Slashdot Mirror
SightSound Patent Case to Move Forward
Masem writes: "CNet reports that a preliminary hearing has allowed the case that SightSound Technologies brought against CDNow over patent infringements to proceed forward, indicating that the judge believes that SightSound has a chance of defending it's case. Sightsound claims that patents it filed in the late 80s covering the "electronic sale" of music and video over a "telecommunications line" cover most of the methods used today on the Internet to peddle music or vidoes, whether by CD/DVD or by MP3/mpeg tracks. Not mentioned in the article, but there are notable parallels between this and BT's patent claim on hyperlinks, in that both patents have an overly broad language, and were filed before the Internet became what it is today, and in both cases the defendants are arguing that the non-specificness of the patents to the Internet make them unapplicable to the specific case."
They have patents on "selling music online".
Quick, get on to the patent office NOW! Own your patent on "Selling Drinks Online", "Selling Pizza Online", (well the list is endless...)
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Sure, now we think it's overly broad, when we have more internet sites than grocery stores and more ways for computers to interoperate than was imagined when the patent was filed. Maybe, just maybe, they just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Happens all the time.
One thing I notice is that most of these silly patents simply substitute (update) the "transport mechanism".
For example, delivering pizza by car is clearly not patentable. However, if you subtitute "car" with "eletronic wire" or "internet", you THEN have something patentable by today's standards. It does NOT matter that you did not invent the wire, nor the transfer protocol. It is simply substitution of delivery mechanisms.
I am gonna patent delivering pizza by ion rocket "or any other interplanetary device". No, I won't have invented the pizza, nor delivery, nor delivery of pizza, nor rockets. But put the 3 together and Shazam! Holy Patent, Batman!
Know that Dilbert Mission Statement Generator? I wonder if the same cannot be done with patents. The pattern is "deliver X by Y" where X is all the normal stuff we get now, and Y is a bunch of warmed-over dot-com buzzwords.
Table-ized A.I.
I keep reading these stories about software/mew media related patents and clearly there's something very wrong in the USPTO (and probably other nations' patent bodies too, to be fair), however there's something in here that never seems to be addressed.
What resposibility does the patent attorney hold in these situations. I realize that there's no requirement that an attorney be involved in any way with a patent application process, and many larger companies likely handle them internally (albeit, i would guess, through their own office of general counsel). Most smaller companies though, and certainly individuals, would hire a patent lawyer to handle the intricacies of the patent application. It's not an easy process and that's why there are specialists, and it was my understanding, though i could be wrong, that part of what the patent attorney does before filing a patent is perform research for prior art and/or other patents which would conflict with the current application. The signature of the attorney on the application, I thought, was primarily to say "I'm an expert and I see nothing wrong about this application."
That being said, it seems that for any patent for which there is very obvious prior art, or which attempts to patent something obvious, there's a patent attorney who didn't do his job quite well enough (for whatever reason).
So then, what responsibility does this lawyer hold for such a misrepresentation, or, perhaps, what responsibility *should* he/she hold. Can they be disbarred? Or does the issue not really matter.
If I'm wrong about all this, by all means, educate me, but it seems like the USPTO can't take all the blame, nor be responsible for deeply researching each patent application it gets. Lets find a way to properly weed out lame patents before they even get to the USPTO, perhaps through greater accountability for the handlers of the pre-application process.
-k
At least in the US, attorneys are restricted to practicing law in states where they are admitted to the bar. For example, I am admitted only to the California bar, and cannot practice in any other US jurisdiction without a court's express permission. If I were to post a legal opinion on /., and someone in Montana followed my advice in a personal matter without consulting a Montana lawyer, I might be exposed to the accusation of practicing law without a license.
Nor is the risk only to myself. Although it is appropriate for purposes of the discussions we have on /. to articulate legal principles in general terms, I would never dream of making a recommendation in a particular case without an in-depth interview with the client, an analysis of the facts and circumstances presented, and legal research focused on that specific scenario. Without knowledge of the nuances, laypersons would be susceptible to misapplication of the general principles articulated in my posts, and might be tempted to charge forward into a touchy legal situation without proper counsel because "I already know the answer from a lawyer on Slashdot." Thus, it is appropriate for me to caution readers that my posts are not legal advice and do not establish an attorney-client relationship, discouraging them from such inappropriate individual reliance.
I have posted to a number of /. legal issue threads. I do not do this to get people to "Put Me On Retainer" - if you'll notice, I don't even publish my email address here, so how would anyone do that? Instead, my usual purpose is to dispel misconceptions about the law that circulate so widely on /. as to acquire the status of "urban legend" -- something everyone believes because it happened to their sister's husband's friend's employee, but doesn't actually have a grain of truth. I do so despite the virulent anti-lawyer atmosphere that prevails here - that attitude in itself shows the need for my continued contributions.
And I bet I will last longer on /. than you . . .
No, no, no. This is not a sig.