Slashdot Mirror
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."
I remember hearing that some computer store was taking orders over their dial-up BBS in the 1980s. I don't see any technical reason that such a setup couldn't have been used from long-distance dialup from another country to perform a transaction via computer.
How about Interac (direct payment) machines? I know I've been able to use my Canadian debit card in the US long before Amazon became big. I think that qualifies as an international transaction via computer as well.
How can anyone take this out-of-work patent attorney loser seriously? His patent is lame, his business model is lame and even his website is totally lame....NICE JPEG JIGSAW PUZZLE YA DUMB TURD! That "1996 school of WWW design techniques" screams "innovative" about as loudly as your stupid patent.
* I want to patent sales in general. It was my idea to sell stuff.*
no no, it doesn't work that way.
you take something obvious, like opening a car door. then you add to that computer, digital and network.
so the patent you're going to file for would be "Opening car door using digital computer network", then you sue car companies for using digital authentication/key systems in their car keys/door openers.
or another one, writing an essay.
to that you add computer, digital and network.
this time the patent would be for writing literature works over a network of digital computers. THEN YOU SUE SLASHDOT!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I find it amazing (I guess I shouldn't) that we are seeing all of this commentry, but as of yet no reference to the actual patent.
As far as I can see the article does not mention it.
Does anyone have a reference to it so we can actually discuss this sensibly, or would we all prefer to keep shooting off our mouths in ignoarnce of the actual issue?
I am of the mindset that a computer is simply a tool with which to do things I normally couldn't do.... like compute primes faster than my monkey brain could ever hope to...
A car also lets me do things I normally couldn't do (like move in 3d space at a rate of 60mph)...
Is someone going to patent the idea of me driving my car so that I may get to work on time? The logic is the same IMHO....
Clearly you have the patent number? I looked at the article and found no mention of an actual patent - only the assertion that one exists. Of course, this is an obscenely irresponsible method of journalism since every issued patent is published and available on the internet.
It's quite obvious that unless someone can provide the patent number, any discussion here epitomizes uninformed bullshit. Of course, I could search for the patent, but I would have no idea of knowing if what I found would be the patent actually being used in litigation.
So, do you have the patent number? I'm interested in reading the patent myself.
You just voted in a government that is the one government singularly unwilling to do anything about this problem. If you think Bush and Cheney and co will do one single thing to change the patent system that gives them huge kickbacks, you are dreaming. Expect nothing, absolutely nothing to be done about this for the next 4 years.
The general criteria for a patent is that it must be novel, not obvious to those working in the same field, and of practical use. Looking at the patent, it violates the 'not obvious' part of the criteria. It seems to be saying that it's not obvious to string together all the functions that would be needed to do business internationally over the internet.
I would guess that if you took the time to try to find a publication dated prior to December 30, 1996 (the priority date of this application) that proves that this concept was obvious or previously existed you would find it an annoyingly difficult task.
And if that is what is truly necessary then you are just proving the parent poster's point about the monkeys. The basic steps listed in the patent have been done by people for decades if not centuries. Just following along the same steps on a general purpose programable computer is not an invention, it's what computers are for. The first guy who just happened to own both a microwave and a cold piece of pizza shouldn't automatically get a pantent on "heating up pizza in a microwave"... not even if he writes down every little half step involved in the process of opening the pizza box. The first CPA to get their hands on an electronic calculator didn't deserve a patent on "A system of prepairing taxes using an electronic calculator" because that was an obvious thing for a person with that problem to do with that tool. I've been waiting for my flying car since at least the 70s and now it looks like the first guy to get one is going to patent every possible use one might make of a flying car and no one else will be able to actually go anywhere in one without violating a patent.