Slashdot Mirror
Patent Issued Covering Phone Notifications of Delivery Time and Invoice Quantity
eldavojohn writes: The staggering ingenuity of the U.S. Patent system has again been showcased by the EFF's analysis of recent patents. This week's patent and follow-up patent cover the futuristic innovative idea that when you order something, you can update your order and add additional amounts to your order while it's being processed. But wait, it gets even more innovative! You may one day be able to even to notify when you would like it delivered — on your phone! I know, you're busy wiping all that brain matter off your screen as your head seems to have exploded. Well, it turns out that inventor and patent holder Scott Horstemeyer (aka Eclipse IP, LLC of Delray Beach, FL) found no shortage of targets to go after with his new patents. It appears Tiger Fitness (and every other online retailer) was sending notices to customers about shipments. Did I mention Horstemeyer is a lawyer too? But not just a regular lawyer, a "SUPER lawyer" from the same firm that patented social networking in 2007, sued Uber for using location finding technologies in 2013 and sued Overstock.com as well as a small time shoe seller for using shipping notifications in 2014.
A related article at Vox makes this case: "The primary problem with the patent system is, well, the patent system. The system makes it too easy to get broad, vague patents, and the litigation process is tilted too far toward plaintiffs. But because so many big companies make so much money off of this system, few in Congress are willing to consider broader reforms."
Doesn't the fact that something existed prior to the patent invalidate suing for patent infringement?
Does this conflict with my patent for sending a message to mom asking when supper's ready?
How can you patent something that's already in production and exists?! I'm gonna patent farting!
I heard the acute problem aptly summarized recently: "Patents are supposed to cover inventions, but what they're being issued for is mere engineering."
This is a better metric than the "obviousness test" - what is the essential and genius inspiration that led to a the idea of putting a delivery message in a SMS message? There is none - no patent.
I realize the entire system has evolved into one giant mechanism to enrich entrenched corporate interests, but it's still a good insight into how maybe the system could have been designed less-wrong from the beginning.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"Imaginary property".
nuff said
one for a query system (hey, WTF is this?) and a response system (a thing!). I'll take 15% gladly from a patent troll as my share. I believe my language is broad enough that it covers all communications in any mode.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Wasn't getting a patent pretty hard in the past? I don't get how so many ideas seem to be patentable when they are obvious and vague. These patent lawyers are going to destroy innovation in America. Software patents pretending to be something else, patenting vague ideas, patenting processes that aren't really proprietary, this shit needs to stop. The USPTO needs to get a fucking backbone and preserve the integrity of the free market and we should create a fast track process for patent invalidation. A little guy that gets sued over one of the BS patents issued in the last 25 years should be able to challenge its validity for small fee before the suit can move forward.
Shoes for Crews, which makes skid-proof soles for workers who toil on slippery surfaces, has sold millions of pairs of shoes to workers at McDonald’s, KFC, Taco Bell, P.F. Chang’s, Ruth’s Chris Steak House and other restaurant chains. The company says its secret formula makes the stickiest soles on the market, but Shoes for Crews refuses to file for a patent, fearing the process would reveal valuable clues to rivals
Not really a small shoe store as Subby implied, but rather, a manufacturer and wholesaler which, according to LinkedIn, has between 200-500 employees. So, it's more like "patent troll sues multi-million dollar company", but that doesn't really get as much sympathy.
Beats me, but I wrote a notification service in 2007 using Kannel and that goes back to Oct 2004 date as the reference implementation for WAP 2.0.... Something tells me it's older than that. In fact, IIRC, I wrote an email/SMS sending app back around 2003 that leveraged some commercial service for another job, and they weren't new either, but I can't recall who that was.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
... A security flaw can be a patent violation; because a security flaw could be sufficient to allow a quantity in an order to be modified when the website operator did not intend that to be possible.
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Surprised it has not happened yet. Or, has it?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Something I've rarely heard discussed in any of the patent reform discussions is accountability. It would make total sense to hold the Patent office accountable for the patents they approve. Particularly when they are proven overly broad or killed off by prior art. Sure, you can't do it immediately, but if a patent is invalidated for legal reasons, then there should absolutely be blowback to the patent office that approve the thing in the first place. You would probably have to define some criteria for meeting guidelines on complexity, but at some point you have to hold Joe Blow accountable for rubber stamping a patent like this example that's so blindingly stupid. i.e. he's really bad at his job, get freaking rid of him!
Without proper accountability, I don't think there will ever be meaningful reform.
There have been recent (good) rulings that saying "X, but on a computer" is not a valid patent. I hope that lower courts say that this is just "X, but on a mobile computer" so we don't have to have an explicit ruling also blocking "X, but on a phone".
On another note, I wonder if it would be worth having some crowd-funded anti-patent-troll fund. I know the EFF takes the fight when able, but that's usually after smaller companies/individuals have caved and paid the extortion fee. If there was a fund that would take the patent-holder to court and pay out any ruling against the defendant, should the patent be deemed baseless (any patent, not just electronics), that would hopefully halt the trolls far earlier in the process and dissuade others.
...I slept for 11 months and this is April Fool's Day.
"The wisdom of the Patriarchs was that they *knew* they were fools." --Master Foo
The whole idea of there being an original idea is absurd. There simply is no such thing. Progress is the slow refinement of ideas past. One sharp engineer building upon the ideas of engineers past. And when such an engineer makes an advance, that advance is so obvious that simultaneous invention in different parts of the world is more common than you thought. The same can be said for art. This is coming from someone who has been accused of being "creative" by my parents, teachers, and bosses, without solicitation. See Everything Is a Remix. Abolish the whole system. Invalidate all patents ever granted.
One day I hope to see an article about him suing Amazon and the US Postal system for sending messages on package delivery...