Slashdot Mirror
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."
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 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.
it's funny how they haven't gone after any major companies that have more formidable resources than these small businesses. I wonder why????
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
May we never see th
RICO also can allow for jail time for company officers. This is a very good option.
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?
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
--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.
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.
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.
Beer wants to be free
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.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
"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.
Don't write an email. Don't fax.
Send a letter, on paper.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
correct me if im wrong, but is USPTO's website http://patft.uspto.gov/ violating the patent it issued?
T 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
if you go to to http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
now click add to cart and check out. isnt that violation of the patent right there? wtf?
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?