First, let me say that I have read the entire patent -- so you now know that I must be a fool of some sort.
Second, this is a patent *in the area* of E-commerce, but it is definitely not a patent *covering the very concept of E-commerce*. Relax, it is worthless. It is a rather specific thing which they are claiming, and it is not what is typically done in E-commerce.
----> Those who value their time should stop reading here. Those who take malicious pleasure in crapping on the greedy dreams the greater fools may want to read on for a minute. ---->
Third, you might like to crack it yourself, just to show that you can do something that isn't related to binary logic. Here's how:
Go to http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cm d/EP00738446B1
From the page selector, select page 7.
Go to the bottom of it and read claim 1 entirely. Yes, read. Yes, you. Stop whining. You will have to be brave and shift to the next page also.
Notice that as you read it, it is NOT {whatever you are doing in E-commerce} -- if even one key element is missing, it does not apply. (It won't, but you really must read it.) Scratch claim 1.
Pretend that claim 1 is a class object. Notice the many claims which follow that are built upon it via inheritance -- geez yah, you can do that. They are all dog-meat. (Ewww!, aren't you clever!) Scratch claims 2 through 10.
Notice the ones that are not based on claim 1 in any manner. Hmmm... that would be claim 11. Repeat the dissection of claim 11. Notice that as you read it, it is NOT {whatever you are doing in E-commerce}. Scratch claim 11 and its children, claims 12 through 26.
Well, now you can smirk as you think of all the time and moolah these guys wasted. Or can they smirk as they think of all YOUR time that THEY wasted?
Slashdot Mirror
Duuuhh I have dduuuh an IQ of uhhhhh 6. Duuuuhhh I can't figure Duuuuuh stuff out. Duuuhh Who can I uuuhhh sue?
First, let me say that I have read the entire patent -- so you now know that I must be a fool of some sort.
m d/EP00738446B1
Second, this is a patent *in the area* of E-commerce, but it is definitely not a patent *covering the very concept of E-commerce*. Relax, it is worthless. It is a rather specific thing which they are claiming, and it is not what is typically done in E-commerce.
---->
Those who value their time should stop reading here. Those who take malicious pleasure in crapping on the greedy dreams the greater fools may want to read on for a minute.
---->
Third, you might like to crack it yourself, just to show that you can do something that isn't related to binary logic. Here's how:
Go to
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.c
From the page selector, select page 7.
Go to the bottom of it and read claim 1 entirely. Yes, read. Yes, you. Stop whining. You will have to be brave and shift to the next page also.
Notice that as you read it, it is NOT {whatever you are doing in E-commerce} -- if even one key element is missing, it does not apply. (It won't, but you really must read it.) Scratch claim 1.
Pretend that claim 1 is a class object. Notice the many claims which follow that are built upon it via inheritance -- geez yah, you can do that. They are all dog-meat. (Ewww!, aren't you clever!) Scratch claims 2 through 10.
Notice the ones that are not based on claim 1 in any manner. Hmmm... that would be claim 11. Repeat the dissection of claim 11. Notice that as you read it, it is NOT {whatever you are doing in E-commerce}. Scratch claim 11 and its children, claims 12 through 26.
Well, now you can smirk as you think of all the time and moolah these guys wasted. Or can they smirk as they think of all YOUR time that THEY wasted?
I salute you, 'me druggees!