Troll Patents Lists In Databases, Sues Everyone

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A Florida patent troll called Channel Intelligence is suing everyone from Lemonade to Remember the Milk for infringing on patent 6,917,941, which covers storing a wishlist in a database. Amazon and eBay are absent from the list of targets, even though they very likely store users' wishlists in a database. With any luck, perhaps one of the defendants will get to use that precedent PJ found the other day from In re Lintner, which said, '[c]laims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on non-obvious subject matter.'"

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Obviously

[the4thdimension]

Wishlists are an obvious toy... used by everyone from little kids doing their Christmas list, to parents on their way to the grocery store. It only serves to follow that web based users wishing to track a list have it be stored on a database... considering there is no where else to reliably store it.

Re:Obviously

[malefic]

You'll notice they're not suing companies with lots of money who might fight back. I imagine the idea is that smaller companies will just pay up because it's cheaper than fighting it.

Re:Obviously

[sm62704]

Oh hell, I have to call my lawyer. I need to patent writing wish lists on paper with a pencil, another patent for a wish list with blue ink, another for black ink, and crayons... By golly when I get done with my patent trolling I'll be rich!

Drinks for the house!

Re:Obviously

[the4thdimension]

It's likely that one of them will have the money and legal prowess to fight the good fight. Not to mention, it seems like this would be a sure-fire win for anyone willing to fight it. Counter-sue for legal fees anyone?

I almost forgot to mention. My company keeps lists of highly desired features on our future releases in a database... does that count? The vaguery of the whole thing lends itself to ridiculousness.

Re:Obviously

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Or that they can make some precedent to go after the big fish with. If I were bezos' legal counsel, I might suggest funding the defense of one of these guys.

Re:Obviously

[TigerNut]

That's standard procedure straight from the Patent Troll Handbook. You build up your patent's credibility by getting a few helpless companies to roll over, and then you use that as ammunition when you go after the bigger fish.

Re:Obviously

[The Angry Mick]

I imagine the idea is that smaller companies will just pay up because it's cheaper than fighting it.

Either that, or they're shooting for a number of small victories to help buttress the arguments against a future giant with a load of small precedences.

Unfortunately, they are apparently operating on the assumption that these smaller companies exist in a communication free environment, and that they wouldn't dare discuss the case with anyone else in the world. This shows a SCO level of ignorance that alone should be enough to get the entire board of Channel Intelligence fired.

As the article notes, there's a ton of large companies like Amazon that use such wish lists, and it might be in their best interest to sign on to any litigation with an amicus brief in favor of stomping the shit out of Channel Intelligence on principle alone. At the very least, it would send a very strong signal to any other dumbasses contemplating similar moves.

Re:Obviously

[griffjon]

I keep a list of things I want to buy from ThinkGeek in a personal wiki, which itself is stored in a database. am I infringing?

Seriously; I see this as akin to a patent covering "The process of driving a nail into wood using a hammer"

Re:Obviously

[Culture20]

Great going; you just wrote a wish-list of patents, which /. has stored in their DB. You just opened up /. to being sued.

Re:Obviously

[Jesus_666]

I just wonder... Could the small companies pool their resources and contest the patent in one single case, putting the small cases on hold (because the patent is being challenged)?

Re:Obviously

[chris_mahan]

No, that would be patent 5,987,808:

"Method or process of transferring kinetic energy gained by the rotational motion of a striking apparatus composed of a handle affixed to a mass of steel in rectangular shape thought an elliptical transverse cavity, said kinetic energy being applied to an elongated metal cylinder composed of a sharp-angled edge at one end and a flattened, thicker surface at the other hand, for the purpose of causing said metal cylinder to penetrate wood or other material. That the operator of the striking apparatus should fail to strike the elongated metal cylinder does not constitute an exception to this method or process."

Note: It would be sad if I had to explain twice.

Re:Obviously

[BlakeReid]

IAALS (I am a law student), so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, the summary understates the breadth of this patent. It covers not merely wishlists, but any database storing lists. The description deals with wishlists and e-commerce, but the claims cover lists in a broad fashion.

On the upside for the infringement defendants in this case, there is a joint infringement problem with the claims in the client/server architecture. Infringing this patent would effectively require two entities to take action - one on the client, and one on the server. This "joint" requirement precludes the possibility of any actual infringement, and is indicative of a poorly drafted claim. Combined with the likelihood that the patent will be invalidated as anticipated or obvious in view of all the prior art out there, it's highly unlikely an infringement judgment will ever go through. However, the defendants are likely to settle to avoid the cost of litigation - classic patent troll strategy.

Re:Obviously

[eyrieowl]

what's sad is that the system is so fscked up that i had to go check that patent number...because it's entirely plausible to me that our glorious patent office would actually pass through a patent like that....

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is space in the legal representation market for a law firm that defends obviously baseless cases like this in exchange for the opportunity to sue for legal fees.

The defendant would never gain, but they would never have to pay legal fees either. Lawyers like it, patent trolls hate it, and it helps out the small online businessman.

Any thoughts?

Re:Obviously

[scipiodog]

It's likely that one of them will have the money and legal prowess to fight the good fight. Not to mention, it seems like this would be a sure-fire win for anyone willing to fight it. Counter-sue for legal fees anyone?

I happen to know the CEO and founder of one of the companies they're suing. If they're thinking he'll roll over they are in for a rude awakening. I look forward to the show!

Re:Obviously

[QuietObserver]

I'm posting because your argument deserves a reply. I completely agree with you. I do wonder, however, if Channel Intelligence is just a dummy corporation for one of the large corporations they aren't suing. Or worse, they, like SCO, might be a puppet organization.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, it seems like this would be a sure-fire win for anyone willing to fight it

You seem to have too much trust in the judicial system.

We've been sent a notice by a large American credit card company. The patent is for something that other credit card companies have been doing for a long time. But, they are not going after them. They are going after smaller companies like us.

To fight this patent would cost us about a half-million dollars plus the time spent in court. We can pay them about 100,000/year and keep our business alive. Guess which option a sane businessman would choose?

The legal system in this country is a joke.

Re:Obviously

[oyningen]

It's always cheaper to be rich. This assumes that they can afford the half million and month in court now, which they might not, but are able to afford 100k a year.

Re:Obviously

[WK2]

The "one-click patent" is not value.

Re:Obviously

[Mag7]

It's likely that one of them will have the money and legal prowess to fight the good fight. Not to mention, it seems like this would be a sure-fire win for anyone willing to fight it. Counter-sue for legal fees anyone?

People pull out that chestnut about counter-suing for legal fees, but you never really get the entire cost back.

A relative had to defend against a spurious lawsuit and even after victory came out behind- financially, in lost time, stress, and lost opportunities to pursue other business because they were wasting time on this.

Ultimately, only the very wealthy have the resources/financial stamina for a lawsuit. And ultimately the only people to really win in a lawsuit are the lawyers.

Re:Obviously

[jvkjvk]

I think that the strategy of large corps is to let the patent trolls sue their smaller competitors to oblivion or at least keep them at a competitive disadvantage through having to make royalty payments. Meanwhile, make it known very clearly that your company's legal team will put the troll out of business if they should try to sue.

Re:Obviously

[Randroideka]

I wish all these companies would stop. I have a list of them in a database.

Re:Obviously

[Free_Meson]

On the upside for the infringement defendants in this case, there is a joint infringement problem with the claims in the client/server architecture. Infringing this patent would effectively require two entities to take action - one on the client, and one on the server. This "joint" requirement precludes the possibility of any actual infringement, and is indicative of a poorly drafted claim. Combined with the likelihood that the patent will be invalidated as anticipated or obvious in view of all the prior art out there, it's highly unlikely an infringement judgment will ever go through. However, the defendants are likely to settle to avoid the cost of litigation - classic patent troll strategy.

Claims 2-42 depend on claim 1 containing the phrases:

establishing a management tool on a client computer system, remote from said server computer system, said management tool including said list identifier;

establishing a communications link between said client computer system and said server computer system;

Which may pose such a joint-infringement issue. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, though at first glance there's a strong argument.

The more troubling claims are a bit further in. Independent claim 46 (and claims 47-49 and 57 which depend on it) makes no reference to a client or to communicating over a network -- they describe only the database. Likewise independent claim 58 with its dependent claims (59 & 60) and independent claim 61 with its dependent claims (62 & 63) describe only the database. These claims without the client or communication link limitation present in claim 1 would not be vulnerable to a joint-infringement argument. They're preposterously broad at first glance. Claim 46 may read on any database ever implemented. You'd have to read through the specification to see how the inventor redefined the claim terms to know how broad some of these ridiculous-seeming claims really are.

Re:Obviously

[Fred_A]

To fight this patent would cost us about a half-million dollars plus the time spent in court. We can pay them about 100,000/year and keep our business alive. Guess which option a sane businessman would choose?

Hiring a hitman ?

Grr.

[Rob T Firefly]

Spanging this guy and all other patent trolls like him in the face with a coal shovel is high on my personal wishlist, and Slashdot is now storing that information in their comment database. Sorry Taco!

Re:Grr.

[pembo13]

I say go for soft meat with high nerve density, but also high tolerance to blunt force and lack of nearby vital organs. They are dicks, but don't deserve to die accidentally.

Re:Grr.

[Alpha Whisky]

They are dicks, but don't deserve to die quickly and painlessly.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Grr.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are dicks, but don't deserve to die quickly or painlessly

Fixed that for you

Patent Office

[clampolo]

I'm less worried about the patent troll than the fact that the Patent Office allowed this crap to get through. I think it is time for some people to get fired.

Re:Patent Office

[spud603]

from the comments of TFA:
http://www.peertopatent.org/
A joint project with the USPTO and NYU Law School that tries to public input on pending patents. Interesting and potentially very good idea.

Re:Patent Office

[darkmeridian]

Haha! The average patent examiner would have voluntarily quit by the time you finished the paperwork necessary to fire him. The problem is that we underpay and overwork our examiners. Their supervisors yell at them for taking so long to grant patents. Examiners have a set number of hours to consider each patent application, and when that time is up, they get more applications dumped onto their plates regardless of how the original applications are doing. All the applicants know this, so their attorneys flood the examiner repeatedly until the examiner runs out of time. The incentive is to issue patents and get the applicant and his attorneys out of your hair.

You get what you pay for, and we don't pay a lot to our Patent Office and their examiners. We don't treat them well, either. We ought to pay our examiners more so we get professional career patent examiners, and also hire more examiners so there isn't such a huge rush on them to finish.

It's like my idea about paying more money to the IRS to increase enforcement of current tax laws: you get a lot of bang for the buck on investing on relatively unsexy things.

Re:Patent Office

[darkmeridian]

The patent office paradigm has shifted in the manner you described. The PTO is now run on fees and actually provides money for the rest of the government. Everything you do at the patent office incurs a fee, and they think of the applicant as a customer and not an adverse party. So it used to be "if in doubt, deny" but now it's "if in doubt, grant." That's been horrible for our patent system.

The problem is that applicants will always overreach. Even the inventor of a legitimate breakthrough will try to get more than he should be granted. So the focus has to be on changing the mindset back to issuing good patents, and also giving examiners the incentive and means to do so.

It's not a simple problem. There are many factors that have to be solved, and the nation needs to have this discussion (when more pressing issues such as abortions, gun rings, evolution, stem cell research, and gay marriage are settled).

Quoting PJ.

[khasim]

I know some of you cynics think that there is no hope and that the courts are corrupt or run by nincompoops, but you know I don't agree with you.

The problem is that the patent troll gets to pick the court. Which means that they can slant it any way they want to. From judges that are pro-patents to judges that have no idea what the issue is and don't feel like educating themselves.

There are good judges out there. There are bad judges out there.

The trolls get to choose which ones they want to have their cases decided by.

Re:Quoting PJ.

[nomadic]

According to 28 USC s 1400(b) patent infringement cases can only be brought in districts where the defendant resides, or where infringement took place and where the defendant has a place of business. You can get around that to some extent through a class action, though that has its own drawbacks for a plaintiff. In this case it's not a class action so they've had to bring suit in Delaware, the state of incorporation. I honestly don't think they had any choice in the matter unless they were going to try for class certification (which I'm not sure would even work), or if they were going to file multiple actions across the country.

And what happens if I ...

[jlowery]

1. Wish this wishlist on Slashdot
2. Wish this post is stored in database
3. Wish that troll sees it
4. Wish that troll sues Slashdot
5. Wish that troll wins case
6. Wish that I get credit for my efforts
7. Wish for profit from percentage of settlement

I got it!

[Nerdposeur]

Guys, all we have to do to stop the madness is get the proper patent. Let's see...

"A method for securing profits by describing an idea of sufficient generality and utility that its use is inevitable, then bringing legal claims against the most successful groups to implement it."

PWND!!

Re:I got it!

[91degrees]

Yes, but I can understand that. I don't think it will be valid. It doesn't even contain the word "plurality". Nobody will take you seriously.

Try "A method for the securement of profit and/or profits utilising a plurality of conceptualizations. The first component being said conceptualization, the second part being an idea and/or concept that may or may not be overly general. This is used in conjunction with a third part comprising of a first part of a legal claim and the second part of a plurality of third parties having utilised the as a third part.

I believe someone may still be able to understand that but IANAPL.

Santa!

[Tablizer]

Poor Santa Clause is going to be sued for 1.8 billion infringements.
   

Shopping Wishlist for today...

[Sneakernets]

Milk
Bread
Shitload of stamps
Ground Chuck
Vitamin Water
Carrots
Defense Attorney

And Slashdot can fix it:

[snl2587]

Ok, guys: the critical date is December 28, 2001.

First person to post prior art gets a big pat on the back!

Re:And Slashdot can fix it:

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, Amazon's wishlist thing has been around longer.

Re:And Slashdot can fix it:

[martinw89]

Newegg had this in early December 2001, before the date.

Re:And Slashdot can fix it:

[geogob]

Their claim goes much further than wish lists. At first look at the patent, they claim a very basic method of storing multiple lists (any kind of list) of multiple items.

Probably any database configured prior to 2001 could be given as an example of prior art. Even their claims regarding the structures used, the link between objects and identifiers is nothing new (although not clearly obvious). To me it looks like the natural way any one would build such a database using basic structures.

Oh no better cancel Christmas.

[hyperz69]

Santa Clause is SCREWED!

They're ripping off more than this...

[Anonymous Coward]

posting anonymous for obvious reasons.. My Company uses Channel Intelligence to test the conversion rate on various checkout flows. We pay them $20,000 to test 6 flows on our major site, and if they increase conversion by a few percentage points on one of the flows, they get a $10,000 bonus. We have been working with them for a few months now, and I must say, I could have done this in my sleep.

Now this company has climbed past utter ridiculousness with this patent on "lists in a database". Who are they going to sue next, the publisher of a book on basic database algorithms?

they don't understand

[speedtux]

More likely: Channel Intelligence isnâ(TM)t prepared to litigate against Amazon, who would likely lawyer CI into the ground over this âoepatent.â

CI most likely wants to get bought by Amazon, and then Amazon can sue everybody over this patent; the patent is quite complementary to their "one click" invention.

Re:they don't understand

[locokamil]

patent is quite complementary to their one click "invention."

Fix'd your quoting

Can someone translate the Groklaw reference?

[argent]

What does "[c]laims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter." mean? It almost makes sense, but the term "read on" appears to be legal jargon, because it breaks /brain/lib/english_parser.so for me.

I seem to recall...

[mweather]

Didn't someone patent the business model of being a patent troll?

Establish a test case

[EmbeddedJanitor]

First beat up a little guy just to test your case. Costs should be low.

If you win then you go after the big guys.

Nonobvious Patent Requirement

[Nymz]

If storing data in a database is considered 'nonobvious' and patent worthy, then someone please tell me the 'obvious' method of storing data.

Not like it's a bunch of Einstiens working there

[Layth]

Geeze, it's just some guys at a patent office

November 1999

[edalytical]

November 1999

-- Amazon.com launches its Wishlist service. Countless customers get presents they actually want for the holidays.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=502658&highlight=wishlist

Re:You BASTARDS! SUE me...

[nomadic]

and I have in it a To-Do list, which essentially is a wish-list

No it's not.

Shoot them.

[Just Some Guy]

There has evolved in our society a class of villains who would destroy the republic for love of profit. They are amoral and sociopathic, delighting in the money they steal from its citizens, allowed to thrive by our fatally broken legal system, and in the end relying on the armed strength of the government to confiscate their misgotten gains.

I no longer see a reason why these subpeople should be allowed to walk freely among the citizens of our country. They are guilty of treason by criminal negligence, and have forfeited their right to be considered equals under the law by their utter contempt of the same.

Re:Shoot them.

[DNS-and-BIND]

You know, it's funny, I've been reading a lot about 1930s Germany lately, and what you said describes the German view of Jews to a T. Including the 'seperate them from us' and 'they are no longer human' part. And here it is, modded to +5 Insightful on Slashdot.

Just read TFPatent -- it's that bad

[jeko]

I read the summary and couldn't believe they could patent putting a list in a database.

So I read the patent and that's exactly what they did. The abstract just describes a relational database in incredibly convoluted language. The mind reels.

Well, if they can get away with that, then my new patent is going to make me richer than God. I propose storing and manipulating information by reducing it to a set of states, said states being either "something" or "nothing" I propose these states be represented by two differing digits, "1" or "0".

Now, who's got my check?

Re:First patent!

[ksd1337]

Anonymous Coward has prior art, you know.

Patently Silly

[catdevnull]

Patents are supposed to protect an inventor from others stealing his invention--not his ideas. If you're non-specific about the METHOD by which your "invention" pushes a wish-list to a database (some proprietary programming or a new custom protocol), then you don't have anything to patent.

Unfortunately, the patent office knows only how to patent physical devices and they fail to understand the difference between the broad concept and the actual methodology.

Ignorant backwoods judges and juries don't understand either. That's why trolls love Marshall, TX.

gets paid either way/grant rate has dropped

[ProfBooty]

During prosecution, the PTO gets paid for just about anything the applicant files. That being said, after a patent is granted there are renewal fees.

You would think that examiners would simply allow allow allow, but that hasn't been the case in a while. The patent grant rate has actually dropped in the past few years.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/PatentlyO2006059.jpg

This is inpart due to greater focus on quality, and that allowance of an application is now reviewed multiple times even for primary examiners. In the same time period the backlog has grown as the result of a hiring freeze a couple years ago and fairly high attrition, and perhaps as part of a lower allowance rate.

Re:First patent!

[zapakh]

Patent troll beating up shopkeeper for royalty money: very naughty.
Shopkeeper not paying royalty money: exactly as naughty

Fraud.....

[IHC Navistar]

The so-called "inventors" of this should be locked up for fraud, since they presented themselves as inventors of something that has existed for years, en masse. This is like trying to patent speadsheets 10 years after they began to be used widespread and claim, on a *legal* document, that you created them, and using you claim of having invented it years after they came into existence as a your basis for filing suit.

This action clearly constitutes:

1) Malicious prosecution,
2) Reckless Litigation,
3) Perjury,
4) Fraud,
and
5) Conspiracy to commit fraud.

The shitwit patent clerks that approved this should be fired without pay, forced to pay attorney's fees for every defendent listed, and prohibited from ever holding a government job again.

They should at least be liable for attorney's fees, since this was an exceptionally gross, very likely deliberate, misuse of authority and judgement.

THE IDIOTS RESPONSIBLE:

Primary Examiner: Greta Robinson
Secondary Examiner: Cheryl Lewis .....sigh..... women.

I wonder how many pairs of shoes they got in return for approval.....

Re:First patent!

[bryce4president]

And as long as Santa doesn't store that list in a database his franchise will be safe.