Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Sued for Patent Infringement
theodp writes "Amazon's 10-K SEC filing discloses that the e-tailer has been sued for infringing on Soverain Software patents for Network Sales Systems (5,715,314 & 5,909,492) and Internet Server Access Control and Monitoring Systems (5,708,780), aka the Open Market patents, aka the Divine cashectomy patents, which Soverain obtained in the wake of Divine's bankruptcy sale."
...Amazon has aleady patented the use of Irony...on the internet!
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I sue firefox for using fire...
so they will have to change the name again.
haha! the world is mine!
my endian is bigger than yours!
Is it just me, or are more and more companies trying hard to find every single person/company and sue the crap out of them?
Filing patent infringement lawsuits is hard work.
Someone needs to come up with a "One Click(tm) Patent Infringement Lawsuit" system. And then patent it...
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm gonna sue McDonalds for making me fat...wait already happened...
5,715,314 is ultra-general. One could use this patent to sue every site on the 'net that uses secure E-commerce. I suspect the judge will bend over backwards for Amazon. If Amazon looses, it will be one of the most destructive legal precedents in US history.
I'm rooting FOR Amazon in a patent case? Ow ow ow ow ow. It hurts!
I have no idea why everyone complains about patenting their products, as its the same thing as our right to free speech.
Free speech was meant to protect unfavorable or unpopular speech, such as telling Bush to go sit and spin on a nuclear warhead. The first amendment prevents the government from hacking off my head for showing disapproval for the dimwitted President.
This is exactly the same for patents. It protects smaller businesses from having their ideas stolen by huge corporations.
Of course, free speech and patents are applicable to everyone. If the government were to abolish the patent system, it would be just as bad as abolishing free speech. Without small businesses, the world's economy will always be controlled by huge corporations who have no respect for the little person, like you and I. Of course, at this current time the world is pretty much run by huge corporations who lobby with millions of dollars to politicians, but soon in the future, laws will be passed, and that problem will be gone.
They basically announced that they now own the Internet market
Couple this patent with the Eolas patent and you pretty much own the whole shebang.
[click to type company name] hereby sues [click to type deep pockets] for patent infringement for [click to enter $amount].
CTRL P
Choose Fax Printer.
[click to choose Clerk of Court]
Roll three dice. If you roll a 4 or less, even the most ridiculous case wins.
It's official - software development is now a relic of the Old Economy where companies actually create products. So passe'. The New Economy is all about data mining for litigation.
And then while we're too busy in the courtrooms to notice, and our production skills so atrophied from lack of use, the aliens will land and take over.
"It's a cookbook!!!"
I'm patenting the internet. Pay up, Suckers!
Come on.. Amazon's patent of cookies (which they didn't invent) and web browsing (which they didn't invent) and the Internet (which Al Gore invented) aka One Click Shopping, makes them a deserving target for another stupid USPTO case.
Can somebody tell me which government agency is actually run by sane, competent people?
It's about time. I'm sure this is redundant by the time I make this post - but my God, Amazon deserves this. They've been patenting (as you all know) EVERYTHING they could POSSIBLY come up with. Sure sucks when you get kicked in the arse with your own boot, eh! Seriously, though - Amazon gets a patent for 1-click purchases - that's a dumb as the Aussie who re-patented the wheel. BTW, if this post is modded troll - I blame it on the beer. Which BTW is Bud Light - gotta support BudNet!
I don't know much about the patent laws but it seems to me that companies that use concepts that someone patented, and who implemented them with no knowledge of the patent shouldn't be able to be sued. I shouldn't be expected to research to determine if the solution I came up with on my own is patented. The burden of proof should require that the infringment was wilful. As a pratical matter someone who didn't wilfully infringe in the first place would have to be able to coninue using what ever was patented... Maybe I just don't see the big picture...
1. A network-based sales system, comprising:
...and don't say "you must be new here" :)
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
at least one merchant computer; and at least one payment computer;
How could they possibly know that Amazon has exactly this setup?
2. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message and said access message each comprises a universal resource locator.
This sounds exactly like one-click to me.
Amazon's one-click patent was filed September 12, 1997; whereas this was filed October 24, 1994. How could the one-click patent be filed if it was alreay there?
4. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said access message comprises a buyer network address.
5. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 4, wherein:
said product can be transmitted from one computer to another; and
said merchant computer causes said product to be sent to said user by transmitting said product to said buyer network address only.
What?!? Said product is transferred to the buyer network address only? I never shipped any of those books I bought from Amazon to an IP address!
15. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 14, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount; and
said payment computer is programmed to ensure that said user account has sufficient funds or credit to cover said payment amount.
Surely this already existed. I doubt every time someone swiped an American Express card before October 24, 1994, a human being was called to look up an account balance in a paper ledger.
39. A method of operating a shopping cart computer in a computer network comprising at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products, at least one shopping cart computer, and a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer
Funny, I figured you just needed a program to do a shopping cart, instead of a whole computer! Here we have a buyer computer, merchant computer, payment computer, and a shopping cart computer. Wow.
I'd look at the other patents, but I'm getting dizzy....
I am going to be hiding in some bunker in a fetal position (unless that is patented too) because very soon, individuals like us won't be able to do anything without law enforcement arresting us. FBI (and RIAA) monitors my internet activity waiting to catch an illegal thought (or illegal byte). Corporate lawyers are watching everything every small biz does, to see if we violated any patents or copyrights, so that they can sue our savings out of us. Where is the freedom that we constantly preach to others?
All your favorite sites in one place!
Pffft! That's easy!
The Department of Education.
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Is it me or is the demand for lawyer increasing forever. Everyone sues every company, and vice versa.
At this rate, some day someone will make up some legit reason to sue the entire Internet altogether.
I know I shouldn't be feeding the troll, but does that mean you're saying that you were stupid first?
Are all of you forgetting that only a few years ago, some laywers were actually thinking of applying for patents on specific stylized basketball moves, so players could "protect" their "style"? And famous boxing ring announcer Michael Buffer(sic) has the phrase "Let's Get Ready to Rumble!" trademarked. If you tried to use that phrase as an announcer on a sports show, he could sue you for trademark infringement. -rl
It could have sample screenshots ripped off of a competing product filed in the patent application.
Your point is all great in theory - And what do you suppose we should do about companies who do nothing but come up with ideas to patent so that they can sue the pants off companies trying to make a buck bu innovating?
I mean specifically companies who file patents (or just 'acquire' them) with less than zero intention of themselves turning the 'idea' into a marketable product, and less than zero intention of licensing said 'ideas' to companies who would LOVE to turn them into products.
Every third day there's Yet Another LawSuit filed by "Jim Bobs Tech Patent Company" which has ZERO business (let alone INCOME) other than lawsuits they've filed "protecting" their patents.
Is THIS the state of affairs your previous "patent system" is supposed to encourage?
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
when will the govertment shut the patent office down and sue all their employees for idiocy. And at the same time give up the "patent" software and non-technical things?!
------
While at the same time its good, because in USA anything can happen, and USA is getting weaker so they have less and less rotten influence of the wolrd, and being ridiculed by cuba and other minor nations. So maybe its good you fight over shit...
Every other form of invention or creative work is protected by either copyright or Patent. Not both. Software should only be copyrightable not patentable because it is an expression of an idea. This allows other entities to emulate, imitate, and make competing versions of the idea. Patents protect an idea or invention. Copyrights protect a particular expression of an idea. Copyright terms need to be shortened for certain but software patents are extremely disruptive because they do not require that the actual code even be written. In addition patents are far more expensive to obtain than copyrights and they benefit mainly those with big pockets and those who think they are gonna use the patents to sue big pockets.
The other big problem with software patents is that the Patent office is totally out of touch and is essentially selling patents, not reviewing them.
Business models and methods should also not be patentable
The whole purpose of patents is to protect the commercially viable ideas of small companies or individuals - i.e., so they can benefit from their innovation.
The best way would be to incentivize the US Patent office to make sure prior art is actually researched.
Maybe, say, make patents more expensive, use the money to fund the patent office, but then make the patent office refund twice the money if any granted patent is overturned on prior art grounds. Commercially viable ideas will still get patented - trivial ones will not.
Yes, this would result in some folks losing the benefits of ideas that, when conceived have no useful benefits but then develop them later for some reason. But the tradeoff would be an end to today's wars over trivial and obvious patents, all of which have mounds of prior art.
Is it just me or are companies starting to use Law Suits as a business model.
For example the Music Industry has got it down to a fine art. Find a consumer, sue them for millions, they can't afford legal costs so they settle for around 3 - 5 grand, move onto the next.
They could potentially make more money this way out of indiduals then by having them buy CD's.
Just my thoughts anyway.
Clearly the USPTO cares little to not-at-all as to the actual content of a patent request, as long as what it describes hasn't been patented already.
They're quite happy to rubber-stamp "First Post" on almost any document no matter how trivial, irrelevant, or land-grabbing the actual verbiage and let the courts fight it out amongst themselves.
I guess someone way-back decided that Lawyers in the US didn't have enough work to justify their existence (not to mention their hourly rates)
These days there's a virtual plague of lawyers, we'd be feeding them RAT POISON if someone hadn't made it illegal already.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Wow, I'm inspired. What better way to make a living than to let somebody make a fortune through doing business, and then extract that fortune from them by using lawyers and a piece of paper that says "I thought of it first" that they hand out at the patent office like candy.
I'm going to run to the patent office tomorrow with my new patent idea:
A method of extracting capital from another party by patenting a method that the aforementioned other party has already successfully used to earn revenue.
No, wait... I think that's a little too specific for the patent office. Patent plan B:
I'm rich!A method by which a party, called the 'seller' receives monetary compensation in exchange for providing goods and/or services to a second party, called the 'buyer'.
Replace all your hordes of workers with a handful of lawyers. Pay them % of the profits. Sue anyone listed in the phone book. (pat pend.)
When I was young, I had to rub sticks together to compute.
Now if I could only...get out of this....chair......ah, fuckit.
Wow! I'm making money already!
outsource
If it's the real McCoy!
o y. html
http://www.smash.com/seg/timelab/stories/121mcc
Although there are other theories on the origin of the expression, they all indicate the same thing: it's the best, it's the original, it's the real thing.
One way to fix this is to get rid of software patents altogether, as the European Parliament vote in September 2003 tried to do.
But as long as American lawmakers don't understand the damage done by software patents, one other possible workaround would be to build a Software Patent Defense Organization (SPDO) after the model of NATO. I described that briefly in a book on software patents I published in 2002 (in German).
The basic idea would be to copy Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. Members of the SPDO would treat any software patent based attacks on any member as an attack on themselves and promise to retaliate with all means at their disposal.
That might be a deterrent even for those obnoxious outfits that have no business themselves except that of suing from overbroad patents, so they can't be impressed by any counterclaims based on defensive patents. They would still need to assess the threat of having to fight every member of the SPDO at the same time.
The IBM and Apache open source software licenses cancelling all rights in retaliation to a software patents based attack are one step in this direction. But stronger measures might be necessary to keep the system from collapsing.
Basically it's just like spam. With the amount of damage by spam rising exponentially, people get annoyed and angry, and start to ask for strong countermeasures. With the amount of damage by software patent lawsuits rising, the same will be true here.
If even Amazon gets sued, now might be the point to start considering building a collective retaliation option.
Lenz Blog
'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.' I had that quoted at me by a judge long ago (I was 18, and had a *lot* of speeding tickets).
Is there anyone out there who could rattle off every law we have on the books?
I am often fond of saying, "You break the law as soon as you wake up in the morning." I can't think of *anyone* I have *ever* known in my entire life that hasn't broken a law at least once a day. (Those who are in comas need not apply)
Take your car. You have a air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror? That's reason enough for a cop to pull you over - obstructing your view. Driving to work? Did you signal every turn? Did you look both ways? Is your gas door open? (I got pulled over for this.)
Your computer. How many have at least one mp3 or software program you 'shouldn't' have? Copyright infringement. Coding software? You've probably run into a software patent and don't even know it. Bought cigs for your kid brother? Spank your child in public? Pee on the side of the road? Stole a pencil from work? Ate a piece of candy from the bin at the grocery store? Have a garage sale without a permit? Give false information on your taxes? Walk across the middle of a street? Litter? Give someone the finger?
Granted, lots of this stuff is just rude behavior, and some of it isn't illegal where you may live, but who can possibly know all the laws on the books at any one time? God forbid you travel to another state and have to do two weeks of research in order to make it to the other side.
People will decide that they have no choice. Ignore it. Why bother? Everything you do is illegal, and moreso every day. Corporations ignore the law, and when caught, ignore the punishment. Politicans are making more laws all the time, yet are largely above the law.
I'd love to say that freedom for the US will be decided this November 2nd, but I know better, and I wish more people did too.
You know what would be a great idea? X. Too bad it would cost a bunch of money to develop X into something usefull...if only there were some way to help try to ensure that I could recover the money I spend developing it...
There are a couple of problems with this logic. First, you're worried that someone will rip off your idea. Patents were designed in a day and age when the things being patented were *simple*. An industrial process, or a simple machine. The thing is, it's *really hard* to just duplicate the functionality of a worthwhile piece of software. If you can't just take the software (and copyright takes care of that), it's generally not going to be cheap or quick for you to reimplement the idea...and in that time, the original person has moved beyond where he was. Software needs patents much less than old processes once did.
Second, you're giving an example of an exceptional idea, something really amazing. The problem is that software development is so complex compared to earlier systems that you could find something to patent in almost every new system made. This is, frankly, not how the patent system is intended to operate at all.
Third, you talk about "expense" of developing the new idea. It really *was* expensive to develop some older things -- if you want to build a new machine and figure out how to make it work well, it could take many years and lots of expensive and painstaking ironwork -- and the simple result could be copied. However, software is (comparably ) incredibly cheap to work with. You think, write a hundred lines of code, and you have an implementation to test out and work with. You don't write up a blueprint and then have an implementation to test two months later.
Fourth, older devices were much more static. A plow is a plow is a plow. Maybe someone comes up with a way to hollow out part of the thing and make it lighter...then no improvements for a while. In the software field, there are constantly surging improvements. The whole goal of an engineer is to improve on existing systems...rather unlike the masses of plow companies, that might just produce different plows of roughly the same design. Patents are *much* more onerous in software.
I worked in a research lab for a while, and I think that I can safely claim that software patents are minimally useful to society. It's fairly rare that a really good, reasonable, legitimate software patent exists -- the type of research encouraged by software patents is of the "lock people out" variety, rather than the "make something better" variety. I do not think that research would be signifiantly impacted by a lack of software patents, and I *do* think that software engineering would be much easier.
May we never see th
That is the worst example I have ever read. If you had an AIDS pill you would make money off basically the entire continent of Africa, not to mention Haiti and other areas. The drug companies are perfect examples of why patents are good. Think about it, if you were a little drug company, inveneted the cure for aids, then everyone could make it, well there would be no point to inventing it other than the good of mankind. Now nontangible items like "software used to search a web site" are bullshit. If you want to compare it to the example I just gave, little guy makes new product, then you really need to consider that small software projects by university students and the like turn out big if they are good ideas and built well. Big corporations in the same field don't stand up to good ideas due to the basically no cost distrobution techniques and the intangibility of the products. Thusly, a chemical formula one creates (not discovers naturally occuring, like DNA patents) and the like should be totally patentable as they are now. Rules reguarding the intangible should be strengthened, as they are through frivoulous cases like this one. The system (at least in America) is getting better BY these stupid cases.
This sort of booby-trap business model wouldn't happen if patent holders were required to take anti-infringement action within a limited time. If alleged infringement goes on in plain view for say, 2 years without any claim against it, then there should be no infringement claim. If Sovrain tried to victimize my company in this way, I would seriously look for a way to prosecute them as terrorists.
I wonder how that case has been turning out....
- A
How many people on slashdot have ever tried filing for a patent (software or otherwise)?
I am John Hurt.
How about making a business method patent for creating/acquiring a bunch of broad patents and then waiting until someone infringes on them, waiting some more, and then suing for all back infringement and forcing a commission on future use.
The one click lawsuit.
I've got a good feeling about this one.
My deviantArt site
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. The patent lawyer armies are marching on the huge revenues of Amazon and MS, not small businesses. They follow the money. Large scale patent litigation is just not feasible, and if it was tried there would be a backlash.
Now on the copyright issue, yes, the RIAA is suing smalltime copyright violators. But that is a lot cheaper than patent litigation, and it doesn't affect small businesses at all (or even most file sharers).
There is no need for patents on software, we already have copyright laws which should be used rather than the extreme overkill of "software patents". Look, there is no risk to companies who innovate in software... noone's shelling out a Billion $ to develop 1-click shopping, thus no need for them to have a monopoly on something as asinine as 1-click shopping for 20 years. In hardware, a company might spend a billion$ trying to develop a product before it can ever come to market -- that's a detrimental impact on that company's bottom line, and they should have a 20 year monopoly. If a company could not receive that monopoly, in most cases, they would not have a necessary incentive to spend a billion$ on R&D and the product would never come into existence. Contrast that with software innovation... Does anyone REALLY BELIEVE that without software/internet patents there was no hope that the world would ever be blessed with 1-click shopping? Does anyone really care about 1-click shopping? Of course this little company would still have developed 1-click shopping, because it didn't cost them anything extra to develop and it pays instant rewards in increased sales. Do you think for a second that we wouldn't have browser plug-ins without patents? Do you think for a second that we wouldn't have turbotax, halo, amazon, ebay, slashdot without patents? Of course we would! The question is what do we NOT have because of software patents. What companies are being shut-down, stifled, put out of business -- what REAL innovations are being stamped out because they might "infringe" on something as asinine as 1-click-shopping? Everyone agrees that without industrial patents, we wouldn't have 1/10th the innovation in aerospace, electronics, mining, or environmental science... but without software/internet patents we'd have more innovation that we do currently. Whose really benefitting from all these software patents? A: The Gov't and the Lawyers... that's it, it ain't us folks, so don't let anyone feed you a line about how these software patents are designed to "bring innovation to the consumer market"... that's a crock. The reality is we'd have all the same software innovations we have today (most likely more), but due to an increase in competition, the software might be a little less buggy and would probably be a lot cheaper, too.
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
I don't know about other online retailers, but I was using CDConnection before there was even a world wide web to browse on, back in 1991 or 1992 (they've been around since 1990).
They had a telnet-based system that used something very much like the shopping carts of today, although I can't remember if it was actually called a "shopping cart."
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Boy are Amazon in for a long fight !.
Hides as wife walks into room...
I would like to help them so much... I know! I will offer Amazon my legal advice, free of charge, because I think they are great, and I am such a nice guy, despite being a lawyer. Let me only click... Oh, no! I would have to commit a crime of one-clicking patent infringement to even RTFA! But I want to help them! Must... resist... Thou Shall Not Infringe... Thou Shall Not Steal Innovative Clicking Ideas... But... I ... must... help...
Only... clicking... would... help...
Must... not... click...
Help... Click... No... Cannot...
Oh dear God, my brain!
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Why is is that companies can be sued over the most minute parts of technology (I'm just waiting for Microsoft to take someone to the cleaners over Wizard patent infringment), yet gaming companies can virtually rip off complete ideas and nobody bats an eyelid?
Consider these, uhh... "coincidences":
Alone in the Dark --> Resident Evil
GTA 3 --> Simpsons Hit & Run
Crazy Taxi --> Super Taxi Driver
Thief --> Just about every stealth first person game since then
In my opinion, the gameplay advances that were *unique* to the original games, and then turn up in games a couple of months later, should be questioned. Maybe if more games companies took the time to think up original concepts, rather than blatantly ripping off the innovations of other games, we'd see a healthier, and more enjoyable games industry.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
I sincerly hope that someday, you might be correct. Because right now patents are being used fof the exact opposite.
There is no continent in the world as AIDS-ridden as Africa. We all know this. So there is probably no bigger market either. However Africa doesn't represent a very wealthy part of our world. They can't afford to pay full price for AIDS-medicine.
So the drug-co's are using patents to make sure they don't get any drugs at all. That's corporate greed for you.
If you google a little bit on the subject, it seems they are finding legal ways around the patent-system to get drugs anyway.
But the fact that the so called human-friendly medical-industry is willing to let an entire continents die, just because they don't profit enough, probably shows how bad the idea of drug-patents really are.
It gives a monopoly to be a life-saver, but no duty. How bad is that? No really. That's just awful.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
We're all waiting for that revelution you know. But I'd expect the right to bash Republican ass and smoke weed, or I'm not in :)
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
... Real innovators continue to design truly valuable new ideas, but are largely ignored.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
When I went to college, the hottest subject was IT and companies couldn't get enough IT trained people. These days if you go to college the hottest subject is law and companies can't get enough lawyers to sue the crap out of other companies. Hmmmm. I think I'm in the wrong profession.
...shall thee reap!! :-)
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Step 1: Buy the "IP" of a bankrupt company
Step 2: Find someone infringing and sue
Step 3: Profit!!!
Patent-ese? Which one? Would it be legal-ese, weasel, jargon, mumble, doublespeak, incomprehension or oxymortion?
Communication-inhibitors have many different shapes and names you know....
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Er... They would have to keep selling CDs at least for a generation, so that people are accustomed the fact they are entitled to suing at random.
After people get accustomed to that, they can just stop selling music all together, because by then, corporations have been given the right to profit, regardless.
Oh, what a wonderfull future we will have! We can ofcourse hope that there's some balance in all this. That for every action there's a reaction.
When the pig-filthy greed-ridden corporations finally steps out too far, there might actually be some changes? I'm not saying revolution and all that, but maybe a few sane changes to the way coroporations are being allowed to run this world?
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
I'd like to patent atoms... I'm sure I'd get a lot of royalties...:D
My software creates paragraphs.
It uses my patented method of inserting additional information-blocks into text-frames, making the sofisticated possibility of paragraphing text real.
In correctly presented forms these additional information-blocks would not be presented, but if the text-frame were to be displayed unprocessed, the text itself would be seperatable from the advanced information-blocks by human eyes. This system therefore also possesses the quality of information-redundancy.
I see that a lot of people here are in direct vioaltion of my patent, and they should all expect lawsuits.
This does not, however, apply to parent poster.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Drug patents differ a lot from software patents.
Drug patent holds one specific substance and the methods to produce that substance. Software patents are dangerous, because they hold a result.
Could you agree that a medical company could hold a patent for curing impotence or AIDS? Of course not! Such a goal isn't patentable, and so should it be in software too. One painkiller isn't enough, there should be room for other substances too and therefore you can only patent your methods, not the result.
Copyright laws are IMHO enough for protecting your code. No one can copy your work, but they are free to achieve the same results your software has, as long as they make their own work there. Imagine if someone had patented databases.
?SYNTAX ERROR
Regarding Patent #5,715,314, this is a weird situation, and it would be interesting to see a patent attorney's opinion on how it would play out, with regards to this point: The components necessary for building an infringing system are owned by separate parties, whose interactions is by free association, and not by the design of a system.
The patent isn't for a system that can accept and process sales orders. It's for a sales system in which the user's computer is part of the system. Amazon doesn't have or deploy such a system. They only deploy a partial implementation of the system. An individual user doesn't have such a aystem, either, but he does have and use part of such a system. The sum effect of the free acts of Amazon and the individual buyer result in an emergent system that is equivalent to the patented system.
So, it would seem that neither Amazon nor a user can be particularly targeted in an infringement suit because neither of them infringes. Could a suit be brought against Amazon and its shoppers together, under a conspiracy theory?
--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about it.
...if the owner is a company that is. There is no need to defend the patent anymore...you tried to make it work and lost, tough cookies.
Patents are there to give the holders protection from infringement, but if there is no holder company then no infringement can happen and laws should be drawn up to allow all such patents to become public domain.
I am NaN
Those patents are about as valid as a....one click shopping cart patent....oh wait.
Please leave SCO (Darl McBride's Tech Company) out of this.
In the news.com.com article, there's an elegant statement of the real problem with such patents:
..."
....
... Maybe the same idea would work with patents? ;-)
"The Patent Office, being not a technical organization,
The USPTO (and probably similar agencies in other countries) has admitted that they have a very real problem in dealing with software patents. This was a rather new thing to them, and they have never been able to hire more than a few people with the right technical expertise. So they have basically taken the approach of "Approve everything and let the courts decide."
They know this is a disaster, but there's not a damned thing they can do about it. There aren't enough people with the right expertise, and even if there were, the USPTO doesn't have money to hire them. Their funding is controlled by Congress, and their hiring pool is controlled by The Market. So this will continue until Congress changes the rules or gives them the billions of $$ that the job requires. Or until millions of computer geeks decide to get a second degree in patent law and donate their time to the cause.
Until one of those things happen, we will continue to draw closer to the future that Bruce Parens described: It will become illegal to write software unless you're working for a giant corporation, because everything you write will be challenged in court as a patent violation.
Of course, we do have a similar problem with copyright. Ever since the laws were changed so that everything is copyrighted by default, it has slowly become more difficult to not infringe. Any sentence we write (including this one) has a growing chance of having been written before, and is thus violating the copyright of the previous author.
In the case of copyright, there is one way out, which is to make your sentences so long and complex that the chance of them duplicating what someone wrote earlier becomes increasingly minuscule, and you can be reasonably certain that a search via google (or any other search engines that may be developed in the future) won't find a good match, or at least a match that duplicates all the disparate ideas that you have managed to shoehorn into your convoluted, rambling sentence sufficiently well to violate any copyright that may be claimed on sentences that express only a few of the many concepts that you have managed to incorporate into your
(Hmmm
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I've taken a few MBA courses as part of my Ph.D. minor requirement. What floored me is how business students and professors treat patents. "Getting a patent" is part of nearly every business plan involving technology...I've asked "what if there isn't anything novel to patent". They treat me as stupid by responding that there is always something to patent...ALWAYS!
And then we went over a case study about a recent technology company that failed. They attributed their failure due to a lack of patent protection. However knowing a bit about the technology and company, it was obvious that this company wasn't doing anything novel...just trying to do it better and cheaper.
Pfizer is pursuing just that. They are sueing another company that produces a drug that has the same effect as Viagra(TM) but is a completely different chemical.
+5 Insightful. He has a good point about patenting methods vs results.
Is it just me, or are more and more companies trying hard to find every single person/company and sue the crap out of them?
It's what I would do if I were a fertilizer company.
did anyone notice that the USPTO pages offer "view cart" and "add to cart" buttons... seems to me like the USPTO is using a "network sales system" protected under USPTO patent 5,715,314... i wonder if Soverain Software has plans to sue the USPTO. Don't bite the hand that feeds, but bite everyone else's!
I think these CEOs need to do a little soul-searching and figure out if they're really doing themselves, or the industries they work in, any good. In the cases of "intellectual property" and especially software patents, if so many people have to sue one another, I believe it's indicative of a deeper problem. A problem already solved here.
Morons. Don't they know that the lawyers are the only winners? The real solution is not more lawsuits. The money spent on a software patent lawsuit might as well be flushed down the toilet for all the good it does the world. The real solution is adjusting the industry's perceptions about software.
--
Research and licensing is a valid business model. If someone has a reasonable patent with reasonable work behind it, it makes sense that they'd protect it from use without a license.
It's the suits from companies that didn't actually do anything that piss me off.
Take drug patents: it costs a lot of time and money to just come up with a drug worth patenting. Drug patents give incentives to corporations to create medicines to help people because they know they'll be able to regain a lot of the money they put into coming up with the medicine.
Grandpa asked me to relay his "HEAR, HEAR!!! GO PFIZER!!!"...
It wasn't their idea to start issuing these patents. They do it because they have to. Court decisions and new laws are forcing them to. To make matters worse, about half of all their revenue is siphoned off to other agencies, leaving them without the necessary resources to properly research patent applications.
The Patent Office knows that this is a problem, and they're trying to find a way to fix it. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't seem to want to help.
as your production increases towards infinity, your cost to manufacture a part drops to zero.
In the semiconductor industry, if you can design a part for $600,000 and you expect to sell 5 million parts, you can sell it very cheaply and still make a profit while undercutting your competition. Of course, if you have no competition, you can sell it for whatever you like. It's better for drug companies, obviously, because people will more than likely pay as much as they can afford.
Now what's really funny is how many larger semiconductor companies patent designs and before the patent's run out of it's 7 year life span, stop bothering to actively defend it court. The corporation I currenty work for, for example, has told a smaller corporation trying to sue them over 3 patents that they can let it drop, or face a counter suit because they use over 11 of ours.
Copyright IMHO is not the perfect tool, neither are patents. Don't ask me what is ...
... that's about as far as I go ... probably totally unworkable too!!
[ok do!]
* Something short term (5 years perhaps) in keeping with the pace of change in the field so the tech is still worth using when the monopoly expires.
* The "if you didn't actually copy it's OK" feature of copyright would be retained.
* Working source code disclosure (in an electronic form) would be a part of it.
[I'm a patent practitioner]
Way too many people and organization have decided to make money by owning an idea instead of implementing it. Congress should consider a revised patent law that forces 'inventors' to implement their patents in a certain period of time or risk losing them. Use it or lose it.
the patent office needs to completely overhaul the way it handles these intellectual property patents. spam aside, these frivolous patents are the worst thing that has ever happened to the internet.
from attacking Microsoft for developing/'stealing' the idea for installing plugins on-demand, or the completely revolutionary idea of having a computer automatically detect when media is inserted, these lawsuits are a waste of everyone's time and money. owning patents on things like this is, in the computer world, like owning a patent on breathing, or sliced bread.
they would never be awarded to people if the patent office had high-school graduates, or at least semi-computer literate people working there. these government workers deserve to be fired for doing such a shitty job. the bs work that they do would not be tolerated anywhere else, except under ridiculous bureaucracy of the American government.
i'm waiting for someone to come up with a lawsuit claiming to have the rights to using the internet as a tool 'for accessing other networked computers and information across the globe' or hell, even the internet itself.
these patent officers, i'm told, get paid on an hourly basis, so the number of patents they put through has no effect on them. it doesn't matter whether they even read the damn thing (which i'll bet resulted in patents like the ones i mentioned above.)
It's amazing that the one industry that is recession proof is lawyers... There's always people to leech off of and to sue.
Lawyer 1: "Wow, the economy is really in a down turn right now, what do you want to do?"
Lawyer 2: "Same thing we do every other day of the year, lets sue someone!"
For a second there, I was in fear that someone had a patent on that invisible plane that is mind controlled. I wonder if I just anticipated a later /. story! I think I had one of those planes, but with mind control accuracy at only 95 percent, I think I crashed it.
HA HA!
</NELSON>
Patents should not apply to natural progression of a product. For instance shoes. First there were slip on's. Then someone invented the shoelace and the bow knot. Then, in the 1980's, velcro. Should we be paying someone everytime we use the bow knot to tie our shoes? If we used a different knot, it would still fundamentaly resemble the bow knot and we would still be infringing.
Pod Six was jerks- Capt. Murphy
Trademark was obviously not designed to allow someone to claim a word or phrase as their "property." It is an anti-fraud measure--a law against what has been termed identity theft. Its purpose is to keep con artists from selling shoddy, low quality wares using some respected company's name.
No one is going to think Joe Dumble is Michael Buffer just because Joe used the phrase "let's get ready to rumble." Using a catch phrase is hardly impersonating a business--unless they did something like say "I'm that guy on TV who always said 'lets get ready to rumble.' Remember me? Buy my stuff." Though I don't see how this should fall into the domain of trademark law--it is more along the lines of general fraud. If you take trademarks that far, you'll get to the point where everyone will trademark their face, and if you look anything like some already established businessperson, you'll be sued for "trademark infringement" because someone may possibly mistake you for someone else. Insane.
Merely using a catch phrase isn't impersonating someone, just like merely having a similar looking face isn't either.
If someone said they were from Lets Get Ready to Rumble Inc, and Mr. Buffer's company was called Lets Get Ready to Rumble, then it would be a valid trademark issue--someone was trying to impersonate his business. Just saying the words isn't.
I can't speak for the other poster, but I think this has to do with overly broad patents because people (like you) have lumped patent, copyright, and trademark law into some sort of "intellectual property" category and use it to validate claims of ownership on basic ideas.
The driving force in the new economy will be patent infringement lawsuits! It's were the REAL money is!
You're kidding, right?
:-).
According to the supreme court, if I'm accused of 30 counts of drug dealing and sexual molestation, and 1 count of speeding, then when I'm convicted of speeding, I can be sentenced as though all 31 counts were guilty, because "not guilty is not the same as innocent".
According to the supreme court, the Menendez brothers (remember them?) were well served in the requirements of justice by having seperate juries, a prosecuting attourney that argued before both juries that their opponent was guilty of this crime that only one of the two could have done, getting guilty convictions against both of them, and having both serve life sentences. IF you didn't understand that: Here you have 2 nasty people. Both have committed crimes. But for this one crime, at most 1 of these two can be guilty of this crime, yet both are found guilty. You are guaranteed to have one innocent person in these two, yet both the guilty and the innocent are sent to life imprisonment, and the supreme court says "OK, both were found guilty by the due process of the law".
Jury nullification. The jury has the right and power to return "not guilty" even when the law is technically violated, when the act in question is done. That's been upheld by both appellate and supreme courts. The supreme court has said that it's not a mistrial if the jury is NOT informed of this right. Yet trial court judges will insist to juries that they must return guilty if the law is technically violated, and no appallate nor supreme court has said "trial courts cannot instruct the jury that way".
And don't get me started on either jurisdiction (carefully read the first sentence of the 14th amendment, and ask yourself why the federal government and federal courts gets involved in intRA-state matters) or tax law issues
Keep in mind: The preamble of the constitution:
"We the people, of the united states of america, in order to do A, B, C, and D, do establish this constitution". That's a statement of intent and purpose if I ever saw one.
So what is the intent of the constitution?
1. Form a more perfect union.
2. Establish justice.
3. Ensure domestic tranquility.
4. Provide for the common defense.
5. Promote the general welfare
6. Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and future generations.
What else does the constitution say about the power of the courts? That it is in one supreme court, and any lesser courts established by law.
*** The constitution requires that our courts are courts of JUSTICE (#2). Any judge that says "This is a court of law, not a court of justice" is in violation of the constitution, yet the supreme court historically upholds that belief.
Of course if you actually bothered to read what I'd written, you'd have noticed that I explicitly stated that I was NOT talking about companies whose business models are based around "R&D, Patent, and License".
) you've failed to productize it yourself or license it to others to productize, said patent becomes Public Domain and *anyone* can go out and do something with the technology.
That's PERFECTLY fine, valid, good, and worthwhile.
There ARE companies who've built their business around doing literally nothing with their patents other than litigating. (ie failing/refusing to license technologies, let alone actually productizing them themselves)
Seriously there outta be a 'statute of limitations' on patents - if after (say) 10 years (once-off, explicitly never-to-be-extended-by-acts-of-government-or-god
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.