Dell Infringes on Patent by Selling Overseas?

senior.wrangler writes "Looks like new evidence that the U.S. Patent Office is hiring monkeys to bulk-approve new patents. DE Technologies has been granted a patent covering international transactions handled over the computer. Here's a quote from their web site: With patent coverage securing 80% of the world 's trading markets, DE Technologies is securing licensing arrangements with international trading participants. Kinda creepy, if you ask me."

Comments

This is just silly

[eofpi]

Sounds like another one for Public Patents.

Has everything already been invented?

[3770]

There is a popular story that some official of the U.S. patent office resigned some time in the 19th century, or even wrote a letter to the president suggesting shutting it down, because he thought that everything that could be invented already had been invented.

This article inspired me to find out more about that and found that it was a myth. Interesting though.

Read it for yourself

[Capybara]

The actual patent is #6,460,020. I would summarize it by saying that it covers writing a program to do all of the stuff you need to do to sell products internationally, including currency conversion, tariff and shipping calculations, etc. Sounds pretty obvious to me. Enjoy...

This is not the first time we've heard of them

[stoborrobots]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/09/04 0259&tid=155&tid=98&tid=17

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/20/02 21226

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/28/185255

The Patent

[pmazer]

The patent can be found here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1='DE+Technologies'&OS =%22DE+Technologies%22&RS=%22DE+Technologies%2 2 And yes, it is as bad as it seems.

Re:Has anyone actually found the patent?

[.orvp]

I did, by snooping around the website of the (I consider) punks. They announced they won the patent in a press release about getting the Borderless Order Entry System (BOES(TM)) patent. The actual patent would be found on the USPTO.gov website. It was filed December 29, 1997, and so it really was prior to much internet international transactions taking place. And this patent went through a lot of scrutiny from what I see.

At one point, it was even mentioned in Congress by a Virginia lawmaker as a horrible use of the patent system. (Read another news story that has more on this.) And it was revised many times. I see a lot of work done on this.

Now do I think they are bastards? Oh yea. Do they have a case? Unfortunatly, it appears so. But this sort of thing shouldn't be patented in the first place.

BOES PATENTABILITY POSITION PAPER

[stoborrobots]

Check out why they think that this product is actually patentable...

from http://www.detechnologies.com/pos_papers/patent_po sition_paper.doc

About This Paper

Along with the recent issuance of U.S. Patent No. 6,460,020 for the Borderless Order Entry System (BOESTM) on October 1, 2002, some questions have been raised as to the patentability of the BOES invention. These questions relate generally to the false premise that the patent covers the simple automation of an old process on conducting international trade. The purpose of this position paper is to explain, first, that the BOES technology falls within the scope of inventions that are protected by U.S. patent laws, and, second, that the BOES invention deserves such protection.

...[snip]...

Does BOES Deserve Patent Protection?

To best answer this question, we must first understand: (1) What is the BOES technology?; (2) The timing significance of the BOES patent application filing; (3) The scope and extent of the Patent Office examination and subsequent reviews; and (4) Whether copyright law can adequately protect the BOES invention.

1. What is the BOES technology?

BOES is a fully integrated complex software system used to export or import goods between two or more countries. The purchase or sale of goods, whether between businesses or with the ultimate consumer, requires the connection and use of a complex set of service operations. These service operations include: ordering the goods; transporting the goods between buyer and seller; guarantying payment; insuring the goods in case of loss or damage; preparing and filing the appropriate documents with governments, carriers, and banks -- all within a framework of different languages, currencies, and trade laws.

Before BOES, the capability did not exist to turn to a software system and have all the necessary tasks efficiently performed to conduct an international transaction for the sale of goods.

2. The timing significance of the BOES patent application filing

The original BOES patent application was filed at the end of 1997 -- well before the "Gold Rush" to the Patent Office by others seeking patent protection on business methods inspired by the State Street Bank case. After this seminal patent case was published, filing business method patent applications became the "in vogue" thing to do. Business method patent application filings skyrocketed in 1999 and 2000 and the Patent Office was deluged without the capability to effectively respond due to insufficient number of qualified examiners and inadequate prior art database resources.

This situation dramatically changed for the better when, in March 2000, the Patent Office director ordered that each and every business method patent application go through a quality assurance review by seasoned patent examiners after its initial allowance. Furthermore, the Patent Office poured significant financial resources into hiring additional patent examiners with qualifications to examine applications in the financial technology area. The Patent Office also dramatically increased the patent examiners' capability to search publications from around the world to assist them in making prior invention determinations. The impact of these Patent Office improvements is reflected in the number of business method patents that are currently allowed and issued. Today, less than 30% of all business method patent applications are allowed -- drastically down from its all-time high of nearly 80% allowance only a few years ago.

On a related issue, it is very important to note that the patent application filing date determines whether a prior patent or publication is considered prior art. The examiner will review patents and publications prior to the filing date to determine patentability. In the case of the BOES p

Re:Check out the US Patent Examiner...

[back_pages]

While that page is accurate, I have never heard of anyone being hired in at less than the GS-7 level. It's also worth noting that decisions to hire, fire, and the details of the job offer (GS level, to the extent that it's flexible) are determined by the supervisor, not someone in an unrelated HR department, and that the current tech economy allows these supervisors to be extremely selective.

The assertion that the USPTO employs monkeys in an assembly line is an indictment and conviction of the public's crippling ignorance into how the legal system works. I know an examiner who has a graduate degree in both nuclear physics and electrical engineering, and I wouldn't even bother asking what undergrad degrees he has - and this guy doesn't even have the authority to issue a patent. I hold two BS degrees, and if I advance as fast as possible, it will be over half a decade before I can issue a patent myself.

Link Fixed:

[Futurepower(R)]

Fixed:

The patent in question: #6,460,020

--
Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions

Re:Jesus Christ...

[powerspike]

http://www.detechnologies.com/news.htm, if you had of even looked at there site, you would of seen that the patent number was in the the little snippet for the press release about it. On the other side, they have a picture of a tanker on there front page, i wonder if it's going to sink as quickly as the patent will.....

Re:Jesus Christ...

[AndroidCat]

US Patent No. 6,460,020 and I swear this was covered in Slashdot before. (2002 is a little long to shout Dupe! however.)

Direct link to patent

[phikapjames]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,460,020.WKU.&OS=PN/6,460,020&RS =PN/6,460,020

Re:Licensing? WTF?

[1ucius]

Unfortunately, the patent was filed in 1996, so 5 year old art doesn't help. Even if Amazon.com was prior art, I'm not sure if they did everything necessary (e.g., did Amazon use local currency or price everything in USD).

1. A computer implemented process for carrying out an international commercial transaction comprising:

* running a transaction program on a computer system so as to integrate processes including:
o (a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;
o (b) selecting a currency from amenu in which to obtain price information;
o (c) selecting a product to be purchased and a destination for shipping such product to be purchased;
o (d) accessing at least one local or remote database for obtaining
+ (i) price information for the product to be purchased; and
+ (ii) a product code for an international goods clasification system pertinent to such product; and
+ (iii) international shipping information related to an origination point of such product and said destination;
o (e) calculating costs involved in moving such product to said destination based upon said destination and such product;
o (f) determining a total cost of the transaction that includes a price of the product;
o (g) receiving an order for such product thereby triggering an electronic process for confirming existence of available funds; and
o (h) upon confirmation of availability of said funds, accepting said order, generating an electronic record, such record including the content of a commercial invoice, to facilitate passage of such product to said destination.

Boca Raton

[macdaddy]

Isn't it Boca Raton, FL where Scott Richter lives, works, and spams?

Prior art by any online foreign exchange services

[aristotle-dude]

Any foreign exchange broker offering foreign exchange services prior to the filing date of this would have prior art.

My employer was conducting foreign exchange over a network over two years before this stupid patent was filed and doing internet transactions over a year before the patent was granted.

Your patent office is very dangerous and should be closed down and audited.

"non-obviousness"

[gbulmash]

In the linked CNN story, they quote/paraphrase Michael Kirk, the executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

"After the State Street case, all patents applications would be judged by new criteria of novelty, utility and non-obviousness, says Kirk."

Does this patent have:

• Novelty? - Maybe 20 or 30 years ago, but this hasn't been novel for a LOOOOONG time.

• Utility? - Definitely. But so does a pair of scissors.

• Non-obviousness? - Yeah, right. The patent was granted in 2002. This was non-obvious in 2002?

Ugghhh.

Re:Prior art by any online foreign exchange servic

[servoled]

Does your employer still have the old version of its software from before December 30, 1996 posted somewhere? Is there an article in a magazine/newspaper/journal that describes how your employer operated its online transactions prior to December 30, 1996? Is there any public record at all of your employer's operations that give a technical description of its transactions prior to December 30, 1996?

If none of this crap exists when the application was examined how in the hell do you expect anyone to find it?

One of the big problems with software patents is there is no good central location which describes all the programs which have existed, how they operated and when they were introduced. Without this its nearly impossible to find dated evidence that some of these ideas were known at the time the application was filed.

Re:My next patent

[Spruitje]

Im going to patent the "idea of selling marihuana through internet", you see, since it was illegal before internet creation, there is no prior art, and some day, when marihuana gets outlawed, i will be rich....or dead.


There are already some shops selling marihuana and hash over the internet here in the Netherlands.
Prior art....

Re:Trouble for all?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would if the summary actually corresponded to what you have to do to infringe this patent.

It doesn't. Here are some pointers that should be tattooed on the eyelids of every slashdot reader.

1. The abstract doesn't define the 'invention'.
2. The claims define the 'invention'.

Keeping this in mind should clear up probably 80% of the hysterical whining you read on slashdot about patents....

I have prior art from 1993

[ites]

To be precise: I helped build a tour operating system used to provide travel agents with tools to book voyages. Now, this is an example from 1993 but we all know that similar systems (SABRE, AMADEUS) are old and go back to at least the 1980s.

The system we built conforms pretty much to the criteria of the patent. Note that the patent does not say this is a "self-service system", it describes only the mechanisms for conducting an international transaction.

I'd add that in 1995 this was perhaps not obvious, even if today it's laughably so. However, there is most definitely prior art.