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.

Comments

Patents on slashdot

[casret]

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.

Re:Patents on slashdot

[SimJockey]

I second that motion. (The patent section bit, not the poop bit.) Patents, copyrights, IP, whatever is a nice cohesive subject a la YRO. And the discussion is getting repetitive.

A decent IP lawyer could make a cottage industry of all the prior art pointed out on /., although I have no idea how much money could be made from this. Just thinking out loud here, what about a distributed legal support model. There are obviously some very knowledgeable individuals commenting on what is wrong with many of the internet related patents presented on /., I wonder if that knowledge could be organized into putting together the documentation necessary for challenging these patents. Taking care of much of the leg work out of an altruistic sense of community might make it possible to fight these fairly cost effectively.

Everyone says something should be done about this, anyone want to take the first step?

Is it ok if I owe ya for a few breaths?

[A nonymous Coward]

Cuz it's hard to write out a check and mail it otherwise. I'd be much obliged.

--

so what's wrong with that

[hsitz]

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.)

Re:so what's wrong with that

[Hobbex]

Like any large computer system that handles orders, production, and shipments, of course it is rather tricky to implement.

But that a system is large and tricky doesn't validate the claim for a patent. Are they doing anything new here? People have been taking orders from "'Frisco, Capetown, Chicago, and Auckland, and minimizing things like production and shipping cost/time" for quite some time now, and usually the systems they have been using to manage this have been large and complicated.

The only new thing about this is that they plugged it to a cdburner, which as the previous post notes, is not that difficult to do. Where exactly is the need for a patent other than an attempt to harass any competition?

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Re:so what's wrong with that

[sporty]

This sorta stems from piracy of idea as well as art. People are making sure what makes them special, that little thing that they know how to do best cannot be copied 1:1. Simply copyright law cannot protect it as well as a patent can. If someone from CDNow makes his own company, he could use the knowledge. With the patent, it is easier to protect him from doing so.

---

This patent doesn't just apply to music .....

[taniwha]

In fact it doesn't mention music anywhere in the claims ..... it doesn't even mention CDs ..... this patent covers any ordering of data of any kind onto media of any kind.

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 :-)

As much as this is a "stupid patent"

[mr]

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.

Is the USPTO infringing on this patent?

[Mr Z]

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
--

Re:League for Programming Freedom

[Ed Avis]

If you live in Europe, you should check out freepatents.org. The LPF site may be mostly news, but in Europe there is stuff happening. Software patents have not been introduced in the EU, but there is a danger that they will be. But it's not too late.

Alternatively, you can buy Alan Cox's USPTO T-shirt at ThinkGeek.