Slashdot Mirror
Australian Gov't Moves To Block E-commerce Patent
ColaMan writes "Surfacing in the Australian version of GoogleNews,
moves are afoot to block a patent covering (it seems) general ecommerce practices on the internet. This comes after the recent strongarm tactics against New Zealand businesses by D.E. Technologies , holder of the patent overseas."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/17/10580 35125683.html
The Google link does not appear to work.
But I found what I think is the article referred to here
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Can someone explain this to me honestly?
How is it possible for someone to patent something on a nationality-less object like the Internet?
How can they even enforce this, with the exception of AU based companies, what will stop my Bank in Zimbabwae from using their "patented" e-Commerce thinga-mawhatsits?
Or is it just one of those marketing things, like saying "Oxi-Clean is backed by a patented process..." Just so they look good?
Anyways, go Australia!
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Like many stories lately, this is another example of companies abusing Patents...
I guess that if you can't find a good way to make money, just patent something, and sue the hell out of everybody...
Well, Im a relatively small e-commerce site, doing no more than perhaps $50,000 USD(equivilant) a year. Something like this would simply kill me.
I do not see how any company is going to come to terms with these high costs - more than likely they'll just adapt around the legals and leave the legal fees falling back on DET.
I only hope that the person/group/body whom approved the patenting of business-processes didn't envisage things happening like this, more than likely I'm deluded.
Its good to see a county actually opposing stupid patents. Now if australia would only apply the same sort of logic to its monopoly on telcos.
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
The fight's not over here yet, either. Associate Govt Minister for tech is looking at the issue although it's probably too little too late when you think about it. It's interesting to note that the guy who runs DE Tech wanted to set up shop in NZ and target every other country in the world from some kind of "cyber Switzerland". He got no government support for his idea and now is targeting NZ companies instead. Draw your own conclusions.
? storyID =3512663&thesection=technology&thesubsection=comme nt&thesecondsubsection=
. cfm?storyID =3511627&thesection=technology&thesubsection=gener al
l /0E333D06 28EEA685CC256D60000F23F8
l /DDCEA58D 77FA36A0CC256D5F00721106
InternetNZ (the old Internet Society of NZ) is helping pay for a legal opinion on the matter also.
Surely it's about time we all got organised enough to stop this kind of nonsense before it costs someone an eye? Right? Amazon one-click/BT patents internet/etc...
Extra stories here from NZ Herald and Computerworld NZ - sorry about links, no time to pretty them up.
Lumbering reaction to software patent claim
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm
Patent threat to NZ e-tailers
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay
InternetNZ puts up cash for patent opinion
http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/n
Govt should act to save e-trade
http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/n
I am a leaf on the wind
this is almost as ridiculous as that guy who successfully patented the HYPERLINK.
which is in turn, easily less rediculous than comnpanies who actually PAID to use the hyperlinks.
zdnet article posted today
Plans are afoot in Federal parliament to derail a controversial patent claim that could see Australian businesses charged millions of dollars to conduct international transactions over the Internet.
In 1998, I've used ShopSite software to run an e-commerce site (which was accepting international orders, calculated shipping costs for DHL/etc, and done many other things). It was a software that was developed before 1998, and as much as I can see DT morons filled for their patent on December 29th, 1997.
I'm also sure Intershop might be able to give some dates in relation to their software, since I've used Intershop in 1999, and it was also developed before 1998 (probably even before 1997).
The letter then warns that if D.E. Technologies is forced to litigate and succeeds, it will be entitled to an injunction against the website in question, damages and costs...The last paragraph of the letter adds: "We trust commonsense will prevail and look forward to hearing from you within the above deadline."
Oh yeah, D.E. Technologies knows all about common sense.
This move doesn't surprise me, but if this goes through, it will certainly mean small businesses like mine will die because many cannot afford the cost. Come on Australia! Rally and fight this patent!
To NULL or not to NULL.
The Fight the Patent site has a number of links to news articles and info. (Cute gif at the bottom.) Try not to slashdot them too badly, single file please...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
That patent is incredibly stupid. It should never have been granted anywhere.
By the way, I've been wondering about something. In general a patent covers a specific method of doing something. Like, a mouse trap is only covering that specific system, not the concept of catching mice.
With that MSN IM translation patent, shouldn't it only cover that method translating IMs? So if you were to figure out another way to do it, you'd be in the clear? Or with the one-click patent, does that patent cover "A method of buying stuff on the internet (with one click)" or is it "A method of buying stuff with one click (and here's some software to do it)"? If you implemented one-click shopping via some other method, wouldn't you be in the clear?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Perhaps you're thinking of British Telecom (BT) who tried and failed to patent hyperlinks?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
How many Australian companies hold E-commerce patents ?
Well, this answer is: none.
So, while e-commerce patents are indeed questionable by nature the Austrilian goverment is lead by very different reasons to void them: They want to give their own Aussie based companies a commercial advantage over US competitors. Australian companies won't have to invest money into the development of innovative, high-tech business model and are protect from paying any patent fees by Australian law. Thus they gain a huge advantage by cutting their e-commerce cost by 20 percent.
I think the Bush goverment should finally remember their responsibilities and instead of providing their business buddies with cheap Iraqi oil, they should make pressure on the Australian goverment to take down these laws which are btw contradicting the WIPO agreement Australia signed itself, too. It's the duty of a goverment to act for the benefit of all citizens and not just their own supporters and conservative think-tank pals.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
The standard way of patenting in recent years has been to take [insert any ancient or commonplace activity here] and do it "on the Internet!"
Now these guys have created a revolutionary method for patenting! Just take [insert any ancient or commonplace activity here] and do it "internationally!"
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Hey! There is some insight on Slashdot! Someone mod it up quickly before it gets lost.
DROS - Open-Source Robot Software
Thank god patents are only 20 years, so the damage is minimized compared to, say, a 70 year patent
I know you can get a patent on business methods in the United States, but I thought that most other places they had stricter rules? A case in point is that in Canada, they rejected the idea of patenting living things (i.e. the Harvard Mouse) that was allowed in USA.
I can't believe this patent is going to stand up if it gets tested in court. There has to be prior art out there somewhere, aside from that it should fail the on the "nonobvious" criterion...
nt
The expression "Patently Obvious" takes on a whole new meaning.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
A method of determining your origins [reverse dns, whois], appropriately converting the prices [many online databases have this info] and figuring out shipping and handling [fedex.com].
Whoa seems like there is prior art.
Plus a $10K signing fee + 1.15% royalty + $0.11 per document generated. You have to be fucking kiding. I mean if you have say 100,000 page views a year that's like a billion dollars!
Anyways, I hope DET explodes and the CEO dies in a horribly messy car fire.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
It happened first in the country called USA, who is the leader of the word economy, the country where most of government workers (if not most of citizens in general) lack seriously their education. After it (business method patenting) becomes a common practice in the US Patent Office it's too late to change anything in other (2nd world?) countries. Everyone else has to comply or be ready of being slashed by US Government, the government of corporations and for corporations.
Less is more !
Maybe those in Chicago remember divine.
They tried the same exact tactic last year using their broadly defined shopping cart patent. Let's hope this action ends the same way, divine was out of business 4 months later. (But succeeded in licensing the right to use a shopping cart for $25,000 to a couple dozen small companies before they went under)
My guess is this DE Technologies will soon be bankrupt, so I'd just ignore any of their demands. As with divine, I think the only company that's dumb enough to try something like this is one that is already going under and so has nothing to lose. These companies know their patents are bullshit and will never stand up in court, that's why their licensing fees are always in the $10k to $25k range, just low enough so that it's cheaper for the mom and pop shops they abuse to pay the license rather than hire a lawyer. Their worst nightware would be to end up in court, I don't think a company would even have to actually hire a lawyer to make them go away, just tell them you're not paying the license and will see them in court, they'll back off just out of fear of going to court and seeing their whole ponzi scheme fall apart.
I used to buy books on the Internet in 1996. I'm quite sure there is plenty of prior art out there to squash this patent.
You mean it? We'll be free?
No overlords? You're serious?!?!??!!!
No kidding!
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Ford has just signed a licensing agreement, as has Goodyear [actually, a product-wide exclusive! How's that for thinking outside the box?].
Cannondale and Huffy, on the other hand, have decided to make things hard on themselves, and indeed it is going to be hard on them.
One might think the same about Piper Aircraft, but actually their legal adviser just laughed and commented that Piper gets sued out of existance every ten years anyhow, and they weren't going to pay it any more attention. After further investigation, we agreed that it was not worth pursuing that venue farther, and offered them a different licensing package which they accepted. Indeed, their lawyer, after looking at it, was quoted as saying "Huh, no kidding!".
Okay, enough pulling your leg. Joke's over.
But you guys, last time I posted a joke like this, one really stupid person rated it "informative", after which lots of others rated it troll. I honestly *never* expected it to get an "informative", or even get a bad reaction. I expected people to laugh and go on.
So let me explain something about "humor", and "clue". Clues are kindof like the back end of a hammer: either it has one, or it doesn't. Humor is much the same, but if you don't have it, especially summertimes, you can go to a Good Humor Bar(TM), and get a sense of humor. But if you don't have a clue, please kindly refrain from moderating.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
(Note: this post only applies to US rules.)
The prior art necessary to reject claim 1 needs to have all components together in one, and have been publicly known or used before the applicants invention date (under 35 USC 102), which none of those prior arts you listed have.
Failing that, you can then go to 35 USC 103 (non-obviousness clause) and say that you have these systems of a shopping cart, a monetary converter, a shipping calculator, translator, and all of the other components claimed under claim 1 and cite publicly known reasons (teachings) to combine them together into one (e.g. some article stating that using a translator and price converter in shopping carts makes it easier to conduct international business printed before the invention date).
Just from reading claim 1, it looks like there is nothing new in parts c-h and a standard ecommerce site would already include such items. The new sections are a-b. I have not seen anyone who does both of those in conjunction with a shopping cart or seen any teachings that would motivate me to combine a-b with an ecommerce site.
The technology sounds formidable. Here's the abstract of the patent from
uspto.gov.
An international transaction system for operation over the internet/intranet provides a pre-transactional calculation of all charges involved in any international transaction. Upon the option of the customer, the goods can be viewed on catalogue sheets translated to a language of the customer's choice, and the price provided in a currency selected by the customer. The customer also has the option of initiating the order with automatic credit authorization, generation of an electronic title or commercial invoice and arrangements and payment of shipping charges and any taxes and import/export duties
All the people with small businesses saying they can't afford such technology should relax. This is all about importing/exporting. I doubt small businesses are going to be worried about losing the handful of sales to someone in Timbuctoo.
Anyone with large enough export volumes would rather buy a licensed product than develop one themselves to do all the things specified in the abstract.
If a small business has so much exporting that they need to use software to automate sales - well, you won't be small for long.
The software under patent is complex enough to automate many activities required by the bureaucracy in international trade. That's creditable, not obvious.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
I can't wait for someone like Amazon to be served notice over this patent. Hopefully it will be squashed like a little pest that it is.
I mean, what's next? A patent on discussion boards such as /.?
Only in America can a company be formed purely with a business plan based on litigation. The pantent act has become a business lawyers dream come true. Sco's Unix business model is obviously now in the same catagory. Good for you Australia!
Too bad Canada, Americas largest trading partner, hasn't got the balls to stand up and say enough of this bullsquat. I am afraid that the country I love has become another spineless, leave sleaping dogs lie, puppet. The future of commerce and innovation is in jeopardy if we alow this rediculous sherade to continue.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Subject sez it all.
As a descendant of Ghenghis Khan, I request my fees for Business Patent 02, which covers invading a country and stealing everything they have. I have calculated that the US Government owes me in excess of $100 billion and I strongly advise them to settle as soon as possible or court fees will also be pending.
found some hard figures for those interested ... ... Well roughly at the moment the wholesale price of a litre of diesel is around 90 cents per litre of which you'd pay 39.5 cents in tax, in excise, and then there's the GST on top of that," he said. ...
[Fuel costs bring high political price]
Reporter: Peter Lewis, ABC LandLine - First Published: 25/02/01 - read down to the Pricing diesel subtopic.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup