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.
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.
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
...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."
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!
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.