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."

6 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Urgh. by Tokerat · · Score: 5, Funny

    mechanism for dependably managing Web synchronization and tracking operations among multiple browsers,
    That last one looks an awful lot like "logins and passwords". IANAL.

    I should patent "Method for creating a repository of methods to create goods and services reserved for use by their original designers for a predetermined period ". Then I'd sue the USPTO. Imagine the irony.
    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  2. Stop Complaining by patch-rustem · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  3. RIP by CuppaJoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  4. An idea.. by MoOsEb0y · · Score: 2, Funny

    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 :)

  5. Re:not disclosed by rf0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They don't want to show how much of their soul they have sold

    Rus

  6. Re:Urgh. by gilroy · · Score: 2, Funny
    Blockquoth the poster:

    I think the USPTO wouldn't have a whole lot of trouble proving prior art.

    Oh, I don't know. They seem to have a pretty hard time in other cases...