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."
Who the fuck is going to be interested in licensing something that obviously has prior art written all over it? I live in Mexico and have been buying stuff from Amazon numerous times for like 5 years. Does that count as international transactions over the computer?
Go hug some trees.
Damn the monkeys, first Shakespeare, now this?
The way the summary describes it, doesn't just about any company that does internation business violate this patent?
An international transaction done by a computer. Every online store would pretty much be guilty of this, as would all offline stores who use a computer to send out their merchandise. This is byfar one of the worst ones yet.
A method of saving money on white collar labor by conducting work in cheaper areas overseas via computer.
Wipro, I own you!
Monstar L
..is even reading the patent requests anymore. I bet it's an assembly line with a big approved stamp at the end.
This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
Monkeys dont get no respect around here!
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Sounds like another one for Public Patents.
Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
This may be the big one folks. There is so much prior art for this that its not even funny. Not only that, this is the backbone of the world's economy and its rigorous enforcement may well wake up the world to the problem of broad software patents and bring about quick change to the patent system.
May it be rigorously enforced for the good of humanity.
Unknown host pong.
Since the quotes from this posting were a little out of place, I first read this as follows.
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."
If even DE Technologies can publicly admit their scheme is "creepy", you know something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Especially when they dance.
You know, I'd patent the idea of using monkeys to come up with patent applications, but there's prior art.
So lets get this straight, I could write down some over englished definition of something vague and then as long as nobody else has been vague or the patent clerc checking the application has no common sence. I could in theory get a patent about discussing patents and charge you all commision by tea time. :D
:/.
Does prior art mean nothing in this, hell what next backdated claims to sue Columbus
Perhaps a patent about issueing patents then taking the patent office to court for infringment and see them sort out this common sence/prior art monkey-fooing.
A spammer has been using my email address as a forged return address for some time now. I knew there was trouble when this showed up in my inbox:
From: patent-approvals@uspto.gov
Subject: (auto-reply) Your patent
Your patent submitted to patent-approvals@uspto.gov for "A new medical miracle! Better than V|agr.a" has been granted. Your patent number is 54594523345. Your patent certificate will be mailed to:
OptInRealHard
Service Dept.
Box 450
Sarasota FL
Unknown host pong.
The people at that company are jumping up and down "I can't believe we got it Jack! We hit the lotto! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...let's call our lawyers, man I can't believe the patent system IS THAT BAD!" -cheers-
blah
job qualifications.
:-)
... i just hope they strike down the 'discharging amonia waste into a porcelain structure' patent because I really really gotta go. ~BS
Home of the EULA shirt
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.
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.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
...that he licences to the patent office. Something like:
"A method for reviewing and granting patent requests automatically via computer"
Might explain what's going on out there.
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?
About a week ago, as part of a field trip for Computer Systems in high school, I got to take a tour of one of Engenio's (hard drive controller manufacturer) engineering facilities. On their wall of patents, one of the plaques said it was a patent for "Enclosure". Nothing else, just the word Enclosure. I assume they're talking about some particular method of enclosing hard drive controllers, but still, you'd think the Patent Office would be a little more specific than just "Enclosure".
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
I RTFA, and so far this sounds very vague.
Well, if the transaction is carried out over computer - in its most literal sense it means that the transaction first gets stored into a computer system, after which the computer hardware itself is snail mailed to the company for processing.
After a 2 months wait, your PC comes back as well as the product you ordered.
Didn't say jack about networking....
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
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...
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....
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Patent Office, 1899.
If they're strictly a patent litigation firm then the big patent holders have nothing to defend themselves with.
Let's face it: the patent process isn't going to change a bit until the really big patent holders get bitten really hard by it. Patent litigation firms are exactly the type of companies that can sting the big patent holders badly, and a patent like this in the hands of such a firm is a huge weapon.
After the big patent holders get nailed bigtime by other patentholders who cannot, by their nature, be infringing on any patents themselves (and thus aren't subject to the cross-licensing forced compromise that the big patentholders have thuse far relied upon), they'll certainly take steps to force the government to change the patent laws. You can bet those changes will favor the large patentholders, but if we're at all lucky those changes will prove to be beneficial to inventors in general. The current system is so screwed up that the actual inventor of something gains nothing.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
> Looks like new evidence that the U.S. Patent
> Office is hiring monkeys to bulk-approve new
> patents.
Not monkeys: very efficient clerks. It takes skill to wield a rubber stamp that fast.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
isn't groklaw devoted to sco stuff only? what does this have to do with sco?
c t1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.h tml&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1='de+technologie s'&OS="de+technologies"&RS="de+technologies">Th e patent in question: #6,460,020</a>
The abstract says it covers everything from currency transactions to providing credit card facilites to have the payment made. Seems, if anything, to be a bit broader than Slashdots article claims. But that's just me.
It appears the U.S patent system requires some modification. At this stage, I think the more patent they grant the better. It's not until everyone with or without a petent is entangled in some lawsuit the power that be will not realise that the system is broken. Hopefully, it won't be too long before someone realises that things are getting out of control.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/09/04 0259&tid=155&tid=98&tid=17
2 21226
5
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/20/0
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/28/18525
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
This is not acceptable in a country that has so much latent brain power and business. The Patent Office needs to change and undo many of their screw-ups. We should draft a repeal of the DMCA that makes appropriate amendments to the legal code defining the role of the office - and their criteria for patents. Then we can publicize and bug congressmen to pass it. What knows the names and urls of all the relevant federal codes?
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.
You know, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is seeing the near brewings of a second revolution here. Things like patent problems are a major problem that I think can drive all of us to start one.
Some day in an open forum history class they will discuss the frustration programmers had with patents and how they revolted by ????? Maybe by burning a truck full of Windows Longhorn boxes when it finally ships.
*sigh*...
This is Slashdot, son. You'd better run on back to the playground to play before naptime starts!
Surely you mean "writing works of meaningless tripe over a network of digital computers"...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
Okay, yeah, these guys are slime and need to go back to the hole they crawled out of. Let's help speed up that process.
The patent abstract is this: An international transaction system for operation over the internet/intranet provides a pre-transactional calculation of all charges involved in any international transaction. Upon the option of the customer, the goods can be viewed on catalogue sheets translated to a language of the customer's choice, and the price provided in a currency selected by the customer. The customer also has the option of initiating the order with automatic credit authorization, generation of an electronic title or commercial invoice and arrangements and payment of shipping charges and any taxes and import/export duties.
It is dated December 29th, 1997. Let's do a little thinking and find any instances of prior art. Yeah, it should be a "dude, we all know that was happening before then" scenario, but let's actually find something concrete and send the bastards packing. Let the happy hunting begin.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
Has anyone ever done a simulation to see exactly how long it would take a million monkeys with typewriters to produce the complete works of William Shakespear? I'd really like to know. It couldn't be that hard, maybe I'll dust off that Turbo Pascall they tought me in Undergraduate...
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Hey, if you take me to court because I breathe then I'm going to slam you with my heart beat patent.
If I were you I'd settle outside the courts.
Otherwise we'd have to agree to not infringe on our respective patents and I can hold my breath for over a minute.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Hey, I wonder if they're hiring, I'm a student and know nothing about law nor do I care, and whenever I have to read something I don't. I should easily get in.
from http://www.detechnologies.com/pos_papers/patent_po sition_paper.doc
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
Damn. It appears that I am violating the patent due to link under my username.
This is INSANE.
So cheer on the next time you hear about a really stupid, indefensible patent, and think to yourself "We're one step closer to making the whole thing so stupid that it will have to be scrapped."
When I was at Palm, they paid us bonuses for filing for patents, and then extra bonuses for getting the patents. My name is on the patent for the web based calendar. How stupid is that? Apparently not stupid enough. A year later I got a patent for pretty much the same damn thing -- a method of scheduling events over the web. Now when I was doing this, I just wanted the $$$ Palm was paying me to think up stupid ideas, which they would then patent. Then after I left Palm, I felt guilty I had given them all these patents they might use to stifle innovators (namely me). But now I cheer! Because those patents are so dumb that they will fail under challenge, and as more and more patnets fail under challenge, things will start to get better.
Want to help? Apply for more and more stupid patents. See what it takes to get a patent rejected. Break the system.
As an aside, we also just got threatened by Acacia for streaming oggs. Honestly...where DO these people get the balls...
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
if we could do a sustained slashdotting of the USPTO servers as a protest....
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
Obviously I am in the wrong line of work. Instead of creating useful programs, I should have become a patent weasel^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyer so I could patent obvious^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinnovative IP to extort^H^H^H^H^H^Hlicense. I have a rotary dial that when used with electricity and a filament in a vacuum produces varying levels of light. Based on this and other patents, I wonder if I can get a patent on that one?
In all seriousness, the patent office is out of control. If worthless patents keep being granted it could have an effect similar to a distributed denial of service attack (on the patent system itself). There could be so many patents out there that patents are routinely ignored in the normal course of doing business because compliance would be impossible.
The other more scary possibility is the patents act as an attack on innovation itself. I hope the system is fixed before either of these happen.
Is this why Amazon has different sites in each country ?
www.amazon.co.uk quotes prices in GBP
www.amazon.fr quotes prices in EUR
www.amazon.com quotes prices in USD, even though the system knows I live in the UK.
Did Amazon know this patent existed, or is it just the way they designed their business ?
I hope they keep granting patents that are broader and broader. That just means that they are more likely to piss off the source of U.S. politician's "campaign contributors".. their corporate paymasters.
And we know how fast things get fixed in D.C. when it threatens a politician's ability to stay in office.
It can't be "kinda creepy." Tom Delay and Dick Cheney have a patent on that, and they WILL sue!
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
"I choose to believe that someone has finally figured out a way to stop outrageous patents by patenting more and more outrageous things until FINALLY the system collapses. Is this the straw? Probably not. But I encourage EVERYONE to patent anything they can think of. The system will not be repaired when it's only partially broken -- it has to be broken all the way. And then people will realize that it can't be fixed...and finally we'll get somewhere."
Yeah, but how many things are going that way right now? LOTS. If they all go at once you'll watch the whole US of A collapse into the fucking sea.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Not entirely. It has had a number of articles on FOSS in general and several on the need to reform the US patent system.
Fixed:
The patent in question: #6,460,020
--
Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions
Did you get what the CEO of DE said, "... his company's goal is to license its technology to multinational firms for a small percentage of the value of those companies' international shipments, a sum total potentially worth billions of dollars." FREAKING EXTORTION!! This company makes even lawyers look like St. Nick.....I hope Dell takes them to the cleaners.....This just really hacks me off...
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.
A million monkeys, pecking away at a million typewriters, will one day reproduce the entirety of this patent application.
Is surely covered by an SCO patent, but you can still get your own patent - like so:
A million chimpanzees, pecking away at a million typewriters, will one day reproduce the entirety of this patent application.
As a bonus, since most people think of chimpanzees when imagining our simian friends typing you will have better brand recognition and be better able to raise capital to sell the idea to investors!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Patent offshoring of programming and charge fat royalties, we're saved!
Table-ized A.I.
Don't worry, I patented marking people's right hands to indicate their allegiance to the Beast. If my lawyers are successful there will be no Apocalypse, or at least Satan/Nero/whoever will have to pay licensing fees. One third is a pretty popular Biblical fraction, doesn't sound bad to me.
English is easier said than done.
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.
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
Is there a solution to stopping this madness?
Someone is going to patent the process of eating food with one's mouth and then we're all screwed.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
The thing that blows me away about these 'patent-pending' articles is that whether there is prior art is irrelevant; the point is that no-one should be able to have a mandated monopoly on a practice/method/etc that is trivial or self-evident, prior art or no. The patent system is supposed to foster innovation, but is being abused in the worst possible way. The current system encourages valid (if you assume a little competency in the USPTO) but meaningless patents that do nothing but stifle innovation. Thank God, today as yesterday, I don't live in the US.
This patent is a total example of the patent office sticking their collective heads up their ass!
:)
WTF? I ran a bbs back before the internet even took off, and we'd collect payments internationally off the site. I emailed these people.. will see if I get a response from their lawyers.
Really, this kinda shit annoys the hell out of me. Why is it that everyone so sue happy these days? (I can understand SCO, since their lawyer fees exceed their total gross for the past several years.. ha!)
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
I would love for slashdot to arrange an interview with a GREEN (e.g. hired within the last 6 months) patent examiner.
She could tell us all about the training she received when hired:
newbie: shouldn't we actually read the
application before approving it?
instructor: no, just stamp 9 of 'em with
the 'approved' stamp and every 10th one\
use the red 'rejected' stamp.
Back at the dawn of computing, system analysis consisted of nothing more than converting paper systems to electronic systems.
(1) Idenify all documents. Documents are converted to files and stored on tape/disc. They are index for retrieval.
(2) Convert all forms to electronic forms. Do all calculations normally done by hand by computer for better accuracy and speed. Check all entries to see if they are "in range" or "valid values".
(3) Route forms between desks and to/from storage.
That was it. That was systems analysis 40 years ago. Having read through this patent, all it consists of is an old fashion systems analysis of international sales, shipping and payment.
Now, when you consider then number of systems out there, and if this kind of analysis is patentable no matter how long the paper system has been in operation, the implications are staggering. Oh, don't for get to mention the Internet - thats the key to getting it past the uspto.
Isn't it Boca Raton, FL where Scott Richter lives, works, and spams?
Is there some system which allows the questioning of a patent?
There is a system in place for a company or individual to claim that the patented item was developed by them first (which almost certainly applies in this case) but is there some way in which say a large corperation when faced with mounting patent costs could file for the patent to be revoked?
Patents are blatantly monopolistic and many of them are surely abused, I can't imagine that someone hasn't patented something like "human speech" or some such nescessary thing and tried to charge totally ridiculous amounts for it's use.
If you just scan the summary of that patent, you will see that it's not as broad as people think, and actually it's pretty trivial to avoid infringement.
Basically, the patent covers automatic conversion of charges to the currency chosen by the user, and calculation of all additional charges (e.g. transport costs) before authorising the order.
So, if your e-shop does not provide currency conversion tool, you should be safe. But of course, IANAL.
if amazon can patent a button click, why can't these DE Tech patent electronic transactions ? :P
They will be licensing each other in the end anyway.
I fail to imagine how a process is an invention in and of itself and therefore worthy of patent protection.
Its like someone patenting how to spin cotton into fabric.
Wait..Don't tell me.. its already been patented and someone makes a lot of money off of it?
Abstract as follows: "This application is for a patent for a process for an invention cataloging, protection, and revenue system. Prospective inventors shall submit written descriptions of innovations to a central office, whereby a simian shall stamp it with an approval. The resultant invention can be defended by litigation. The inventor shall form a stock-issuing corporation of which can bring suit against any other use of such invention. Funds then can collected from many companies to the inventions shareholders."
Now I am not sure from the article whether this company has been threatening smaller companies to build up a war chest and is only now suing a big fish like dell but I think it is a big mistake. Dell is a very wealthy company and their corporate image leads me to believe that they are not the type to settle on something like this. They certainly have the resources ($10 million) to fight this out to the bitter end and win and any percentage desired by these patent terrorists (if its ok for them to call me a pirate, then I can call them a terrorist), of Dell's international business, which is a big growth market, will be more than the cost of fighting it out and probably winning. They would have to find a one in a million appeals judge to enforce this patent and risk virtually the entire US export economy, of which almost all of it is going to involve electronic transactions or already does.
The patent claims the benefits of a provisional application filed in 1996. If you feel like checking it out, you'd have to find pre-1996 data.
At the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and type in the pat number 6,460,020. You'll notice this application wasn't exactly sailing through the door. A notice of allowance (grant) was sent and withdrawn, after which the examiner decided to reject the application. The examiners work hard with what they have access to, I know it's easy but we can't just be blaming them all the time. *cough* USPTO Fees are essentially free money for the government
*cough*
I'm sure Dell's attorneys will check the details of the file wrapper to determine if and how the claims were narrowed or something else invalidated the patent. Saying that they have a rock solid case is something any lawyer much less a patent attorney (ahem CEO) would say. The patent just seems like the result of a successful negotiation to me. Whether or not Dell et. al will bow to the pressure, well...
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.Start a happiness pandemic
no one here really seems to grasp the real value and purpose of all these patents: they stablize the market. The problem with modern technology, especially computers, it it all moves too fast. I can come along and blow Microsoft, a $40+ billion dollar company, out of the water in a decade or less. Look at Sun and how they're hurting (I don't care what they're doing these days, it doesn't match what they were doing or where they're old growth rate would've put them without the slump).
This kind of stuff can really play havok with investor's portfolios. So how do you stablize the system? Patent everything. Now only big, established companies can afford to do business. Make sure some tiny little company can't come along and devalue your $100 million dollar investment overnight. It's the guild systems of old. Keep the knowlege locked up tight, and things move slow and stable. Remember folks, the people making the decisions on patent law (lawyers and politicians) are already rich. They want smooth sailing, not a quick buck from a rising star.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's just good business.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you think the patent idea is screwed? Just wait till someone patents gravity controlled fusion, then the guy who claimed the sun will be screwed!!
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.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
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....
Careless, they should have patented selling over a digital network to creatures that breathe, got that lucrative domestic market too.
Why don't the patent office develop a mechanism where people can point out "the monkeys stuffed up on this one guys, you might need a dolphin to review this one"
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
.. the "highspeed fully automatic self inking rubberstamp"
this bad boy will enable any monkey to be a rubber staming machine, stamping at least 900 patents per minute.
for sale to private individuals at US$199 per unit
orders over 1000 units at US$99 per unit
to US Senate and House of Reps at US$19900 per unit (battle tested and hardened version.)
to Tinpot dictators looking for a rbberstamp parliament at the "please take it, don't kill me" rate
suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
Can we have some sort of /. competition where everyone thinks of the most stupid and anoying idea they can patent and we all chip-in some money and get the winner patented and cause as much hassle to the worlds economy with it as we can?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Obviously a reference to using the mouse right-handed...
Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Universal product ID, with authentication...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesect ion=technology&thesubsection=&storyID=1968 18
THey cannot set up in NZ (maybe they want to go to NZ for legal reasons?)
Because the MZ dudes are pissed off by thier patent, and see it as a conflict of interests (obv. somewhere like NZ relies on import/export a lot)
So fuck you DE!!!!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
This is back a way:
n 20 00/te000628.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/ju
BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE, Wednesday, June 28, 2000 - DE Technologies has patented a technology for processing sales worldwide -- easily -- via the Internet...
I plead that Dell doesn't do a Sun (oh how I am sad that they didn't beat Kodaks furry little arse to hell and back, I feel like suing Kodak just to be a speck of grit in thier eye)
MAYBE I WILL PATENT THE PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESS
Fucking arseholes. Pardon my english. (technically it is French, which is why we say 'pardon my french' and if www.gaurdian.co.uk makes a policy to *have* 'fuck' in every single fucking story, then maybe we should. Fucking fucks)
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Isn't the story here the fact that Dell has been
sued? the patent was granted in 1999 in the US;
in 2002 in Singapore and in 2003 in Australia and
New Zealand.
I think these guys have been making and settling international trades with computers long before '97.
1) Buy Oil Rig in International waters
2) Declare an independant state
* optional: declare yourself the only citizen!
3) Set up trade links with various countries entering only into liberal agreements (i.e. not "We will only trade with you if you uphold out patent and copyright laws)
4) Set up communication links (primarily the internet)
5) Trade away in autocracy in stead of Beurocracy!
Additional activities:
* Allow all sorts of sordid activities
* Offer anon. offshore banking
* Offer otherwise disallowed medical procedures
* Offer otherwise disallowed medical research
* Possibly a 2nd Oil Rig with much more control but part of the EU
A blog I run for the wealth
This is an absolutely ridiculous ... well, insult to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a slightly retarded rock. The *only* thing you're going to generate with this patent is bad will.
(check it out, send response here: http://www.detechnologies.com/contact.htm)
feh. stuff.
So he'll just have to modify it with "outside the Netherlands" or "in the United States". Then it will be something "new" and patentable.
(1) Method for cyclic contraction and decontraction of a variable-volume gas containment to facilitate a gas exchange by means of one or more gas exchange units located in the containment. The gas exchange takes place between the performing entity and the exterior gas mixture through a bi-directional gas channel connected on one end to the contracting and decontracting variable-volume containment and the exterior on the other. The contraction of the variable-volume containment creates an overpressure in the containment that drives a current of gas through the channel out of the containment. The decontraction creates an underpressure that reverses the direction of the current.
"But there's too much obvious prior art for this!"
Yes there may be, but it won't affect claim (2) of the patent application and the other ones:
(2) Said Method where the CO2 content of the exterior gas mixture is equal to or greater than 0.0385 percent.
Note to readers: Current atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 0.038 percent and raising
(3) (2) where air flow caused by the contraction of the variable-volume gas containment incites self-
propagating pressure gradients,which are used for linguistic or artistic communication between entities, by means of a device embedded in the bi-directional channel or or by the modulation of the geometry of the exit valve which may also be used as entrance for the intake of liquids and solids which serve as a power source to the entity.
***TODO for the patent lawyer: convert these claims to patent-speak***
(4) Breathing while doing something else.
(5) Breathing while having drunk something in the past 24 hours.
DISCLAIMER: Only funny while still unreal.
I'll find a newly formed company and patent the idea of doing business with them. Or perhaps just doing business with anyone in the year 2005, that hasn't been done before.
This is nothing more than automation of a manual process. Prior art doesn't even need to be considered in this case.
From the USPTO: Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof.
This doesn't qualify as invention or discovery of a new process.
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.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
yes, i used an e-word to make it fit on the subject line. i feel dirty. but really, do they actually think their case will hold up in court? this patent is so ridiculous and broad it will be thrown out in a heartbeat.
Original reply bas borked by the slashcode (some spelling corrected, too):
This is why we call you a monkey. A monkey can't reason, it can only follow strict interpretations which are included in the instructions laid out. An intellegient, reasoning human can look at this claim and say, "yeah, duh, that's about as obvious as it gets - that's what windowing interfaces have done for twenty years."
The ability to make a connection between "select an [item] from a [list] which instructs a computer system to deliver [data]." How is this different from what has been done for years, except that this guy substituted words into the equation for [item] [list] and [data] which had only been done primarily by humans in the past?
Lets go simply...I walk into a restaurant in Belgium. The waiter asks what language I speak, and based on my response he hands me a dinner menu in the appropriate language. When it is time to pay the bill, he asks what form of currency I would like to pay in, and in my wallet I have French Francs, and so indicate. He tallies my bill in Francs and gives me the check. This happend in 1986. Again, we ask, how does adding the phrase "with a computer" change the transaction?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Actually, I'm not sure if it's even subject to copyright (except the actual code, of course), as it is simply an implementation of automation of the existing process.
Interestingly, I suspect if they had simply made the product, and made it complete rather than fighting the legal battles, they'd probably be millionaires - either through sales of their software or through a buyout of their code by a bigger player.
Aside: The corporate research center at Virginia Tech sposors all sorts of "technology" start-ups, and their goal (the center) is to garner as many patents as posible in order to elevate their reputation. I'm disappointed that this kind of drivel has been advanced by resources associated with the school.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If a whole bunch of people who trade across the internet get nervous about this patent shiat, they might just start lobbying politicians to break it.
My cloned sheep generates manure just like any other sheep but it might be called 'manure of cloned sheep' instead of manure. Has the process of shovelling manure changed? Has the shovel changed? My foreign trade requires human processes such as translation, order taking, shipment, etc. I see I can automate these processes with a tool designed for just that task. Has the process of translation, order taking, shipment, etc. changed? Has the tool changed? I fail to see what aspect of automating an existing process using existing tools is patentable. A new tool, grant a patent. A new process, grant a patent. But, the same process with an old tool, is nothing new.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Hmmm... slashdot effect for a good cause?
We should all use the "Contact us" form on their website to ask them how one might go about actually ordering their vaporware.
Surely, if they are suing everyone that is infringing their patent, they MUST have a competing product to offer... right?
What we really need is a ten day waiting period and a background check before you can buy a congressman.
Any difficulty in finding prior art does not negate the obviousness of the invention.
An obvious invention is not subject to patent protection, even if it is novel.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
AC comments get piped to
Of course you could argue for prior art but that doesn't seem to have been much of a hurdle so far!
Any difficulty in finding prior art does not negate the obviousness of the invention.
No, in a perfect world it doesn't. However, the way the laws are written the applicant is entitled to a patent unless it can be proven to be obvious or lacking novelty.
So, if the prior art can not be found the office has no choice but to allow the patent. If there were better indexing of prior art, or more time (read: funds) alotted to the patent office the chances of prior art not being found would be smaller. However, funding the patent office isn't very high on congress's priorities at the moment, so were stuck with what we have.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
I am way too late for this story, and haven't read the patent yet, but anyone who knows X.25 and SWIFT (just an example) will laugh on this news.
SWIFT moves billions (of not trillions) of dollars every year, for many years. And it is "international", and it is "transactions", and it is "computers".
I think you are greatly over-generalizing the situation, but if it is how you say, lets put it to the test.
The point this community is making is that the prior art is the easiest thing in the world to find if you actually are familiar with the field and know where to look. It's not that it doesn't exist, it's that the examiners haven't a clue where to find it.
As a member of this community, you should be intimatetly knowledgable in all matters of software design and implementations. Since this prior art is "the easiest thing in the world to find" you should be able to find references which either show that this patent either lacks novelty (this is done by finding a single reference (dated prior to December 30, 1996) which contains all claim limitations) or that this patent is obvious (this is done by finding a combination of references (each reference dated prior to December 30, 1996) which teach all claim limitations and give motivation to combine the references into a single system as claimed).
I anxiously await your response and look forward to reading the prior art references that you produce.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
Something along the lines of, "We're in the patent business, not the denial business." In other words, it's still a bloody free-for-all -- unless Congress acts.
Perhaps someone around here could draft a form letter so we could cut-n-paste our legislator's name in?
read the entire brief for this case and then you will be able to understand what the previous poster is taking about.
you don't understand the legal concept of obviousness and are using impermissible hindsight. Where is your motivation to combine? Is it detailed within a provided reference? Is it implicit?
The replies I am seeing here would be laughed out of any court.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.