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."

Comments

Its a new invention because its online

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Its a new invention because its online

[Zeinfeld]

XBL subscription and point cards aren't sold at the "point of sale"

No, but top up cards for pay as you go cellular plans have been sold at POS since the mid 90s.

Yet more free prior art consulting...

There are lawyers who have tried to convince me that I can do more for the industry by helping them sink bogus patents than by actually like inventing stuff or writing books on how to stop Internet crime. Unlike some folk here I do accept that software can be patentable, but thats not the problem, the problem is the junk patents that should never have been applied for or granted.

Junk patents devalue genuine ones. They also mean that every few weeks we have another slashdot story where IBM or Microsoft have patented the wheel or such like, almost certainly as a defensive move, but once the patent is granted it can be used for anything.

Re:Its a new invention because its online

[iainl]

Which is doubly confusing, though - I don't regard a downloaded iTunes Store song as a physical item, and I certainly don't see how it materially differs from the (excellent) copy of N+ I downloaded at the weekend from the XBox Live Arcade.

What about S&H Green Stamps as prior art?

[ad454]

How on Earth did this get awarded a patent? Would not S&H Green Stamps qualify as prior art?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&H_Green_Stamps

S&H Green Stamps (also called Green Shield Stamps) were a form of trading stamps popular in the United States between the 1930s and early 1980s. They were a rewards program operated by the Sperry and Hutchinson company (S&H), founded in 1896 by Thomas Sperry and Shelly Hutchinson. During the 1960s, the rewards catalog printed by the company was the largest publication in the United States and the company issued three times as many stamps as the U.S. Postal Service. Customers would receive stamps at the checkout counter of supermarkets, department stores, and gas stations among other retailers, which could be redeemed for products in the catalog.

Re:LMAO

[evanbd]

(It isn't that I hate Apple or support patents, it is just that I hate capitalism. Can't you see the connection?)
--
DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization.

But apparently you're willing to use this advanced technology even though it is the product of something that goes against your principles. How pragmatic of you. How... dare I say it... capitalist? After all, your actions seem to imply that you value your short term personal gain over your principles, and that furthermore you can absolve your conscience with a disclaimer that says the opposite. If that behavior isn't typical of the large Western corporations you claim to despise, I don't know what is...

Re:US Patent 7003500

[CastrTroy]

After reading that (the abstract at least), I would say they patented the entire iTunes and Nintendo virtual console. At least the part where you buy the card at a retail store, in order to make a purchase at the online store.

Re:LMAO

[stranger_to_himself]

But apparently you're willing to use this advanced technology even though it is the product of something that goes against your principles. How pragmatic of you. How... dare I say it... capitalist? After all, your actions seem to imply that you value your short term personal gain over your principles, and that furthermore you can absolve your conscience with a disclaimer that says the opposite. If that behavior isn't typical of the large Western corporations you claim to despise, I don't know what is...

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Just because somebody doesn't approve of a political or economic system, it doesn't make them a hypocrite for using something that was created under (although not necessarily as a consequence of) that system. I might disagree with the current patent system, but that shouldn't stop me using something that was developed using it.

Regarding the second part of your comment, I don't think capitalists have the monopoly on being selfish, shortsighted or even pragmatic.

Re:LMAO

[orzetto]

But apparently you're willing to use this advanced technology even though it is the product of something that goes against your principles.

The modern rocket was a product of the Nazi regime and was applied for terror bombing. The first man into space was a Soviet. That did not stop Kennedy from starting the Apollo program (headed, by the way, by the same guy who was working for the Nazis and built his rockets with Jewish slaves).

There are lots of useful technologies developed by assholes. For instance, there is a great deal of knowledge about how to deal with modern chemical weapons in Iran, because someone sold their enemies lots of chemical weapons. Going back in time, the Interstate system in the US is inspired by Hitler's Autobahn system that Eisenhower saw during the war; the Fischer-Tropsch process (coal to petrol) was used to drive Germany in its last year of war; and I could go on.

Technologies are things, and as such they cannot have an opinion on politics.

Re:LMAO

[alexgieg]

(It isn't that I hate Apple or support patents, it is just that I hate capitalism. Can't you see the connection?)

No, you don't hate capitalism. You hate government interfering on free market, such as through its "patents" system, which wouldn't exist in a system of purely voluntary exchange of goods and services, i.e., in a capitalistic system. Once government dictates and enforces arbitrary rules of exchange, it's not capitalism anymore, it's something else.

Re:Anything goes ..

[Solra Bizna]

In the true spirit of Gödel, I hereby patent patenting patenting patents.

-:sigma.SB

Re:US Patent 7003500

[Heian-794]

Re: US Patent 7003500

Not the point of the article, but... seven million patents in the USA. Seems like just a little while ago they were in the four-millions, but then the "...on the Internet" patent revolution got going.

And kudos to the US for using a simple sequentially-numbered system for the patents instead of an indecipherable code involving numbers, letters, and probably hyphens in between every few of those other symbols.

Let's hope human ingenuity doesn't slacken in the coming years, and that patent number ten million is coming soon.

Re:LMAO

[alexgieg]

Capitalism is an economic system which focuses on the free market.
Communism is an economic system which focuses on central government control.
Socialism is an economic system which focuses on the welfare of the people.

If you prefer it that way, okay with me. After all, according to these categories, the USA has a mix of communism and socialism. My point stands intact. ;)

When someone says they hate Capitalism, they aren't saying they hate the econ 101 definition, they are usually saying they hate a system which promotes antisocial activities which offend their sense of justice, often having some specific example in mind.

Then it's better to attack these specific things rather than do an improper generalization. What is the system that promotes antisocial activities? I'd say it's the patents system. So, attack it, not the other aspects of the equation that have no relation with and neither are guilty of whatever ills caused by the patent system.

Die, business process patents, die!!!

[yog]

We have got to put an end to the practice of patenting "business process" before it chokes the economy to death. I think the vast 90% majority of the populace agrees that it's idiotic to grant patents for simple, stupid things like this. So let's write our congress critters and demand a change to the law.

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:

Reform the Patent System: A system that produces timely, high-quality patents is essential for global competitiveness in the 21st century. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a "gold-plated" patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration.

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.