Small Firm Claims Patents On e-Banking Processes

bth writes "The New York Times has a report that DataTreasury Corp is suing banks over 2 patents that 'describe a way to store and retrieve transaction records electronically.' A patent search reveals US6032137 and US5910988, each having the title: 'Remote image capture with centralized processing and storage -- System for central management, storage and report generation of remotely captured paper transactions from documents and receipts.' From one of the abstracts: 'The system retrieves transaction data such as credit card receipts checks in either electronic or paper form at one or more remote locations, encrypts the data, transmits the encrypted data to a central location, transforms the data to a usable form, performs identification verification using signature data and biometric data, generates informative reports from the data and transmits the informative reports to the remote location(s).' It is good to know that someone has managed to finally invent a system that can store, retrieve, and securely transmit financial transactions."

Comments

Ya know.

[AltGrendel]

I don't know about you folks, but I'm tired of this patent crap.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Ya know.

[budgenator]

Would be a shame if they just plain sued the wrong people, and the plaintif and his attornies showed up in court with broken thumbs and knee caps.
Sooner or later some corp is going to take the "evil corp" stereotype seriously and decide to make a hobby our of make some greedy smuck's life a living hell. I'm not realy advocating violence here, but we're talking big money here and sooner or later somebody is going to get stupid, then somebody is going to get hurt.

Re:Ya know.

[killbill!]

I don't know about you folks, but I'm tired of this patent crap.

It's not a bug. It's a feature.

Face it, the American industry is unable to compete on the merits of its products alone. European and Japanese companies design better products, and achieve a much better build quality. Chinese companies cannot be beaten on costs, and their quality is rapidly improving, too.

So, if you're a CEO, how do you face this hopeless situation?
You might want to compete on price, and outsource your manufacturing to China, and your services to India. The "only" issue is: how long will it take for the local subcontractors to start making the same product without giving you a cut?
You might want to compete on quality. The problem here is that, unlike most German or Japanese companies, in which a sizeable share of directors have an engineering background, most American companies are led by marketers, accountants, or lawyers that don't know a single thing about what they're selling - yet they do not want to give up their power to those nerdy engineers.

In other words: the American economy is shafted. But wait, there is one field on which America remains unrivaled! Lawsuits!

Thus, as it was impossible to gain a real competitive advantage, corporate America decided to give itself an artificial one. Thus, the entire IP nonsense was born.

Of course, the Chinese never intended to buy this crap - and it now appears that Europe doesn't want it, either. As a consequence, it will only add an unnecessary burden on the already beleagered American economy.

Re:Ya know.

[drakethegreat]

Especially with something that isn't that big a deal in reality because everyone uses it. The question is how they got the pantents.

Re:Ya know.

[StillAnonymous]

Does this even qualify? I thought a patent had to be pretty explicit as to how something works, so that theoretically, somebody could build the device themselves by reading the patent. Vague sections like:

"..transforms the data to a usable form.."

and

"..generates informative reports from the data.."

Seem pretty broad to me. That doesn't describe anything, really.

Someone's really gotta throw junk patents like this out before they even reach the (not yet existent) REAL patent examiners.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

ok yeah whatever.. if any of those countries start rejecting us, we still have the biggest military in the world!

we will just 0wnzore them!!!!!

thats why we never have to worry, whoes goign to stop us? russia?

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it, the American industry is unable to compete on the merits of its products alone.

Thats why the American industry is so inferior and why we are in such poor economic shape, right?

Oh wait......

Re:Ya know.

[cliffiecee]

Hence the push to 'normalize' patent and IP laws worldwide, so that a US company can sue a company in another country and win. (And vice versa)

Thankfully, we have seen the EU balk at software patents (a little bit, anyway), and I suspect many other countries will start to realize that 'Just Say No' is enough to stop this nonsense.

We are supposed to be leaders in innovation- we *need* to stop thinking 'lawsuit' and innovate, damnit!

Re:Ya know.

[WebCrapper]

There is a flaw with this way of thinking...

I worked for a company that paid me a bonus (roughly) $800 a quarter, used no call prediction software, no outsourcing and paid a decent salary and we still where profitable.

Now, this company has since merged with another and turned into a giant cash cow that pays almost no bonuses a year, uses call prediction software and outsources nearly 98% of its calls and they're having a hell of a time producing profits.

Issue: internal spending and internal choices

You figure that can't be true, with all the money they're saving now, I'm not giving the whole detail... You're right - the "new" company gives cell phones to all supervisors and up, 2 way pagers to all supervisors and up - and anyone else that asks, has given their CEO a raise of over 100k a year the last 2 years, spend time and money arguing with outsourcers over pricing (as well as sending employees on sight every other month to supervise operations), upgrade systems that are working perfectly fine to get extra features they don't even use, develop their own in house billing database only to find the original solution worked fine and spend more money to switch back.... I could keep going.

This company is like so many others out there that decided that a few extra things wouldn't hurt, until they had to lay off most of their workforce and it became a perpetual cycle. If you took most of these "cash strapped" companies and put everything they did on paper (like a business plan), no one would invest in them before telling them to change a lot of things they do.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it, the American industry is unable to compete on the merits of its products alone. European and Japanese companies design better products, and achieve a much better build quality. Chinese companies cannot be beaten on costs, and their quality is rapidly improving, too.

really? there are so many products I can think of that the rest of the world loves that come from the US that it boggles the mind. You might want to re-think your statement.

The problem lies with the twits in the US Patent Office.

Re:Ya know.

[goon america]

Oh, boy, the anthropomorphic reasoning game!

Here's how to play! In the parent post, for instance, "CEOs" can as a whole reason and act with conscious intention. So, they desired patent protection for methods of doing business because of simple, human emotional foible of jealousy, as they "do not want to give up their power to those nerdy engineers."

Also, it's cold out right now because the weather gods are angry. Piety, friends! Let us burn some incense to appease them.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am very familiar with this Ballard patent as it was infringing in part on a patent my prior company had filed. I have studied this company's patents very closely and I was able to find a prior art systems (dating two to three years prior to the time he claims to have developed the concept) that, and my company's patent, pretty much made this patent, and its successors who are chained on the parent patent, worthless. The defense on this patent is pretty basic and easy as the prior art is very clear, detailed and historic. Ballard's further weakness is his obvious infringement in the system they developed on my company's prior patent and they even site it as a prior art.
To find the prior art system's user manual that had been developed and documented, I googled something like "receipt imaging storage (year 1994, 1995 or 1996?)." I don't have the time to find it at this point but maybe someone else can be ambisous.

Re:Ya know.

[0x000000]

Agreed, but taking the patent system down at the moment would kill to many companies making the US economy go into an even larger dip than it is currently in. The euro to us dollar is 1.38, so for every euro i get 1.38 dollars, that is a shitload, especially if the US is supposed to be the most economicly stable country in the world, which most other markets depend on. The patent system is also holding back innovation, and people are afraid to innovate or start creating new things that were untried before, because it might be covered by a patent. I find it extremely stupid that such a system is still allowed to exist in such a modern society. -0x000000

Re:Ya know.

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, from a pure R&D perspective, we are the leaders in innovation. We spend a truckload of money on R&D (government, private and institutional) which is why so many foreign scientists and engineers come here to work and learn (and often to take that knowledge back home.) In a way, it's just another example of America's generosity with foreign aid. However, we still have a lot of the world's best and brightest, which means that ideas are not in particularly short supply. No Sirree. However, what we are not, any longer, is a leader in commercialization. And that is the root problem, and this lawsuit-happy atmosphere is doing nothing but reduce our ability to take the fruits of our R&D investment to market. In fact, it is eliminating the very motivation to spend money on R&D.

Congress doesn't seem to understand that there were damn good reasons why the original patent system was set up the way it was. I mean, it worked rather well for almost two hundred years, doing precisely what the Founding Father's wanted it to do. Frankly, even after all this time I trust the Founders judgment more than the current crop of Congressional weasels. If you want to get right down to it, much of the industrial productivity and standard of living enjoyed by Americans for most of those two centuries was due to that system, and the flood of creativity and invention that were the hallmark of the United States for so long.

U.S. patent law has been under a continuing process of subversion for some time now (the removal of the "demonstrable prototype" requirement, for one) but it wasn't too badly broken until recently. So far as I'm concerned, software and gene patents are the straws the broke the camel's back. And now ... it's not only broken but dangerous because Congress wants to export it worldwide. I guess their philosopy is, if we're headed toward third worlddom we might as well take the rest of the industrialized world with us. Not that they'll fall for it, although the EU seems to be right on the edge. China and India seem to be taking the correct screw you approach to "harmonization", although it appears that Australia was just annexed by the USPTO, with the MPAA as a minor partner.

Re:Ya know.

[tomjen]

And the founding for the army comes from?
Taxes.

if you dont have and effective industri you cannot afford an effective army.

oh and that show of war of yours i irak is costing you a fortune too.

Re:Ya know.

[jurt1235]

The banks will win. Electronic transactions excist for long enough for a patent to be or expired or to have previous art.

Re:Ya know.

[snipersock]

Damn. This is just another silly patent lawsuite. I can't agree more with what you said. There is always some money hungry and failing company that all of a sudden proclaims that some major patent violation has been made in a last ditch effort to save themselves. Cases like this really make me sick and tired of the patent system. The patent system was created to stir invention and creativity, not hamper it. Damn these greedy bastards. Damn them all.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post, which you had gone on a little more about the decline of the patent system.

Re:Ya know.

[AhBeeDoi]

The article isn't about competitive advantages, artificial or otherwise. It's about the IP infringement business model now common in the technology sector expanding to financial services.

The clueless US Patent Office issues a patent on remotely storing and retrieving financial transaction in electronic form. This idea did not stem from DataTreasury Corporation but it does have the patent on it. Nor does it have an actual system that does any of that activity (although, they could probably cobble the equipment and software off the shelf to do just that with a little programming thrown in).

DataTreasury "banks" on the fact that over turning the patent is much cheaper than settling with them. According to the article, they at least one settlement for as low as $50,000. To most people, that's not chump change but for a bank or other major financial institution, it's the price of getting rid of a nuisance.

The bigger problem is that this model will expand into more and more areas of that affect our daily lives. You have these IP parasites gaming the system, not real innovators, and soaking up easy money for the price of a patent application.

I don't expect this to go on indefinitely because the greediness of these IP parasites will eventually draw the attention of politicians. Unfortunately, the political response may be unequal the problem and the real innovators could be hurt as much as the parasites.

None of this would be necessary if the patent office staff was competent.

Re:Ya know.

[eric76]

taking the patent system down at the moment would kill to many companies making the US economy go into an even larger dip than it is currently in

I have my doubts about that.

Potentially, many of those companies who depend on patents for their income don't really do much on their own.

But most of the companies they are holding back actually do produce something useful.

Unfettering those companies from the legal blackmail being visited upon them by the leaches would probably help the economy, not hurt it.

Re:Ya know.

[angel'o'sphere]

I don't know about you folks, but I'm tired of this patent crap.


Why? Now it starts getting more and more interesting.

If I would live in USA and was a /.er I surely had long ago founded a company and claimed trivia patents.

With todays free software all around, its easy to make very fast a demonstration prototype for nearly any issue involving computers and/or data transmission.

Found a small limited reliability company, patent something, start suing.

I would make this a sportive competition amoung /.ers

Really soon the patent law would be changed ...

angel'o'sphere

Re:Ya know.

[tachum]

As an Aussie I concur, with the general summary of the so-called Free Trade Agreement (FTA) mentioned above. Our government has surrendered to basically the whole US patent-DMCA mess, in exchange for a few racks of lamb, and a few Pontiac GTO's that no one seems to want. One day, a future Australian Government will close this sorry episode down and either renegotiate it, or walk away from it.

Re:Ya know.

[OsamaBinLogin]

> The clueless US Patent Office

They are not clueless. They are overworked. Just like journalists and teachers who do a bad job.

> You have these IP parasites gaming the system, not real innovators,
> and soaking up easy money for the price of a patent application.

First of all, you have to know what you are talking about to file a patent. Probably the people who originally filed this patent, the inventor(s) (Claudio R Ballard from Lloyd Harbor, NY, wherever that is), worked for a small company with a good idea.

Now, when you file a patent, you widen the claims as much as you can untiil it hits prior art. Nobody else patented anything like this, nobody else published anything like this, so Claudio did it.

Then, for all the hard work, you want some money. You know, rent, internet connection, food, stuff like that, it adds up over the years. (Those of you who are independently wealthy won't understand. Trust me.)

So, you could become like Edwin Armstrong, the guy who invented FM radio. And superheterodyne, and superregenerative circuits, and other stuff. He jumped out of a hotel window in 1954 after being shafted out of all of his companies and patents by large corps, like RCA. (See the documentary 'Empire of the Airwaves'.)

Or like Charles Goodyear. The inventor of vulcanized rubber died penniless. (The company Goodyear was founded years after he was gone.)

Both of these guys got patents, and both got screwed over by competitors who were more powerful.

OK, so to turn your years of work - without pay - into money, you sell it to a large company, or someone who has the stomach to commercialize it and fight off competitors.

Sometimes that company is a bunch of legal hacks who have nothing better to do but fight lawsuits. Without them coming up with the money for the inventor, the inventor just wasted his time making the world a better place. Thanks a lot, next time I'll get a job spinning Java on NT boxes and fuck this 'great idea' shit.

OK, so that's the inventor's point of view.

Re:Ya know.

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry,

but this is nonsense:

Actually, from a pure R&D perspective, we are the leaders in innovation. That I can agnoledge. We spend a truckload of money on R&D (government, private and institutional) which is why here it starts getting wiered: so many foreign scientists and engineers come here to work and learn (and often to take that knowledge back home.)


Most foreigners comming to the USA come there becaue they have an excellent education and/or a research interest which gets no funding in europe or elsewhere. Example: high energy lasers.

Most foreigners comming to teh USA, STAY. They don't go home and draw your money and your knowledge outside.

Workd economists just call the behavior of the USA to draw bright people from second world countries imperialism. The fact that economies in China, Indonesia India etc. is growing slow is mainly based on the fact theat the people there lack money to start business and go to USA.

Basically you run your edcation system on a low and cheap profile because the good educated people you get from foreign countries.

Then you go and patent the inventions those foreigners make, because you claim they did it with your money.

But really silly is your asumption those people would go back home, why should they?

Some people with a high etical attitude probably do, like medicals etc.

Most just stay in the land of plenty ...

Kudos for the rest of your post :D

angel'o'sphere

Re:Ya know.

[batemanm]

I thought a patent had to be pretty explicit as to how something works

The language used in a patent can be pretty strange. They start with vauge description but then get more specific. That said lawyers like to keep it vauge so that the patent holder gains the maximum amount of coverage from the patent.

Re:Ya know.

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, but in terms of the damage such a patent can cause, it doesn't matter whether it is a good patent or not ... it was issued, given the USPTO's stamp of approval, so it is presumed valid (that's the problem with not having proper evaluation of patent applications up front.) So now, the issue becomes whether someone else can invalidate the patent, and that requires one hell of a lot of court time and expense. And the scary part of all this is that a court may very well uphold a completely brain-dead, overbroad patent. Wouldn't be the first time.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Shure would be a shame.. It'd be a shame, wouldn't it, Mario?

Re:Ya know.

[Almost-Retired]

Unfettering those companies from the legal blackmail being visited upon them by the leaches would probably help the economy, not hurt it.

Man I couldn't have said it any better.

I'm an old fart, and I can remember when we were doing innovative things at breakneck speeds.

Circa 1960 or so I was in So Cal, an ex Iowa farm boy who knew a bit about electronics and wanted a piece of the action. At one point I found myself working as a bench tech at Oceanographic Engineering in Sandy Eggo.

We were building a tv camera designed to be towed through sewers and such to check the condition of the plumbing. Targeted for about 3.5" in diameter and about 14" long in a case suitable for such duty, we were still at the breadboard stage, fine tuning the circuitry, and the only model we had was a rather large mass of parts sticking out of it here and there, so effectively it was about 5" in diameter at the time.

Late one morning the top engineers came out of the corner office and said to police the place a bit, we were gonna have company in about 15 minutes. Everybody grabbed a broom or a mop.

True to the clock, about 15 minutes later a lot of navy gold came thru the door and shook hands all around, then asked to see this little wonder toy work. So while they watched the monitor, we gently picked it up and set it back down in a bench drawer faceing the rear of the drawer after twisting the focus ring around for near focus, then closed the drawer on the piece of coax that was bringing out the picture, and sending in the 12 volts that ran it.

The automatic target system worked well enough that 2 seconds after the drawer was closed, the monitor had an excellent picture of the wood grain of the back drawer panel on it, all from the light leaking in around the cables slightly holding the drawer from closing tightly.

They talked amoung themselves for a minute or so, then asked if they could find a seat in the office & talk business. Our brass was more than helpfull, rounding up sufficient chairs and stools for everyone to sit on. Half an hour later they all left and I figured that was the end of that little dog & pony show.

Not quite, before the week was out, we had a contract to make 2 of them along with the cases & pan/tilts to the Navys specs. Looking at the case specs, our guys had to ask where these cameras were going as that was an unreal strong case they were spec'ing.

To make a long story a little shorter, they went on the Trieste, and were on it when it went down in the mohole, bringing back the first pictures ever from over 37,000 feet down in the pacific ocean.

Could that happen again today? No way Jose'! Before we ordered the parts, some fscking scumbag would have us up on patent violations for half the circuits in that camera, which at that time were 100% discrete parts, not an integrated curcuit in the whole thing. Not to mention the designs of the seals that surrounded the navy supplied quartz window in the front of the camera cases that didn't leak at an ambient pressure of something in excess of 18,000 psia. They worked, nuff said.

The patent system is broken by 2 things. One being that 99% of whats really patentable had been invented by 1965, and nearly everything since then is not much if nothing but a word re-arrangement to make it look new, or so damndably vague as to be un-enforceable in any court in the land where the judge has smarts enough to actually turn his own judicial bench lights on and off.

The other is the sheer mass of submissions being done today by everybody and all his con man kin, trying to get in on the perceived gold rush.

Between those two effects, I don't frankly care how much money you throw at the patent office trying to fix it, its not going to get fixed.

In the meantime we spend all our resources sueing some unlucky person who has a competing idea, and the only winner is the lawyers at the end of the day. He wins that is, IF he gets paid.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so maybe the patent office is overworked. We're not talking about inventors that patent a new idea. We're talking about people that patent something just because they want to make money and no one else things so low as to try to patent it.
"nobody else published anything like this, so Claudio did it."
That's not a good reason.
Has the following been patented?
An organizational structure by which children are lined up to efficently request gift items for Christmas. A man dressed in a Red Suit and beard will then have them sit on his lap to request such gifts. I patent this organized structure and request a fee of $1 per child for any person that utilizes MY system. The structure will consist of trees and baracades forming the children into a line.

The patent we are discussing is based on a system, not a specific item, thus I see no difference.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if I had a small business and they pulled this crap on me, you'd better believe their cars would have bashed in windshields, sugar in the gastank, etc. Nothing violent, but I'll do what it takes to make me feel better.

Re:Ya know.

[0111 1110]

But really silly is your asumption those people would go back home, why should they?

Well maybe because they don't want their children to go through an "edcation system on a low and cheap profile". If you believe these stereotypes then they probably do too. They come to our country that is inferior in every possible way to every other country, make a quick buck from our doomed economy, and get the hell out as quickly as possible. After all the US is the root of everything that is wrong in the world is it not?

Re:Ya know.

[feronti]

Most foreigners comming to teh USA, STAY. They don't go home and draw your money and your knowledge outside.

Only if Bush & Co. let them. I have an acquaintance (friend of a friend) whose visa was pulled for no apparent reason, who had been in the country legally and definitely contributing to society (he's a highly skilled worker). Rather than fight his de facto deportation, he simply moved back to India, where I hear he is doing quite well. In addition, I attend a university with an extremely large number of foreign students (I don't know the numbers, but I have yet to have a class that didn't have a significant number of them) and many of those with whom I have spoken are eager to return to their home countries when they graduate. But that's not a scientific poll or anything:)

Workd economists just call the behavior of the USA to draw bright people from second world countries imperialism.

Wow. I didn't know we were kidnapping them and forcing to come to our schools. I didn't know we were forcing their governments not to develop effective education systems rather than taking the money for themselves. Imperialism implies some form of coercion. While I certainly don't think America is perfect, providing these students with a quality education is one of the good things we do. The only silver bullet in this world is education. High-quality education should be available to all that seek it, and everyone should be encouraged to take advantage of it. Education is the only way to erase all the bigotry, hatred, and anger that keeps us trying to kill each other.

The fact that economies in China, Indonesia India etc. is growing slow is mainly based on the fact theat the people there lack money to start business and go to USA.

Ummm, since when are those economies growing slowly? China's growth has averaged 9.9% every year since 1983. That means they're doubling the size of their economy every seven years! While Indonesia and India haven't experienced the same dramatic growth as China, they've grown at respectable rates of 4.9% and 6.9% respectively. For comparison, average growth for the US economy since 1983 (I couldn't find earlier data) has been 3.5%. So I don't think there's any way that the economic growth of these three countries can be called slow. Sure, many parts of those countries are well below the standard of living in the US, but they started further down on that ladder.

Then you go and patent the inventions those foreigners make, because you claim they did it with your money.

If they created it using the facilities provided by a US research university, they did. If they created it under the employ of a US corporation they did. The only way they didn't use US money to invent something is if they built their lab themselves. At which point, they're probably among those foreigners that will stay, since they have a capital investment in the US, so it's still US money.

All in all, I don't really see where you've made any valid points in this post. Let's try to keep the America hating to valid reasons please, like our overaggressive foreign policy. Let's not hate America for the things we do right, ok?

Re:Ya know.

[1arkhaine]

Well said.

I don't have any mod points, so simply accept my compliments through a response.

Re:Ya know.

[putaro]

Face it, the American industry is unable to compete on the merits of its products alone. European and Japanese companies design better products, and achieve a much better build quality. Chinese companies cannot be beaten on costs, and their quality is rapidly improving, too.

Oh, bullshit. Who is moderating this as insightful? This is flamebait pure and simple.

The U.S. is competitive in any number of fields - especially software. The only major non-US software I can think of is SAP. Certainly Japan (where I live and work - running a software company) is not a major player in the software business. Most of the software used here is imported from the U.S. except for those packages that require extreme attention to the local environment - mainly accounting software.

As far as engineers leading companies, they don't have especially better track records than lawyers and MBA's when they do not well understand the other aspects of the business besides engineering. Many companies in Japan are having difficulties and much of it has been blamed of late on management that is too engineering-oriented and does not understand finance, sales and marketing well.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your education system is first class for those that can pay for private tuition. That includes most of these scientists. It's on education for the middle class you truly fail compared to most european countries. You lack quantity of quality.

But then again you fund research really well, so you attract the best and brightest from other countries (including mine).

BTW, do you know that the hallmark of most great empires have been? That they have been able to listen to constructive criticism.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, from a pure R&D perspective, we are the leaders in innovation. We spend a truckload of money on R&D"

Headline figures on the amount of money spent on R&D are not necessarily the be-all-and-end-all.

If research costs are higher then much of the money will be sucked up by those higher costs so the first thing to do is to convert the figures from around the world to PPP.

The other thing is that it does not take into account research efficiency. If you spend a lot but waste a lot then you're not necessarily doing that well.

Finally it is worth looking at it per capita as well, or perhaps compare the USA to the whole of the EU in terms of total budget after adjusting for PPP etc.

(The chances are the USA will still be on top after these adjustments, but the comparasion will be fairer).

Re:Ya know.

[Almost-Retired]

Thanks. Sometimes I think I'm just trying to piss into the wind for all the good it does me. Or maybe I think that at 70, I've survived long enough to have some wisdom, but thats been debated here before, heartily at times. But I can't stand the sort of goings on that drove Gary Webb to suicide either, see the article about that on kuro5hin. Thats very sad that a good man was hounded into that as the ultimate solution for telling it like it was. To paraphrase another poster there, he managed to wake up that big dog on the porch, and paid the price.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Ya know.

[RWerp]

The USA has different kind of schools. People who are bright enough to make lots of money out of their brains in the USA, can also afford to send their children to quality schools --- which costs a lot. My wife's family includes a couple living in the USA, which made the 'American Dream' thing: from cleaning floors to running a chemical analysis lab and owning two houses. They are sending their daughter to a private school, because the quality of public schools in their are (around NY) is horrible. Europe may have worse elite universities, but the average public school is certainly better. In Poland, at least you're not afraid that your schoolmate will shoot you with an AK-47.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

> An organizational structure by which children are lined up to efficently
> request gift items for Christmas.

Wouldn't get patented. Prior art, and too obvious. Despite what you seem to think.

Forks and spoons: would not get patented. Obvious. Prior art. Despite what you seem to think.

Have you read the claims? The abstract you saw is a weak overview. It only vaguely describes what is claimed. The claims actually define what his claws are around. Do not guess the claims from the abstract.

Have you examined the prior art? He's got 54 previous patents (that were themselves overbroad) listed in Prior Art, in other words, "Anything that's in here, I don't claim".

And, indeed, I see that the whole thing is really like one patent, the later one is a continuation-in-part of the earlier.

This patent only applys to "remotely captured paper transactions". They are not patenting it on electronic transactions. Although that is described also in the spec, and in the abstract, and in claim 3, subordinate to claim 1 - if there's no paper transactions being dealt with, the patent is not infringed. It is not, as the leader states, a patent on "a system that can store, retrieve, and securely transmit financial transactions".

Do people actually read this or do they hear the word "patent" and suddenly fangs grow out of their gums and they start foaming at the mouth and jumping to conclusions?

Re:Ya know.

[AhBeeDoi]

They are not clueless. They are overworked. Just like journalists and teachers who do a bad job.

Overworked? They work for the federal government. They're not there burning the midnight oil. Just try calling them at 5:05pm. Journalists and teachers who do a bad job should find something more in line with their aptitude.

First of all, you have to know what you are talking about to file a patent. Probably the people who originally filed this patent, the inventor(s) (Claudio R Ballard from Lloyd Harbor, NY, wherever that is), worked for a small company with a good idea.

Probably? Inventors? What did they invent that didn't already exist? Did they invent anything at all? They lent their names to a patent application because an "inventor" needs to be named. There's no "invention" here.

So, you could become like Edwin Armstrong, the guy who invented FM radio. And superheterodyne, and superregenerative circuits, and other stuff. He jumped out of a hotel window in 1954 after being shafted out of all of his companies and patents by large corps, like RCA. (See the documentary 'Empire of the Airwaves'.)

Armstrong actually invented something. You can't say that about DataTreasury.

Or like Charles Goodyear. The inventor of vulcanized rubber died penniless. (The company Goodyear was founded years after he was gone.)

See Armstrong comments.

OK, so that's the inventor's point of view.

There are no inventors in this fairy tale. The only hard work went into researching business methods used by banks and existing patents.

Re:Ya know.

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I've read about this case, this suit is 6 years in the making the DT guy apparently approached chase in '98 offering his services and was was told to hit the road. So from a legal perspective chase could really be boned if they get puni's throuwn at them. I betcha chase will just buy them out for $1,000,000,000 (or more).

Good lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is small business ever going to wake up and realize that the current IP regime is a direct threat to them? No...? Guess not. Guess they'll just have to get used to paying the protection money...

After all, that's capitalism. Government-enforced monopolies on basic business concepts is, I mean.

anonymous exchange protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

so is it time to patent the ski mask and note as a secure system for the anonymous transfer of funds?

Re:anonymous exchange protocol

[utlemming]

No, that wouldn't work. The Mafia or some smart felon would claim prior art.

Here's a tech headline we won't see in 2005:

[phillymjs]

"United States Patent and Trademark Office Denies Patent for Something Completely Obvious"

~Philly

validation of SCO's business model

[cannon fodder 0109]

1. See SCOs pioneering efforts in the field
2. Dust off old patents
3. ?????
4. Profit

Re:validation of SCO's business model

[bhima]

I think in this case it was "Buy Bogos Patents"

Re:validation of SCO's business model

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Begin litigation

Re:validation of SCO's business model

[Maestro4k]

• 1. See SCOs pioneering efforts in the field
  2. Dust off old patents
  3. ?????
  4. Profit

Step 3 in this case is Sue Large Corporations (aka banks) with gobs of cash. :P

Re:validation of SCO's business model

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You don't know what the step 3 is?

Here it is :

3. Get a law firm and sue everything in sight.

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot to tell you. The step 3 is already patented, so you can't use it unless you license this IP.

My bank will be happy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they have an excuse to charge me for accessing my account online!

I declare shenanigans!

If they can patent this...

[binderhead126]

Then I can patent the wheel for my used car dealership. Then I will say, "Look it's a WHEEL!!! It is so cutting edge, I think it might catch on!!!!" Big deal.

Re:If they can patent this...

[Haydn Fenton]

Well.. you could have done, but some australian laywer has beaten you to it.

Don't worry, there's no doubt in my mind that it's not too long before the whole patent system, or at least patents covering software technologies, will soon collapse, they're just getting far too ridiculous.

Re:If they can patent this...

[haelduksf]

Well...if someone already patented the combover (U.S. Patent # 4022227), then anything is possible. Go for it!

Re:If they can patent this...

[budgenator]

Thanks, now when somebody tries to get me to comb-over I can refuse and cite that its all ready patented and I don't have a liciense.

Re:If they can patent this...

[spitefulcrow]

Has Donald Trump patented his hair then?

Re:If they can patent this...

[haelduksf]

No, and I doubt he has a licence either. Pardon me a moment- I have a lawyer to call!

Silver lining

[bigox]

This might actually be a good thing for fixing the current US patent fiasco. The banking industry has plenty of lawyers and political clout. Maybe some change will come out of this suit.

Re:Silver lining

[dattaway]

The banking industry has plenty of lawyers and political clout. Maybe some change will come out of this suit.

No. This will only be used by both sides to eliminate the smaller players. Patents do not help the small inventor, but only the large companies with resources to maintain legal fights.

Re:Silver lining

[dnixon112]

Still this could help in the long run if the banks lose by serving as an example that big business can get royally fucked by patent whorders.

Re:Silver lining

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, it helps the big companies that have patent portfolios they can cross-license ... that way they keep the goodies amongst themselves, avoid any litigation, and still get to squeeze out the small guys.

someone call Poland...

[Anonymous Coward]

someone call Poland... :/

I hope they win.

[tomstdenis]

Just means more anarchy to sit back and watch.

Well that and I don't have investments in banks.

Tom

Re:I hope they win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah fuck off, you Canadian cock-mongler. You won't be laughing when you become our 51st state, bitch.

Re:I hope they win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that and I don't have investments in banks.

What, your employer pays you cash and you keep it in a shoebox under the bed? Lousy interest rate on those. And no overdraft.

Once again

[SCHecklerX]

We see the idiocy of process/software patents.

Patents should be limited to physical inventions. They should also be REVOKED if the person/company filing the patent cannot provide a working prototype within a reasonable amount of time (ie, I certainly can't patent a warp drive, but I could patent something like a hocky puck that acts like a hovercraft to play with on a basketball court)..yeah, I came up with that idea and then a couple of years later, somebody had made that exact toy. DOH!!!

Ideas and mathematical formulas (including computer programs) should NOT be patentable.

Re:Once again

[ScrewMaster]

In order to obtain a U.S. patent, it was once a legal requirement that a working prototype be demonstrated to the examiner. That requirement was dropped. Things went downhill from there.

Re:Once again

[juicyfruit]

There is some software that should be patentable.

Take, for example, codec software. Let's say it takes 3 man-years to develop an improvement to the compression algorithm, to decrease compressed size by 40%.

The problem, without patents, is that it's easy for a competitor to watch the compressor (in running software) and copy it. Hence, they reap the benefits without the costs. Why would anyone work on improving codecs, then? You'd get undercut and never be able to recoup your development costs.

To me, software (algorithms) should be patentable if (1) they take significant development time and (2) they can be copied with much less effort when given a running copy.

Thus, stupid things like one-click and cookies and downloaded active controls can't be patented, because you can implement them with the same amount of effort as the original implementer, without ever having to actually observe any particular implementation. Algorithms, though, would still be protected, unless you can "reasonably" duplicate them without stepping through the developer's implementation.

When the banks and big boys start loosing money...

[Anonymous Coward]

to this sort of nonsense, then we will see change in the patent system.

Bad Idea anyways...

[rel4x]

This patent mentions using biometric data (in conjunction w/ signature)..perhaps they shouldn't be using biometric data to authenticate for bank transactions anyways? If I don't recall, this is insecure TO THE MAX!

Re:Bad Idea anyways...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK there's suggestions that Biometric data doesn't always work well. This is from testing for compulsory ID cards.

in the uk they aren't

[Anonymous Coward]

in the uk they aren'tat least not at the moment

Surprised after reading the patents

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading both patents and looking over all attached diagrams and drawings I'm surprised. The patents are completely devoid of any technical data at all. I can make flowcharts for a warp drive and a cold fusion reactor too. I thought a patent had to contain some technical detail about how the device being patented was supposed to work. E.g. where is the source code for any of this? I couldn't find it anywhere in the patents.

Re:Surprised after reading the patents

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why so many people are pissed about the direction the PTO has taken in accepting (and approving) these nonsense applications.

The best way to get the patent system changed..

[scsirob]

.. is when it influences the bottom line of financial institutions.

You'll be surprised how quickly these kind of scams will result in a review of the patent system. Those with money will make sure it gets reformed.

Re:The best way to get the patent system changed..

[ScrewMaster]

Reformed, yes ... but in a way that benefits the economy as a whole or just protects the financial institutions? My bet is on the latter.

Re:The best way to get the patent system changed..

[LaCosaNostradamus]

What review? The current system relies on big money chasing invalid patent claims in court. The banking industry can certainly do that ... for a single patent that threatens them. As for patents that threaten the rest of us ... well, we'd have to come up with a war chest for the court battle, right?

The 19th Century is returning to America, purchased by all the capital gains from the 20th. The "broken" patent system in America is just another manifestation of that. The rule of money and the rule of law are merging.

Patenting SQL SELECT?

[curious.corn]

I mean come on! Paper receipts are just handy printouts of data transactions happening in some datacenter... the transaction was electronic in the first place, the receipt is just a convenience as opposed to lugging around a networked PC while shopping. Jeez, argumenting against this crap feels like feeding an über troll... bah!

I hope they all win too

[Polarism]

throw our economy into a downward spiral led by IP lawyers.

Human nature only recognizes the need for change once a given situation becomes catastrophically harmful.

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Small Company Is Specializing in Suing Banks

By JENNIFER A. KINGSON
New York Times
December 25, 2004

It is a company whose only business, other than one client, appears to be suing other companies.

The lawsuits contend patent infringement, yet the defendants are usually not electronic commerce companies, but a relatively new target: banks or others in financial services. The company, the DataTreasury Corporation of Melville, N.Y., has sued companies that it says have infringed on its two patents, which describe a way to store and retrieve transaction records electronically. Generally speaking, this is already the way that credit card transactions are processed and, increasingly, the way that paper checks are handled, too.

Among the dozen or so companies that DataTreasury has sued are J. P. Morgan Chase & Company, one of the biggest banks; the First Data Corporation, the biggest credit card processor; and the Electronic Data Systems Corporation, another big processor.

DataTreasury declined to comment for this article, as did most of the companies it has sued.

The suits are wending their ways through courts in Texas that lawyers say are well known for upholding the rights of patent holders. They seek unspecified - but treble - damages, and to ban the companies from using the processing architecture that the patents describe.

This type of litigation is unusual for financial services, which has taken for granted that there are certain basic ways to process payments. Although banks did not bother to patent these systems, others did, especially after a 1998 court ruling broadened the definition of a patent to include business methods and processes. At the time, the United States Patent and Trademark Office was swamped with technology-related applications, and knew very little about the processing of payments.

"Obviously, no one has a patent that covers all checks or processing," said Michael D. Bednarek, an intellectual property lawyer who was once an examiner at the Patent and Trademark Office.

Companies like DataTreasury may have a patent on an aspect of the process, but "even that arcane feature may be something that has been done before," he said. "Patent officers aren't necessarily experts. Almost certainly, if they were aware of this, they wouldn't allow someone to get a patent on it."

A new check processing law, known as Check 21, raised the hopes of DataTreasury and other such patent holders because it gave banks broader permission to shred paper checks and keep electronic images of them. The law took effect in late October.

DataTreasury is clearly hoping for a bonanza. According to court documents, one of the two law firms originally hired to file the lawsuits is working for a contingency fee of 40 percent, with a cap that was raised from $100 million to $225 million.

So far, two companies have paid DataTreasury to settle: Affiliated Computer Services, one of the nation's biggest information technology suppliers; and the RDM Corporation, a small Canadian company that sells hardware and software for payment processing.

"It was a nuisance lawsuit to us, and it was the most efficient decision to settle it for a minimal amount," said Lesley Pool, a spokeswoman for Affiliated Computer. She would not say the amount, but an article in The Dallas Business Journal, which DataTreasury has linked to its Web site, said it was $50,000.

As for RDM, DataTreasury issued a news release saying that the Canadian company would pay a fee for each check imaging terminal it deploys and "a per-click royalty for storage of electronic documents and check information, calculated at around a 50 percent royalty rate."

Before Affiliated Computer settled, it did answer the lawsuit in court, calling DataTreasury's patents invalid and unenforceable. In papers filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Affiliated Computer accused DataTreasury of deceiving the Patent and Trademark Office by

Re:Article Text

[Blublu]

a 1998 court ruling broadened the definition of a patent to include business methods

Someone should just patent the "business method" of suing over patents, and then sue them!

My dad & I just had this discussion today.

[brad3378]

Paying for a patent is the cheap part. It gets more expensive to prevent enfringement. I have doubts about this company going up against the goliath corporations using this technology.

Re:My dad & I just had this discussion today.

[Anonymous Coward]

The have already gone up against goliath corporations and won. The won against JP Morgan Chase & Co. which is the second largest bank in the US last time I checked. I wouldn't be surprised if they sued Citigroup & Co. next.

*THIS* right here is the most screwed up part....

[Polarism]

"It was a nuisance lawsuit to us, and it was the most efficient decision to settle it for a minimal amount," said Lesley Pool, a spokeswoman for Affiliated Computer. She would not say the amount, but an article in The Dallas Business Journal, which DataTreasury has linked to its Web site, said it was $50,000.

What the hell? Is this what our legal system has come to? "Nuisance Lawsuits"?

This is not sustainable, and the situation could harm our judiciary processes right to the very core.

Prior Art

[NullProg]

Banks have been doing this for over twenty years. Remote machines scan documents (checks/statements etc), store them in a local central database. Then nightly these transactions are electronically moved by the FED.

I hope IBM/NCR sue the crap out of this company.
Merry Chistmas and enjoy.

Re:Prior Art

[SpaceLifeForm]

It's at least 30 years.

I'm sure there is plenty of discussion with congresspeople at this very moment. The question is whether the solution to the patent problem will addressed properly, or made into a larger mess.

A new google patent search tool

[LemonFire]

Enter the idea you have and the Google "patent search tool" will tell you how many patents you would violate...

Seriously, this has gone way too far and I can only see how this hurts business, consumers, innovation and the little guy.

-- Thought I would put a SIG here but that would have caused a patent violation

Innovative

[dark_requiem]

Wow, if that's not innovation, I don't know what is. If there's no prior art pulled out in court, I would be astonished. Does anyone in the patent office even know what they're supposed to be doing all day? Do they simply not realize that to get a patent, not only can no existing patent have been issued, and the idea must be original, but that it also must be NON-OBVIOUS! Just another argument against total-state bureaucracy in favor of constitutional minarchy and common law...

What a mess

[Ckwop]

The point of IP is to allow the inventor of an invention profit from their creation. The other point is of IP is that because the patent is made public society gets to keep the invention once the IP has expired.

A key feature of most IP implementations is that you can sell a patent to another company. A lot of the problems with the patent sharks could be solved if this were not possible.

If a patent can't be transfered then sharks can't get hold of it. You should have to renew a patent every year.. making keeping huge portfolios expensive.

In the software patent world, I think one small change would make it (more) aggreeable to FOSS. Make the time the patent lasts much shorter, like on the order of five years. That way, FOSS is protected. In software, if you haven't made your millions in five years then your not going to full stop. This would also protect FOSS from huge damages claims if they are caught infriging since the time to claim damages over is much shorter.

While i'd like software patents to disappear in the US, it wont happen and therefore I believe a third way is needed. A compromise that restores sanity to the system. My suggestions would be a good first step.

Simon.

Re:What a mess

[ScrewMaster]

You already have to renew a patent, and it costs money. The problem with that idea is that, again, it only hurts the little guy (like me). If you make the cost of renewal high enough that it will be of any consequence to an IBM or a Microsoft, that completely eliminates the small inventor. He'll never be able to afford to maintain the patent long enough to make anything of it (going through the already-considerable time and expense of acquiring a patent doesn't mean squat, if you don't have the resources and especially the time to build a business around your idea.)

The problem with using fees to maintain the patent office is that a. it's massively discriminatory in favor of larger organizations and b. simply encourages the bureacracy to be less scrupulous in determining the validity of a patent application (the more patents they issue, the more money they recieve over the life of those patents.) I predicted that would happen when Congress began funding the USPTO from the fee system, and I was right. I have a couple of patents in my name and I have to pay the maintenance costs ... it didn't used to be that way and I think it's wrong. Frankly, a reliable patent office is something where we shouldn't be too stingy with our tax dollars since it's just too damned important. There's plenty of other useless bureacratic waste that could be eliminated to pay for a quality USPTO. Furthermore, given that single inventors and small companies do have a lot to contribute, we shouldn't squeeze them out. But let's face it, the power of the patent has been successfully subverted, and I might add that the current sad state of the USPTO was no accident. Congress passed specific laws that resulted in the patent nightmare we are facing today.

Patenting a physical implementation of an idea is one thing (and is what the patent system was designed to protect.) Traditionally, patenting an idea was out, simply because the Founders knew that it would lead to the kinds of abuses we're seeing to today. Given that the term "software patent" has become synonymous with "patenting an idea" they should simply be eliminated, and any previously granted patents invalidated. As a purely intellectual exercise, software already has copyright protection and given how potent that has become lately, we really just don't need software patents. They accomplish absolutely NOTHING in terms of advancing the state of the art or encouraging the development of new technologies. Software development moves so fast, and is so dependent upon existing (and now frequently patented) ideas and techniques that software patents do way, WAY more harm than good.

I don't know if I agree with you about the non-transferability of patents, though. Many tech companies are built around one or two key patents, and if the corporation cannot own the patent ... well. That would be problematic for many reasons. If the company doesn't own the patents, it would be hard to get investors (what if the inventor croaks? Who owns the rights then?) But it might be more reasonable to say that a patent can't be transferred to a business that has no current interest in anything covered by that patent. I dunno. But something needs to change before nobody can design or build anything in this country without paying juice money to a hundred "intellectual property holders", which is synonymous with "blood sucking leech".

Check this out Fee Schedule

/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FUD

[back_pages]

A patent search reveals US6032137 and US5910988, each having the title: 'Remote image capture with centralized processing and storage -- System for central management, storage and report generation of remotely captured paper transactions from documents and receipts.'

The title of a patent is meaningless. I read one last week for "Remote Control Device" which was a high pressure hydraulic hoze/nozzle that could be aimed from a distance, used in mining operations. There is no legal weight in a patent title and while the intention is that they are informative, there is uneven enforcement of that rule.

From one of the abstracts: 'The system retrieves transaction data such as credit card receipts checks in either electronic or paper form at one or more remote locations, encrypts the data, transmits the encrypted data to a central location, transforms the data to a usable form, performs identification verification using signature data and biometric data, generates informative reports from the data and transmits the informative reports to the remote location(s).'

The abstract of a patent has no legal weight. The rules regarding abstracts are more evenly enforced than titles, as the abstracts are useful to examiners, but the typical attorney couldn't care if the abstract recited a recipe for meatloaf.

Here are the patents under debate:
6032137
5910988
Linking to the actual patent is trivial, however undermines the element of FUD which wins the submitter such karma and peer approval. (Rather than mod this as a troll, proving at least to myself how correct I am, feel free to explain to me why failing to link to the patents themselves helps an intelligent discussion rather than perpetuating the FUD.)

The claims of a patent are the only part of a patent that undisputably carries legal weight. Any discussion about whether a patent should or should not have been issued that does not relate strictly to the claims is nonsense - it is directly analogous to praising Windows because you can use a mouse on a graphical screen. It is uneducated, pointless, and irritating to anyone who knows that other operating systems use mouse pointers and graphical screens.

Further, these patents will come under extreme attack if they are used in court. Merely having these patents is meaningless. When these patents are used against someone, he would be a complete idiot to not first question whether the patents can be invalidated in court. This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000. Only the media and those who do not properly understand the existing system of patent litigation expect the USPTO to provide a perfect search of prior art for 2% of the market value of such a search.

In conclusion, while there may be a great deal of problems with these patents, and plenty of legitimate complaints about the how the system works, the submitter of this story addresses nothing but meaningless and baseless fluff. There would be more substance to the complaints if he griped about the poor scan quality of the documents. Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing the merits of these patents, but rather pointing out that the submitter addresses no valid complaints because, by analogy, he's busy arguing whether the Windows is better than OSX by pointing out how pretty the Windows desktop is.

But moderators, if you fear that facts might interfere with your self-affirmation, by all means convince me that I'm correct (regarding the subject line) and moderate this as a troll.

Stupid

[fuzi0n]

So then I guess any site that is able to retreive transaction or record information electronically is gonna get sued by these retards? (Basically, the entire internet.) Paypal can retrieve past transaction info.. eBay can.. any online store can.. that's pretty stupid. You shouldn't be able to patent something that is so commonly used, like microsoft and their "your buddy is typing a message" thing.. they've got a patent on that, and they shouldn't be able to.

Re:Stupid

[Kell_pt]

It's not having a patent that's the problem. It really wouldn't matter a bit wether MS had that patent or not if it was easy for people to tell them shove it whenever they tried to enforce it.

If disproving a patent was easy, you wouldn't see as many bogus patents. If it's more cost effective dismissing a patent lawsuit by paying 50K, then actually going to court and dismissing the patent once and for all should cost way below those 50K.

So, a suggestion, is leave the USPTO as it is, and have taxes pay the legal fees for patent cases. *grin* It'd probably come out more cost-effective.

It's about time...

[little1973]

...to realize that the patent system was not created to help inventors. It was specifically created to create a market where the very thought can be sold and bought. Any other explanation is naivity.

Re:It's about time...

[eckenheimer]

Actually, back when patents were established in the US constitution over 200 years ago, the system did help inventors. But, ever since corporations attained legal "personhood" (over 100 years ago) the US has gradually become a "government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations."

My apologies to President Lincoln -- though his comments on the topic are quite astute, not to mention prescient: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Re:It's about time...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree. Many things have been done as best as they could have done. But time is a force to be reconed with. As the sea can devour whole islands (and nibbles at continents), time can (with help of people in general) eat away at anything that is done.

If you than add money to the equation, and aim that money carefully, you can, together with time, corrupt anything & everything.

And that is, in this case, exactly what happens. For the greater "good" of a select, but unspecified, few.

Re:It's about time...

[j14ast]

Look man I'm with ya but
he probibly didn't say that
I realise that saying Lincoln said that lends it some wieght, but, him having not said it doesn't diminish its kernel of truth. The problem iw corparations is they don't die. While that lends stability to the economy it also lends stagancy. Imagine if Carnagie had never died. This is a man who amassed enormas wealth, but because humans die he gave much of it to start a whole bunch of .edu's and musseums and to this day a foundation of his funds pbs.

i hate argumenting with morons too ;}

[abandonment]

gotta hate that

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[Anonymous Coward]

No software process can possibly be original and creative enough to warrant a patent. Therefore it's a waste of time to read the patent. Why can no software process be patented? Because once you know what you want to implement, the rough outline of how to achieve it in software is OBVIOUS. Therefore all software patents are actually just patents on obvious implementations of tasks that were, at best, themselves not entirely obvious.

For example... um, I know: the morse code text reader. Software that turns text on a compter into the sound of that text being transmitted in morse code. Just thought of that all by my little self. Now, assuming it hasn't been done already (sounds useless to me), should I be able to patent it? The idea of the *function* may be original, but to what programmer is the rough outline of such software not immediately apparent upon hearing the idea? And patents are only about implementation.

Time to patent my profit machine...

[Anonymous Coward]

This machine takes any kind of material or immaterial input and transforms it via voodoo into a profitable product.
Here is the exact blueprint:
input ---> |profit machine| ---> output

How much does it cost to sign it up?

Well duh...

[raehl]

Where have you been? It's been like this for 15, 20 years.

I know

[Polarism]

it's like pointing out the sky is blue to someone who still will never understand that it's blue.

Still have to try.

This would effect the Check 21 Act

[Maestro4k]

What they're claiming is that they own patents covering key processes that banks are required to implement as part of the "Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act" (also known as Check 21) that recently went into effect.

Seeing as that was a federally mandated act, I don't think congress is going to think too highly of this company's actions. This really might lead to patent reform, since the only two ways of getting congress to act seem to be to either pay them lots of money (or should I say "donate" lots of money to their reelection campaigns) or piss them off. The last time they really got fed up over something we got the do not call list which has been pretty successful.

So more power to this crappy little IP company, I can't wait to see what remains of them after congress is done. :)

Re:This would effect the Check 21 Act

[Anonymous Coward]

What could congress do? Pass a law with retroactive effects?

Once these guys get their money to the bank (no pun), they're safe.

Re:This would effect the Check 21 Act

[sonamchauhan]

eminent domain.

Re:This would effect the Check 21 Act

[Maestro4k]

• What could congress do? Pass a law with retroactive effects?

Congress technically can't pass an ex post facto law, although it seems they do it anyway. However that's not the issue, there's enough pre-existing matierial to invalidate these patents, and a request from congress to reexamine a patent would guarantee great scrutiny of the patent in question. I'm sure the patents are bogus, for instance my bank's been sending me scanned copies of my cancelled checks for about 12 years now, and they use the scans as the primary check when questions occur (only when the scan isn't clear do they pull the actual paper checks from storage, and charge me for it unless it's their fault.)

But think about it another way, what happens if Congress decides to descretely ask the FBI to investigate this company and it's owners? You think the FBI won't dig deep to find dirt on them to make Congress happy? Pissing off Congress is NOT a good idea, they wield immeasurably power, arguably more than the president does.

• Once these guys get their money to the bank (no pun), they're safe.

I wouldn't count on that either, seeing as they're targetting banks. I'd hate to have an account subjected to the kind of scrutiny their accounts would be, any mistake would be caught and charged against them. Better hope they don't try to float any checks. :)

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000.

This is one of the things that is wrong with the patent system - no one but large companies can afford to spend that much money on a patent search - and most of those companies are covered by cross licensing. The only thing patents harm in the current legal situation is small firms who can't afford to pay legal fees for a protracted battle and so just pay protection money instead.

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[siljeal]

This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000. And a small company that is allegedly violating patents is supposed to shell out those $100k to do what the PO should have been doing in the fist place? I can see how that suits the big players just well, but it strikes me as a perversion of the system that it is easier and cheaper to patent the obvious than it is to prove that the USPTO should not have granted that patent to begin with.

Who should be sued?

[mahesh_gharat]

Instead of suing the banks they could have sued the software companies who developed the software for them?

From now onwards, after developing the software I'm going to check how many patents does my software breaks. I don't want to see a lawyer at my doorsteps after the deployment claiming a huge amount for the efforts that I have actually put into the development.

Can I patent the famous "$i=0;" code and all its variations?
Then I can go and sue millions of companies and people. Boy, I will be rich.

The Database!

[suwain_2]

a way to store and retrieve transaction records electronically

Is it just me, or is that the most basic of definitions of a computer "database"?

they don't care...

[zogger]

--the banks will just up fees and/or interest rates to cover any additional expenses. There's no way the bosses and sharholders will lose a penny on the deal, even if they have to pay royalties on these patents eventually. Banks are the primary reason this particular style, the western central banking and fiat currency economic system, with the patents, exist, they could care less what it costs you as joe consumer, because taken as a whole, they control the money supply and you don't. If the patents affect all banks, then it affects all the people, they just pass the costs on as part of doing business.

Want a change? Use cash and barter as much as possible and stopping buying into high tech just because it exists and is new and shiny. Geeks are the worst when it comes to that, every new way to do something different using a gadget they adopt and promote, whether it's a good idea or not. And geeks were the ones who lobbied for getting software patented in the first place, it wasn't joe schmoo mechanic down at the shop or suzy hairdresser. Want to blame someone for geek troubles like these patents, blame the geeks, the programmers with huge dollar signs in their eyes way back when who demanded this patent protection for their vague intangible "products" and also demanded no liability for their products. They got it, the system obliged them, now it's tough noogies, you can't go back 40 years or whatever and change it. Demanding above and beyond what other industries get came back to bite them, as it was predicted a long time ago. It's not like this wasn't anticipated and warned against, but the warners back then got called "luddite" and other things, like they were "anti technology" or "anti progress". Nope, that was never it, just you can't tell a geek ANYTHING because they are born with hard coded DNA that says they are always correct and anyone else is an idiot.

what goes around comes around. Geeks and geek companies embraced the sytem with open arms, profitted from it, now they notice they need to have a lawyer hard wired to them, kept on a leash just to do anything. If they are so smart, why did they let it happen in the first place?

The geek community needs a little soul searching on this one and to drop down off their "insulted and shocked" high horse. Yes, it's changed with open source, but it doesn't eliminate past historical reality, they asked and begged for this situation we have now, and the politicians and PHBs obliged them.. They are trying to close the barn door after the horse got out, not a real long term smooth move it appears..

And the next major geek FUBAR that will hit? Over zealous false intellectual righteousness with how "safe" nanotech and bioengineering are, and that will make patent fiascos look tame by comparison. Add in overwhelming and pervasive RF pollution, another huge case of serious denial. And you know why? Same huge dollar signs in the eyes that the original wizard programmers had, that's why. Obfuscate and ignore potential long term problems in exchange for leetness and bigbucks today.

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to implementation a program that allows my car to violate the second law of thermodyanimics. Since the engine is controlled by a computer, which is run by software, please tell be how OBVIOUS it is to achive this goal.

Business' counter sue under Racketeering laws?

[hostguy2004]

If someone send me a lawsuit over an obvious process - I would call it RICO(Racketeering), Extortion and file a counter-suit. As Microsoft has found out - just because it owns the patent (even if the patent has merit) didn't get them out of the legal problems of anti-competitive behaviour. I believe a company should have to show a good faith effort to develope a process/technology, before filing a patent. ~Hostguy2004

Prior art

[alienmole]

input ---> |profit machine| ---> output

Sorry, but there's well-known prior art for this invention:

1. input
2. ???
3. Do I really need to say it?

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[Znork]

"Only the media and those who do not properly understand the existing system of patent litigation expect the USPTO to provide a perfect search of prior art for 2% of the market value of such a search."

It's funny that calling up a buisness and telling them to give you $50000 or you'll burn down their property (worth $100K) is illegal, while calling up a buisness and telling them to give you $50000 or you'll make them pay $100K to challenge a bogus patent is perfectly legal.

When the government hands someone a carte-blanche to perform extortion up to $100K one can damn well expect them to do their research and be a bit restrictive.

object in rear view mirror closer than you think

[alizard]

And the founding for the army comes from?
Taxes.

if you dont have and effective industri you cannot afford an effective army.

Worse. Borrowing, and it's China, India, and the Arabs who are buying those T-bills. They are buying them based on faith in the future of the US economy, and the drop of the USD means that faith is starting to fail.

Related Article CEO Steps Down

[FauxReal]

From Business Wire.

Chief Executive Officer of DataTreasury Corporation Steps Down; Nationwide Search for New Chief Executive Begins

MELVILLE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 10, 2004--DataTreasury Corporation announced today the resignation of President and CEO Keith DeLucia, effective immediately. DeLucia, who is leaving to pursue personal interests, departs after a number of notable achievements, and it is with regret that DataTreasury's board of directors accepts his resignation. DataTreasury founder Claudio Ballard will serve as Acting CEO pending a nationwide search for a new chief executive. A leading systems and computer architect with more than 25 years' worth of experience in his field, Ballard invented the patented technology that forms the basis of the "Global Repository Platform," the world's most functional and secure informational management system. DataTreasury Corporation is a privately held company founded in 1998, and it was issued US Patent No. 5,910,988 and US Patent No. 6,032,137 in 1999 and 2000 for image capture, centralized processing and electronic storage of document and check information.

Re:Related Article CEO Steps Down

[symbolic]

Corporation is a privately held company founded in 1998, and it was issued US Patent No. 5,910,988 and US Patent No. 6,032,137 in 1999 and 2000 for image capture, centralized processing and electronic storage of document and check information.

well, well--- I remember working for a financial institution long before this- they were in the process of installing a new system that scanned, stored, and retrieved information....hm. Maybe ScanOptics might have something to say about this.

I think you got it reversed

[argoff]

I don't need this story to prove patents are worthless. I and many other people already know that, all this does is just bolster our claim. People who dislike that should consider it as a punishment to be suffered for having a poorly thought out belief system.

The fact is, when it is allowed for ANYBODY else to controll how inventions are used, problems like this are going to happen. Problems like corruption in the system, problems like poorly defined boundries when asserting patents, problems like unproductive lawsuits, and most small inventors getting screwed - even though patents were supposed to help them. Heck, even trying to treat patents like a intellectual "Property" is a fraud and a deception.

What if the govt gave me a monopoly on growing fruit and called it fruit "proeprty" because I can buy and lease shares of my monopoly on the open market? Well patents are a fruity idea.

Re:No...

[symbolic]

The problem lies with a brain-dead Congress. Had anyone actually bothered to educate themselves on the potential effects from the passage of a law allowing software patents, I dare say it never would have seen the light of day. But then, no one knew what the P4tri0t Act was about, either.

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[NigelJohnstone]

" trivial, however undermines the element of FUD which wins the submitter such karm.."

Did you read the claims? The abstract is spot on. If you think the abstract or title is mislead, why are you attacking the submitter and not the abstract or title?

"Further, these patents will come under extreme attack if they are used in court."

Attacked by lawyers and adjudicated by judges. Neither of those has any technical grouding in software. Once these patents are judged in court, its a dice roll.

"When these patents are used against someone, he would be a complete idiot to not first question whether the patents can be invalidated in court."

Again, the court is not technical, it is a dice roll.
Your side does eBanking and could face hefty royalties a catastrophic block on business, plus legal fees. His side faces only legal fees at most.
Now roll the dice, but you'll find its weighted.

"This is how the patent system works"

No the patent office is supposed to filter this crap for obviousness, prior art and technical invention.

"a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000."

Its the USPTO's job to do that and since when has it cost $100,000? Thats a couple of man years work,a ridiculous figure pulled from the air.

Ya know-Dark Ages.

[Anonymous Coward]

"So far as I'm concerned, software and gene patents are the straws the broke the camel's back."

Did you expect technology to stay the same? Software and Genetic research didn't exist in the founders time. You all talk about "new model this" and "new model that", and glom onto all things tech. But you expect laws (and legal terms) to stay fixed in the dark ages. We see this best illustrated when copyright stories are posted. When all the Slashdot lawyers come out. What are you all going to do when the next technological "straw" comes down the line?

"And now ... it's not only broken but dangerous because Congress wants to export it worldwide. "

The above is why I don't take Slashdot seriously. A lot of the changes in IP law, originated overseas, and it's the US importing them.

It's easy to develop a myopic "blame the US for everything" demonizing viewpoint. When one goes beyond the boundaries of this forum. One can see that the world is interconnected. Legally, socially, technologically, historically. Only a fool thinks things happen in a vacumn.

Grow up people.

Re:Isn't SCO doing this now

[xtermin8]

You have to pay those lawyers big bucks. Why aren't laws more simple and justice expedient? Because Lawyers are the ones who make the laws.

IP nonsense was born

[OsamaBinLogin]

> Thus, the entire IP nonsense was born.

well, um, I think the US patent office got its start in the 1800's, maybe 1837? Other countries had patents before us, I think it evolved from British law.

It started cuz too many engineers were keeping trade secrets and taking them to the grave. For instance, Stradivarius violins.

You're talking about more recent events.

And copyrights and trademarks are not going away anytime soon, or all of industry would vaporize. For instance, you get rid of trademark law and then Microsoft can come out with a version of NT labeled "Red Hat Linux". Oracle comes out with a stripped-down, hideously buggy version of their database and allows free download under the name "MySQL", specifically to trash the MySQL name. Please come to the official MySQL website at mysql.oracle.com! Trademark law is not going away anytime soon.

Re:IP nonsense was born

[Kell_pt]

Erm, excuse me, but where did you read "trademark" in this thread? Trademarks have NOTHING to do with patents. Neither do copyrights. It's a whole different issue.

Trademarks are important, they deal with designations and brands, NOT contents. Trademarks have worked well for centuries now.

Similar deal with copyright. Why on earth are you mixing these issues? Copyright has to do with the right to copy, it has nothing to do with patents, which cover ideas and concepts that do not necessarily have to be materialized or implemented.
If Tolkien patented the concept of fantasy literature (with elves, dwarfs n stuff) noone could write fantasy literature, regardless of the fact that Tolkien didn't really invent the genre - he merely patented it, he wouldn't even have had to write LotR - that's patents. Copyright has to do with someone copying or adapting from his writings, trademarks has to do with using the Tolkien name, "Middle Earth" or other names.

Trademarks and copyrights are a different issue, and they're working fine the way they are. Patents are an artifitial mechanism. Patents do not cope with the fact that different people can have the same idea - it benefits those who register the idea first, with the added problem of not forcing the registree to demonstrate or describe their idea in a way people can understand and compare to existing things.
In short, patents are a bureucratic, artifitial imposement, that makes no sense in REAL world - only in courts or in deep corporative pockets.

The way I see it, if you have a novell idea, go ahead and do something with it. If someone else improves on your idea, or happens to think of the same, it's your fault that you failed to do anything with it.

But please, do not confuse people by mixing trademark and copyright law with patent law.

Ya know-My Hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, the Chinese never intended to buy this crap - and it now appears that Europe doesn't want it, either. As a consequence, it will only add an unnecessary burden on the already beleagered American economy."

Of course they don't want to buy into labour laws, enviromental protection, or human rights too. Should we admire them for that bit of foresight too?

Re:Ya know-My Hero.

[Morlark]

"Of course they don't want to buy into labour laws, enviromental protection, or human rights too. Should we admire them for that bit of foresight too?"

Because of course the USA has an outstanding history when it comes to environmental protection? I'm part of a group that, among other things, seeks to raise awareness of environmental issues, and promote a more environmentally sustainable way of living. One thing that crops up time and time again during my work is examples of the utter irresponsibility of US environmental policies. Now I'm not just talking about the Kyoto treaty. Kyoto was a nice idea, but in the efforts to get as many countries as possible on board the treaty itself became about as useful as an inflatable dartboard. The fact of the matter is, the USA is the world leader in terms of CO2 emmisions, and work that is being done to reduce this and other forms of pollution is simply not enough.

US economy down?

[Kell_pt]

I've read around this thread that US economy is down. Is that a surprise to anyone, considering:

- Firms not really producing anything, just capitalizing on broad and generic ideas that alone really mean nothing.
- The time and resources spent on patent litigation.

It only makes sense to me that if a considerable chunk of the corporative tissue is spending resources trying to float above the sea of crap around patents, those are resources that could be applied to other areas - ones that would actually produce income?

And there are REAL uses for patents - take the LightScribe technology developed by HP - that's an example of a novel idea that deserves some protection and some credit. That's the sort of thing patents were created for. And even that could survive w/o patents, if there was true honor among companies and some sort of a meritocracy. But let's not even go there - it's always the same problem - people rather compete and everyone loses big instead of cooperating and everyone gaining some.

"/."'s haven't seen the inside of a courthouse.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Attacked by lawyers and adjudicated by judges. Neither of those has any technical grouding in software. Once these patents are judged in court, its a dice roll."

And just what do you think expert witnesses are?

Have any of you even been in a court of law, let alone a patent case?

Re:"/."'s haven't seen the inside of a courthouse.

[Kell_pt]

>> Have any of you even been in a court of law, let alone a patent case?

You'll find that people feel pretty confident in expressing their ideas even though many are completly ignorant about the issues they are discussing.

I'm willing to bet that the ratio of people that actually understand a thing about IP law on Slashdot is quite below the ratio of people who understand a thing about computer systems and programming. And as we all know, that rate is already low enough, hence the term "troll" was introduced. ;)

But hei, people don't really have to understand a thing about what they're saying to criticize or to pass judgment - which is why I'm not surprised at the patent office reviewers' work - they're just being human and judging things they are actually ignorant about.

To be honest, the patent system would be perfect if proving a patent invalid in court was a straightforward and inexpensive process. Patents should be automatically approved after a fee (2K is ok), but disproving the patent shouldn't be an expensive legal process. You would have no patents, just "patent claims". That way you'd spare on the work of the patent reviewers (whou wouldn't have to run a thorough search) and let those interested in the outcome disprove the patent. People wouldn't spend money on stupid patents if they knew they could be easily invalidated.

Re:"/."'s haven't seen the inside of a courthouse.

[back_pages]

I'm not deeply familiar with all the particulars of these patents (and in my context, this means that I haven't read the related art cited on the front of the patent) but patents that can be easily invalidated are the ones caught by the USPTO. That's what the intention of the quick and cheap prior art search performed by the examiners is.

While all patents are presumed valid until proven otherwise, only they who are fools believe that a perfect prior art search can be conducted for under $2k in 10 hours on application after application after application. There are about 30 patents cited as related art on the front of the patent. The internet text version doesn't show whether that was art submitted under 37 CFR 1.56 or cited by the examiner, but it does suggest that a sizable search was done and prosecution wasn't a straight-forward rubber stamp.

What's more, I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if the limitations recited by the claims were not commonly disclosed in 1997, when the patent was filed. It's certainly not my field of expertise, but online banking with an automated paper check scanning system might have existed before 1997, but I would be surprised if anybody had published the details of their system in an accessible medium and with enough detail to prove, before a judge, that the claimed invention already existed or would have been an obvious modification.

And do note that "obvious" has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, but rather the case law establishing that word under 35 USC 103

Re:"/."'s haven't seen the inside of a courthouse.

[Kell_pt]

Well, I enjoyed your comment, and given the rate of patents submitted per time unit, I agree a lot with your point of view. You'd need a large amount of motivated and skilled people to be able to fulfil that role, and the adjudicated budget is certainly largely not enough - in particular the value paid for each patent application is probably quite small for an extensive background search.

How about making patent reviewing a matter of public forum? One would submit a patent, then a troup of volunteers/interested people would review the patent for a period of... a month? The assembled group would probably be formed by people with enough expertise and fully volunteer. Basically, open source the patent review system. :)

Daydreaming and simplistic I know, but come to think about it, would it work?

Re:"/."'s haven't seen the inside of a courthouse.

[back_pages]

Regarding the public forum, some of that functionality exists.

Patent applications are published under the WIPO agreement that went into effect in 1999 or 2000. All applications must be published within 18 months of their submission. Further, the US has a system in place where a third party can submit relavent prior art (I believe it's 37 CFR 1.99, but I'm too tired to look it up at the moment).

The problems that arise in a highly structured "public forum" type system are generally related to unfairly burdening your competitor's patents. If CorpA can get a "public examiner" on a selective panel, or if CorpA can swamp the USPTO with paperwork, either regarding CorpB's patents, this creates an entirely new problem in addition to the existing ones. The existing 3rd party submission rules state that you can submit, but cannot explain the relavence, and will receive no reply. The examiners are either under no obligation to the 3rd party art or required only to "consider" it (which can mean as little as glancing at it once) to prevent CorpA from piling up so much paperwork on CorpB's applications that it becomes a corporate attack.

Of course, if CorpA submits something really juicy, it is completely in the examiner's best interest to recognize it and use it.

Takin the "public forum" approach to a more eloquent expression, I am surprised that nobody is interested (for profit, for good of society, or for non-profit) to organize a group that exploits this 3rd party submission rule. If they did it properly, they would be loved by the examiners and contribute greatly to the strength of patents that are issued, to say nothing of decreasing the number of patents invalidated during litigation. The cynic in me says that the real reason for this lack of community action is that while everybody is willing to criticize the examiners, while everybody is willing to complain, nobody is willing to step into that role in a volunteer scenario. In order to make a difference, I would estimate that they would need to submit 3rd party prior art on about 100-200 different applications per week, and it would be entirely thankless work with no tangible reward.

Anyway, the largest conflict between /. and reality regarding the patent system is the disconnect between the $2k search the USPTO does and the $100k search expected during litigation, and indirectly the volume of cases handled by the USPTO (350,000 last year). The second biggest conflict between /. and reality is the idea that an issued patent is suddenly a golden goose. The truth is that the patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless it can survive an invalidation attack in court - anybody who blindly forks over licensing fees to an untested patent needs to fire their lawyers.

What Slashdot needs

[EvilStein]

You just mentioned prior art. Definately a cool idea an it would be nice if some were produced, but if it is, will we know?

Slashdot needs a "Follow-up to Silly Patent" section so we can all see if prior art was ever brought up and whether or not it was successful in court or not.

Now *that* would be a useful section..

Silver lining-SMALL guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case you forgot the title of the story.

"Small Firm Claims Patents On e-Banking Processes"

I'll refrain from the glaring obvious, but the audiance just might see it.

Re:Silver lining-SMALL guys.

[MillionthMonkey]

Just in case you forgot the title of the story.
"Small Firm Claims Patents On e-Banking Processes"
I'll refrain from the glaring obvious, but the audiance just might see it.

The issue here was the size of the victim, i.e. who suffers in an atmosphere of parasites. The size of the parasite itself is irrelevant.

Unless you are actually proposing we build an economy based on a core of major technology firms that do all the research and actually implement technology, who continually fend off lawsuits from "small firm" parasites that hire geeks and lawyers to produce nothing but patents?

Not useful as "trade secret" = shouldn't be patent

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Since the patent system was originally created as an incentive to reveal "trade secrets" to the public to spur greater innovation, I say if something is not useful as a "trade secret", it should not even be CONSIDERED for a patent.

Or in other words, if withholding an idea from the public doesn't actually affect the public - as may be the case with this "patent" - then it's not really useful as a "trade secret". Since so many other people seem to have come up with implementations of this same idea already, this company "revealing" this amazing "invention" by patenting it makes no difference. They therefore should not be rewarded with a monopoly on the idea.

Now, if we could just get the legislature to hear everyone saying this over the jangling of lobbyist's loose change, maybe we could do something about it...

Re:object in rear view mirror closer than you thin

[Anonymous Coward]

They're buying them to drop them one day and crash the dollar, just like Soros' attack on the British pound. But this will be on a much larger scale.

They sued the wrong people.

[Guspaz]

They could have gone after a small paypal-type company. But the BANKS? These are corporations here that are ROLLING in so much money they don't know what to do with it, the corporations that CHARGE YOU MONEY to borrow YOUR money so THEY can make money by investing or lending it. They've got gobs of cash, and grind this challanger into the ground.

Sue the federal reserve!

[psyon1]

I could be mistaken, but all inter-bank check processing is handled by the federal reserve. That would mean that check information is sent either in paper or electronic form to a central location, to be processes, and I would assume they have some sort of reports to keep track of how many checks, and how much money are handled daily. Wouldn't they be in violation of the patent?

Jealous of the patent holder?

[chrome]

You guys are all upset because you havn't filed such a bitchin patent yourselves. Jealousy!

Seriously, these stories are getting boring. Could we have a summary story once a week? The "there is a stupid patent out there and its getting used to hurt businesses" story just isn't news anymore.

Re:object in rear view mirror closer than you thin

[alizard]

The hole they'd be making would be in their own bank accounts. The only currency on Earth which could replace the dollar as a reserve curency is the Euro, and the way things are going, no intervention by non-US interests is required to make this happen. (EUR up 30% agaist the dollar over the last couple of years, for current exchange rates, go to

No, these are honest bets, just stupid ones.

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[back_pages]

And a small company that is allegedly violating patents is supposed to shell out those $100k to do what the PO should have been doing in the fist place?

Why do you think the USPTO should be giving out $100k prior art searches for $2k? Or do you think a patent applicant should be required to shell out $100k to apply for a patent? If so, are you aware of how the pre-American patent systems worked in Europe?

Re:*THIS* right here is the most screwed up part..

[Regnard]

Yeah, in some parts of the world, it's called extortion.

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[back_pages]

Its the USPTO's job to do that and since when has it cost $100,000? Thats a couple of man years work,a ridiculous figure pulled from the air.

A thorough prior art search conducted by a law firm in preparation for an infringement defense will often take over 1000 man-hours of highly skilled labor. The rest of your points demonstrate more of an infamiliarity with the patent system rather than a persuasive argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but a duck is a duck.

Re:/. doesn't like MS FUD but likes anti-patent FU

[mabhatter654]

you miss the point that the electronic processing of this type has been done with checks for nearly 25 years now...mandated by the Federal Clearing System that clears all checks. Ever since checks have had MICR numbers the basics of this patent have been performed... The checks you write almost never were actually recieved by your bank anyway. The actual transaction has been performed by the Clearinghouses for many years now! The only new thing is that the "Check 21" system allows an individual business to perform the same transaction as the clearinghouse. It's such a basic, taken-for-granted technology that they wrote a law to make it "specificallly legal" because the practice was well know for years but not legally allowed. The patent wasn't even novel...it was just a procedure that was not legally allowed... I'm sure the IBM or NCR engineers will step up and squash this in a few days.

This is something so simple and so basic to the functions and laws of the financial systems that it is truely insulting that any patent examiner who would be familiar with financial systems should have laughed this off the desk!

Aren't we our own wost enemies?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems ironic that in a long list of replies to the original posted comment, one cannot find even a single cogent explanation of why this patent might have been allowed. Rather than reading and trying to understand the subtleties of patent law, some have chosen to skim the abstract of this patent, and spend quality time complaining. The irony, in case it hasn't hit you yet, is that slackers (lets call them Americans) are complaining and blaming others for the downturn in the fate of the nation instead of educating themselves and challenging themselves to understand.

This patent describes a a central system for receiving not only transaction data but also an image of the check, etc. The transaction data allows one to search for the corresponding captured image.

Years ago checks were returned to you in the mail. Now most banks just send you a statement and if you want copies of the check they search for the image of the check using a central data repository like the one described in this patent.

It seems obvious at this time. However, when new technology appears, old systems will be replaced and patents will be granted on technology that seems inevitable. When the transistor appeared, would it have been obvious that soon human phone operators would be replaced? Of course. But never-the-less many patents were granted to those who ran with the technology to invent switching system that by today's standards would seem rather simple.

And as for the reasons for including patent rights in the constitution of the USA, it was to encourage publicly disclosed innovation in exchange for a limited time monopoly.

To the many slackers, I ask this question. Without patents on software and related business method patents, how can the little guy have a chance to keep big companies from stealing innovations? Please reply with defensible answers rather than ranting.

Lastly, why do you think China and Europe are against these type of patents? Is it because they are so much more intelligent and their systems of law so much more advanced? Or could it be that they have other reasons not to join the USA, Australia, Japan, and soon Canada. Could it be that our high-minded neighbors know that the future of the USA lies in applying its historically-proven track-record of innovation to the areas of computer software and biotechnology? Might they have an interest in stopping this? hmmmmmmm

Re:Aren't we our own wost enemies?

[Anonymous Coward]

From my quick scan of this long winded ranting pageant, your thoughts seem the most insightful and thought through. Apparently though, its seems many people find it a bit diffcult to actually have to stop and think for a moment. As you eloquently pointed out, many "hi-tech" things like transistors, microprocessors, lasers and the like, now have tons of "obvious" uses, but not so when first innovated. Many inventions, and patents were granted to innovators that took other existing inventions and developed new inventions based upon them. Sometimes it takes other innovators to see the light. Good show!

I will patent the variable "x" and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I intend to patent a new software language. In this process, all reserved words within this language will also be patented. Reserved words such as "for", "do", "exit", "return", and many others. Once I get this patent, I will then sue every company that uses any of these reserved words in any of their "programs". I will also, sue the authors of any other languages that use any of my new languages reserved words.

And I'm willing to not be greedy, I only want a penny per usage.

Actually, I am scared that something like this could actually work!

This could be fun!

[2A]

Forget actually making anything anymore, the patent-sue method has become a full business model on it's own...

wait... can't business models be patented now?! I gotta get me down to the USPTO!!!

Good news!

[RWerp]

Great! The more such stories, the less probable is that Europe will adopt software patents. Once again, we have the USA to show us what not to do.

Copyrights Good, Patents Bad

[MikeKaya]

I have a continuing argument with friends and colleagues where I claim that the world would not be that badly off with patents completely eradicated. I particularly despise business method and software patents, but think about it: why should a mere idea be deemed unique? One of the greatest "ideas" in the history of human civilization was the discovery of Calculus. And it was discovered by two people at around the same time (Leibniz and Newton). Today, it could be patented! (Algorithms are routinely patented). Just because I come up with an idea first doesn't mean that another one of the world's 6 billion humans could not come up with it. Sure, velcro and retractable seatbelts were both great ideas, but who's to say that somebody working on their own couldn't come up with it? Or what if they do, having never heard of the original invention? Why should they be penalized for failing to "patent" their own invention? Compare this with copyrights: What are the odds of two random people writing Beethoven's 5th symphony, note for note? Or two people writing the same 400 page novel, word for word? It's simply impossible. Copyrights really do protect original thought and original works that would not exist by the hand of any other author. Patents by and large protect semi-original ideas that could be discovered independently. Sure, the pharma companies spend billions on R&D and it can be argued that they would lose their incentive if patents went away. But the pharma companies still spend more money on marketing, and let's not forget that the government often pays a sizable chunk of R&D for many diseases (such as AIDS) that the drug companies then make a fortune from. Mike

not required

[ProfBooty]

actually all that is required is to provide enough information to inform one skilled in the art how to make and use the invention