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

[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

[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

[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

[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 ?

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!!

Santa!

[Tablizer]

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

Re:Grr.

[Alpha Whisky]

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

There, fixed that for you.

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.

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.

Re:they don't understand

[locokamil]

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

Fix'd your quoting

Re:And Slashdot can fix it:

[martinw89]

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

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.

Not like it's a bunch of Einstiens working there

[Layth]

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

Re:First patent!

[ksd1337]

Anonymous Coward has prior art, you know.

Re:First patent!

[zapakh]

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