Perhaps if you read the judge's opinion or any of the briefs, or anything else for that matter, you wouldn't get so agitated and make ridiculous statements. But that would make you one of "those big on law theory" people you so despise.
That being said, the problem here isn't that a competitor cant make an ad saying "I'm cheaper than Geico", because they can provided there is no likelihood of confusion. (i.e. Subway TVs ads currently use both McDonald's and BigMac trademarks legally because there is no confusion that the ads are for McDonalds).
Google's problem is that **they** created a "likelihood of confusion" when sometime types in "GEICO", sees a first link that says "Cheap Insurance", and clicks on it. Users (dumb ones admittedly) might think that the link they are going to goes to GEICO because it is displayed first (because the competitor paid google lots of money) and they clicked on the first/highlighted link.
Its not much different that if I opened a store with "McDonalds is good" on the front (a statement of opinion protected by the first amendment), and then sold people Wendy's when they came inside (thereby deceiving customers). The reason for trademark law is to protect people from being deceived as to the source of the goods (which you would have to read something to find out, and thus be "big on law theory").
The claims of a patent, and not its title or abstract, determine the scope of protection provided. Claim 1 (the broadest) is:
1. A computer-implemented method of providing account-specific information to users of an online store, the method comprising:
providing online access to an electronic catalog of products in which users may navigate to product detail pages that display detailed information about specific products and provide controls for selecting such products for purchase;
maintaining user-specific order histories representing orders placed by users for products in the electronic catalog;
receiving a request from a user for a product detail page of a first product that was previously ordered by the user; and
in response to the request, supplementing the product detail page with at least an indication that the user previously ordered the first product.
So, basically everyone is right and this patent is incredibly broad and covers merely reminding a user that they already ordered something by storing data in a database.
I imagine the only reason this was allowed is that the USPTO could not provide any evidence that this existed before July 6, 2001 because no one would think to document such as a minor feature.
"Oh for the days when you had to have a working prototype to file a patent."
Technically, a working prototype has never been required to receive a patent, even dating back to Jefferson's patent act of 1793. However, the patent act of 1832 (and all subsequent revisions) formally state that no working prototype is required, except in extraordinary circumstances (such as a cold fusion reactor, etc). So, any recent derth in patent quality is not the result of the lack of a prototype requirement.
"Opportunism" to some is an antitrust violation to others. Remember, this isnt a patent/copyright case, this is an antitrust case brought under the Sherman act. The greatness of Go / MS products isnt an issue. Instead, the only issue is if Microsoft entered into a conspiracy with Intel (or others) to restrain trade.
For example, if Go can prove that Intel/Groves refrained from invesnting in Go and in return received some perceived favor (additional cooperation from MS), then there is a Sherman 1 violation. Additionally, due to MS's market power, there is probably a Sherman section 2 violation on these same facts.
Perhaps if you had RFTA, you would have noticed the author supports his conclusion (that innovation is declining) because the number of patents issued per person has DECLINED in the last century.
Perhaps if you had RTFA, you would have noticed the author supports his conclusion (i.e. innovation is declining), because the number of patents filed per person in the US has DECREASED in the last century.
The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to negate/eliminate claim limitations. So DOE would not remove the limitation "FM transmitter" from the claims. What DOE would do, is perhaps render infringing a device with an AM transmitter instead of an FM transmitter [if a AM transmitter is considered equivalent to a FM transmitter]. By law, the lack of an element is never the equivalent of the element.
PodBuddy is free to make a device without a FM transmitter that would not infringe DVForge's patent. A scope of its patent is determiend by its claims and not anything else. The broadest claim of the patent is:
"1. An FM transmitter and power supply/charging assembly electrically coupleable with an MP3 player, said assembly comprising a modular docking unit having a main body portion with a docking cavity therein, wherein the main body portion contains said FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, with coupling means in the docking cavity for connecting the MP3 player with the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, to accommodate FM transmission by said FM transmitter of audio content when played by said MP3 player in the docking cavity of the modular docking unit, and with means for transmitting electrical power through said modular docking unit and said power/charging circuitry therein, for charging of a battery of the MP3 player and/or powering of the MP3 player. "
A device without an FM Transmitter could not infringe this patent because it would not include all claim limitations.
That being said, I cant imagine how the quoted claim is not obvious in view of the prior art as car FM transmitters that charge a device have been around for at least a decade.
Obviously you havent been subject to Netflix's dubious (illegal?) practice of "throttling", whereby they stop sending DVDs to long-term customers because their market strategy is to target new customers who forget to rent movies. I was forced to quit Netflix a year ago [as a 2+ year customer, my average wait time for a movie was 4 months near the end].
The "throttling" process is well documented in the NY Times and elsewhere (http://www.manuelsweb.com/netflixjournal2.htm), by hundreds of cheated customers.
Netflix IS the bad guy, so its bad news for them to merge with their 3rd largest competitor, as only evil (netflix) and evil (blockbuster) are left.
You are somewhat correct regarding the exceptions, here is the actual reg for those who are interested:
37 CFR 201.40 ...the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the following four classes of copyrighted works:
(1) Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of e-mail.
(2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
(4) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.
For reference, here is what is actually covered by the patent [which is incredibly broad]:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
maintaining a plurality of records in an emergency data store, each record comprising emergency data and having type of emergency information associated therewith that classifies the record as corresponding to at least one type of emergency;
providing an emergency page, the emergency page including a plurality of emergency type links, each emergency type link corresponding to a particular type of emergency;
receiving an indication that an emergency type link was actuated, and in response,
accessing the emergency data store to locate at least two records that are each associated with the type of emergency that corresponds to the actuated link;
aggregating the data from each located record into aggregated emergency data; and
providing an emergency sub-page based on the aggregated emergency data.
You are ocrrect that the claims of a patent determine its scope. however, the claim you cited is a dependent claim [the... of claim 1..] so it will include all the limitations of claim 1. Thus, to infringe, a program must at a minimum include:
1. In a host that has been connected to a network that does not have an IP address server and is not connected with any network having an IP address server, a method for automatically generating an IP address for the host, without another component of the network being required to transmit, to the host over the network, an IP address of said other component, the method comprising the steps of:
without the host having received over the network any IP address of another component of the network, selecting a valid network identifying value as a network identifying portion of the IP address for the host;
without the host having received over the network said any IP address of another component of the network, generating a host identifying portion of the IP address for the host based on information available to the host; and
testing the generated IP address for the host for conflicting usage by another host on the network and determining that no conflicting usage of the generated IP address exists.
A program that doesnt perform each of the above steps, or their equivilent, would not infringe this claim, or any claims that depend therefrom, such as the dependent claim you quoted.
I thought it was interesting that this device was patented (U.S. Patent 6,586,965) in 2003 on an application filed in 2001, so that the core technology isnt really new as the article implies. The patent has a better discussion of the technology actually used than the cited articles.
Here is a link to the patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser ?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,586,965.WKU.&OS=PN/6,586,965&RS =PN/6,586,965
As the Supreme Court has stated many times, inventions are always a combination of known elements. For example, any physical invention is some known combination of atomic elements [5 carbon atoms, 2 oxygen atoms, etc]. Your rationale would end all patents because any invention would just be some new combination of elements (6 carbon atoms, 3 oxygen atoms, etc]. Method patents [like what you have described] are also some combination of known processes.
The patent in question has priority dating back to November 25, 1998, so only references before November 25, 1998 could be used to invalidiate it.
If your reference predates November 25, 1998, you should submit it to the USPTO as a "citation of prior art." It wont cost you anything, and the USPTO wont do anything except stick it in the patent's file wrapper, but if it ever goes to reexam or litigation the reference will be there for use.
Although I know its offical/. policy that everyone should run around in circles yelling its the end of the world everytime a software patent is infringed, this particular dispute is far from over and probably faces 5+ years of appeals before any money changes hands or any technology is changed or restricted.
First, after damages are decided, Sun will move with JNOV (asking the judge to set aside the verdict because there was insufficent evidence to support to verdict). There is probably a 10% probability of this happening in any given case, even more when there is alot of money at risk.
Second, Sun will appeal to the Federal Circuit, which usually overturnes 60% of district court decisions because district courts usually dont know anything about technology and know even less about patent law.
So, IMHO, its too early to start running around in circles over this decision, at least until the Federal Circuit affirms.
You are absolutley correct. The title of the patent in question (U.S. Pat. No. 6,769,989) is "Home video game system with hard disk drive and internet access capability". Claim 1 of the '989 patent, which appears to be the broadest in scope, is:
1. A home video game system for executing video game programs and for generating game play graphics in response to player controller control signals generated by a player operating a player controller for display on a television, said home video game system including a removable memory insertion port for receiving a removable memory storing video game program instructions, comprising:
a game processing system including a main processor, operatively coupled to receive video game instructions from said removable memory when inserted into the removable memory insertion port for executing a video game program, and a graphics coprocessor for processing graphics information under control of said main processor, and being responsive to said player controller control signal for generating game play graphics for display on a television;
communications circuitry, coupled in use to said game processing system and to a user's communications network, for linking said game processing system to the Internet and permitting communication from the player to another party over the Internet;
a writeable mass storage device coupled in use to said game processing system for receiving information downloaded from the Internet; and
cryptographic processing circuitry, coupled to said mass storage device, for decrypting at least some of said information downloaded from the Internet.
This appears to be a somewhat narrow claim (remember: to infringe all elements of the above claim must be present in an acussed device). Although most of the elements seem conventional with the exception of the crytpographic processing circuitry.
I strongly support making patent enforcement mandatory. This idea that you can sit on patents until someone else is making millions on the same idea and then pounce on them is ridiculous. Use it or lose it.
The courts have agreed with you since 1790. Do a google search for the doctrine of laches. Its argued in almost every patent infringment case, often sucessfully.
There was once a requirement that patent applications be accompanied by a working model of the invention
Actually, that's not true. Written description has been considered an appropriate form of enablement since the first patent regulations were created. There was discussion in 1796 about adding the requirement to some of the first statutes, but it was ultimatley turned down because it would have been nearly impossible for inventors outside of New York or DC to file for patents due to obvious transportation concerns.
In certain situations (i.e. a claim to a perpetual motion machine) the patent office can reuqire evidence, such as an example of the inveniton.
In other words, they were shopping for a patent examiner who wasn't watching what his rubber stamp was hitting???
Actually, it was probably the same examiner who issed the two rejections and then allowed the patent.
99% of claims in patent applications are initally rejected. I would say %80 of all patent application have two seperate rejections, and its not uncommon to see up to six rejections, over the course of two or three years, for a single application. Basically, what happens is a patent application is filed, it is rejected, the claims of the application are amended, it is rejected again for a different reason / utilizing different art, it is amended again, and it is rejected again or one or more claims are allowed. This process repeats itself until the applicant gives up.
I hate to always harp on this, but every day the/. editors find a granted patent with a title of XYZ, and say that the patent covers XYZ. It is sad to see people with so much knowledge making basic logical errors when it comes to patents.
In law, the patent title has no effect on the scope of a patent. Instead, the scope of a patent is determined by its claims (read in light of the specification).
In this case, the title of Amazon's patent is "Extraction of bank routing number from information entered by a user ". That doesnt mean that anyone who extracts a bank routing number from information entered by a user infringes the patent. Similarly, I could file a patent with a title of "COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION", and it doesnt mean anyone would be prevented from using a computer program to process information.
The claims determine the scope of a patent. Claim 1 of the Amazon patent is the broadest in scope, and is as follows:
1. A method of acquiring a routing number for a bank associated with a bank account from the information displayed on a check of the account holder, the method comprising:
(a) receiving from a user a character string corresponding to a MICR line on a check of the account holder;
(b) for each of a set of starting digits located within the character string: (i) identifying a contiguous string of digits beginning at the starting digit, and (ii) determining whether the contiguous string of digits satisfies a checksum test associated with bank routing numbers, to identify a contiguous string of digits that corresponds to a candidate bank routing number; and
(c) storing the candidate bank routing number;
whereby the candidate bank routing number is determined without the use of an automated check reader.
To infringe this claim, one would need to complete every element. For instance, if one did not test the inputted string against a checksum test, the claim would not be infringed. Similarly, if one does not identify a "candiate bank", the claim is not infringed. [this is not legal advice, just educational information].
I would bet that most methods utilizing check numbers lack one of the above identified limitations.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if you read the judge's opinion or any of the briefs, or anything else for that matter, you wouldn't get so agitated and make ridiculous statements. But that would make you one of "those big on law theory" people you so despise.
That being said, the problem here isn't that a competitor cant make an ad saying "I'm cheaper than Geico", because they can provided there is no likelihood of confusion. (i.e. Subway TVs ads currently use both McDonald's and BigMac trademarks legally because there is no confusion that the ads are for McDonalds).
Google's problem is that **they** created a "likelihood of confusion" when sometime types in "GEICO", sees a first link that says "Cheap Insurance", and clicks on it. Users (dumb ones admittedly) might think that the link they are going to goes to GEICO because it is displayed first (because the competitor paid google lots of money) and they clicked on the first/highlighted link.
Its not much different that if I opened a store with "McDonalds is good" on the front (a statement of opinion protected by the first amendment), and then sold people Wendy's when they came inside (thereby deceiving customers). The reason for trademark law is to protect people from being deceived as to the source of the goods (which you would have to read something to find out, and thus be "big on law theory").
So, basically everyone is right and this patent is incredibly broad and covers merely reminding a user that they already ordered something by storing data in a database.
I imagine the only reason this was allowed is that the USPTO could not provide any evidence that this existed before July 6, 2001 because no one would think to document such as a minor feature.
Technically, a working prototype has never been required to receive a patent, even dating back to Jefferson's patent act of 1793. However, the patent act of 1832 (and all subsequent revisions) formally state that no working prototype is required, except in extraordinary circumstances (such as a cold fusion reactor, etc). So, any recent derth in patent quality is not the result of the lack of a prototype requirement.
For example, if Go can prove that Intel/Groves refrained from invesnting in Go and in return received some perceived favor (additional cooperation from MS), then there is a Sherman 1 violation. Additionally, due to MS's market power, there is probably a Sherman section 2 violation on these same facts.
Perhaps if you had RFTA, you would have noticed the author supports his conclusion (that innovation is declining) because the number of patents issued per person has DECLINED in the last century.
Perhaps if you had RTFA, you would have noticed the author supports his conclusion (i.e. innovation is declining), because the number of patents filed per person in the US has DECREASED in the last century.
The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to negate/eliminate claim limitations. So DOE would not remove the limitation "FM transmitter" from the claims. What DOE would do, is perhaps render infringing a device with an AM transmitter instead of an FM transmitter [if a AM transmitter is considered equivalent to a FM transmitter]. By law, the lack of an element is never the equivalent of the element.
PodBuddy is free to make a device without a FM transmitter that would not infringe DVForge's patent. A scope of its patent is determiend by its claims and not anything else. The broadest claim of the patent is:
"1. An FM transmitter and power supply/charging assembly electrically coupleable with an MP3 player, said assembly comprising a modular docking unit having a main body portion with a docking cavity therein, wherein the main body portion contains said FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, with coupling means in the docking cavity for connecting the MP3 player with the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, to accommodate FM transmission by said FM transmitter of audio content when played by said MP3 player in the docking cavity of the modular docking unit, and with means for transmitting electrical power through said modular docking unit and said power/charging circuitry therein, for charging of a battery of the MP3 player and/or powering of the MP3 player. "
A device without an FM Transmitter could not infringe this patent because it would not include all claim limitations.
That being said, I cant imagine how the quoted claim is not obvious in view of the prior art as car FM transmitters that charge a device have been around for at least a decade.
Obviously you havent been subject to Netflix's dubious (illegal?) practice of "throttling", whereby they stop sending DVDs to long-term customers because their market strategy is to target new customers who forget to rent movies.
I was forced to quit Netflix a year ago [as a 2+ year customer, my average wait time for a movie was 4 months near the end].
The "throttling" process is well documented in the NY Times and elsewhere (http://www.manuelsweb.com/netflixjournal2.htm), by hundreds of cheated customers.
Netflix IS the bad guy, so its bad news for them to merge with their 3rd largest competitor, as only evil (netflix) and evil (blockbuster) are left.
...the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the following four classes of copyrighted works:
(1) Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of e-mail.37 CFR 201.40
(2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
(4) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.
For reference, here is what is actually covered by the patent [which is incredibly broad]:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
maintaining a plurality of records in an emergency data store, each record comprising emergency data and having type of emergency information associated therewith that classifies the record as corresponding to at least one type of emergency;
providing an emergency page, the emergency page including a plurality of emergency type links, each emergency type link corresponding to a particular type of emergency;
receiving an indication that an emergency type link was actuated, and in response,
accessing the emergency data store to locate at least two records that are each associated with the type of emergency that corresponds to the actuated link;
aggregating the data from each located record into aggregated emergency data; and
providing an emergency sub-page based on the aggregated emergency data.
You are ocrrect that the claims of a patent determine its scope. however, the claim you cited is a dependent claim [the ... of claim 1..] so it will include all the limitations of claim 1. Thus, to infringe, a program must at a minimum include:
1. In a host that has been connected to a network that does not have an IP address server and is not connected with any network having an IP address server, a method for automatically generating an IP address for the host, without another component of the network being required to transmit, to the host over the network, an IP address of said other component, the method comprising the steps of:
without the host having received over the network any IP address of another component of the network, selecting a valid network identifying value as a network identifying portion of the IP address for the host;
without the host having received over the network said any IP address of another component of the network, generating a host identifying portion of the IP address for the host based on information available to the host; and
testing the generated IP address for the host for conflicting usage by another host on the network and determining that no conflicting usage of the generated IP address exists.
A program that doesnt perform each of the above steps, or their equivilent, would not infringe this claim, or any claims that depend therefrom, such as the dependent claim you quoted.
I thought it was interesting that this device was patented (U.S. Patent 6,586,965) in 2003 on an application filed in 2001, so that the core technology isnt really new as the article implies. The patent has a better discussion of the technology actually used than the cited articles.
r ?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,586,965.WKU.&OS=PN/6,586,965&RS =PN/6,586,965
Here is a link to the patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse
Here is a list of all U.S. Microsoft patents issued in the last 10 days, It should save the slashdot editors some time in creating "news" stories:
1 6,823,519 Control object and user interface for controlling networked devices
2 6,823,518 Threading and communication architecture for a graphical user interface
3 6,823,508 Automatic computer program customization based on a user information store
4 6,823,506 Metafile optimization
5 6,823,495 Mapping tool graphical user interface
6 6,823,478 System and method for automating the testing of software processing environment changes
7 6,823,391 Routing client requests to back-end servers
8 6,823,387 System and method for enhancing a server's ability to withstand a "SYN flood" denial of service attack
9 6,823,380 System and method providing continual rate requests
10 6,823,369 Using state information in requests that are transmitted in a distributed network environment
11 6,823,350 Database clean-up system
12 6,823,223 Method and apparatus for providing distributed scene programming of a home automation and control system
13 6,822,664 Browser navigation for devices with a limited input system
14 6,822,653 Methods and system for general skinning via hardware accelerators
15 6,822,650 Formatting object for modifying the visual attributes of visual objects to reflect data values
16 6,820,267 Method and system for remote automation of object oriented applications
17 6,820,256 System and method for whole-system program analysis
18 6,820,218 Persistent stateful component-based applications via automatic recovery
19 6,820,214 Automated system recovery via backup and restoration of system state
20 6,820,150 Method and apparatus for providing quality-of-service delivery facilities over a bus
21 6,820,144 Data format for a streaming information appliance
22 6,820,111 Computer user interface architecture that saves a user's non-linear navigation history and intelligently maintains that history
23 6,820,063 Controlling access to content based on certificates and access predicates
24 6,819,358 Error calibration for digital image sensors and apparatus using the same
25 6,819,345 Managing position and size for a desktop component
However, your reference is not cited on the face of the patent, which means it was not considered during the prosecution of the patent.
If you have a copy of the refernece, you should submit a citation of prior art under 37 CFR 1.501. Here is a link which explains what you can do:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/2200_2205.htm
Or send a copy of your refernece [or its citation] to the people being suid.
As the Supreme Court has stated many times, inventions are always a combination of known elements. For example, any physical invention is some known combination of atomic elements [5 carbon atoms, 2 oxygen atoms, etc]. Your rationale would end all patents because any invention would just be some new combination of elements (6 carbon atoms, 3 oxygen atoms, etc]. Method patents [like what you have described] are also some combination of known processes.
The patent in question has priority going back to November 25, 1998, so any reference would have to exist before then.
If your reference predates November 25, 1998, you should submit it to the USPTO as a "citation of prior art." It wont cost you anything, and the USPTO wont do anything except stick it in the patent's file wrapper, but if it ever goes to reexam or litigation the reference will be there for use.
First, after damages are decided, Sun will move with JNOV (asking the judge to set aside the verdict because there was insufficent evidence to support to verdict). There is probably a 10% probability of this happening in any given case, even more when there is alot of money at risk.
Second, Sun will appeal to the Federal Circuit, which usually overturnes 60% of district court decisions because district courts usually dont know anything about technology and know even less about patent law.
So, IMHO, its too early to start running around in circles over this decision, at least until the Federal Circuit affirms.
You are absolutley correct. The title of the patent in question (U.S. Pat. No. 6,769,989) is "Home video game system with hard disk drive and internet access capability". Claim 1 of the '989 patent, which appears to be the broadest in scope, is:
1. A home video game system for executing video game programs and for generating game play graphics in response to player controller control signals generated by a player operating a player controller for display on a television, said home video game system including a removable memory insertion port for receiving a removable memory storing video game program instructions, comprising:
a game processing system including a main processor, operatively coupled to receive video game instructions from said removable memory when inserted into the removable memory insertion port for executing a video game program, and a graphics coprocessor for processing graphics information under control of said main processor, and being responsive to said player controller control signal for generating game play graphics for display on a television;
communications circuitry, coupled in use to said game processing system and to a user's communications network, for linking said game processing system to the Internet and permitting communication from the player to another party over the Internet;
a writeable mass storage device coupled in use to said game processing system for receiving information downloaded from the Internet; and
cryptographic processing circuitry, coupled to said mass storage device, for decrypting at least some of said information downloaded from the Internet.
This appears to be a somewhat narrow claim (remember: to infringe all elements of the above claim must be present in an acussed device). Although most of the elements seem conventional with the exception of the crytpographic processing circuitry.
The courts have agreed with you since 1790. Do a google search for the doctrine of laches. Its argued in almost every patent infringment case, often sucessfully.
There is. Its called the doctrine of laches. It is asserted in almost every patent infringement lawsuit and is often sucessfull.
Actually, that's not true. Written description has been considered an appropriate form of enablement since the first patent regulations were created. There was discussion in 1796 about adding the requirement to some of the first statutes, but it was ultimatley turned down because it would have been nearly impossible for inventors outside of New York or DC to file for patents due to obvious transportation concerns.
In certain situations (i.e. a claim to a perpetual motion machine) the patent office can reuqire evidence, such as an example of the inveniton.
In other words, they were shopping for a patent examiner who wasn't watching what his rubber stamp was hitting???
Actually, it was probably the same examiner who issed the two rejections and then allowed the patent.
99% of claims in patent applications are initally rejected. I would say %80 of all patent application have two seperate rejections, and its not uncommon to see up to six rejections, over the course of two or three years, for a single application. Basically, what happens is a patent application is filed, it is rejected, the claims of the application are amended, it is rejected again for a different reason / utilizing different art, it is amended again, and it is rejected again or one or more claims are allowed. This process repeats itself until the applicant gives up.
In law, the patent title has no effect on the scope of a patent. Instead, the scope of a patent is determined by its claims (read in light of the specification).
In this case, the title of Amazon's patent is "Extraction of bank routing number from information entered by a user ". That doesnt mean that anyone who extracts a bank routing number from information entered by a user infringes the patent. Similarly, I could file a patent with a title of "COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION", and it doesnt mean anyone would be prevented from using a computer program to process information.
The claims determine the scope of a patent. Claim 1 of the Amazon patent is the broadest in scope, and is as follows:
1. A method of acquiring a routing number for a bank associated with a bank account from the information displayed on a check of the account holder, the method comprising:
(a) receiving from a user a character string corresponding to a MICR line on a check of the account holder;
(b) for each of a set of starting digits located within the character string: (i) identifying a contiguous string of digits beginning at the starting digit, and (ii) determining whether the contiguous string of digits satisfies a checksum test associated with bank routing numbers, to identify a contiguous string of digits that corresponds to a candidate bank routing number; and
(c) storing the candidate bank routing number;
whereby the candidate bank routing number is determined without the use of an automated check reader.
To infringe this claim, one would need to complete every element. For instance, if one did not test the inputted string against a checksum test, the claim would not be infringed. Similarly, if one does not identify a "candiate bank", the claim is not infringed. [this is not legal advice, just educational information].
I would bet that most methods utilizing check numbers lack one of the above identified limitations.