Slashdot Mirror
PanIP Drops E-commerce Patent Lawsuits
Darlok writes "Back in October 2002, PanIP sued 50 small businesses, claiming patents over basic E-commerce functions. One of the defendents set up a group defense fund, and in the last week, contributors to that fund have been notified by e-mail and this notice on the fund's homepage that PanIP has agreed to drop its lawsuits without any licenses being issued. The U.S. Patent Office is currently reviewing the patents in question. Hopefully this will set some sort of precedent ..."
As an aside, I like the choice of "www.youmaybenext.com" for the fund's homepage. I wonder what the next ridiculous patent lawsuit will be for? I smell a new poll.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
The PanIP Group Defense Fund is saying that it's going to dissolve because the all lawsuits against group members are being discontinued, in exchange for the group willing to give up the already on the books order that PanIP pay PGDF's legal fees. Uhm...
To me, this is not a result the outside world should be cheering. It's a settlement that protects the asse(t)s of the group members, but it's not a knockout blow to PanIP. PanIP is giving up nothing but the right to pursue an appeal that they weren't likely to lose and create an even stronger precedent. The PGDF is giving up the chance to extract real money from PanIP.
Boo! Hiss! Bad move!
The PGDF shuuld not be folding. Just because their orginal case has been settled does not mean they have become pointless. They should be seeing through that the patents be invalidated, and keeping the group in existance so that anybody sued by PanIP in the future could get quick and easy access to the resources that worked before.
As their website domain has always said, you could be next to be sued by PanIP if you're doing basic e-commerce on the Web. And nothing in this settlement prevents that happening. PanIP's plan may be to just let this group fade away, and then sue another group of defendants hoping that they don't join together into a large enough group to squash them like a bug again. It's a little too early to be putting the fly swatter away.
Well, it doesn't set any sort of legal precedent and since businesses are, except in the extremely rare case, demonstrably amoral I wouldn't expect any sort of karmic-rub off on other companies, either.
Businesses are beholden to their shareholders. If shareholder valuation can be increased via protection of patents then the company has a fiduciary duty to pursue that course of action. To not do so would be neglicent and could open the company up to a shareholder lawsuit.
Unfortunately, PanIP isn't going away. They've only promised not to sue the 15 defendants who all ganged up to fight back. Everybody else is still at risk...
Hopefully this will set some sort of precedent... Oh, rest assured, it will. I just hope it's a good precedent.
-DB-
E-mail is like a prison: a prison with no walls... and no toilet. -Strong Bad
Hopefully this will set some sort of precedent ...
What kind of precedent? Patent defense consortia have been routine practices in defending against agressive plaintiffs seeking to take fundamental control of key industry elements. When this was first raised, I pointed out the various routes to shut down an overactive plaintiff: reexamination regarding prior art, joint defense agreements and joining forces to share costs of a legal defense. All of those happened and it worked.
This isn't new, it's routine.
The lawyers.
Yeah. It sets the precedent that small businesses should work together to establish a "technology, business process and other silly patents defense fund" to deter such behavior in the future.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
"I used to think the same thing until someone pointed out the actual details of this lawsuit"
You do not know the actual details.
"McDonald's was told repeatedly before this incident that they served coffee way too hot, something like 10-20F above the average"
Actually, that is the recommended serving temperature. McDonald's was selling coffee at the recommended serving temperature, which was how the customers wanted it. A detail you did not know.
"This lady just wanted a very small amount for medical bills"
But it was entirely her fault, since she dumped it. Another detail you overlook.
McDonald's bascially told her to go screw herself
As it should to anyone who begs for money with no reason.
the end McDonalds was slapped with such a big fine because they were so far out of line with how they served the coffee in general
Except they were entirely in line! A detail you forget. If you look at the miniscule number of burns per # of cups sold, it is something like a staggering 1 in 25,000,000.
After McDonald's was forced to serve the coffee too cold, the complaints greatly increased. Only after the frivolous lawsuit were they forced to be "out of line".
The problem with that is a man is innocent until proven guilty, which is for the court to determine, not the lawyer. That's a consequence of due process.
EvilCON - Made Famous by