Slashdot Mirror
Liquid Audio Sues In Pitiful Attempt to Appear Relevant
Emily writes: "Another case
of patent abuse similar to the PanIP nonsense previously reported in Slashdot. This time, it's Liquid
Audio suing geotargeting company Infosplit
over patent infringement. I read their patent,
it's hilarious! Liquid Audio basically received a patent for saying that a domain ending by "co.uk" is in the UK. More seriously, these lawsuits
represent a serious threat to innovation in this country."
Territorial determination of remote computer location in a wide area network for conditional delivery of digitized products
Abstract
Digital products are delivered to a client computer through a wide area network such as the Internet only upon determination that the client computer is located in a geopolitical territory, such as a country or state, for which delivery of the digital product is authorized.
A server computer estimates the geopolitical location of the client computer from the client computer's network address through contact information in a network address allocation database.
Alternatively, the server computer estimates the geopolitical location of the client computer from the client computer's custom name, e.g., domain name. The domain name itself can specify a country within which the client computer is located. Such can be conventional or can be parse according to ad hoc patterns developed by large, international organizations identified by a root domain name. In addition, contact information for the domain name can be retrieved and geopolitical territory information parsed from the contact information. A super-classification of the domain name can indicate a geopolitical territory. Records associating geopolitical territories with network address ranges are stored in such a manner that maximizes resolution within a cache of such records, perhaps at the expense of reduce efficiency but so as to maximum currency and accuracy.
It almost sounds like they patented the use of somebody else's leg work
[sigh]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
WPIDalamar recently filed a patent that covers "Determining people's location from their postal address". No prior art was found on this, and he intends to charge royalties to anyout who uses an address to travel to, ship items to, or explain directions.
This is an on-going thread in Slashdot which appears to be uncovering important info. Any chance we could arrange a Slashdot interview with either the Head of the Patent Office (or their main P.R. guy) or with the Senator heading up the Patent Office Committee (whatever that is)?
until I read this, I always wondered why spammers send mail about crap that is only available in the USA to me, when any fool with half an ounce of intelligence can tell from my address that I'm in the UK. Thanks for clearing this one up, /.!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I agree this is a stupid patent, but I don't think it is quite as simple as "co.uk means the computer's in the UK". There's an extra portion to the patent which goes one step further, which is determining whether or not the digital content can be transmitted to the computer in it's current geo-political location. In essence, it sounds like a method to allow the implementation of national data filtering. For example, if it's illegal to view adult materials in a country, this patent covers any method which is used to determine that the client computer is in that nation, and then goes on to prevent the data from getting there.
Granted, that's my interpretation and I'm not a patent lawyer. On the flip side, I don't see how this patent could ever be used by someone, because I think it could be circumvented too easily. If you go solely on hostname, you could probably fake that out. If you're depending on the computer to verify this information via hardware or software, someone could get around this (like region-free DVD players).
Their problems aren't entirely their own fault. Read all about it here
Basically, it seems that congress has been using the patent office as a source of income, draining off millions of dollars that would be spend reviewing applications- seems like a good 15-20% of the fees that companies pay aren't used for reviewing applications at all.
I'm not completely relieving the PO of blame, but it's something to think about anyway.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
10 A$="U.S.A";B$="Rest Of World"
20 Input "Where are you from?",IP$
30 If IP$ = A$ Then Print "Due to Copyright Resrictions you are not allowed to listen to or view this Liquid Audio Media!": GOTO 50
40 If IP$ = B$ Then Print "WTF? Only Patent Office fearing Americans may listen to or view this Liquid Audio Media! Not some godless pirates the likes of you! Away foul beasts!":GOTO 50
50 Print "Your Name has been entered into our database of repeat offenders. An agency ending in 'AA' should be visiting you shortly. Thank you."
60 End
Sorry I didn't comment the code very well...
I just don't see that working. The USPTO (or any patent office) are just a bunch of clerks when it comes to the crunch. There is simply no amount of training that will enable them to pick up an arbitrary patent application and say whether it's bogus or not. They *should* be able to check for basic prior art, obviously bogus filing and so on, but that's really all they can be expected to do without being omnipotent.
The only thing I can see working is that instead of simply rubber stamping it as "approved" at this point, it's stamped as "provisional". The patent can then go into a very public place on the PTO's site indexed under a variety of searchable keywords for peer review. That way the onus is on those who are going to be nailed by the patent to demonstrate applicable prior-art and expose wild claims for what they are. A failure to raise any suitable objections within a pre-defined period causes an automatic upgrading to "approved", while objections enter a pre-defined process of resolution.
You can't rush out and make your own filing, because it will, (unless you are patenting time travel), have to be submitted after the date of the provisionally approved patent. The filer of the patent can't complain about their information being exposed to the public, because patents are a matter of public record anyway. There are probably a few other safeguards an expert patent lawyer could devise too, but blaming the PTO is not the way to go.
Ever heard the saying "behind every sleazy lawyer is a sleazy client"? Clearly, behind every sleazy patent office is a sleazy patent applicant trying to abuse the system as well...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I am sorry but I take that rather personally.
;)
I am a patent examiner working for the European Patent Office and we operate somewhat differently from the USPTO. For a start, we spend MUCH more time researching a patent (2-3 times as much or more). Secondly we have a much bigger database and full external access to many more.
Then there's this *new* thing the USPTO has started to do - which everyone else has been doing for ever, which is to publish a PATENT APPLICATION before it's been examined or granted. Thish gives people the opportunity (and the right) to submit to us any information they think might be relevant, if they so wish.
So to recap.
1. Patent Applications are published before being granted.
2. That's PUBLICLY published (just try our website
3. Most places (i.e. Europe, Japan etc) do actually spend a decent amount of time on a search and, in our case using the largest, fully indexed knowledge database available (The USPTO are trying to buy our system).
4. Please don't tar all of us with the USPTO brush. We all know they are crap - that's why most Americans ask the EPO to examine their internations patent applications.
hohum
Troc
PS I am happy to do some sort of question/answer thing about this if you want.
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
Like many of you, I'm a (lifetime) student, a CS Major and a hobbyist. I love computer science, physics and math (in that order). I write software for grocery money (independent of some corporate entity..), do network administration and high-level training (i.e. teaching an IT department how to use samba.. etc). I'm also into hobby electronics, amateur robotocs, etc. As an individual inventor/hobbyist it is hard to see the US patent system as a means of anything but reinforcing corporate interest. There are only four possibilities, really:
1. Hobbyist has patent, Company has patent. This one plays out in court. Likely, who has the most money wins. At the very most for the hobbyist, I'll bet you the ruling says the hobbist and the company developed the same thing independently.
2. Hobbyist has patent, company doesn't but is granted patent. Again, this one will probably play out in court. The hobbyist is more favored, but legal representation matters.
3. Hobbyist has no patent, Company has broad umbrella patent. Again, it plays out in court. What are the chances the court would decide that the hobbyist independently invented?
4. No one has patents. This one is tough, though usually the company in question applies for a patent then initiates legal action with the hope that by the time it comes to trial, they will have been issued a patent. (findlaw)
See a recurring theme? As a hobbyist, I worry about being brought into court, for no good reason, based on some good idea I have. I can't afford that. Its a drain on the soul as well as the coffer. I also get the feeling that I have to prove I'm innocent of alleged patent violations. It tends to make me bitter, and no longer a jubilant inventor. Whats worse, I'm told that if I invent something independently and realease it to the community I can be held accountable for abitrary amounts that represent "losses" in revenue of the patent holder if they make a strong enough case. Review the Ogg vs. Mp3 initial corporate statements that were tantamount to "Yeah, they may have worked independently, but this mathmusic thing is so complex, they must have ripped us off. No one would think of that!" Fortunately, I'm still a poor student and have nothing anyone could take.
Baubles to you and I, in the hobbyist electronics/software algorithm sense, are incomprehensible to the court, and just about any argument can be made as to what they are, how complex they are, and how reasonable it would be to argue that a particular patent is a logical conclusion of other thoughts or a completely original thought.
Heh, we have a whole book, called the "guidelines" it's a public publication which you can download from our website (convention, guidelines). Essentially, a novelty destroying document is one which discloses all the features of a claim (or invention) in a single embodiment or example. This can be another patent or any prior publication from anywhere - as long it was public knowledge at some point ;)
Usually we have to challenge inventive step - in this we argue that something isn't inventive because someone skilled in the art (but with no inventive ability) WOULD combine the knowledge of two different documents to arrive at the concept.
I know its dry and boring (as are all legal texts) but iy you get a chance, our guidelines and the European Patent Convention do have some info ;)
Personally I feel a little cheated if (and this is rare) I don't find a set of prejudicial documents during a search ;)
Then I don't work in computing and crap like that.......
Troc
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
And this is why we employ specialists (usually with PhDs in their field) for a partcular field. Most of us are published.
/. (many years ago) I was a research scientist.
/. questions.
i.e. the cat-flap specialist (and we have some!) won't get quantum mechanical applications. So, yes, we do have quantum physicists here. Ones who have worked at Cern. We also have fully trained, industrially adept biochemists etc etc. Just look at our recruitment requirements (the requirement to speak, read and write technical English, French and German is a toughie)
The USPTO do have specialists too, however they don't specialise to such a degree - but their main problem is they are given no time for a search due to workload. Together with a shit approach to software patents it's true.
So we don't make arbitraty judgements, people are hired to fit the niche they know and are specialists in and we are encouraged (conferences etc) to remain fully up to date in our field of expertise. When I joined
Troc
PS (again) to anyone like Rob... if you want to organise a Q&A session I will happily answer the
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
because the US patent system has some real flaws
Such as the fact that it's in the best interest of lawmakers to encourage numerous patent filings (regardless of legitimacy) because the Office of Management and Budget can shuffle funds from the patent filing fees (which are supposed to hire and support engineers, scientists, researchers, etc. to verify claims) into the general fund. Worse, there's little oversight since none of the fees are taxpayer dollars so they fall under the radar. When you need some extra cash for your pet project this sort of thing is great.
How much money are we talking about? The USPTO receives zero taxpayer dollars -- its entire budget is based on its fees. The fees amount to $710 to file an application, $1,240 due at issuance, followed by periodic maintenance fees of $850 due 3-1/2 years post-issue, $1,950 at seven years, and $2,990 at year 11. These fees are reduced by about half for independent inventors and small companies.
The fees are supposed to nearly exactly track the actual costs of maintaining patents and paying researchers. However, when Congress can freely dip into the pool for cash it's not hard to see why they resort to retarded monkeys that wouldn't know prior art if it crawled up their ass and died.