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?
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
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"?
and here's a link that will still work when they put up friday's comic in 7-10 hours.
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
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?
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.
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."
No you're not. I've got a patent on that:
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
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
Well, the transcript doesn't lie...
CNN "Late Edition" Transcript:
Now granted, he doesn't claim to have INVENTED the internet. Instead, he claims to have CREATED it. What he REALLY did in 1986 was articulate somebody elses vision of widespread connected computing, and he introduced a follow-up bill to facilitate more widespread access to the network. I don't want to take away from his accomplishments because they ARE significant, but claiming to have created the internet alludes to illusions of grandeur. So yes, Al deserves to pretty much be mocked for the rest of his career over that statement.I think most people agree that, historically speaking, the Internet evolved as a result of the work done during the early 1970's on the ARPANET project, where TCP/IP was developed. The WWW concept, which makes the Internet much more useful, was developed primarily by Tim Berners-Lee of CERN.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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.
If you want to argue he's a terrible speaker, I can't fault that. But it's absurd to suggest that he was trying to make people think that he, a politician, created the world's most significant network. That was clearly not his intention.
And Vint Cerf, who with Jon Postel can be genuinely described as one of the co-inventors of the Internet, certainly disagrees with the "He said he invented it" spin on the subject. To quote:
I think Gore is being unfairly maligned here.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think you're talking about Teledildonics? ;-)
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
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.
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.
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