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?
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
Oh, crap. Will you take a post-dated check?
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.
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?
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
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...
Now you're talking about copyright, not patents. Not that I don't agree with you.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
> 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
You mean you don't think that the motorized ice cream cone is novel?
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
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.
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
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
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
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).
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?
(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.
> By this time removing said head from said ass is going to be extremely painful. Don't expect it to happen without a big fight.
Yeah, I think about that sometimes. Suppose someone forcibly removed the TPO's and the Congress's collective heads from their collective asses, and they quit issuing patents for algorithms. What's going to happen to all the ones already issued? If they tried to revoke them, the people that have paid big bucks to scoop them up would scream bloody murder. But how could TPO/Congress let them stand if they admitted the whole idea was bogus?
I guess the obvious solution is for them to never look back. We're in for the long haul, folks.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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...
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.
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.)
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.
--
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 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
It's very unlikely that he will see any years of legal happenings. Some of the people he will be attempting to extort money from will take great offence to his attemption to get into their kind of business.
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
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
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)
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
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
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.