Time to change lawsuits like this to read the following:
Sure you can sue, but if your claim is found without merit, you pay for yourself and the one you sued, associated costs.
If this company thinks it has an air tight case then go ahead and sue.
If this company is trolling for dollars by filing frivolous lawsuits and they had to worry about paying out of pocket for the other guys lawyers, court costs, etc., it will make them think twice before filing court papers!
And we would have fewer "lawsuits filed against Apple" stories to read about on AI -
Didn't Apple have to license the 1-Click payments from Amazon some time ago?
Yeah.
I would expect Amazon to be leading the fight against these guys. And, by virtue of licensing 1-Click, Apple has a degree of separation that the other defendants don't have.
I think that software and some business method should be patentable, but the patents should be for a much shorter period of time. I believe most patent law is based back to the industrial revolution and the manufacture of physical goods. It is understandable in this situation that you would want a company to be able to recoup the costs of investment to ramp up production of goods. With most software while there is R&D, you don't have the same sort of equipment costs to distribute another copy of that software. I also feel that any company holding a patent must have a record of either using that patent or at least an honest effort of to sell licensing of the patent. Patent law should not be able to be used to become a patent troll. Why has it taken the Supreme Court this long to hear a case on this?
US patents are valid for a maximum of 20 years from the date of approval (some patents can only be maintained for 14 years).
Wrong. 20 years from earliest US filing date (which does not include provisionals)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpklock
Successful patent applications do require the applicant to describe how to make and use the invention or discovery, including at least one working example.
Wrong. The requirement is that they enable one of skill in the art to reduce the invention to practice without undue experimentation. While it is useful to describe a preferred embodiment, there is no requirement to do so. Unless you are talking about the best mode requirement, and that doesn't have to be a "working example," just instructive as to how the inventor understands the best way of carrying out the invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpklock
Patents specifically protect the invention itself, and do not care at all the means by which infringers came to implement a version of that invention. That is to say, if two entities simultaneously make the same discovery or invent the same device, the patent will go to the one who files first for the patent. The other one is screwed. End of discussion
Wrong. If two people come up with the same idea around the same time, it will go to whoever can prove they invented first. The US is one of the only countries that does not implement a first-to-file rule (though it is being contemplated).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpklock
Reverse engineering does NOT allow you infringe on a patent (in part because the patent DOES require the applicant to provide detailed instructions and a detailed description of a working model-- so it'd be impossible to prove that you hadn't been "inspired" by that publicly-available working description in your own, ahem, "engineering" work...)
Answer, correct; reasoning flawed. Intent or knowledge of the patent is not only irrelevant, it's not even an element of infringement (though both are considered when determining willfulness). The point is that patent infringement is a strict liability tort. If you come onto my lawn (or more so in my house), it doesn't matter why you are there; you are still on my lawn. Same principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpklock
Indeed-- you cannot patent something if it's "known by the public", nor if it's been described in a published work more than one year before you patent it, nor if it's immediately obvious to a technically-skilled person in the appropriate field.
This is correct. Sorry to be harsh on you - you're trying to help. But I want to prevent others from taking your post as gospel and spreading information that isn't exactly accurate. It's bad enough that people think you have to make something to have a patent or that there is a patent squatting defense (and no, I am not referring to laches).
The patent as described above doesn't even have anything to do with 1-click so it's not clear at all what they are arguing from this summary.
There is probably a lot more to it, but if this correctly summarises the claim:
Then IMO the patent should never have been issued as it doesn't pass the "non-obvious" test. This is just a description of how "accounts" work which would apply to all "accounts" even those previous to the invention of the computer.
It seems like they are trying to patent the idea of maintaining a balance in your account, online or otherwise. That's both too broad and too obvious for a patent.
And yet, somehow this was granted a patent. I'm curious to see how this one shakes out.
Can one do a reverse Class Action lawsuit where there are thousands of defendants instead of thousands of plaintiffs? In this case there could sue the class "businesses that sell on the internet".
Can one do a reverse Class Action lawsuit where there are thousands of defendants instead of thousands of plaintiffs? In this case there could sue the class "businesses that sell on the internet".
Better yet, how about a class action lawsuit against Marshall, TX by everyone who has been harmed by their inane money-grubbing patent trolls?
Apple, along with more than a dozen other firms conducting e-commerce, have been hit with a lawsuit from a patent trolling claiming first rights to technology that simplifies the re-billing process for repeat customers making purchases through online stores.
So my neightborhood barkeep could be prior art, you give him a card, he scans it and opens a tab, at the end of the evenings beer and nachos session, you sign the tab and leave...same as the music store just in a real life situation.
hte question is does adding "on a computer" make it novel?
One way to stop all this patent trolling might be for Apple (et al) to heavily back candidates in Marshall, TX that will change the laws there. Sure, it'd be "buying the office" but perhaps the greater good justifies that in this case. Go down there and help reform candidates outspend their opponents 100 to 1. "I hate lawyers, and so should you" can be their platform....
One way to stop all this patent trolling might be for Apple (et al) to heavily back candidates in Marshall, TX that will change the laws there. Sure, it'd be "buying the office" but perhaps the greater good justifies that in this case. Go down there and help reform candidates outspend their opponents 100 to 1. "I hate lawyers, and so should you" can be their platform....
I don't think that would work - the patent laws are US, not state laws, so this would have to be filed in Federal court. The likely problem is with the jury, not the judge, but even the judge cannot be removed except by impeachment (or appointment elsewhere)
One way to stop all this patent trolling might be for Apple (et al) to heavily back candidates in Marshall, TX that will change the laws there. Sure, it'd be "buying the office" but perhaps the greater good justifies that in this case. Go down there and help reform candidates outspend their opponents 100 to 1. "I hate lawyers, and so should you" can be their platform....
The strong political machine in some towns wouldn't let that happen and you can't directly bribe voters anymore without risking jail time.
What part of the Federal Court is it that handles patent adjudication and how are these judges put in place (i.e., appointment, term, etc.)?
It would seem that complaints might \ help do something about the Mashall, TX court.
I know it took a while but we have at least gotten rid of Kent (yes, a Federali from TX) though the bastard is resigning next year (he'll have been in prison for a yr) and they say it will take the House that long to impeach him. I am hoping we don't have to go through this kind of contortions to get some rethinking done in Marshall. The judicial system with its appointments really protects each other and are very slow to correct problems. Sorry, I digress.
Yes, I am in Texas, and I am tired of having to defend this state because of this fed court in Marshall. I for one am ready to have something done!
Comments
Sure you can sue, but if your claim is found without merit, you pay for yourself and the one you sued, associated costs.
If this company thinks it has an air tight case then go ahead and sue.
If this company is trolling for dollars by filing frivolous lawsuits and they had to worry about paying out of pocket for the other guys lawyers, court costs, etc., it will make them think twice before filing court papers!
And we would have fewer "lawsuits filed against Apple" stories to read about on AI -
Didn't Apple have to license the 1-Click payments from Amazon some time ago?
Yeah.
I would expect Amazon to be leading the fight against these guys. And, by virtue of licensing 1-Click, Apple has a degree of separation that the other defendants don't have.
From today's NYT
Justices to Weigh Issue of Patenting Business Methods
I guess that even Amazon's One-Click patent will come under scrutiny then.
McD
US patents are valid for a maximum of 20 years from the date of approval (some patents can only be maintained for 14 years).
Wrong. 20 years from earliest US filing date (which does not include provisionals)
Successful patent applications do require the applicant to describe how to make and use the invention or discovery, including at least one working example.
Wrong. The requirement is that they enable one of skill in the art to reduce the invention to practice without undue experimentation. While it is useful to describe a preferred embodiment, there is no requirement to do so. Unless you are talking about the best mode requirement, and that doesn't have to be a "working example," just instructive as to how the inventor understands the best way of carrying out the invention.
Patents specifically protect the invention itself, and do not care at all the means by which infringers came to implement a version of that invention. That is to say, if two entities simultaneously make the same discovery or invent the same device, the patent will go to the one who files first for the patent. The other one is screwed. End of discussion
Wrong. If two people come up with the same idea around the same time, it will go to whoever can prove they invented first. The US is one of the only countries that does not implement a first-to-file rule (though it is being contemplated).
Reverse engineering does NOT allow you infringe on a patent (in part because the patent DOES require the applicant to provide detailed instructions and a detailed description of a working model-- so it'd be impossible to prove that you hadn't been "inspired" by that publicly-available working description in your own, ahem, "engineering" work...)
Answer, correct; reasoning flawed. Intent or knowledge of the patent is not only irrelevant, it's not even an element of infringement (though both are considered when determining willfulness). The point is that patent infringement is a strict liability tort. If you come onto my lawn (or more so in my house), it doesn't matter why you are there; you are still on my lawn. Same principle.
Indeed-- you cannot patent something if it's "known by the public", nor if it's been described in a published work more than one year before you patent it, nor if it's immediately obvious to a technically-skilled person in the appropriate field.
This is correct. Sorry to be harsh on you - you're trying to help. But I want to prevent others from taking your post as gospel and spreading information that isn't exactly accurate. It's bad enough that people think you have to make something to have a patent or that there is a patent squatting defense (and no, I am not referring to laches).
The patent as described above doesn't even have anything to do with 1-click so it's not clear at all what they are arguing from this summary.
There is probably a lot more to it, but if this correctly summarises the claim:
Then IMO the patent should never have been issued as it doesn't pass the "non-obvious" test. This is just a description of how "accounts" work which would apply to all "accounts" even those previous to the invention of the computer.
It seems like they are trying to patent the idea of maintaining a balance in your account, online or otherwise. That's both too broad and too obvious for a patent.
And yet, somehow this was granted a patent. I'm curious to see how this one shakes out.
Can one do a reverse Class Action lawsuit where there are thousands of defendants instead of thousands of plaintiffs? In this case there could sue the class "businesses that sell on the internet".
Better yet, how about a class action lawsuit against Marshall, TX by everyone who has been harmed by their inane money-grubbing patent trolls?
Apple, along with more than a dozen other firms conducting e-commerce, have been hit with a lawsuit from a patent trolling claiming first rights to technology that simplifies the re-billing process for repeat customers making purchases through online stores.
So my neightborhood barkeep could be prior art, you give him a card, he scans it and opens a tab, at the end of the evenings beer and nachos session, you sign the tab and leave...same as the music store just in a real life situation.
hte question is does adding "on a computer" make it novel?
One way to stop all this patent trolling might be for Apple (et al) to heavily back candidates in Marshall, TX that will change the laws there. Sure, it'd be "buying the office" but perhaps the greater good justifies that in this case. Go down there and help reform candidates outspend their opponents 100 to 1. "I hate lawyers, and so should you" can be their platform....
I don't think that would work - the patent laws are US, not state laws, so this would have to be filed in Federal court. The likely problem is with the jury, not the judge, but even the judge cannot be removed except by impeachment (or appointment elsewhere)
One way to stop all this patent trolling might be for Apple (et al) to heavily back candidates in Marshall, TX that will change the laws there. Sure, it'd be "buying the office" but perhaps the greater good justifies that in this case. Go down there and help reform candidates outspend their opponents 100 to 1. "I hate lawyers, and so should you" can be their platform....
The strong political machine in some towns wouldn't let that happen and you can't directly bribe voters anymore without risking jail time.
Shame on Actus, and on Marshall, TX.
What part of the Federal Court is it that handles patent adjudication and how are these judges put in place (i.e., appointment, term, etc.)?
It would seem that complaints might
I know it took a while but we have at least gotten rid of Kent (yes, a Federali from TX) though the bastard is resigning next year (he'll have been in prison for a yr) and they say it will take the House that long to impeach him. I am hoping we don't have to go through this kind of contortions to get some rethinking done in Marshall. The judicial system with its appointments really protects each other and are very slow to correct problems. Sorry, I digress.
Yes, I am in Texas, and I am tired of having to defend this state because of this fed court in Marshall.
jOhn