Chocolatier Fights PanIP Uber-Commerce Patent

synerr writes "In October, Slashdot reported how PanIP sued 10 companies. Since they were so successful, they have launched 50 more lawsuits. The Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel has an article about how one local small town chocolate company, DeBrand's, is planning to fight back against San Diego based PanIP LLC's claim that they hold the patent over any automated commerce done by text and graphics on a video monitor. The owner of DeBrand's has even set up a web site to organize the different e-merchants, www.youmaybenext.com."

Comments

When will this stop?

[Uttles]

Why is it still happening? How are these judges rewarding these people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're bascially saying "we invented this and let everyone use it for 10-15 years, and now we're going to sue you all for not paying us, when we didn't even charge anything in the first place." How is this not being laughed out of court?

Re:When will this stop?

[PinkStainlessTail]

Because mainly people are settling before it ever gets to court. Those of us with souls know this by the name "extortion." It's fun!

Re:When will this stop?

[nuffle]

panIP doesn't need success in courts. It's cheaper for most of the small businesses that are being targeted to simply pay the $5000 (in the chocolate company's case) to panIP than to wage a court battle. Maybe a few companies defend themselves in the lawsuit, but panIP can afford a couple battles as long as most give in and pay the money.

That these sort of strategies work nicely is clear demonstration that the US legal system doesn't protect everyone equally, but that the great deal of beauracracy involved works to the advantage of the wealthy.

Re:When will this stop?

[Cruciform]

The mere fact that these people are able to take existing ideas, add the phrase "on a computer", "on a video terminal", etc. and patent it as their own idea is absurd.

Is there where the phrase "patently ridiculous" comes from?

Re:When will this stop?

[JM_the_Great]

The United States should learn frolm Britian and if a civil case if found in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff pays the legal fees of the defendant. At least, I think that's how it works over there :) Either way, it sounded like a good idea to me... it'd prevent a lot of frivilous lawsuits and would allow companies to fight cases where they're right, but it'll cost more to fight than settle.

Re:When will this stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

The mere fact that these people are able to take existing ideas, add the phrase "on a computer", "on a video terminal", etc. and patent it as their own idea is absurd.

So, you mean I might not get my patent and collect royalties from everyone else who adds "in bed" to their fortune cookie fortune?

Re:When will this stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and your lame pimp game, uttles. May you rot in hell.

Re:When will this stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... this "extortion" takes 10-15 years, huh?

Re:When will this stop?

[ender's_shadow]

all they have to do if it does go to court is drop it.

in reply to the other comment that's in reply to this parent -- the english rule brings its own set of problems, too.

Re:When will this stop?

[mosch]

That's also a dangerous road, since it makes it extremely risky to sue anybody who is significantly wealthier than you are. After all, they could spend millions on their defense, and manage to win the case, bankrupting you even if you had a valid claim.

Re:When will this stop?

[DroppedPacket]

Actually this law was passed a few years ago. It was an attempt to stop frivolous lawsuits.

The big problem is that it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a full case through the legal system in America. And when you finally get through the system, it can really be a roll of the dice who wins. The judge might be incompetant, or one side could be golf buddies with the judge. (This happens frequently.)

So even if you win, the other side has to pay your costs. What if they don't? You have to sue them. Then you start all over.
The United States started with a Judicial system and has ended with a Legal system instead.

Re:When will this stop?

[JM_the_Great]

Or perhaps have a "deductible" of like $10k (I don't really know what a good number would be) that the plaintiff would pay towards the defendant's legal costs in the case the defentand won. This prevents somebody from having a few million of legal costs, but still protect the small guys from frivolous law suits.

Re:When will this stop?

[radish]

The judge can, at his/her discretion, limit the payable amount. So if (for example) someone sued McDonalds and lost, they wouldn't necessarily have to pay the full cost of the McLawyers. The decision would be based on the Judge's opinion of whether the case was reasonable, or an obvious attempt to extort cash, and the financial situation of the plantiff.

Re:When will this stop?

[BoneFlower]

I skimmed through the patent- 90% of what it does is clear prior art... statements of how the internet works, and references to dialing up for the information...

Re:When will this stop?

[hesiod]

> US legal system doesn't protect everyone equally,

Note that I DO believe PanIP is a bunch of scumbags, but I disagree with this statement. Everyone has equal legal rights: If you, or the chocolate company had filed that patent you could do exactly the same thing PanIP is doing now. I'm not claiming you would, but that you could.

HSN?

[Anonymous Cowtard]

"PanIP LLC's claim that they hold the patent over any automated commerce done by text and graphics on a video monitor."

Couldn't the Home Shopping Network be prior art for this?

Re:HSN?

[CheechBG]

Yeah, and theY can bring Don West to testify at the hearing...

Re:HSN?

[PD]

Did the French Minitel actually sell anything? That would be some prior art. And did the original CompuServe actually sell anything? Also prior art. I also seem to remember being able to buy flowers on AOL 1.0 with it's funky interface (what was that called again? GEOS?) on top of MS-DOS in 1988. Definitely prior art.

Re:HSN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior art ceased to be meaningful in patent fights quite a while ago. Pity.

Re:HSN?

[kontos]

Not Prior Art. You have to make a seperate phone call to QVC, HSN et. al. It's not automated.

Not that I think that the Patent is anything but rediculous.

Re:HSN?

[m.lemur]

Not if you have digital satellite or cable like they do in the UK.

Re:HSN?

[Weaselmancer]

They sure are. Hell, for that matter I can think of plenty:

• Card payment systems at Kinkos

• ATM machines

• Serve yourself lanes at grocery stores

• Candy bar machines with led displays

• Slot machines/video poker

• ...and oh yeah, about a million webstores created before 2002

This is concrete proof that the patent system is completely broken . I could prove the point by going out and making a patent for "...a single unit of mass, combining 8 substructures which for our purposes shall be called protons." Then charging everyone royalties on breathing. Idiots. It's no wonder why we're in the mess we're in.

And a simple chocolate company is cast in the role of hero. I'm donating to their fund tonight.

Weaselmancer

Re:HSN?

[AndroidCat]

Yup, GEOS. Hmm, Bell Canada had their Telidon ALEX terminal in the '80's too. What about Prestel (?) in Britain?

Re:HSN?

[TomServo]

It's not automated in the case of most of these sites either. You have to voluntarily, and in a seperate process, start your web browser, go to the site, pick what you want to buy, then enter in your credit card & shipping information, then hit submit. That really isn't much different from having to pick up the phone to call QVC/HSN.

Re:HSN?

[LoadStar]

Did the French Minitel actually sell anything? That would be some prior art. And did the original CompuServe actually sell anything? Also prior art. I also seem to remember being able to buy flowers on AOL 1.0 with it's funky interface (what was that called again? GEOS?) on top of MS-DOS in 1988. Definitely prior art.

Nope, not GEOS. GEOS was a graphical operating system for the C64 and Apple II from Berkeley Softworks, which became Geoworks Software who specialized in a GEOS for Embedded Systems.

What you are thinking of is QuantumLink, or Q-Link for short. Q-Link (Quantum Computer Services) became AppleLink Personal Edition, which became AOL.

And yes, I believe Q-Link sold merchandise. CompuServe, Prodigy, and GEnie were also online services that provided means for selling merchandise online - CompuServe was probably the first of these to start doing so.

Re:HSN?

[PD]

Yes, it was GEOS that I was thinking of. AOL software ran on MS-DOS with a GEOS graphical interface. This is before they ported it to Windows after version 3.0 came out.

GEOS ran on the PC's as well as those other computers.

Re:HSN?

[lfourrier]

If I remember correctly, in 1996 or 1997, half of world ecommerce was done using the minitel

Re:HSN?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

And did the original CompuServe actually sell anything?

Yes they did. I purchased a book on How to Use CompuServe and their color interface software (CompuServe Information Manager, maybe?) both online through Compuserve. That was at least 10 years ago.

Re: Chocolatier Fights PanIP Uber-Commerce Patent

[Dunark]

I wonder how long it will be until it's impossible to complete the intellectual property patent checks on *any* innovation before it's obsolete?

I hereby claim

[cscx]

I hereby claim all intellectual property to the <form></form> tags. You can find this here. I'll see your ass in court, Slashdot!

This will not be tolerated for long...

[Wes Janson]

As soon as this goes into the media spotlight, PanIP's little game is going to be history. This should set interesting precedents in the realm of patent lawsuits, however..

Re:This will not be tolerated for long...

[k3v0]

it's funny how they haven't gone after any major companies that have more formidable resources than these small businesses. I wonder why????

Re:This will not be tolerated for long...

[Anonymous Coward]

These lawsuits are complete crap. After reading the patent, you can see that it was intended as a Airline travel agent system...

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, the objects of this invention, among others are to:

enhance the travel agent's sales ability
create a flexible travel sales system
increase the sales productivity and information accuracy of vacation tour packages sold by travel agents; ...


How did PANIP ever win the initial 10 lawsuits?

Re:This will not be tolerated for long...

[Mikeytsi]

Because they didn't go to court. The companies pussed out and paid the money rather than deal with legal fees.

A nice change to the system would be "loser pays all legal fees". I think that would go a long way to niping this shit in the bud.

Re:This will not be tolerated for long...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this troll? It seems like an honest question... If the patents don't apply, how did they win?

Re:This will not be tolerated for long...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Because they're not as stupid as BT, who went after Prodigy -- aka SBC.

SBC probably had deeper pockets than BT. PanIP is going after little guys to set precedents.

*blink* fort wayne, indiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

erm. that's only an hour's drive or so from here. ...

i wonder how my wife would react if i asked her if she would be ok with driving to fort wayne to buy some chocolate.

Re:*blink* fort wayne, indiana?

[RoundSparrow]

Hey - grew up there, is is a nice town. Magnavox did a lot of DoD computer work.

The chocolate at DeBrands is awesome, but very expensive. Just had some in July on my visit to family.

Re:*blink* fort wayne, indiana?

[AndroidCat]

Why drive to Fort Wayne? They do have web site, ya know? :^)

Re:*blink* fort wayne, indiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

I.. i'd use the website, but.. i can't, i ...

**hangs head in shame** .. i don't know how to read.

Re:*blink* fort wayne, indiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, I'll teach you haha! "Ethel the Aardvark..."

Re:*blink* fort wayne, indiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

"i wonder how my wife would react if i asked her if she would be ok with driving to fort wayne to buy some chocolate."

Change that to, "I bet my wife will love it if I drive to Fort Wayne to buy her some chocolate." Now it's a sure thing. :)

Re:*blink* fort wayne, indiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

DeBrands makes some kickass caramel truffles, grab a couple of 'em. I plan on using some DeBrands action during my wedding in May. I can thank PanIP for one more worry/headache...jackasses.

Re:*blink* fort wayne, indiana?

[Adam9]

Wow.. this article really came out of nowhere considering I was heading out there tomorrow to pick up a nice box for my girlfriend. Anyways, to be on topic, I'll try to come up with a question for them tomorrow about it since I'll be visiting. Perhaps I can get some better insight into their plans of developing the group defense.

Well it looks like PanIP is about as popular as...

[Anonymous Coward]

...AIDS. Maybe they should patent that too.

Duplicate

[Flamerule]

While this issue deserves space on /., this particular story was posted in YRO only a couple of weeks ago:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/23/ 197234&mode=nested&tid=155

Re:Duplicate

[rgbscan]

And further back as well...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/13/ 19 14221&mode=thread&tid=155

Chris

Three words: Class Action RICO

[Anonymous Coward]

If all of the frivolously sued parties got together, they might be able to sue under the RICO statute for treble damages plus legal fees.

Re:Three words: Class Action RICO

[thogard]

RICO also can allow for jail time for company officers. This is a very good option.

Re:Three words: Class Action RICO

[leviramsey]

WTF?

How is the parent post "Funny"? There's nothing funny about RICO (the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations act). By suing under this act, the people who PanIP have sued can get triple damages from the officers of PanIP and seize assets, freeze accounts and do all sorts of other kinds of nifty financial punishments. They could also try for criminal charges under RICO and have the officers of PanIP jailed.

Re:Three words: Class Action RICO

[swv3752]

Because it would be very funny to see the PanIP people bent over a barrel. Obviously you do not have a well developed sense of Irony.

Re:Three words: Class Action RICO

[cei]

From what I can tell, the only "assets" that PanIP has that could possibly be seized are the "licencing fees" from the few sites they've managed to strongarm so far.

Re:Three words: Class Action RICO

[leviramsey]

However, RICO applies to officers of the company. So while they would be insulated from a normal lawsuit, there's no such insulation from RICO; ie the officers of the company could have any asset of their's confiscated by the courts.

Re:Three words: Class Action RICO

[bobsalt]

ya, but even if pan is sued , they are a LLC, so the head poeple would have taken the money and run by the time something happened in court

I thought of something

[The Analog Kid]

I just thought of something. Why don't they sue Microsoft, they sell things online, I bet Microsoft can easily win because they would swamp them with paperwork and the laywers would quit, and they would go bankrupt. They will probably never sue any big corporation. Though I don't know why these e-merchants don't challenge the patients, or who the judge or jury thats letting them win.

Re:I thought of something

[glh]

Good idea.. that probably would work!!

Isn't it sad how he who has the most money wins the lawsuits? So much for a fair judicial system. The "youmaybenext.com" web site realizes this, and thats why they are gathering people together- get the combined pockets deep enough and they will win.

Money talks!! It is high time for some patent reform laws...

Re:I thought of something

[DavidLeblond]

It looks to me like they are only suing small to medium sized companies that perhaps don't have enough money to fight them. I didn't click on many of the sites on that list, but I don't think you'll ever see a site like Amazon or Microsoft on it because, as you stated, they would kick the crap out of PanIP.

They are just a corporate bully trying to get their lunch money.

Re:I thought of something

[Anonymous Coward]

These e-merchants don't challenge the patients because they have been blackmailed, and panIP like every good blackmail artist has a well thought out plan.

They sound a lot like a domain squatter that we had to deal with. A company in arizona was squatting on a name that belongs to a client of mine. There are ways of forcing squatters to give up a name that they are holding for ransom but I understand that the cost is at least $1200, coincidentally the squatter was willing to sell us the name for $1000 .

Re:I thought of something

[b!arg]

Because Microsoft is kind of a big company. Although it might be a good idea to make a plea to one of those huge companies like ebay, microsoft or amazon to help them out in order to look out for themselves in the future...although considering amazon's one-click "patent" they may go in with pan ip...

Re:I thought of something

[Anonymous Coward]

No,
MS would probably just buy the company ...
Imagina these patent claims in the hand oh the Redmond Giant

Re:I thought of something

[cylcyl]

The big e-merchants don't do anything to preemptively because PanIP is putting potential competitors out of business.

In fact, if PanIP is smart and continue to extort small sums even to large companies, they might get away with it forever because large companies will pay the small sum to get them to go away and spreading out the cost is much easier for the large company. Small companies will not have the financial capability to sustain the siege, less competition for the big guys. :(

Out of court settlements don't involve the courts.

[nyet]

That's the great thing about this business model; you never have to go in front of a judge. It's free money, low risk, no need for engineers or technical support, just a small team of lawyers sending extortion demands.

If you would have read my post of 2 weeks ago...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

I wrote:

...to ask about contributing to a defense fund (after reading about this on /. a few days ago). Here's what they had to say:

Thanks for your support. We are currently in the process of setting up the Group Defense and the PANIP Group Defense Fund. We hope to have it set up by the end of this week giving people a chance to contribute online through a PayPal account. The response has been very encouraging.

Stay tuned in and help us spread the word. PANIP thought they could extort money from small businesses without them making much noise. They were wrong.

Timothy Beere
DeBrand Fine Chocolates
http://www.debrand.com
http://www.youmaybenext.com


I'll also pick up some chocolates for my wife at their site...that way I can help their business and score some points with the bride at the same time. Double bonus!

Sigh

[MacAndrew]

They're giving us lawyers a bad name!

Oh, wait...

Re:Sigh

[Jules Agee]

They're giving us lawyers a bad name!

Who, DeBrand's volunteer or PanIP's lawyer?

Obligatory website links

[RoboOp]

The company: Debrand Chocolates

And of course, what would slashdot be without the... Obligatory Python Link

Re:Obligatory website links

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how geocities doesn't have enough bandwidth for their hosted sites, but the 'temporarily unavailble' page loads in a blink with a ton of ads.

You May Be Next!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

To experience the dreaded slashdot effect!!!

patent for commerce on a video monitor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just write in the "terms of use" of your website that customers must use an LCD screen to use the automated commerce feature of the website. PanIP can't sue, and customers never read the terms of use, so everyone is happy.

Re:patent for commerce on a video monitor?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can still sue all they want, the reason they've been doing so good is everyone settles because they can't AFFORD to fight them in court, regardless of how stupid the lawsuit is.

Re:patent for commerce on a video monitor?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a judge might still consider an LCD screen to qualify as a "video monitor". Put in the terms of service that all users must use text-to-speech software. Score points with the blind AND give yourself immunity from PanIP's extortion!

Re:patent for commerce on a video monitor?

[Fastolfe]

The patent was specific in that a CRT had to be used, not a generic "video monitor".

Re:patent for commerce on a video monitor?

[The Analog Kid]

Well then I guess I'll have use the LED that Rush is using on their Vapor Trails Tour.

Re:patent for commerce on a video monitor?

[TomServo]

Or maybe they can say in the "terms of use" that if ever contacted about using a video monitor during the process of buying chocolate, they must say that they didn't "use" the monitor, they "collaborated" with it.

Dunno, if they're going to go the vague route to bully small companies, I'll go the mega-anal specific route to fight it.

Funny. The story linked to is dated Nov. 4

[nyet]

You must have missed the spot where 1) the intro references the yro article you mention and 2) the key part of this particular /. article is the linked mainstream news article.

Good domain

[gabec]

I can see that domain becoming very useful to a whole heck of a lot of subjects once this PanIP thing runs down. Heck, the EFF could turn over a ton of "hey look what X company is doing" ... like when those guys remixed Beck's music into crazy new stuff and the label for Beck tried to sue them for copyright infringement... (which was of course not true and completely ironic, since Beck himself has been questioned about his sources for musical accompanyment..;])

Re:Good domain

[gabec]

assuming they can keep from being slashdotted :P lol. (it's running pretty slow at this point and /. just posted it!)

Fort wayne, Indiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

*Hmm.* That's only about an hour or two's drive from here... ...

I wonder how my girlfriend would react if I suggested we drive to Fort Wayne to buy some chocolate.

Re:Fort wayne, Indiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on how fat your girlfriend is.

YouMayBeNext.com

[Anonymous Coward]

You May Be Next... to get Slashdotted.

Re:YouMayBeNext.com

[cetan]

Now their legal bills can be dwarfed by their ISP bills after the slashdotting!

Re:YouMayBeNext.com

[Illuminati Member]

Hey, good one!

What, did you think of that yourself, or just used the same line that's been said (in various variations) the past 5 years on slashdot?

Re:YouMayBeNext.com

[cetan]

No, I got it from the back of a box of hot grits.

I wonder if the USPTO will get sued.

[Alethes]

If you go to the USPTO page describing the patent, then scroll to the bottom you'll find a nice set of links, one of which is an Add to Cart button. Does that count as using graphical and textual information on a video screen for the purpose of making a sale?

Dates

[Hackysack]

The Patent was granted in december 1996.

From About Amazon.com:

Amazon.com opened its virtual doors in July 1995 with a mission to use the Internet to transform book buying into the fastest, easiest, and most enjoyable shopping experience possible. While our customer base and product offerings have grown considerably since our early days, we still maintain our founding commitment to customer satisfaction and the delivery of an educational and inspiring shopping experience.

Dell.com started online sales in 1995. Shouldn't spurious use of invalid patents be a criminal offense, up there with Fraud, and Extortion?

And in a more ethereal manner, Redhat.com was doing online transactions (for $0, but a transaction is a transaction) as early as 1994.

~~

Re:Dates

[zenst]

dammed good point. Its prior IP and as such public domain. I suggest they get the most expensive lawyer they can coz they airn't goona pay the costs when the case fails.

Re:Dates

[BigGar']

The patent is currently valid.
If that patent is later found to not be valid then they'll have to stop trying to enforce it.
If they continue to try to enforce an invalid patent then that would be illegal. As it stands they are only trying to enforce what the government has granted them the right to enforce.

Re:Dates

[McFly777]

Unfortunatly the filing date is March 16, 1994, so you would have to find prior art to that date.

This patent app was also a continuation to several older applications, some as early as 1984. I am not sure if you have to show prior art to those application dates or not.

Re:Dates

[ender's_shadow]

a transaction in which one side gives nothing is not a sale. it's a gift. the patent is for sales.

Re:Dates

[Anonymous Coward]

Prestel (or "the internet on one company's machines" was running long before then, allowing people to do online transactions.

Re:Dates

[StevenHallman76]

Google Groups to the rescue!

there are a couple of old companies listed in this posting (Feb 25, 1994)

browsing through the old groups it looks like there were quite a few 'telnet shops' back in the day. And I'm sure BBS's and companies like AOL were doing business online before 94.

Re:Dates

[Anonymous Coward]

And how about a bank ATM....?
Might be a close enough match, and I believe they have been around before 1994.

Very, very sad.

[Lendrick]

Check out this list.

Seriously, how can you sue "The Little Pie Company" and still claim to have a soul?

Re:Very, very sad.

[_xeno_]

Because of their annoying use of Javascript to create a little intro page including apples that light up when you mouse over the image and the annoying fade effect on the actual index page once you're let in.

Wait, they're suing about what here? Oh, never mind, then.

Re:Very, very sad.

[SirSlud]

> Seriously, how can you sue "The Little Pie Company [littlepiecompany.com]" and still claim to have a soul?

After the littlepiecompany.com took over thetinypiecomany.com in a heartless corperate merger that left pieces of crust and cherry spattered over quartly results reports, I think all bets were off.

Re:Very, very sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

left pieces of crust and cherry spattered

Sounds like the first time I had sex.

Re:Very, very sad.

[the way, what're you]

Check out this list

Uh-oh, I better alert www.dicksonchicks.com!

Re:Very, very sad.

[mosch]

Well, they do sell 10" pies for $36. plus shipping.

I

Re:Very, very sad.

[RebelTycoon]

And how could you link to them. You know who, the The Little Pie Company, their server has now become an oven.

Thanks buddy,

Re:Very, very sad.

[pr0nbot]

Nice of them to start Round 4 on September 11th...

Re:Very, very sad.

[RedBear]

Seriously, how can you sue "The Little Pie Company [littlepiecompany.com]" and still claim to have a soul?

King Arthur: "What, that?"
"Tim": "Whot?"
King Arthur: "It's a bunny rabbit!"
"Tim": "But it's the most vicious rabbit you've ever seen! It's got nasty little teethies! Fss, fss." (Makes fang motions with his hand.) ...
King Arthur: "Brother Maynard, bring out the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!"

(With apologies to Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail.)

Eureka!

[cyberbrian]

I just need to patent the following process:

1) Identify an obvious "technology" that is in the public commons
2) Patent it
3) Extort small businesses via threats of expensive litigation
4) ...
5) Profits

Then I can sue PanIP ! ! !

B.

Re:Eureka!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I can sue PanIP ! ! !

No, they'd sue you for stealing their business plan.

Re:Eureka!

[Quaryon]

Unfortunately there are way too many examples of prior art..

Q.

Good thing

[Quixadhal]

... I still use my old hardcopy terminal then, eh?

Self-calling lawuits?

[Greebz]

" ... but TEK Interactive of Fort Wayne offered to develop a more sophisticated site, which is the one up today.

Now it includes a background on the cases, a discussion board, PDF copies of the original lawsuit and online donation acceptance ... "

Online donation acceptance? Hope that doesn't breech the patent too. Ahem.

On a more serious note, a patent on "the same sort of thing that we already do, only over http" surely wasn't new, innovative or non-obvious at the time of the original application?

Hopefully the patent will be overturned...

Re:Self-calling lawuits?

[epcostello]

No, online donations are covered by the Ziarno patent (see http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v12/i09/0900 3301.htm and http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =14&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=ziarno.INZZ.&OS=IN/ ziarno&RS=IN/ziarno).

Not A Surprise

[denisonbigred]

PanIP first sued about 10 small online merchants in March. That, by the way, was the month PanIP was incorporated.

Its wonderful to see how the American way rewards hard work and Lawsuits.

Treat them as terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I don't want to use the 'T' word, but when a nation is at an economical low, why are we letting these *ssholes bury it deeper by undermining our small companies?

Suckers for punishment.

[jedwards]

They're just begging for a lawsuit claiming a confusingly similar trademark

you may be next

[RealSurreal]

Nice domain name. Is it worth $10 for youmaybeslashdottednext.com?

Who is "they"?

[nyet]

Why don't they sue Microsoft, they sell things online

If you mean "why doesn't PanIP sue MS?", you answered your own question with the statement "I bet Microsoft can easily win".

I don't know why these e-merchants don't challenge the patients

Not sure which patients you are referring too. Perhaps you mean "Patents", in which case you really should have read the article, which clearly states that the chocolate company is challenging the patents.

or who the judge or jury thats letting them win.

See also the meaning of "out of court" in the phrase "out of court settlement".

Anti-Karma Wh0re

[Anonymous Coward]

Link at the google cache.

fight fire with fire

[zenst]

Couldn't they just patent a way of using legal systems too extortion monies from small companies via use of patents. Then sue them for infringement of their patent to sue companies that infringes patents. It would make life easier. But like celebrities copywriting/patenting there faces so they don't get harassed by the paparazzi as they could instantly sue for breach of copyright and therefore no publishers would dare touch the pictures. Naaaaaaa they love being victims. Anyhow who said they were using a computer screen - that's the users of the site that are doing that so are they to be sued next?

Re:fight fire with fire

[BdosError]

The problem with that plan is that there is no end of prior art on that technique.

Re:fight fire with fire

[zenst]

Yes indeed you're correct :(. But they would at least be able to interrupt the opposition's lawyers with the phrase "patent pending" at every opportunity given the length of time a patent takes to process ;).

No judge has ruled so far

[Tremblay99]

You can sue anyone for anything, no matter how specious. Being sued, however, does not mean that your case instantly goes to court ... or, indeed, ever will. It can take months to get a preliminary court date. Tack on more time for both sides to examine evidence. After that, both sides file motions ... yada yada yada. PanIP probably doesn't even want to go to court. They want to make a quick buck getting mom'n'pop shops to settle. They don't want to take on someone (say, WalMart) with more money, lawyers, and know-how. PanIP might win, but they victory would be pyrrhic; they'd have burned through all their cash.

However, the cost of settling a case like this for $15 or $20 000 is less than the cost of a coupla' good IP lawyers.

Sucks, but you can put your money where your mouth is and help out.

Re:No judge has ruled so far

[ender's_shadow]

clients may be able to sue anyone no matter how specious, but lawyers can't make frivolous claims.

See Rule 11 of Fed Rules of Civ Proc. Lawyers should be the gatekeepers to the court.

Unfortunately, when the patent office awards a patent it's not frivolous to sue under it.

the problem IS NOT the lawyers -- it's the patent office not doing their job of reviewing prior art.

Re:No judge has ruled so far

[DivideX0]

There is a new law that was signed on November 3rd regarding the review of patents with the a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that will make defense against a patent such as this much cheaper.

More information can be found here:

http://www.kilstock.com/site/print/detail?Articl e_ Id=1136

Sorry I don't have a link to the offical gov notice, but my company is already using this new law for a patent search service.

Re:No judge has ruled so far

[Sparks23]

...at least, until PanIP figures out how to apply their patents to PayPal and shuts them down, thus invalidating the 'PayPal Donate Now' image on the YouMayBeNext.com webpage. ;)

Re:No judge has ruled so far

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS IS THE FUNNIEST FUCKING POST I HAVE EVER SEEN!

SOMEONE MOD PARENT POST UP! "...but lawyers can't make frivolous claims." OH MY GOD I NEED A NEW SPLEEN I'M LAUGHING SO HARD!

Could the state of the economy be to blame?

[Blimey85]

I'm wondering if the economy has anything to do with this. It seems that when the economy is booming, we have fewer idiots running loose, or maybe we simply don't here about them as much. I guess I don't understand when these insane lawsuits became so common. We now seem to live in a society where we can sue for damn near anything and get pretty rich, pretty quick.

For example, remember the woman who spilled some hot coffee on herself at a Mickey D's? If I had done that, I wouldn't have told anyone about it at all. I wouldn't want to publicize the fact that I had done something stupid. It would have never crossed my mind that all I needed to do was pick up a phone, call up a lawyer and get rich.

1. Do something stupid.
2. Call a lawyer.
3. ???
4. Profit

IIRC, it seems that there was a bit of a lull for a while while the stock market was shooting up and everyone (or most everyone) was profiting... now that the bubble burst and more and more people are out of work, and more people are upon hard times, that the idiot lawsuits are going to start happening a lot more.

But maybe I was just too busy there for a while to pay any attention to the headlines... maybe the idiot lawsuits were happening all along.

Re:Could the state of the economy be to blame?

[allism]

When the economy is better, we don't have time to sit around reading /. because we are too busy out spending our money...

Re:Could the state of the economy be to blame?

[susano_otter]

...remember the woman who spilled some hot coffee on herself at a Mickey D's?

Yeah, we all remember her. Too bad nobody ever remembers the facts of the case.

Let's see: Mickey D's coffee regularly inflicts 3rd-degree burns? Mickey D's can't explain why they don't warn their customers about this risk?

Yeah, if I were on the jury, I'd award the woman some damages, too.

You may want to use a different example to support your future arguments.

Re:Could the state of the economy be to blame?

[SirSlud]

'Tis terrible to make your case with the nearly urban-lengend-sized McDonalds coffee case.

Anybody who's fairly anti-litigation at least is aware that that was a *very* fair suit she lodged.

The coffee was served WAY HOTTER than coffee is or should be. It burned through her SKIN. This wasn't a 'oops, that hurt, lets get rich', but 'oops, I'm missing half my leg skin, thats shouldn't happen when you spill coffee. I think I'd like the money to cover wages and the cost of getting that skin grafted back on.'

It was a very legit case and she was not money grubbing. Money grubbing happens alot, but if you wanna score any points, you'll make sure that your case studies represent situations where the litigation truely was frivilous.

Try spilling coffee on yourself sometime. If it burns _through_ your skin, sue away. You won't hear any complaints from me.

Re:Could the state of the economy be to blame?

[TomServo]

When I used to work at eToys, during the height of the dot-com boom, the company's crack legal team decided it would be a fine idea to go after etoy.com for their domain name, despite them having owned it first.

We also to deal with Amazon's one-click shopping patent during those days too.

These were around just as much in the internet heyday, when we were all getting rich (well, 'cept me, dammit), as they are now.

Re:Could the state of the economy be to blame?

[silas_moeckel]

Hrm posibly because ordering coffee one would expect it to be HOT as that is how coffee is servers it like ordering something that is flambee not letting it cool down a bit and sueing because you burned yourself. Coffee is something hot by nature if it was cold I would send it back unless I ordered it that way same for cool etc. The only real explination needed is the people that get burned by hot coffee arent acting the smartest at the time.

Re:Could the state of the economy be to blame?

[susano_otter]

According to every article Google could find about the facts of the case, McDonald's coffee is served far above the industry standard temperatures. Apparently the difference between the industry standard for "hot coffee" and the McDonald's standard is "3rd degree burns".

There's a clear dividing line between "hot" and "deadly"--the jury found that McDonald's had crossed that line.

Re:Could the state of the economy be to blame?

[Reziac]

From the cited site:

1.By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

2.Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;

I call bullshit on point two. Back in college I worked as a dishwasher in a commercial kitchen, with a thermostated unit that had a water temperature gage on the outside. Its average operating temperature was 185 degrees F. I had my hands inside the unit regularly, while it was running, to pull out whatever was stuck or had fallen off the rack. 185F will turn your hands nicely red after a few seconds (tho it doesn't last), but it doesn't cause 3rd degree burns by any stretch. After a few weeks, I had enough tolerance that I could keep my hands inside the unit as long as necessary -- and I still have all my fingers.

Yeah, 185F will blister membranous tissue (like the inside of your lips), but boiling your skin clean away takes more heat than that. Try the wax melt unit in a honey extraction plant, at around 300F, that'll do it (as I can personally attest).

I know someone who managed to dump a deep fat fryer on her hand (hot oil at about 450F) and she didn't get near as much of a burn as is described in the McDonalds suit.

Methinks there was a lawyer involved with a fine flair for the dramatic.

What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

We need some kind of automated Slashdotting tool, and use it to torture companies like PanIP, petswarehouse.com, etc. that do stupid things like this.

Cuz we can moan and groan all we want and it won't make a difference. Hurt their bottom line and maybe they'll notice.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an automatic tool. /. posts an article about this every couple of weeks, and the DOS attacks commence.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what someone needs to do is construct an html page which references every image on their site, and includes every page on their site within a frame. Then link to that page in a /. article every couple of days.

That should keep them soundly slashdotted for a long time, I think.

As a bonus, every cent they make from their extortion racket will have to go towards their bandwidth charges :)

why wait killem with paper

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wait on them to sue. I don't own any websites anymore but if I did i would think about filing a lawsuit on them in some fashion. Where there a lawyer there's a way. Now as sad as that may sound it would in fact be a sure way to kill a company like that if you hit them with enough lawsuits all at once from several differnt sources.

I simply do not understand...

[Dark Lord Seth]

... how a start-up campany like PanIP can patent something ridculously common and then start sueing everything that isn't bolted down or on fire. Isn't there some sort of judge that looks beyond the length of his nose, into the background of the company? Would a company that merely existed to sue other companies even be legal to start with? This reminds me of the radio advertisements you used to get in GTA3. "You want to quit working early? That's easy! Sue your boss! Sue anyone! For anything! And you'll probably win! (Or at least get a settlement.) Dail 1-555-I-SUE-YOU for more info."

Re:I simply do not understand...

[kiolbasa]

Isn't there some sort of judge that looks beyond the length of his nose, into the background of the company?

That's not the judge's job. That's the defence's job. They then present the facts to the judge, maybe a jury if one is requested, to take into consideration.

All the court has to go on when agreeing to hear the case is 1) PanIP has a patent on a process. 2) Someone has implemented the patented process without the permission of the patent holder. 3) The law says PanIP can petition the court for a redress of this specific greivance.

The claim that 1) never should've happened will be decided in court. The opinion that the last thing PanIP wants is to go to court is suggested by the pattern they have chosen in filing their lawsuits.

Relayed advice from an attorney

[dacarr]

An attorney I work with has informed me that they probably have nothing to worry about. Check with your own attorneys for clarification.

Why not sue...

[Magus311X]

Why not sue big companies like Tyco and Alcoa? Wouldn't they seem much more lucrative to a company like this?

Oh wait, because the legal teams that Tyco and Alcoa have would crush this stupid company like a bug!

If my company was a target, I would've crushed these guys like a bug for attempting to mess with small businesses.

-----

Re:Why not sue...

[putzin]

True, but it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against a lawsuit. Small business doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at defending against a lawsuit. Especially considering settling only costs thousands which, unfortunately, is affordable in many cases.

If you followed the story, more information regarding PanIP comes up, as well as lawyer attitudes, how PanIP found it's targets (small businesses with an online presence in good financial health), and the reasoning for the strategy. The lawyer in charge, I forget her name has even said it may not be nice or even not reprehensible, but it is legal. And the simple reason for the targets is the knowledge that PanIP may never be challenged but rather accumulate settlements. And with settlements, it builds up precedent. Then, it takes precendent against bigger names. Akin to boxing in that you don't take on Drederick Tatum first, but rather local hobos.

Besides, PanIP is an IP holding company. It does no actual business. The guy who incorporated it just holds a bunch of nonsense patents and uses those to sue people. Kinda like Rambus. I don't know that any attempts to reach this guy have been succesful by the press based on the more recent articles I've read. Basically, the incoporator is a sleaze abusing a flawed system for personal gain. Who he hurts and what little respect for the US patent system may have remained that he destroys is secondary to 5 grand per small business he collects. These people need to be lined up and deported Haiti or Uganda or Iraq where suing people is secondary to not getting mashed on by the government.

Re:If you would have read my post of 2 weeks ago..

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that chocolate was harmful to dogs? You'd better put an insurance policy on ol' Goldie.

Proposal to fix some patent issues

[0x0d0a]

I believe that, unlike with trademarks, there is no use-it-or-lose-it requirement on patents. You can selectively enforce, not enforce, or completely enforce your rights on patents as you wish.

OTOH, with 8 zillion patents out there designed to be as obfuscated as possible to get past the PTO, this makes engineering a minefield.

I'd prefer a specific exemption making the complaint that a "patent is unclear" becoming a complete defense against patent infringement. It'd also make it *much* easier for the PTO to administer the patents (instead of insanely complicated patents, they'd give the companies an enormous incentive to write their patents clearly and include useful keywords). It's more effective than just rejecting patents, because it means that companies can't just "retry" patents until they get a valid one.

The PTO already puts up a full-text-search search engine, so this makes patent searches much more feasible.

Obviously, this couldn't be retroactive, but it would be useful for curbing patent abuses in the future.

Accordingly

[da_Den_man]

The original Patent was filed in 1993. However, it would appear that it was directed towards travel and credit applications (i.e. Travel agent bookings and Credit applications) rather than geared towards an online "sale" of actual merchandise. The Patent can be found here, and several interesting items of note:

RIOR APPLICATIONS 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.

As it appears this has been trying to be processed for quite sometime before it was accepted, and also relies on several prior works.

Re:Accordingly

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, if you look at the image associated with the patent, you will see a nice diagram of the system that is being described. Notice that the diagram clearly depicts an "optical memory card reader". I wonder how many of these online systems use punch cards?

Site is accepting donations now

[lorcha]

We are currently in the process of setting up the Group Defense and the PANIP Group Defense Fund. We hope to have it set up by the end of this week

The site is now accepting sites through PayPal and I just donated (Yeah, I know, Paypal sucks but it's for a worthy cause). Hopefully they'll raise enough cash to fight this thing. There's got to be a truckload of prior art out there. Just look at any of the older e-commerce websites.

Not how patents work

[0x0d0a]

The abstract is intended to clarify the patent. The claims are what are legally significant here. Look a bit lower...anything that violates even *one* of the claims infringes on the patent.

Re:If you would have read my post of 2 weeks ago..

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't even clever, you cocksucking dicklicker.

it IS kinda odd...

[allism]

that, as the youmaybenext website pointed out, they are not suing anyone in California, especially considering that large parts of California are considered by the American Tort Reform Association to be judicial hellholes because of their tendency to dole out huge plaintiffs' awards. Anyone have any speculation as to why they are not filing suits in CA?

Re:it IS kinda odd...

[nolife]

Isnt PanIP in california also? I believe the last time this was posted to /., the general thought was because a small company would be less likely to travel to CA to fight this and settle out of court. Actually if you look at PanIP's recent actions everything is based on not actually defending the patent in court but getting money from smaller companies with little resources to fight back.

Re:it IS kinda odd...

[putzin]

This guy wants to avoid any chance of someone actually fighting the patent for as long as possible. He is suing in CA courts, but not suing anyone in CA. Why? Paying a lawyer to go to California from Vermont or Indiana is gonna be really expensive. Make the cost of fighting greater than settling and the little guy will settle. Walla, a money making venture.

Re:it IS kinda odd...

[Reziac]

It's not odd at all. If you can't show up in the court where the suit is filed, on the specified date, you lose by default. Just the cost to take time off from your business and show up in court, even without a lawyer, can be prohibitive (round trip airfare alone from the midwest can top $1200, which is more than some small businesses net in a month).

I noticed PanIP is also targeting areas where lawsuits of this sort are a rarity, therefore SCARY. The implication to a small business owner not used to thinking in terms of lawsuits, is PAY US OR WE'LL TAKE EVERYTHING YOU OWN! So the small business goes Oh My Ghod and settles, as the least frightening route they can see.

Whereas if they sued businesses in California, where starving attack lawyers are a dime a dozen and people are more used to this sort of thing, chances of finding themselves with a fight on their hands (not to mention a countersuit) skyrocket.

The first law of lawsuits: Know your target.

Profiles in Courage

[FuzzyDaddy]

And since the flurry of publicity, the company has been contacted by companies interested in paying license fees.

Where is dogbert and his strap-on spines?

Good thing I'm using an LCD!

[Baconator]

Having skimmed the text of the patent claim, it appears to me that using an LCD monitor would be completely outside the scope of the patent:

The satellite facilities are sales and information terminals, each equipped with a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) for receiving and displaying requested customer information from the computer's data sources at the data processing center.

So I guess all the web retailers have to do is add a disclaimer that only customers using LCDs or OLEDs are allowed to access the system!

Re:Good thing I'm using an LCD!

[Kaz Riprock]

it appears to me that using an LCD monitor would be completely outside the scope of the patent

That reminds me...I have to go file a patent...I'll be right back.

maybe they will eventually.

[zogger]

--maybe they will if they ever actually win any cases, and use that for legal precedent. What I think they are dojng now is both gaining (trying to) a legal precedent plus building a war chest from these little guys copping out to take on one of the big guys.

Re:maybe they will eventually.

[loners]

did we miss how this was on the cover of the October 21, InformationWeek under the title "Who Owns E-Commerce?" This will end real soon(judical time).

A judicial time unit is some where between geologic time units and post office time units.

Name of website reminds me of a poem

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Re:Well it looks like PanIP is about as popular as

[Anonymous Coward]

AIDS is popular among homosexuals, drug users, and negros.

Deep pockets no longer deep thanks to /.

[Anonymous Coward]

While donations have been steadily flowing in, a recently linking to our website by Slashdot has caused our bandwidth bill to be outrageous this month and had damn near caused us to have to file bankruptcy.

Once again we have screwed over another site. Are there any plans in the works to do something similar to Google Caching of sites that Slashdot links to? Maybe a 4 hour cache at the minimum. That would help with the initial influx of hits. A 24 hour cache or greater would be even better though.

One thing that we all can do...

[Niten]

I am sure I won't be the first to say it, but there is one thing that all of us can do here: Remember to stop by www.debrands.com sometime in the next couple of weeks after this Slashdotting has died off, pick out a nice $20 chocolate set for your {girl|boy}friend / your mother / yourself, etc., and support DeBrands. The "why" needs no explanation.

Re:One thing that we all can do...

[thedigitalbean]

Actually both sites seem to be handling the slashdot effect quite well...

why wait...

Re:One thing that we all can do...

[Prune]

I just did. Did you?

Reading sure is difficult.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better go back to kindergarten or get some better glasses, rummy.

The people responsible...

[Anonymous Coward]

The people responsible for granting that patent should be fired post haste and forbidden from holding another government job (aside from cleaning toilets in government buildings).

Re: ???

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long it will be until it's impossible to complete the intellectual property patent checks on *any* innovation before it's obsolete?

Since this one-liner is supposedly "Score:4, Insightful", can someone explain it for me?

Patent checks are too slow? Electronic commerce becoming obsolete soon? I don't get it.

no No NO!

[Ranger Rick]

They can't take my DeBrand chocolate away! This stuff is so good I ordered some and shipped it halfway across the country. Looks like it's time to make another order and help them out. No ulterior motive there... =)

Unsafe Products

[wantedman]

Hey, the McDonald thing is a Low blow 1. She spilled coffee on her in a PARKED car 2. The Coffee caused THIRD degree burns, enough to cause her to need skin graphs 3. She sued for $20,000, just enough to cover lost wages and the skin graphs she needed since the coffee burned thru an ENTIRE layer of skin 4. The judge wanted to make an example of the case.... 5. Media hears about a million dollar settlement, and presto.. links for trolls http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/lawoffice/coffee/ truth.html http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Hey, of course, an unsafe product is nothing to sue over, is it????

Re:Unsafe Products

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading your post I'm left wondering if you expect your coffee to be cold when you order it. She ordered a cup of HOT coffee. If it had not been hot, she would have most likely bitched at which point the sales person would have stated "Mam, we no longer offer hot coffee because it has been deemed unsafe. You might spill it on yourself and then sue us."

Give me a freakin break. The coffee was hot. I don't care how hot it was. When I order hot coffee, I expect it to be hot. When I make it myself, I make it hot. That's why it's called hot coffee in the first place. If I wanted cold coffee, I would order an Iced Mocha or whatever.

But you see, I have just enough brain cells to know that if I order hot coffee, and it's hot, and I spill it on myself, it's going to hurt. It may do some serious damage wherever it spills because it's a hot liquid.

The woman was a moron, spilled a hot liquid on herself and should not have sued anyone over he own accident. How do we know that she didn't do this on purpose? Maybe she was in need of money so she poured it on herself.

Re:Unsafe Products

[mindstrm]

This is what many people don't realize. The coffee was not simply hot coffee.. it was *extremely* hot coffee; the kind you can't drink until it cools quite a bit; the kind that, when spilled, caused instant third degree burns.

This was not a minor coffe accident with some 1st degree burns.. it was coffee being served way over the normal temperature that coffee is served at, with no warning.

Re:Unsafe Products

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn dude... I usually boil my water when I make instant coffee.. and I'm not sure how hot the water that comes out of the espresso machine is but it's pretty damn hot. And yes I've spilled it on myself and yes it hurt pretty f-in bad but I didn't tell anyone about it because I felt pretty stupid for spilling it in the first place. I always thought that coffee was supposed to be that hot when you make it.

Re:Unsafe Products

[SirSlud]

Ah, your logic offers a glipse of hope such that we might be able to test your reasoning against a loved one of yours.

For instance .. ou know your car goes fast, so you might crash sometime. If you crash, its your own fault!

I'm going to tamper with your throttle and cut your brakes. After all, you expect your car to go _forward_ right, so whether you hit the wall at 20PMH or 200PMH, its your fault for not checking the throttle and brake lines.

(Ie, HOT means dipshit. There 'ouch, thats burns' hot, and 'ouch, where did the skin on my legs go' hot. One kind of hot is a safety hazard; and those who recklessly endager the safety of citizens should have their asses sued off or go to jail. You could try going to a McDonalds and pouring coffee on yourself and suing them, but I'm afraid you're not going to get very far with only a stained pair of pants and no 3rd degree burns.)

Re:Unsafe Products

[AndroidCat]

I make my coffee with boiling water. (French press.) It cools down a bit over five minutes, but I still have to add cold water before drinking the first cup. (Either that or wait, and in the morning, that's not an option!)

I keep hearing that McDonald's coffee was hot. I doubt that it was much warmer than any hot-plate type coffee maker. I remember reading about one person who measured a number of coffee makers and found that the temperature wasn't abnormal.

Simple test: Take a digital thermometer and measure the coffee your coffee maker makes. (The empirical test of spilling a cup in your lap should be avoided by non-Darwin aspirants.)

Re:Unsafe Products

[Aexia]

How do we know that she didn't do this on purpose? Maybe she was in need of money so she poured it on herself.

Let's look at this profit making scheme of your's.

1. Intentionally spill scalding hot coffee on yourself.
2. Suffer third degree burns over your pelvis and legs.
3. Spend a couple weeks in intensive care.
4. Rack up hospital bills and lost wages.
5. Offer to settle for just the cost of hospital bills and lost wages, $20,000.
6. ?????
7. Profit!

Re:Unsafe Products

[mindstrm]

But the court fairly easily determined that that particular McDonald's coffee maker had the water much hotter than normal; they did measure them.

It was found that McDonalds knowingly served it's coffee on average 20 degrees hotter than other restaurants. Approximately 185 degrees F (that's 85 degrees C).
Whether this is hotter than your hot plate at home isn't relevant.. it's other drive through restaurants.

And it's also a myth that the lady was driving... (not that you mentioned it). She spilled the coffee while stopped, and she was the passenger.

at that temperature, third degree burns happen in just over 2 seconds.

Re:Well it looks like PanIP is about as popular as

[Anonymous Coward]

AIDS is popular among homosexuals, drug users, and negros.

You misspelled "BSD users"

Mmmm...

[DJCouchyCouch]

...chocolate.

Some points with the bride?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, like +5 Funny? :^P

helpful link for them

[AgentGray]

Everyone be sure and go here, here, and here and help them spend some of the money they're getting in the settlements on bandwidth. It wouldn't even hurt to go here.

Telling quote from PanIP's lawyer.

[mypalmike]

From a story back in May:

'Though the patents may seem broad, "when you seek a patent, you try to get it as broad as possible," said Walker [PanIP's lawyer]. "You don't want to limit it to just what you think it's going to be used for."'

In other words, the point of filing for patents is to undermine innovation by making them broad enough to cover things you never thought of. To see it put so plainly into words by someone who actually supports this approach makes me sick.

_-_-_

No, they are not saying that.

[mindstrm]

What they are saying is "Given that NOW we are telling you we have the patent, from this day forward you have to pay us licensing fees"

You can't collect damages for past use of a patent if the parties didn't know about it.

Re:Well it looks like PanIP is about as popular as

[LordKariya]

Now THAT was funny.
Thank you.

Re:If you would have read my post of 2 weeks ago..

[skuter]

Isn't the fact they are even asking for contributions on-line in direct violation of the patent in question?

American Science and Surplus

[Corvar]

One of the defendants is American Science and Surplus, which has long been a destination for geeks and hackers in the Chicago and Milwaukee areas. It is a great source of weird bits and pieces which can complete just about any project.

watch out

[erikdotla]

The first day the Patent Office opened, my great-grandfather patented the idea of inventing new products and introducing them into the marketplace for purchase and use by consumers. I inherited it all.

I plan to sue every company in the United States next year for infringement.

When I win and own every company in the United States, I will immediately dissolve them all and liquidate everything to cash and move to Fiji. All that will be left is non-profit and free software.

Re: Docterine of Laches

[SirSlud]

here

Its been awhile since I've read it, but I believe the thing is .. you can selectively enforce patents, but you also cannot purposely _delay_ litigation protecting your patents such that the delay harms the accused infringer.

Basically means "You are not responsible for policing the marketplace and cannot lose enforcability of your patent by not actively protecting it; however, you are also not allowed to purposely delay protecting your patent. If you become aware of an infringer, you can't sit around for a rainy day when you really need the money to commence an infringement suit."

I am sorry about the double post

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid slashdot hung the first time i submitted, so i figured it never went through. Blah.

Re:I am sorry about the double post

[AndroidCat]

A few days ago, everytime I tried to moderate, I got the "Create New discusion" screen. Cmdr Taco assured me that it was probably due to the location move. Bah, I thought I'd been granted uber-moderator status or something.

Re:I am sorry about the double post

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, lately, just about every time i try to use the Submit button on the Post Comment/Preview page, it hangs for a very long time and then just brings up a blank page.

As a result of this i have to go back, re-find the place, hit "reply" again, wait 20 seconds to appease the Lameness Filter, and then paste in the version in the clipboard (assuming i remembered to save one) about once per comment i post. It's getting kind of irritating.

I am beginning to suspect this may be due to my linksys router, though.

Re:If you would have read my post of 2 weeks ago..

[jhines0042]

That is a darn good idea. In fact, I think I'll do the same.

There... one order for ~$40 worth of chocolate. Everyone wins!

bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they're going to have huge bandwidth bills!

Write to the San Diego District Attorney

[joshamania]

I wrote a letter to the San Diego DA (posted it on my web site). You should too. The email address is "publicinformation@sdcda.com". I told a bit of the story, included some hyperlinks and suggested that the DA lay down the law on PanIP. If not for extortion, then for jaywalking, or speeding, or littering, or anything to make these assholes stop extorting money from the public.

Re:Write to the San Diego District Attorney

[Hanno]

Don't write an email. Don't fax.

Send a letter, on paper.

Re:Write to the San Diego District Attorney

[Adam9]

Indeed, I wrote a letter (ready to be sent out tomorrow) to the USA Today giving them some basic facts and why it should interest them. You may be thinking, why them? Publicity causes public opinion. Public opinion is bound to be formed pretty quickly when they see a heartless corporation (that survives by suing) suing a great (from what my friend told me) local chocolate shop in the mall. In this case, I think publicity will help their case a lot.

Brillant

[XorNand]

This is actually a brillant idea for a small company that sells gifts to do right before the holiday buying season -- attack a blatently wrong legal threat and get mondo support and priceless exposure.

From Le Cache De Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Crunchy Frog

a thought

[alta]

I haven't read their patent through, but from what I read in the story and your posts, the patent covers "text and graphics on a CRT" now the companies do have "text and graphics" but the CRTs belong to the consumers. It's not the small companies' fault that all those damn people are using CRTs to display the text and graphics. They need to be using something else to display it. So let PanIP go after the consumers. I doubt they'll get very far that way.

mod parent up

[rodentia]

This is totally on the money.

Netcraft says they run Apache on Linux...

[wings]

What's that site running?

The site www.debrand.com is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) mod_perl/1.27 mod_ssl/2.8.11
OpenSSL/0.9.6g PHP/4.2.3 on Linux.

Tasty Justice!

[AAAWalrus]

It seems to me that because PanIP is targeting small businesses who cannot afford to properly defend themselves in court, it could, in fact, be seen as legal extortion. Perhaps there is an effective legal defense tool in that alone - that PanIP targets small comapanies because large companies would be more willing to take it to trial and poke a hole in the patent claim, possibly getting it revoked altogether. Is there anyone who knows enough legalese to say whether or not the plaintiff's targeting of small "defenseless" companies is grounds for an effective defense in and of itself?

For example, a lawyer could try to argue parallelism between BarnesAndNoble.com and DeBrand's, pointing out in minute detail the exact similarities between the two companies and their online sales technology, arguing that if one is in violation of the patent, then the other is definitively as well? By drawing common ground of the defendants' being "small cap" companies, why then target them? Is this possible grounds for dismissal or defense of any kind?

-AAAWalrus

PS - DeBrand's chocolates are nothing short of amazingly tasty. You see them around quite a bit in Indiana, and they're hard to pass up. If this pans out in favor of the good guys, it would be tasty justice indeed!

Stupid question - what if you just ignore them?

[SuperKendall]

If you did get served with a notice from this company, what would happen if you just ignored them? It seems pretty obvious they would probably just ignore you, not really wanting the cost it would take to really go to court. Or even if they did, this is stupid enough you could represent yourself and have the whole thing cost very little.

But if you did ignore them, what could they do to you?

Re:Stupid question - what if you just ignore them?

[ahem]

In an article I read in InformationWeek, a San Diego attorney who represented some of the first group was quoted as saying that PanIP settled for much less as soon as the defendants filed a bunch of motions in court (as if to proceed with a defense).

If you just ignored them, I think they may be able to get a summary judgement, and you'd be scrood.

Re:Stupid question - what if you just ignore them?

[debest]

I'm fairly certain that ignoring a lawsuit is not a good idea. If you do not defend yourself against a suit (or settle beforehand), the civil court that it was filed in will likely find in the plaintiff's favour. Then PanIP would be able to use all kinds of methods to remove the money they sued for (and won) from you, including forcing the sale of the company if necessary (or going after the company's owner(s) if it is not incorporated).

The proper response is to offer to settle out of court or respond to the lawsuit. Since responding in this case means having to deal with a distant court, it would quickly (like, a day or two) be more expensive to respond than to just pay the ransom settlement. This is what they're counting on.

However, it looks like PanIP found someone they didn't count on, a business that's decided to call them on their scheme. Though they don't say on their site, I'm betting that in addition to refuting the merits of the lawsuit (something that will be expensive but reasonably easy to do), they will also (all companies sued but didn't pay) collectively countersue for the frivolous lawsuit, with heavy punitive damages for PanIP and its owners.

PanIP will very soon drop this lawsuit, claiming anything it can that the suit was an innocent mistake, and well, shucks, they're real sorry. They will hope that dropping the suit will nullify the countersuit that is coming (since they will claim that they corrected the situation). DeBrand and the others hopefully will persue the countersuit anyways to make an example of PanIP (and to get paid back in damages for legal bills already incurred).

They had better succeed, too, because there needs to be some kind of serious retribution for this detestible practice of patent extortion.

Respond with Criminal Charges.

[zentigger]

It looks like a pretty good case could be made for extortion under the Hobbes Act. More details are available here.

The gist of it is something like this:

1. Did the defendant induce or attempt to induce the victim to give up property or property rights?
   
2. Did the defendant use or attempt to use the victim's reasonable fear of physical injury or economic harm in order to induce the victim's consent to give up property?
   
3. Did the defendant's conduct actually or potentially obstruct, delay, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in any (realistic) way or degree?
   
4. Was the defendant's actual or threatened use of force, violence or fear wrongful?
   

Naturally item #4 is the tricky one, however: Generally, the extortionate obtaining of property by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force or violence in a commercial dispute requires proof of a defendant's intent to induce the victim to give up property. No additional proof is required that the defendant was not entitled to such property or that he knew he had no claim to the property which he sought to obtain. See United States v. Agnes, 581 F.Supp. 462 (E.D. Pa. 1984), aff'd, 753 F.2d 293, 297-300 (3d Cir. 1985) (rejecting claim of right defense to defendant's use of violence to withdraw property from a business partnership).

So it would seem that PanIP has already behaved criminally by collecting money from other businesses through through the treat of financial damage! Arrest the bastards and throw them all in jail!!!

Re:Out of court settlements don't involve the cour

[jazman_777]

...just a small team of lawyers sending extortion demands.

Why won't Hollywood make cool shows about _these_ lawyers?

We need Max

[jazman_777]

Mad Max, to deal with PanIP properly.

Kathleen Walker Lesbian Cunt Attorney

[Anonymous Coward]

She has permanent yeast infection. Her pussy stinks so bad, that Hilary refuses to munch on it!

An admitted communist, her girlfriend (the former Apple General Councel) also has a stinking pussy inflamed with a yeast infection.

Rather than whining, do something constructive

[DaveAtFraud]

Patents claims are vulnerable when there is either prior art or they are being applied where they shouldn't be. My guess would be that at least one of these two cases (and maybe both) applies to the PanIP claim. So does anyone out there in /. land want to go try to find examples of "prior art" (web commerce sites established prior to the PanIP patent) or read the actual patent and provide a technical "white paper" to the folks at www.youmaybenext.com that shows why the PanIP patent doesn't apply to a web based e-commerce site? I vaguely remember reading some of the patent when this issue was previously posted and thought that the pataent granted sounded more like something fo a point of sale system not web based e-commerce. Anyone have links to the actual patents?

Re:Rather than whining, do something constructive

[Xformer]

Take one look at the discussion boards on youmaybenext.com. There's tons of examples of prior art floating around there. All that is needed is 1) the will and 2) the financial means to bring those up in court to take this patent down. So far, there is a ton of will and not much in the way of financial needs... not as much as is needed, anyway (roughly $1mil). That's one thing that the web site is intended to organize.

the answer is: sue the American Constitution

[kipple]

The American Constitution, or the Government, whatever, should be sued for giving citizens the right to sue anyone and to waste money in that. Because such lawsuits are making more harm in terms of time, money and human resources spent on them than anything else.

Oh, the sweet taste of paradoxes! :)

What about the NABU Network in Ottawa

[farrellj]

They did "e-commerce" with NAPLPS terminals, and Ohio Scientific CP/M systems. Surely this is "prior-art"!

ttyl
Farrell

PanIP is just one of many

[gorbachev]

There is a large Chicago based company owning a patent for shopping carts. All of them. This company is sending demand letters to extort money from small online businesses to supplement their revenue, which is down significantly due to the dot.com bubble bust. Allegedly the small businesses are rather paying the five figure sum than fight it out in courts. The company is purposedly avoiding going after bigger businesses that would have the money and the means to fight back.

Amazon owns a patent for "one-click-shopping" and a bunch of other simple processes having to do with online commerce and is using its power to extort money from its competitors.

What you can do about something like this is to boycott the services and products of such companies. Amazon has plenty of competition, so does the Chicago based company.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill unethical businesses

Re:PanIP is just one of many

[Logic]

Oh, you mean divine's patent that they acquired with the purchase of Open Market? It must be tough for them, having been featured so many times on Fucked Company...

Re:PanIP is just one of many

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it's kinda difficult to boycott PanIP ...

It went live in 1982...

[farrellj]

Check out:
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/reg/7/millennium/tel idon/t elidon_nabu.html

ttyl
Farrell

Re: ???

[Dunark]

What I meant was that the patent office is granting patents that are too vague and too broad, creating numerous opportunities for claims of infringement (many of which can be frivolous). What's worse, it can be very difficult to find these vague and/or broad patents during a search because of their vagueness. It would be a monumental task to examine all of the patents that might possibly be construed as being infrigned by a new idea. New patents are awarded every day that make the problem worse, and the PanIP's of the world are just encouraging people to apply for more of these "IP grab" patents.

Yay!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fort Wayne was mentioned on Slashdot. woo hoo!

what irony...

[ozzy_cow]

correct me if im wrong, but is USPTO's website http://patft.uspto.gov/ violating the patent it issued?

if you go to to http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%275,576,951%27.WKU.&OS=PN/5,576, 951&RS=PN/5,576,951

now click add to cart and check out. isnt that violation of the patent right there? wtf?

What NEEDS to happen.

[MortisUmbra]

We, as a community, need to start pushing for donations for efforts like this, a common pool to collect funds for fighting back against the people that capitalize on the "divided we fall" methodology of crap like this. People too afraid of losing to someone who can afford a better class of attorney shouldn't be extorted for some other company to make a quick buck. If even just the slashdotters contributed to a fund of this sort we could probably make a difference. Letting these guys fight it out on their own will do nothing but make this brand of theft more and more popular as other groups see the effectiveness with which it works.

I sure hope no one calls here at home!

[NormanICE]

Walker, Kathleen M
3421 Thorn
San Diego, CA 92104
619-284-1965/619-255-0987

Web Site Insecure

[BrianWCarver]

I was half-way through the checkout process at debrand.com, buying some nice chocolates to help support these guys in their fight. Then I noticed on the page where I'd put my credit card number...It's not encrypted. I sent them an e-mail about this and hopefully it'll be fixed soon. Just a warning to those who have also had the good idea that we can support them and score points with the wife/girlfriend/mom/grandmom/etc. at the same time!

Re:Web Site Insecure

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it *is* encrypted--it's just within a frameset that isn't.

Re:Web Site Insecure

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they ARE using SSL... but the shopping cart is buried in a frame and so the cute little lock doesn't turn yellow. They should break their shopping cart out of the frame.

hitting home

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming from Fort Wayne, I was rather shocked to see a link to a Fort Wayne newspaper linked to on /.

It's easy to go and read the daily depressing news about yet another rediculous patent being used to extort businesses for money they patent-holder doesn't deserve, but this time it hits home. I've bought DeBrand chocolate for my grandparents many times (it's good stuff), and to see them targeted by the morally vile ferengi that are known as "PANIP" is disheartening. Is there anything that can be done to overhaul patent law? Waiting years to enforce a patent should void that patent. And the people granting patents should be knowledgable about Common Sense (TM) which seems to be lacking in most patent cases I read about.

Support the good small guys (like DeBrand's).

this is outrageous

[benfoldsfan]

i live in california. who do i have to kill to stop this crap?

(OT) Slashdotted GeoCities pages

[yerricde]

Funny how geocities doesn't have enough bandwidth for their hosted sites, but the 'temporarily unavailble' page loads in a blink with a ton of ads.

Because GeoCities hosted pages have only one ad each. On the other hand, the ton of ads on the "This page is slashdotted" page probably pays for it and then some.

I don't like the � but the � likes me

[yerricde]

since Beck himself has been questioned about his sources for musical accompanyment

And Marilyn Manson apparently stole from the artist formerly known as Puff Daddy. Listen to "I Don't Like the Drugs" (1998) and "It's All About the Benjamins (rock remix)" (1997). Then look me in the eye and say Manson didn't copy Puffy for the chorus.

Now listen to "Jump" by The Movement, "Tribal Dance" by 2 Unlimited, and the theme from the first "Mission: Impossible" movie. I don't know what exactly was first, but I smell copying.

Well, at least you can't own a chord progression ("The Day The World Went Away" by Nine Inch Nails vs. "Stranger in Moscow" by Michael Jackson).

(Way OT) Buying a Joke Domain

[yerricde]

No, but it was worth $12 at Gandi for Losing Nemo. Let's see what Disney thinks about that. It's all part of my grand plan of civil disobedience against questionably constitutional laws bought by Disney.

I don't think bad patents, especially those granted despite clear and present prior art, "promote the progress of ... useful arts" either. I'm curious how this PanIP thing will turn out.

Wouldn't video kiosks count as prior art?

[waferhead]

Video kiosks have been around since the Amiga hit the street in `8, and probalbly well before that

They were used mostly to provide ads, directions, etc, but some were used as POS systems (of a sort) and I vaguely remember seeins a few connected to vending machines.(possibly a demo)

Ring a bell for anyone?

And what about Minitel (France)

[solostring]

Minitel has been around in France since 1980 (or was it before?), and had online booking/ordering facilities.... If anything is prior art, then this surely is....

Panip slashdotted!

[bigfox]

Panip is slashdotted all to hell. Keep it up. Maby we can set their server on fire.

San Diegeo Union Tribune article

[pompetti]

The San Diego Union Tribune has an article in today's edition about PanIP. The writer asks questions why PanIP is only suing small companies outside of CA.
Here's a link to the article http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/bauder /20021105-9999_1b5bauder.html

Why does Slashdot denounce this?

[devleopard]

I thought Slashdot loved the idea of litigating companies out of business. Seems like an attempt at such made for some headlines lately.

America and Slashdot's priorities

[devleopard]

A company like this, that only makes money through litigation and theft, and as bad as 100 Microsofts. Yet, the US pours millions into suing MSFT, and this post only gets like 25% of the responses of a subpar posting with "Microsoft" in the title. Sad.

DeBrands

[cdrudge]

If anyone is in the Fort Wayne, Indiana area, stop in to either of DeBrand stores. If you have any sort of a sweet tooth, just entering their store will make your mouth water. They have some of the finest candies around and their hot chocolate ain't too bad either. On the other hand, if chocolate isn't your thing, don't bother. You'll be sick just opening the door from the chocolate aroma.

While you are there buying something for your S.O., drop off a check for their defense fund. This is one of those times where the little guy is getting knocked down and hopefully in the end, he gets back up and beats the crap out of the bully.

Re:Out of court settlements don't involve the cour

[Xformer]

Because a writer may inadvertently provide a way to make them look like complete imbeciles?

"How'd you know that would work?"
"I saw it on TV."

Hollywood might want to try the same tactics one day if they patent movie-making, which may happen if they get the same head-stuck-in-a-hole patent officer.

Someone's got to stand up to them

[CaptainCarrot]

PanIP's nothing but a bully, and they won't stop until someone stands up to them.

I know of a roughly analogous situation from a few years ago involving Starbuck's. This isn't precisely analogous because unlike PanIP, Starbuck's is an actual company doing actual business selling actual products that acutally has to worry about its reputation. But the point is that they continued what they were doing until one of the little guys they were beating up on stood up to them.

I am acquainted with the monks of the All-merciful Saviour Russian Orthodox Monastery on Vashon Island, Washington. Like many monasteries, they have to have some source of income to support themselves. Generally this is a handcraft of some kind, but in this case it's coffee. Really good coffee, too. Among other roasts, they offer a seasonal blend called "Christmas Blend." So do many other small roasters. Trouble is, Starbuck's had trademarked "Christmas Blend" even though it sounds like a perfectly generic conbination of words, and a few years ago they decided to go after all the small roasters in the country who were using the phrase. Typically they would not only demand they cease and desist, but would demand all income (not just net profit) from the sale of anything called a Christmas blend. One of their victims on the East Coast overheard one of the Starbuck's lawyers remark, "We're going after the monks next," and gave the abbot a call.

The financial effects of this on the monastery would have been disastrous. Fortunately for the monastery (but unfortunately for Starbuck's) the abbot is a reformed Berkeley hippie who knows perfectly well how to put together a grass-roots campaign, and so forewarned he prepared to do just that. His PR skill, their status as a nonprofit, public disgust with a huge corporation going after a bunch small businesses, the draconian nature of their demands, and the absurdity of a group of Christian monks being forbidden to use the name of one of their own holy days for one of their products, all combined to good effect. Editorials were written, cartoons were drawn, letters of support for the monks poured in, threats of boycott were made and carried out. In the end, Starbuck's wound up abandonning their campaign entirely and threw "Christmas Blend" into the public domain, which is where many thought it should have been in the first place.

This, incidentally, is the sole reason I occasionally walk into a Starbuck's. Having once threatened to boycott them even though I had never been a regular customer of theirs, I feel I owe them some of my business since they capitulated.

The point of all this (besides trying to put in a plug for the monk's coffee) is that it took only a single "little guy" standing up to Starbuck's to stop them in their tracks. It worked in this case, and it may very well work for DeBrand's against PanIP too.

What if we just burn them?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm serious; find out where they all live and burn their houses to the ground; burn the office; burn everything.

Lessons from office space; fire solves all of your lifes problems :)

the word had a constant IQ (now declining)

[poorbastard]

in a way, it seems that anyone who is in the legal profession & dealing with patents on technology should be required to have a technical background BEFORE they are allowed to practice law...

so much for retro-active abortions for these patent|legal waste of rations....

Use their hides for suitcases and their corpses for reactor shielding...

bastards...

Re:the word had a constant IQ (now declining)

[poorbastard]

sorry, title should be "the World had a constant IQ(now declining)

Re:the word had a constant IQ (now declining)

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic, isn't it?

Next time there are snipers running around

[asscroft]

I hope to god their geek snipers. Shoot PanIP, Some media CEOs, and some Media org chairpersons, maybe some corrupt power ceos, some lumber industry ceos, some oil company ceos, one or two evil congresspersons and a whole shitload of spammers. If someone is going to die, why kill innocent people? There are much more deserving targets out there.

Exactly

[MacAndrew]

We're not all alike, it's true. But volunteer vs. paid doesn't necessarily provide the measure.

I am not at liberty to comment on the merits of the case. Or the lawyers. :)

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not at liberty to comment on the merits of the case.

Yup. He's a lawyer.

Re:Well it looks like PanIP is about as popular as

[mgblst]

Is there a patent yet on shoddy businessmen who need a kick in the head, because i sure would like that one...

Of course, we are all just jumping on the bandwagon here, and don't really know both sides of the story. I think it is easier here for us to attack this guy, than feel anything for him, so we do.

UPDATE: PanIP sues the chocolatiers again....

[dfenstrate]

I donated $5, and got this in reply:
Wow! I was feeling pretty discouraged today after evaluating how much time this fight is taking me away from our business. I go from day to day wondering if the media is going to stay interested in this.

After getting the slashdot post late in the day there was an outpouring of support including many financial contributions totaling over a thousand dollars. And more are coming in as I'm typing this. I can' begin to thank you enough for your support.

I have a lot of fight in me because I believe in what I'm doing and I believe what PanIP is doing is wrong...if not criminal. The defendants that are joining me in this fight have no guarantee of the financial risk we're taking. We simply believe that if we don't stop PanIP now, it will only get harder after they've stung several hundred companies. I'm committed to fighting this so others won't have to deal with the disruption and hassles that I'm dealing with in our business.

I was notified today that PanIP has sued me with a second law suit claiming basically that my web site is defaming their reputation. Can you believe that! Apparently they think they have a patent on free speech as well as e-commerce.

Please stay tuned and help me spread the word. I need your help. We will win!

Timothy Beere
DeBrand Fine Chocolates
www.debrand.com


These guys really are pig-f*ckers, huh? Maybe someone can clue PanIP into the notion that you can't sue someone for telling the truth.

Re:UPDATE: PanIP sues the chocolatiers again....

[Adam9]

Mod this up, this is good news, also this is one of the few benefits /.ing can have on a business ;)

In Britain we have a saying . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

... "Don't let the bastards grind you down !" :-)

Seriously though - we also have a law against 'abuse of the legal system' by filing spurious law-suits.

Maybe America should copy us ?

P.S. Although for the love of God don't copy the RIP Act !

Re:In Britain we have a saying . . .

[Agamous Child]

In Britain you also have BT, who tried to sue Prodigy for the use of a little thing called the hyperlink.

You were saying?

Re:In Britain we have a saying . . .

[anonymous cupboard]

Ironically, the system upon which this is based, Prestel is also a major source of prior-art for this patent.

Nice headline!

[Andrewkov]

Where do they come up with these headlines??!! ;-)

Why, I Do Believe . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . that they've been /.'d!

Either that or they're running some truly slow crap.

Pax,
Thumper

Aren't they resposable too?

[obdulio]

Assuming that patent was right, Isn't MS responsable too?

They sell Frontpage, which I assume was used to create most of the "infringing" sites. At least, they should have included a warning that the sites created with it may be in violation of a patent.

3 letters

[GePS]

ATM

Thank you

[0x0d0a]

Good link.

Prior Art Goes Back to at least 1981

[Media Davis]

VideoTex companies were showing (and I think in at least two cases operating) prototype Videotex in 1981 and possibly earlier. At shows I attended back then, Cox Cable, AT&T, and other players were all showing prototype online advertizing and online commerce transactions. Both text and graphics were explicitly a part of the design. The prototypes displayed were live code and used both together. I don't know of any prior art before then, but commerce on The Source, CompuServe, and Dialcom (to name three) was already going by then (just probably not with images). Davis

Don't say what you can't write

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't spell the Ü in Über, you shouldn't, just because it's "the cool thing to do".

buy from the defendants!

[e40]

It's one way to support them, after all. I'm eyeing some pies...

My one regret

[6Yankee]

Wish I'd patented the idea of making money through ridiculous lawsuits and sat on it. Then I could sue these clowns, and Forgent and the rest of them, and, um, make money through ridiculous lawsuits...

Pro Bono?

[Marc2k]

However, the cost of settling a case like this for $15 or $20 000 is less than the cost of a coupla' good IP lawyers.

Unfortunately, it'd probably be even a lot more than that, especially in Chocolatier's case. My question is: if all of these legal types and law professors are in a tizzy about it, why are none of them willing to offer their support for pro bono work, or even nominal compensation. This effects *everyone*, and this is a precedent that should not be allowed to continue. If a couple of prominent IP lawyers were willing to donate some time for what would appear to be an open-and-shut case, they would pave the way for others. PanIP would probably stop hounding all of these small businesses for cash. IANAL, but if they didn't, they could just bring them to court with a local lawyer, and pretty much only have prove that they're under the same umbrella as SoandSo vs. PanIP, not? I hear so much speculation by prominent lawyers about how awful these new laws are, but no one is willing to give up their time to do anything. Hell, we're decently paid professionals too, and a lot of us give away our professional works for the greater good.

Pangaea Intellectual Properties

[Ethidium]

Is it just me, or is that an unbelievably pretentious name for a company, especially one formed for the express purpose of filing IP suits? "We're PanIP, we invented the internet--and everything else"

Chia

Their lawyer sucks and so does her law school

[EaglesNest]

Their lawyer, KATHLEEN M. WALKER, graduated form Creighton University Law School, ranked 116 out of 164 law schools in the country. It's ranked betwen the University of Montana and Louisiana State law schools. Apparently they don't stress ethics there. This is what happens when you have too many lawyers and forget to teach ethics.

what a shame!

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!
It would be a shame if PanIP's bandwidth bills were too much because they got spidered!!

InformationWeek had this on its front page

[ALecs]

The Oct. 21 copy of Information Week has their cover story about this very company.

The web site version of this article is here.

SA

[Ando[evilmedic]]

goon.

What Internet?

[anonymous cupboard]

The patent makes no reference to the Internet. Indeed, it refers to dialup terminals. What seems to be core is the ability to present sales options based upon customer preferences.

Even in the early 90s it was possible to use computer systems before the Internet to trade in many items, including the specific travel application that they quote. For example, it was possible to book flights and hotels via SABRE (i.e., you didn't need to refer to printed copies of the OAG). SABRE certainly built up a profile of customer preferences. Certainly in the UK, the Prestel system provided travel agents in the 80s with a generalised interface for flight/hotel reservations. Many agents had automatic systems for determining best buys (Thom Cooks, was one).

Re:What Internet?

[McFly777]

I guess it depends on whether the courts would view "the internet" as a new medium, separate from dial-up services using a computer. For many people, there is little difference (AOL is a prime example of this).

And Prestel...

[anonymous cupboard]

The service otherwise bombed, but was very popular with travel agents in the UK.

Justice isn't cheap

[Valdrax]

Perhaps there's something you haven't learned about modern court cases. If you're a small person, it doesn't matter how just your case is if you can't afford an attorney to handle it. IP cases are some of the nastiest and arcane proceedings in modern law. If you don't have an expert, you're likely to lose.

Despite good evidence, there are many pitfalls that you can fall into if you try to represent yourself. If you try to hire a lawyer, the other side will drag out proceedings as long as possible if they think they can make the case far too expensive for you. In other words, most sites have given up and decided to pay the fee for something they shouldn't owe any money for because they can afford to fight back.

This is why the word "extortion" was used. PanIP is going after little guys that don't have the money to fight them so that they can get enough money to take on the big guys. Right now, the big guys have more money and would squash them. Also, they're hoping that a good list of companies paying them will act as evidence of the worth of their claims. Furthermore, if they can get a little guy to take them to court and crush them through better lawyers, they've established a precedent upholding their case.