Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Gov't Moves To Block E-commerce Patent

Posted by timothy on from the ones-and-zeros dept.

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."

25 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps... by X-wes · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/17/10580 35125683.html The Google link does not appear to work.

  2. Google link doesn't work by Sapphon · · Score: 3, Informative

    But I found what I think is the article referred to here

    --
    Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
  3. e-Commerce patents? by agent+dero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:e-Commerce patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How is it possible for someone to patent something on a nationality-less object like the Internet?

      The western, industrialized nations are the biggest ecom players, so it really doesn't matter if some 3rd world nation is using the same patented methods with their software. You have to follow the trail of money on this one. It's a double-edged sword. You can get away with it, but then you can't conduct business in places where the trademark is effective (consequently this is where the biggest market is)
    2. Re:e-Commerce patents? by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Informative
      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?

      Even worse, read the D.E. Technologies letter and try to imagine anyone doing any kind of business app on the Internet without violating that rubbish patent. "We displays stuff in yer language and currency, you selects stuff, we totals it, you give okay, we run the transaction, Bob's yer uncle!" People shouldn't be allowed to patent a common business transaction just because they added "computer", "internet" and "world-wide web" to the application. They matter as much as wearing clown suits.

      Patent examiners need to be taught to use that big red rejection stamp "Fscking Obvious!" more often.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:e-Commerce patents? by GammaTau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is it possible for someone to patent something on a nationality-less object like the Internet?

      That is kind of like asking "how is it possible that the government locks everyone with the letter 'e' in their name to prison?" Stupid things can be done. If a government agency grants a patent to such a method and other governments in the world agree and assist with enforcing it, then it is possible.

      This has, of course, nothing to do with the purpose of the patent system. The purpose of patent system is to make inventors to share their inventions with the general public. In return, the general public grants the inventor an exclusive right to the method for a limited time. However, nowadays the idea of benefit to the general public has been completely lost.

    4. Re:e-Commerce patents? by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's rather simple , you just patent in all the countries that have internet access.

      In this case , D.E. technologies has patented this method in 32 countries so far.

      How the hell this could get past 32 patent offices without getting the great big "Get Fucked" stamp on it is beyond me.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    5. Re:e-Commerce patents? by bentcd · · Score: 5, Informative

      How the hell this could get past 32 patent offices without getting the great big "Get Fucked" stamp on it is beyond me.

      We don't know how many they've tried and failed in though, do we? In some countries (*cough* US *cough*), it doesn't take much more than a correctly filled out application to get a patent. It's not whether you can get the patent that matters but whether you can successfully defend it in court.

      (With some luck, the US patent office is serious when it says it will change its evil ways)

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    6. Re:e-Commerce patents? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Funny
      (Ratzen fratzen... can't post in all caps.)
      hello,

      i am writing you of a wonderful business
      oppertunity in nigeria. my father was gumbo
      aiduiuda creator of the patent for e-commerce.

      i am the rightful heir to the fortune that has
      become him. but being persecuted by the regime of
      douy, cheetum and howe, i cannot move the money
      out of nigeria.

      in exchange for the use your bank account i am
      willing to share 20% of the sum of $3 billion
      dollars.
      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  4. There goes my business by inflex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:There goes my business by okeby235 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What someone needs to do is sue the patent office for damages. It was their negligence in awarding a patent (that had no technical merit) in the first place that costs you money.

  5. Patents by rf0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Additional coverage in NZ by Audent · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    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? storyID =3512663&thesection=technology&thesubsection=comme nt&thesecondsubsection=

    Patent threat to NZ e-tailers
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay. cfm?storyID =3511627&thesection=technology&thesubsection=gener al

    InternetNZ puts up cash for patent opinion
    http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/nl /0E333D06 28EEA685CC256D60000F23F8

    Govt should act to save e-trade
    http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/nl /DDCEA58D 77FA36A0CC256D5F00721106

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind
  7. Re:Abuse, once more... by cioxx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I guess that if you can't find a good way to make money, just patent something, and sue the hell out of everybody...

    Which is really depressing, considering there are firms whose sole purpose is to beat the game and patent inevitable technology ahead of everyone else, which in turn, hampers technological progress.

    The whole system is fucked beyond recognition.
  8. it's going to get worse before it gets better ppl. by professorhojo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  9. probably a more understandable article on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  10. Hmmm... by X.25 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

  11. Patent Approval == Death to Small Businesses..... by The+Head+Sage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  12. "Fight the Patent" site by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  13. Not too suprising by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Not too suprising by rollingcalf · · Score: 3, Informative

      > 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?

      I believe that is how it is supposed to work. And indeed when many patent infringement cases have actually gone to court, either the patent got thrown out altogether, or the defendant was found not to be infringing because there were differences in the details of their method, like the British Telecom hyperlink patent case.

      The two major reasons why patent holders can get away with suing anybody who does something remotely similar are: (1) Technically ignorant juries. There is no way eBay would have lost the case if the jury was technically competent and had common sense. (2) The lack of funds to fight it out in court. Even if the patent would get thrown out after a court challenge, many small companies cannot afford the cost of litigation so they cave in and pay up the license fee.

      Rather than promoting innovation, software and business patents have become nothing more than a legalized form of extortion.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
  14. Questionable step. by Krapangor · · Score: 4, Funny
    It seems to me that the Aussies are motivated by questionable reasons.
    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.
    1. Re:Questionable step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to state the obvious, but as an Australian living in Australia, I don't give a crap about how US companies might lose money over a pathetic patent that is almost certainly a huge ambit claim.

      I've seen US protectionism in IT year after year, and the entire world is locked into US-led companies such as Microsoft. Just last week, an Australian state wrote to reassure a software 'choice' thinktank (headed, of course, by Microsoft) that we wouldn't look at open source, but would lap up their software, pay through the nose for it and wag our tails like good doggies.

      You'll have to forgive some of us who may not believe that the interests of the US are somehow magically the interests of the rest of the planet. Certainly the US feels no compunction to act honorably on any other agreements we may sign with them.

      Think being a US ally gives us any advantages? Well, we're entering another round of 'free trade' negotiations (really, trying to get the US government to be a little less blatantly protectionist in regards to their agricultural and livestock industries) so we'll have to wait and see. I have a hard time seeing any favour we gain, over and above nations such as China (with their appalling human rights record, but their massive potential market).

      We certainly don't get cheap oil, or if we do, the consumers never see any benefits (maybe the foreign owned oil companies get those benefits, flowing the profits back to England and the US). Our prices at the pump are higher than the US (allowing for exchange rates), so I'd have to say that you're wrong on that too.

      Lastly, if the Australian government is looking out for Australian interests, that's actually a good thing. I know that the US gov't does the same thing for US interests, at the expense of any other nation.

      If it comes down to screwing a US company over, then I say it's about time. I'm sick of seeing our business fail because of US gov't money propping up business that can't really compete on the level playing field that the US promotes but never actually attempts; I'm sick of seeing our gov't do every single blasted thing the US asks without question; I'm sick of seeing US interests driving our IT departments across this nation.

      Apart from that tirade though, this is a horrible thing to patent, and makes a mockery of the entire patent system. Last year, someone managed to patent the wheel as a joke. This is a bit more complex, but is almost as foolish.

  15. Re:it's going to get worse before it gets better p by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Funny

    The expression "Patently Obvious" takes on a whole new meaning.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  16. Sounds a lot like by Hender_Hole · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.