Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Settles Patent Dispute
theodp writes "NCR has settled the lawsuit it brought against Yahoo! last December for infringing on 10 patents related to e-commerce technology. The case, discussed earlier on Slashdot, was especially significant because it involved broad patents covering basic Internet functions. As part of the settlement, Yahoo! is now licensing the technology. Terms of the settlement and licensing agreement were not disclosed."
From the law.com article:
The patents at issue in the Yahoo case cover "ordering and downloading resources from computerized repositories;" a "computer system for management of resources;" and a "mechanism for dependably managing Web synchronization and tracking operations among multiple browsers," among other claims.
Great. Just great. So now ordering stuff over the Internet is patented. Fine for Yahoo, Amazon or other large companies who can afford to license this crap, but what about smaller businesses?
Just one more step towards making the Internet a worldwide version of the Shopping Channel. Thanks, NCR. I'll remember you in my prayers tonight.
So if NCR sued Yahoo and Yahoo was the one infringing, why is it that " Yahoo is now licensing the technology" instead of NCD doing the licensing?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
No. We won't have had enough until this nonsense ends. Having control over a certain implementation is one thing, but to claim IP over "ordering and downloading resources from computerized repositories" is total crap. Basically ordering and downloading were around as were computerized repositories. They just put to things that existed together in one patent to try and control it.
I wish yahoo had some guts and had decided to take it on. The patent system was never meant to uphold these patents. That's the point, and that's why we keep seeing these stories. If no one knows about it, nothing will happen.
I feel that action has to be taken, and that individuals as well as corporations this affects voice their opinion to congress and make them add some type of safeguard since the patent office is grossly handing out dangerous patents.
These are extremely dangerous patents. What if someone took a stove and added a keyboard to it and patented that. The two existed before. Does that mean that one should be able to patent the simple combination of the two?
-gabe
"ordering and downloading resources from computerized repositories;" a "computer system for management of resources;" and a "mechanism for dependably managing Web synchronization and tracking operations among multiple browsers,"
So technically everyone who runs a dynamic database-driven website that serves up content is violating at least three of the ten patents NCR holds.
Yet another reason to hate ATM machines...
how long until somebody buys these guys to get hold of the patents.
Looks up the genome for Chinese people and quietly patents it
To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
"Terms of the settlement and licensing agreement were not disclosed."
They always say that, eh!?
I'd like to see a law passed where any time anyone settles out of court, the terms have to be disclosed.
Just because...
No. But if you like, you can always exclude the patent articles from the homepage in you /. preferences.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
The link
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
Just a few quotes:
Indeed, for those of you who were here this morning and listened to the people in the software industry talk about how threatening this is to their businesses, as I see it, patents today are often entrenching the established at the expense of allowing the newcomer to come in. I question today whether a Steve Jobs could start an Apple or a Bill Gates could start a Microsoft in view of the web and thicket of patents that is out there.
Joshua Kaplan, Intouch
Oracle Corporation opposes the patentability of software. The Company believes that existing copyright law and available trade secret protections, as opposed to patent law, are better suited to protecting computer software developments.
Oracle 1994
The mind has always been sacrosanct. The claim that intellectual processes and logical procedures (that do not primarily manipulate devices) can be possessed and monopolized extends greed and avarice much too far. Algorithmic intellectual processes must remain unpatentable -- even when represented by binary coding in a computer; even when executed by the successor to the calculator.[..]The company for which I am speaking, Autodesk, holds some number of software patents and has applied for others -- which, of course, remain secret under current U.S. law. However, all are defensive -- an infuriating waste of our technical talent and financial resources, made necessary only by the lawyer's invention of software patents. Autodesk has faced at least 17 baseless patent claims made against it and has spent over a million dollars defending itself, with millions more certain to pour down the bottomless patent pit unless we halt this debacle. Fortunately -- unlike smaller software producers -- we have the financial and technical resources to rebuff such claims.
Jim Warren (Autodesk) 1994
The time and money we spend on patent filings, prosecution, and maintenance, litigation and licensing could be better spent on product development and research leading to more innovation. But we are filing hundreds of patents each year for reasons unrelated to promoting or protecting innovation.
Robert Barr (CISCO) 2002
Please help the Europeans to avoid Arlene McCarthys patent directive legislation. You shall sign the Eurolinux-Petition http://noepatents.org and support FFII http://swpat.ffii.org or other groups http://softwarepatents.co.uk
Talk to your EU representatives and tell them what you think about software patents, what they mean for your business. Stop the sausage machine as MEP Rothley (pro-swPat] denounced parliament legislation.
More information about swpat-legislation in the EU.
Do some research. NCR makes ATM machines. NCR makes POS(Point Of Sale) machines. They used to make networking equipment for their products(who knows if they still do). They aren't necessarily evil. They are broke. Doesn't make it right though.
They are nowhere near as bad as Microsoft. But, if corporations continue to bend over, they might get that bad.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Ok so I have had it. Using a dictionary (computer based), and a web browser, and a little programming, isnt it possible I could write a program to use random key words to do a patent search, and then have the results of non patented key words using phrases in a sort of smart order like noun, adjective, adverb, noun, or something like that to figure out all the non patented combinations and then submit those?
Like: computer bottling swiftly beer?
Patents suck.
I am not sure but if the EU starts to accept software patents will the US patents be enforceable through WIPO or similar. If so then the EU will already be at a loss as all the US patents will come into force and by typing this I am probably breaking a few of them
Stop complaining and join the fun. There's loads of patents to be found at reasonable prices
Buy a few and start sending out those threating letter yourself. Easy money.
The SCO way, is the only way.
Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
"computer system for management of resources;"
what would ANY computer system be if it DIDN'T "manage resources"?!
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
These are extremely dangerous patents. What if someone took a stove and added a keyboard to it and patented that. The two existed before. Does that mean that one should be able to patent the simple combination of the two?
The simple combination of the two, no. But if someone came up with some neat way to combine said stove and said keyboard to do something unique/interesting/useful (aside from 'just sit there' and 'make friends question sanity'), then that is something that could be patentable. The problem lies in the determination of whether or not the 'invention' is unique/interesting/useful enough to deserve a patent, which is the responsibility of the patent office. Unfortunately, these folks aren't exactly the smartest people -- not that they're particulary dense, but they just don't usually realize or understand the full implications of approving the patents that are submitted nearly as well as the companies that submit them.
Why do companies get away with patenting stuff which is reasonably obvious? The whole thing reeks of ridiculousness to the extreme. It's like the nightmares of post dot-com boom stress disorder in flashback.
The scariest thing is this: if Yahoo! are not big enough to stand up to stupid patents about web application technology, then who is? Take the Internet away, and this patent suit would surely never have stood up. Real time POS stock checking, is it only NCR that do this? I think not...
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
As far as I know when somebody sues you and he/she lost against you then he/she also has to pay (to a certain ammount decided by the court) for your lawyer in many countries. In such a case as this you may not have to pay in advance to your lawyer, because the lawyer knows you can't lose this ridiculous case and he can get his money from the plaintiff.
Why does it not work this way in the USA?
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
When Thomas Watson worked there they used all sorts of bully tactics to squash the competition.
:
:t ml
:
Then the directors were to be thrown in jail but went on a big PR drive and raised money for US flood victims and avoided the slammer.
you can read about that here
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson
He joined Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co which he changed to IBM. Watson foresaw the empire building of the Nazis and made a nice business model by having European census data collected by IBM ready for when the Nazi occupation arrived and leasing them Hollerith machines to process it. You didn't think they regimented the lives and deaths millions of people with pencil and paper now did you?
You can't read about that here
http://www.watson.ibm.com/t_j_watson_history.h
But you could try here
http://www.edwinblack.com
These things seem so far away but we are still dealing with the consequences of these actions. I'm sure you all know someone who was in the fighting.
Millions of people were killed, many by virtue of having hole 12 punched in their card.
Census data had been given to previous government who mainly saw value in being able to manage their economy with real numbers. The new landlords used the data for whatever they liked and they liked killing people.
That's why I don't want my biometric data kept somewhere
It might sound daft but imagine in 100 years time when you are on the train to the deathcamp because "your grandfather clearly states his religion as "Jedi" in the 2001 census".
Because 1/4 Juden was all it took.
If that's not related to YRO I don't know what is.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Great idea. You first.
Like: computer bottling swiftly beer?
Unless you look in Japan I guess
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Uh, wait a minute. So basically, NCR just successfully patented the internet? Wasn't Al Gore smart enough to do that when he invented the thing to begin with?
I always wonder whether it wouldn't be possible to demonstrate the absurdity of the system in a "real-world" way.
The point it that things are being patented that contain no innovation and require no research to develop. Sometimes they're not even developed at all, but still patented - just wild ideas.
Now it you look at the free software environment, there's tons of development going on all the time, including some substantial innovation - but hardly any of it registers on the economic "IP screen". The best one can hope for is that it can be used as prior art to shoot down some particularly silly patent.
To shortcut the argument: imagine the FSF or some such organisation going up to MS, SCO et al and being able to go "uh, no, dude, that's covered by such-and-such basic-tech-stupid-patent which belongs to - er, that would be us. Cash will be fine please. Repeatedly." - basically until it becomes clear to every last one of them that the economic environment just isn't going to work like this.
It all breaks down at the point that it sucks to formulate the patents, shove them through the [$laywer]-filter, have them registered etc. etc., and defend them. Plus, it costs a bit. And no, I'm not offering myself as a volunteer.
Ah, well.
yes, we have no bananas
What sort of moral foundations are behind so many of these companies today? Can they even be considered moral entities? I'm at a loss as to how to quantify the behavior I've seen the past few years with all the patenting, compromising government with bribes, outsourcing, and overall sleaze.
Animals at best. Monsters even.
If a city had wild and dangerous animals wandering the streets, they would waste no time addressing the problem. Why is it that these powerful creatures allowed to perform intellectual, legal, monetary, and diplomatic harm to the US without any action being taken?
They're becoming mad dogs, doing harm to all they touch while crying out the whole time "We must remain profitable."
Well, that raises an interesting question:
If a corporation pays little or no taxes and refuses to employ Americans, does it really matter to the United States if they remain profitable or not?
Time to have a good look at some of these mad dogs and seeing just how much they deserve government contracts, tax exemptions, and other little perks.
If they want to dump Americans and not contribute to the economy, lets dump them. What harm could it do to get rid of a few leeches? A little bit of political pressure, get rid of a handful, that's all that would be needed. the rest would fall into line. Just like how the IRS targets high profile tax evaders and the RIAA targets the rich kids.
I know IBM is kind of popular around here. I kind of liked them myself until recently. But 3 million outsourced jobs? FUCK YOU IBM. You evict that many people form their jobs and that's kinda mass murder. The pain of 3 million people out of work. If all of them cried out at the same time you could probably hear them clearly from coast to coast, no matter where you were at.
There's an undertone of barbarism to all this. Brutal and cold hearted people who could give a fuck what happens to the rest of America so long as they get their golden parachute and stock options.
Corporations are given a lot of responsibility and power in this country. And in the course of the past 5 years alone, we've seen scandals that stretch the imagination from just about every sector. A bunch of evil children running amok with the keys to the nation.
Oh get off the Microsoft high horse for crying out loud...
Being maimed by a bullet is nowhere near as bad as being killed by one, but that doesn't make being maimed good, does it??
Start taking law courses at night school. Now.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Someone should patent a "systematic way of scanning peer to peer networks for the purpose of obtaining evidence for use in copyright litigation". Then we'd just sue the RIAA/MPAA whenever they use our patented method :)
Software patents are bad ideas all around. It will not be long before some idiot is awarded a patent for A + B = C it seems. Maybe it's time for a SEC investigation into the patent office to check for bribery and other criminal actions.
It would be better for companies to defend their products as innovative, not the functions within them that make things work. Disney has done very well with copyright laws instead of resorting to patenting the process of stuffing winnie the poo dolls.
This story has a nasty, nasty feel about it.
NCR is the company where Thomas J. Watson Sr. learned the dirty tricks he needed to found and run IBM. By 1920, NCR had already perfected the techniques of capturing customers and smashing competitors (often literally, with sticks and stones). IBM did the same in a slightly genteeler way, Microsoft did the same a generation later.
So NCR is back and has cornered one of the few Internet success stories. Next, Google and Amazon? The patents appear to be so basic that they apply to every commercial web site, nay, every commercial software application.
Evil, dangerous, and cynically positioned to take advantage of other people's hard work and sacrifice.
Why does this kind of parasitical behaviour go unpunished? Because the ones doing it are part of the system, not outside it. Not only does the system allow this kind of abuse, it has pretty much evolved to support and protect it.
Conclusion: the modern political body is corrupt and survives by manipulating public opinion. Nothing new... two millenia after the fall of the Roman Empire, we are treated in the same way as the emperors treated their subjects.
Give them bread, and they won't complain.
Give them circuses, and they won't notice.
Give them security, and they won't fight.
Human nature lets such things happen, for a while. But eventually it revolts and the further it has been pushed one way, the more aggressive and reactionary the revolt.
If you want my website, you're going to have to prise it from my cold, dead hands.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
It used to be a company's business model was largely embodied in its personnel. Knowledge in that form had a lot of inertia in setting up and tranferring, so it prevented anyone else from becoming instant competitors. But that way of doing business is largely incompatible with commodity workers, hence the new model.
An added benefit from the company's point of view is that it solves the problem that figured in Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash, workers taking home the knowledge of their jobs. Now it doesn't matter what you know since it's illegal for you to use that knowledge. Of course it sucks if you are a displaced worker and that is the only knowledge that you have.
lameness filter
NCR spokesman John Hourigan would not comment on the settlement details except to say, "We vigorously enforce our patents."
Did you ever notice that when you rearrange the letters in "NCR spokesman John Hourigan" you get "shrine go jump on hanson rack"...
Anyone else feeling the same?
Let's all walk out of the office - NOW!
Excellent! I'll call it "The Burger Buddy" keyboard and if y'all want to fry up some burgers while you're computing you're gonna have to buy it from ME. "You've got burgers" (tm)
I have to say that this sounds like a great way of making money.
Generate a bunch of very broad ideas, get the patent office to grant patents on them and then contact all the big web based companies and offer to license the Intellectual Property to them, or else.
Tell me again why everyone isn't doing it?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Indeed, if the stove + keyboard did something unique, that's a fine idea for a patent.
The thing about software patents is, the algorithms they're patenting already existed. It's just that a microchip is doing the footwork, instead of a human.
Ordering system. You call up or write up an order slip, put some item numbers on it, and give it to a guy. The guy looks at the inventory, makes sure it's there. He then packs your order up, while making a copy for another guy, who sends you an invoice based on your customer ID. A guy at your end takes the invoice and pays money to their guy.
Fast forward to 2003. You put a credit card number in the computer, and click on a bunch of items to add their inventory numbers to a list.
A database comes along, checks that they've got enough of everything in stock, and tells a guy to pack 'em up for you. Their database talks to your credit card co's database, based on your credit card number, and bills you.
In 25 years when we have more intelligent robots, will the whole process be patentable again by removing the one guy involved (the one who takes the item off the shelf, addresses it, and puts it in the mail) and instead sticking a robot in this place?
That's not novel. It's just progress.
heres a link to the patent for yr interest. Read the patent
while(karma less_than enough_karma){karma++}
People should just quit hiring attornies and start hiring assasins instead. When someone tries to sue you for letting people login to your website, have them killed. Problem solved! Probably cheaper than a lawyer too. What does a typical assasin run these days?
Yes things would be a lot better if they had someone like Einstein working there or something.
Seriously, the problem with software patents is anyone can look at them, say my evil competitor, has been granted a software patent. I can tell my R&D dept to take evil competitors patent and apply for patents on every concievable extention to it. The result would be after evil has been shiiping upgraded product for a year, my patent applied for becomes patent granted and I crush evil corp with litigation and become Megaevil corp.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I betcha the Capony group is lloking at them reallyclosely right now.
Great, let's propose MORE government to solve a problem that was created by government in the first place.
Seriously, it's probably time for a grass-roots push for a Congressional Inquisition (oooo, he said "Inquisition" and even capitalized it!!!!) into the patent crisis that is contributing great harm to our economy.
There are some significant antitrust issues related to the non diclosure of patent settlements (although probably not in this particular case).
Settlements between competitors in patent cases raise important and sensitive antitrust issues. The issues are important because patent settlements may create or maintain monopoly in technology and innovation markets and may also effectuate a monopoly or cartel in a related goods markets. Antitrust risks are highlighted by the fact that, absent the patent rights, patent settlement agreements may be per se antitrust violations. Further, anticompetitive patent settlements unlike most antitrust conspiracies are enforceable in court,and by that means can prevent the cartel cheating that is the bane of cartels. Thus, the antitrust risk that a settlement agreement may operate as a disguised cartel has long been recognized.
The antitrust enforcement issues are sensitive because patent settlements can also promote efficiencies, resolving patent disputes that might otherwise block or delay valuable invention. Settlements can reduce the expense and delay that patent litigation often entails. They enable risk averse business firms to avoid litigation uncertainty and variance of outcome. These risks include the unjustified loss of patent rights if a court erroneously holds the patents invalid. Finally, patent settlements can promote productive technology interchange within industries (at least for non-core technologies).
Thus, antitrust screening of patent settlements has an important role to play, identifying antitrust risks and balancing efficiency benefits. However, effective antitrust scrutiny is constrained by several factors. First, since the anticompetitive risk is most acute when patents are weak, invalid or not infringed, any precise identification of the antitrust risk would requires assessment of patent validity and scope. But these issues can only be fully resolved through litigation, and settlement precludes litigation. The alternative of assessing probable validity and infringement in an antitrust proceeding fails to provide a tractable or predictive legal standard.
Antitrust scrutiny of patent settlements is further constrained by the fact that patent settlements are not disclosed to enforcement agencies. To be sure, the Patent Act requires filing of interference settlements and collateral agreements with the PTO. But it appears doubtful that the PTO can police disclosure of collateral agreements and the Department of Justice lacks standing to enforce compliance.The absence of effective disclosure requirements for patent settlements stands in sharp contrast to disclosure provisions for mergers, R&D joint ventures and innovation-related production joint ventures all of which require notification of the transactions to the antitrust agencies. Finally, defendants in settlement cases benefit from two legal presumptions that while legitimate in themselves, impede antitrust challenge: a patent is presumed to be valid and courts have frequently declared that patent settlements are to be encouraged.
The patent office has been burned before because of not granting patents the should have been, so now their stratagy seems to be grant the patent, and let the courts sort it out later. This is complicated by the courts stratagy of if the patent is granted, its valid untill proven otherwise.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I think all this patent stuff has gotten out of hand. I am programmer, not a lawyer. I don't to be a lawyer either, I just want to create something that people can use.
So, we should just colletively ignore these common sense patents.If you get "caught" using a stupid patent and can't fight it, just ignore their letter to the effect and continue. What's the worse that can happen? Get sent to jail? Take a portion of your profits?
When something is broken and no one is listening, you stop playing by the rules.
It's quite clear that the corporations would rather fold than actually go to court so all you need is lawyer who'll work on commission, and frankly, with the numbers of lawyers being churned out of American universities I doubt that'd be a problem.
I reckon there's a huge business opportunity being missed.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I got some info from a bad source, sorry. They didn't state how many will be outsourced and only have about 150,000 domestic employees.
And at the same time bury the current patent system and it's abusers in their own bullshit.
Lots of patents, on everything. I mean, who cares what it is as long as it's nice and broad and you can threaten a lawsuit against numpties like Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay etc.
If you play the numbers, it's clear that most of them will fold and license the "technology" from you. That'll fund more patents and more lawsuits.
At some point it'll all break and they'll have to reform the patent office and/or the law.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
No mention of the patent number(s) by anyone. Not the article, not the submitter, not the comments.
NCR has 2584 U.S. patents, 82 about managing something. Some of the 10 patents involved in the case might be these to Siefert, but it's hard to tell. Your guess is as good as mine.
How can anyone make an intelligent comment about what is covered or whether they're invalid if we don't know which patents we're talking about?
The question is... does any of it matter if an authoratarian govt comes to power? Sure the record keeping will facilitate the process but even without it, you will be targetted. For instance, let's say I'm a fascist who believes that everyone born on the 20th of every month must be killed. Having records of people will surely help me. But even if I didn't have the records, I'll come and kill you. In fact, fascism (such as Nazism) has shown that people will be killed as long as doubt exists. For instance, a lot of non-Jew/non-Communist/non-homosexual/etc were killed simply because there was a dispute as to whether the person belong to the cateogry or not. So what's the difference?
NOTE: I'm not arguing in favour of govt collecting information. All I'm saying is that your argument against it is weak...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
You think you'll get the government to watch over itself? Good luck. Sometimes it happens, but not often. I may be good to try, but I wouldn't bank on it.
Yeah, but look at Disney's use of trademarks. Look up trademarks for "Winnie the Pooh" at the uspto.gov site. Disney owns several. Just try to use Winnie the Pooh for almost anything without getting sued by Disney. All this, and as far as I can tell, Disney had nothing to do with the creation of those characters. Also note the dates. The books were published between 1926-1928, by my math the copyright on the last book expired in 1956 (copyrights lasted a max of 28 years then, correct?). Disney started using Pooh in their cartoons at about 1966, no doubt without paying royalties.
Everywhere I've seen, Disney doesn't innovate much at all, they just rehash--while doing everything they can to avoid paying royalties, yet they do everything they can to expand copyright law and DRM to defend their unorigional work. So no one is able to reap the same benefits from their works that they did from others.
I don't think it is bad to rehash old works, nor do I think it's bad to use works from the public domain, but what Disney does is hypocritical and fascist.
"I wish yahoo had some guts and had decided to take it on."
Isn't this exactly what SCO are hoping with their "Linux run-time licences"? If they get enough takers (even just one?) they'll say "ah, but, we've got this/all these licencee(s) to prove that we're right as they knew that they were using it wrongly and so IBM had better pay up, and all you other Linux users 'cos we're gunna sue ya."
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
My premise is that they've killed us before they'll kill us again.
That innocuous submission comes back to bite you.
That the modern face of business is only a few phone calls away from crushing you.
Mechanised warfare moved from swords to stocks & shares.
The war against the people never stops raging.
Faced with annihilation we get our comfort from apathy.
"BE WARNED: THE NATURE OF YOUR OPPRESSION IS THE AESTHETIC OF OUR ANGER"
hehe didn't mean to go off like that but when I do, I like it
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Any votes for a /. interview the USPTO and see what they have to say?
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
1. Patent teleportation ... ... == File a lawsuit.
2. Wait X number of years
3.
4. Profit!!!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere