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."
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?
~ now you know
Couldn't the Home Shopping Network be prior art for this?
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?
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wrote:
/. a few days ago). Here's what they had to say:
...to ask about contributing to a defense fund (after reading about this on
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!
They're giving us lawyers a bad name!
Oh, wait...
And of course, what would slashdot be without the... Obligatory Python Link
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
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.
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..;])
You May Be Next... to get Slashdotted.
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?
From About Amazon.com:
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.
~~
Check out this list.
Seriously, how can you sue "The Little Pie Company" and still claim to have a soul?
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.
... I still use my old hardcopy terminal then, eh?
"
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...
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.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
Nice domain name. Is it worth $10 for youmaybeslashdottednext.com?
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".
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.
... 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."
Hate me!
An attorney I work with has informed me that they probably have nothing to worry about. Check with your own attorneys for clarification.
This sig no verb.
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
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.
You keep going until you die..."Me".
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.
May we never see th
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
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!
--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.
'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.
_-_-_
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
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.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
The problem with that plan is that there is no end of prior art on that technique.
Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard.
'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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
here
.. you can selectively enforce patents, but you also cannot purposely _delay_ litigation protecting your patents such that the delay harms the accused infringer.
Its been awhile since I've read it, but I believe the thing is
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."
"Old man yells at systemd"
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!
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Ah, your logic offers a glipse of hope such that we might be able to test your reasoning against a loved one of yours.
.. ou know your car goes fast, so you might crash sometime. If you crash, its your own fault!
For instance
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.)
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
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.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
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.
This is totally on the money.
illegitimii non ingravare
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!
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?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The gist of it is something like this:
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!!!
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
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?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
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!
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
They did "e-commerce" with NAPLPS terminals, and Ohio Scientific CP/M systems. Surely this is "prior-art"!
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
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
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Check out:l idon/t elidon_nabu.html
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/reg/7/millennium/te
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
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?
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!
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!
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
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).
Will I retire or break 10K?
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....
-- 7 string electric violin + live loop samplers
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.r /20021105-9999_1b5bauder.html
Here's a link to the article http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/baude
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.
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.
And the brethren went away edified.
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.
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.
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.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Good link.
May we never see th
It's one way to support them, after all. I'm eyeing some pies...
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.
--- What
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
\
goon.
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).
The service otherwise bombed, but was very popular with travel agents in the UK.
Ironically, the system upon which this is based, Prestel is also a major source of prior-art for this patent.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?