What is really insane how the patent can be applied to such diverse purchases as a dining room set or a DVD.
What would happen if you went into a store and bought a gift card used to pay online your flat rate phone service bill? These people patented it.
No, they didn't. This is a bad example because it too easily falls under the "general-purpose gift card" category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX65
What would happen if you went into a store and bought a gift card for a large pizza that you can go to Pizzashack.com and order your pizza for delivery and use the gift card as payment... oh, cant do that,,, it violates their patent.
Correct. The devil is in the details of "pre-defined items." Whether the patent office should granting patents for business or transaction models or "intellectual property" is not the point. They did. And here we are.
What makes this atypical from most patent litigation we hear about is that this couple was proactive in protecting their rights instead of waiting for Apple to get entrenched in their patented business model. Their proactiveness makes Apple look like Leona Helmsley regardless of whether or not such a patent should have been granted in the first place.
Then again, perhaps Apple is purposely flaunting its violation of the patent in order to challenge it (I doubt it though).
Besides how different is this patent from the one Apple filed for the gestures used on their new track pad? Both are patents for a "method of doing something." With that logic, maybe you could get a patent for "a method for wiping one's butt." (Personally I prefer the four finger un-doo rather than the three finger swipe, though I know there are those that undoubtedly prefer the two finger scroll --all with toilet paper, of course.) Then again the patent would probably be denied on grounds of prior art.
This just sounds like a marketing plan. How do you patent a plan?
Worse : there has been previous art. My company ran a campaign similar to the described in the picto back in 2001 with Samsung in Belgium.
When customers purchased a Samsung phone at the POS they got a scratchcard to redeem free ringtones on a WAP site. OK in this case they did not have to pay for it - but the card had a barcode so it could be scanned and it could have a commercial value attached to it.
So if any they copied my "unpatented" idea.
It is my firm belief that 'trivia' patents and/or patents on general ideas should be banned altogether. They are ridiculous, a nuisance and -worst of all- inhibit progress.
Worse : there has been previous art. My company ran a campaign similar to the described in the picto back in 2001 with Samsung in Belgium.
When customers purchased a Samsung phone at the POS they got a scratchcard to redeem free ringtones on a WAP site. OK in this case they did not have to pay for it - but the card had a barcode so it could be scanned and it could have a commercial value attached to it.
So if any they copied my "unpatented" idea.
No, they didn't unless your card allowed them to redeem only one specific ringtone. If there was more than one option, it falls under the "general-purpose gift card" umbrella. Go back an look as what Apple is doing. The cards are only redeemable for a specific song or specific album, not just "any one song," or "any one album." Big difference because it departs from "general-purpose" to "pre-defined."
There should be some law that says you patent it, YOU make something out of it.
That's pretty much how the rest of the world does it. America is one of the very few countries that allow you to patent an idea and it is pure bollocks.
I know here in New Zealand you can't patent an idea without a working prototype and New Zealand sits on some pretty awesome patents (like the process for making carbon fibre which was invented by John Britten for the construction of his Britten motorcycle and was even used in the New Zealand America's Cup yachts).
The very idea of patenting an idea alone is a joke on account of the fact that more than one person can have the exact same idea. Basically it's designed for capitalists who, instead of furthering technology, use the patents solely to gain money by litigation without ever using the idea in the first place.
No, they didn't unless your card allowed them to redeem only one specific ringtone. If there was more than one option, it falls under the "general-purpose gift card" umbrella. Go back an look as what Apple is doing. The cards are only redeemable for a specific song or specific album, not just "any one song," or "any one album." Big difference because it departs from "general-purpose" to "pre-defined."
That is splitting hairs IMHO. Back in those days we could have offered just one particular tone - but we offered a choice of ten. I really fail to see how limiting one's choice by sticking just one face on a pre-paid card is worthy a patent. It's a good marketing idea - but a patent that bogs down the rest own mankind for 50 years (or force them to pay licenses).
Can someone tell me on what cloud/island those people at the USPTO live ?
Basically it's designed for capitalists who, instead of furthering technology, use the patents solely to gain money by litigation without ever using the idea in the first place.
I hope this case bankrupts these morons.
This is very unlikely to happen as more and more private equity and hedge funds are pouring money into patent trolls. Granted - you may loose few cases. But you just need one big winner and you got your phenomenal ROI
The type of things that can be patented really needs to be restricted.
This seems to be a patent for a concept of an action. There's nothing solid about it.
It's like patenting "A device that emits light". Nothing specific, except a diagram of something, emitting light. The lightbulb is invented, and you sue, having done no research of your own, generated no purchasable solution, etc.
Concepts are easy. You could patent every idea in Sci Fi books for the past 50 years. Clearly being able to patent an idea is not right. You should only get a patent if you can demonstrate a working implementation of your idea, and then the patent should be restricted to that implementation's methodology. If you patent the conventional lightbulb, then an LED light shouldn't infringe, because the patent is about "heating a filament until it glows and emits light" and "inside a protective bulb that also houses an atmosphere that will not corrode the filament".
AGREED! There should be some law that says you patent it, YOU make something out of it.
This 'having an idea', getting it patented and expecting Royalties from another that takes the chance of utilizing some form of a patented idea and makes a product that becomes hugely successful needs to be rethought.
I'm not against some small form of compensation but if one uses a patented idea in a product they utilize and it becomes a marketing flop and plumetting sales cause the loss of major bucks invested, does that mean the reverse can happen and can Apple legally go after all these smaller patent holders that might have been used in some form and can Apple ask of them for compensation for their loss? I know I am being absurd, but no more than the most recent suits filed against Apple!
Good idea, and I think the easiest way to achieve that is by putting an expiration date on any patent you file, so if you dont do anything with it, you lose.
Patents have become a monster all by itself. Common logical things shouldn't be allowed to be patented anyway. I hope some organ can overturn this monstrous thing and tune it towards it was made for.
I know here in New Zealand you can't patent an idea without a working prototype ...
And, given the relative simplicity of this patent, it is very likely that they did have a working prototype. Or they were able to demonstrate to the examiner that it would be trivially easy to move from the planning stage to a working implementation, and thus they were able to skip the formal prototyping stage for the purposes of the patent. It doesn't follow, though, that they were then obliged to commercialize the prototype themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
There should be some law that says you patent it, YOU make something out of it.
But the whole reason behind patents is to protect the inventors' investment. The law goes the other way around - YOU invent it, NOBODY ELSE can use it without your permission. Isn't giving permission (or withholding it) a form of "doing something" with it?
What we need is a better standard of what constitutes a patentable idea, and a more accessible means for allowing interested parties to formally request re-examination of patents with dubious merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr
I think the easiest way to achieve that is by putting an expiration date on any patent you file,
Well, the good news is, there is an expiry date on every patent that is granted. The bad news (in this case) is, that expiry date in the US is (IIRC) 20 years.
Does this mean I had a better case against Harley then I was lead to believe
I once sent a proposal to Harley for an "Idea" that we had. Not only did they turn it down, but they went ahead and did it themselves - LESS then 30 days after we contacted them!
I was told by a lawyer, that we couldn't patent an "Idea" and that we didn't have a case against HD, but it sure sounds like we were not told the truth ? or was this lawyer scared of Harley?
In any case, it WILL be a GREAT day in American history, when this kind of Sh**T stops.
Folks ? get a job, and not a Steve Job, a real one. If you want to make easy money, hell sell drugs, just get off everyone elses back. God Damn free loaders!
i am not from the US or familiar with your patent laws, but since reading about the lawsuits to apple for the past year, basically, my understanding is that i can file a patent for all my crazy ideas, and just sit on it until someone does it and then sue them?
You are correct, sir. In America you can sit on your dead ass and make money by suing corporations who will pay you to go away because it's cheaper than going to court. It's the american dream, getting something for nothing.
Whoever allowed this patent, and ones like it, deserve to be kicked to the curb.
In school I was always taught you couldn't patent ideas or concepts, only specific ways of implementing them. If they had come up with an actual working system and Apple used it, they have a lawsuit. But this is nonsense.
And that ridiculous "diagram" with the arrows and $$$ signs. It's degrading to real inventors who put years into the technical drawings of actual working devices.
I can throw some clipart and some arrows together too, maybe I should patent something.
I agree, but it is the patent office that split the hair.
Perhaps this patent was the reason Microsoft has sold empty boxes with only a coupon inside instead of installation disks; distributing the software via RPOS card would have violated this patent--especially since there are so many versions of Windows.
Would AppleInsider be interested in launching a "frivolous apple lawsuits" section on the site? Or how about a "Crazy lawsuits made by people looking for a settlement from Apple" section?
This is very unlikely to happen as more and more private equity and hedge funds are pouring money into patent trolls. Granted - you may loose few cases. But you just need one big winner and you got your phenomenal ROI
Hedge Funds are bleeding heavily right now. Investing in patent lawsuits is even more risky.
Comments
What is really insane how the patent can be applied to such diverse purchases as a dining room set or a DVD.
What would happen if you went into a store and bought a gift card used to pay online your flat rate phone service bill? These people patented it.
No, they didn't. This is a bad example because it too easily falls under the "general-purpose gift card" category.
What would happen if you went into a store and bought a gift card for a large pizza that you can go to Pizzashack.com and order your pizza for delivery and use the gift card as payment... oh, cant do that,,, it violates their patent.
Correct. The devil is in the details of "pre-defined items." Whether the patent office should granting patents for business or transaction models or "intellectual property" is not the point. They did. And here we are.
What makes this atypical from most patent litigation we hear about is that this couple was proactive in protecting their rights instead of waiting for Apple to get entrenched in their patented business model. Their proactiveness makes Apple look like Leona Helmsley regardless of whether or not such a patent should have been granted in the first place.
Then again, perhaps Apple is purposely flaunting its violation of the patent in order to challenge it (I doubt it though).
Besides how different is this patent from the one Apple filed for the gestures used on their new track pad? Both are patents for a "method of doing something." With that logic, maybe you could get a patent for "a method for wiping one's butt." (Personally I prefer the four finger un-doo rather than the three finger swipe, though I know there are those that undoubtedly prefer the two finger scroll --all with toilet paper, of course.) Then again the patent would probably be denied on grounds of prior art.
This just sounds like a marketing plan. How do you patent a plan?
Worse : there has been previous art. My company ran a campaign similar to the described in the picto back in 2001 with Samsung in Belgium.
When customers purchased a Samsung phone at the POS they got a scratchcard to redeem free ringtones on a WAP site. OK in this case they did not have to pay for it - but the card had a barcode so it could be scanned and it could have a commercial value attached to it.
So if any they copied my "unpatented" idea.
It is my firm belief that 'trivia' patents and/or patents on general ideas should be banned altogether. They are ridiculous, a nuisance and -worst of all- inhibit progress.
Worse : there has been previous art. My company ran a campaign similar to the described in the picto back in 2001 with Samsung in Belgium.
When customers purchased a Samsung phone at the POS they got a scratchcard to redeem free ringtones on a WAP site. OK in this case they did not have to pay for it - but the card had a barcode so it could be scanned and it could have a commercial value attached to it.
So if any they copied my "unpatented" idea.
No, they didn't unless your card allowed them to redeem only one specific ringtone. If there was more than one option, it falls under the "general-purpose gift card" umbrella. Go back an look as what Apple is doing. The cards are only redeemable for a specific song or specific album, not just "any one song," or "any one album." Big difference because it departs from "general-purpose" to "pre-defined."
There should be some law that says you patent it, YOU make something out of it.
That's pretty much how the rest of the world does it. America is one of the very few countries that allow you to patent an idea and it is pure bollocks.
I know here in New Zealand you can't patent an idea without a working prototype and New Zealand sits on some pretty awesome patents (like the process for making carbon fibre which was invented by John Britten for the construction of his Britten motorcycle and was even used in the New Zealand America's Cup yachts).
The very idea of patenting an idea alone is a joke on account of the fact that more than one person can have the exact same idea. Basically it's designed for capitalists who, instead of furthering technology, use the patents solely to gain money by litigation without ever using the idea in the first place.
I hope this case bankrupts these morons.
No, they didn't unless your card allowed them to redeem only one specific ringtone. If there was more than one option, it falls under the "general-purpose gift card" umbrella. Go back an look as what Apple is doing. The cards are only redeemable for a specific song or specific album, not just "any one song," or "any one album." Big difference because it departs from "general-purpose" to "pre-defined."
That is splitting hairs IMHO. Back in those days we could have offered just one particular tone - but we offered a choice of ten. I really fail to see how limiting one's choice by sticking just one face on a pre-paid card is worthy a patent. It's a good marketing idea - but a patent that bogs down the rest own mankind for 50 years (or force them to pay licenses).
Can someone tell me on what cloud/island those people at the USPTO live ?
Basically it's designed for capitalists who, instead of furthering technology, use the patents solely to gain money by litigation without ever using the idea in the first place.
I hope this case bankrupts these morons.
This is very unlikely to happen as more and more private equity and hedge funds are pouring money into patent trolls. Granted - you may loose few cases. But you just need one big winner and you got your phenomenal ROI
Heck, I had this idea 8 years ago....when I was drunk....and asleep.
This seems to be a patent for a concept of an action. There's nothing solid about it.
It's like patenting "A device that emits light". Nothing specific, except a diagram of something, emitting light. The lightbulb is invented, and you sue, having done no research of your own, generated no purchasable solution, etc.
Concepts are easy. You could patent every idea in Sci Fi books for the past 50 years. Clearly being able to patent an idea is not right. You should only get a patent if you can demonstrate a working implementation of your idea, and then the patent should be restricted to that implementation's methodology. If you patent the conventional lightbulb, then an LED light shouldn't infringe, because the patent is about "heating a filament until it glows and emits light" and "inside a protective bulb that also houses an atmosphere that will not corrode the filament".
...holding my breath... -
AGREED! There should be some law that says you patent it, YOU make something out of it.
This 'having an idea', getting it patented and expecting Royalties from another that takes the chance of utilizing some form of a patented idea and makes a product that becomes hugely successful needs to be rethought.
I'm not against some small form of compensation but if one uses a patented idea in a product they utilize and it becomes a marketing flop and plumetting sales cause the loss of major bucks invested, does that mean the reverse can happen and can Apple legally go after all these smaller patent holders that might have been used in some form and can Apple ask of them for compensation for their loss? I know I am being absurd, but no more than the most recent suits filed against Apple!
Good idea, and I think the easiest way to achieve that is by putting an expiration date on any patent you file, so if you dont do anything with it, you lose.
I know here in New Zealand you can't patent an idea without a working prototype ...
And, given the relative simplicity of this patent, it is very likely that they did have a working prototype. Or they were able to demonstrate to the examiner that it would be trivially easy to move from the planning stage to a working implementation, and thus they were able to skip the formal prototyping stage for the purposes of the patent. It doesn't follow, though, that they were then obliged to commercialize the prototype themselves.
There should be some law that says you patent it, YOU make something out of it.
But the whole reason behind patents is to protect the inventors' investment. The law goes the other way around - YOU invent it, NOBODY ELSE can use it without your permission. Isn't giving permission (or withholding it) a form of "doing something" with it?
What we need is a better standard of what constitutes a patentable idea, and a more accessible means for allowing interested parties to formally request re-examination of patents with dubious merit.
I think the easiest way to achieve that is by putting an expiration date on any patent you file,
Well, the good news is, there is an expiry date on every patent that is granted. The bad news (in this case) is, that expiry date in the US is (IIRC) 20 years.
This is a good example of how issuing patents has gotten out of control. There is nothing substantially innovative about the the business model.
Bingo!
There is nothing innovative, this is evolutionary.
I once sent a proposal to Harley for an "Idea" that we had. Not only did they turn it down, but they went ahead and did it themselves - LESS then 30 days after we contacted them!
I was told by a lawyer, that we couldn't patent an "Idea" and that we didn't have a case against HD, but it sure sounds like we were not told the truth ? or was this lawyer scared of Harley?
In any case, it WILL be a GREAT day in American history, when this kind of Sh**T stops.
Folks ? get a job, and not a Steve Job, a real one. If you want to make easy money, hell sell drugs, just get off everyone elses back. God Damn free loaders!
Skip
i am not from the US or familiar with your patent laws, but since reading about the lawsuits to apple for the past year, basically, my understanding is that i can file a patent for all my crazy ideas, and just sit on it until someone does it and then sue them?
You are correct, sir. In America you can sit on your dead ass and make money by suing corporations who will pay you to go away because it's cheaper than going to court. It's the american dream, getting something for nothing.
In school I was always taught you couldn't patent ideas or concepts, only specific ways of implementing them. If they had come up with an actual working system and Apple used it, they have a lawsuit. But this is nonsense.
And that ridiculous "diagram" with the arrows and $$$ signs. It's degrading to real inventors who put years into the technical drawings of actual working devices.
I can throw some clipart and some arrows together too, maybe I should patent something.
That is splitting hairs IMHO.
I agree, but it is the patent office that split the hair.
Perhaps this patent was the reason Microsoft has sold empty boxes with only a coupon inside instead of installation disks; distributing the software via RPOS card would have violated this patent--especially since there are so many versions of Windows.
This is very unlikely to happen as more and more private equity and hedge funds are pouring money into patent trolls. Granted - you may loose few cases. But you just need one big winner and you got your phenomenal ROI
Hedge Funds are bleeding heavily right now. Investing in patent lawsuits is even more risky.