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."

46 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. Licensing? WTF? by chochos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Licensing? WTF? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      * 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.
    2. Re:Licensing? WTF? by Lonath · · Score: 4, Funny

      the patent would be for writing literature works over a network of digital computers. THEN YOU SUE SLASHDOT!

      Literature: creative writing of recognized artistic value

      I think slashdot's safe.

    3. Re:Licensing? WTF? by 1ucius · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. Gah by TupperTrenine · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn the monkeys, first Shakespeare, now this?

    1. Re:Gah by tod_miller · · Score: 4, Funny

      CHeck out thier website:

      meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0"
      meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"

      Dear Microsoft,

      Please kindly check if they have a license for Frontpage 4.0

      Dear World,

      Do you really worry about being sued by someone using Frontpage 4.0?

      Dear Investors,

      They want to skank you money, you loosers, don't invest, if IBM and Dell say 'shoo' to these wankers, then you can pee yourselves and run along.

      Dear Mr. Edward Pool,

      I saw your pic here: http://www.detechnologies.com/biopage.htm

      You look like a spivvy wanker, I hope there is no Mrs Spivvy Wanker for you to torture with your small penis.

      Don't think you can pwn the internet else we will track you down, and monitor your network traffic, voice calls, toilet frequency, choice of floss and diethabits, until we find that little pressure point, and apply pressure, with a jack hammer.

      Thank you.

      Dear Penny Arcade,

      I would love some nice juvenile rhetoric aimed at these bitches. They may increase costs of games online, or stop the whole idea of tipping artists and micropayments.

      Oh did someone patent online busking yet?

      The plan is:

      1: Take something from reality
      2: Put 'e' in front of it
      3: ???
      4: Profit

      Where 3: is usually just pretend to makea fake product and sue the shit out of people until you go SCO (which is lingo for fucked now I hope).

      So:

      1: Selling to johnny-foreigner
      2: e-Selling to johnny-foreigner
      3: Sue Dell
      4: Wander around looking where they stached your penis, except you have no arms, and they spooned one of your eyes out.

      Have fun

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  3. Trouble for all? by comwiz56 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The way the summary describes it, doesn't just about any company that does internation business violate this patent?

    1. Re:Trouble for all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, only when they use a computer. Everything is different when you use a computer.

  4. omfg by ssand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:omfg by Draknor · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's what they wanted to do, but they found out that process was already patented!

      So then they attended the Darl McBride School of Business Law.

  5. Here is my patent by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    A method of saving money on white collar labor by conducting work in cheaper areas overseas via computer.
    Wipro, I own you!

    1. Re:Here is my patent by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

      How's this?

      A method of bypassing lawyers in the patent process by stepping through every current patent and adding the words "with a computer," with a computer.

  6. Its really not fair to the monkeys! by cpn2000 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Looks like new evidence that the U.S. Patent Office is hiring monkeys to bulk-approve new patents

    Monkeys dont get no respect around here!

    --
    All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be ... Dark side of the moon
  7. This is just silly by eofpi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds like another one for Public Patents.

    --
    Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
  8. Jesus Christ... by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Jesus Christ... by back_pages · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There is so much prior art for this that its not even funny.

      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.

    2. Re:Jesus Christ... by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  9. Kinda creepy? by fbg111 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  10. A million monkeys... by b1scuit · · Score: 5, Funny
    A million monkeys, pecking away at a million typewriters, will one day reproduce the entirety of this patent application.

    You know, I'd patent the idea of using monkeys to come up with patent applications, but there's prior art.

  11. A patent about discussing patents next! by zenst · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  12. (Auto Reply) your patent by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  13. I can just hear it now... by Ninwa · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  14. Check out the US Patent Examiner... by cypherwise · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:Check out the US Patent Examiner... by Rhalin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Gotta love that...

      they list a basic CS 4 year degree for Computer Science patents, but under Electrical Engineer there's about a page and half of specific requirements.

      Half these companies are probably sending employee's children to college under an "I want to be a patent examiner" fund to get there ideas quickly approved.

      I think this is the only job in CS I've ever seen that doesn't include any prerequisite experience.

    2. Re:Check out the US Patent Examiner... by back_pages · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

    3. Re:Check out the US Patent Examiner... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly what is wrong with this patent? Please cite the laws and 37 CFR in your answer

      Does 37 CFR cover common sense?

      You monkeys approved a patent on teasing a cat with a laser pointer. I am somewhat less than interested in any 37 CFR paragraphs you can cite that will support your arguments.

    4. Re:Check out the US Patent Examiner... by nmos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  15. Forget this case... by thewonderllama.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... 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
  16. WTF is right.. by WebCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Has everything already been invented? by 3770 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!!!
  18. I wonder if this guy has another patent... by WebCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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.

  19. Has anyone actually found the patent? by Tpenta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Has anyone actually found the patent? by .orvp · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      My other sig is just as lame
  20. Another Broad Patent by imemyself · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
  21. Read it for yourself by Capybara · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Read it for yourself by Xerithane · · Score: 3, Funny
      I'd like to point out this gem:

      (a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;
      Quick, someone take this patent, and append "by fulfilling the order with localized distribution centers".
      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  22. A tool..... by WilyCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....

  23. Not Monkeys by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Funny

    > 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.
  24. BOES PATENTABILITY POSITION PAPER by stoborrobots · · Score: 5, Informative
    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

  25. Congratulations USA by theolein · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Congratulations USA by scot4875 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm no fan of the administration we just re-elected, but honestly, this 'issue' was not even on the radar.

      In a time when we have leaders chomping at the bit to come up with any excuse they can to start strategic wars, not to mention their misguided domestic agendas, an out-of-control patent office is the least of our concerns.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  26. This does not meet the criteria for 'not obvious' by hrvatska · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  27. Boca Raton by macdaddy · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  28. Prior art by any online foreign exchange services by aristotle-dude · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  29. I have prior art from 1993 by ites · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.