Darin Stevens couldn't be prouder of the accomplishment. Every marketer around the world just wrenched his fist upon reading this news - darn it, WE wanted to be the first logo seen in space!
These cases are all about the claims, how they are applied and possible work-arounds. Of what I can see, there are two patents at stake here.
For patent US 7,024,381: 44. A computer system for renting movies to customers, comprising:
a computer that is coupled to a digital telecommunications network by a digital telecommunications link;
an electronic digital memory in the computer;
one or more sequences of computer program instructions stored in the electronic digital memory which, when executed, cause the computer to perform the steps of:
providing electronic digital information that causes one or more attributes of movies to be displayed;
establishing, in electronic digital form, from electronic digital information received over the Internet, a movie rental queue associated with a customer comprising an ordered list indicating two or more movies for renting to the customer;
causing to be delivered to the customer up to a specified number of movies based upon the order of the list;
in response to one or more delivery criteria being satisfied, selecting another movie based upon the order of the list and causing the selected movie to be delivered to the customer; and
in response to other electronic digital information received from the customer over the Internet, electronically updating the movie rental queue.
For patent US 6,584,450: 1. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total current number of items provided to the customer does not exceed the specified number.
So, perhaps (not stating this for sure), Blockbuster could continue to have an online business with a movie service and avoid these patents by...
1. Not maintaining or sending movies based on an "ordered list" from customers
2. Not allow customers to change such a preference lists online, but through some other method.
Of the two options, using a method of delivering the movies you prefer when you return previous ones (and not before) could be a possible alternative - no ordered lists or predetermined selection criteria, perhaps just a 'preference list' that you could save on their site that is not an automatic trigger for the next movie. How could this be applied? Perhaps by using text message, email or rss feed to request you to make a choice prior to shipping from that total preference list.
Of course, we're all trained to think about ordered lists (by Netflix), but Blockbuster could market the other option that you choose what movies you want to see, when you want to see them (if its not available, you get X for free). Netflix patented a good way to do it, but not the only way.
While Intellectual Venture isn't playing its cards out yet, there are rumblings that even insiders at the company aren't quite sure yet whether the best path for what they're developing will be through new companies (as start ups) or in selling their portfolios (e.g. Ocean Tomo's recent auction).
It's an interesting challenge really, companies make lots of money from their engineers/technical staffs while those same companies are 'globalizing' their staffs thus releasing the workers from any ties back to those companies. Nathan is really tapping into this as an advantage (for himself, of course).
While playing the patent as a game, and creating useless patents, shouldn't be a goal, I wonder just how long it will be before all of these cool 2.0 collaboration tools and an open, innovative community figures out that there's a way to be a part of the value chain and not just at the end as a consumer.
After beating my head against a wall trying to convince people x10 was the right thing from a cost/value standpoint, I've finally seen a better solution by far than what is currently available. At a recent visit to Sprint/Nextel's office in Northern VA, I got to see a presentation of Motorola's wireless Home Automation solution that has similar benefits as Z-Wave as a pure wireless system while adding what I've seen as solving the biggest stumbling block in the business - the contoller.
Motorola allows its phone to be a controlling interface along with a web-PC interface as well which is a great way to connect to what you want to, when you want, where you want. They could use adding home phones to the system and tapping into a more open system (maybe an x10 converter box?), but frankly, having to mess with lighting remotes, other remotes AND a wireless phone just doesn't make much sense.
PC Mag posted this a while back: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1659672,00.as p and SmartHomeUSA is selling it now for a couple hundred bucks to set up. No good if you've already loaded up on x10 like I have, but a something to think about.
In looking at the description and the claims a bit, this is primarily an extension of their search interface. From the patent's description:
"...a method that provides search results includes receiving a voice search query from a user; deriving one or more recognition hypotheses from the voice search query, each recognition hypothesis being associated with a weight; constructing a weighted boolean query using the recognition hypotheses; providing the weighted boolean query to a search system; and providing results of the search system."
I can see how Google would want to use some form of voice recognition, defined as the 'shortest recognition hypothesis' or a combination of them, to convert it into text thereby using a search engine. Claim 20 could be read to mean a voice command converted to text for a computer readable 'search query' which is bound by the steps in the claim.
They're probably not going to own the idea of computer used voice generated searches, but they're seemingly moving to own voice command into Google searches as an added feature. Only as interesting as the voice recognition behind it...
Couple thoughts as a previous big co. acquirer and with some experience in the patent arena.
As a big company... I've worked for a few Fortune 500 companies that have done extensive acquisitions and as a 'big company' guy, the concept that patents are solely used as a chip for negotiations is a naive statement. When buying the assets of a business, the patents and trademarks are typically the ones that last. Many entrepreneurs (I should know as I am one now) are interested in cashing in and as a result, an acquiring business cannot solely look to relationships or know-how for value, so IP is what's left. If you really have a truly unique idea/product/service, then protecting it should be stupid-easy (and with luck, people will say it was obvious 10 years later because of its streamlined solution:P).
Patent novelty is an issue in need of resolve... I don't believe in quantity over quality as Paul Graham might suggest, but I do believe in quantity to be successful. The process is age old - find needs, solve problems, research for current solutions and protect the best ideas. Getting quality patents should be easier now since more data is available. The USPTO and the market really do have a new set of options to consider (e.g. peer reviews, more collaboration amongst reviewers). Slashdot members can find novelty, or lack thereof, in a topic in less than 30 minutes - why can't the USPTO? With a production-line environment at the PTO, it is hard for patent agents to get a fair chance to research technology and be rewarded for deep tenure in a field. We should avoid thinking of this as 'patent reform', but rather as funding the system approapriately given the systems explosive growth.
In the end, patent ownership, like land ownership, has rights and benefits that shouldn't be reduced to a simplistic version of cold war analogies of large companies determining our fates. The patent system should level the playing field and give small guys and individuals a chance to have rights. BTW, if we should ever be worried about the small guy, now is the time. Individual inventors' patent issuance has decreased every year since 1999 - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/i nv_utl.htm
the total universe they portend to be projecting to. So are they going to 'sample' data from the peer-to-peer networks as well as collect from the big boys and when they're done with their sample, what is the total project going to extrapolate to?
From their site: BigChampagne collects a great deal of information about media consumption both online and offline through our partners. We also employ our own patent-pending systems for observing peer-to-peer ("P2P") file sharing and searching.
This info is great for momentum tracking and marketers may find this valuable, but I'd caution on expectations that they can project to the total population.
This also has the chance to become DoubleClick 2.0.
csorice7
I have a bit of experience on researching this stuff. As a typical rule, we first look at a patent's abstract and then the independent claims and if there is any funky language, we refer to the detailed description to understand any phrases or key words they use for the claim language to better understand context.
On the '176 patent, there's a number of independent claims highlight 'a plurality of markets', but #16 is interesting. Claim 16 is: 16. A computer-implemented method of searching for an item in a plurality of independently operated electronic auctions interconnected by a computer network, each electronic auction having an associated data repository, the method comprising:
receiving input identifying an item; and
instructing a software search agent to search for the item on the computer network in the respective data repositories of one or more of the electronic auctions.
I'd say that at first blush, this is an interesting claim. OK, so on to obviousness - the wayback machine shows ebay back to 1997 (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ebay.com) and this patent has priority back to mid-1995.
Makes me say hmmmm, it's gonna be an interesting fight.
I lived in OH, went to Miami University and for any of you that are/were locals, this station represents independent radio. Sure, there are others nationally, but this one is hard to match in its variety, its zest for new artists and the unique way they can pull in bands for sets, interviews, etc.
Is any radio/media venue worth $120 a year? Boy, WOXY's two streaming stations v. XM and Sirius at ~$15/month is a tough match up. HBO at ~$10/month is also a tough pricing comparable. With Oprah getting $55mm, why can't they just partner up with a sattelite provider for who they are? Howard Stern sure did. In the end, I've subscribed for one reason - I've learned more from this station about new artists than anywhere else. Who can put a price on knowledge and credibility?
Slashdot Mirror
Darin Stevens couldn't be prouder of the accomplishment. Every marketer around the world just wrenched his fist upon reading this news - darn it, WE wanted to be the first logo seen in space!
OK Not really.
Nothing attracts a crowd, well, like a crowd.
These cases are all about the claims, how they are applied and possible work-arounds. Of what I can see, there are two patents at stake here.
For patent US 7,024,381:
44. A computer system for renting movies to customers, comprising:
a computer that is coupled to a digital telecommunications network by a digital telecommunications link;
an electronic digital memory in the computer;
one or more sequences of computer program instructions stored in the electronic digital memory which, when executed, cause the computer to perform the steps of:
providing electronic digital information that causes one or more attributes of movies to be displayed;
establishing, in electronic digital form, from electronic digital information received over the Internet, a movie rental queue associated with a customer comprising an ordered list indicating two or more movies for renting to the customer;
causing to be delivered to the customer up to a specified number of movies based upon the order of the list;
in response to one or more delivery criteria being satisfied, selecting another movie based upon the order of the list and causing the selected movie to be delivered to the customer; and
in response to other electronic digital information received from the customer over the Internet, electronically updating the movie rental queue.
For patent US 6,584,450:
1. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total current number of items provided to the customer does not exceed the specified number.
So, perhaps (not stating this for sure), Blockbuster could continue to have an online business with a movie service and avoid these patents by...
1. Not maintaining or sending movies based on an "ordered list" from customers
2. Not allow customers to change such a preference lists online, but through some other method.
Of the two options, using a method of delivering the movies you prefer when you return previous ones (and not before) could be a possible alternative - no ordered lists or predetermined selection criteria, perhaps just a 'preference list' that you could save on their site that is not an automatic trigger for the next movie. How could this be applied? Perhaps by using text message, email or rss feed to request you to make a choice prior to shipping from that total preference list.
Of course, we're all trained to think about ordered lists (by Netflix), but Blockbuster could market the other option that you choose what movies you want to see, when you want to see them (if its not available, you get X for free). Netflix patented a good way to do it, but not the only way.
While Intellectual Venture isn't playing its cards out yet, there are rumblings that even insiders at the company aren't quite sure yet whether the best path for what they're developing will be through new companies (as start ups) or in selling their portfolios (e.g. Ocean Tomo's recent auction).
It's an interesting challenge really, companies make lots of money from their engineers/technical staffs while those same companies are 'globalizing' their staffs thus releasing the workers from any ties back to those companies. Nathan is really tapping into this as an advantage (for himself, of course).
While playing the patent as a game, and creating useless patents, shouldn't be a goal, I wonder just how long it will be before all of these cool 2.0 collaboration tools and an open, innovative community figures out that there's a way to be a part of the value chain and not just at the end as a consumer.
(hint, hint...)
After beating my head against a wall trying to convince people x10 was the right thing from a cost/value standpoint, I've finally seen a better solution by far than what is currently available. At a recent visit to Sprint/Nextel's office in Northern VA, I got to see a presentation of Motorola's wireless Home Automation solution that has similar benefits as Z-Wave as a pure wireless system while adding what I've seen as solving the biggest stumbling block in the business - the contoller.
s p and SmartHomeUSA is selling it now for a couple hundred bucks to set up. No good if you've already loaded up on x10 like I have, but a something to think about.
Motorola allows its phone to be a controlling interface along with a web-PC interface as well which is a great way to connect to what you want to, when you want, where you want. They could use adding home phones to the system and tapping into a more open system (maybe an x10 converter box?), but frankly, having to mess with lighting remotes, other remotes AND a wireless phone just doesn't make much sense.
PC Mag posted this a while back: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1659672,00.a
In looking at the description and the claims a bit, this is primarily an extension of their search interface. From the patent's description:
"...a method that provides search results includes receiving a voice search query from a user; deriving one or more recognition hypotheses from the voice search query, each recognition hypothesis being associated with a weight; constructing a weighted boolean query using the recognition hypotheses; providing the weighted boolean query to a search system; and providing results of the search system."
I can see how Google would want to use some form of voice recognition, defined as the 'shortest recognition hypothesis' or a combination of them, to convert it into text thereby using a search engine. Claim 20 could be read to mean a voice command converted to text for a computer readable 'search query' which is bound by the steps in the claim.
They're probably not going to own the idea of computer used voice generated searches, but they're seemingly moving to own voice command into Google searches as an added feature. Only as interesting as the voice recognition behind it...
CSorice
Couple thoughts as a previous big co. acquirer and with some experience in the patent arena.
:P).
i nv_utl.htm
As a big company... I've worked for a few Fortune 500 companies that have done extensive acquisitions and as a 'big company' guy, the concept that patents are solely used as a chip for negotiations is a naive statement. When buying the assets of a business, the patents and trademarks are typically the ones that last. Many entrepreneurs (I should know as I am one now) are interested in cashing in and as a result, an acquiring business cannot solely look to relationships or know-how for value, so IP is what's left. If you really have a truly unique idea/product/service, then protecting it should be stupid-easy (and with luck, people will say it was obvious 10 years later because of its streamlined solution
Patent novelty is an issue in need of resolve... I don't believe in quantity over quality as Paul Graham might suggest, but I do believe in quantity to be successful. The process is age old - find needs, solve problems, research for current solutions and protect the best ideas. Getting quality patents should be easier now since more data is available. The USPTO and the market really do have a new set of options to consider (e.g. peer reviews, more collaboration amongst reviewers). Slashdot members can find novelty, or lack thereof, in a topic in less than 30 minutes - why can't the USPTO? With a production-line environment at the PTO, it is hard for patent agents to get a fair chance to research technology and be rewarded for deep tenure in a field. We should avoid thinking of this as 'patent reform', but rather as funding the system approapriately given the systems explosive growth.
In the end, patent ownership, like land ownership, has rights and benefits that shouldn't be reduced to a simplistic version of cold war analogies of large companies determining our fates. The patent system should level the playing field and give small guys and individuals a chance to have rights. BTW, if we should ever be worried about the small guy, now is the time. Individual inventors' patent issuance has decreased every year since 1999 - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/
CSorice
the total universe they portend to be projecting to. So are they going to 'sample' data from the peer-to-peer networks as well as collect from the big boys and when they're done with their sample, what is the total project going to extrapolate to?
From their site: BigChampagne collects a great deal of information about media consumption both online and offline through our partners. We also employ our own patent-pending systems for observing peer-to-peer ("P2P") file sharing and searching.
This info is great for momentum tracking and marketers may find this valuable, but I'd caution on expectations that they can project to the total population.
This also has the chance to become DoubleClick 2.0.
csorice7
In one sense, being 17 is a big benefit. Being a minor and starting up a company, man, that's a solid negotiating chip with a VC!
CSorice7
I have a bit of experience on researching this stuff. As a typical rule, we first look at a patent's abstract and then the independent claims and if there is any funky language, we refer to the detailed description to understand any phrases or key words they use for the claim language to better understand context.
) and this patent has priority back to mid-1995.
On the '176 patent, there's a number of independent claims highlight 'a plurality of markets', but #16 is interesting. Claim 16 is:
16. A computer-implemented method of searching for an item in a plurality of independently operated electronic auctions interconnected by a computer network, each electronic auction having an associated data repository, the method comprising:
receiving input identifying an item; and
instructing a software search agent to search for the item on the computer network in the respective data repositories of one or more of the electronic auctions.
I'd say that at first blush, this is an interesting claim. OK, so on to obviousness - the wayback machine shows ebay back to 1997 (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ebay.com
Makes me say hmmmm, it's gonna be an interesting fight.
I lived in OH, went to Miami University and for any of you that are/were locals, this station represents independent radio. Sure, there are others nationally, but this one is hard to match in its variety, its zest for new artists and the unique way they can pull in bands for sets, interviews, etc. Is any radio/media venue worth $120 a year? Boy, WOXY's two streaming stations v. XM and Sirius at ~$15/month is a tough match up. HBO at ~$10/month is also a tough pricing comparable. With Oprah getting $55mm, why can't they just partner up with a sattelite provider for who they are? Howard Stern sure did. In the end, I've subscribed for one reason - I've learned more from this station about new artists than anywhere else. Who can put a price on knowledge and credibility?