Slashdot Mirror
More Stupid Patent Tricks
CyberLeader writes "Apparently CDNow has patented the ability to create a custom CD over the Web." Insert appropriate sarcastic comment here. And I've actually patented respiration, so if everyone could send me a small royalty fee whenever they breathe, that'd be great.
OK OK OK, Thats it I give up.
I'm going to patent "A method of patenting something completely obvious in an attempt to gain a monopoly on a nich Internet market"
Yeah, thats the ticket!
Fish! LipHo
Does anyone else think that it would be better either to make a patent section on Slashdot, or start a seperate protest website for this stuff?
It seems like the same stuff gets rehashed on a daily basis with this patent stuff, along with 'i've patented pooping, everyone has to let me watch them poop' posts.
Cuz it's hard to write out a check and mail it otherwise. I'd be much obliged.
--
Infuriate left and right
Apparently CDNow believes that it is impossible for them to make money by delivering goods and services without a legally-backed monopoly on their business model.
The patent system is being used to call "dibs" on specific markets.
Eventually, there will have to be a test case, I imagine. Is there any precedent cases for patents on business models?
So does this patent apply in the UK too? Has all our work and investment been totally wasted?
http://www.patents.ibm.com/detai ls?pn=US05930768__
The only way to find anything distressful about CDNow's patent is by misunderstanding patent law. CDNow doesn't have a patent on "any" method of creating CD's over the internet, only on "its [particular] process of creating custom CDs on the World Wide Web." [quote from linked article]That's the nature of how patents work.
I assume that creating a usable process by which custom CD's can be created over the Web is a fairly difficult accomplishment. CDNow, assuming their process satisfies the requirements (among which I believe is a requirement that it not be trivial), is certainly deserving of a patent. But everyone should note that THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN CREATE CUSTOM CD'S OVER THE WEB WITHOUT INFRINGING CDNOW'S PATENT. All it means is that nobody can use the process that CDNow has developed. There are sure to be lots of different ways to create custom CD's, aren't there?
(I am a laywer, albeit not one well-versed in patent law. It doesn't take much knowledge of the law, though, to realize that if people are getting upset just because CDNow got a patent on creating custom CD's over the web, then they likely don't understand even the basics of how patent law works.)
The patent for making a customized audio CDs was held by Ergon Technology Associates (U.S. Patent No. 5,592,511) and was issued in January of 1997. In late 1997, this patent was licensed by superSonicBoom, a small start-up in the Washington, DC, area that sold custom CDs over the Net. They were acquired by CDNow in mid 1998, along with the patent license.
It even covers books and paper.
This could be waved as a very big stick
Prior art? you betcha .... how about the batch queue for your local printer for a start :-)
So, how many of you actually looked at the patent before denouncing it and making lame "I patented this" jokes?
See the actual patent for details, and note that it was filed over 3.5 years ago...
This also apparently deals with controlling the manufacturing itself instead of, say, faxing a list of songs you want in what order and having some poor schmo burn it for you. The packaging is included within the process -- it looks like it's meant to be completely automated *and* distributed (think: multiple manufacturing sites).
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Read the thing and judge for yourself -- then, if you actually want to do anything resembling it and make money, consider getting a patent lawyer.
But unless it's a fully automated system that can shunt requests to any appropriate site, and do everything from burn it to package it, it wouldn't seem likely.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Well, I've patented perspiration.
But I don't plan to enforce my patent, so don't sweat it.
[insert sheepish pun-slinger grin here]
Well, we've had an actor for president (and arguably another one right now...), so it's possible -- not that the idea of, say, Mr. Gere determining foreign policy or Ms. Streisand being Speaker o' the House appeals to me in the slightest. But if an entertainer can get that seat...
Mr. Nader is none of the above (unless you consider his occasional rant as entertainment), and may be running for the Green nomination (if only in CA). Mr. Bush should deliver a thank-you note if Nader does actually try...
You've also got the occasional former general (although not for a while; perhaps Eisenhower being the most recent case at the Presidential level)...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The present invention is directed to user defined assembly and manufacture of a product, particularly electronic media, wherein each component of the manufacturing process and system can be remotely located to decentralize the manufacturing process. The invention relies on a communications infrastructure, for example the Internet (based upon the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, TCP/IP), wherein each component of the system is able to pass relevant data to a subsequent component until a complete user defined product is created.
It's mentioned. Not required (only 'preferred'), but it's definitely mentioned.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Is it just me, or does it seem that companies word the patents in such a way as to confuse the patent office? So companies can patent anything (even things that have already been patented) as long as they word it in a new and confusing way?
Strange, isn't it? Especially in light of the last paragraph of the patent, which notes that it isn't restricted to digital media.
Makes one vaguely wonder if they're interested in branching out into other areas ala Amazon.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The more crappy patents we have (IMHO the Y2K Windowing one was the best) the more quickly this mess is either going to get fixed or collapse out of it's own idiocy.
The House and Senate already have a set of reform bills on the table - HR 1907 and S.1798. At least S. 1798 includes a requirement that the GAO examine the quality of business model patents, which of course are starting to multiply like crazy right now. Call or write and complain about software patents too.
How business is now being done is this:
I must patent this idea to prevent others from patenting this 1st, and therefore shutting me out of the market.
No matter how obvious, lame, or whatever the patent may seem, its better to have the un-enforcable patent on your side, than it is to NOT have it there.
Business is all about having an un-level playing field. And the more un-level you can make it, the better for you. Your stockholders demand high returns...and the best way to insure that is to have a government sponsored monopoly. Be it a patent, contract, or other such device.
I guess you can be thankful that to date Microsoft hasn't been the ones filing and getting such patents. I'm betting that Bill is now having them file on almost ANY idea.
And its the abuse of the system that will make it collapse. Be sure to take the time and draft a letter or 2 to your congress-critter about patent abuse....cite these as claims that the system needs to be re-thought.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I actually did a research project on this very question over the summer at an IP law firm. Your first reaction might be to say "no" because you are not in the US.
But... it is patent infringement to import into the United States a product made with a patented process. Also, an argument could be made that part of the process is actually conducted in the US, when the user (a US customer) orders a CD on the Internet.
My conclusion in the memo I wrote was that there is nothing stopping a US court from finding you guilty for patent infringement except diplomacy and good sense.
So, be careful! Read the patent closely, find prior art, etc...
Take a look at this page on the USPTO's own web site. It allows you to order customized set of patents on their site, and they can either be downlaoded onto your machine or sent to you in the mail.
CD-Now's patent seems to cover the general concept of customizing a product via a website, and automating its manufacture and delivery. The key difference they site between their patent and the (dubious) prior art is that it involves a network such as the Internet. The only thing that ties their patent to burning CDs is that that is the "preferred embodiment."
This whole idea of patenting business models is absurd, and needs to stop.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
or start a seperate protest website for this stuff?
The League for Programming Freedom was once upon a time the chief organization that fought software patents. For a time they kind of dissipated, but can now be found at http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/.
The LPF now chiefly appears to be a news site. If there are Slashdotters who have financial, political or legal expertise to throw at this problem, contributing those gifts to LPF would be a wonderful and important thing to do.
I have to start wondering exactly what is up with the American patent office. Do ANY patents get turned down? Or do they just stamp everything and wait for a court battle (which the defendant might not afford) to decide the validity of a patent.
Politically, I am against the whole idea of patents. I believe that thought should be free, period, and that we should model our society with that at the core, not as an afterthough: but that is not even the issue here. Whether you like patents or not, their purpose is fairly clear: to give back to the inventor of something for the disadvantage he has on spending money inventing the thing.
Medical patents are the best example. Companies spend millions of R&D of a new drug, and the only way they can afford to do that is if they can sell it exclusively for a period. But this? How many millions did CDnow spend thinking up the idea that you could put forms on the net where people can order songs that are then burned to cd?
They should have come to me, I would have "consulted" them on it for only around 100K.
Yes, implementing the system might be difficult, but they don't need a patent to protect them from that. Anyone copying their invention would incur the same costs. No one (well, except a bunch of american lawyers) said patents were around to make the inventors of something rich: only to make it fair. Patents are not an "I thought of this first so I should get rich" thing, they are an "I incured great costs developing this, so I should have a chance to regain them" thing.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Agreed. I REALLY want to strangle unisys. Compuserve freely distributes the format and makes it a standard and then Unisys grabs the patent, but waits until years later to start charging licensing fees. Too bad ie5 and netscape don't fully support png or even animated png.
On a side note, how do I turn off that damn quicktime png viewer?
----------
BEGIN RANT
... excuse me, congresspersons ... will be forced to address the serious problems patents are causing, and with any luck scrap the system altogether.
It is my hope that the absurd patenting of business models, mathematics, and science continues unabated until business, science, and the software industry is brought to a crawl.
Why? Because maybe when it starts making it impossible to do business or science and the resulting financial and technological losses become so obvious to the powers that be that they can no longer ignore it, maybe the cheap whores
The worst thing for everybody would be a situation in which business as usual would be able to continue unabated while innovation outside of Redmond and other centers of corporate America who can afford to swap patent portfolios is completely stifled. We are rapidly moving in this direction -- the only hope to prevent it is to make sure the patenting system does significant damage to the very industries in which the abusers of the system are profiting. Anything that can be done to encourage the system to eviscerate itself should be encouraged.
END RANT
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy