Slashdot Mirror


Charlie Northrup's One-Man Patent Grab Continues

FirstEdition writes "Will this never end! Linux Business & Technology writes that Charlie Northrup, the guy in New Jersey whose prior art on what looks to be Web services dates back to 1994 and appears to trump anybody else's IP, has gotten another patent. Of course, he has transferred the IP to a spin off company populated mostly by lawyers. More details here."

7 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Can you say CORBA? by rossjudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you read the patent, it reads like a description of CORBA. The OMG started working on CORBA in 1989. That's all the prior art that should be needed.

  2. Ah, the legal system... by tony1c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As someone who's recently started operating his own company I'm astounded by how many ways the legal profession has of taking your money without actually providing any benefits. I'm starting to believe that we have a large parasite feeding off of (American) businesses. This is not to say that the entire legal prof is a leech... only that legislation is abused for the sake of acquiring money that isn't legitimately earned. I seems that a lot of patent suits fall into this category. I hope I'm wrong, but my experience makes me believe this is one of the more serious and unnecessary threats to progress here.

  3. The Problem is... by KimiDalamori · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, this guy got the patent, and yes, someone probably has prior art, and the courts will probably throw it out as long as the President doesn't interfere with the judicial system to help this guy. But there's still a problem: Who want's to be the first poor SOB to have to defend himself in a lawsuit? I'm sure this guy isn't stupid enough to make his "liscensing fee" more expensive than defending one's self in a courtroom, which means he can use those firms who choose the cheaper option of paying the liscense, to legitimize his claims against those who do fight.

    Me? I say to hell with Iraq, we need a regime change at the USPTO!

    --
    Lagito ergo expectabo
  4. Re:That's okay...Circular defense. by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I look at it this way...

    IBM did significant development of computer theory. They've probably contributed more than any other company combined. Granted, they have screwed up at times, and screwed up royally, but they don't appear to be running around smashing others with only lawyer-based divisions, a'la Rambus. They're also contributing back into something that I use on a daily basis as my primary computer platform, even when they didn't invent UNIX. Right now, IBM is a community player, and while that could change in theory at any moment, they're more my friend than this freak who is trying to demonstrate a patent on hypertext transfer protocol...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Re:A good idea to stop that by angle_slam · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is to make patents NON TRANSFERABLE...

    That would be about the worst thing that could happen because individual inventors (except thouse who were rich) would have no power.

    Imagine the following situation. You invent a chemical compound in your garage. Let's say its a new form of rubber that never wears out. Great! Now you can start making tires. Except you can't. Unless you have millions of dollars to build a tire factory. Fine. Sell the patent to Goodyear. Can't. It's been outlawed. Well, at least you can prevent Goodyear from using the rubber, right? No. Goodyear takes your formula, you try to sue, but you can't afford to pay the lawyers, so the lawsuit ends before it begins.

  6. 20 years is way to long by scot_sd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the USPTO site:

    For over 200 years, the basic role of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has remained the same: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries.

    As much as I agree that this is a laudable goal, I think it's obvious from this case and others that in today's high-paced climate, patents often serve to do exactly the opposite.

    The truth of the matter is that after 20 years, modern technology is most likely so far behind the curve that it's useless or, at best, so developed that no right-minded business is willing to spend anything on it's continued development. Thus, patents such as these no longer serve to give a small advantage to inventors and protect fledgling technology. Rather, they tend to provide a means for the Chucks of the world to significantly inhibit development for the entire useful life of the technology. This isn't the industrial age anymore; to think that 20 years still represents a "limited time" is both ignorant and counterproductive.
  7. Re:WTF?-Guilty? Not I. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "What I learned while trying to get a patent, and what the slashdot crowd needs to grok, is that Patents Are Business Tools!" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

    Let's see.

    1. "Whacking competitors is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

      That was fun.

      "Industrial espionage is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

      Better, better.

      "Insurance fraud is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

      Nice.

      "Defrauding investors and employees is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it.".

      Whoo Hoo.

      "Dumping toxic waste illegally is a business tool" and "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."

      Yum.


    You know? Life is so much easier when one doesn't have a conscious. Thanks dude.