Slashdot Mirror
Oprah Sued For Infringing "Touch and Feel" Patent
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Oprah Winfrey, or to be more precise, Oprah's Book Club, is being sued by the inventor/patent attorney Scott C. Harris for infringing upon his patent for 'Enhancing Touch and Feel on the Internet.' So Oprah's Book Club is now one of many people and entities being sued over this patent because they allow people to view part, but not all, of a book online before purchasing it. Mr. Harris also sued Google Books for infringing upon this patent. He actually was fired from his position as partner at Fish & Richardson for that, because Google is a client of that law firm and they had conflict of interest rules to uphold." It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system.
Update: 01/07 22:03 GMT by KD : The blog author Joe Mullin wrote to point out that the lawsuit was not filed by the inventor, Scott C. Harris, but rather by the shell company Illinois Computer Research, which seems to exist for the purpose of filing lawsuits based on this particular patent.
Update: 01/07 22:03 GMT by KD : The blog author Joe Mullin wrote to point out that the lawsuit was not filed by the inventor, Scott C. Harris, but rather by the shell company Illinois Computer Research, which seems to exist for the purpose of filing lawsuits based on this particular patent.
I've just skimmed the patent. The basic situation is they have the entire book on computer, you can choose any pages to view, but once you've viewed a certain number, it won't let you view any more. There was also a bit of stuff about supplying image and text in different formats/resolutions, and (I think) using keys to scroll around the image of one page.
How do they know that it is you, not someone else asking for more pages? They specifically include the use of cookies, but allow for other methods. There is no mention of (e.g.) using IP addresses, but I expect this would be covered. The interesting problems (How do you know the user isn't deleting the cookies? How do you know whether there are 200 people behind that single IP address?) are not addressed.
IANAL, and I didn't read it carefully, so I might be wrong about some details.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
You have to be careful with regard to "loose" and "tight" w.r.t. the patent system. Patent lawyers tend to view a "loose" patent system as one which allows patents on everything and a "tight" one as one that's very restrictive about what can be patented. People who oppose patents (i.e. any sane programmer or engineer) tend to view a "loose" patent system as one that allows a lot of actual progress to be made - i.e. strongly limits what can be patented, and a "tight" patent system as one that is very restrictive to people who want to just get things done - i.e. allows patents (monopoly grants on doing stuff by definition) on everything.
Thus, both sides were initially calling for a "less restrictive" patent system in the european software patent debate, thoroughly confusing politicians - the pro-software-patent patent lawyers and corporate types were talking about a patent system that allowed them to patent more stuff i.e. was less restrictive about what can be patented, and the anti-software-patent software writers and such were talking about a patent system that was less restrictive to people who write software due to not allowing software patents.
He may actually have a case.
It is theoretically possible that it is a good case even outside his own head.
It is possible still that he may win and status-quo be affirmed.
Oprah, Sony and Google are all powerful but they also all depend on IP laws themselves.
Amen. When Oprah goes for blood, she goes straight for the jugular.
I remember when she read Elie Wiesel's book Night... she did a huge show on it, went to Germany and toured the concentration camps, talked with the author, and really did her best to show exactly the face of evil.
I hope she tries to show the face of corruption and incompetence in the patent system. If anyone in America has the audience and the skills to effectively portray this to the public, it'd be Oprah.
Consider yourself spoken to.
Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.
How come i needed to google to find out who this "Oprah" is?
I guess you aren't american, then. Oprah is a big name there, I think... For me she is pretty much known only of her previously showing great understanding of the internet.
Only in USA would someone call a talk show host with rather specific target audience (middle aged lower middle-class women) to be one of the most influential women on planet and putting her on the same lists as people like Angela Merkel.
An interesting workaround for companies in that situation we all know it the USian patent system is broken and hopefully will get rebuilt sensibly in the near future, the patent in question is so broad it should never have been granted.
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
The ONLY accurate statement you can make is that all facts were once theories.
Nuh uh.
Facts can be suggested by hypotheses, but they do not become facts until they fit the following definition: a fact is an empirically evident observation that is repeatable and reproducible.
A theory is a model based on facts, restricted to a well-defined problem domain, that generates testable predictions.
A theory is a model, a model that exists only in our understanding. The only way in which this model is tied to the real world, outside of human consciousness, is by its foundation on facts...so fact and theory are distinct by definition. Read this for more.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
USian is accurate. American is not. America is a large continent that includes countries like Canada and Mexico.
Incorrect. The continent of North America includes Canada and Mexico. America is ... well, America. Says so right in the name: The United States of America. So yes, America it is. I rather imagine you're not from the U.S.: if so, who do you think you are attempting to define the proper appellation for us? That would be like me insisting that people from France are Francians. Now, that might make sense on the surface, but as it happens they prefer to be called French. Who am I to say otherwise?
Furthermore, I guarantee you that Canadians do not consider themselves Americans (although they are certainly North Americans.) Don't believe me? Ask one.
Now, I'm not entirely sure about our friends from the South, who seem to have a rather schizoid view of citizenship these days. But that's a conversation for another time.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.