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!"
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.
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.
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"?
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
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.
If you read the patent, it talks about using telephone numbers, etc.
PayPal does not use telephone numbers as part of their security mechanism.
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
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?
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
AT&T has the bridge...why is everyone surprised they're trying to control the toll fees?
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.
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 used to be cynical, but reality has overtaken me.
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.
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.
Throwing out patented software as a whole is a mistake. Complex algorithims, and applications in medical (which could/would not be developed otherwise), or even vehicle navigation come to mind. But when it comes to (what seems like) blatent abuse of the legal system and the patent system in particular, another solution needs to be derived. Perhaps a more strict review policy or probation for one type and a very short life for others, I don't know I'm not involved, I couldn't be if I wanted to be and could care little.
[Many examples of McDonald's not taking accountabillity for the coffee issue]
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.
So what's your point? Ford sells cars knowing full well that those cars are capable of killing the driver and numerous other people in the vicinity.
But McDonald's sells really hot coffee?
So is Ferarri liable for selling really fast cars?
Is Pontiac liable for selling the new GTO, which is really fast and doesn't have a compensatory increase in handling?
In practice, I guess the answer is yes - if lots of people buy the GTO and then slide it off a freeway interchange, Pontiac will be held liable. I see that as a bad thing. I prefer to make my own choices about what I believe is safe.
Should parents be allowed to sue their ISP for making pornography available to their children? Should the RIAA be allowed to sue 2600 for making available a tool which can be used to crack DVD encryption?
Who should be liable? The company that makes a potentially dangerous product available, or the person who uses it dangerously?
Who should be liable? The person who makes DeCSS available, or the person who uses it to pirate DVDs?
Who should be liable? The company that sells really hot coffee, or the 81 year old that tries to drink it while driving?
The very reason the McDonald's case comes up so frequently is because it is currently the canonical example of where the dividing line between personal accountability and public protection is crossed.
Me? I'm with McDonald's (and 2600) on this one. I would much rather have the freedom to buy a gun and shoot myself in the foot.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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