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.
It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system.
It's more likely she'd just give him a car.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Did anyone else read that as : "It would be entertaining to see Oprah get very wide" ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Dr. Phil! Touch me! Feel me!
Oh, it's not that kind of lawsuit? Yawn.
John
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.
This is patent not copyright. Big content would love to see the patent system tightened up. With the possible exception of drug companies and the democrats already hate them.
I don't see fixing the current patent system as requiring getting a different party in power, though that might be a way to fix that.
If tens of thousands of Opraholics call, write and descend on Capitol Hill, that might scare the legislature sh!tless to fix the patent trolling system.
You can't patent content; your post is off-topic, meaningless, and flamebait.
Yes, that would be entertaining -- but most unlikely. The sad truth is, Big Content is to Democrats as Big Oil is to Republicans.
Actually, the pertinent truth is that she is being sued, and if her lawyers are doing their jobs, they've advised her not to say anything publically that would jeapordise her case.
Amazon does book previews as well... does this fall under the "Touch and Feel" patent?
If so, than Harris would be suing about as many people as SCO (at least in terms of high-profile companies).
Hmmm an individual filing a spurious lawsuit against Oprah, Google, and Amazon that has already cost him his job...Nice try.
we saw what you did here.
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 land of too many lawyers without enough viable work to find.
Oh the opportunities that have been missed or shut down for fear of litigious people and the grinning lawyers that represent them.
As true as this is, I will probably be modded a flamer.
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.
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.
Well of course not, I mean the choice in candidates was black and white. :D
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...
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.
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
I think you will find those alignments were just because the republicans were in power. Democrats have the power currently so drug companies will make "allies" with the democrats. Unless for the first time in history ya know the honest politician thing actually happened.
Scott C. Harris looked out his window. It was dark, he saw the change in the air... the streets, which were once full of people going about their daily lives, were now full of protesting people wanting to tare down his doors. The system of product protection which he had faught so hard to uphold, was in tatters. Thousands who had been sued by the actions resulting in his hard work were now at his....
[Click here to purchase this story]
AC below is correct with regard to how I was using them. We aren't disagreeing on the main point.
No, copyright patent and trademark all very different.
...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"?
Isn't she that fat black American with a women's talk show?
Please don't go into the differences between "loose" and "tight" in an Oprah thread.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
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.
I wouldn't be so sure. The democrats are strongly committed to bringing down medical costs. Far and away the easiest target is drug prices.
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."
I really hope you are right. But won't believe it til I see it. I voted straight D this election cycle.
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.
This is friggen bullshit !!!
Every weekend I go to National Bookstore at the shopping mall, and browse through the new releases ... before I buy any book, I'll want to read at least the prologue, introduction OR cover ...
Are you telling me I'm infringing on someones patent if I do the exact same thing online ?
How do these patents get allowed ?
Neither copyrights nor patents are about ideas. I suppose that makes them the same, for suitably small values of same.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Take a few pictures of the item you sell, add them to your auction description and VOILA! Instant patent infringement! These patents are getting more and more absurd by the day, I tells ya. Penny Arcade had it right: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/1/2/
Couldn't movie trailers be considered prior art to nullify this?
Upon first read of the title, I thought the Opera web browser was being sued. I'm much less disappointed now.
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.
Actually, the pertinent truth is that she is being sued, and if her lawyers are doing their jobs, they've advised her not to say anything publically that would jeapordise her case.
Public complaints about patent law ridiculousness, with no details of her own case, shouldn't be an issue. There are plenty of other cases to hold up as examples.
I'm not saying she'll do this, but she certainly could approach it in a way that wouldn't jeopardize her own litigation.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Her lawyer will tell her not to comment on the case, and she will follow that advice. She's not stupid.
That wouldn't prevent her from commenting about the state of patent law in general, and using other cases to make the point. She could also ask her attorneys to vet everything she says on the subject to make sure it won't be a problem.
If she wants to talk about it, the legal situation is an obstacle to be worked around, it's not a showstopper.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
For more than a century, it has been standard practice for publishing companies to receive manuscripts in the form of three sample chapters and an outline of the rest of the work in progress. This was done in whatever media was available. I'm sure by the 90's, there were manuscripts being delivered via email in this format.
So it is an obvious practice to carry this to the consumer. How often do you get samples of food in the grocery store? Sample packets of some skin product in the mail? There is so much "prior art" and the use of the internet is so obvious using this practice. Offering the consumer the opportunity to sample a couple chapters of the book. O'Reilly Press and Amazon have been offering this for years without anyone pouncing them for some patent about this practice.
I'd bet it probably wouldn't take more than a few minutes in court no invalidate this guy's patent claims. (Naturally: IANAL)
Whew! This water sure is cold!
I'm suprised I haven't seen anyone mention the "Touch and Feel" being mentioned in the same title as Oprah. Maybe human brains DO have near-universal filters for some Cthuluesque topics.
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!
169 comments so far and I've read nothing of value so far, if only Groklaw was back we could actually find out something relevant about the case ..
davecb5620@gmail.com
So...umm...a waist is a terrible thing to mind??
Eventually, the case will be over, and win or lose, she'll say plenty about it then. And, being Oprah, plenty of people will listen.
You're right, but if nobody says anything aginst that then people will eventually accept that's how it should be.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Be careful
Support the FairTax
This would only be complete if we referenced the GNU Lawyer Jokes page.
Consider yourself spoken to.
go back to 4chan, or at least get off of slashdot
and ask for her position on that ?
Not sure if you're serious, or if this is the new type of, "Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those [fill in the blank]?" ... but seriously, PJ is taking a well deserved rest, after finally coming to the conclusion that the SCO train-wreck has pretty much come to an end. (They lost, but are now trying to appeal. Go figure...)
Groklaw has covered IP issues in the past, but I don't think this one has hit their radar yet (mostly because the radar is sort of turned off.)
Your Servant, B. Baggins