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.'"

Comments

Vague?

[Manhigh]

I'd think any patent that uses phrases like "a variety of" is too vague.

Vending machines...

[thenextpresident]

"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?

Okay - this is getting stupid

[raydobbs]

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.

Re:Okay - this is getting stupid

[Raw Ostrich]

There is a bright side to this. When it comes to immaterial rights, thigs need to get worse before they get better. The inertia of the status quo has to be overcome by unbearable stupidity and cost of the current legislation. I would urge everyone to seek patents whenever possible, as broad as possible and as harmfull to development as possible. Lets get it over with and move on...

don't re-invent the wheel...PATENT it

[babylon93]

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.

Is that so?

[neksys]

In that case, I'd like to assert my own patent on 'a physical system for selecting and obtaining a variety of goods and services' and 'a electronically assisted, human-run data-processing system for processing business and financial transactions between entities at a physical location.'"

Namely - any store or business with a cashier.

is it just me or....

[the_2nd_coming]

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..."

The whole legal system needs to be changed

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

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!

Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed

[jeffy124]

The problem centers around "nothing to lose" cases, where the plantiff has nothing to lose by losing the lawsuit.

In many countries (US is not one of them), if you sue someone and lose (or get caught under perjury or something), you must pay for the defendant's legal fees, and get opened up to counter-suits from the defendant. In the US, unfortunately, the plantiff can just walk away from a lost suit as if nothing happened, despite how much work (and money) a defendant can put in to defend himself. This is especially true for lawyers that hire themselves out on contingency.

Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed

[Billly Gates]

Tourt reform is sponsored by the mega corps to reduce consumers right to sue. ITs all about profit for them. At least that is Bush's version of it. Polluters love tourt reform since its expensive to prove that the pollants they discharge cause damage and to prove it would cost tens of millions of dollars. Insurance companies also love it because they can charge the same price for insurance and rake in more profits.

Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed

[broken_bones]

The idea of "nothing to lose lawsuits" is a double edged sword. On one hand if these suits are allowed then you have to worry about the possibility of having to defend against one. On the other hand if a losing plaintiff is liable for the legal fees of the defendant it provides a severe advantage to large corporations. No little guy in his right mind would ever sue a megacorporation if he had to pay said megacorporations legal fees in the event of a loss. Losing without incurring that liability is already a very expensive proposition.

Personally I think the key to tort reform is to remove the profit insentive to lawsuits by diverting punative damages to education. This would mean that if you sue Huge-Mega-Corp for something and win you would collect actual damages (ie restitution, money to compensate you for what you actually lost/suffered). Any punative damages (punishment, the bazillion dollar sums that are supposed to say "don't do that again") awarded would go to an education trust used to buy books, computers, college scolarships etc. for your state.*

*This is the first time I have ever floated this idea to anyone. If you see holes in it please respond so I can avoid looking like an idiot in the future.

Re:The whole legal system needs to be changed

[cybermage]

Personally I think the key to tort reform is to remove the profit insentive to lawsuits by diverting punative damages to education.

A few of problems with that:

First, as I see it, the truely disenfranchised (i.e., flat broke) victims of Huge-Mega-Corp's actions would not be able to attract lawyers willing to sue on purely contingency basis; and the lawyers who do so would be taking their cut out of the actual damages.

Second, the flow of cash into an education fund like you describe would likely create a government agency to administer it. Give the government a source of money to play with and two things will happen: Much will be allocated as pork, and revenue will be sought to maintain the pork programs when the fund runs low.

Third, restricting the punative damages to a single geographic area, if small enough, may give the tax payers who make up the jury a bias toward the plaintiff as it may reduce their school taxes.

Instead, what might be better, would be a statuatory compensation rate for lawyers who are granted punative judgements (say 10%, up to $500/hour.) The jury could then allocate the balance of the punative judgement to government (local, state, or federal) and/or 501c3 charitable institutions suggested by the plaintiff(s). Obviously, the plaintiff's list would be submitted only after the jury reaches a verdict and determines the amount of the penalty.

PanIP targeting companies not in California?

[richard-parker]

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?

Re:Vague? - nah, just lame

[gmack]

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.