Slashdot Mirror
Patent Cases Hurting Small Businesses
smudge writes "An Information Week article states that multiple small businesses with Web presence are being sued by PanIP LLC. The claims in these patents being asserted in the lawsuits refer to 'a
computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services' and 'an automatic data-processing system for processing business and financial transactions between entities from remote sites.'"
Fucking patents!
Yeah, you heard that right, kiddies! I've got a fucking patent! You can't fuck without infringing on my goddamn intellectual property! Kiss my ass! All your roylaties are belong to my giant-ass, motherfucking bank account!
Kiss my balls, motherfuckers!
Are you experienced?
I'd think any patent that uses phrases like "a variety of" is too vague.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
Please explain.
Available NOW from your friendly Federal Government!
"The patents, No. 5,576,951 and No. 6,289,319, cover, respectively, an "automated sales and services system," and an "automatic business and financial transaction-processing system."
Vending machines anyone?
Jason Lotito
Patent abuse should really be punishable. I mean, patents were made to stifle innovation, they were made to promote it. Now we've got every tom-dick-and-harry patenting blatently prior art things, or just commonplace market things, and attempting to sue people out of existance.
Let's just make it that if you patent something that is reviewed, and sounds like a dug-headslap type thing - you get a toenail pulled out with a pair of pliers. On severe cases - just bring back public stoning (no, not drug induced bliss - bludgeoned to h*ll with big fu***** rocks) for the offending numbskull, and his/her lawyer.
Too bad these people seem so be trying to get their money from suing others rather than perfecting the magic of E-commerce, which they basically claim to have invented.
It seems that the disease that is PanIP has been spreading...
Namely - any store or business with a cashier.
Some one needs to phrase the job of the US Patent office really vaguly and then get a patent on it. Then sue the patent office for patent infringement.
hmmm, wonder if i could make this into a business plan and get some VC behind me...
Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do - Lew of GO magazine
The patents PanIP bases its lawsuits on were granted-the first in 1996 and the second last year-to Lawrence Lockwood, now a principal of PanIP...(etc)
WTF. One of these patents was granted LAST YEAR? Hmm, oh no, there were NO e-commerce sites LAST YEAR. There is no PRIOR ART. PAY UP EVERYONE.
is 1996 seem a little to recent to have a good claim for a patent? now if it had been around 1990 then sure I could see how they think they have a good patent, but 1996!!! my god....businesses were doing web sales for a few years before these yokels said "hey that sales system is not patented..."
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Fucking money grubbing gluttons these people. But that is the nature of our fine democracy isn't it. Can't get out the image of our president given a speech on patents a few days ago out of my head. This case truly highlights the weakneses in out patent system. Unless, of coarse, the claims these PanIP people lay prove fruitless, as I suspect they will. And if they don't I'm moving to canada.
im a hippie
A Google Cache of a site by those being sued can be found here... It brings up several interesting questions...
Seems their site doesn't actually exist (www.panip.com was the link in a previous Slashdot article that mentioned PanIP). Think they may have taken it down because they have NO FUCKING PURPOSE IN THIS WORLD?
Web patents are exteremly lame.
- Amazon 1 click shopping for example (I know this is old news, but gawd damn).
While they're at it they should patent, hovering over "a href" tags, or utilizing bold statements for emphasizing a title.
Trying to place patents on web sites / ecom, is about as effective as pothole fixing in NY.
R4NT.com - A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
Better pony up some protection money.
Can you imagine if this lawyering tactic and blatant abuse of an overburdened patent office had taken place 150 years ago. I could patent things like "a way to use electricity for an artificial light source" and then I could have sued Edison or perhaps I could have patented "a method of towing freight along metal rails" and the railroad and locomotives would have been sued into non-existence. Its insane.
.
I want to patent frivolous lawsuits!
Heh... I'd get as rich as BillyG in a year from
South Florida alone!
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Please file a protest for patents 6,289,319 and 5,576,951
c /mpep/document s/0841.htm#sect1901.01
"1901.01 Who Can Protest
Any member of the public, including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a protest under 37 CFR 1.291. A protest may be filed by an attorney or other representative on behalf of an unnamed principal since 37 CFR 1.291 does not require that the principal be identified."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pa
Jason Lotito
I seem to recall not allowing patents that were "utilitarian in nature" listed somewhere in law...I don't remember exactly where though. Might not even have been US law, but if anyone knows where this was from, let me know...now I'm curious.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
And yet another part of the article bothers me...
It seems scarry how some coperation may potentially come after me, for me using a system I invest a mild amount of trust in, just because I -trust- the system. They coming after me, just so they can use me as a stepping stone to attack E-bay is even MORE frightening.
And I was scared using my credit card online.... This may cause much worse damage.
I develop web sites for small businesses, many of them ecommerce or that move some business services to the web,
do I just go to all of my clients and say "Oh btw, this technology is patented, it will cost $5000 more to build the site"?
the patent license alone is more than 5 times what I normally charge for a site design. This is ridiculous.
In the United States, people currently can sue each other for any reason and any thing, and usually win, thanks to the corrupting influence of trial lawyers in Washington, DC.
There is hope, however; tort reform is taking storm in many states, and it's preventing such frivolous lawsuits from taking place.
If you don't want these small businesses to be persecuted, then drop the keyboard and write your state and federal Congressmen by snail-mail and demand that he or she fight in the Capitol for real, meaningful tort reform.
Don't wait until tomorrow -- do it now!
Thing is, its not just the USPTO - crappy patents have been allowed all over the world. Do a patent search on microencapsulation some time - its almost funny how much crap has been accepted for process patents that are painfully, painfully commonsense practices. The whole thing has become a farce.
Fuck you, taco hell!
1. one doesn't need to be making sense to get a patent. you can find a patent relates to a algorithm that 'can compress arbitary data by at least 1 bit' (note that this results in compression of anything to 0bit (or even less.) upon recursion.
2. revocation of patent is possible but usually impractical since this requires a lot of time and money (ask your peear who's doing as a law costs draftsman and they'll tell you that.)
3. Somebody would tell you the availability of the overseas outsourcing possibility. this is still vulnerable as your business model does not change. you can help, however, if your company is based on somewhere which is not on the states though.
4. Now, IAPNAL (this P stands for presumably) The heart of the case lies on the word 'automated' with its relationship to prior art.
5. What we can do is write to progress (oh no, congress) to get somebody proposes a new patent system.
There's a presumption of validity with patents (because they've gone through the examination process). In other words, a patent is presumed valid until it's challenged in the courts and found invalid. However, the examination system is so inadequate that there are probably a large number of granted patents that don't deserve the presumption of validity. That's small comfort to those threatened with bad patents and who may find it cheaper and easier to simply capitulate.
Seems to me that the solution is somewhat obvious, and implied in the article. It is likely that they will try to sue some of the big players with deep pockets if they can collect enough in settlements. Don't you think Amazon would be well served to help these little guys squash this thing in the first round before it gets any momentum.
Website: "Ok sir your order for CowbowNeal: Space Explorer has come to a total of $39.99!"
Customer: "Wow, what a deal! Slashdot was selling for $1999.99!"
Website: "Oh, I'm sorry, we also require you pay $1960 in order for us to cover the processing patent just like Slashdot."
Customer: "Erm...what?"
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeros.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
good idea brain. pinky will follow. where do we start?
im a hippie
Lots of greased palms have passed over/in/around the US patent office. It's got to be pretty damn slippery by now. Not surprising that various bottom of the dirtbag foodchain have eventually discovered that they too can slither around the lubricated passageways just as speedily as the original corporate trailblazers who laid down the first slime trails.
Patent office seems to have been compromised. It will continue to do more damage than good until it is either fixed or shut down. But that probably won't happen. If you take a close look at just about any government office these days, you'll find they are tasked to things other than what one might expect. Department of transportation has been compromised by the insurance companies and whoever makes those red light cameras. FDA compromised by drug, chemical, and food producers.
You might look at the patent office as a hologram or a fractal. Get a good look at it, and you'll see a good representation of just about any other governemnt office these days. Just a smattering half hearted effort towards whatever the office was originally tasked for, with the rest of it duties spread out to the highest bidder, political buddies, family, friends.
Here's an easy one for ya. Whatever your state is, go to the seceratary of state's homepage, or your governers homepage. Is that page about the business of the severatary of state, or of the governor? Or is it just a thinly veiled advertising machine for whatever reelection or personal ambition they might have? Are their pictures plastered all over the place, with glowing stories about all the nice things they've done, and what great people they are?
This is our entire country, going to pieces from the inside out, like swiss cheese with growing holes.
If you read the patents that are the basis of the lawsuit the case has no merit. The patents are for video loan terminals, not internet business. I don't know how the two are the same?
...
pant pant pant
[/end_rant]
I noticed recently that Monster.com has a patent on online job boards (5,832,497). I think they might have a valid claim here but I was wondering whether there had been any controversy about it. Do all the other job sites pay them money? Anyone know?
It boggles the mind to think about what kind of qualification process would keep letting through all sorts of patents that any semi-competent engineer would recognize as obvious and/or prior art. Maybe it is just easier to rubber stamp the applications so they can get to the bar early.
"revocation of patent is possible but usually impractical since this requires a lot of time and money"
So, what is Amazon and E-bay doing in order to invalidate these ridiculous patents??
The USPTO needs major reform and funding. Next time your congressman/senator gives themselves a pay-raise, think again when election time rolls around... are they really thinking of the people, or themselves?
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
OK, Amazon.com, Buy.com, bn.com, and anyone else who wants in should set up a fund to hire someone to club the kneecaps of everyone involved in this stupid, stupid lawsuit. My usual style would be to hit them in the face with a frying pan, since it is almost impossible to misinterperet that action as anything other than sheer and utter revulsion and hate, but sometimes the frying pan just doesn't do the job.
I mean, seriously. This is one of those 'just when you had accepted the fact that things couldn't get any more stupid or pointless, you were harshly proven wrong' things. I'm going to patent candy and beachballs and start collecting royalty payments from kids, those pathological users of unlicensed intellectual property... (No, don't even try and apply logic to that one. Trust me, don't.)
I'm ready to put in $20 for the hitman. Who is with me? Hey, it worked for the blender source code.
(OK, I'm not an evil person. I really just wish they would drop the lawsuits and grow a spine and some clue. That would be far preferable to having to spend money on a hitman. I mean, uh, I hope nothing bad happens to them. But I'll probably smirk if something does. No, wait... If the police ask, I had nothing to do with it. Yeah, that's the ticket...)
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
Well, we could start with anti-spam technologies. That would hit outlook client/server. Next, we could patent secure code -- the patent office will grant just about anything. And so on and so forth.
From the article, it appears that they are filing suit on random small companies
just to get themselves on higher ground to go after bigger fish.
For once I'd love to see one of these lawyers forced to file suit against one of their parents.
Imagine one of these lawyers had a mother running a small website selling knitted sweaters.
"Im sorry mom, but mister bigshot made me do it!
I never would have sued you, but he made me! I swear!"
Any company that goes after little mom and pop shops for patent violations should have its upper management gagged and tortured.
I just cant believe this kind of legal abuse..
Whats going to happen next?
Are people going to just pick people at random and sue them for looking at them funny?
Ohh wait, they allready do that.
Our legal system has completely gone to shit.
Would it be any better if the patent office had never granted these patents in question? I think not.
Perhaps I should file a patent for a method of protecting ideas and sue the patent office.
Or possibly file a patent covering the actual filing of lawsuits and sue all the lawyers!
I think an overhaul of our legal system and patent review process is way overdue.
If I can file a lawsuit against any random person at will, with no legal basis what so ever,
there is definately something wrong.
Likewise, if I can file a patent for something thats been in use since the beginning of time,
(Like, say, copy a chapter out of a highschool science textbook dealing with nuclear fusion in stars) and have it granted,
There is definately something really wrong.
Now, If we combind the two, and I file suit against everyone for "ilegally" reciving light from "my" solar fusion device,
Something isn't wrong... Its completely fucked.
This is where we currently stand.
What a shame.
-Una
Why even have patents? Call 'em trade secrets. If someone can figure out what you did and do it better, faster, cheaper, and easier, tough luck, it's their achievement.
Think about it for a moment. What are the long-term results of what we see here? Patents are supposed to foster innovation by offering protection. This innovation, in turn, is intended to support capitalism and all of the nifty inventions we see every day. What we are now seeing is that _abuses_ of the patent system are feeding off of the energy provided to capitalism in the first place! What do you think will happen? Could it reach a point that businesses will be less willing to produce products for fear of litigation (one business already has, according to the article)? If so, what is the threshold of this point, and what forces could we emphasize in opposition to it?
I don't want to see innovation stifled "in the name of IP" leaving us with a modern version of the Dark Ages. With the increasing emphasis of individual or corporate profit (Enron, WorldCom, et. al) to such levels that it tips the balance of capitalism, perhaps it is possible that the contribution of individuals and small business to the GNP could decrease significantly.
Remember what fueled the Dark Ages (AD 500 - 700) - fear of prosecution/persecution. How is that different from what we see here?
I understand he choked on a chicken bone
is there any way to patent the process of patenting? I think that would solve a lot of this.
Has anybody ever mentioned GATS or TRIPS here? :)
How about from the no-shit-sherlock-thanks-watson dept.
Seriously folks, these issues have been discussed before, and the most prominent of problems has been identified that the patent system was funded by -- and for -- large corporations. What small business is going to have the kind of funding needed to defend a patent against a large corporation?
Additionally, a small business that knows it has rights on a patent issued by a large corporation is going to have a difficult time proving it -- financially, at least.
Patents should only protect those who actually spend money and time on research and development. What's the cost of "inventing" e-commerce. Plus. the idea behind e-commerce is not non-obvious to begin with. You should be making money out of your idea, not your patent. There's difference.
The PanIP seems to be runningn apache, so they can't be all evil. ;) Seriously, the website seems to be showing the index page for the empty web directory - go check it out - there is one link "stats" - which doesn't allow access without a password. First person to crack their site and put up some proof (e.g. "we are blood sucking vampires") gets all my karma, respect, and a vitual beer.
XML causes global warming.
How about patenting the "methodoloy of patenting sensless garbage in efforts to extort money from the so-called infringers."
I think it would be brilliant! But unfortunatly i don't have the $10,000 to $30,000 it would take to get the patent. Oh well.
P.S. - PanIP, don't even THINK about patenting this one, baby. Prior arts!!!
At a minimum, the government should legislate that the patent holder must prove there is a 'case to answer' before any defendents have to touch their wallets. Maybe small businesses should even be exempt from patent claims altogether.
This whole thing reminds me of a recent set of high-profile cases where Australian local councils paid $100,000s for people tripping on a crack in the sidewalk!
Once people figured out that it was generally cheaper for councils to pay them $10k to shut them up than to fight the claim, everyone jumped on the bandwagon, hoping for a 'lottery win' payout.
The patent system will remain broken until the 'lottery win' mentality no longer applies.
-- Askari: Give JavaScript the bird.
Most (if not all) of these bad patents we have been reading about lately in the news have to do with human leaches trying to get money without working for it (the lawyers do all the work).
It's easy. For patents just come up with some broad, utterly asinine idea that people have been doing long enough that people will not stop.
This works for the same reason that sending a bill for $15 to a large business works; the company will pay the small fee because it is cheaper to do so than to investigate every questionable bill.
With these bad patents, if the price is low enough then most companies will pay the licensing fee instead of the greater cost to fight it in court.
The only solution that could work is getting the people working in the patent office a clue. How about some redundancy so it would take at least 3 people to review patent. That way if we can get at least one of those three to be a person who has common sence, problem solved!
Or is this just wishful thinking?
Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
This Lockwood guy sounds like a real pro. He's been at it for at least 10 years. He sniffs out broad new technological trends in business - the kind of thing you might read about in a Forbes article - and then cynically abuses the weakness of US Patent Law by patenting a vague expression of that trend. He never intends to produce anything with his "ideas"... he just slinks into his hole and waits for the real innovators to come along so he can extort money from them.
He's going to lose any court case--that's almost a given--but in the meantime he's hoping that enough of his small, carefully picked victims cave in and throw him $30k, or at least a few grand to make him disappear.
The key to wiping the smirk off his face is to make sure no more of his victims cave. Sure, lawyers aren't cheap, but the 30 companies have to realize that there is no way they can lose this disgusting and frivolous lawsuit, especially if they work together.
It's quite simple. These people have patented business. Therefore anyone conducting anything involving money, exchange of goods, transfer of property and/or information, owes them money. Yes, you even have to pay royalties on the transaction for paying them. Don't forget, that's recursive. Your bill approaches infinity as comprehension of what their lawyers are saying aproaches zero.
I think I'll patent "a way to modify files on hard drives so that they can be overwritten"
Then I'll sue microsoft and apple for their blatant use of my idea in what they call "delete"
Filing patents on obvious changes that are obviously required in future for many businesses. And sueing those businesses for cash. ;)
[And many variations of the thing, with future changes, I know exacly what I would put on few patents like that, but I don't wan't to give any precedence to that patent.]
AND LET THEM TASTE THEIR OWN MEDICIN
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Mod me down, too. please, i've been a very bad boy.
What they REALLY patented was pretty much *ANY* database. It even looks like a series of labelled pictures in a word document would violate the patent as written.
All it'll take is one person to take this to court to get the patents invalidated. They're atrocious.
paintball
Well actually it's: "an organic system for extracting and concentrating oxygen from gases present in the atmosphere".... Or am I full of hot air?
A system for the disabling of logical, rational thought; a system that creates random decisions and has no method of control or accountability?
:)
In other words... patent stupidity and sue the pants off these fuckers
-- "It's tough to run with both feet stuck in your mouth" - Zoe's evil side
I think that you would find that there is prior art on your claims.
Tort reform is also being sought by physicians to reduce the "malpractice lottery."
Nobody denies that medical mistakes happen... medicine is practiced by human beings, after all. The problem is that some people refuse to accept that sh*t happens in the course of medical care. Bad luck exists. A certain percentage of all procedures will develop post-op infections. Orthopedic pin sites for external fixators have about an 8-10% infection rate, REGARDLESS of what you do. Some people show up in the ER too badly injured to save.
The fact that a person dies or has a bad outcome is not presumptive evidence of malpractice... but too many people get sucked into the law firms that advertise on TV "Have YOU been injured? We'll get a settlement for YOU!" All that has to happen for a doctor to lose a case is for the jury to feel sorry for the plaintiff... Arrogant doctors make this MUCH easier for oppposing counsel. A little humility goes a long way.
The classical arguments against the "loser pays" reform efforts make a valid point... it may take away the poor man's access to the courtroom. Other efforts include arbitration boards. Whatever the answer, the current system needs help. Some OB/GYNs pay more for malpractice insurance that I make in a year... some neurosurgeons can't even GET insurance at all.
I think a limit on "pain and suffering" damages is a good place to start. Not to devalue anyone's suffering, but I don't think 10 Billion dollars is a reasonable figure.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
So please don't put all the blame on the patent examiners; while there are plenty of idiot examiners, a lot of this also has to do with bureaucracy's normal functioning: higher-ups trying to cut corners and save a buck.
Actually, I checked out the patents, they do use the word plurality, however :) ...
They're retarded. Both require that the 'textual' and 'graphical' content of the site be from a 'CD-ROM' or 'optical device'. I know of very few sites that do this. Additionally, the first patent defines that the device which essentially serves contents require a device for displaying graphical content. I guess the patent doesn't take into affect that some people host their shiznit on boxes without a monitor.
So, fear not the whores.
(I hope the lawsuits backfire on that blasted company)
in general older is better. There are good years (the sugar content is good) and bad years (the patent is quite flat and acidic). Vintage charts can be found in patent books.
The same tactics (not necessarily the same abuse) have occurred over the lifetime of the patent system. There was a previous /. story (I'm too lazy to look for it) about how patent litigation stifled the development of the airplane until in WWI the US government refused to honor the affected patents. Then innovation just took off, if you'll pardon the pun.
Also, I believe Edison had several patents covering the light bulb. (And thousands of patents covering other things.) It may be obvious to you but it was certainly not obvious in 1879.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
[Lawrence Lessig]a y/0,1151, 4296,00.htmld isplay/0,1151, 8999,00.htmlf orm_0300. html2 3202,00 .htmlt ycommen ts/patentreform.pdfv /os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/weller2.pdfe 04050001.htm 0 70 .cfm0 1.pdfo n/199.pdf
1 =PT 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.&OS=PN /5,576,951&RS=PN/5,576,951a tft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=6,289,319.WKU.&OS=PN /6,289,319&RS=PN/6,289,3190 2/jun/t hreat_by_lawsuit.aspo urnal.com/articles/eco mmerce/20021021.htmlc om/news/0205/15.patent .php
http://www.thestandard.com/article/displ
http://www.thestandard.com/article/
[Tim o' Reilly]
http://www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/patent_re
[Tried slowing it down in 2001]
http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,
[Robert Hunt]
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelproper
[Daubert]
http://www.ftc.go
[Business method patenting]
http://www.tilj.com/content/ipheadlin
http://www.imakenews.com/ecomma/e_article000021
http://www.thompsoncoburn.com/articPub/RCH0
[Alex Chartove]
http://www.akingump.com/docs/publicati
[5,576,951 ]
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect
[6,289,319]
http://p
[Guys being sued]
http://www.masterplumbers.com/plumbnews/20
http://www.microenterprisej
http://maccentral.macworld.
what are the current job reqs for the patent office? Do they have different division? Meaning is there a patent division for internet technology, a patent division for genetic pateneting, etc?
Decisions about patents are obviously being made by people who have no idea how these things work in their respective fields. Are they just checking the patent claims for grammer, and that all the checkbox's are filled in? We need people working there that actually have a vague idea of what is being patented. I dont understand how anyone semi tech-literate could allow these pass, hell I dont know how anyone literate could let these pass?
Imagine if people start claiming necessary carpentry skills like 'the process of putting a a variety of small steel spikes in a piece of wood' - that'll cover hammering, screwing, etc. Or 'method of subdividing wood into smaller pieces.' - sawing.
How is this any different?
I always wondered why the american patent system is so wierd. The european system is so very simple.
;-)
You invent, then you patent, then publish. When you first publish or try to patent something that already is commonly used, forget it. It's not your idea, you could have found it anywere, so no patent is granted. Easy, simple and stupid actions like this can be prevented.
BTW the legal system is pretty wierd to... is that why coffee cups state that coffee is hot... Overhere we complain when it's cold, coffee should be hot and a normal thinking person only drinks coffee when it's not to hot. WHen you burn yourself, you're to stupid to drink coffee. (but in america you're smart and start sueing the supplier)
IMHO these rules, in patenting and the law, really prevent the Joe Common to use it's brain... Wait a minit... america is producing the biggest army and will start to invade every country that still doesn't listen... that's it. Keep the people stupid so you can use them...
Be afraid... for hot coffee.
... Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
After reading the article, were I the only one wishing I had guns and drove over to visit them for a couple of hours ? (Think Leon here).
is what comes to mind when I read "a computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services"...
These small businesses should be able to defend themselves sans lawyer.
J
"Im sorry mom, but mister bigshot made me do it!
I never would have sued you, but he made me! I swear!"
This raises a point that I really am quite annoyed with.
A lawyer unless appointed by the court (criminal only) doesn't _have_ to take any case. It is their decision if they want to take it or not. Period.
Cost of representation and the number of stupid lawsuits in the courts can be directly attributed to the involved lawyer's greed.
I suppose that ethics gets thrown out the window immediately after being hired for some lawyers. (Most lawyers are nice people believe it or not.)
And don't give me any of that "they are just doing their job" or "giving their clients representation" crap. How many of these blantantly frivilous cases would be taken to court if a judge could order that the lawyer not be paid because they should have known better than to waste the courts time.
I'm disgusted with PanIP's lawyers. I hope that karma exists. If you know them personally, I would consider looking for new friends, etc.
IANAL - but IMHO there is prior art available that could turn these patents to where it belongs - /dev/null
Take a look here:
http://carnagepro.com/pub/Docs/MiniVend/
Quote:
"About Vend, MiniVend's ancestor
Vend was written by Andrew Wilcox in the early part of 1995, and the first released (beta) version was 0.2. Vend 0.2 is the parent of MiniVend, and the first version of MiniVend (called Vend 0.2m7) was totally based on that. It added searching and DBM catalog storage. Subsequent versions took parts from Vend 0.3, especially the VLINK and Server.pm modules, which were adapted to run with MiniVend.
The first release of MiniVend (0.2m7) was on December 28, 1995, making it over four years old. A veritable eon in web time!"
I would love to hear something from Andrew Wilcox (is he still at Akopia/Interchange?) about this.
From my european point of view I can only say that US patents again show to be just as ridiculous as US copyright protection. Gosh.
The PanIP Defendants web site mentioned in the article has a list of the 50 companies that have so far been sued by PanIP. Interestingly, despite the large number of e-commerce companies in California, none of the defendants are located in California.
Since the patent holder, PanIP, is located in San Diego the cases are taking place in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Since all of the companies being targeted are small out-of-state companies they are unlikely to already have an established relationship with an attorney licensed to practice in California. I wonder if PanIP is specifically targeting companies that are not in California, perhaps on the theory that out-of-state companies will be more likely to settle when faced with having to litigate a case far from home?
Biotech companies have been submitting patents of 140,000 pages in length. These may take some time to examine thoroughly.
Vagueness such as this rarely helps the plaintiff. Consider Claim 1:
Ordinarily, the preamble is not read into the claim, although it certainly can be in appropriate cases. But here --assuming, a bad assumption, that it actually serves as a claim limitation--, the addition of the words "a variety of" works to the detriment of the plaintiff. (Consider the fragment with those words deleted). In the absence of the language, the fragment is far broader, referring to all information, goods and services. With the language, which must be read to mean SOMETHING, a narrower set of possibilities is considered.
Does it mean: more than one thing, where each thing is either information a good or service; more than one thing, and different things, where each thing in one of the categories; or more than one thing, with things in two or more of the categories? Answers are found in the spec, the prosecution history and elsewhere, and it is stuff like this that gives defendants a chance.
I can point to dozens of door programs that did ALL this from back in the BBS scene days! Almost to the letter, you could post pictures of products, descriptions, enter customer data and take credit card info for processing , and all from a remote location. PanIP is full of the stuff. All we need is a deep pocketed benefactor, and we can lay this beast to rest forever. Any takers?
The Internet had so much potential to do away with stupidity such as this. The WWW could have and should have been a haven for free information exchange and open, borderless communication. Unfortunately, what we are left with is a big virtual shopping mall loaded with IP lawyers, con artists, and pervasive advertising. My how I wish the web were unencumbered by rampant commercialization.
This is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/116,654 filed Sep. 3, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,309,355 which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/396,283 filed Aug. 21, 1989, which is a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/152,973 filed Feb. 8, 1988, which is a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 822,115 filed Jan. 24, 1986, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 613,525 filed May 24, 1984, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,567,359.
This is also a continuation-in-part of abandoned application Ser. No. 08/096,610 filed Jul. 23, 1993, which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 07/752,026 filed Aug. 29, 1991 which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 168,856 filed Mar. 16, 1988, which is a continuation of abandoned application Ser. No. 822,115 filed Jan. 24, 1986 which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 613,525, filed May 24, 1984, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,567,359.
This is also a continuation of the combination of the above-cited applications Ser. No. 08/116,654 filed Sep. 3, 1993 and Ser. No. 08/096,610 filed Jul. 23, 1993
Apparently they had to try several times to get this shit patented. That in and of itself should say something about the merits of the 'patent'.
patenting the grocery store
hmm...
I think I will patent the act of rolling around in a bed (or floor, kitchen table, rooftop, etc) with a member of the opposite sex which results in the creation of another human life nine months after...
I'm going to be soooo rich!
I was implementing EDI 15-17 years ago.
I thought that if you wanted to enforce a patent, you needed to do it in every situation or not at all. Couldn't the companies being sued just argue that since they are not going after Amazon, Ebay, etc, they can not enforce the patent?
These are products designed for e-commerce in which Microsoft and IBM and have millions of patents. If you are licensing this software, you must be covered for patents. You need to check which patents you are already licensing as they may be enough.
Also, as soon as this firm tries to sue anyone big, their patents will be history.
Must've been "Bring Your Bong To Work" day...
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
You may only protest while its pending.... if you know about it.
that bathtub patent you referenced is a DESIGN patent. There are design patents for almost everything (you can find video game console designs etc). Design patents ONLY HAVE DRAWINGs.
Utility patents have drawings and a specification.
there is a big difference
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
I think the courts ought to charge the loser of these patent suits triple the cost of the judge, bailiff, overhead, etc. and have the residual profit go back to the taxpayers. The people involved in these disputes are tying up our courts' resources that could be used for real problems.
Of course, if the patent process actually worked for us I probably would have a different opinion.
...we need to go back to the time when you were required to submit a scale model of your patentable "invention" which would fit in a 12" cube and have all the relavent identifiable parts.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
the patent has an effective filing date of 1988!
Look at the parent applications, it has priority back to 1988, which is prior to the people selling chocololate over the internet and prior to a lot of other art.
The patent process is far more involved than people here seem to think it is. If people would actually read the claims and look at the priority information, they would realize that things aren't as ovbious as they think it is. Doing so is hindsight. If a patent has priority back to 1988, you have to use the art available to you in 1988, not 1996!
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Last year?!?! Granted, they are both stupid, but how could someone have managed to get a patent on a basic part of e-commerce last year? Did the patent officer reviewing this one live in a cave?
There's been a lot of talk about tort reform and how the little guy can't sue the big guy since, in a loss, they would probably have to pay the big guy's legal fee.
How about this to level the playing field:
The amount of damages to repay legal fees can be no more than the smaller of the plaintiff's legal fees or the defendant's legal fees.
Thus, if two similarly sized companies sue each other, the fees should be about the same. If a small company (or person) sues a big company, the big company can't allocate a team of lawyers to the small company's one lawyer and expect to get it back in a counter-suit.
Just an idea.
Compu$erve has had online job listings since nearly the beginning in 1979.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
Along came Henry Ford, who along with perfecting mass production of the automobile, busted the cartel and the ridiculous patents.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Anyone can challange an issued patent's validity without first being sued for infringement.
There are in fact expected changes to be implemented in this area of patent law that strengthens the ability to challenge patent validity (Its called an inter parties reexamination).
The main drawback to this approach is that if the patent is ruled valid as the result of an inter parties reexamination then the party that has requested the reexamination cannot challenge the patent's validity again in any subsequent infringement litigation.
President Bush is expected to soon sign legislation that contains fundamental changes to existing patent reexamination procedures. The legislation would allow reconsideration during a reexamination proceeding of prior art references cited in or considered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) during the original prosecution of the patent undergoing reexamination. The pending legislation would also allow third parties in inter partes reexamination proceedings to appeal adverse decisions to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
THE PENDING LEGISLATION
Recently, the Senate approved amendments to the patent laws, similar to amendments previously passed by the House of Representatives. The House and Senate versions of the patent law amendments were reconciled in conference, and attached to H.R. 2215, 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorizations Act. H.R. 2215 has been cleared by Congress to be forwarded to President Bush, and his signature on the bill is expected soon.1
RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUSLY CITED ART
The Patent Law allows any person, including a patent owner, to cite prior art patents and printed publications to the PTO that are believed to bear on the patentability of one or more claims of a patent, and to request that the PTO institute a reexamination of the patent.2 If it is decided that the cited prior art raises "a substantial new question of patentability," the Director of the PTO will order reexamination of the patent in question.3 During reexamination, some or all of the original claims of a patent can be declared invalid, patent claims can be narrowed to overcome the prior art, or the patentability of some or all of the original claims can be confirmed.
Currently, two decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court having exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases, limit the prior art that the PTO can consider in a reexamination proceeding.4 Prior art that was cited or considered during the original prosecution of a patent cannot alone form the basis for a substantial new question of patentability triggering the reexamination of that patent. Further, previously cited or considered prior art can only be considered by the PTO during a reexamination proceeding if combined with prior art not previously before the PTO. Thus, under the present law, a reexamination proceeding cannot be based on an argument that the PTO overlooked prior art cited during the original examination of a patent, or that the PTO was mistaken in its consideration of prior art during the original prosecution proceeding.
With the signing into law of H.R. 2215, patent validity challenges based on previously cited or considered prior art will be able to be made in the PTO in a reexamination proceeding.5 In such instances, this alternative to contesting patent validity by litigation in the federal courts may provide a less costly and more expeditious means of mounting a patent validity challenge.
RIGHT OF THIRD PARTY TO APPEAL AN ADVERSE REEXAMINATION DECISION
Presently under the law, the appeal rights of a third party who has instituted an inter partes reexamination proceeding against another's patent are limited. The third party can appeal an adverse decision by the PTO to the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). However, third parties are expressly prohibited from seeking court review of a decision rendered by the BPAI.6 Conversely, patent owners are allowed to seek judicial review of adverse decisions by the BPAI in reexamination proceedings by appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.7
H.R. 2215 provides that third parties in inter partes reexamination proceedings will have the same appeal rights as patent owners.8 Thus, once H.R. 2215 is signed by President Bush, a third party challenger will have resort to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to contest adverse decisions by the BPAI as well as to be party to any appeal to the Federal Circuit brought by a patent owner.
The inability of third parties in inter partes reexamination proceedings to seek judicial review of adverse decisions has been considered a major drawback by those challenging a patent's validity. The provisions of H.R. 2215 should make the inter partes reexamination procedure more attractive to anyone contemplating the challenge of a patent based upon prior art patents and printed publications.
So what? In Germany there was BTX much prior even to that, 1984ish I think, where a lot of stuff was sold (rather pixelish pr0n for example). The French had a similar system, which predates the German one too.
does somebody need to beat the $#!+ out of these guys at PanIP?
The probability that someone is watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
The US federal rules of civil procedure have a "Rule 11" that leaves the door open for any plaintiff to incur heavy liability if they are not careful.
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Sanctions.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
(1) How Initiated.
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5 , but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
(B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.
(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.
(A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2).
(B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.
Optical device== Camera ?
So I'm guessing they think the patent covers anyone who took pictures of their product and put them up on their website.
Considering the current nature of patents and the fact that it seems every other company out there is trying to twist and bend them to their own will, I think it might be time for the organizers of these patents to put their heads together and develop an advisory board of some type that weeds out any patents that have language that's too vague. Or if there is already one, it needs to be replaced. Now.
This is getting to the point where I(and perhaps others) are starting to wonder what good there is in patents where they can be so easily used to give legitimate businesses a hard time. Though I realize it isn't a better idea to just ditch all patents and turn invention and innovation into a nasty free for all. Or maybe it is? Think it might be better to just turn them all loose on one another without restraints?
Kalen D'arrie
A government office can make a decision solely on their own, while the decision may affect potentially a lot of businesses. Worst part is, if the government office makes a mistake, there is no way to mend it other than letting some legitmate businesses taking the hit.
It seems that in almost all aspects of government activities, the decisions can be disputed and reversed, except for patents. This should be changed, or it will greatly impair people's right to "pursue happiness" (thru conducting legitmate businesses), which were explicitly granted in the US Constitution.
my point is simple. You can't use hindsight reasoning for why things are ovbious.
I'm not argueing that there isn't prior art that doesn't get around the patent, it is likely that the claim language makes it difficult to get around.
I mean really, how many different mouse trap designs are there. They way the US patent classification system is organized, you have hundreds of patents listed for each class/subclass combination for example class 348 is television and there are hundreds of patents in there, there just isn't one TV patent which covers every tv element every made.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
No, I'm not.
Karma: Undead.
When someone get's to the tipping point...
they'll end up waiting somewhere dark with a sniper rifle.
Ok, maybe that was a little to harsh, but if everyone knows there is a problem, why does it take some crazy incident to trigger change?
Wonder what crazy incident will it take for the patent office to change?
I think it maybe the time when certain states stop dealing with the restricitions all together. Can states enter into state law such a device?
You guys are smarter than me, do individual states have this power?
Mabidex
We seem to have reduced their website into a smoldering pile of silicon and aluminum. Keep up the good work, boys.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
it is likely that the claim language makes it difficult to get around.
Its really hard to determine what the claim language covers without looking at the file history in order dtermine what was argued away during patent prosecution.
Also, some of the claims are in "means plus function" format so what is covered might be restricted by structures described in the specification.
Looks like the Panip.com website is missing all of the sudden.
"I've got a friend who has a friend that works in the USPO and he was telling me how ridiculous it is to work there."
Well, I have a friend of a friend of a friend whose girlfriend's mother's uncle said differently. I certainly wouldn't use your source for the basis of opinion; Would you use my source? I, however, was an examiner at the USPTO for several years, so I think that I have a good idea of what it's like to work there and how the system works.
"His boss is involved in all sorts of payoffs and dirt - I literally couldn't believe the stories he was telling."
Then don't be a fool and believe them. All of the people that I know at the USPTO are hard working professionals. And, no, I'm not a shill. Noone I know of is the recipient of payola. In fact, the law forbids examiners from taking gifts, and employees sign an acknowledgment as to such. They are constrained, however, by law and many in the slashdot community don't know what the law is (and I'm not talking statutes, but case law).
"One tactic lots of patent filers like to use is to send in a 25 page document, and the first 24 pages are garbage designed to lull the reviewer to sleep, then they slip in a couple of paragraphs that involve what they're really trying to patent at the end."
Patent examination involves reading the claims first, not the specification. A patent application doesn't read like a novel, and is not meant to. The examiner looks at the specification to see if the claims are supported under 35 U.S.C. 112, and does the prior art search on the claims. The examiner also creates a prosecution history with the applicant, so that the scope of terms is defined in that application history. Notice, however, that in the examination process if the claims are not supported by the specification, then they will be rejected. Thus the impetus to put as much as you can into the specification so that the scope of the invention is supported as fully as possible. It is not for the purpose of lulling anyone to sleep.
The same goes for claiming. The applicant is entitled to claim what they believe is the scope of their invention. If they have overstepped the bounds, then it is the examiner's job to reel it in. This is the reason that claims are written broad ->narrower ->narrower still ->etc. ->narrowest. Patent claiming is analogous working with Venn diagrams. The trick is not drafting a set of claims that are outside of your invention and into the prior art. If something slips past the examiner (they're only human), then the courts can set it straight.
"He later got put on a committee that was trying to track fraud and they figured out that some really high percentage (don't remember exactly, but it was over half) of the patents are frivolous and completely bunk."
That is complete bovine sh*t. A patent system based on "over half" of the patents being "frivilous and completely bunk" would never support the weight of the costs involved. Your friend's friend may not see the value of a given patent application, but my friend's, friend's, friend's, girlfriend's mother's uncle surely did, and that is why he filed his application.
DeBrands makes some of the finest chocolates I've ever tasted. They have a store in Indianapolis that sells their chocolates and fresh desserts. You haven't lived until you've tried one of their hot carmel beverages (like hot chocolate, only with carmel instead).
If they go out of business due to these money-hungry bastards, I swear by all that I hold holy, I will hunt down everyone that has anything to do with PanIP and make them sorry.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
This is an important patent. We really need this one:
Method of swinging on a swing
Abstract
A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.
Full Patent here
I distinctly remember ordering a few CDs from cdconnection.com in the summer of '94. It was an online CD store that had a telnet interface. I remember it quite clearly. I dialed in to my brother's university shell account, using my 286 with DOS and Qmodem, to make the purchase. CDs arrived safe and sound about a week later.
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
So..
The CIP's mean that the patent takes original expiration date?
The patent could be invalidated via prosecution history laches?
This patent currently waiting for clearance will cover and protect my latest creation.
A variety of ways to induce conciousness, including but not limited to, biological, mechanical, and chemical(from here referred to as [the processes]). Along with the means necessary to support the processes.
All 6 billion+ of you humans are now in violation of my patent. Pay me. Oh and my list shows one HAL 9000 as well. Pay me too.
Disgusting.
-- taking over the world, we are.
Videotext
The term "videotext" refers to any interactive electronic system which allows users to send and receive data from either a personal computer or a dedicated terminal. The term "videotext" is often used interchangeably with appellations such as "online service" or "interactive network." Videotext systems deliver information and transactional services such as banking and shopping....
Traditionally, videotext systems displayed information only in text format, but as color monitors became more commonplace during the early 1990's, these services began to offer graphical user interfaces (GUIs) which incorporated sound and visually striking computer graphic displays.....
The first videotext systems were developed in Europe in the 1970s by government-owned telephone companies. The world's largest videotext service is the French Teletel system, which boasts approximately eight million users. This system was launched in the early 1980s as part of an economic plan aimed at making France a leader in information technology....
Services provided by videotext fall into one of three areas: information retrieval services such as obtaining stock prices or weather forecasts, transactional message services which enable the purchasing of merchandise over the network, and interpersonal message exchanges which may include conferencing, chat channels or electronic mail.
the PTO gets ~400k applications a year, where do you want to store all of it?
Go to this site and offer to support their fight against these PanIP scum-bags.
Seriously people, when will we get MS onboard to fight this? We may not like MS, but if Bill G could be convinced that this should be fought (and not just to give MS the patent), I'm sure that PanIP would be monetarily pummelled into dust very very quickly.. Add to MS's money pot that of Amazon, Buy, Yahoo, Ebay, etc ad infinitum.
As somebody pointed out last time, they are granting patents to goals these days, not just implementations. "Exchange money using a computer" is NOT a technology, but a fricken goal. They are wildcarding "Do X using a computer" where X is any process currently done by paper, phone, or in person.
I am surprised that there has not been a constitutional challenge. Goals or anything like them are NOT mentioned in the constitution.
Table-ized A.I.
I gonna file a patent for method of taking air and break it down and use it to process food or related items.
So, cash up or you can stop breathing.
maybe someone should propose a law that you may pick copyright protection or patent protection, but not both.
How long should we wait 'till your U.S. Patent Office will be sued for them releasing to many false patents by those companies hurt by to many bullshit patent infrigement sues?
What could those companies sue the patent office for? Forgery, grave neglience, discrimination ?
One solution may be to use an online store service, like Yahoo Stores, instead of roll-your-own. That way they would have to harass Yahoo instead of the mompop store. Of course you can kiss customization good bye.
Let's see if they have the balls to sue Yahoo.
Table-ized A.I.
a method for hunting down PanIP and other companies who try to profit by abusing the patent system and hurting others using by filing frivolous law suits using ridiculous patents, and inflicting grievous bodily harm upon them?
-Posting anonymous so as not to be labeled as a terrorist.
Great, when Taco gets a real lawyer [instead of just rolling over and taking it hard and violent from the scientologists without even trying to practice the principles his site preaches] rather than one that just tells him what fights to pick, then he can sue all the trolls and crapflooders for the $$$, thus being able to abollish subscriptions and adverts, plus we'll all have a better board to post on :)
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
Software and business model patents are totally illogical. They are just written works and no more patentable than a Stephen King novel. ("a method of inducing nightmares in children and other humans")
Whoever decided they were patentable was either paid off, didn't understand what software was, or both.
Coding Blog
This morning I read the Science Times and read a piece on Botulism and it detailed how a bottom feeder named a goby fish, an invasive species from Eastern Europe, was killing the eco-system of the lake. I guess here is an example of a bottom feeder killing the eco-system of the web...
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
the patent has an effective filing date of 1988!
Eh? What patents are you looking at? Either you are a troll or you didn't check them yourself:
Patent 5,576,951:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037)
Appl. No.: 210301
Filed: March 16, 1994
Patent date November 19, 1996.
Patent 6,289,319:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037)
Appl. No.: 347270
Filed: November 30, 1994,
Patent date September 11, 2001.
Where did you get the 1988? I am wondering if you are referring to the parent case text with abandoned applications that were referenced there? If so, the dates go back to 1984 and 1986. However, I am not aware of the rule that prior art has to pre-date any of the abandoned patent applications!
the actual invention is everything AFTER the preamble, that is essentially everything after the first comma.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
of people who need their ass kicked. People who need their asses kicked... Hillary Rosen Michael Eisner Fritz Hollins Steve Balmer Jack Valenti This Asshole
At the very least hire a private detective (say Jim Rockford, or Adrian Monk, or
O.k. First, a disclaimer. I work as a software engineer in civil aviation and have worked on military areospace products previously. I have also had peripheral exposure to patents back in my academic days. Therefore, I may not be coming from the same background as you might. I also have not personally been granted a patent even though many of my coworkers have. With that said, though...
I have never seen a patent that was not implemented in an actual, shipped product. Usually, the patents are developed by engineers facing a specific problem who come up with a unique solution. If the solution is recognized as being novel and extendable to a general case, the patent process is kicked into high gear. By the time the engineer gets his pretty bass patent plate for his cube wall, the original solution is already embedded in a product rolling off the assembly line.
While I understand that there have been abuses of the patent process in the past (and, yes, especially in the software arena), the system works quite well, thank you. As to "stiffling innovation," I think you have to look at the big picture.
Patents allow for at least some protection against reverse engineering, which the trade secrets do not. Any time you ship a physical product, be it a be it an executable binary, a mechanical gizmo, or a new pharmacutical (sic), reverse engineering jeapordizes not just the final solution you came up with but (more importantly) all the R&D you placed into the product in the first place. For example, it is not unusual for thousands of new drugs to be researched for each one that makes it to the patent office, to say nothing of those that make it to clinical trials. If patents did not exist to protect against reverse engineering, then no one would put any money into R&D beyond specific, immediate applications - and we'd all be much worse for it.
Trade secrets can protect specific implementations. But it is patents that protect broader ideas as well as the up front R&D required to derive them in the first place. Expiration dates on patents force innovation to continue and prevent companies from sitting on their patents for too long. If you have complaints against the current state of the US or European patent offices, go ahead and gripe. But to condemn the entire concept of the patent is short sighted and foolish.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
actually there is such a "rule" it is called 35 U.S.C. Section 120 you might want to look at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0014.htm and in particular heading 201.08
actually there is such a "rule" it is called 35 U.S.C. Section 120 you might want to look at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0014.htm and in particular heading 201.08
Again, most of the prior applications referenced in those two patents are *abandoned*; therefore, you need to look at the same page you referenced under heading "203.05 Abandoned". The only two relevant applications that were not abandoned that were also referenced were:
1. In patent 5,576,951, now has its own patent, which is patent number 5,309,355;
2. In patent 6,289,319, now has its own patent 4,567,359.
However, claims under these patents are not under dispute by the patent owner. Again, check them yourself before posting crap.
abandoning the application after filing of a continuation still allows for the claim of priority of the parent application. and I do read this and I did check, and by the way I am registered to practice before the patent office are you?
35 U.S.C. 120. Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States. An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. Which portion of the bolded material can't you understand. Even if abandoned you can get benefit of priority and therefore any search for prior art needs to go to earliest effective date that supports the claims. I also wish people would not just read abstracts of patents and say that is what it covers. The claims define what a patent covers, the abstract has no legal significance. A retired patent examiner
If you had actually read the section that was posted you would realize that what you are writting is crap. The earliest date which supports the subject matter claimed and for which "copendency" can be shown is what is important. The fact that an application is later abandoned is irrelevant. You sir are A LOSER.
Software suppliers are trying to make their software packages more ... Their best approach, so far, has been to take all
"user-friendly".
the old brochures, and stamp the words, "user-friendly" on the cover.
-- Bill Gates, Microsoft, Inc.
[Pot. Kettle. Black.]
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...
You could also sue the government of the U.S., England, ... Any government that has any sort of laws.
Heh... now, would your patent be invalidated once you've forced Government to stop production of governance?
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.