Slashdot Mirror


DVD-by-Mail Services Cleared In Patent Troll Case

eldavojohn writes "Media Queue holds the rights to patent 7389243 which is simply a patent on the notification system (like e-mail) to users of changes in the status of their DVD rental queues. Of course, they filed suit in a random place against Netflix, Blockbuster and everyone else sending e-mail updates about DVD-by-Mail services. It was later moved to California and was dismissed last week. In related news on the ailing patent system, the USPTO unveiled a new plan to reduce backlog in its system by offering pending patents special examiner status if the holder abandons another co-pending unexamined application."

53 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Common sense? by X.25 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is incredible that we have laws for everything, but judges are seemingly not allowed to simply use common sense.

    1. Re:Common sense? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Define common sense.

      The problem with USPTO new proposal is probably going to be more patent applications. People are going to submit two, and then cancel the second one, suddenly giving special status to the other one. If you are a patent troll, then it is worth the risk.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Common sense? by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Define common sense.

      That is the whole point. Common sense can not be defined, and it can't be put into laws and regulations.

      Common sense would be judge saying "Get lost" when case like this even comes to the court.

    3. Re:Common sense? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you RTFA, it appears they are only applying this to outstanding patent applications filed before October 1, 2009.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    4. Re:Common sense? by Joutsa · · Score: 1

      Allowing judges to use common sense is not really different from allowing them make arbitrary decisions based on their gut feeling, prejudice, bribes, etc.

    5. Re:Common sense? by cmiller173 · · Score: 4, Funny

      RTFA? Thats just crazy talk!

    6. Re:Common sense? by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      Of course you missed the next part, refile the patent that was pulled, perhaps with a minor change.

    7. Re:Common sense? by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      What makes you think having the "special status" is going to be any better then regular status? This is the patent office we are talking about.

    8. Re:Common sense? by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 2, Informative

      The legal system constrains judges by design.

      If you give them too much leeway they might abuse it, not enough leeway and they are forced to do nonsensical things (insert favorite mandatory minimum story here).

      The legal system has been trying to find the right balance for a long time, the system we have in English speaking countries is a bastardized mongrel that has been evolving since the Norman Conquest.

    9. Re:Common sense? by Thansal · · Score: 1

      FTFA.
      Use 2 seconds of this "common sense" that every one is complaining that no one uses.

      Yes, the patent system is horrible currently, that doesn't mean that the people in charge are TOTAL morons and wouldn't think of this idea.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    10. Re:Common sense? by Manax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are being simplistic. Just because you don't understand any of the details behind a case, doesn't mean the case is really "obvious".

      It's easy to only have a couple of details of a case, and come to a snap decision, and claim that it's "obvious" and groan about how if only someone would apply "common sense"...

      Reality is often more complicated. Case in point. Woman burns herself with coffee from McD. If you only have that information, maybe you blame the woman, but it turns out there are more details that escape the 7 word summary. Turns out the coffee was kept near boiling, turns out McD corporate policy was to keep it much cooler (but still hot), turns out they had multiple complaints regarding the temperature but ignored them... To be fair, I haven't looked into that case in detail, but it should be clear that it's possible that there is more to the case than the summary.

      And there are plenty of situations where, once the judge hears a complaint, he tells one of the parties to "get lost". If they don't, then perhaps there is something more to it... Oh, and it seems like the judge did exactly that in this case.

      --
      "Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
    11. Re:Common sense? by Main+Gauche · · Score: 1

      True, but ...

      "The procedure is being temporarily implemented and will only be effective until February 28, 2010. Upon review, the Office may extend the procedure in time or may extend the set of applicants that will be able to file for special status under the procedure."

      Just vague enough to allow the possibility of another round of this procedure. It could just mean they retain the option to extend the Feb 28 filing deadline. Or, it could mean that they extend the Oct 1 cutoff, the possibility of which does give incentive for multi-filing. I'm guessing they are intentionally vague, wanting to discourage abuse of this policy, yet keeping their future options open.

    12. Re:Common sense? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      TFA is under copyright, there's no patent on R that I am aware of.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    13. Re:Common sense? by Manax · · Score: 1

      Fine, I won't argue the specifics of that case, but the point is, which I think still stands, is that you don't know whether or not there are more details without investigation. If there are none, then of course one can come to a simple conclusion because there isn't anything else to consider, but if a judge spends time on it... maybe there is more to it that they are at least considering.

      Sometimes the simplest path happens to be correct, but it's more coincidence than good practice...

      --
      "Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
    14. Re:Common sense? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      You can argue specifics of the case, but to me common sense tells me coffee is hot, and you should take care when handling hot liquids. I don't know all the details of the case either, or whether or not it had merit (but my gut tells me getting a burn is not worth millions of dollars unless you can prove that much actual damages) but was merely commenting on the "common sense" angle.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    15. Re:Common sense? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I agree some sort of compensation should have been awarded due to negligence, but millions of dollars? How is that not frivolous? They should have paid her medical bills, cleaning bills, and paid for any work time missed. Justifying millions of dollars for "emotional stress" or however the lawyer defined it is just plain insanity, and a demonstration of a legal system that is not fair.
      The funny thing is, there have been other cases where people have assaulted others with hot liquids, intentionally trying to harm them, and the victim was not awarded millions of dollars in those cases. Why should an accident, that was at least partially the victims fault, be awarded such monetary compensation?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    16. Re:Common sense? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      If the hot coffee isn't melting the styrofoam cup, it's not melting anyone's clothes.

    17. Re:Common sense? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      700 times out of the millions of cups of coffee McDonalds has served over the years is hardly a lot of cases. And even if she wasn't originally gold digging, she ended up being a gold digger. Sorry, but no amount of "stress" caused by getting a second degree burn that you are partially responsible for (McDonalds didn't spill it on her, she spilled it on her) is worth millions of dollars. And like you said, McDonalds would rather settle lawsuits than serve cooler coffee, so really what was the end result of this case? Absolutely zero. One could argue that a huge settlement like this would have to force McDonalds to comply to serving coffee at certain temperatures, but in reality the amount of money they make on selling coffee, they could afford to pay a few of these cases off every year and still be in the black. McDonalds can still serve coffee at whatever temp they want to, and there is no guarantee this will not happen again. The only real result is that a whiner got a big settlement. Justice has been served!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    18. Re:Common sense? by Chees0rz · · Score: 1

      If the hot coffee isn't melting the styrofoam cup, it's not melting anyone's clothes.

      I wear chocolate panties for the ladies.

    19. Re:Common sense? by agrippa_cash · · Score: 1

      The amount was chosen because it was McDonalds coffee sales for a day (or week or something). It wasn't to compensate the woman, but to punish McD for perceived uncivil behavior. Think the Pinto writ small (pint size you might say. Because , see the cups...)

    20. Re:Common sense? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No. I too have researched this, and I’d like to see the research you did.

      From what I saw, it was evident that (a) the coffee was kept dangerously hot, and McDonalds knew this; (b) the reason for the extreme temperature was to make the coffee odour stronger, because coffee drinkers who smell coffee will tend to want some and (c) at the temperature that the coffee was served, it was capable of causing third-degree burns in three seconds.

      If you don’t think that’s dangerously hot, try getting your pants off in under three seconds. Bonus points if you do it while buckled into your vehicle in the drive-through lane.

      Yes, the lady was stupid to put the coffee between her legs and then dump it on herself, but that doesn’t exonerate McDonalds for knowingly serving dangerously hot coffee. Also, she was NOT driving the car, nor was it even in motion when the accident occurred.

      Some relevant citations:

      The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 F [66–71 C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk.[1]

      and,

      During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds’ knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

      McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

      Further, McDonalds’ quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the “holding temperature” of its coffee.

      Plaintiffs’ expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness [3rd degree] burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.[2]

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    21. Re:Common sense? by clone53421 · · Score: 1
      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    22. Re:Common sense? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Skin has the same melting point as polyester?

      PET has a melting point of 260 C, FYI.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    23. Re:Common sense? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair IIRC the coffee was so damned hot it melted the clothes around her crotch and pretty much completely cooked her vulva. That kind of reconstructive surgery ain't cheap, and even after getting it done it is never gonna work like before.

      It would be similar to a company causing a situation where you get your dick obliterated and then having them say "oh well, hey they can make you a new one out of your thigh!" which of course they can, but all those tiny nerve endings simply can't be replicated. So while I usually go for 'stupid you" in most of these cases there was no reason to keep the coffee at boiling temps. Not only is it not good for the customer, but frankly it kills the flavor and makes for some truly shitty coffee.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    24. Re:Common sense? by shentino · · Score: 1

      You would think that smart juries would be a good thing.

      Yet for some reason BOTH sides want them dumb.

      Which just goes to show you the courtroom is just a dignified arena.

    25. Re:Common sense? by shentino · · Score: 1

      I think part of the problem is that to be a judge you have to work your way up through the sharktank of lawyerdom first, where your primary obligation is to go for your client by every trick in the book that isn't unethical or illegal.

      Boom, suddenly you are a custodian of justice itself. Big change. Almost like if the worlds best boxers were suddenly hired as referees at the Golden Gloves.

      Maybe if we hired judges that were trained AS JUDGES instead of career lawyers we might have some sense.

    26. Re:Common sense? by timothyf · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I'd personally think that having judges that know all the tricks is a good thing. Why would they have any reason to favor a lawyer who tried to pull those tricks on them?

    27. Re:Common sense? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I never said it did (skin having same melting point as polyester).

      And 260C is pretty far away from 100C hot coffee. I think you're just reinforcing my point.

    28. Re:Common sense? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      What is your point?

      FYI, liquids at 190 degrees F (the temperature of the coffee) take 2-7 seconds to cause full-depth (3rd degree) skin burns. Good luck getting those clothes off quick enough to avoid painful skin grafts and reconstructive surgery.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  2. Re:special status means more work, not less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This only applies to things filed before October 1st, 2009. RTFA.

  3. Re:special status means more work, not less by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    Yeah it seems like it will only really help the patent writers (who will get to charge double for each patent idea they write up) and, hence, the companies with fat enough wallets to spend twice as much on the patent process. The losers will be anyone trying to get a patent on a budget. Yay, progress!

  4. Re:Idea is not protected under US law. by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

    So the submit a flowchart demonstrating the algorithm as part of the filing.

  5. Re:Random Place? by cmiller173 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since they didn't file in east Texas which is the patent troll mecca any other place would be random.

  6. Re:Idea is not protected under US law. by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

    Don't even think about it. Patent troll Ltd holds a patent on "method and apparatus of generating flowcharts".

  7. Re:special status means more work, not less by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    A very tiny bit of work. Just file the exact same patent twice, then drop the second one. It's not like USPTO Inc. will check, or care, as long as they make more money out of it.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  8. Re:Random Place? by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes infact.

    Unless there is a tech company somewhere in sight of the relevant courthouse, then it is a fantasy juridiction that has no relation to any of the actual parties. If the relevant judge were acting with any sort of maturity he would tell both parties to get lost and find a venue that has some relation to either of them.

    Whereas California or Delaware actually represent places where (tech) companies are incorporated or actually do business.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  9. Re:Random Place? by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Media Queue is an Oklahoma LLC.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  10. Re:Random Place? by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

    Whereas California or Delaware actually represent places where (tech) companies are incorporated or actually do business.

    Blockbuster and Netflix don't do business in Oklahoma? That's news to me.

    --
    "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
  11. Re:Random Place? by DustyShadow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The thing about patent law is almost every district court in the country has personal jurisdiction over the parties. You can be sued anywhere you have normal business activity. General Jurisdiction

  12. Silly patent holder by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone knows that if you're going to try to enforce your ridiculous patent, you don't file suit in your own jurisdiction or the defendants jurisdication. Real patent trolls file in the Eastern District of Texas. Had they done that, they would have gotten their settlement.

    1. Re:Silly patent holder by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that if you're going to try to enforce your ridiculous patent, you don't file suit in your own jurisdiction or the defendants jurisdication. Real patent trolls file in the Eastern District of Texas. Had they done that, they would have gotten their settlement.

      Well, its worth noting that the judge before which the case was being heard up until that same judge granted Netflix's motion for a change of venue to the Northern District of California issued an order that "the Rules of Practice for Patent Cases promulgated by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas shall be employed and adopted for use in this case."

    2. Re:Silly patent holder by abartlett_219 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that if you're going to try to enforce your ridiculous patent, you don't file suit in your own jurisdiction or the defendants jurisdication. Real patent trolls file in the Eastern District of Texas. Had they done that, they would have gotten their settlement.

      Exactly. File in E.D. of Texas, where nothing any tech company would care to touch is (a bunch of woods all within 3 hours of Houston, Dallas, or Shreveport, LA so no real reason for field offices/etc there). While Texas has lots of tech firms in the DFW, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston metros (the major cities of the 3 other court districts), the ED is pretty much a no man's land. If they had to file in say the West District in Austin or the North District in Dallas, they'd be screwed as the pool of jurors won't go along with their silly ideas like they do in Lufkin (their court of choice) or Texarkana. From what I've been reading however, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been smacking the hands of the ED judges a bit more on patent cases, especially on change of venue requests.

  13. Re:Random Place? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    ...except that is rather thin and any mature federal judge should acknowledge it as such.

    They should be less petty and self centered and everyone else should expect better of them.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  14. Re:Random Place? by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

    If you don't want to subject yourself to courts of a state, don't do business within that state.

  15. USPTO is a joke by thelonious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Half of the things they allow as patents are in my opinion common sense applications of technology that should not be limited in it's usage. A patent for updating customers via email notification that DVD order status has changed? Brings to mind Microsoft's patent on displaying images based on file creation date or some other such 'duh' idea. The fact that companies can get these patents just seems utterly ridiculous. Wasn't Amazon at one time in a patent dispute over their 'one click buying' which essentially meant storing your shopping cart and account info via a cookie and giving you a button to click to process an order. The kind of things that if you sat a web developer fresh out of dropping out of college down they would slap together as a solution. And now these obvious things are off limits to people without a patent? I thought obvious technology was not supposed to be patentable? It seems that when talking about IT type patents they use this idea of an average man to determine if it is 'obvious' technology. And when you take an average of people inside and outside the IT business you end up with someone that doesn't even know what a cookie is.

    Am I the only one that thinks it has gotten beyond ridiculous?

    1. Re:USPTO is a joke by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      ...you end up with someone that doesn't even know what a cookie is.

      Nonsense! Everyone knows what a cookie is!

      My favorite is a nice, soft chocolate chip right out of the oven.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  16. Re:Idea is not protected under US law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yea, but we can buy that patent for some shiny beads.

  17. Re:special status means more work, not less by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    This only applies to things filed before October 1st, 2009. RTFA.

    Doesn't matter. If you filed one good patent, you are screwed. You cannot get special treatment. If you filed 100 bad patents, then you now have 50 with special status that will have to get processed before the poor guy that filed his one good one.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  18. Re:Idea is not protected under US law. by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

    Excuse me ???
    Correction: We already bought that patent for some shiny beads
    As an incentive we also got Manhattan island in the deal

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  19. Re:Random Place? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    If the relevant judge were acting with any sort of maturity he would tell both parties to get lost and find a venue that has some relation to either of them.

    Well, I think the mature way would, actually, be to the follow the law and, if one of the parties sought a change of venue to a more appropriate place, grant it. Which, you know, is exactly what the judge did here.

    But apparently, to some people, "maturity" involves unprofessional and capricious conduct.

  20. Re:Random Place? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    The thing about patent law is almost every district court in the country has personal jurisdiction over the parties.

    The question of whether a district court has jurisdiction is different than the question of whether the district is the most appropriate venue.

  21. Re:This is dumb by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and if you hurry now you can submit that dummy application before the 10/1/2009 deadline!

    Oh wait...

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  22. Re:Sounds like USPTO offering special pricing... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    How are you going to go back in time and submit your dummy app before the October 1, 2009 cutoff date though?

    I think there's a flaw in your plan...

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller