Slashdot Mirror
Apple, Starbucks Sued Over Music Gift Cards
Trintech writes "A Utah couple acting as their own attorneys have filed a lawsuit against Apple and Starbucks over the retailers' recent Song of the Day promotion, which offers Starbucks customers an iTunes gift card for a complimentary, pre-selected song download. In a seven-page formal complaint, James and Marguerite Driessen of Lindon, Utah say they developed in 2000, and were granted a patent in February 2006 for, an Internet merchandising utility dubbed RPOS (retail point of sale). The concept, which forms the heart of the infringement lawsuit, would allow gift cards for pre-defined items that can be sold at a brick-and-mortar store but used online; customers could redeem a card for a dining room set or a DVD, for example."
Same old rubbish. Companies have been giving away free gifts and vouchers for free gifts for years, tacking on "on the internet" doesn't make it a new invention in anyway shape or form.
Yet another patent we can all live without.
.. i got an idea .. lest get a patent in for an office that .. see if it passes .. seeing how dumb .. we got a shot at it .. 8)
The patent office is really more of a nuisance than anything nowadays.
Eh
would examine and grant patents
they are
Around 1995 it was possible to buy starter kits for internet service providers. The kit came with a month or so of access and software which would configure your system to dial the ISP. I gave one to my dad for his birthday. For me, this qualifies as prior art.
And what about AOL CD's. You might have been given it with a magazine. Sounds pretty obvious to me.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Patents suck, but it is slightly amusing to note that Apple is being stung here. The article states that Apple had been asked to licence, they then pulled the item from the USA, and then a year later came back with something similar. Obviously the lawyers thought at the time that the "Utah couple" first offered to licence, that the patent was the real deal, otherwise they would have just ignored them.
Anyway I hope Apple get done, it does appear (if the article is correct) that they knew that the card system infringed on a patent, and yet went used it anyway.
(It isn't that I hate Apple or support patents, it is just that I hate capitalism. Can't you see the connection?)
I wank in the shower.
If more than this story is needed to explain the problems with U.S. patent law in particular and the concept of a patent in general, I'd love to see it.
Let me guess: Darl and his wife found their next big frivolous lawsuit.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
William Pitt
/. puts the year of the quote in too. There are a lot of William Pitt's in history :)
On the 31st March, 1783, Pitt resigned and declared that he was "unconnected with any party whatever". Now out of power, Pitt turned his attention once more to parliamentary reform. On 7th May he proposed a plan that included: (1) checking bribery at elections; (2) disfranchising corrupt constituencies; (3) adding to the number of members for London. His proposals were defeated by 293 to 149. Another bill that he introduced on 2nd June for restricting abuses in public office was passed by the House of Commons but rejected by the House of Lords.
After I googled for it. Lucky
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRpitt.htm
Here's the patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=HY54AAAAEBAJ&dq=7003500
MMORPGs have been selling online services via prepaid cards from brick & mortar stores for a long time, e.g. World of Warcraft, Ragnarok and Priston Tale, to name a few. Another numbskull patent (examiner).
Well technically, it isn't exactly media or merchandise that the MMORPGs were selling (as claimed by the patent), but in terms of prior art, uniqueness and obviousness, the patent shouldn't be valid. Heck, USPTO should employ teens as patent examiners.
How is this different from gift vouchers in general? Is it because the internet is involved? So, can I patent gift vouchers if they are to be redeemed only in Polinesian straw huts? I find it truly incredible that someone thinks she has invented the buy-here-redeem-there scheme; even if the "there" in question is the internet. Of course, it's even more incredible that a patent has been granted upon this.
...while they're at it. Just take a look at their idea of selling music.
And patent it with "using wireless communications" added.
True. You know what else bugs me? This story being tagged "complementary" when the spelling "complimentary" in the summary is completely correct.
to whomever tagged this "complementary," that's incorrect-- it's "complimentary," as in the phrase "with our compliments."
The most frequent argument I see for patents is that they protect the little guy from the big guy. Most of us know that this is not true, and is typical of the sort of academic, only-on-paper models that are so common to professors and think tank policy wonks. In practice, the little guy can easily get wiped away by the patent system.
Let's say that I make a system that does the same thing as one of its many features. I'm a little guy, they're a little guy too. They sue me into oblivion over something that is not a unique idea.
In 1995, I invented a magstrip card sold at all 700 Shoppers Drug Mart convenience stores in Canada. The card was good for a pair of tickets to either a Toronto Raptors or Vancouver Grizzlies game, the 2 new NBA teams we were hired to help launch. In the SDM store was a kiosk that was a Mac with Netscape on a a private TCP/IP network identical to the Internet, but not connected to it, just to its own hosts around Canada. Some of these hosts had the webservers and DBs running the ticket dealing app. Swiping the card unlocked the kiosk, navigating the websites sold the tickets, which when printed deleted credit from the cards.
That app and those cards were precisely the same as these music gift cards, for a product that happened not to be music, but otherwise identical - a trivial difference. So this post constitutes my notification of prior art. Apple and Starbucks can pay me now to use it invalidate these Utahrds' entire patent.
--
make install -not war
I think it's a bad measure to look on the patent system as the big guy versus the little guy. I know that the underdog is popular here but that doesn't mean that it's the original spirit of the law.
IMHO the patent system is in place to ensure that those who take the initiative and the gamble with creating something new are given an opportunity to profit from their works. I don't care if it's Joe Sixpack in his garage or if it's IBM... if you're taking the time and money to create something new you have the right to profit from it or to distribute it as you see fit, even if it's only for a short time.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Though superficially different, this is just an infringement of the patent under a new name, the lawyers argue.
It's been a while since I had to deal with patent law but what I remember is this.
You just have to be different; even in the smallest way. Get past one of the primary claims, not the dependent ones as they don't count, and the patent doesn't hold.
Also, if this were to hold or if it doesn't and/or the previous product infringes, it shouldn't matter if company XYZ simply pulled a product from the shelves that was infringing.
They really should consult an attorney in patent law. If they are one then well you know what they say about representing yourself.
Isn't Lindon, Utah home of SCO? Could this couple be somehow related or connected with the debacle that is SCO?
captcha -- annoyed
Not sure who should be beaten until they are blue this time. ...... ahh firing squad for both!
The patent clerk who granted the patent or the pieces of human scum who applied for it
Isn't this similar to the Webkinz business model as well (www.webkinz.com)? You buy the little animals or cards in a retail store and its get you stuff in their online world?
It's about time that someone prosecute the patent applicants for the most obviously obvious "inventions", along with the USPTO, for violating the RICO act.
So SCO, now these guys? Another couple years of "A Utah [something's] legal crusade..." in the news.
When these guys are done, I got dibs on suing the Jehovah's Witnesses over "methods for recruiting members by sending missionaries in ties door-to-door".
THL phish sticks
Patent trolls trying their luck against a major corporation in the long term is good news IMHO. Doesn't this increase the likelihood of the corps. bribing - err, sorry, "lobbying" - for a change in the patent law?
"it is just that I hate capitalism."
No you don't. You probably don't care for a plutocracy, but capitalism is pretty inherent in human beings.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Somehow, it just feels wrong to hope that a big, faceless, corporation crushes a couple of small inventors into dust with the power of their legal department. But in this case, I have to say "GO GOLIATH! CRUSH THOSE PIPSQUEAKS! WATCH OUT FOR THAT SLING!"
are like money, which you can use to buy anything available at the (online) store. The patent, and the Apple/Starbucks cards are for a specific item, one specific song in this instance.
I got an idea. Apple can trade their "pinch gesture" obvious patent for this "store coupon" obvious patent.
Patent Christmas....
Then the royalties I get every year will allow me to actually afford it for a change...
On a serious note, I can hardly believe that such obvious stuff actually gets awarded a patent; it must happen all the time - in all fields of creative endeavour.
That gives me another idea...
If I patent masturbation, will I get a tax rebate from the government?
Jesus was an invention of the Romans - watch "The Pharmacractic Inquisition" for something more credible...
It's not just that patent trolls can now extort exorbitant amounts of money from innocent companies going about what used to be called "doing things" and now is called "violating patents". It has also put a damper on innovation, and we are seeing American industrialists becoming timid and reluctant to market incrementally improved products, just as our Asian competitors are becoming predominant in nearly every sector through incremental improvement to design and function.
At this rate, we're going to become like the Europeans, muddling along and watching the world pass them by technologically while they debate the latest politically correct labor laws such as whether to go to a 34 hour work week.
If this sounds overly negative, try coming up with an original invention and trying to sift through the existing process patents. It's next to impossible to avoid violating some process patent or other, usually something stupid like "A method for pushing a button that causes a light bulb to flash..." To compound the problem we now have companies practicing defensive patenting (I wonder how long it will be before someone patents defensive patenting) simply to keep these trolls off their back.
I wonder that none of the presidential candidates have addressed this issue. Obama's website pays some lip service:
Unfortunately, Obama does not address the real problem, which is that business process and methods have been made too easily patentable. Hillary's website does not even mention patents as far as I can tell, though to her credit she does talk a lot about increasing basic science research. The word "patent" is not found on John McCain's website. As for Ron Paul, apparently he doesn't know about the issue.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Is that they went on this expedition without an attorney. They are either a) criminal incompetent themselves, or b) unable to find an attorney who was incompetent.
Either way, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside....
Somebody needs to apply for a patent on being a patent troll. Whoever does that would be a multigazillionare over night.
I have nothing compelling to say
And you people let it happen. Mod the truth flamebait/troll. You always do anyway.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Patents, especially computer business method patents, are not that easy to get. Only about 10% of those applied for actually issue. I read the 7003500 patent and most of you don't get it. They got this patent in 2000 and it only issued in 2006. All of that "prior" art is even prior at all. Then you have to actually read the claims. This patent is only for a specific merchandise gift card. None of those other promotional or point system things count. Has anyone ever gone into a Wal-mart or Target or wherever and bought a gift card for a specific item. I don't think so. With those gift cards you can only get the "store value" dollar amount on the gift card. I hear that those cards have a 60% waste (meaning 60% of the money put on the gift card is never used and it goes back to the store or to the credit card company). So, this thing the Utah people patented would be new and useful in applications not related to the computer. You guys think that a product that is a better gift card is lame and the people shouldn't be able to patent it? Apple has a lot of computer related business patents and they protect theirs. Why should they be allowed to just steal a great new idea and make millions without crediting the inventor?
Because that's all the it looks to me... the mere idea of a gift card that is utilized for online activity in cooperation with retail activity.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Uh.. Obvious? Whoever allowed that patent to be awarded needs to be taken out back and shot. They then need to find any possible offspring of said person, take them out back and shoot them as well. When Darwin fails to keep up his end of the bargain, we need to take it into our own hands.
What this article is unaware of is that both James and Marguerite Driessen are attorneys. She is a former Brigham Young University Law School professor and he attended the law school while she was teaching there. With that in mind it is difficult to know precisely what is going on here. She is not licensed to practice law in Utah, although that would have no effect on this pro se case. Either way, it doesn't seem like they know their patent law very well; and she didn't teach patent or intellectual property law at BYU. http://driessenlaw.com/
We willna be fooled again!
Anyone else find it just a tad funny that such a little town as Lindon breeds both these guys and The SCO Group? Must be something the water...
We should add them to the database if they order the "Arabian dark roast".
Thank god the holders of these retarded patents are suing.
That way there's plenty of on-the-record examples to illustrate how fucked up the patent system when the big "let's bulldoze the patent system and start over" comes. Not to mention that it adds public support as more and more people see these news items and go "wait... what? surely you can't patent that!"
- I am made of meat.