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.'"
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
"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.
Namely - any store or business with a cashier.
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
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!
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.
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?
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.
In a recent article (don't remember where, been getting kinda blogged down), it was stated that the USPTO has been "rubber stamping" between 30 and 40% of the patents submitted each year. The USPTO, of course, is very worried because it used to be between 60 and 70% yearly, and their budget is based on the number of patents awarded, not the number reviewed.
That's the big one to email your Rep and Sen about. Get them to change the budget based on the work necessary (i.e. reviewing patent applications), not on the number of awarded.
And for the other, those people who believe what is legal is therefore ethical, well. . . nerfbats. An army of properly wielded nerfbats would go a long way to 'splainin' things 'round here.
Moekandu
"It is a sad time when a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs."
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
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!
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?
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.
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.
"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.