Slashdot Mirror
Under Attack by PanIP's Patent Lawyers?
Matthew Catalano, of the Dickson Supply Company, asks: "I work for a small plumbing, heating, irrigation, and BBQ supply house. Over the past four we have built up quite a website that houses tons of information and offers many products for sale via an online store. Recently a company known as PanIP has decided to sue us on 2 counts of patent infringement. To the best of my understanding, as you can see from their website, they claim that they invented the use of text and images as a method of business on the Internet. They also claim that they invented the use of a form to enter customer information. Obviously this is ridiculous and most likely won't hold up in court! However, this is not the problem. PanIP has also sued 10 other small companies. PanIP chose small companies because they hope that none of them can afford the legal fees that would ultimately remove their patents. Most defendants, including us, want to opt to bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000. PanIP will continue this vicious cycle on small companies of which many of you may become victim of. Eventually they will have so many cases under their belt that they will be able to attack larger companies." Yet again, the USPTO is used as a weapon in the free market. When will someone get a clue and put a stop to this type of digital extortion?
"I am hoping to release this story to the press so that the US Patent office finally wakes up, but the media is unpredictable and unreliable in terms of which stories they encapsulate. If there is anyone out there who has any ideas about stopping PanIP or can help us out in any way it would be appreciated. Otherwise, just pass this along to everyone you know and hopefully something will come of it.
There is also a page we have constructed that reveals some more details."
for patent gripes in one day.
That is a truly unscrupulous practice.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Obviously, money talks, but considering how ridiculous the claims are, do they really need to hire lawyers?
Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.
I would see if the FSF would take the case.
Get together with the other companies that they have sued and sue them back for restraint of trade or something like that. With the legal fees split 10-12 ways, it should be easier to defend yourselves.
From the looks of their web site, it appears as if the sole purpose of the company is to patent 'inventions' without actually accopmlishing anything. I would feel sorry for anyone losing a court battle to a company such as this.
Wouldn't you be able to counter sue for what it costs to defend such an accusation in court? Or something to that effect anyway?
use force ... "ping -f www.panip.com" ..
I should get a patent on the "@" sign and charge for every email sent in the world.. oh wait.. someone already has that..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
gratuitous mention of my own patent (required early in any slashdot thread on patents):
I've patented breathing air while programming.
Please cease and desist.
PS: Of course, one cannot patent breathing air OR programming, but doing them simultaneously... why that's quite different, special, and I invented it! Unfortunately, most people breath coffee while programming, so my patent doesn't really apply to very many programmers.
-pyrrho
Represent yourself, go through with the lawsuit and then slap them with a counter law suit for your time, money and efforts. This case has got to be dismissed based on what you have told us about it.
Perhaps you and all the other victims could pool your resources and counter as a collective group to reclaim damages.
Counter-suit.
When will someone get a clue and put a stop to this type of digital extortion?
October 4th 2012. I saw it in a dream. Seems far away but actually it's not too bad.
The laws will finally be changed when all government building face the possibility of paying me license fees for my patent on buildings that take into account the effect of my patented "Gravity Effect"
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
FP
Another essential factor in "control" is to conceal from the controlled the actual intentions of the controllers. -WSB
Many states have anti-strategic lawsuit laws (Say that three times fast!). This sounds like a pretty clear-cut violation. Call em on it and nail the bastards.
While don't your company and the other smaller pool together to fight back? That way since you're all being attacked on the same basis it'll save each of you money and maybe get a better lawyer. Obviously in the courts you guys will win just due to prior art, like the case recently where that company claimed that hyperlinking was their invention and it took an 80+ year old to say "umm, no we've been doing this for 30+ years". Also, licensing is not a good way to go because you will certainly be tied to them. Hell, maybe you guys can contact IBM's ebusiness department to see if they could lend any help in this case due to the fact that it would be in their best interest to not let this get out of hand. Just my 2 cents...
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
and slashdot the website!!!
Here is a plan for patent reform. I sent it (slightly modified) to my local congresscritter; if more peope did this, maybe we'd finally see a change.
If it were me, I'd contact the other defendants, and see if everyone were willing to pitch in to front one company challenging the validity of the patents. I'd look for some blatant prior art, which should be trivially easy to find. IANAL, but I'd be looking to get a summary judgement based on a mountain of prior art, and I'd want to ask a lawyer if it would be possible to countersue for malicious prosecution or fraud. You might also want to contact your senators or representatives -- you might be able to get the USPTO to "independantly" re-review their patents (and obviously, subsequently revoke them)
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
If the case is somewhat novel, then the ACLU or EFF have pooled together funds from many people in order to be able to set good precendents.
If the suit will obviously fall in favor of the defendant, can't you get a good lawyer to file a SLAPP suit, and you won't have to pay the lawyer unless you win?
Can you contact the companies currently under attack? If you all banded to gether to create some sort of defense fund, you could head them off at the pass. The Courts don't take well to a plaintiff that brings the same frivilous lawsuit back to trial after they've had it thrown out of court once already. It might be expensive, but not $300,000 expensive (10 companies X $30,000 settlement).
What state are you in? is it the same as PanIP? They have to sue you in your home state, remember. At the very least, make the proceedings as expensive for them as possible.
Most importantly, do not settle. You will end up validating a thouroughly disgusting business plan.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
This kind of crap is just one of the things that you have to put up with in a Capitalist society. The corrpution that is created by moving to a communist regime is by no means worth giving up a money-motivated government. Which is worse: a government where the rich oppress, or one where the government oppress? The key aspect of capitalism is that it separates the right to inflict physical harm (i.e. the goverment) from those who inflict economic and social harm (i.e. oppressive corporations). We have to give something up to live in a democratic country, and ironclad protection from crap like this is it.
When will someone get a clue and put a stop to this type of digital extortion?
Easy:
Most defendants, including us, want to opt to bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000.
When people stop making money by patenting fake things and suing people and making money.
but the media is unpredictable and unreliable in terms of which stories they encapsulate.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help you, and if you can get them to accept your submission, maybe you can hire ASK SLASHDOT!
Otherwise, just pass this along to everyone you know and hopefully something will come of it.
Chainmail! The solution to all of life's problems...
[o]_O
Their Web site is cleverly designed to use a minimum of text and graphics, as well as containing almost no actual information, making it very difficult to bring down by Slashdotting. They really are sneaky, aren't they?
Guess I'll just have to go do an old-fashioned DDoS instead....
PanIP's patents page uses hyperlinks. Is British Telecom still suing sites for using hyperlinks?
Their site also uses the GIF image format. Doesn't some company sue others because of the LZW patent?
There must be some way to use one company's frivoluous patents against another company's frivolous patents.
I patented the process of using the internet to search for unsuspecting small companies likely to fold under patent infringement lawsuits.
Might as well make that check out to me..
Call the EFF. The Electronic Frontier Foundation might be able to help you, and if not, they can certainly point you towards a good lawyer.
Fight 'em all the way.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
File a contest of the patent with the PTO. That will probably cost about $8000, less than the cost of the fight against PanIP. Then countersue PanIP.
Either way, your lawyers should be quite capable at finding the prior art to stop this. I would strongly recommend that all of the companies being sued band together to kill the patents.
This looks exactly like what RAMBUS have been doing with memory, although RAMBUS attacked big buisnesses right from the start. What sunk RAMBUS is that several companies (Infineon, Micron I think, ...) teamed together to defeat their patents. Eventually not only did they lose their patent claim on SDRAM and DDR, but I think they lost their money from the companies that caved in (Toshiba?, Hitashi?).
Maybe your company could join the others that were extorted money and try to prove that the patent claims have no ground. If everybody sues for punitive damage and fraud, there could even be money to gain... Of course, IANAL...
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
but this patent-abusing extortion scheme is already sick enough.
Theres only one way out of this.
Chip in enough to buy one of those "Predator" unmanned aircrafts with two hellfire-c missiles.
Ask PanIP lawyers to get everyone who wants a "piece of the pie" to meet you at the PanIP office at Monday morning 10:00
Program the "Predator" to drop its load on the PanIP coordinates on 10:15 AM on Monday (Give them 15 mins to get their coffee).
Case over. You would have troubles from lawyers no more.
Rapid Nirvana
It seems that your case is very strong and at least some of the other organizations will recognize this as well. Banding together with the other companies will 1) Reduce your legal fees 2) Strengthen your case 3) Give all of you more negotiating power with PanID.
IANAL
You just might be able to get some useful pointers to prior art which could be used in your counter-suit.
I think you should settle with them, but ONLY if they agree to sue major companies also, in order to maintain fair practices. If they don't agree, file a big press release to get public opinion on your side. I see ./ has already brought you a lot of attention.
This is the Onion come to life: Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
Isn't this the sort of thing the EFF exists for?
To everyone else, join the EFF and make a donation, because the lesson learned in this case is that small guys need big friends, and if all the small guys in the world banded together, bullying tactics like this wouldn't work. Someday you just might be the small guy.
Obviously, money talks
And apparently... bullshit walks.
actually, bullshit wears wing-tips, at least if you go by the last couple of patent attorneys I've seen...
If you guys choose to argue the case yourselves in court there is a good chance you would win. BUT even if you lose, a lot of good might come out of it. This would definitely become a landmark case against using text, images and forms in the internet. So at the end who looks like the one caught with their pants down ?
Our beloved patent office who handed over the patents!
--> Your Wisecrack Here
This story is an obvious troll.
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
It is high time to make filing of patents that do not cover any real invention illegal. And it is high time that the USPTO is made legally responsible for damages caused by patents that are succesfully revoked.
Futhermore I think that patents on IT need to be granted or refused within a very short time or alternatively be automatically voided if the "invention" is in broad use when the patent is finally granted.
Interesstingly German patent law had the requirement that only inventions that are significantly more inventive than what an average expert can come up with could be patented at all. Sadly it seems that with the EU this is not valid for software patents anymore.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
Definately, this illustrates the need for patent law and patent office reform. However, I think it also identifies another fundamental weakness of the US civil courts: anybody can sue anybody else without real penalties, and make it so expensive to fight back that the victim better off settling. The court system is being used as an extortion racket.
Seems to me it would be worthwhile to adopt a "loser pays" system. PanIP would be free to sue this guy's company all they want, but when PanIP loses in court, they has to pay the other side's legal bills. Think of all the worthless lawsuits people file with lawyers who know they don't have a case, but are just throwing them out there to see who'll settle (*cough*JesseJackson*cough*). They're probably think twice about it, and make sure they actually have legal leg to stand on if they knew they'd have to foot the bill if they lose.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
When you can patent one-click shopping, just about everything's fair game.
When our hero's arm gets cut off by Count Dakoo, and is later replaced with a golden arm, I feel that is just another ploy to condition us to accept loss from the people in power because in the end we will be rewarded. With a 24-carat limb, no less.
Society is going down a rathole. Donate to the EFF, people, and cross your fingers.
this gets my blood boiling (literally, im turning red/hot, and my head is throbing)... wow, oh man, I own a small business website, if they ever try to sue me i'm KILLING THEM.. no I wont close my site, no i wont pay a license fee, no i wont counter-sue, I'll just go INSANE on their asses. I'll murder the workers, and their families, set the building on fire, kill people near the building, blow up local pubs, kill innocent children... im going so crazy right now, they better not ever think of contacting me ::shakes and twitches::
(this may seem like a troll or joke, but im 100% going crazy)
And let lose the dogs of slashdot.
Their home page gives a lot of contact information. How long before everyone on that page get slashdoted.
Even if you can't afford it, a public defender should suffice to clear you of these absurd charges.
Wow, even the name "PanIP" repulses me. Literally, it's "all intellectual property" or something. I don't even want to imagine what the people who own this company are like. Not the type you'd invite over to watch the game, that's for sure.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Everyone knows it was Al Gore who invented that!!!
http://www.missionfaces.com/
This is almost as stupid as the hyperlink... *sigh* how dumb can people be...
Unless I'm mistaken, you can't patent a method of selling a product. You can patent the TV, you can patent how to deliver the signal, but you can't patent ads. And I have to wonder about these hairbrais too... What is being done on the internet is more or less an interactive ad from a newspaper... both images and text are being used to conduct business... maby PanIP owns the patent to that too and should sue ever newspaper that existed from the start of the USA.
In all, these claims are dumb, they don't own/hold the patents to HTML, forms, images or plain text, so they have no grounds to sue.
There is a simple solution - call the folks at Amazon and tell them about the patents. This affects they way they do business. Let them fight it out with PanIP.
Eric Aitala
www.f1m.com
Looks like they've also patented ATMs, kiosks, and quite possibly internet cafe computers, if someone buys something while using it.
Depending on how you read their patent, they could have patented all computers that are used to order things online.
Of course, there is also a chance that they don't really want to go to court either (since this has scam all over it), so tell them to go fuck themselves and see what they do.
rmercado37@yahoo.com is listed as the contact on the website.
Just send your complaint to abuse@panip.com. That should do the trick.
Seriously though, I think someone had this great idea that they would set up a company and website for the sole purpose of suing people for this sort of thing. Their website claims they use a Yahoo mail account for contact, and their phone number simply has an answering machine connected to it - no live answering.
Drat, they're running on Verio w/ IRIX. Good luck, geeks...
http://saveie6.com/
rmercado37@yahoo.com seems to be the only way to email these idiots.
YES we invented the internet. NO! we dont have the ability to run an email server.
Rapid Nirvana
Stop wasting our court time on your retarded suits, I'm sure there's a rapist waiting to use it.
It's about time for some Tort Reform in the USA. Unfortunately, all the politicians are lawyers...
This looks like a patent that would let them SUE any website that has a search function and sells anything online? What the hell is wrong with the patent office?
T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=''5,576,951''.WKU.&O S=PN/"5,576,951"&RS=PN/"5,576,951"
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
Counter-sue them over your patented business method of being a moron. OTOH, they can show lots of prior art for that...
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Isn't this the type of thing the EFF usually enjoys defending.
What will it take for Americans to realize that the U.S. is in dire need of a loser pays provision for our civilian court system. Shysters like this would soon find extortion such as this far to expensive to be a realistic business model. In our current legal enviroment, this sort of extortion makes a very profitable business model. With the resulting drop in civil litigation in the U.S., our court systems would have the ability to expidite the remaining cases, which I believe would have the effect of even reducing further the number of extortion cases. I believe a lot of people would like to fight this cases, but the incredibly long period of time it can take, causes them to lose hope. For these legal extortionists, the cost of litigating a case to it's conclusion isn't very appealling since they won't make as much money that way. Especially if they lose and end up covering thier opponents legal fees.
Couple this changes with tort reform and you would really improve the legal enviroment of America.
My Weblog
You can often get legal costs covered if you win, which is one reason the EFF and similar groups can often afford to be helpful. A first-glance look by a non-lawyer says that either their patents are totally bogus for this application or they're covered by prior art. The first one I looked at mentioned being about "terminals" and a central processor, and that certainly shouldn't apply here. There are also some similarities to the BT Hyperlink patent nonsense. It's especially worth talking to the other targets of this abuse.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
Do not let them get away with this. Do not pay the $30.000. Fight them and make this patent go away. (Yes I all so own a site that uses those "patents")
Between this and all the Adobe/Macromedia patent infringement lawsuits, why isn't anyone [in DC] doing something about frivolous patents?
Is it possible for the US Gov't to revoke patents?
-braxton
Who designed your Website? Provided you the software? Supports you in any way? Is it a large vendor with deep pockets and a strong vested interest in keeping customers such as your own firm? If you are using products or services from one of the "big guys" and have a friendly sales or marketing support rep, give them a call, explain the situation, and ask them to find out if anyone else like you has suffered like this. You need to find someone bigger than these bullies to beat some sense into them.
if investigation showed that PanIP is funded by Microsoft?
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
I'm so not a lawyer, so I ask: Can these guys sue the USPTO for issuing the bogus patent? It only seems fair to be able to recover court costs, at least.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm going to write a polite yet raw email to him expressing how i feel about low life... errr folks that prey on others. this isn't constructive work, in fact it is just as described... extortion
rmercado37@yahoo.com you'd think he could afford his own since he's gleaning money from other folks hard work....
Mailing Address:
PanIP
329 Laurel Street
San Diego, California
92101-1630 USA
Telephone: Email:
858-454-7095 rmercado37@yahoo.com
Fax:
858-454-4358
Doesn't IE consist of %90 of the browser market now? M$ obviously owns %90 of the delivery of panip's patent infringment, wake up man go where the money is! Hey PanIP I may not have a law degree but I can certainly tell you there's no sense in trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
Professionally and concisely contact them through one of the following venues, and let them know that their actions are being observed with disdain by thousands.
Please mod this up so Slashdot can continue to be the efficient political machine it often has been in the past. Just a simple call saying you dont like what they're doing, and mention the details of this situation, should be enough to make them think twice if everybody calls.
Here are the contacts, from http://www.panip.com/corpinfo.htm:
Mailing Address:
PanIP
329 Laurel Street
San Diego, California 92101-1630 USA
Telephone: 858-454-7095
Email: rmercado37@yahoo.com (really professional...)
Fax: 858-454-4358
The following lawyers help them in their tirade. CC and call them all. I'll begin with a copyable email list. The rest need to be contacted by phone:
webmaster@lyonlyon.com, kwalkerlaw@cox.net, info@chiresearch.com
And for those that would rather call, including some attorneys with no email address (What's up with that? Hello, 2002? Hello?)
BUCHACA, JOHN D. & HENRI CHARMASSON
1545 HOTEL CIRCLE SOUTH
SUITE 150
SAN DIEGO, CA USA 92108
619-294-2922
Kathleen M. Walker
3421 Thorn Street
San Diego, California 92104
Phone Number: 619-255-0987
Fax Number: 619-255-0986
kwalkerlaw@cox.net
Luce Forward Hamilton Scripps
Phone: (619) 236-1414
Fax: (619) 232-8311
600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101
And finally, their technical advisor:
CHI Research Inc.
10 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035 USA
Phone (856) 546-0600
Fax (856) 546-9633
email: info@chiresearch.com
Easy: let's hack PanIP.
Yet again, the USPTO is used as a weapon in the free market.
Erm...this is anything but a free market. You will find VERY few libertarian economists (people who know what a free market really is) who support intellectual property rights.
Of course, most people in society want laws that subsidize themselves...on the left are people who want "welfare" type laws, so they can continue to do whatever they do, and on the right are those who want "corporate welfare" and other protectionist laws (such as intellectual property laws) to allow them to do what they do.
Very, very few people support a truly free market.
A modern day witchhunt.
Can you just whip up some random info that connects them to Al Qaeda? Something showing that the money they win funds terrorism. Let the FBI chew on em for a while.
-E2
"Although there are more Microsoft Windows users than Macintosh users, we would like to remind you that there are far more cockroaches than people."
-- The New York Times
The evil monkey commands you to dance.
requires two new moderation categories. IANAL -1 and LegalOpinion +1.
"We're giving in to the evil PanIP company like several other companies have, oh Slashdot, won't you feel sorry for us?"
If you don't defend yourself against this abuse, _you are part of the problem_. Slashdot cannot help you, especially since you've already decided to settle. <constructive>If it isn't too late, call the EFF, perhaps they can help.</constructive>
(-3, Flamebait)
where you have created a method for suing based on patent violation and then sue PanIP. Oh wait, I think PanIP is already doing that.
"Your having a bad day when the voices in your head put you on hold"
there's a term to describe this: barratry.
Here's a definition from the Bernard Shifman is a Moron Spammer (I know, but it was the first reference that came to mind):
If this PanIP company is seriously pursuing this sort of patent, this seems like good grounds for a countersuit...
(Oh my Got its Canadian) Patent for the self service terminal indeed! I suppose that this would cover ATMs..u mber=118 9973&language=EN_CA
http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent_n
I'm glad they're going public. Good luck to him!
-b
So their patent applies to using a form to gather customer information.
Having a look at PanIP's website, they list "PricewaterhouseCoopers" as their accountants.
Interesting that at This Link, PricewaterhouseCoopers has... well lookit that, a form where you enter your information so they can contact you.
Wonder if they made their own accountants pay them for their (non)intellectual property.
Three dits, four dits, two dits, dah!
Radio, radio, rah rah rah!
Google search for 'PanIP' and 'Patents'
n ts
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PanIP+pate
results in zero returned results...
Their website looks very crummy too - are you *sure* they are a legitimate business? I mean it's *very* hard to escape google's search with *zero results*.
You might just scare them off if you go "see you in court".
-- Dan "who is off to look up USPTO on PanIPs patents now..." =)
We are a technology development company focusing on the intellectual property aspects of innovation in the information, sales and services sectors of business.
Or more clearly stated: we are an intellectual property management company focusing on beating other companies to the USPTO with braindead obvious inventions related to the internet and more specifically e-commerce.
Did anyone notice the company's email address?
mercado37@yahoo.com
Gotta love them companies leading the world into the new age *sigh*
Patenting a form of user input for a website, is about as stupid as patenting a a method to swing on playground equipment, but as we can see, they both held up at the patent office, the fact that such stupid patents as 'playground swinging methods' have been accepted by the patent office, obviously shows that the whole system needs to be overhauled
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
Contact info
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Get all the little companies who are at risk from these filthy blood-sucking parasites to pool their resources and sue them back under the rock from whence they came.
How many businesses use web form entry? 1,000,000? If you just get 10,000 to kick in a $1000 each you'll have these dogs back to licking their balls clean in no time.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
I reviewed one of their patents which could be interpreted as the use of HTML forms to conduct business, except that the patent was filed in 1985. Since the Internet (as we know it) didn't exist then, can a company claim patent infringement on a device that was invented long after the patent was originally filed?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Something's wrong... I clicked on the PanIP link 5 times and the site is still up and running. I usually can't click on a front page ink once before the site goes down. What gives?
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
Any company using a yahoo account as contact information for a corporation is going to have a tough time proving that they invented e-commerce!
Just check the info on these guys. They exist solely to sue other people, it appears to be a very small (maybe even one person) company. They have very few internet resources (using a yahoo email address? web hosting company), fax number isn't concurrent with phone meaning they can't even afford a block of numbers, poor office location, etc...
--- I do not moderate.
"We are a technology development
company focusing on the intellectual
property aspects of innovation in the information, sales and services
sectors of business."
What does that mean? Their mission is to sit around 'focusing'?
I guess they can't just come out and say "Our mission is to take control of all intellectual property in Pangea. (Look at their name, look at their logo.)
(Oh, no! A comma splice! Look's like I never went to college. Actually, I did, but the guy that taught me about comma splices also described correlative modifiers as words that (I kid you not) 'corral things together' rather than as 'words that correlate ideas or objects.')
Take those phone numbers someone dug up(nice legwork) and feel free to sign them up for free faxes ;) Then all there e-mails should be registered at topica.com for some e-mail fun times.
OR, for a one time "I-am-tired-of-people-getting-stepped-on" licensing fee you can break me off cash or a money order for ONLY $29,999 and I will make sure you never get harassed(clarification is needed here... You will never get harassed twice by the same douche) by them or any other sniveling PoS lawyer again.
Without reading the claims included in the patent, how can one offer inference and misjudgement?
I don't wipe! Haha, sucker!!!!!
Not only that, but you should look through other courses. Contact your congressman so they can investigate this fraudulent copyright. Previous art definately applies to this case.
And refuse to do business with countries that grant patents.
The article make's one important point, if PANip succeeds in making these 10 settle, the lawers will have 300k or so.
Since M$ is %90 of the content deliver market, they're breaking panIP's patent %90 of the time.. Who knows maybe they'll go after them next.
If this patent really is ridiculous, then why not take them to court? It may cost you some money at first, but if you win you can counter sue them. Then you can use that money you get from the counter lawsuit to cover all your previous legal fees. Unless someone stands up to these people they will keep suing companies and getting more and more powerful from doing so.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
email addr from site...let's spam the shit out of them. Fucking Assholes!!!
Your company should pool resources with the other 30 or so victims and sue to invalidate the patents and for damages.
As for ANYone claiming to have invented anything having to do with the use of text, images and forms on the internet for ANY purpose, I think Tim Berners-Lee and the people at CERN might have a little tiny bit to say about *cough* prior art *cough*.
utter rubbish
I work for a small plumbing, heating, irrigation, and BBQ supply house.
Damn, I wish we had one of these in my town! I can hardly count the number of times I've need to install plumbing, heating, irrigation AND barbecue systems, and have had to go running all over town to do it. "Wet Hot Pipes 'n' Ribs R Us" would have been a godsend.
No its not, i just did it, but then again im a contortionist
Or if arson isn't your style, you could get a goon squad to smash up their offices.
You know to let 'em wonder who they've rubbed the wrong way and if they maybe should find a safer way to make money.
Or if you'd like to do something truly evil, call the cops and report an attempted shakedown to make you pay protection money from some bogus internet fraud claim.
Any of these should take care of the problem.The last one may not bring you immediate satisfaction but it is probably the safest course.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
From the background: " ... Answering a client's questions is dependent upon the knowledge a travel agent has acquired. Since `travel` is an intangible product, the communicative skills of the travel agent are paramount to success. The client relies on the travel agent's advice in making important vacation decisions. "
... In such case, the assistance that the fictitious person who appears on the video screen can give to the applicant in filing the tax form can be easily programmed on the videodisc. "
From the summary of the invention: "
This seems to describe a "virtual" Max Headroom salesperson AI who can present online products uniquely packaged for a particular customer. I would argue that is a far cry from the your typical ecommerce site.
With patents, however, asserting a patent known to be invalid is an ANTITRUST VIOLATION. The opposing party can get treble damages plus attorneys fees. Also, if the case is not well founded, the patent statute (specifically 35 U.S.C. sec. 285) allows a judge to declare the case "exceptional" and award attorneys fees to the prevailing party. Infringement defendants use this provision to recoup defense costs of patent cases that are not well founded.
Also, because patent cases are EXCLUSIVELY federal, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, spoecifically Rule 11, requre attorneys to certify that cases filed are well founded. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals of patent cases, has held in View Eng'g v. Robotic Vision Sys., 208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) that Rule 11 requires an attorney to "read the claims onto an accused device." The process of reading claims means that you identify each element of the claim in the patent and then find a corresponding feature in the device you accuse of infringement. Rule 11 allows judges to sanction parties who fail to do that step.
Unfortunately, competent patent counsel are few and far between. I have seen cases brought by sole practitioners who spend their days doing personal injury work and have no concept of patents or the technology of the invention. This is how many frivolous suits get filed - by practitioners who do not take the time to learn the law and advise their clients properly. Also unfortunately, the only way to end it is to stomach it out and fight to the end to invalidate the patent. The words "legal defense fund" come to mind here.....
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
You know we laugh. Some of the suggestions on slashdot may actually get patented in the future by some lawyer and then we'd have forgotten it was mentioned on slashdot before. Its like how many patents have been granted and upheld even though there are old books, journals, and even school newspapers that describe the "invention".
-Johan
I'm not a lawyer, but a lowly engineer. I decided to peruse PanIP's website and I looked all over the damn thing, but I can't figure out what it is they do. Looking over that entire site I literally cannot decipher what sort of contribution they make to society.
Can anyone else help me out here?
If all else fails, nuke the bastards.
For everyone suggesting that they band together, I believe they have taken the first few steps. The link from the question (labeled "more details") leads you to a site with a bunch of defendants. Namely, listed here.
Furthermore, I took a look at the patents (admittedly, only the abstracts), and while not as depicted as explained, still very vague and very obviously a stragety, not an actual protection of IP. First and second.
Looking at the abstract for the former of the above listed, I have a few qualms (besides with the whole thing entirely). The claim that they can have an infinite number of variations in the abstract (actually, on a quick search, they go into further details in the summary of the invention), it doesn't seem to me that what you're implementing can possibly be infinite. Note, I certainly ANAL (yet), but it just seems out of place.
Moving on to the second patent and it's respective abstract... it seems to me that such a patent had to be filed before September 11, 2001 (when the patent was made, hell throw that in your closing speech) as it seems the way it's described in both the abstract and summary of invention is very much alike to many implementations set forth by other companies, not just internet, but stores as well.
Good luck with that all. Open up a donation bin. I, for one, will throw in.
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, that is. IANAL but if the act does not apply here, it certainly needs to be amended to cover this situation. PanIP is the latest in an endless chain of corporations that demonstrate exactly why we need to forever forget the silly laissez-faire pipe dream and start playing hardball with corporations. Once white collar types start seeing the inside of prisons or their buddies (other CEOs) get the chair, then they might be concerned about ethical practices.
In the meantime, someone needs to DDOS the fuck out of PanIP. Forget "Ask Slashdot", try opening the yellow pages or searching google to find someone to kill the CEO's wife and kids, or just opening the blue pages of your phone book and looking up your friendly local U.S. Attorney. Good luck!
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Maybe a lawyer out there can comment on this, but seems the owner of the patent has filed many other suits on some of his other patents (including ones against American Airlines).
. htm
http://www.ipcreators.org/SC/Kearns/kearns_amicus
Also some intersting notes like the this:
PatentEnforcement Fund (PEF) is a company that fund patent litigation. Didn't know such a thing existed.
From the abstract of Patent No. 5,576,951:
Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created.
This patent has nothing to do with your barbecue and plumbing site. Since your server has a finite life span, it is only capable of producing a finite number of sales presentations. Frankly, I think that a system capable of producing an infinite number of anything is quite impressive and worthy of patent protection.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It makes an inventor want to give up.
If you read through the entire patent you will see that it is higly geared toward the travel business. Priceline fits the patent.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Lawrence B Lockwood is a name that appears on the patents... note this summary from http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/mar97/96-1168. html
Lawrence B. Lockwood appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 91-1640E (CM) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 1995), granting summary judgment in favor of American Airlines, Inc. In that summary judgment, the court held that (1) U.S. Patent Re. 32,115, U.S. Patent 4,567,359, and U.S. Patent 5,309,355 were not infringed by American's SABREvision reservation system, and that (2) the '355 patent and the asserted claims of the '359 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, respectively. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1246, 28 USPQ2d 1114 (S.D. Cal. 1993), req. for reconsideration denied, 847 F. Supp. 777 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the '115 and '359 patents not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 500, 34 USPQ2d 1290 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the asserted claims of the '355 patent invalid and not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 37 USPQ2d 1534 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (holding the '359 patent invalid). Because the district court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that American was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.
so there you go: already after a few searches I've found out that 3 patents are already not wirth anything: http://www.panip.com/patents.htm ('115, '359, '355)
-- Dan "who has limited knowledge of law, but can surf the web" =)
Your asp is showing.
From http://dicksonsupply.com/index.html:
<%
Dim hst
hst = Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_HOST")
If hst <> "www.dicksonsupply.com" Then
If hst = "www.e-plumbingsupply.com" Then Response.Redirect "sites/plumbing/"
Else If hst = "www.plumbsmart.com" Then Response.Redirect "sites/plumbing/"
Else If hst = "www.irrigationzone.com" Then Reponse.Redirect "sites/irrigation/"
End If
%>
So, does your company cave in on every legal threat? I was phycologically damaged by your companies combination of gas supplies and BBQ supplies... I'll sue you for 40 billion! but... I
'll settle out of court for $5,000.00.
This is the SAME exact thing.I strongly suggest yanking their chain. start with a return letter asking for a copy of their pantents, and a list of companies currently licenseing it. (spelling I know) then ask again what do they want as you dont understand how you can be violating any patents.. continue this until they file an actual lawsuit, every time denying it and you dont understnad what they are complaining about or what they want.
when they finally get it to court (if they do... odds are they wont) you have TONS of prior art to show.
dont cave in... unless you want to cave in to every scumbag and con-artist that tried this...
Yes, these people are con-artists... no doubt about it.
Oh yeah... IANAL or even someone that understands the drivel out of a lawyers mouth... (I also believe the world would be a better place if all lawyers were systematically hunted and killed.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I just copyrighted the use of certain combinations of 1's and 0's! From here on out, for every instance of the following bits that occurs in your code, please send me $10. All proceeds will go to a fund to help pay for legal action against PanIP!
0 00 1100001011011100100100101010000000100001
01000110011110101011000110110101100100000010100
In hexadecimal, this is:
46 75 63 6B 20 50 61 6E 49 50 21
In ASCII, this is:
Fuck PanIP!
https://www.panip.com/index.htm
Check it out! Quick, before they take it down.
Very weird, very confusing...
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
In a nutshell, the FTC is likely to bar Rambus from collecting royalties on SDRAM and may go so far as to bar royalties on DDR.
WHOOMP!! There it is!
Maybe contact the FTC on this matter, couldn't hurt, it's only a toll free call and some elevator music, but bad patents seem to be getting their attention at last.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Ah, I am *so* sympathetic to your case!
A few years ago, a small company I worked for was targeted by some leeches like this, who had filed what our lawyers called a "submarine" patent, which is that they had an old patent, on a vague technology, and updated the filing to try to fit it to Internet terms.
They then started going after small companies such as ours, with the hope, just like PanLeeches that the smaller companies would lack the resources to properly fight them, and would just suck it up and pay the licensing fee.
Well, we didn't have the money, but we sure as hell weren't going to be bullied by these jerks. So we got a *really* good patent attorney, and it took about three letters from him, and the leeches disappeared.
In the end, it cost us a couple thousand dollars to fight it, but it was worth every cent. We never went to court because we established very early on that 1) we were *not* going to be push-overs, and 2) we hired *good* counsel, and that perception of losing to us in court was worth them leaving us alone to go pick on someone else.
Good luck to you in your cause. These freaks should be thrown to the wolves.
I work for a very large news organization, I put someone on it. :)
This patent is way to overly broad, and wouldn't hold water in court.
prior art would include ANY electronic data retrival device. Cash register, that are hooked into bar code readers, ATMs, relational database,etc...
My avice, seek a lawyer, perferable with other companis these low lifes have gone after.
Hit them with SLAPP where applicable.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Small businesses can band together in such a suit... much easier to afford that way.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Dude,
Get yourself a decent lawyer. Per the complaint (and the specific patent information) you have posted on your website those guys don't stand a chance!
For example, in their Patent material they talk about customers dialing into the described system. Do all of your customers dial up to get to your website? Well, I looked at your website and I don't use a dialup system.
Also, all of the patent information is related to the travel industry. You are in the plumbing business. A good lawyer will find holes in their "argument(s)" big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through.
Per what I saw their patent is very specific in nature. They goofed up by not making it as general as possible. All you gotta do is review the patent for the business steps (logic) they propose and find where your business differs.
IANAL, but my understanding of patents are that they relatively easily gotton around. I believe you merely need to show how you have created the same thing but in a different manner.
Otherwise, for example, how could say Ford and GM compete with essentially the same "gadgets" in their automobiles. They do it by merely doing the same thing in a different manner.
Do a little research on the web on patents (www.findlaw.com is a good place to start) to prime yourself. And then go out and spend a couple of thousand on a lawyer. Stop wasting time, you're probably gonna have to do it regardless. It will be well worth your time.
BTW, I'm no fan of lawyers, but when you need one then it's best to just buckle up and get one rather than wasting time. It can save you a lot of pain and agony in the end.
Caution: Contents under pressure
You can try to initiate a Reexamination of the patent by the PTO. You can initiate a reexamination by paying a fee (currently $2,520 for ex parte and $8,800 for inter partes) and sending a brief including references to the PTO. Ex parte means that you are not involved in the process beyond the initiation. Inter partes means that you are involved in the process, and can file responses. You should send some really good references that have not been cited by the Examiner (not listed on the face of the patent.)
You can usually find someone who is willing to help you with the first few steps of the process at least for less than $30K. And I do agree with the above posters, you should band together with the other companies that have been sued. You can at least work together on the first few steps (finding references & writing the initial brief.)
Thalia
Here is a patent suit by the owner of the patents that PanIP claims. It is a good read because American Airlines was found to not be infringing because they were not using ALL the features the patent was for.
c kwood.htm
http://www.kentlaw.edu/student_orgs/jip/patent/lo
All joking and attempting to dispute the patent aside it might be worth a look to see if your company is violating everything in the patent, if not you can get off (though I am no lawyer).
I thought this was hilarious.
t m
From panip website:
http://www.panip.com/legal-disclaimer.h
Accordingly, the information on this website is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering professional advice or services. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with competent advisors.
$ whois panip.com
[whois.crsnic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.3
[SNIP]
E. D. G. E., Inc.
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171
US
Domain Name: PANIP.COM
Administrative Contact:
Hosting Customer info@edgeinc.org
E. D. G. E., Inc. Hosting
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171-2911
US
Phone: 800.695.1651
Fax: 619.839.3860
Technical Contact:
Hosting Customer info@edgeinc.org
E. D. G. E., Inc. Hosting
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171-2911
US
Phone: 800.695.1651
Fax: 619.839.3860
Record updated on 2002-02-06 19:54:29.
Record created on 2000-03-06.
Record expires on 2004-03-06.
Database last updated on 2002-05-13 17:48:26 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.EUR.MKSECURE.COM 213.130.162.14
NS.NYC.MKSECURE.COM 216.82.175.10
NS.SAT.MKSECURE.COM 209.61.158.220
[SNIP]
... from the way they have build their website, they are preapared to fight lawsuits (or at least they threaten to do so). That's their strong position presumably.
Their weakness: public opinion and everyday reasoning and they don't seem to have any international patent.
If you cannot bring together enough money and support to fight them in court, consider as options
a) move
host your site outside the US and inform as many politicians as possible about the fact that you have to move your site away from the States because of unfair patent-laws and practices.
b) get support from IBM
spend 30,000 on an IBM E-commerce server. Make sure your contract with IBM says, that E-commerce is free from patents and royalties of third parties and that IBM will take care of any legal fights. Perhaps IBM will rent you an E-commerce system for 1 $ a year, if they are presented with this case? Even if you use the IBM machine only as portal or proxy to your existing site, to avoid extensive restructuring of your data and software...
c) enjoy
Laughter will kill them. Try funny, public responses. Like the response of the Marx Brothers when they were threatened by a big "--- Brothers" company. Imagine what some good writers and designers can do with this case for your image (and against theirs) with just some couple of bucks. It's a chance to play David against Goliath. And then don't forget to inform us slashdotters too, we are all in favour of a good laugh.
U. S. Patent No. 4,359,631 is the highest cited patent in its class. Together, with its reexamined reissue B1 Re. 32,115 having been cited as prior art to 133 patents, which is more than 20 times greater than the expected frequency of cites of the average U.S. patent with about five cites per patent. From here. Does that statement hold any relavence to the situation, or are those 133 prior art victories just small companies giving in?
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
Doesn't this violate the GPL?
You can't afford more than the $30,000. And the $30,000 is probably even a "just barely". So spend it, and remove your problem.
However, don't spend it on a license fee. Over a period of a few months, withdraw that money as cash, perhaps for a petty cash funds, something that is hidable. Then, hire a hitman.
$30,000 should buy one death, and maybe even up to 2-3 deaths, should the asassin plan these things during one of their "patent fucking" meetings.
I am semi-serious. They are no longer petty thugs trying to steal your extra cash, these people are extorting a sum of money large enough to cause serious pain to a small business. They are the modern day equivalent of vikings running roughshod through your village raping and pillaging... asking them to stop, or asking some other power to intervene simply isn't going to do the job.
And as for the usual "the USPTO is really screwed up, it needs fixing" mutterings... when will you people learn that the system can't be fixed. This isn't something that is 98% ok, and needs to be tweaked, this is apparently ruining some peoples lives, whether you realize it or not. How many jobs were lost, when they had to pay $30,000 each in blackmail, rather than hire some techs to do a server upgrade, etc? And they aren't the only ones pulling stunts like this.
Kill the fuckers. Just be careful, and don't get caught. Or at least, make sure your lawyer picks me when it comes time for jury selection.
Now where is Matlock?? He would take this case up and solve it! Furthermore if you have an minority worker just get johnny Cochran! :)
Or not.
Automated sales and services system
A system for composing individualized sales presentations created from various textual and graphical information data sources to match customer profiles. The information search and retrieval paths sift through a hierarchy of data sources under multiple operating programs. The system provides the means for synergistically creating and displaying customized presentations in a convenient manner for both the customer and salesperson to achieve a more accurate, efficient and comprehensive marketing presentation. Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created. Multiple micro-programs automatically compose the sales presentations initiated by determinants derived from customer profile information, sales agent assessment data and operator's entries including the retrieval of interrelated textual and graphical information from local and remote storage sources. A similar system can be used for filing applications with an institution from a plurality of remote sites, and for automatically processing applications in response to each applicant's qualifications. Each multimedia terminal comprises a video screen and a video memory which holds co-related image-and-sound-generating information arranged to simulate the aspect and speech of an application loan officer on the video screen. The simulated loan officer is used to acquire personal loan data from the applicant by guiding him through an interactive sequence of inquiries and answers.
Automatic business and financial transaction processing system
A system for filing applications with an institution from a plurality of remote sites, and for automatically processing said applications in response to each applicant's credit rating obtained from a credit reporting service comprising a series of self-service terminals remotely linked via a telephone line to a first computer at the institution and to a second computer at the credit reporting service headquarters. Each remote terminal comprises a video screen and a video memory which holds image-and-sound-generating information arranged to simulate the aspect and speech of an application loan officer on the video screen. The simulated loan officer is used to acquire loan request data from the applicant by guiding him through an interactive sequence of inquiries and answers. The terminal is programmed to acquire credit rating data relating to the applicant from the credit rating service, and to use the data to compute the credit worthiness of the applicant and the amount which may be loaned to him. The approved loan information is then transmitted to the first computer for further processing by the financial institution.
sHi
Isn't the USPTO liable for the damages it causes by recklessly granting frivolous patents such as those you mention?
Sure, they're a government agency, but they ARE doing harm by granting these patents. They ARE costing businesses money, and probably end up making some go bankrupt trying to fight these crap patents (or through paying silly license fees).
Can't they be sued for gross negligence or something similar... A good suit like that would go a LONG way towards stopping the endless stream of crap that they've granted.
Just my non-lawyerly $0.02.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
There is one SUREFIRE solution to frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits such as these.
It is simply to require the plaintiff to pay the defense's legal fees if the defense wins or the case is dismissed before it even makes it to court. The problem is that right now, if someone brings a lawsuit against another party, there is very little risk involved for the plaintiff. Law firms will take on crazy suits at no cost to the plaintiff on the off-chance that they will actually win and get a large enough settlement to make a profit overall or hope that the defendant will offer a settlement (even though they know they would win in court) less than their legal costs in order to "save" money. The latter is the scam that PanIP is trying to pull. This solution would stop them in their tracks.
If the losing plaintiffs were responsible for the incurred defensive legal fees, lawyers would not be so eager to take just any potential lawsuit. Claims would actually be researched and thought out before they were introduced into our legal system to waste our time, tax dollars, and business income.
If you think this is a good idea and are tired of wasting your money because of the lawsuit lottery, then write your congressman and encourage him to support an initiative such as this which would make plaintiffs responsible for the legal fees they incur.
This is a farce. You would think "editors" at slashdot would have better bullshit detectors than this! The could have atleast made up some fake legal looking documents and a sob story about an out of work BBQ repair man...
I did some searchs on the filer of the patents included on PanIP's website and found this interesting federal court decision .
Basically Mr. Lockwood tried to sue American Airlines over their SABRE system using the '359 patent and the district court found that SABRE did not violate the patents due to prior art (like the fact that SABRE has been around since 1962). The linked decision is an appeal that Mr. Lockwood made to the federal appeals court that was rejected. Worth a good read to see how it would apply here.
Someone should just patent suing over patents. Think of the possibilities. It might just work too considering everything else that is patentable.
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
Welcome to America, Dickson Supply Company. You are doing business, and now you are being sued. It goes with the territory. I'm sure this is not the first time you have been sued, so dust off the rolodex and call your local legal professional.
Your website looks pretty slick, did you build that yourself or was it outsourced? Maybe you should "pass on the savings" by suing your web designer for delivering as their own product a website rife with illegal, unlicensed IP. Seems like those "Powered by LivePerson" guys all over your website are the ones liable, not you.
Is your site being hosted locally, or is the whole thing outsourced? If the e-commerce portion of your site depends on some third-party vendor to process credit cards, then you should sue them for providing services that they were not licensed to provide. My guess is NaBanco has more lawyers than PayIP.
In either case your lawyers should be able to convince a judge that you are not the culpable party.
I've been trying to find a bright side to settling. Lets say you do decide to license their invention for $30,000. Just make sure that your license agreement is perpetual, and that the licensor (PayIP) will assume all liability for any future claims should PayIP's patents be found to infringe on someone else's patent. Only problem is, that won't be worth much once they go out of business. Maybe you should get their patent put into escrow as a shield against them going out of business. Again, it's a worthless patent so why bother.
You have to fight this one. With lawyers. It's really not that uncommon to be the victim of a frivolous lawsuit, but you should still stand up. $30,000 gets you enough lawyer time for this case to be dropped.
Unless, of course, you are selling airline tickets at video-disc terminals, then you might want to pay their licensing fees.
I wonder if the PayIP has approached Orbitz or Travelocity or PriceLine.com with these patents...could be a gold mine!
This looks bogus.
Neither Google nor Yahoo know anything about PanIP, whois.net doesn't know anything about them, and netsol's whois is broke.
And if it's not bogus, then you have a few options. I'm sure for less than 30k you could pay for a few black limousines to greet the PanIP board members. Broken limbs or lost appendages might send a powerful message.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
1) Patent examiners get paid some (low) base rate for examining a patent.
2) Patent examiners get paid a bonus for each case of prior art they find which invalidates the patent
3) Patent examiners get paid a bonus if they reject a clearly frivolous/and or obvious patent.
4) Patent applicants are fined for filing clearly fraudulent patents.
5) Repeat offenders of 4) are sentenced to prison terms.
they're running an open relay too. i don't think i need to tell you what to do now :)
If we denied all the not easily understandable
patents, then everything would be so much better.
Currently the patents are all obfuscated to cover as much area as possible and to make them more difficult to understand, so that "inventions" cannot be reproduced by competitors.
Afaik, those two practises are completely against the purpose of patents. Anything you cannot understand by default should be banned from patents.
Also, the web makes the patent system completely useless. The purpose of patents is to make it public after a while. But the information is already available (via google).
I worked for a small but profitable mom and pop computer supply company and was good friends with the owner. He was included in a lawsuit against ASUS by LG Electronics for patent infringement for no other reason other than he happened to be the closest ASUS dealer to the Alexandria, VA courthouse. The cheapest lawyer he could find cost him $50,000US. The original judge ruled very rationally that there was no reason he should be named in the suit and dismissed him. Then LG asked for a change of venue to California and that judge reversed the decision, so his lawyer returned asking for another $50,000. This basically destroyed his business and he was forced to file chapter 11 and now he is in debt up to his ears as many clients who owed him never paid him and he is stuck trying to eek out a living doing odd jobs.
I really think something needs to be done about this sort of thing...
These PanIP guys are so 'l33t and have been in this business innovating for so long that they use super-proprietary WebBot(R) technology on their website!
--<snip>--
<!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="navbar.htm" TAG="BODY" startspan -->
--</snip>--
Someone should alert Microsoft that Frontpage is in clear violation of....
Oh, never mind...
Hmm, pending apon what patent your 'infringing' you may be free....
Automated sales and services system: "Each multimedia terminal comprises a video screen and a video memory which holds co-related image-and-sound-generating information arranged to simulate the aspect and speech of an application loan officer on the video screen."
** Web Servers, not Web browser store text and image information. And if your site does not speak then I would think your safe from this one. **
Self-service terminal: "The terminal comprises a cathode ray tube display with mass storage for presenting information about the product or service sold, a keyboard for entry of customer requests, a printer for delivering coupons and tickets, a vending machine for dispensing small items, a coinbox and credit card reader for accepting payments for goods and services, and a telephone interface for communicating with the staff of a command center."
** I've never seen a home computer witha coin box **
Automatic business and financial transaction processing system : "Each remote terminal comprises a video screen and a video memory which holds image-and-sound-generating information arranged to simulate the aspect and speech of an application loan officer on the video screen."
** Going back to the speach thingy again. **
I'm sure that you get the drift. Figure any first year patent office lawyer should be able to bring up this fine points. Remember, just because you have a patent on a mode of transport with an internal combustion engine and four wheels, does not mean that if the vehicle has 2 wheels its covered...
-IANAL-
disclaimer: IANAL and IANAA (I am not an American) and am asking ONLY to find out how it works, not to imply anything at all about anyone's legal system.
Right.
First - do US courts award costs against companies? Here in New Zealand judges will regularly force whoever brings stupid/frivolous law suits to pay the costs of whoever was forced to defend themselves against such practices.
Second - isn't there some kind of lawyer's association/bar or something that could be of help here? Surely the lawyer that drafted these letters realises they're basically commiting fraud - demanding money with menaces or something similar?
I am a leaf on the wind
From the US patent office, Patent number 5,576,951 :
> Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created (emphasis mine)
It looks like a very ambiguous patent to me, but the word infinite stood out as I read it. Is it truely possible to obtain infinite configurations?
Surely there are very many, but infinitely many?
Can you prove that your website does not provide infinite configurations? (maybe your site only provides 256^1293923836238348 configurations) IANAL, but it seems like a possible argument.
On the PanIP site, they mention this patent:
No. 6,175,824 "Method and Apparatus for Choosing a Stock Portfolio, Based on Patent Indicators."
http://www.panip.com/choose-stock.htm
Not one of their patents, mind you - just a not-so-subtle hint to invest in them.
For more info, check out BustPatents.com for thoughtful, ongoing coverage of USPTO problems.
I sent the following letter to an address on their page:
Dear Sir
I'm extremely offended to see the types of things your company is doing, as described on Slashdot.org, here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/13/191
Your strongarm tactics against small businesses are a disgrace. Why don't you come play ball against corporations that can afford to defend themselves against your ridiculous patent claims?
I suggest you respond to the story on Slashdot.org and present your side of it.
Your actions are a true insult to the spirit of mutually beneficial commerce and free enterprise.
Disgusted,
John E. Francis
"Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes." --Henry David Thoreau
His address and phone number is on the patent.
Lawrence Lockwood
5935 Folsom Drive.
La Jolla, CA 92073
619/454-4475
goatse.cx? Lets see them try geting money from that!
You know that's exactly what I was predicting when the Papent Orifice started with this software patent stupidity.
Some vulture would go around and shake people down who'd setlle rather than go to court. Court costs money, okay the loser pays, and court costs time and you can't get a second back once its gome. Not even Bill Gates can buy it back. That's what this scum, these lawyers, are counting on.
Okay, I think its about time to increase their bandwidth requirements.
Wadda you say we suck their home page down a few hundred million times? I'm looking at the source an it sucks so bad that it has to have been spewed out by some fool using M$ FrontPage.
How about if we stuff their mail box full of porn. Wait. We don't even have to do it. We could register them on almost every porn site on the planet with some php scripts.
Notice that they don't even have a real address on their WhoIs records. Just a mail box. They don't dare show their butts in public. They KNOW they're slime.
According to http://www.panip.com/corpinfo.htm its supposedly:
PanIP
329 Laurel Street
San Diego, California
92101-1630 USA
Personally I wouldn't hold out much hope that its anything more that a sham office. The contact supposedly is using rmercado37@yahoo.com for his email.
Their IP address is 209.61.179.88
Whois Server Version 1.3 reports:
Domain Name: PANIP.COM
Registrar: BULKREGISTER.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.bulkregister.com
Referral URL: http://www.bulkregister.com
Updated Date: 07-feb-2002
E. D. G. E., Inc.
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171
US
Administrative Contact and Technical Contact are both:
info@edgeinc.org
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Automated sales and services system :
5. The search system according to claim 1, wherein said graphical and textual information are stored on a CD-ROM disc.
There goes that patent.
Go make your annual contribution to the EFF. Don't wait.
I alternate between posting +5 and -1 Comments. Karma: +53 -47 = 6
telnet exploitable.sendmailserver.ru 25
Trying 64.28.67.150...
Connected to exploitable.sendmailserver.ru 25
Escape character is '^]'.
220 exploitable.sendmailserver.ru ESMTP Sendmail 8.6; Mon, 13 May 2002 21:59:49 GMT
helo dieiplawyersdieiplawyersdieiplawyers...250 chars...
250 exploitable.sendmailserver.ru Hello [spoofed.ip.address], pleased to meet you
mail from: ip-lawyers@ibm.com
250 2.1.0 ip-lawyers@ibm.com... Sender ok
rcpt to: idiot@panip.com
250 2.1.5 idiot@panip.com... Recipient ok
data
354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
Subject: Notice of pending lawsuit
To whom it may concern,
It has come to our attention that your company
.....legalese sounding stuff......
.
250 2.0.0 g4DM4ix07327 Message accepted for delivery
Repeat with messages from amazon, us government sites, etc...
Somewhat suspect company, for the following reasons:
Contact email address is: rmercado37@yahoo.com
Contact phone numbers (voice/fax) are both unlisted (www.infospace.com)
The website was only registered in 2000 - rather surprising for a supposed world player in IT.
The HTTPs server has some weird, weird unrelated stuff on it: https://www.panip.com/index.htm
The hosting company's website is not exactly professional - at least, I don't think an empty directory listing is very good: http://www.edgeinc.org
Chuck in a cut-and-paste job legal disclaimer (Google for its key-phrases) and we start to smell a scam.
How much would it cost you to move your store to stores.yahoo.com? And host your forms at homestead.com or geocities?
Have them try and sue bigger companies with armies of lawyers.
Of course the fact that your pages are hosted somewhere else might not exempt you from the responsibility of using the technlolgy. But it might be worth a try.
I know that public prosecutors can be brought up on charges of malicious prosecution. Is there a civil equivilant? Maybe hitting back would get them to stop.
Wallace Lockwood
5935 Folsom Dr
La Jolla, CA 92037-7326
(858) 454-4475
Whois Server Version 1.3
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
.COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: PANIP.COM
Registrar: BULKREGISTER.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.bulkregister.com
Referral URL: http://www.bulkregister.com
Name Server: NS.NYC.MKSECURE.COM
Name Server: NS.EUR.MKSECURE.COM
Name Server: NS.SAT.MKSECURE.COM
Updated Date: 07-feb-2002
>>> Last update of whois database: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:49:50 EDT
The Registry database contains ONLY
Registrars.
This is why the US desperately needs a "loser pays" system similar to that used in English courts. If you choose to sue someone and lose, you end up having to pay *their* legal fees as well as your own. Thus if you are a small business getting sued by an asinine large business with a suit that doesn't stand a chance in court, you don't have to cave in just because the court costs are large. If the evil know-nothings suing you lose, they have the responsibility of paying for wasting your time and the court's time. That would kill the evil business strategy of "patent something everyone already knows how to do and then scare people into paying you license fees to do what they already knew how to do on their own."
Of course, the system has to have some careful safeguards in place, such as a small maximum reasonable amount of court fees to be responsible for (so that, for example, Joe Schmo doesn't have to take on the risk of paying for Microsoft's expensive lawyers if they sue him - he only takes on the risk of possibly paying for more reasonably priced run-of-the-mill lawyers no more expensive than his own.)
Personally, the safeguard I would like to see is that you end up only being financially responsible for the opponents' lawywers up to the amount you paid for your OWN lawyers. So if your laywer cost $3,000, and your opponent's lawyer cost $500,000, you at most could end up paying $6,000 if you lose ($3,000 for your own, and $3,000 worth of the opponent's lawyer's fee) If you think the case is so incredibly frivolous that you can defend yourself, you don't incur any risk of paying for the opponent's lawyers at all.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Wallace Lockwood
5935 Folsom Dr
La Jolla, CA 92037-7326
(858) 454-4475
Looks like an elaborate hoax to me. Doesn't anyone else think so?
Check this out from bulkregister.com WHOIS:
E. D. G. E., Inc.
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171
US
Domain Name: PANIP.COM
Administrative Contact:
Hosting Customer info@edgeinc.org
E. D. G. E., Inc. Hosting
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171-2911
US
Phone: 800.695.1651
Fax: 619.839.3860
Technical Contact:
Hosting Customer info@edgeinc.org
E. D. G. E., Inc. Hosting
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171-2911
US
Phone: 800.695.1651
Fax: 619.839.3860
Record updated on 2002-02-06 19:54:29.
Record created on 2000-03-06.
Record expires on 2004-03-06.
Database last updated on 2002-05-13 18:22:57 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.EUR.MKSECURE.COM 213.130.162.14
NS.NYC.MKSECURE.COM 216.82.175.10
NS.SAT.MKSECURE.COM 209.61.158.220
Another San Jose law firm has been suing major airlines world wide for the last five years, on the grounds that the use of barcodes in any industry violates their patent. The fact that their patent infringement case is without merit matters little, because they have used the same tactic to great success. Airlines are huge users of barcodes, and by going first after smaller carriers and offering "discount settlements" they have amassed a war chest large enough to go after the ten largest airlines in the world. Some estimate that the industry has quietly settled to the tune of about $500M. It's profitable enough that the original firm now sells lawsuit franchises for different industries to other firms, and with each settlement it becomes harder and harder for any sued company to resist.
Their webpage looks like a 5min hack job in Front Page. Veiwing the source showed no front page code, however. But, the posting of the SSL site here, the similarity of the two sites, and veiwing the source on the SSL site shows Front Page code, confirms my suspicions.
They invented the internet, but need Front Page to write the code for them. Does this mean that they will also sue MSFT? Front Page includes templates (pre-written code) that let you use forms and graphical stuff to set up a website that sells things.
Of course if they DO sue MSFT and win, how will they update their website?
If bad puns were like deli meat, this would be the wurst
Are they claiming to have invented the internet? Everyone knows Al gore invented the internet.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Along with IBM how about running this by Amazon and Buy.com? They have forms, pictures, automatic services and a ton of legal people that would be put to use on this item. If they get presedent here then after a while it will affect the big boys.
Reminds me of the mess that occured about interactive CD rom stuff from 93 or 94. It was tossed out very quickly when the big boy found out and figure out the whole thing.
...it could never happen in the US. Never. There's too much history. Ask some (non-scum) lawyers about this and they'll explain the reasons this would be so hard to change. I agree it is one of the worst things about life in the US.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
Seems many (didn't check all) of the patents have a common inventor:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037
Maybe someone should get in touch with him and get his views....
Seems you could buy some legal help with that $30.000 instead of rolling over and offering them your soft underbelly.
So you think having an inc at the end of your name means something? Nope it doesn't mean shit because a new inc has no credit, no history and no power. So the owners of a new inc have to put their homes, cars etc up for collateral until the inc becomes well enough known with a good enough credit history to stand on it's own. 99.9% of all incs never get to that point. The owners of the inc have to personally guarantee the money will be paid back to the bank or the bank will tell them to screw off. If you were a bank would you loan money to somebody who wasn't willing to risk something of his/her own?
and raise their connection costs to slightly less that NASA.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
According to this other post it sounds like a scam
They just updated their contacts page, the email address (rmercado37@yahoo.com) has gone. Maybe the mailbox is full now?
I appreciate your predicament and sympathize with your side of the argument. However, I don't agree that the media is unpredictable and unreliable. Every statistical analysis of media that I'm aware of makes it quite clear that media outlets are finely attuned to the needs of their owners, namely the multinationals.
Just as you won't hear anything bad about nuclear (oh, sorry George, "nookyaler") power plants on NBC, which is owned by GE, which makes nuclear power plants, you also won't find the multinationals ragging on pipsqueaks who use the law as a tool for extortion. After all, the multinationals aren't against extortion as long as they aren't the target...
First off, we need people in the USPTO office to actually read the patent submissions and maybe pay them enough to keep technically minded people working there. The turnover has got to be rediculous.
:(
And secondly, if we did the above, PanIP would not have been granted the patent. Nor would the guy who patented a method of swinging. Or many other stupid patents. Patents were designed to allow ingenious people protect their inventions and ideas. The method for inputting customer information on a computer is extremely obvious, and thusly doesn't qualify for a patent under current legislation. Or their 'invention' of the process of doing business by using the combination of images and text. Again, very obvious. I agree that 'processes', even in software, can and should be patented. I DO NOT agree that the end results should be able to be patented.
Some people disagree with Amazons '1 Click Purchase' patent. I don't. The text of their patent describes how it works, not just that a single click can purchase something. PS:Great business idea. There's no easier way to sell than with INSTANT GRATIFICATION.
I even agree with our legislation.
A software patent should something not obvious, and should explicitly and exactly outline a process. If we had Patent examiners who gave two shits about their job, things like these wouldn't happen. But, we'd probably have to pay them better. Mr. Bush probably gave all of their money to the army
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
It looks like the patents date from 1980 on and their auto sales patent is from early 94 which will make prior art hard but not impossable to find. You need to do some research in AT&T's patents to see if you can find something since they were doing that sort of thing at that time and will have documented it (for legal defense). Look for their kiosk that used the Targa graphics stuff. Alos check out ATM machine patents since they imply a service that is covered in these patents.
Remember folks, you may not like it but if its gets patented first you have to pay. Its not about inventing it first, its about submitting it first or publishing it first. This means all these compaines that like to hide their internal procedures (even though they are the same as millions of other compaines) need to be published in exteranal documents or someone else can come in and sue you for patent infringement and win.
the patent office would only listen to their own words.
From some -patent information clips (these were taken from the USPTO web site.
"An invention is a novel idea which permits in practice the solution of a
specific problem in the field of technology. Under most legislations
concerning inventions, the idea, in order to be protected by law
("patentable"), must be new in the sense that it has not already been
published or publicly used; it must be non-obvious ("involve an inventive
step") in the sense that it would not have occurred to any specialist in
the particular industrial field, had such a specialist been asked to find
a solution to the particular problem; and it must be capable of industrial
application in the sense that it can be industrially manufactured or
used."
It seems to me that the patent office has forgotten their own words, as
things like the one click Amazon thing falls into the "obvious" and common
solution to a particular problem, upin being given to a specialist in that
field.
The problem is that the patent offic takes no risk in issuing bad patents,
for to challange a granted patent the patent office still collects a fee.
Did anyone read this part of the patent?
"Each multimedia terminal comprises a video screen and a video memory which holds co-related image-and-sound-generating information arranged to simulate the aspect and speech of an application loan officer on the video screen. The simulated loan officer is used to acquire personal loan data from the applicant by guiding him through an interactive sequence of inquiries and answers"
I don't recall the guy saying their e-commerce site had a virtual loan officer on it. Also their patent mentions that a "micro-computer". WTF is a micro-computer? Hand helds are pretty small, but I wouldn't call them micro. A processor just by itself is not considered a computer.
Actually, this doesn't sound like something that they could hold a real patent for, therefore, they probably don't. This would make their letter to you a SCAM, and the Attourney General of your state would be the appropriate place to launch an investigation. Clearly, you should neither respond, nor pay, let then sue- though it seems doubtful that they will.
In a small company, and even in larger ones, it's relatively easy to "pierce the corporate veil" as it's called. Classic ways for a litigant to reach past the corporation to a stockholder or officer include such trivial things as whether your corporate minute book is totally accurate and up to date, details of your sales pitch, and of course the ever popular whims of a judge or jury, which can lead to amazing results.
There are certainly advantages to incorporating, or using a Limited Liability Company or similar framework, but it's not black and white, and every company's stockholders/officers/directors/members/etc. face various personal risks that can be substantial. This poor schmuck's story is not unusual. Many people believe they are protect by a corporate shell, but generally speaking the protection doesn't go as far as you'd think or hope. IANAL but I have scars all over my damn back. Check with an attorney about this stuff.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
this is not tort law. this is intellectual property law. tort reform would have no effect on this case.
1. Send cease and disist letters on behalf of PanIP to Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, Ebay, etc. drawing their legal department's attention to the PanIp web page. 2. Contact your congressman, state senator etc. Give them something to champion. 3. Send info to the big networks and cable news services. (You might also want to include them in step 1) 4. Contact the small business lobby groups and if your not already a member join and then have them sue both PanIP and the Patent Office. PanIP for conspiracy to commit fraud and the Patent Office for gross negligence. (There is plenty of documentation in the public domain about who invented the web, SGML, HTML, HTML forms, etc. to prove that the patent office didn't exercise proper due diligance when granting the patent or that PanIP knowingly witheld information showing that PanIP did in fact not invent what they claimed to have invented.) 5. Find out who the principals of PanIP are and send out inflamtory demands on their behalf to the hacking community. 6. Find out where PanIP's offices are and then you and your friends can "injure" yourself on their premises. There are a lot of injury lawyers who will take your case for a cut of the insurance money. Then use the insurance claim to fund your countersuit. 7. Contact the FBI etc. because as far as you and your collegues have discovered, they are a front for the Al Quaida terrorism network. (Well, dont you feel terrorized!) Bottom line is not to be intimidated. I have been on both sides of lawsuits and the onus is still on the plaintiff. Make them prove they invented the technology and that their patent was not obtained fraudulently "to the strictest proof thereof"! Don't worry about cost. Get creative and start up a legal fund. I'm sure there will be enough industry interest to drum up support. ALWAYS COUNTERSUE!
I am going to file for a patent for "operating a business generating income by obtaining patents for obvious things and filing lawsuits against small companies who do these things." Then every time they sue someone, I'll sue them .... ok, so maybe it is not a solution, but I bet I can make me a fortune ;-)
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Not that you want to lend any validity their patent, but I would simply file an answer that their patent doesn't cover your system because you use LCD displays; their patents specifically require CRTs for system display. If you don't have LCD displays, go buy some - it'll probably be less than $30k and you get something for it in return.
Just took a brief tour around the USPTO and their online managarie of patent material. According to the Central Distribution Center, one of the patents is "AUTOMATED SALES & SERVICES SYSTEM", which does not seem to exist as a patent at the uspto. I did not check the patent pending section or the other "claim" so I'm wondering...
Get your lawyer to check into this - you can oppose the patent if it's not a real patent, and it will call into question their right to sue. Also, remember that if the lawyer types get really annoying, you can file a complaint with the Bar association.
Didn't the godfather say "one lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns"?
"Yet again, the USPTO is used as a weapon in the free market."
Yup, the problem is that government is not allowing the free market to function. Patents are particularly bad about this. There are some neat articles around in the Austrian school of economics about using copyright law in place of patent law.
If I were you, I'd complain to the Federal Trade Commission, your state's District Attorney, and the company's lawyer state bar association. I know this doesn't fall directly under the juridiction of the FTC, but I found that agency to be unusually clear headed about those things. If all else fells, I would forge a copy of letter, and send it to the ten biggest ecommerce web sites.
From their web site....
"On May 24, 1984, Mr. Lockwood filed application Serial No. 613,525 for Automatic Information, Goods and Services Dispensing System and it issued on January 28, 1986 as U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 with corresponding Canadian Patent No. 1,236,216 issuing in Canada on May 3, 1988. This invention is directed to a system for automatically dispensing information, goods, and services from a central data processor remotely linked to a multiplicity of terminals which transmit requests for receiving specific information, goods or services."
Looks like all of us that own web sites are infringing....
American Way that is...
Where else in the world can a company exist for the sole purpose of sueing people?
In a loosely related article, MS patents the Binary System of Numbers.
I know, it's an oldie, but it's still good!
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
One of the companies being sued has the cutest penguin flannel!
you see, these guys have been suing over these patents for hmm, at least the last ten years. The first company they went after was American Airlines, for using the Sabre automated travel reservations system. Here is one of the decisions from that case :
6 8. html
:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/mar97/96-11
an analysis of that decision
http://www.georgiaip.org/wi98kues.htm
maybe since that never worked out, they're looking for other targets... that was always the plan to begin with.
In regard to PanIP I can't see that this will be expensive or difficult to defeat.
If there are ten companies being threatened they can band together to deal with the legal costs. All that is required is proof of "prior art". That is, an example of somebody using forms, etc before PanIP.
By establishing prior art the patent should be revoked.
If PanIP looks like a 1 man show with no frills or sign of hefty bank accounts then a few people will hesistate to counter sue.
It's part of the whole scam.
On the other hand PanIP could have genuinely filed for a specific patent but didn't b'se it's common knowledge that if you file for a narrow & specific patent with the idiots at USPTO you could be screwed later when someone files for a broader one that encroaches on yours.
The idiots (USPTO) could notice it but prefer to leave it to the courts to sort the mess.
Lots of people say to band together with the others getting sued, or to use places like ALCU or EFF to help. I suggest biting the bullet and fighting it, and then after you win, suing the US Government for all the fees incurred in fighting the suit. It is after their fault since they gave out a faulty patent.
---
"To know recursion, you must first know recursion."
you'll just get shot before getting paid?
"Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created"
Infinite number of configurations = infinite number of options = infinite sized program. So all you do is demonstrate that an infinite number of configurations isn't possible on your system and you aren't breaking the patent. Hey they deserve this patent if they've figured out a way of storing an infinite amount of data in a finite computer.
Hey,
If you are in trouble,
And if you can find them,
Maybe you can hire the A-Team...
Just send in BA Baracus, Hannibal, Face, and Murdock to settle this problem for you. Rumor has it that they are hiding out somewhere in the Los Angeles 'underground', with a contact address of www.eff.org.
Best of luck!
Apparently, the "authors" of this "invention" were not very forward-thinking as the usage of an LCD screen (instead of a CRT) will put a user outside the scope of this patent. Snipped directly from the Patent: "The satellite facilities are sales and information terminals, each equipped with a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) for receiving and displaying requested customer information from the computer's data sources at the data processing center. Customers interactively display the audio-visual presentations by selecting various choices and entering the choices on a telephone keypad which directs the computer to select from its data sources the requested information and transmit it to the customer's CRT in their home" Hmm...
Here's an idea. How about adding pricks like these to ORDB or equivalent. Since PenISless reckon they invented the internet, let's see how they get on without access to it.
Speak to your state's attorney general's office, I bet they'd be willing to go after the company for fraud and extortion, along with a whole slew of other things. If it's criminal, the AG foots the bill as they're the ones pressing charges. Once the criminal case is won, you're almost garanteed the ability to sue the f'ing sh*t out of them.
The only way anything in this case could fall under the anti-SLAPP laws is if PanIP sued the poster for slander.
SLAPP is merely a special case of barratry, the practice of filing frivolous lawsuits. Barratry is a crime in many jurisdictions and can get a lawyer kicked out of the Bar.
Will I retire or break 10K?
These patent clerks... no Einsteins, are they?
Patent 6289319 was granted on September 11, 2001.
Didn't they have something more important to worry about than granting yet another government enforced monopoly?
Can't let something like a terrorist attack slow down the patent mill!
In fact, it is likely that the application was approved after even LESS than usual scrutiny (which isn't much).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
A google search on dear old lawrence b. lockwood gets a little more interesting. He has already sued and lost against American Airlines for similar 'bogus' patents. He is involved with other similar infringement lawsuits.
While the patent office is a mess in the software area, he and his organization have argued in court that large companies have a clear cut business case to rip off inventions of small time inventors:
1) The small guy can't sue effectively (think velcro and intermittant wipers).
2) The sales or use (eg ripoff) of the invention continue unabated during the multiyear litigation.
3) The compound profit from a good invention ripoff totally outweighs the fines/penalties/restitution upon judgement.
Same thing happens in the financial world with a shorter timeframe - screw investors for 600 billion (aka enron) and get the largest ever fine on record of 1 billion yields a 60,000% profit (eg miliken, ebbers, enron, etc.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic for Dickson et al and I think the lawsuit stinks, but the change in tactics by lawrence b. lockwood's may really be a grass roots effort to right wrongs by the bigger guys.
I checked the USPTO website for patents that are claimed to be help by panip on the panip web site, and they do exist and they are what they say they are. Further more I found Dickson Supply's website and it also appears to be a real store with a full selection of products etc.
I was hoping it was a really good troll too....
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
Yes! Digital extortion is the phrase everyone should keep in mind. This stuff really is getting insane. The courts are burdend with trying to bring justice to legitimate patent cases, while the USPTO's totally awful performance floods that same system with tons of frivilous litigation.
PanIP. What a bunch of opportunists! Makes me wish I could take an icepick to the midsection of the guy over at PanIP who thought up this strategy. If anyone should pay damages...
"Not one red cent!"
USNG: 14TPU4605
http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/mar97/96-1168. html
From that decision:
"The court further held the '355 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) on the ground that its claims were anticipated by the '359 patent. The '355 patent issued from a chain of applications originating with the application that issued as the '359 patent. The district court held that the '355 patent is not entitled to the filing date of the original parent application and thus concluded that the '359 patent is anticipating prior art."
This is for U.S. Patent 5,309,355. It has only one independent claim, so I would assume that it being found invalid in this instance pretty much invalidates it for any instance. The other two patents in this case were not invalidated outright but were interpreted to have very restricted application.
I'm not 100% sure if any of these are precisely the patent's at issue, but the other patents mentioned in some of the posts are directly related to these and seem to have similar limitations as well.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
This is only Interesting to a moderator who doesn't know what a tort is.
A cursory read of the website and the patents in suit discloses that these whiners really haven't been terribly well advised as to what is, and what is not claimed. A demand for $30,000 is large enough to justify spending some money on competent counsel to determine the costs and benefits of the settlement.
Suffice it to say, there is more here than meets the eye. These guys need a lawyer, not a website.
And the Judin and Antonious cases. It is no longer safe for patent bullies to randomly attack defendants who might hire competent counsel to advise them. We recently used this to excellent effect to "encourage" a patent bully to file Notices of Voluntary Dismissal in seven separate cases. It works.
Of course you are correct- this case is not tort related, a poor choice of words. But a loser pays system *would* have an effect on a company who has based their entire business plan on frivolous lawsuits.
IANAL, but I can read better than that. Actually, the court only threw out one patent completely ('355), decided certain claims of other patents are invalid but didn't throw them out (this could mean either that there was some small innovation cloaked in excessively broad claims, or else that the court simply didn't find it necessary to review the entire patent to decide this particular case), and decided other patents simply didn't apply to AA's Sabrevision reservation system.
1) The court decision cited above invalidated the '355 patent completely, yet PanIP lists it on their website, along with a section entitled "Choosing a Stock Portfolio Based on Patent Indicators". They are trying to sell stock based, in part, on an invalid patent. Isn't this fraud?
2) PanIP evidently makes no products and apparently does nothing but file vaguely worded patents, then attempt to collect royalties on them. Judging by the two patents I looked at ('319 and '355), they ignore obvious prior art in their filings -- isn't that fraudulent too?
3) Since their business plan seems to be based on obtaining income through actions verging on fraud, barratry, etc., would RICO apply?
Heaps of tools around to achieve this quite effectively. Maybe not very ethical but people like this deserve it.
IP rights and capitalism is not the problem.... just face reality, only the stronger prevail, there is no point going against the grain of evolution.
I'm not even sure if this is a valid response, so I'm donning my patented (heh) broccoli deflector just in case. Why doesn't somebody sue the freaking USPTO for gross negligence, incompetence, national idiocy, whatever? I mean, you guys are american. The rest of the world knows that Americans will sue over anything, (hell, I'm calling my lawyer about this post, so he can be prepared), so go...godspeed....uphold the american tradition, and sue those idiots at the USPTO.
Yeah. And if someone could send me a TAB cola in the mail, I'd be really happy. Yes I know the cola sucks, but we can't get it here in Canuckada.
do they have a product, or sell anything?? it seems their entire business model is based on lawsuits... this is just so shitty
(-1, Troll) & (-5, Boring Troll)
I say's "Pangea Incontinent Properties"...
Lx McFreak
..that they devote part of their site to citing (sorry) US Code to justify the validity of their claims? Someone should spy on their families to see if their kids swing sideways...
for breaking the patent on being TOTAL assholes!
I note this because it's the same thing. Basically, Delatorre (I think that was his name, correct me if I'm wrong) TM'd Linux, demanded royalties, etc - but in the end got his butt kicked. What will probably happen is that PanIP will possibly be countersued. In short, you can legally patent this, but it's like patenting water.
Just my random thoughts.
-Dennis Carr
This sig no verb.
And stupid me, posting before I complete my research. It was Dela Croce, and a letter on this can be found here from November 1996. -Dennis Carr
This sig no verb.
Ever read your MSFT license? Clause F says (paraphased) If you are sued, and Microsoft is also named, you will pay for their (MSFT) legal expenses.
All the more reason not to do development on MSFT platforms.
That will teach the fuckers.
Since people are suing for frivolous things, I invented light, so if you have ever had your eyes open, you owe me damages...
can we get any more asinine?
They are a law firm specializing in "expanding" an old patent's range of application by having old patents "reevaluated" and reissued by the USTAPO (aka GUSTAPO). This legal technique relies on the ease with with the USTAPO awards patents to the most ridiculus ideas these days, or extends the 'patent' to other ideas regardless of prior art.
The 'reevaluation" part is where they apply some legal smooze to the dolts at the USTAPO, and they also file more patents "citing' the original patent, thus increasing the target patent's citation count and placing it in the catagory of 'Pioneer Patents'. Pioneer patents are given broader scope in their applicatin and/or interpreation by the courts. Ergo, they can sue these mom&pop websites for doing things that have been done for years before the old patent was 'reevaluated' and applied in these new 'equivilent' areas.
One patent was issued in 1980, reissued in 86, again in 97 and now is good till 2018. Another is being applied to situations that didn't exist in 1976-1980 and were not even envisioned by the original patent but, with the help of lizard lawyers, are being applied to computer driven websites that take remotely placed (the customer's PC via the internet) orders for goods and services delivered by arrangments made via computers and the interet with 3rd party vendors and shippers.
Once the get enough lawsuit 'infringement' wins in courts with technically illiterate judges they'll try to intimidate the bigger fish.
These kinds of events combined with the actions of the USTAPO lead me to believe that there is a political move afoot to kill the internet, probably the last bastion of free speech and free market in the world.
Why would they even go to court. Presumably, their entire strategy is based on extortion. If we assume that they are not, say, dumb as bricks, they must know that a legal proceeding would be expensive for them and probably disastrous. So sort of like the whole, "we will not negotiate with terrorists" thing, if they know that you and the other defendents will not pay them, they have very little incentive to go to court.
Of course, if they get pissed off, they might go anyway, since without a history of beating up on the little guy, they have no way to make any cash. But in that case, as so many have said before me, you will probably win anyway.
On another note, you know how evil you must be to go with the name Pangea Intelectual Property? These guys want to take over the world!
The proper approach to cases like this is to defend them as a class action. Most people only think of Class action plaintiffs, but class actions are available to defendants also.
If the way Microsoft was rewarded for shady business practices by the courts is any indication, PanIP will get a cash bonus. Lets face it, the person or company with the most money is always right in American courts. Only the elite can afford justice.
Just give up now, or CEO's Gates and Bush will secretly crush you in some shadow court funded by Enron blood money. The American government is not on your side.
"Catastrophic failure is usually idiocy's best reward." BigBlockMopar
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
He has his "Gimmer A Break" column on 20/20 this seems like the kinda really obviously bogus thing that he would have a field day on.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
(* The following script helps to make it even slower.... *)
They might sue you for "electronic terrorism" or something. Gotta be careful before you mess with slimey lawyers.
Table-ized A.I.
Here is another detailing other litigation pursued by Mr. Lockwood (the holder of this patent) and his associates.
s _amicus. htm#Summary
This amicus brief gives you an insight to how these people think.
http://www.ipcreators.org/SC/Kearns/kearn
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
When will someone get a clue and put a stop to this type of digital extortion?
...but I guess it won't be the author of the artical.
If not me, who? If not now, when?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
> Do you think they really mean to have libc.so.1 up on their site?
Is the source code available on their site, too?
Images and text stored together... search functions... over phone lines(expand to other networking technologies if you wish)... on video monitors.. etc...
Can anyone say X??? What they describe was entirely possible with X even in the 80s... and some of Xerox's GUI stuff back in the 70's was probably capable of such things. Late 60's ARPANET stuff could probably accomplish such tasks.
Just because I use a refrigirator in an interesting way does not mean I can patent my refrigirator. The only thing that makes their ecommerce patents different from X in the 80s is that they use it for advertising, X used the same exact techniques for computational tasks. A brand new technique can make a valid patent, but a new use for an old one does not.
Of course they're all lawyers.
I admire your advice, but why are you giving those shitheads ideas?
don't ya think?
I just filed a pantent on stupid laws.
Now just wait for congress and get that money.
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
The US patent and trademark office website itself uses:
- Forms
- Text
- Images
- A lovely "Add-to-Cart" system when you browse on through the patent database.
Will these PanIP a-holes bite the hand that feeds them as well?
surely they'll lose this, have costs awarded against them and either go bankrupt, or get the idea that this is just going to cost them money?
Sig is taking a break!
See http://panipcase.homeip.net - already posted by someone else but buried within a thread - this is a site for several companies already being sued by PanIP. They are all small companies of course, but if they club together and get help from the EFF etc, they could probably beat PanIP and countersue. It would be well worth signing up there and commenting on their discussion forum.
>Is the source code available on their site, too?
And if it isn't, we can sue them for GPL infringment, as they're distributing a GNU libc binary without distributing its source ;-)
The patent Automated Sales and Service System contains a sentance that states: "Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created". As long as you can ensure your site can't deliver an infinite number of combinations, perhaps you're not in breech after all...
Flaming and flooding and complaining to the government are all pretty useless solutions. If the patent really shouldn't have been issued, it can be declared invalid. Here's what someone has to do:
1. Read the claims. I seriously doubt this patent covers all uses of CGI forms to conduct business. That's ludicrous. Read the claims and see what it really covers.
2. If you can document that each claim was done or described publicly before the filing date (preferrably more than one year before the filing date), use that documentation as evidence of invalidity. Note that the claim can be covered by more than one document in combination, provided there is some documented motivation, suggestion, etc. to combine the documents in that particular manner.
3. You can give the document(s) to someone defending a lawsuit or submit the documents with the USPTO and they will become part of the public record (and therefore available to anyone wanting to assert invalidity of the patent).
4. If you have a couple thousand to blow, you can request that the USPTO re-open evaluation on the merits based on newly found prior art.
5. I think there's a bounty-hunting web site for prior art for patents. Look there for ideas.
6. Most important: form a library of publicly available documents to assist others in similar pursuits. Examiners in the USPTO can probably be encouraged to use such a library, but I don't know how just yet. I'd have to think about that.
If you really think you have prior art that helps invalidate the patent(s) in question, post links here. If it looks good, I'll contact you and help you submit it to the Patent Office (the cheapest route).
I'll do it for free, but I won't wade through a flood of random links to forms used in business that (i) don't predate the filing date of the patent(s) in question or (ii) have nothing to do with the language of the claims of the patent(s) in question. I don't really have a lot of free time.
I'm also tied up for 3 days, so don't expect a reply immediately.
Regards,
A Patent Attorney
Damn! You're right! However, what is more interesting is if you can lick your balls.
The company who owns panip seems to be E.D.G.E. Inc. Seems to me like it stands for Extreme Digital Group Extortionists. You could probably easily win a countersuit considering they seem to be a small shitty company.
Here's their domain info:
E. D. G. E., Inc.
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171
US
Domain Name: PANIP.COM
Administrative Contact:
Hosting Customer info@edgeinc.org
E. D. G. E., Inc. Hosting
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171-2911
US
Phone: 800.695.1651
Fax: 619.839.3860
Technical Contact:
Hosting Customer info@edgeinc.org
E. D. G. E., Inc. Hosting
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171-2911
US
Phone: 800.695.1651
Fax: 619.839.3860
Henri Charmasson is one the "inventors" of the 'self-service terminal' and several of panIP's patented 'inventions', and simultaeneously one of the "attorneys" representing panIP.
A quick search at http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=o5 ltqq.1.1 seems to show that "PanIP" as a word only trademark was abandoned by these people and is up for grabs. That would be an interesting volley back into their court...
They have a newspaper clipping about it. LivePerson is only an instant messenger thingy.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
Okay, you guys need to start using the internet's many spectacularly powerful databases and stop going to google for the solutions to all of life's problems. I've done some quick searches in Lexis/Nexis, and have found a few things: (1) There are no mentions of "PanIP" in any business publications indexed in Lexis/Nexis. (2) However, that should not lead us to believe that this is a troll or a scam, as Mr. Lawrence B. Lockwood certainly exists, and has been very involved in intellectual property litigation in the last decade. One case in which he was involved (In re Lockwood) eventually went to the United States Supreme Court. (3) The "CHI" Research group, mentioned on the PanIP website as a firm's technology consultant, has produced at least one article telling intellectual property lawyers to use "citations" of their patent as evidence of its validity -- which explains that whole weird thing on the PanIP website where they boast at how often their patents have been cited. (4) Intellectual Property lawyers have been using In re Lockwood as a hallmark case where an appellant demanded a jury trial.
I'll post clips of some of the relevant articles here, and in follow-up posts, since some of them are long and /.'s gonna truncate this message:
Here Lockwood loses his Federal Court of Appeals Case.
Here's the introduction to the longer law review article by CHI Research, which includes names and corporate addresses for that consulting firm.
And here are citations for two law review articles discussing the importance of In re Lockwood I'll snip out the relevant portions.
And one more:
It's over now. That, or it's go time. One of the two. acts of gord
Maybe this is the answer. In their automated sales system patent, PanIP makes the following claim:
"Organizational hierarchies of data sources are arranged so that an infinite number of sales presentation configurations can be created."
Can your e-commerce system generate an INFINITE number of sales configurations?? I can't think of any kind of database that would infringe on this patent, unless maybe Zaphod Beeblebrox invented it.
Here in Switzerland that ridiculous patent wouldn't have been granted. Things that are of 'obvious' or 'trivial' or 'common sense' nature usually cannot be patented here.
I guess TV commercial use this system with 'text and images' plus a 1-800-call-foo number since eons. And vending machines are a tad older too...
Oh my.
Use The Source, Luke!
Okay, this 1993 Business Week article notes that Lockwood's suit against American Airlines was funded in part by a parent corporation which sought investor's support. So, the business plan there is not only to get settlement cash from cowardly small businesses, but also to seek investment money from people who believe your suit has merit (or that you'll get settlement money). This is, well . . . slimy.
It's over now. That, or it's go time. One of the two. acts of gord
Anyone else read the complaint? It has the patents attached. The interesting thing is the statement of origin of these patents. There is a paragraph reading "This is a continuation in part of the failed application XXXXXX in 1992, which was a continuation in part of application YYYYY in 1988, now US Patent No ZZZZ, which was a continuation in part...."
And so on, back to the early 1980s, with some patents being granted on the way.
IANAL, but doesnt this make PanIP's case somewhat stronger (in yet another disgusting way)? It appears to be a submarine patent like the US filing of the BT one - it keeps getting changed for years and years until it becomes financially interesting to get it approved, the filing is so long ago that noone has a hope of prior art (even though the original filing was for something completely different)
-Baz
This is about a stupid law system in the US where the rich can intimidate the not so rich or the poor by threatening them with an expensive lawsuit. You people in the US live in a truely capitalist system: money will buy you everything, including justice. Without money you are a dumb asshole who doesnt deserve to even whine about these kinds of things. I have heard that this is the most advanced and civilized system (some just call it "good" as opposed to "evil") in the world and the rest of the world is already looking forward to adopting it. Some of us will need a little force in the process but in the end we will all be happy and glad.
If you don't want to go that route, you could also contact the local Bar Association (think lawyers, not beer) to see if there is a local practitioner that would help you for reduced fee or no fee.
More than likely, everyone involved is a Delaware corporation and the cases would probably be brought in Del, so it would be pretty easy to combine them and have one lawyer take care of this for all of you. Of course, if you band together and all chip in some cash, you can probably get a decent sized firm to take the case and send these idiots a letter. Once they see that you have gotten a big gun to represent you, they will probably go bother someone else.
I can't wait to get out of law school so that I can go after scum like this.
Frank
I did some research and found some useful (?) info.
Someone in here listed some info on PanIP with address and phone number in San Diego: 858-454-4358. I looked that number up in a reverse directory for verification or extra info. It is listed as PanIP in La Jolla (San Diego).
Next, I looked up San Diego County fictitious business name register and found PanIP listed there, showing Pangea Systems Inc as the owner.
Then I looked up a California corporation name search and found that Pangea Systems Inc is listed as a valid corporation in California.
Then doing a search on Pangea Systems Inc brought up several references to this company in California. It looks like a (substantial?) biotech software company.
Now if I've connected all the dots right, the possibility of counter-suing this company looks like it could attract lawyers looking for deep pocket lawsuits. Much more lucrative for those getting harrassed by "PanIP".
Just a comment that I also posted on an *old* news article in Kuro5hin:
Unfortunately, since the article was old, nobody saw it. But this is improved and modified from since then, too.
(1) Patents [and copyrights] are not common law.
According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, they both started late in history, as a way for kings (1) to funnel profits to friends of the throne and (2) ensure proper censorship. They are not historical in the sense that common law is.
(2) Patents are not natural law. Natural law does include a natural definition of ownership: you own that which you can defend and control. One of the prime problems of both patents and copyrights is that it is next to impossible to actually defend and control an *idea*. Once you let it out, anyone can implement it as they see fit. So in order to have actual patents that are upheld, you end up requiring a police state.
*Alternatively, you could choose not to uphold patents and copyrights completely -- to let the scofflaws get away with it. But now we conflcit with natural law in a different way: when you benefit the lawbreakers and bind the lawabiding, then you destroy respect for law in general. Thus, patents and copyrights are against natural law, too.
(3) Patents have nothing to do with capitalism. Patents are used by large companies to enable them to steal from smaller companies, while preventing the smaller companies from competing. This is done through many means, including that point that (A) every patent is breakable, (B) Patents can only be enforced through lawsuit, but the appeals process makes it beneficial for the big-money entity to keep the lawsuit in appeal until the smaller entity breaks (C) Patents are a way that companies and universities can steal the ideas of their employees, and have it upheld in court, before the employee has even had the idea.
But if you undermine small companies in favor of big companies, then you undermine the very basis of capitalism, which encouragest money to be spread around through many industries. Indeed, you have corparchy (corporate monarchy).
Everything having to do with patents thus violates not only the spirit of free enterprise, laissez faire, liberty, and true capitalism, as well as undermining basic law and order.
So if patents are not natural law, not common law, and not capitalist, what are they?
They are essentially an attempt to enslave -- an attempt by one person to say "for your right to live, you owe me profits." This has been done since time began; as one Southerner I know said, "Blacks and moralists complain about slavery, but they forget that the slavery was necessary for our economy, and necessary for us to have the lifestyle we have. In the same way, such people complain about the IMF, but forget that the IMFs milking of 3rd world countries is *necessary* for us to have the lifestyle we need."
In other words, there is always a demand for slavery.
That being said, I completely condemn the slavery of the blacks in America. I completely condemn the slave labor of the Jews by the Nazis. I completely condemn the ongoing colonialism and theft from 3rd world nations by the IMF. And I do condemn the latest attempt by some "businessmen" in our communities to enslave their countrymen for their benefit.
In each case, what you are seeing is a brand of evil -- the idea, best expressed by Mephistophles in _Faustus_, "If I cannot be everything, then I would that there was nothing." Such evil does eventually destroy itself, for ultimately nobody can be everything.
[Note: In spite of my term "condemn", I do not advocate violence of any form. Ever. I am a Chrisstian, and Christ -- who was more fit to rule by force than any, if he chose -- instead arranged it so that he would have to rebuke his disciples for *defending* with force at his arrest. Thus, I cannot support violence even in the cases of self-defence much less politics. Rather, my condemnation is to say that people who go along with this are destroying themselves, and not only will I *not* help them, I will be unable to help them, and it is not my responsibility. If you dislike what you see happening, move to a country that is not part of this, and then work as hard as you can to build up that country. Such countries do exist. For more help, try www.escapeartist.com . They helped me.]
Does anyone here _seriously_ believe that a lawsuit like this has any chance _whatsoever_ in court?!?
By all means, let them go to court. You don't even need a lawyer, the judge will LAUGH them out of court before they can say 'blueberry pie'
[Note I am not a lawyer, all this should be checked with a lawyer before doing anything.]
[Note also that I have not checked out whether this entire news item is true. Nor am I going to bother. But if this type of thing happens, here are the things *I* would look into trying:]
* Spend the effort to check out the basic patent. If they claim they have a patent, they should have given the patent number. Order the patent from the US patent office (public library's address, not what they give you) and read it yourself. If it doesn't look valid, or if they won't provide a patent number, ignore them. Oh yes--it has to be a patent already existing, not "patent pending".
* If there *is* a patent out and it looks like it might be applicable, see if you can demonstrate public usage / or publication of the patented items before the submission date of the patent. If so, the patent is already broken right there. If it is broken, ignore them.
* If they still issue a lawsuit against you, give them the option to pay for your legal defenses, with a law firm of your choice. Point out that what they are really fighting for is a precedent, and you are simply fighting to not be mugged. If they really think that their patent can be upheld, then they may well choose to pay for your defense. At that point, you have the option of going or just buying out -- but it looks a lot more serious if they are willing to pay the cost of your defense.
* If they won't pay the cost of your defense, join up with the other defendants and then together give them the option to withdraw the suit. Point out that you can try to have the lawsuit dismissed with prejudice, which would shut down their scam entirely. Also point out that if you file a countersuit, you will also be filing for harassment against the guys who own the company -- not just the president, but also the limited partners. I am guessing that this can be done if it can be demonstrated that the basic purpose of the company was an illegal purpose. Mugging through the court system is probably still illegal. Check with a lawyer on this one.
* For those who have already paid, they may want to join in a common suit, but with them alleging fraud.
Slashdot kiddies, on my signal, Un1345h |-|311
How about doing nothing. Let the legal letters come. Let them knock on your door. Skip the court date. When the police come, let them arrest you. Then sue because the company had put you through all that crap for using text and images on a website. Hell, maybe it's different for businesses, but I'd just do nothing. I'd be silent and dead weight. Or better yet....
Call their e-mails to you (and I'm assuming they e-mailed you commentary?) unsolicited. Sue with the spam laws.
If one is going to submit a question to SlashDot, one ought to include a question. All I see is ranting and statements.
Did anyone notice specific pages at panIP displaying server error pages?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
The French Minitel was used for ecommerce and online banking in the middle of the 80s. Finding an article in the press about it should be pretty easy.
I'm sincerely wondering if this is a hoax. As of 8:44 am EST 05/14/2002, the PanIP webpage has a ton of bad links. The Legal Disclaimer is 404, and so is the Company Background, Company Information, Patents Granted, one of the patent links, Choosing a Stock Portfolio, and A Case for Patent Citation Analysis in Litigation (huh??).
Furthermore, the site looks like it was done by an elementary school student.
If it is a hoax, maybe it was done in the spirit of the "humouse" we heard about on slashdot earlier this week.
And tell him/her how many jobs will be lost if these extortionists get away with pounding you into the ground. You're just trying to have a business that brings lots of jobs for good hardworking people to the district, and then one of these leeches comes along and tries to trip you up. Also, point out that they could go after any number of other businesses in the district, as well. Does the congressman want all of the businesses in his district to pay blackmail to leeches? Nope, then fix the law.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
What if everybody here just started sending letters of complaint to root@panip.com, info@panip.com, etc... Flood their in-boxes with complaints!
You're Just Jealous Because The Voices Are Talking To Me.
It also says microprocessor. So put your site on an IBM zSeries mainframe running Linux :-)
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Here's an idea. Suck it up and fight the bastards in court. If you can't afford it, get a legal defense fund started. Countersue. If you just show up in court and show what a ridiculous claim this is, it may be thrown out right away.
Or, you can just let yourself be bled white by them until someone else does it for you. I would call that "short-term thinking", myself.
It is worth checking out:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
It's an organisation set up by the EFF and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and University of San Francisco law school clinics. It proffers some help on matters such as these.
Sounds interesting...got some linkage you could share to elaborate?
After some searching on Google, it looks like he's probably referring to these cases, both of which involve attorneys filing patent infringement lawsuits without adequately investigating the infringement claims first:
Judin v. United States (1997)
Antonious v. Spalding (2002)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
454-4475
E. D. G. E., Inc.
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171
US
Domain Name: PANIP.COM
Administrative Contact:
Hosting Customer info@edgeinc.org
E. D. G. E., Inc. Hosting
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171-2911
US
Phone: 800.695.1651
Fax: 619.839.3860
Technical Contact:
Hosting Customer info@edgeinc.org
E. D. G. E., Inc. Hosting
P. O. Box 712911
San Diego, California 92171-2911
US
Phone: 800.695.1651
Fax: 619.839.3860
Record updated on 2002-02-06 19:54:29.
Record created on 2000-03-06.
Record expires on 2004-03-06.
Database last updated on 2002-05-14 13:49:20 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.EUR.MKSECURE.COM 213.130.162.14
NS.NYC.MKSECURE.COM 216.82.175.10
NS.SAT.MKSECURE.COM 209.61.158.220
Register your domain name at http://www.bulkregister.com
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
A Case for Patent Citation
.03% (23rd out of 70,590 patents) of patents in 1978.
Analysis in Litigation
a
n
I
P
Table of Contents
Credits
Introduction
Citations to Pioneer Class Patents and the Doctrine of Equivalence
A Current Example
References
Prepared for Law Works
by
Anthony Breitzman, Ph.D.
and
Francis Narin, Ph.D.
CHI Research, Inc.
10 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
The authors wish to acknowledge the suggestions and contributions of Lawrence B. Lockwood in the development of these ideas, and the U.S. National Science Foundation for research grant support in developing these patent citation techniques.
February 5, 1996
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the last decade the use of patent citation analysis has been steadily expanding in the competitive intelligence community, where the occurrence of highly cited patents is used to identify and analyze inventions likely to be of technological importance.
In this brief paper we will take these ideas further, and show why there is reason to believe that the basic concept of patent citation analysis can also be used quite effectively in a very novel application of citation analysis to patent litigation. The argument is based on the fact that most patents that have been given "Pioneer" status by the federal courts are very highly cited by later patents. We will make the argument that very highly cited patents, patents of "Pioneering Class" citation frequency, may be entitled to a broad interpretation of their claims, as are Pioneer patents.
The basic idea behind patent citation analysis is that when a U.S. patent is highly cited, cited on the front pages of 20 or more subsequently issued patents, that highly cited patent is much more likely to represent an important invention than is a patent that is not cited, or cited only a few times. For example, the average citation frequency for all U.S. patents is about five cites per patent, and only 3 percent of patents are cited more than 20 times in 20 years.
From a technological viewpoint, the notion of importance for a highly cited patent has been validated in a series of published studies. For example, it was shown in a paper published in the early 1980's that patents associated with IR100 awards that "honors the 100 most significant new technological products -- and the innovators responsible for them -- developed during the year" are more than twice as highly cited as other patents issued in the same years and in the same technologies. (1)
A subsequent study done at Eastman Kodak laboratories showed that patents that were highly cited were rated as having far more technological importance than patents that were less frequently cited. (2) More recent studies have also shown that pioneering patents are cited six times as often as typically expected, and that historically important patents and patents listed in the Inventor's Hall of Fame are also cited many times as often as other patents issued in the same years. All of these findings support the notion of the technological importance of the inventions represented by highly cited patents. (3)
This idea that high citation in patents is indicative of technological importance is, of course, quite similar to the underlying statistical idea of science citation analysis, -- that highly cited scientific papers contain important advances and are therefore markers of significant scientific contribution. (4)
II. CITATIONS TO PIONEER CLASS PATENTS AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENCE
The idea that high citation and pioneering status are associated arose in a discussion between the authors and a local patent attorney who, when presented with extensive evidence for the technological importance of highly cited patents, said that if pioneering patents designated by the Federal Courts are also highly cited, then from a legal viewpoint he thought this technique would have credence. We then located a set of 29 pioneering patents, counted how many times each was cited from all patents issued since 1975, and compared that count with the average citation frequency for all patents in the same years as the pioneering patents. Since the average number of times patents are cited depends on the age of the patents -- older patents have, of course, more years to accumulate citations than newer patents -- this data is best presented as a ratio of how frequently a set of patents is cited, divided by the average citation frequency for all patents in the same year. Figure I shows the citation frequency ratio for 29 pioneering patents compared to average patents in the same years, as well as for two other sets of patents, patents listed in the Inventor's Hall of Fame, and patents designated as historically significant by the U.S. Patent Office. (5,6)
All three sets of selected patents are obviously much more highly cited than average (a typical ten year old patent has been cited five times), with pioneering patents cited on average six times as frequently as typical patents, leading us to believe that there is a strong statistical association between pioneering patents and high citation frequency, just as there is a strong statistical association between high citation in patents and their technological importance, and high citation in papers and their scientific significance. For example, Garfield, (creator of the Science Citation Index) identified scientists with extremely highly cited papers as "Nobel class" because their papers were cited as highly as those of Nobel laureates, whose papers are quiet extremely highly cited on average. (7)
We suggest that if a patent is cited many times by later patents, this is an indication that it has had a major effect on later technology, and thus may be analogous in its impact to legally designated "pioneer patents", in the following sense:
"The very term 'pioneer patent' signified that the invention has been followed by others. A pioneer patent does not shut, but opens the door for subsequent inventions" (Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer - Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., May 9, 1898).
Thus a patent of "Pioneering Class" in terms of citations, it can be argued, should be entitled to a broad interpretation of its claims just as is a pioneer patent. This could be quite important in light of the recent Federal Circuit Court decision (Hilton Davis). (8)
Moreover, the Hilton Davis ruling said that a jury, not a judge, should be the final arbiter of whether patents are equivalent. Citation analysis provides an objective, quantitative, and straightforward procedure for an attorney, representing the inventor whose patent has been allegedly infringed upon, to make the case to a jury that his client's patent is important, and such infringement has occurred.
III. A CURRENT EXAMPLE
To illustrate this point we took each of the patents listed in the "recently filed Patent & Trademark cases" section of the October 1995 issue of Law Works, and did a very quick citation analysis of them. The Bristol-Myers Squibb patent 4105776, (Bristol Myers Squibb v. Royce Labs), invented by Ondetti and Cuslunan, granted in 1978 was by far the most highly cited of the groups, cited 165 times from the date of its issue in 1978 through September 1995. This patent is the single most highly cited issued in 1978, first in citation out of 70,590 patents issued in that year.
Figure 2 is a patent citation diagram for that patent, showing each subsequent patent which cites to the Ondetti and Cushman patent. On that diagram the assignees whose patents cite this patent most frequently are shown together toward the center, and the assignees whose patents cite less frequently shown to the periphery. For simplicity only one line is drawn from each column of citations to the starting patent but, in fact, each and every patent listed cites directly to the Ondetti and Cushman patent, which has been cited 101 times by later Bristol-Myers Squibb patents, 16 times by American Home Products patents, and 48 times by patents assigned to 20 other companies or inventors.
Figure 3 shows the citation frequency distribution for all patents issued in the same year, 1978. Note the highly skewed distribution of citations to those patents. There are a large number of patents cited not at all, or only once or twice, and the average patent in that year is cited 5.6 times, whereas the Bristol-Myers Squibb patent has been cited 165 times, making it the most highly cited patent in that year. Even if the 101 citations to that patent from later Bristol-Myers Squibb patents are not counted -- which certainly would not be legitimate, since one measure of the importance of a patent to a company is whether it is cited in later patents from the same company -- the Ondetti and Cushman patent was still cited 64 times, which still places it in the top
Another way of looking at the citation rank of a patent is to look at it in the context of all patents in its class. For all patents currently in Class 514, issued from 1975 on, the citation frequency ranges from 165 for the Ondetti and Cushman patent, the most highly cited patent, down, of course, to zero. Figure 4 shows the 10 most highly cited patents in Class 514. The Bristol-Myers Squibb patent is, by far, the highest cited patent among the 489 patents issued in that class since 1975. To illustrate how impressive the 165 citations are, consider that the second highest cited patent in Class 514 has only 57 citations, and the average citation frequency of a patent in this class is 3.5. One of the usual objections about citation analysis is that sometimes patent examiners have pet patents that they tend to very frequently cite, limiting the significance of high citation. While this and other strange things occur in citations, this patent was cited by 33 different examiners in the grant of patents to 20 different companies. With such a diverse group of examiners citing this patent, it seems implausible to attribute the citations to anything other than the fact that the teachings of this patent are important prior art to the citing patents.
Furthermore, the PTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) specifically states, "The Examiner is not called upon to cite all references that are available, but only the best." (9) Therefore a highly cited patent such as this represents the collective opinion of numerous PTO examiners that this patent is among the best prior art. In other words, a highly cited patent is not just a patent with lots of citations: rather it is a patent that is repeatedly selected as representing the 'best' teaching in its field.
A rather similar case can also be made for the citation importance of the second of the patents listed in the patent and trademark cases section of the October 1995 issue of Law Works. That patent is assigned to Gilbarco Inc. (Subsidiary of General Electric PLC) for a "Vapor Recovery for Fuel Dispenser" and is in the courts as Gilbarco versus Tokheim. The patent was issued in 1991 and is classified into Class 141, and has been cited 29 times. Since it is quite recent, it could not possibly be cited as highly as the 1978 Bristol-Myers Squibb patent. Nevertheless, it is still a very highly cited patent. Twenty-nine citations puts this patent tied for 109th in citation frequency in 1991 -- out of 106,843 patents issued in 1991; it is in the top 0. I 0 percent of cited patents issued in 1991. Furthermore, among the 329 patents in Class 141 issued in 1991, it is the most highly cited patent.
In actual litigation there are a number of other characteristics of the highly cited patents that can be gathered for presentation. This type of evidence, accompanied by effective graphics, can potentially make a very convincing case for the importance of a patent. In the long run we expect that patent citation analysis will prove to be a boon to inventors, especially individual inventors and other holders of technologically important patents, who will benefit from this quantitative and objective evidence for the important contributions that their inventions have made.
REFERENCES
1. "Citation Rates to Technologically Important Patents."
Mark P. Carpenter, Francis Narin and Patricia Woolf. World Patent Information, 3, 4, 160-163, 1981.
back
2. "Direct Validation of Citation counts as Indicators of Industrially Important Patents."
Michael B. Albert, Daniel Avery, Paul McAllister, and Francis Narin. Research Policy, 20, 251-259,1991.
back
3. "Pioneer Patents are Heavily Cited by Later Patents."
CHI's Research, 4, 1, March, 1995.
back
4. "Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity."
Francis Narin. Contract NSF C-627, National Science Foundation. March 31, 1976. Monograph: 456 pp. NTIS Accession #PB252339/AS.
back
5. "The National Inventors Hall of Fame."
U.S. Department of Commerce, 77 p., 1993.
back
6. "List of Historically Significant Patents."
From Bill Brown, United States Patent & Trademark Office, Received January 3 1995.
back
7. "Do Nobel Prize Winners Write Citation Classics?"
Current Comments. 23, June 9, 1986.
back
8. "With Hilton Davis the Federal Circuit Takes the Doctrine of Fquivalents Back to Its Roots (with a View to the Future)."
Gary M. Hoffman and Eric Oliver. The Law Works, 2, 10, p.6, October 1995.
back
9. "Manual of Patent Examining Procedure." Section 904.2
Would any one like to invest in my new company.
The sole asset will be the following patent.
A method for protecting Interlectual Property (IP) by means of a centeralised body to ovesee the registration and search for 'pria art' that may invalidate said IP.
Initial investment will go towards astablishing said patent.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
True in this case. Uncivilized, out of control, the very image of the devil...
Oh, it is so much more comfortable to anchor in the harbor or ignorance than to set sail on the stormy seas of thought.
It's amusing to see the political censorship come out when a petty Slashdot moderation tyrant sees something he can't deal with - namely, the truth. You appear to be one of those "first thinkers" as I like to call them. Other people like to call them conservatives but they don't conserve much of anything except their own power. You'll never hear one say, "on second thought..." because they never get that far. The simple, oft repeated lie is easier for their minds to grasp than the truth which they will try to bury if anyone brings it to light as illustrated by the down-modding of my previous post as "Flame Bait." Obviously, it wasn't flame bait because it drew no replies thus disproving your moderation.
You can mod me down as often as you like because I could care less about Slashdot karma. What's more important to me is the freedom to express my views as guaranteed me by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You, on the other hand, appear to have no respect for the Constitution or freedom and would rather engage in the practice of censorship.
Go ahead, mod me down again. I'll just keep posting and we can have a little censorship tango in the spotlight. I've noticed that roaches really hate bright lights.
Here again is the true story behind the "Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" lie.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Patents offer ways for engineers and scientist to
steal and will not publish, patent or discuss his
ideas with anyone.
Space Propulsion Engine for Flying Saucer - New Physics
Rumor in Silicon Valley -
Inventor of 3D volume holographic optical storage
shopping his concept for Space Propulsion Engine
using Propellantless Mass to US and other countries.
for further look at biography background goto
www.colossalstorage.net
he is working in top secret and will not patent, publish or share concepts as he says no physicist or scientist he has ever studied or researched had this approach and knows his concept will work to give near light speed travel thru Galaxy with 500K/Miles per Hour
to start or 138 miles/sec. Nasa fastest time are 25,000 mile/hr or 3.9 miles/sec
he says it is a mankind first concept !!