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?
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...
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.
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?
Of course, this is the pattent office and they have approved dumber pattents over the years.
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
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.