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.
He filed a frivolous law suit against....Oprah
Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.
Of course she will fight it. She will also win. A mouse just picked a fight with a dragon.
Republicans always find a way to blame something on Democrats. Democrats always find a way to blame something on Republicans. Jews kill Arabs, Arabs kill Jews, people sue over patent infringement and lawyers are often assholes. Oprah seems too busy talking about getting fat again (and acting like it's some kind of horrible fate worse than death) to really do much publicizing of anything else. Tonight on Larry King live, he had 3 guests, Oprahs personal trainer, her spiritual adviser and some other guy, talk at length about GASP, OPRAH GETTING FAT. What the hell is wrong with our world, I don't know where to begin anymore.
The big content providers would likely love to see a much looser patent system, then they wouldn't need to pay royalties to the patent holders of e.g. MPEG for all the content they distribute.
Yeah, she's not going to publicize this. It's too technical for the masses, and people have a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude these days, especially with digital media. I'm thinking she sweeps this under the rug, maybe settles out of court.
I really, really hope she doesn't settle this out of court, and does the world a favor by stepping on this rat for everyone to see. It's not like she's on the verge of bankruptcy and can't afford a few dozen high-powered lawyers to launch a counterattack.
This is like hijacking cases. If you give in and pay the money, you'll only encourage more of the same behavior. Send in the Marines / black ops / ninja death squad / pirates of penzance each time it happens, and suddenly it doesn't seem like such a hot idea.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop. Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That.... But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something. So the only specifics he's proposing in the patent are: Using Cookies exactly how browser cookies are supposed to be used. I hope Oprah makes a show out of this, and connects it with the rest of the IP-ocracy. Y'know, invite on some poor moms sued by the RIAA, farmers fucked by GMO-Corps, doctors from 3rd world countries that can't afford the drug mafia's prices...
While she may be a media icon and corporate power in her own right, do you think her handlers are silly enough to let her counter attack this guy?
She makes money from the media, and the media companies like the current patent and copyright laws. No one in that business is going to step forward and say 'the system is broken.' I hope she does, but I don't consider it very likely.
While she may be a media icon and corporate power in her own right, do you think her handlers are silly enough to let her counter attack this guy? She makes money from the media, and the media companies like the current patent and copyright laws. No one in that business is going to step forward and say 'the system is broken.' I hope she does, but I don't consider it very likely.
She's in a position where if she does have "handlers", they probably need her a lot more than she needs them.
Also, saying "this is an abuse of the system" isn't necessarily an admission that the system is broken, only that it is imperfect. She could take the stance that fighting this is equivalent to working within the system to correct an abuse of it and that therefore it's not so broken at all. I'm not saying I personally feel this way, only that this is not necessarily the losing proposition you describe.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Yes it will come down to business -
The question will be - Is it worth the cost of defending this in court or should we settle?
There is also the question of P.R. a court case could dig up something dirty and Oprah has a spotless image.
Throw enough Mud and it sticks !!! (Bad Oprah)
going on past court cases most large companies like to settle out of court. I cant see why this will be any different.
01101011 01101001 01100011 01101011 00100000 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01101111 01110000 01110010 01100001 01101000 00100000 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101
...at least, not initially.
Her lawyer will tell her not to comment on the case, and she will follow that advice. She's not stupid.
However, once the dust is settled it might get more interesting. Some other posters were speculating that "big content" it to Democrats what "big oil" is to Republicans. Perhaps that's true; but this is a patent case we're talking about. Big Content is fueled by copyright, not patents. I don't watch Oprah. Has she tackled pharma companies in the past? That might provide some clue as to whether or not she'll become an advocate for patent reform.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
When will we start fixing the root of the problem: suing and firing moron patent officers that grant amazingly stupid patents, followed by investigations and possible nullifications of the patents they have granted?
Fight the war on two fronts: kill the patent trolls, and also fire the idiots who keep feeding them!
Seriously, I know a lot of bullshit must come across their desks at patent offices, but you would think that they'd have figured out how to assign patents of specific types to specialist patent officers. Larry on floor three does digital patents, Ed on floor two does software patents. Some of these patents look like they've been granted by juries that have been allowed to be brainwashed by RIAA lawyers into thinking that 1 + 1 = patent. Are our patent officers being bribed to grant stupid patents? Are they themselves stupid or incompetent?
I want blood! (Or at least sufficient litigation and layoffs to fix the problem).
Consider yourself spoken to.
Regardless of the underlying ironic humour in the parent post, Kalriath really comes across (to me at least) more as insightful than funny. This case is another prime exemplification of how bizarre the legal situation becomes once any activity takes place via the internet, as if engaging in business online somehow changes everything (beyond just the medium of exchange).
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Stop mixing patents and copyrights together, It's making people confused. They are completely different, and while the media industry sure likes the copyright system, they have nothing to do with patents.
c++;
In this economic depression, it only makes sense for people with no skill or talent to take money from companies that actually provide tangible benefits to society and take part in our economy in exchange for doing no work and little forethought.
The American patent system is designed to reward inventors, even if they never have any intention or desire to make anything of their patent, by ensuring that anyone can patent anything. As a result the secret to success, like in relationships, is finding your perfect match. They're out there somewhere, and they're infringing on a patent that any sane person could come up with over a pint of Guinness and a plate of chips. Go get what you've earned, tiger!
Sure, they maybe getting a reputation of being people who settle out of court.. but imagine if they fought and lost. It would be huge. Can they risk that? Im sure its an important part of their risk management assesment when deciding what to do.
The increased payout for a loss, the increased publicity showing your company losing, breaking the law. Its a huge risk to take, while its easy to think these cases are thin and you cant lose, thats not true, just check the news.
If you really want to get to the "root of the problem", start shooting lawyers. If you follow the money trail, it really seems this entire situation was set up so that there would be MORE lawsuits, in which case, it's the lawyers that benefit in general.
All of american society is being screwed, to the benefit of the ruling class, aka lawyers. I'm sure it was a lawyer who first proposed ridiculous patenting of obvious ideas "on the itarweb", and it's lawyers who vigorously defend idiots who think they are going to get rich because they hold the patent for "breathing air while browsing".
And in the end, the only people making money off this completely screwed up situation are the lawyers.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Yes, under the current patent infrastructure, he might have a legally sound case. And he might even win. This only proves (further) that the current scheme has gone nuts.
I hope some people take note on this, and push towards reforming the patent system. In my book, this would clearly sound as an obvious thing, not even an invention... Still, a patent was granted.
However, I do not hold very high hopes on it. I think this will be silently ignored. If anything, many media people will say, "oh, I didn't know I had to check for my ideas first". They will proceed on checking each of their ideas with costly patent-oriented lawfirms - It is not like they have ideas very often!