Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Sues PayPal and eBay for Patent Infringement
theodp writes "AT&T on Thursday fired the latest shot in the escalating Web patent wars, filing suit against PayPal and eBay. AT&T issued a press release alleging that the PayPal and BillPoint payment systems infringe on AT&T's 1994 patent for the mediation of transactions by a communications system. Besides e-Payments, the AT&T patent purports to cover e-Voting, e-Auctions, e-Gifts, e-Donations, e-Wishlists and e-Referrals. e-Gad! e-Yikes!"
This has erupted. First USA Bank sued PayPal in September 2002. A year later PayPal countersued the company (now known as Bank One) and Bank One Delaware, also on patent infringement grounds. The companies settled those suits last month without disclosing the terms.
Apparently this would also cover 2checkout and other paying services as well. The question is, can Microsoft and other browser makers be sued for being able to submit credit card info through their browsers? It seems overly broad but then again aren't all tech patents?
... that which is AT&T's.
Which, if you're keeping track, is almost everything.
Oh no! Does this mean that my $2 million dollars in my PayPal account will be lost? Oh no! What should I do now?! Really, what's with all the sueing. Can't we all just get along. And does that also mean that I can't use e-mail anymore?
Oh, well. Anyway, if you have any comments, courriel them to me!
- - - - - - -
Orppf urp mf y.ppcxn. yflcbi otcnnov C am yflcbi yr n.apb Ekrpatv (Dvorak -> Qwerty)
that we don't do software patents in Europe. Oh, wait...
IANAL but I wish I was now:
As the word communication seems to be used in extremly lose terms, they could probably use this against any business for actually doing any business, and that would probably include their own lawyers for taking on the job. DISMISSED, on the grounds of being too preposterous for words.
out of a desperate attempt to get some money...att sues someone who is being successful.
-Grump
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
the penny arcade crew knows what's up!
1. Patent random 'transactional trasactions' 2. Sue companies who 'conduct business' 3. Profit!
Read the patent.
There are 28 different claims as to what the system patented by ATT is. A cursory layman's look gives the impression that it covers all kinds of commerce done over telcommunications networks.
I am seeing a situation where ATT would require licensing for every credit-card accepter on the Internet. That's not so fun.
e-vil.
Tell the Indians they can deal with this bullshit. I'm going to grow Alpalcas or something.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Please tell me they didn't patent e-sex....
:)
PLEEEEEEEASE Please please NOOOOOOooooooo.....
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
Since he invented the damn Internet to begin with, why don't all these lawsuits and settlements just get redirected to award Al Gore??? Seems like that would save us all a lot of time...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
This is like that frivolous McDonald's lawsuit where some greedy lady abused the court system so she could get lots of money from McDonalds because she was clumsy and spilled hot coffee on herself.
seriously... i hate people
I wonder when someone will patent thinking and breathing. Geez. When will the madness end?
I would like to take this opportunity to say "Thank You" to the USPTO, for fscking up just about everything. Last I heard they revoked the Patent on Swinging Sideways, but crap like this still stands.
I thank you from the core of my anus.
"It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
the patent office should just change every instance of "a system" to "this system"
problem solved!
I've bought and sold items on Usenet as early as 1990 using a go between to make sure the sale completed properly (and I'm sure other people did that even before I did). AT&T is trying to patent a method that has been used since the creation of telephones, credit cards, and credit card processors. Just because it's over the Internet doesn't make it patentable; you are STILL using the TELEPHONE.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
I'm sorry, why is it again that more lawyers/ceo's/buildings aren't being blowed up across America?
If we haven't posted it once, we've posted it a million times; the USPTO is in complete and utter chaos with these tech patents. I don't the USPTO is equipped, or ever has been equipped to handle these technological patents (at least in regards to say computers and/or the internet technologies).
They need to set up a separate repository of information to store for computers, computer programs, and internet technologies that are looking for patents. They need to hire a staff that can handle the various searching for prior technology (prior art) for this very advanced stage of patent registrations. They probably also need to setup a complete different sort of organization of information to do/handle this.
Until the USPTO gets straightened up, I see a never-ending line of lawsuits for copyright and patent infringement with regards to computer technologies and internet technologies!
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
Come one slashdotters, theres gotta be something that you can think of that is dated before this patent. I mean its not like transactions magically started happening as soon as AT&T made this. Anyone have any ideas?
From the headline, it appears that AT&T has patented the letter 'e'.
Amazon sues AT&T for suing PayPal and eBay with Amazon's 'One-Click-Sueing' technology. Full story at 11.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
This patent would seem to cover anything from your friendly VISA merchant processing machine (the magnetic swipe machine at the grocery store) to phone sex. How absurd. I hope eBay blows 'ol Bell out of the water! 4....3....2...1...FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That said, we are far more powerful than a third world country, but we won't...
It would be great if the three branches of government decided to end a significant portion of these stupid IP lawsuits for the public good...
For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
Methods and apparatus for employing a communications system with actively connects communicating entities to mediate transactions.
... at least make sure there are no typos in the first sentence.
If I remember correctly, Atari had a nearly identical patent in te 80s, and it was sold to sega when atari broke up.
Anybody have the link?
Yo, whoever is closest, please shove a big fat cock up ATTs big fat ass. Thank you.
Well, wouldn't that solve all the problems America have with their E-voting systems? Goodbye Diebold and others...
Patent system saving the free world who could have thought....
People should not be allowed to patent vague information information and product design/architecture concepts that anyone riding the short bus could come up with.
I swear, people patent BS and think they are f'n Thomas Edison.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Patent reform is long overdue. There was an article on Slashdot a couple of weeks ago from a few government agencies suggesting reforms. But until we get our representatives to pay attention not much will happen. This isn't a democrat or republican thing. There are "bad guys" on both sides. However this really does that the potential to slow the growth of innovation especially in the tech sector.
Isn't there a time limit that says if a patent holder does not protect their patent within a timeframe that they give it up? 9 years? What took them so long?
I remember a book from several years ago in in which a cyberpunk lawyer (it was a very strange piece of fiction, yes) used the theory of adverse possession (What's that?) to claim title to a piece of intellectual property left unimproved by its owner. I'm starting to think that implementing such a theory in IP law, as insane as that is, would be an improvement over the current situation ....
"Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
I sincerely hope so!
If you read the patent, it talks about using telephone numbers, etc.
PayPal does not use telephone numbers as part of their security mechanism.
I love america, satire can not get better.
wouldn't that be monopolization? It's basically outlawing all non-AT&T sponsered E-Commerce.
Have you ever looked for a patent. It requires a lawer. Its just not cost effective to check to see if what you are doing is patented every time something is developed. Many patents can be interpreted a number of ways, and in this case are so broadly scoped that it is dificult to determine how far reaching they are. It is especially not cost effective for a small business, which I'm sure eBay and PayPal were when they started.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
What the... oh, I get it. Early April Fools' joke, right? ... right?
... oh, you have to be kidding me.
(utter, terrifying silence)
Well, at least they started by attacking the large targets, the ones who have the ability to defend themselves and enough at stake they probably won't just pay the wargeld-- i mean settlement-- to buy AT&T off. You know, as opposed to picking off defneseless small businesses, as is the normal tactic.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm going to patent one-click patent and copyright lawsuits and sell them online... I'll call it ipBay.
I'll make millions.
"doing stuff with a thing of some sort."
Does this patent cover e-Mail?
It's a tansaction (delete from my spool dir. / write into your spool dir.) of letter over a communications system
Okay there is this prior art thingy. But this is only for text/plain. Maybe they can sue Microsoft for the use of HTML crap in the LookOut(TM) software.
1964 - Invention of e-Mail
1994 - patent of ATT
1995 - MS discovers the wunderful world of the internet(-worms)
NoSuchGuy
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Couldn't they somehow work out a way to have rights over matter with that? :)
-Zeecog
No you're not. I've got a patent on that:
well here is another frivolous lawsuit over something that shouldn't be patentable.
seriously-- we need to overhaul the way patents are assigned... more ppl need to vote...
Natural method for inhaling and exhaling air...
Though i think prior art might be an issue
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
I think I'll head on out and patent a FOR loop before someone else does.
Lovely. Yet another attempt to bash Gore over a statement he never made. Gore said that he is the father of the Internet, from the perspective that it was his bills that gave DARPA the funding it needed to create the Internet. Whether or not this meant he was the Father of the Internet is highly debateable, but at the very least, he did not say that he invented the Internet, despite what the O'Riley's of the world would have you believe.
#define DRM chmod 000
God has filed a suit against AT&T claiming AT&T' "telephone" infringes on his patented "means of vocal communication" marketed under the trademark "speech".
This post patent pending.
C'mon AT&T, get your act together!
...
...
...
/. can't keep up with all this flip-flopping!
First you're the bad guys for going against the DNC list
Then you're the good guys for having a patent against specific spam-filter-circumvention techniques
Now you're the bad guys again for having a ridiculous patent and going after eBay, PayPal, et. al.
C'mon, just make up your minds already! The karma whores here at
topreacher@signature.slashdot.org 1% rm -rf sig
Let this be a lesson to anyone in Europe. Keep killing those software and business patent 'harmonization' attempts. This has simply become a big government shakedown racket.
The more I think about it, the more this looks like the way the Roman Catholic church used to sell indulgences. Basically it's a license by those in power to print money and shower monopoly on the 'favored'. It doesn't cost the government a cent (except for clogging the court system and they will just extract that cost from our hides).
Shouldn't there be a concept of eminent domain that applies to patents? I mean, this patent seems broad enough to severely criple the internet economy. If my house was in the way of an information super highway on-ramp, it would be knocked down before I could say "private property".
-braddock gaskill
Abolish patent law. That's when the madness will end.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
These stupid patent disputes are just another sign of the collapse. People fighting over "Intellectual Property" instead of sharing good ideas for the benefit of everyone. WTF? What is wrong with people? There are allot more things that need to be done, why is much resource put into lawyers and courts. It's all bullshit.
All the lawyers (and pseudo lawyers) will stir
the problem(?) around.
Then take all the money they can.
Appeal (do it again).
Repeat until both parties have no $$$
Then leave.
And the problem will remain....
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
Business is nothing for beginner, leaves this stuff to experienced people, like Halliburton.
ATT has no case. They explicitly declare that the transaction uses a telephone and a telephone number in their system. When was the last time that someone used a telephone number for a transaction on the internet?
Paypal does neither, they use email addresses, not telephones and telephone numbers.
That's when the madness wil end.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
As someone in the ewallet industry developing a new product that is different from other ewallet solutions, this is slightly disturbing. To think that a common concept such as accepting a credit card is patented. Of course, AT&T will have to go after all those credit card terminals now, because they all do the same thing. A consumer and a merchant processing a credit card through a trusted third party (the one leasing the terminal to the merchant).
/. before.
However, seeing as my company is small, I have no real worries. Oh, sure, they may sue once they have something big to sue for, buy by then, I can afford to fight back. Hopefully, PayPal will fight for me. By fighting AT&T's patent, they could make it difficult for AT&T to sue for it in the future.
Of course, PayPal could also just make a deal, and this won't get taken care of in court.
Oh, the fun of e-commerce. You know, makes me want to patent some of my ideas, not to sue people, but just to make sure people don't sue me or my company. Patenting to defend yourself...hrm, maybe I could patent that? Of course, that is probably been said on
Jason Lotito
Exactly, a common one is called COD. And yes, I did COD sales over the internet before 1990.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I don't sincerely think that any of these websites were even aware of AT&T's work as they developed online payment systems, etc. - much less copied the idea from AT&T.
I think the key is that it was obvious at the time that payments would be accepted online. The same goes for a lot of the technologies they claim are covered by this patent. So a bunch of people found a means to accomplish this obvious goal that was almost *expected* at the time simultaneously.
I don't know much about patents but might this fall under the category of "obvious" which I think is supposed to be unpantentable?
This patent like so many others for software in general and the internet in particular are so F%#K'EN broad, smart lawyers (which is a major part of the problem) can talk their way into "owning" other peoples inventions just because the patent's CLAIMS can be interpreted [read: "skewed"] to mean something the original inventor had no conception or intention. The U.S. should get in touch with the rest of the world and also argue using the "Diagrams" AND the "Description" as well as the "Claims", not just the "Claims". Less legal mess, less money spent by all sides, and best of all, less money for the leeches, I mean lawyers.
I think international patents should be about a single item, then move outwards (broaden) rather than the other way around. If an item is not "roughly" outlined in the description, then infringement should be less likely. F%#K the lawyers I say!
This is perfect example of the system not working.
Claim 4. ????
Claim 5. Profit!
It seems someone writing a check to Western Union back in 1880 to wire money across the continent on a telegraph line was "process(ing) payments over a communications system"
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
...that ought to put an end to this kinda crap.
Is to cave right in.
Every company agrees that they've infringed up the yin yang, and tell every other to Fuck Right Off. Fight it out over a game of pacman in some way off bar or something.
Or, consumers across the entire planet boycott all companies involved in inane copyright battles. World economy ends.
Film at 11.
Claims are under the area ... "What is claimed is:"
AT&T has the bridge...why is everyone surprised they're trying to control the toll fees?
Well, then what about us smoke-bagging cockteasers? I thought we were mac users.
My grand-grand-father has a patent on 'cocke-bagginge'.
Please pay your license fee!
Note: This applies only to our penis-bearing customers.
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
Excerpt from: Courtesy Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers
Also see Van O'Steen and Partners
Newsaic : Mirrow Law
This is so true that I think the patent will be overturned in a non-corrupt court.
During the initial years of electricity distribution, Edison's direct current was the standard for the United States and Edison was not disposed to lose all his patent royalties. During the commonly referred to "War of Currents" era, Nikola Tesla and Edison became adversaries due to Edison's promotion of DC for electric power distribution over the more efficient alternating current advocated by Tesla. Edison (or, reportedly, one of his employees) employed the tactics of misusing Tesla's patents to construct the first electric chair for the state of New York in order to promote the idea that alternating current was deadly. Popular myth has it that Edison solely invented the electric chair as a means of impressing the public that alternating current was more dangerous than direct current. Though Edison did advocate executions via AC electrocution, the chair was primarily invented by a few of his employees, in particular Harold P. Brown, working at Menlo Park (though Edison certainly monitored their operations). [1]
Edison went on to carry out a campaign to discourage the use of alternating current, what today would be commonly referred to as FUD. Edison did preside personally over several executions of animals, primarily stray cats and dogs, for the benefit of the press to prove that his inferior system of direct current was safer than that of alternating current. Edison's series of animal executions peaked with the electrocution of Topsy the Elephant. Ironically, Edison was against capital punishment, but his desire to disparage the superior system of alternating current led to the invention of one of the world's most recognizable killing devices.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison
pay, pal.
If drug companies could patent their products with the ease that the USPTO seems to allow IT patents, then the first company to apply for a patent covering "something that makes sick people better" would pretty much have the market cornered.
There is a tonne of Prior Art examples of that, don't waste your time.
I can't wait to switch my service to someone else - anyone else - now. Where is ATT's online auction and payment system? Get out of the way if you're not going to do something!
Did Daryl McBride start working for ATT...?
The patent office is out of control and I'm taking advantage. I've patented toast. Toasting bread, toasting bagels, toast with jelly and cream cheese, toasted muffins, toasted sandwiches and burnt toast.
I'm suing all you toasters, so if you want to cut out the red tape, just donate to me using my email and PAYPAL! at my web site. :-)
kimbriggs.onza.net[kimbriggs.onza.net]
What we ought to do is have a property tax copyrights and patents. The owners of intellectual property could set the price of their inventions then anybody that ponies up the scratch can take it from them unless the inventor ups the price and pays a huge penalty and some back taxes. If the tax is to onerous one can always lower the cost or even release the IP to public domain. You could also get rid of time limits with this since the cost of protecting IP indefinately would be general prohibative. The increased revenue could fund an effective and staffed USPTO.
I'm pattening the words "the" and "to"...
Anyone who so chooses to use these words, or any combination there of, shall pay me roayties for their use. The meanings of these words shall also become vague enough that I might seek royaties for words such as "too", "thee" and "three".
The point: Wildass patents are fook'n outta hand...
I used to be cynical, but reality has overtaken me.
I wrote the above comment. Mod it troll or offtopic if you like, but it was not meant to be funny.
...thats where the money is.
I didn't check my email, so I guess I missed the memo announcing that Darl McBride got recruited by AT&T.
That'll teach me to spend all day reading Slashdot.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Some time ago I was looking into the USPTO job openings. (Aside - They are always complaining that they can't get enough examiners, that they don't have enough money, they can't retain employees, etc.) It occurred to me that one of their main problems is that they require everyone they want to hire to be in the DC area and drive to work every day in that traffic.
Why not distribute the examination positions around the country? Submissions are mostly electronic now, at least at my company. I'd take some training - even if I had to travel to DC for it - to look over patents and applications in my specialty and be paid per piece. Maybe with thousands of part-time examiners to complement the regular staff, more specialists would be available to point out prior art way before it gets to the lawsuit stage.
Oh yeah - remember, this is my IP. It has no Unix code in it.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
...for me to patent the conditional jump statement?
Has there ever been a patent discussion on ./ without someone making this horribly overplayed joke? Dear god, if this isn't redundant, what is?
If over, say... 20,000 or so people... independently come up with an idea that you come up with- REGAURDLESS of whether you thought it up "first"- your patent is voided.
What would be wrong with such a standard?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
All bank transactions are conducted over telecom lines of some sort, not to the Internet mind you be directly to their parent branch or HQ. They still are making a financial transaction via telephone communications.
Since he invented the damn Internet to begin with, why don't all these lawsuits and settlements just get redirected to award Al Gore??? Seems like that would save us all a lot of time...
To award? It's toward. I can understand its/it's or insure/ensure or even alot instead of a lot (could be a typo, you never know), but to award??? Imagine if Bush had ordered the military to fire missiles to award Osama bin Laden after 9/11.
I would post a comment under my ID, but it would probably infringe in AT&T's patent, too...
So I will post as AC! ;) He, he, he!
Wait! I'm logged in?!?!? Oh, shi---!
I believe 1994 was about the time when AT&T came out with it's "You will" commercials.
... becasue we're going to patent stuff now before we build it and then sue the pants off of everyone ten years from now.
Coincidence? I think not!
Press release: HTML
Sample commercial (nostalgia altert!): QuickTime
"You will, and the company that will bring it to you is AT&T."
-ez
"Reach out and sue someone."
Lax, outdated U.S. patent laws are stifling innovation in Canada's small technology companies, lawyers warn. And experts say the managers of smaller companies may want to consider whether fighting these laws is worth their time and money. [snip]
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
If you broaden this to include any sort of anonymizer, including the 'Net, then I'd say that anonymous remailers would also classify as prior art. anonymizing proxies might also classify.. As would Microsoft's Passport wallets.
Either this thing doesn't apply to 3rd party internet purchases, or I'd say that there's a boatload of prior art.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If I had known that this country was going in this direction, I would got my law degree and skipped math.
Hey, a career note to all you high-school folk, get your law degree.
What scares me is if this is only the tip of the iceburg for the future. It seems that any and everyone now just sues to get their way. Heck, you dont even have to have a good case. If you dont get your way or you are just mad at soneone/thing, just sue to get even. Soon web sites will have a lawsuit counter replacing their hit counter.
Im so mad now, I think I need a lawyer - I just wanna sue someone. GGRRRRRRRrrrr!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Surely they were "electronicly" transfering funds long before 1994?
Read the letters section of this week's Economist, the USPTO claims "Patent reform pending".
[o]_O
Besides e-Payments, the AT&T patent purports to cover e-Voting, e-Auctions, e-Gifts, e-Donations, e-Wishlists and e-Referrals. e-Gad! e-Yikes!
This is the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in years. Come to think of it, it's the only funny thing I've read on Slashdot in years!
Just kidding!!
How about, "e-Lick-My-Deathstars" AT&T!!!
That's all I have to say. A nod of recognition will be enough.
The minute people find their beloved eBay in trouble, the backlash will be massive.
Nothing will help put this patent issue in the critical spotlight than stuff like this.
I e-think I'm going to be e-sick.... (apologies to Foxtrot)
If we haven't posted it once, we've posted it a million times
I'm pretty sure you mean, "if we have posted it once, we've posted it a million times."
Dear god, if this isn't redundant, what is?
The ensuing bitching and moaning by ACs.
Basically you were a broker, that job has been around for LONG time before AT&T claimed it. All they may have done was add the ability to do it via phone. I wonder if this means all the 1-800 (and 1-900) numbers that accept a credit card as payment for something owe AT&T royalties? After all, they used "telecommunications" to buy something. This one should (I hope) get tossed out as a waste of the court's time.
1. Place bullet in revolver.
2. Take steady aim at big toe on left foot.
3. ???
4. Profit?
Captain Obvious.
His second choice is Joe Theisman but what's the difference.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
I have dealt with no more customer-unfriendly and duplicitous companies than Ebay and PayPal. They deserve each other.
I'm on AT&T's side, SCO's side, MicroSquish's side, Satan's side, etc, as long as they are pissing off EbayPal.
'What's Our Money Doing in Your Wallet?'
The major international banks where doing this sought of transaction every since the seventies.
This is compolete and utter bollocks. This is what
happens wehn you allow software patens to exist.
The liberals did nothing and even less when they held office. Open your freaking eyes, please.
For every lawsuit filed, one lawyer must be sacrificed to Cthulhu. The best method is to pour boiling gold into his ass.
It could be called the Golden Ass Ceremony.
This should take care of any frivolous lawsuits.
As for allowing software to be patented, anyone who approves a software patent should have their eyes gouged out with a grapefruit spoon.
I wonder if I could patent both of those methods.
Fnord!
A patent on online transactions issued on 1994?
CompuStore dates back to what 1980s? 1970s?
Anybody use Fantacy plaza? I bought a book on how to make a CBB (Computer Bullitan Board.. I know.. BBS but it's what the book calls em) back in like 1983 or 84 a decade before this patent was issued.
By the sound of it looks like they are trying to clame the transaction of all forms of data.
FIDONET, Xmodem, TCP/IP.
Maybe it's just a patent on database interaction?
Ok I'm at a loss but this seams highly likely to have some prior art some place.
Yet annother technical patent so the patent officers wouldn't actually know what they are signing off on.
This is why we need a moratorium on Internet patents. So the general public (or at least public officals) can catch up.
Same with Internet laws...
I don't actually exist.
+x informative ??
I thought we were talking about AT&T and PayPal, here.
Damn you moderators
"... AT&T's U.S. patent that covers transactions in which a trusted intermediary securely processes payments over a communications system such as the Internet. The use of a trusted intermediary ensures that one party will not have to disclose sensitive information, such as a credit card number or bank account number, to the other party to the transaction."
... over a communications system... Wow. That covers a lot of ground. I think AT&T has crossed a line here. I and I'd assume many others consider speech a communication system. Does this mean that acting as a mediator in trades now requires licensing from AT&T?! What about buying something over the phone??? How about faxing orders to a drop-shipper?
But wait--- it gets better. Does this cover the entire industry of drop-shipping? If I take the money while factories under different ownership produce my crap and ship it, am I now in violation of AT&T's patent?
just my 2 cents!
This crap is going to destroy all that is good in technology unless someone puts a stop to it soon. It has alreay gotten to the point where people can't even HAVE an idea without getting sued. It's the American Way(tm)!
Here's what I see about the US right now:
-Individual rights? Nope. That could possibly infringe on the rights of a company or other profitable organization.
-Corporate liability? Nope. Companies go bankrupt all the time and STILL manage to take home record wages for their executives.
-Government representation? No f*in way. The only thing your government represents is itself and the interests of the businesses that support them.
Get a grip America(tm), you are losing control of your own machine.
That wouldn't make it because it's not original at all. There are so many silly patents already. Remember "Prior Art"?
Now, all of you please send money...you're in violation! ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Wouldn't work. Too much prior art.
I for one welcome our bitching and moaning AC overlords. Huhuh, look how funny I am :-
I'll be impressed when they sue spammers for circumventing the spam filters.
~Ben
All I can say is "go AT&T!"
I'm sick of PayPal and eBay's collective bullshit. Did you know it's imposssible to close your PayPal account? Just ask them and see what they say.
-bZj
.sig
No seriously. I'd be willing to kick in a few bucks to patent the business model by which you patent some shit people've been doing for years and then try to use the legal system to extort all the money you can out of people. Given that business process patents are allowed and the USPTO rubber stamps everything that comes in the door, it should be fairly straightforward to get the patent by them. It doesn't even matter that people have been doing this for years (It's in the business model, remember?)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...AT&T is claiming a patent on communication. To wit:
1. Field of the Invention
The invention concerns communications systems generally and particularly concerns the use of a communications system to mediate transactions among entities reachable by the communications system.
What doesn't that cover?
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
Yeah, we've had e-nough.
On the other hand, it is not obvious how to make a hyperlink. Well, it's pretty easy to make them, but I couldn't code an html interpreter myself. Anyway, it's usually the behind-the-scenes stuff that has the patentable ideas in it. Kind of like how the mpeg2 developers consortium is charging money to use mpeg2 encoders, but isn't suing people who use Ogg Vorbis.
Or how SCO charges people to use their UNIX, but doesn't sue people who... uh, never mind.
Well, anyway, that's the idea. Did I use enough buzzwords?
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
But I am going to patent LIFE. This is it. I am going to patent this concept and anything and everything that is alife or e-life will owe me.
You can't handle the truth.
At first the shift is not going fast - Asian software developers still want in many cases to sell their software to USA. But the more they will sell software to other Asian software consumers is the more it will create the effect of a snowball. At some point, when the revenue of Asian-made software products sold inside Asia will exceed the revenue of Asian-made software products sold to US - the avalanche will happen and Asian software developers will lose the rest of their fears about US crazy patent laws.
And I guess, counting that Latin software development market will be developed by a scenario similar to Asian one, the Europian software development market will adapt to Asian model, ignoring the dying USA old brother.
All that may happen, of course, if USA won't bomb Asia for that.
Less is more !
I was in the Navy from 91 to 95 and we used a program called SUADPS we used the computer to order the parts and arrange payment from our budget log to the supplies log (even tied into shore environs with the same system for ordering items) AT&Ts patent is BS. Prior art is all over the place.
I used home banking at BofA on a 14.4 modem dial up to a tandem system before any of these. Prior art abounds, at&t begs to be nationalised...King Geo will never allow that though
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
who else out there wants to KILL the next retarded jackarse bastard company that sues over a patent that should never have been awarded in the first place?
there should be a freakin statute of limitations on how long you have to:
1) file a patent on something that is already out in the market
2) sue over a product that infringes on an existing patent
that statute of limitations should be 1 day. f all you bastards. you're ruining it for people who actually deserve their patents.
01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
... except for the genious part.
I dont know about you but my internet connection has no telephone involved.
A patent on the "1. [something] 2. ??? 3. Profit!" business model? I bet you collected lots of royalties during the .com boom!
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
The European version can be found here . Looks identical at first sight, though I did not compare all the claims word for word yet. Another great patent waiting to be legalised. Act now!
Donate free food here
CompuServe was doing that prior to 1991. And yep, it used a telephone dialup.
They obviously forgot about MY patent (#101,936,345)
"A method of maximizing the returns of any large-scale finanical-enrichment scheme which utilizes courtroom-based justice-mediated settlements as a method for increasing cash flow, increasing the possiblities for success through the aquisition of patents for the most extremely fundamental and obvious aspects of every-day existence."
Nice try though.
The US IT industry goes down in a serious of idiotic lawsuits caused by the USPTO while the rest of the world laughs their asses off.
...
Good job USA
May the greed be with you
It appears that the patent specifically relates to dialup telephone systems. There are a large number of references in the claims to "telephone number" and "special telephone number".
The impression I had is that AT&T knew how to make this work with telephones and while they had no clue how to make this work with any other form of communications, decided to try claiming the universe because they could.
The basic purpose of a patent is to provide a description for those who are "skilled in the art" to build a copy of the invention.
If you want to try getting from the patent to a modern online credit card transaction system, have fun and good luck.
Does this mean that everybody involved in e-commerce has a chance to break the patent, or at least the parts of it that "claim" to apply but anything but dialup telephone systems?
Ask somebody else, IANAL.
Tech Public Policy stuff
'can Microsoft and other browser makers be sued for being able to submit credit card info through their browsers'
The patent is only for payments where the purchaser's credit card details are not revealed to the vendor. Standard payments to major sites where credit card details are submitted through the browser are not covered.
Third party sites (like worldpay) perhaps come under the description
Worldpay - may give us an idea to get round the patent though - If credit card details are _sometimes_ revealed to the vendor, then we have a different kettle of fish. In worldpay's case, I believe that happens in cases of fraud.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
If they want to specifically address the issue of trusted intermediaries, well they can start with many electronic exchanges with prior art back to the mid-eighties.
See my journal, I write things there
Just my $0.02
I wish America would follow what Europe's public is trying to do, and get rid of patents on programming concepts. Everyone (but the big greedy companies) will be happier that way, and innovation can continue.
Oh, no: this will drive the E.com lodge out of business!
they allready do charge more for corporations, independent inventors pay signifigiantly lower fees.
check out undersecratary rogan's 21st century plan to learn about the proposed new fee schedule. Basically a lower fee for less than 20 claims, a higher fee, for the next tier, and an extremely high fee for the next highest tier.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
the summary of invention provides several instances of prior art, including legacy systems in figures 1 and 2, and then proceeds to disclose how it is differentiated over the prior art.
don't be quite so reactionary
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Isn't AT&T's patent just for a business method and as such unpatentable? Or is that just in Europe?
Of particular interest are claims 5 and six, which sets forth
5. The method set forth in claim 1 wherein:
the communications routing system is a switching portion of a telephone system; and
the step of receiving a transaction specifier includes the steps of:
receiving a special telephone number in the switching portion; and
using the special telephone number to derive the transaction specifier.
6. The method set forth in claim 5 wherein:
the step of receiving a transaction specifier further includes the step of using the special telephone number to derive a telephone number of the vendor and
the step of responding to the transaction specifier includes the step of using the telephone number to obtain transaction information concerning the transaction from or provide transaction information to the vendor.
Claim 7 is similar.
In other words, to be a valid patent violation, the parties must use a telephone number to identify eachother. I don't know about you, but I've never given nor received anyone's telephone telephone numbers on paypal.
Now, AT&T may argue that IP addresses are a "special" telephone number... Which is utter bunk, as VoIP is after 30 years of IP just starting to exist. But even then, Paypal does not connect independent parties with eachother via IP address, but rather e-mail address. Any respectable judge would throw out of his or her courtroom a lawyer that attempted to argue that "telephone number" meant any system that involved routing, including IP, E-mail, Telegraph, AIM, Kazaa, and Shared Printers.
Overall it looks like the original patent wasn't quite that bad... A shared telephone authentication system based upon the telephone company's then-new caller ID system as an identifier. As AT&T noted in their patent application, this is a way to mediate a transaction over the telephone while shielding the buyer's information from the seller. What's bad is then taking this and attempting to apply it to all internet transactions.
You filed your patent application. It was accepted because it was sufficiently narrow. Don't go whining now because it wasn't as broad as you would like.
The ______ Agenda
... it is no longer funny.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
:P
As E (prn ee) (eg e-bygum) is a North of England colloquial (sp ?) expression that has been used for many hundreds of years, and as a result must surely by the property of the people of Lancashire (oh and Yorkshire (some one else can explain the 800 year long rivalry).
Thus I reckon, as no IT company appears to have asked my fellow Lancashiremen for the right to use the expression E in their marketting slang, we ought to sue for ownership infringment any company using E- or e- or even e and E as prefixes in product/solution/markettting/widget names.
To those companies out there who persist, all I can say is, in the local tongue,
E-lad, y'know t'trouble y'in ? E let me help you out with t'settlement
Claim 4. ???
Claim 5. Profit!!!
You make a purchase at your local store with your credit card, you receive a bill from your credit card company, you mail them a check, they make the transaction with your bank. Sounds a lot like the same thing?
When I was growing up in the Soviet Union, I wanted to move to a free country. I wanted to live in a country where I could criticize the government, run a business, invent and help the others. However, when I moved the States and learned how this country worked, I realized that I was in a country where I could not invent or improve the already existing inventions because of all the trademark/copyright laws. I could not say a word against big businesses that slept with the government on a daily basis. Moreover, I was in a country where people were ready to sue your ass for almost everything. Oh, almost forgot about religious conservative groups and their political influence on the current government.
It is funny how all these companies, including AT&T, were given a great chance of succeeding in the Americano land. However, instead of supporting the state and the fellow companies they try to run over each other. By the way, AT&T has announced 3,000 layoffs (10% of its total workforce in the United States). The company is considering outsourcing these jobs to India
Let's see, jobs go to India... law suits come to the US. I think it's about the time we start a direct action against companies like that. Remember: customer is always right. I am cancelling my DSL subscription with them.
Who should be liable? The company that sells really hot coffee, or the 81 year old that tries to drink it while driving?
! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
How many freaking times do we need to go over this?
Read my lips: SHE WASN'T DRIVING! In fact, the CAR WAS PARKED AT THE TIME.
How hard is it for people to get the facts straight, when this has been talked to death on Slashdot a million times?
The case was not about "stupid lady doing stupid things". It was about "McDonalds sold a needlessly hot product that injured people during a normal course of action".
Sorry, folks, but people can and do spill coffee on themselves all the time. How many of them need surgery because of it? Very few, because in the vast majority of cases, this coffee comes from what is established as a safe temperature.
Allowing McDonalds to win a case like this would be like letting beef producers knowingly inject E. Coli into their hamburger, and if someone got sick, well.. you shoulda cooked it all the way.
Guess what? That's not how our society works. Negligence is the act of doing the wrong thing / not doing the right thing, when you know what the right thing is to do. Pretty much every other restaurant in the US knows what a safe coffee temperature is, McDonalds didn't - even after they'd been told hundreds of times about the problem. Ergo, they lost.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
This patent should have failed the "obvious to one skilled in the art" test. From my reading, it appears to be a patent on managing a money transaction over a communications system using some undefined data processing equipment. Having a middleman broker an exchange is nothing new. The only "innovation" here is using an electronic system in the middle. Essentially, this is a patent on "escrow services....on a computer!"
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I particularly love the parts where the US Patenet office is granting patents to companies and giving them powers that the federal government doesn't even have. Levying charges on internet transactions? INSANE!
"I, uh, patented, uh, communication on the internet. You see, if you're communicating in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, you owe me a rather large chunk of your profits. My lawyers will be over shortly to inspect your ledgers. Also, you will have to initiate a new tracking system where all information will be flagged to me. Says right here that I own the IDEA OF INFORMATION OVER A INTERNATIONAL NETWORK. Nobody else patented it!"
When you grant a patent for all forms of monetary transfer via internet, you are really setting yourself up for a future where corporations THAT YOU CANNOT VOTE ON have more power than the government over you, with more cash, and more influence, and with a total disregard for their constituency.
I think it rather funny that Orwell spoke of a future where the populace was controlled by the government, and in reality, it is starting to look like it is all being handed off to corporations, who can control you without regulaion, and certainly not have taxes taken off of their profits.
All the federal government wants to do now is charge Greenpeace with piracy and protect oil interests.
You know what? When I was a child we were free.
Things better change soon.
SCO
I should really get this looked at..
He Schutze, He Scores!
Granted I didn't read through all the claims just the first 10-12, but it seems to me that if you have ever called a 'vendor' using the telephone, spoken to the authorized representitive, confirmed your identity, purchased something, payed with a card, confirmed the order, hung up the phone, waited for and recieved your stuff; that you and the vendor have just violated AT&Ts patent. No need for a web browser. Surely this happened before 1991?
Does this mean that SMTP is in violation of a patent as well?
This sig no verb.
... that we cannot do stuff over the phone either. Would AT&T require a license to make credit cards over the phone. The phone is a telecom medium as well....
Good news for the cotton and steel industries... As we speak, ebay is retrofitting its servers with soup-can ports!
It seems to me since they have sued before, that they are trying to prove that the internet is a 'communication' system. I am sure that they have more patents involving them locked away in the vault.
Y'know what the whole lawsuit game reminds me of?
.....
ever played scissor/paper/rock, maybe with a sibling, and someone thinks of throwing up something other than scissors, paper, or rock? maybe someone yells 'hammer breaks rock AND scissors!' then someone else quickly thinks 'yeah? well *bomb* blows up that hammer!' and, you know, the rebuttals continue in a sort of 3rd-grade-intellectual battle of wits where noone actually calls names or throws punches -- that would be uncivilized. but this continuing escalation of my words and clever weaponry make your weaponry look unclever and stupid
yeah, that's what the lawsuit game reminds me of. everyone constantly suing everyone else in a meta-battle of meta-wits.
It'd be nice to see it, but most just whine about _abusive_ patents.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
It's a joke. I'm a life long Republican.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
There is no way in HELL that this will go through ... this lawsuit is about greed ... you see that have now done ABSOLUELY NOTHING for just now going on ELEVEN YEARS PLUS ...
I ran a BBS way back when that took E-Payments via Visa card ... this is OLD tech. The lawsuit is just as preposterous as the one webcasters were threatend with by Acacia ...
I just abot rolled out of my chair laughing at the STUPIDITY of it. THANK GOD we have judges that KNOW about this tech and will not be fooled by the SHYSTER lawyer who filed this (he ought to be disbarred for violation of ethics)
GREED GREED GREED GREED GREED --- Bottom line!
Yeah, it's still nice to get replies, even if it's a different viewpoint.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
'The use of an intermediary ensures that one party will not have to disclose sensitive information, such as a credit card number or bank account number, directly to the other party in a deal.'
Isn't CASH a pre-existing technology?
Good old Cash lets you walk up to someone you don't know, purchase an item, and walk away without ever having to identify yourself, or your bank numbers... all by using the government and its money as the intermediary?
I think currancy was here thousands of years before AT&T even existed...