breaking seals.
This is my synthesis so far. In some ways, it is stricter (gives the license writers more controls) than what we have now, in many ways it is looser (you *must* aquire consent; and you are not granted a monopoly) than what we have now.
What do you all think?
All of you who think that this patent is obvious should stop your belly aching and act! It's easy. The patent has not yet issued. In the U.S. there is a rule (37 C.F.R. 1.56) which obliges a patentee to disclose ALL prior art of which he or she is aware. So, find some prior art, and email it to the company. They will then be obliged to disclose this prior art to the Patent Office. If they fail to do so, the patent may be invalidated under Rule 56. How's that for an easy solution?
Thalia
Banking systems were using international SONET rings to deal with the massive data-transfer requirements a LONG time before 1990. -Winged
There should be a rule... that if a person sues 100 organizations immediately after getting a patent, then there was obvious prior art (unless the person can prove that the companies just started infringing).
Could someone PLEASE get a patent on
'a business model based on patenting generalities and/or already long-established methods/provceedings/communication protocols, for the only reason to generate revenue by sueing people for infringement', all cash generated by sueing people ofer that payable to
gnu.org, the EFF and 2600.com, to equal parts?
It woudl be nice to see what the claims of his applications are. I'd imagine that they'd have to be very specific. Computer to computer transactions have been around for well, a while not I imagine, and there cannot be that much diference between transactions between the US and another country as opposed to between US and US or maybe lets say France and Germany. Also it woudl be good to know when he applied for this patent to know when we need prior art to make this obsolete. I imagine that companies like M$, IBM, and Oracle will chanllenge this, as well as many others. ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
ANY computer patent based upon unique data being communicated between machines is obvious and invalid - since that unique data is a subset of 'ANY TYPE' and is therefore obvious to an average practitioner familiar with the art. Any business patent based on specific types of data being transferred from one machine to another is also invalid for the same reasons.
The Internet is a medium like the air. Utterances, whether verbal in the air or digital on the Internet are not subject to patents - at the most they may be copyrighted.
However, if these silly patents hold up and are enforced, perhaps it will slow over-commercialization of the internet as companies are forced to re-implment their infringing services.
It may also hurt those companies that hold some of these patents. By restricting the use of their "technology", the technology may fall into disuse.
If Jon Postel had patented the SMTP protocol, would internet email be ubiquitous today, or would several incompatible systems have proliferated instead?
Go to www.detechnologies.com and prepare to read the biggest load of crap you've ever seen except maybe for the MS Kerberos extensions NDA.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
(It's already filed so I can discuss it) I have recently filed a patent on the idea of filing a patent on an existing idea that everyone is already using and then charging them for it. I figure if I charge $25k per patent like this one I will be rich in no time. Everyone in the world will have to pay the people using my method and all of them will be paying me. Of course I will have to allow some trade sharing so that I will not have to pay DE to transfer funds from one bank account to another. But hey that is why I have my patent.
I am 31337 or something.
I am not being sarcastic when I say this would great news if the patent were issued. We all know the patent system is deeply flawed, as is our current conception of intellectual property. What better way to change the system by issuing patents so idiotic and encompassing that every large multinational company in the world will have its legal teams working to break the patent, or better yet, to lobby to have the entire system changed and overhauled.
Not very likely. Large companies would only fight just enough to free themselves of any headaches. They certainly wouldn't make any efforts for real reform. If they did that, then how would they abuse the system?
The goal is to get a patent that is broad and sweeping enough that you can use it as a threat without getting one that is so broad that it generates a lot of attention.
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you saw a patent that you think was truly novel over the prior art?
Haven't companies like DHL and FedEx been using computers in international shipping for decades? Seems that this patient is just way to broad if this statement from the article is correct.
According to the wall street journal article 60% of business process patents are approved. Until the AMZN story I didn't even know you could patent a business process. I can see the process for making stronger steel or something, but one-click and this potential one take the cake. On the DE Tech website click to the patent page and download a word document that I believe illustrates similar patents.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Don't forget BT trying to patent hyperlinks
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
You should encourage your children to become lawyers. They seem to be the winners in the internet age.
I'm telling you, far off in the future assuming the good huys eventually win (thats us), we are going to look back on this period as the worse totalitarian regime ever created and perpetrated on Humanity. Wake up people! Before you know it ve vill be living in a Facist Global Regime, excpet this time there won't be a Nazi Party, this time its going to be big corporations running all of our lives down to what we read and how we read it. Private ownership will end when they managae to license everything. You vill have no freeom of speech, anything you say will havebe licesned. No dissention, its against the licensing agreement! People, wake up, its time to fight!
Yawn!
"Would you like fries with that?"
I do not have a signature
These kind of patents are not just stupid, they are damaging to the economic well being of the US.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I am not being sarcastic when I say this would great news if the patent were issued. We all know the patent system is deeply flawed, as is our current conception of intellectual property. What better way to change the system by issuing patents so idiotic and encompassing that every large multinational company in the world will have its legal teams working to break the patent, or better yet, to lobby to have the entire system changed and overhauled.
I don't get how this could work, given that you can only patent software and trade models in the US. That means that you can't enforce this patent in Europe (and most of Asia I think). So just move the servers out of the US to get rid of these stupid patents.
Why don't Barnes and Nobles use this tactic to get around the amazon 'one click shopping' patent?
Could someone enlighten me?
Sometimes you wonder whether the patent department is staffed with morons.
Founder's Camp
Founder's Camp
News for non-Nerds. Stuff that matters.
At least, not if I can do anything to alter it. And I can - my ongoing Fling project will make this kind of crap impossible; you can't regulate communications that you can't trace or tap.
How can this affect the "big companies"? You know the ones I mean... the ones who have local subsidiaries in the other nations... IE, does a transaction between Company XYZ's computer in New York and Company XYZ's Euro office count as an international transaction??? The big companies are expert at hiding profits in this venue. Hey, this kind of accounting gives the US IRS fits!
Also, how will DE apply the royalty to international companies doing business totally outside the US? Does Mr. Poole expect royalties there too? I sure hope not, since he won't see any.
Gonzo
Am I missing something here?
Coincidence is the Superstition of Science
What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
whether it covers PCs, Macs, Unix boxes?
...
Does it cover PCs, workstations, or servers?
Does it cover computers plugged in, or ones on batteries?
Or does it actually cover ALL electronic devices?
Will it extend to future quantum or biotech computing devices?
Anyway, not to worry, they say "If you can do [computer-to-computer] currency conversions, file customs electronically, or calculate air, sea or truck freight, then you must obtain a license from us.
So it just means you should keep the currency conversion and freight calculators separate from the "BUY IT" button? And file customs... I wonder if that affect gov't agencies that use computer systems to receive such information electronically...
---
There are actually reforms stalled in congress. The reforms are to allow the Patent office to operate more as a business making it easier to hire staff etc. Oddly enough it looks as if big companies got it held up. They should fund it more or perhaps raise the fees for patent apps. This is a service provided to those that apply for the patents in the first place.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
The patent office has become nothing more than the personal validation stamp for anyone who wants to extort (yes extort) money out of people these days.
The "fortunate" thing is that some of the people he's trying to extort are governments (as well as organised crime). If this goes through he's going to have to make a lot of pay offs to avoid at best jail.
Of course, this is the pattent office and they have approved dumber pattents over the years.
Well, if the Patent Office continues with its past behavior, then this patent is in the bag and Mr. Pool will be a very, very wealthy man.
He's more likely to become a dead man than a wealthy one.
Richard III that is.
"The first thing we do. Kill all the lawyers."
What happens to microcephalic babies? Uthanasia? No, they go to law school.
And governments are staffed by lawyers who were failures at law so they went into politics and now make statute books you need fork lifts to shuffle around (and never, but never, make a law criticizing lawyers.)
Lawyers are smegma.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
When will the US patent office grow a brain?
When they can afford the licence fees covering the patents for "brain growing". (Then they'd need even more for the "brain operation" set.)
I can't possibly see how something this general can be granted a patent. It seems to me if it was however, that no one would pay any attention to it anyway. Does Mr. Pool plan to prosecute ever single e-commerce site on the Internet (as well as private B2B systems)? I can't imagine a business in the world that would oblige his ignorant claims. The masses can vote, law is not all powerful, and if no one respects his patent they will not pay it the proper attention he seems to think it deserves.
Chris: Good evening. Tonight: "patents". I have here, sitting in the studio next to me, an elk. Ahhhh!!! Oh, I'm sorry! Anne Elk - Mrs Anne Elk
Anne:Miss!
C: Miss Anne Elk, who is an expert on pa...
A: N' n' n' n' no! Anne Elk!
C: What?
A: Anne Elk, not Anne Expert!
C: No! No, I was saying that you, Miss Anne Elk, were an , A-N not A-N-N-E, expert...
A: Oh!
C: ...on elks - I'm sorry, on patents. I'm ...
A: Yes, I certainly am, Chris. How very true. My word yes.
C: Now, Miss Elk - Anne - you have a new idea for a Patent.
A: Can I just say here, Chris for one moment, that I have a new idea for a Patent?
C: Uh... Exactly... What is it?
A: Where?
C: No! No, what is your Patent?
A: What is my Patent?
C: Yes!
A: What is my Patent that it is? Yes. Well, you may well ask what is my Patent.
C: I am asking.
A: And well you may. Yes, my word, you may well ask what it is, this Patent of mine. Well, this Patent, that I have, that is to say, which is mine,... is mine.
C: I know it's yours! What is it?
A: ... Where? ... Oh! Oh! What is my Patent?
C: Yes!
A: Ahh! My Patent, that I have, follows the lines that I am about to relate. [starts prolonged throat clearing]
C: [under breath] Oh, God!
[Anne still clearing throat] A: The Patent, by A. Elk (that's "A" for Anne", it's not by a elk.)
C: Right...
A: [clears throat] This Patent, which belongs to me, is as follows... [more throat clearing] This is how it goes... [clears throat] The next thing that I am about to say is my Patent. [clears throat] Ready?
C: [wimpers]
A: The Patent, by A. Elk [Miss]. My Patent is along the following lines...
C: [under breath]God!
A: ...All Patents are original at one end; much, much non-obvious in the
middle and then original again at the far end. That is the Patent that I
have and which is mine and what it is, too.
C: That's it, is it?
A: Right, Chris!
C: Well, Anne, this Patent of yours seems to have hit the nail right on the head.
A: ... and it's mine.
C: Thank you for coming along to the studio...
A: My pleasure, Chris.
(with apo's to Monty Python)
Ah, if only one could patent Patenting. Maybe then there'd come some sense into it all...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I think I'm going to apply for a patent for the following invention:
1. A system by which an organism inhales air that may have come from a neighboring zip code.
I hope all of you are ready to prove that the air you breathe diddn't come from the next zip code or get ready to cough up the dough!
I would patent stupidity, but there's too much prior "art".
Since when does prior art matter to the USPTO?
.sig: Now legally binding!
I'm going to patent bitching about patents. Gonna make a lot of money off you lot.
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
I believe, in the US, you have some amount of time (I want to say a year) from the time of the first public disclosure to the time you file.
Of course, it doesn't make this patent any less goofy.
I think I'm going to try for a new business model patent. I had this idea years ago and mentioned it to my friend Ted. Anyway, the gist is I'm going to provide a service for free that essentially compiles the work of the "Internet community". Then after I've compiled enough work to make the business useful, I'll start charging for the service and deny anyone access to it that refuses to sign an exclusive and ponderous licensing agreement with me. I kind of decided not to persue because I didn't think it would be a profitable model, but it seems to be working for the CDDB boys... Hmmm... where did I put Ted's e-mail? I'll need to be setting up an appointment between him and my lawyer!
Someone should patent a business process whereby a company patents somebody elses invention and then sells licenses on the patented invention. Yes, it has already been done, but I don't think anyone has patented the process, yet.
I wonder if anyone at USPTO would see the humor of it.
Johnny
>I wonder if Pool has ever wondered how many assassins are employed by the Global 2000.
Which brings up more interesting quesions--are they hiring for the position, and where do I send my resumé?
Without the pad, it's not Dance Dance Revolution, it's Listen
Who's up for jury duty on the international tribunal for Violations of Copyright Rights?
-j (tm)
I invented breathing. Really, I did. It was quite an innovation, I must say.
Now that the enlightend US Patent Office has finally granted me my long overdue and well-deserved patent on breathing, it is my official stance that any human being caught breathing without paying me royalties should get the heebeejeebies sued out of them.
Pay up! Now!
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
--
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
Law is like the Open Source code for democratic society. You've found a bug, and you have the source. Let's see if you can hack a fix for it.
I think I'm going to patent existence.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Software Patents were not allowed in the 1980's. They shouldn't be allowed now.
Anyways, what is the *distinction* between an international computer transaction and non-international tranactions which would constitute patentability.
The United States Patent Office appears to be snorting George W. Bush Jr. grade cocaine (again).
This man is patenting a method for a constant determination of price in a market with rapidly fluxuating relative costs. This is both novel and non-obvious
Unless this market has recently come into existance or the method is very different from the methods currently in use. Then it certainly isn't novel or non-obvious.
for Mr. Ed Pool to be eaten alive by wild lions in a public place?
Contact your local mobster, before he gets shot.
And can we then patent that as a process for dealing with frivolous patent applicants?
There's a 2,000 year old prior art claim for this method...
Go to petition.eurolinux.org and register your opposition to this kind of crap spreading to Europe.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Ok, maybe they have a high workload, but he applied
for this "In the early 1990s"!
Only a total moron would grant a patent like that.
It's not enough that this patent needs to be
thrown out - the person handling this needs to
be fired, too. *sigh*
I want to see his application. I want to read it. I want the date and time he 'invented' this. I want the way that his method is an overarching method for any and all possible ways of doing what he claims.
I want to see his 'prior art' search.
I'll take some time and see if I can come up with some OTHER examples.
I want this one busted completely.
One of the comments from the MSNBC article:
The article also states that he contracted with a company to develop a computer system that did that. The SYSTEM is patentable, the software may be copyrightable. But the 'business process' patents are going to screw over a lot of people. They're wrong. And here's yet another example of why.
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
If you honestly think a catastrophe is what it takes to bring the framework down, just remember, it took the Holocaust to get the Nazis to Nuremburg...
-j
The rate of neurons decaying to allow even the thought of such a patent amazes me. I become more dissillusioned daily for the prospect of my childrens future.
This seems to me like saying that you could patent the "Operating System" and then any new operating system that is programmed (be it MS, *NIX, etc.) is subject to royalty. What a crock of shit that is.
Maybe I'll get a patent on "Person to Person Communication via the vibration of vocal chords" and then charge you a royalty every time you speak!
Well, if the Patent Office continues with its past behavior, then this patent is in the bag and Mr. Pool will be a very, very wealthy man. Unfortunately, the fault, as I can see it, lies not in Mr. Pool, but in the patent office for granting a patent on such an ephemeral thing as an idea.
:-)
I'd be interested on the history of this precedent, if anyone can be helpful enough to provide it. Until then, I've some business processes to patent.
-Jimmie
The current head of the US Patent office used to work for a law firm dealing in intelectual property and patent law. (A company whos job it was to get abusive patents like these approved.)
It is quite obvious that there is a severe conflict of interest going on here. The process as it now stands is not designed to be "fair" or "rational" or do anything else but make money for IP lawyers.
It is time to replace the person in charge of the patent office.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
from these articles, any of them, precisely what is the scope of the patent. Without seeing the claims, absolutely nothing whatsoever can be said. Many of the cases concerning software patents thus far have hinged dramatically on narrowing claim constructions that have effectively neutered the patents for all but the most slavish copiers.
A narrowly claimed patent may well be valid, even though the broad subject matter of the claims may have been described in the article fairly, but the patent may not be harmful, let alone have any significant impact on commerce, except in some sense in which it may in fact be truly innovative.
Too many patents are smeared in Slashdot solely by reference to the general subject area of the patent. Hang in there, friends, time will tell. The more ludicrous the claims, the more likely the patent is invalid -- the narrower, the less likely it will matter. In between, there may well be sound arguments on both sides as to whether the patent is good, bad or ugly.
But we won't know until the patent is published. Time will tell.
Further, those biology texts won't be shippable, which'll kill the idea of pay-per-use books.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is the sort of thing the EDI brigade were doing for twenty years or so before the web turned their world upside down. Mr. Pool will not become a rich man this way; that was his 15 minutes of fame.
ignore it. If the US Patent office approves it, the bastard can take everyone to court to sue them for the money. IANAL, but I assume each offender of his patent would have to have his/her own civil trial. Just the sheer number of companies he would have to take to court should bankrupt this guy right off the planet.
This is so PATENTLY absurd, it might just be the push needed to reform the USPTO. Also, if the USPTO continues the way it has, I think that international patent treaties and WIPO will go down the drain. Maybe that wouldn;t be so bad, after all. Just imagine, what happens when China tells the US to go fuck itself over intellectual property.
This man is patenting a method for a constant determination of price in a market with rapidly fluxuating relative costs. This is both novel and non-obvious
I especially appreciated the comment from an obviously informed reader about this fellow's office being in a pre-fab building. As if every low-budget startup should have office space in downtown D.C.! This guy has sold off almost everything he owns to start his business. He has a legitimate idea and should be allowed to profit from it.
That being said...I would challenge anyone in the Slashdot population to come up with a method to guarantee prices for foreign goods given fluctuating currency rates. It is a non-trivial problem.
Please! The people behind this patent should not only be denied their claim, they should be tared, feathered and run out of town in a wheel-barrow!
Just as we NEED a frivolous law-suit penalty, we also should make the filing of frivolous patents punishable.
Click here.
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Just you all wait until my patent for electron transfer goes through. I'll have the whole world in my hands...
It seems that many common sense practices may become patented unless the US Patent Office gets a clue or someone reforms the laws. Of course I guess that we must accept that the Government really knows what they are doing (sarcasm not trolling). Here is a link to DE Technologies' web site page with detailed info on their patent app etc. You can download the patent docs for your perusal.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
The petition has received more than 35 000 signatures.
Add yours, please.
And if you know businesses that are willing to support the petition, please make them contact eurolinux.
But as someone said, it would be a good thing if this went through. The patent office has become nothing more than the personal validation stamp for anyone who wants to extort (yes extort) money out of people these days. This idiot has BARELY used his idea and frankly has no intention of doing so...he merely want to extort money out of everyone else doing transactions.
(I won't even mention where EDI comes into the picture..or the fact that EDI has been around for years...both international and domestically).
I wonder what effect a patent like this would have on the US economy. Seeing as this is the US patent office this shouldn't have effect on ecommerce taking place entirely outside it's borders. I can imagine the US marketplace getting cut off from the world market and becoming two distinct identities. A Frenchman (for example) would be forced to buy from a Canadian online store instead of an American one.
Anyone with any brains would not let this patent get past the front door, but remember we're dealing with the US patent office here. (Of course this scenerio is way too extreme to happen but it's just a thought)
From the article:
When he described the system to Randolph N. Reynolds, vice chairman of Reynolds Metal Co., whom he met through a government-sponsored program for small exporters, he says Mr. Reynolds told him: "Patent it, son. Patent it." Messrs. Pool and Mauer, who together own DE Technologies, filed their patent application in 1997.
He *described* the system to a third party prior to patenting it. Certainly in the UK, that would invalidate the patent application, as the process was now public knowledge. I don't know how things work in the US, as I don't hail from there, but I think he's on shaky ground.
I'm going to patent "Stupid patents for obvious concepts" (a recursive patent-will I infringe upon myself?). Right after that I'm going to go after this guy AND amazon.com.
Politics, Culture, Food?
I think if this was passed the patent office and DE Technologies would feel the ultimate wrath. Every Global 2000 company would send out its army of legal professionals within 24 hours of the patent being issued.
I wonder if Pool has ever wondered how many assassins are employed by the Global 2000. Now there's something to think about.
-------