Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Troll Patents Lists In Databases, Sues Everyone

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the you-wish dept.

Patents 305

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A Florida patent troll called Channel Intelligence is suing everyone from Lemonade to Remember the Milk for infringing on patent 6,917,941, which covers storing a wishlist in a database. Amazon and eBay are absent from the list of targets, even though they very likely store users' wishlists in a database. With any luck, perhaps one of the defendants will get to use that precedent PJ found the other day from In re Lintner, which said, '[c]laims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on non-obvious subject matter.'"

cancel ×

305 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First patent! (5, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | about 6 years ago | (#24294173)

Anything below this line will sued.

Re:First patent! (0)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | about 6 years ago | (#24294223)

OK, I'll call your suit and raise you one

first (-1, Redundant)

pyro_dude (15885) | about 6 years ago | (#24294187)

post

Obviously (5, Insightful)

the4thdimension (1151939) | about 6 years ago | (#24294197)

Wishlists are an obvious toy... used by everyone from little kids doing their Christmas list, to parents on their way to the grocery store. It only serves to follow that web based users wishing to track a list have it be stored on a database... considering there is no where else to reliably store it.

Re:Obviously (5, Insightful)

malefic (736824) | about 6 years ago | (#24294257)

You'll notice they're not suing companies with lots of money who might fight back. I imagine the idea is that smaller companies will just pay up because it's cheaper than fighting it.

Re:Obviously (4, Insightful)

the4thdimension (1151939) | about 6 years ago | (#24294323)

It's likely that one of them will have the money and legal prowess to fight the good fight. Not to mention, it seems like this would be a sure-fire win for anyone willing to fight it. Counter-sue for legal fees anyone?

I almost forgot to mention. My company keeps lists of highly desired features on our future releases in a database... does that count? The vaguery of the whole thing lends itself to ridiculousness.

Re:Obviously (4, Insightful)

griffjon (14945) | about 6 years ago | (#24294881)

I keep a list of things I want to buy from ThinkGeek in a personal wiki, which itself is stored in a database. am I infringing?

Seriously; I see this as akin to a patent covering "The process of driving a nail into wood using a hammer"

Re:Obviously (5, Funny)

chris_mahan (256577) | about 6 years ago | (#24295097)

No, that would be patent 5,987,808:

"Method or process of transferring kinetic energy gained by the rotational motion of a striking apparatus composed of a handle affixed to a mass of steel in rectangular shape thought an elliptical transverse cavity, said kinetic energy being applied to an elongated metal cylinder composed of a sharp-angled edge at one end and a flattened, thicker surface at the other hand, for the purpose of causing said metal cylinder to penetrate wood or other material. That the operator of the striking apparatus should fail to strike the elongated metal cylinder does not constitute an exception to this method or process."

Note: It would be sad if I had to explain twice.

Re:Obviously (4, Informative)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | about 6 years ago | (#24294533)

Or that they can make some precedent to go after the big fish with. If I were bezos' legal counsel, I might suggest funding the defense of one of these guys.

Establish a test case (3, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | about 6 years ago | (#24294627)

First beat up a little guy just to test your case. Costs should be low.

If you win then you go after the big guys.

Re:Obviously (4, Insightful)

TigerNut (718742) | about 6 years ago | (#24294655)

That's standard procedure straight from the Patent Troll Handbook. You build up your patent's credibility by getting a few helpless companies to roll over, and then you use that as ammunition when you go after the bigger fish.

Re:Obviously (4, Insightful)

The Angry Mick (632931) | about 6 years ago | (#24294663)

I imagine the idea is that smaller companies will just pay up because it's cheaper than fighting it.

Either that, or they're shooting for a number of small victories to help buttress the arguments against a future giant with a load of small precedences.

Unfortunately, they are apparently operating on the assumption that these smaller companies exist in a communication free environment, and that they wouldn't dare discuss the case with anyone else in the world. This shows a SCO level of ignorance that alone should be enough to get the entire board of Channel Intelligence fired.

As the article notes, there's a ton of large companies like Amazon that use such wish lists, and it might be in their best interest to sign on to any litigation with an amicus brief in favor of stomping the shit out of Channel Intelligence on principle alone. At the very least, it would send a very strong signal to any other dumbasses contemplating similar moves.

Re:Obviously (1, Redundant)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 6 years ago | (#24294677)

That's step one on this patent troll's list to profit! The second step would be to get these small companies to settle and take out a license or lose at trial. With a track record of licensing the patent, you can take on the big guys and point to your record of licensing your patents to make a profit, or the fact that other courts have found the patents valid and enforceable (if you're lucky).

Re:Obviously (3, Interesting)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 6 years ago | (#24294961)

I just wonder... Could the small companies pool their resources and contest the patent in one single case, putting the small cases on hold (because the patent is being challenged)?

Re:Obviously (5, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | about 6 years ago | (#24294311)

Oh hell, I have to call my lawyer. I need to patent writing wish lists on paper with a pencil, another patent for a wish list with blue ink, another for black ink, and crayons... By golly when I get done with my patent trolling I'll be rich!

Drinks for the house!

Re:Obviously (2, Funny)

mweather (1089505) | about 6 years ago | (#24294543)

Go for it. I've made a fortune with my patent for two click e-commerce checkout.

Re:Obviously (1)

EndingPop (827718) | about 6 years ago | (#24294875)

I'm going to patent an idea I had where I write a patent down on paper using some sort of marking method (such as a pencil, ink pen, or a printer). Then I'll sue everyone who tries to file a patent!

Re:Obviously (5, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 years ago | (#24294933)

Great going; you just wrote a wish-list of patents, which /. has stored in their DB. You just opened up /. to being sued.

Re:Obviously (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | about 6 years ago | (#24294595)

Except on your own pc, where as this person claims that a store keeping such a wish list within its computer for easy access from within the store front, or this case the website....should pay a fee
although I don't agree with 99.9% of patents out there, I also don't believe that working for a company that develops code, means what ever you create is theirs (ie- x+y=z...sh*t Einstein's family could be millionaires by now) although I never have believed that information should be paid for, (ie- school books etc...) I am a trekkie at heart!

Re:Obviously (5, Interesting)

BlakeReid (1033116) | about 6 years ago | (#24295223)

IAALS (I am a law student), so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, the summary understates the breadth of this patent. It covers not merely wishlists, but any database storing lists. The description deals with wishlists and e-commerce, but the claims cover lists in a broad fashion.

On the upside for the infringement defendants in this case, there is a joint infringement problem with the claims in the client/server architecture. Infringing this patent would effectively require two entities to take action - one on the client, and one on the server. This "joint" requirement precludes the possibility of any actual infringement, and is indicative of a poorly drafted claim. Combined with the likelihood that the patent will be invalidated as anticipated or obvious in view of all the prior art out there, it's highly unlikely an infringement judgment will ever go through. However, the defendants are likely to settle to avoid the cost of litigation - classic patent troll strategy.

Grr. (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | about 6 years ago | (#24294241)

Spanging this guy and all other patent trolls like him in the face with a coal shovel is high on my personal wishlist, and Slashdot is now storing that information in their comment database. Sorry Taco!

Re:Grr. (4, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | about 6 years ago | (#24294297)

I say go for soft meat with high nerve density, but also high tolerance to blunt force and lack of nearby vital organs. They are dicks, but don't deserve to die accidentally.

Re:Grr. (5, Funny)

Alpha Whisky (1264174) | about 6 years ago | (#24294371)

They are dicks, but don't deserve to die quickly and painlessly.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Grr. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24295071)

They are dicks, but don't deserve to die quickly or painlessly

Fixed that for you

Re:Grr. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24295209)

Thanks, you're right. Alpha Whisky

Re:Grr. (1)

mweather (1089505) | about 6 years ago | (#24294561)

Who says it'll be accidental?

Re:Grr. (1)

Lifyre (960576) | about 6 years ago | (#24294849)

What makes you think it would be accidental? I'm a US Marine I'm pretty sure I would do it on purpose. -Lifyre

Re:Grr. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294593)

Have fun! [tinyurl.com]

Marshall, Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294251)

He's not a very good Patent Troll, if he did his homework, he'd know this stuff only flies in Marshall, Texas. That's where those scum file their patent claims.

Patent Office (4, Insightful)

clampolo (1159617) | about 6 years ago | (#24294283)

I'm less worried about the patent troll than the fact that the Patent Office allowed this crap to get through. I think it is time for some people to get fired.

Re:Patent Office (2, Insightful)

Falstius (963333) | about 6 years ago | (#24294489)

The patent office gets paid for granting patents. Its cheaper for them to just grant the patent and let companies fight it out in the courts. Let it come out of someone else's budget.

Re:Patent Office (5, Interesting)

spud603 (832173) | about 6 years ago | (#24294521)

from the comments of TFA:
http://www.peertopatent.org/ [peertopatent.org]
A joint project with the USPTO and NYU Law School that tries to public input on pending patents. Interesting and potentially very good idea.

Re:Patent Office (2, Interesting)

Sir_Kurt (92864) | about 6 years ago | (#24294705)

The fact that so many folks and companies have come up with storing a wish list in a database should be proof enough that this "invention" is obvious. In fact, this should be allowed as a defence against any submarine patent. Prior art aside.

Nonobvious Patent Requirement (5, Insightful)

Nymz (905908) | about 6 years ago | (#24294723)

If storing data in a database is considered 'nonobvious' and patent worthy, then someone please tell me the 'obvious' method of storing data.

Re:Nonobvious Patent Requirement (2, Funny)

Sabz5150 (1230938) | about 6 years ago | (#24294939)

If storing data in a database is considered 'nonobvious' and patent worthy, then someone please tell me the 'obvious' method of storing data.

Patents!

Re:Patent Office (5, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 6 years ago | (#24294791)

Haha! The average patent examiner would have voluntarily quit by the time you finished the paperwork necessary to fire him. The problem is that we underpay and overwork our examiners. Their supervisors yell at them for taking so long to grant patents. Examiners have a set number of hours to consider each patent application, and when that time is up, they get more applications dumped onto their plates regardless of how the original applications are doing. All the applicants know this, so their attorneys flood the examiner repeatedly until the examiner runs out of time. The incentive is to issue patents and get the applicant and his attorneys out of your hair.

You get what you pay for, and we don't pay a lot to our Patent Office and their examiners. We don't treat them well, either. We ought to pay our examiners more so we get professional career patent examiners, and also hire more examiners so there isn't such a huge rush on them to finish.

It's like my idea about paying more money to the IRS to increase enforcement of current tax laws: you get a lot of bang for the buck on investing on relatively unsexy things.

Not like it's a bunch of Einstiens working there (5, Funny)

Layth (1090489) | about 6 years ago | (#24294815)

Geeze, it's just some guys at a patent office

Quoting PJ. (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | about 6 years ago | (#24294301)

I know some of you cynics think that there is no hope and that the courts are corrupt or run by nincompoops, but you know I don't agree with you.

The problem is that the patent troll gets to pick the court. Which means that they can slant it any way they want to. From judges that are pro-patents to judges that have no idea what the issue is and don't feel like educating themselves.

There are good judges out there. There are bad judges out there.

The trolls get to choose which ones they want to have their cases decided by.

Re:Quoting PJ. (1)

AllIGotWasThisNick (1309495) | about 6 years ago | (#24294393)

But it should at least be easy to put into one of the many millions of motions in a case like this, such that at least the Clerk has to read it, and hopefully the Judge, too.

Re:Quoting PJ. (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about 6 years ago | (#24294819)

The problem is that the patent troll gets to pick the court.

No they don't.

Re:Quoting PJ. (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | about 6 years ago | (#24295173)

To some degree they do. It's rather common for patent trolls to pick specific court districts for filing their claims in, as those districts tend to find in favor of the patent holder more often - the Eastern District of Texas is pretty well known for this.

Granted, they can't pick the specific judge - they can, however, shop for a generally more favorable venue.

And what happens if I ... (5, Funny)

jlowery (47102) | about 6 years ago | (#24294321)

1. Wish this wishlist on Slashdot
2. Wish this post is stored in database
3. Wish that troll sees it
4. Wish that troll sues Slashdot
5. Wish that troll wins case
6. Wish that I get credit for my efforts
7. Wish for profit from percentage of settlement

Re:And what happens if I ... (2, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 years ago | (#24294603)

Dude, you're doing it all wrong. It should be
  1. Wish this wishlist on Slashdot
  2. Wish that troll sues Slashdot
  3. ????
  4. Profit!!!

Pay up, Sucker! (2, Funny)

gooman (709147) | about 6 years ago | (#24294935)

I hold the patent on:

3. ????

Slashdot alone will make me a very rich man.

Re:And what happens if I ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294967)

And you're doing it wrong. It should read:
1. Wish this wishlist on Slashdot
2. Wish this post is stored in database
3. Wish that troll sees it
4. Wish that troll sues Slashdot
5. Wish that troll wins case
6. Wish that I get credit for my efforts
7. Wish for profit from percentage of settlement
8. Wish CowboyNeal would put on some pants
[Vote] [Results|Polls]

I got it! (5, Funny)

Nerdposeur (910128) | about 6 years ago | (#24294329)

Guys, all we have to do to stop the madness is get the proper patent. Let's see...

"A method for securing profits by describing an idea of sufficient generality and utility that its use is inevitable, then bringing legal claims against the most successful groups to implement it."

PWND!!

Re:I got it! (2, Funny)

Ender Wiggin 77 (865636) | about 6 years ago | (#24294845)

Won't work. Too much prior art!

Re:I got it! (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 years ago | (#24294895)

Yes, but I can understand that. I don't think it will be valid. It doesn't even contain the word "plurality". Nobody will take you seriously.

Try "A method for the securement of profit and/or profits utilising a plurality of conceptualizations. The first component being said conceptualization, the second part being an idea and/or concept that may or may not be overly general. This is used in conjunction with a third part comprising of a first part of a legal claim and the second part of a plurality of third parties having utilised the as a third part.

I believe someone may still be able to understand that but IANAPL.

Loser Pays (2, Funny)

strelitsa (724743) | about 6 years ago | (#24294353)

I'll take "Something That Would Stop This Sort of Nonsense" for a thousand, Alex.

Bankruptcy in mid-suit (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 6 years ago | (#24295161)

foils your plan.

Let's try abolishing patents instead. Ideally we would want companies to replace the lawyers with engineers afterward, and maybe export the lawyers overseas to prevent them from continuing to be a drain on society.

Santa! (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 years ago | (#24294367)

Poor Santa Clause is going to be sued for 1.8 billion infringements.
   

Re:Santa! (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 6 years ago | (#24294587)

<singsong mom voice>
Uh oh. I think someone's going to end up on the naughty list...
</singsong mom voice>

Re:Santa! (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | about 6 years ago | (#24294625)

Naw, Santa's ok. He doesn't use a database, he uses elves. Sure the response time isn't as good (especially for the older ones), but it sure beats getting sued! Coincidentally, he uses this same method to avoid patents held by Mattel, Radio Flyer, Samsung, and Purina.

Re:Santa! (1)

SashaMan (263632) | about 6 years ago | (#24295053)

Actually, I worked for a company in 2000 (before this patent was issued) that had a subsidiary called ivebeengood.com. The business model was pretty much just storing online wishlists (OK, so the business didn't last that long), and I'm quite sure they stored all of their wishlists in a database.

Re:Santa! (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 6 years ago | (#24295149)

thÃt, or he hasn't switched to digital storage yet and he's just forcing those poor elves to memorize it all!

Shopping Wishlist for today... (4, Funny)

Sneakernets (1026296) | about 6 years ago | (#24294395)

Milk
Bread
Shitload of stamps
Ground Chuck
Vitamin Water
Carrots
Defense Attorney

Re:Shopping Wishlist for today... (1)

RayMarron (657336) | about 6 years ago | (#24294739)

You forgot "numchucks", the only appropriate answer to such a subpoena.

And Slashdot can fix it: (4, Informative)

snl2587 (1177409) | about 6 years ago | (#24294409)

Ok, guys: the critical date is December 28, 2001.

First person to post prior art gets a big pat on the back!

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (2, Interesting)

TypoNAM (695420) | about 6 years ago | (#24294659)

Newegg is one site I recall having such a feature way back then (they definitely still do now), but I could be wrong as how long they've had it.

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (5, Interesting)

martinw89 (1229324) | about 6 years ago | (#24294765)

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294877)

Oops, I should have been more specific. That was on December 3rd, 2001. You can verify this by the URL or by visiting archive.org and looking at their archive of newegg.com. The first date on archive.org to show a "wishlist" feature is December 3rd, 2001.

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294697)

IIRC, Amazon's wishlist thing has been around longer.

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294767)

Simple solution to find prior art: Grab the patent troll by the neck and [after slamming their stupid face on the desk a few times] make them watch THE ENGELBART DEMO. Seriously, the concept of a stored wishlist was invented along with the freaking mouse. What a loser troll!!

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294825)

I'm going to make this pencil disappear...

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (4, Informative)

geogob (569250) | about 6 years ago | (#24294771)

Their claim goes much further than wish lists. At first look at the patent, they claim a very basic method of storing multiple lists (any kind of list) of multiple items.

Probably any database configured prior to 2001 could be given as an example of prior art. Even their claims regarding the structures used, the link between objects and identifiers is nothing new (although not clearly obvious). To me it looks like the natural way any one would build such a database using basic structures.

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (2, Funny)

nfk (570056) | about 6 years ago | (#24294805)

Talk to Santa Claus, I'm sure he's been keeping lists in databases long before that date.

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294807)

Does any online registry of gift items count as prior art? Babies-R-Us and most high-end department stores have been doing this for at least 10 years...

Re:And Slashdot can fix it: (1)

n9891q (863780) | about 6 years ago | (#24294909)

My PalmPilot did this routinely in 1998. A client with CPU, display, and storage.
My PalmPilot would synchronize this information with a PC. A server.
I kept my various lists on it.
Filing date is 2001.
I'm sure I could find earlier examples dating back to the 1970s.
Why is this hard? And why did the Patent Office accept this filing?

Oh no better cancel Christmas. (4, Funny)

hyperz69 (1226464) | about 6 years ago | (#24294415)

Santa Clause is SCREWED!

Re:Oh no better cancel Christmas. (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | about 6 years ago | (#24295011)

Tim Allen better find a new line of movies then...

Good (1)

maclizard (1029814) | about 6 years ago | (#24294445)

I am personally glad this is happening. First off, its the kind of news that is so ridiculous I can't help but become distracted from the real news, of which I am generally not a fan, and second it is just further evidence that we need so serious patent reform. Sry boot teh coma abooze. XD

They're ripping off more than this... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294475)

posting anonymous for obvious reasons.. My Company uses Channel Intelligence to test the conversion rate on various checkout flows. We pay them $20,000 to test 6 flows on our major site, and if they increase conversion by a few percentage points on one of the flows, they get a $10,000 bonus. We have been working with them for a few months now, and I must say, I could have done this in my sleep.

Now this company has climbed past utter ridiculousness with this patent on "lists in a database". Who are they going to sue next, the publisher of a book on basic database algorithms?

they don't understand (3, Interesting)

speedtux (1307149) | about 6 years ago | (#24294497)

More likely: Channel Intelligence isnâ(TM)t prepared to litigate against Amazon, who would likely lawyer CI into the ground over this âoepatent.â

CI most likely wants to get bought by Amazon, and then Amazon can sue everybody over this patent; the patent is quite complementary to their "one click" invention.

Re:they don't understand (5, Insightful)

locokamil (850008) | about 6 years ago | (#24294761)

patent is quite complementary to their one click "invention."

Fix'd your quoting

I can't believe these people can sleep at night... (1)

rilian4 (591569) | about 6 years ago | (#24294541)

What in the world are they trying to pull patenting a wish list. People store stuff in db's all the time. What right do they have to tell people how they store their own data.

This is ridiculous...

Poor Santa (1, Redundant)

feedayeen (1322473) | about 6 years ago | (#24294545)

Is the bad man going to sue Santa too?

Can someone translate the Groklaw reference? (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | about 6 years ago | (#24294573)

What does "[c]laims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter." mean? It almost makes sense, but the term "read on" appears to be legal jargon, because it breaks /brain/lib/english_parser.so for me.

Re:Can someone translate the Groklaw reference? (1)

thedistrict (1327685) | about 6 years ago | (#24294715)

Yeah, I agree, I can't really figure it out. It seems like it's saying that things that are in wide practice and use or the only way to do a certain thing (ie storing wishlists in a dbase) are considered to be unpatentable.

Re:Can someone translate the Groklaw reference? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 6 years ago | (#24294783)

it means, if a patent covers something non-obvious, but it's description also applies to many obvious things, then it's invalid.

It's a sort of patent version of the betamax decision. "substantial obvious implementations" trump the few non-obvious ones.

I seem to recall... (3, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | about 6 years ago | (#24294617)

Didn't someone patent the business model of being a patent troll?

Re:I seem to recall... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294737)

I don't think you want to give anyone any ideas, even if it is for a good cause ... it'll backfire on you!

Too late. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 6 years ago | (#24295141)

Didn't someone patent the business model of being a patent troll?

People have talked about doing so on Slashdot.

Unfortunately, the patent trolls have prior art.

And, as this case shows, patenting being a patent troll "on the internet" or "using a web browser" isn't going to work, either.

how the hell do people get patents like this??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294661)

you would think there would be somebody with a modicum of knowledge on the subject looking them over before they're approved.

Amazon and eBay (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 6 years ago | (#24294707)

Of course they store user wishlists in a db, but they're rich, there's no way anyone would go after them first...

Re:Amazon and eBay (1)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | about 6 years ago | (#24294841)

Of course they store user wishlists in a db, but they're rich, there's no way anyone would go after them first...

Just think, Amazon sued over the One-Click Buying patent [cnet.com] ten years ago. Wouldn't it be bad karma, poetic justice, or Ironic if they were in fact sued over this?

Re:Amazon and eBay (1)

Zwicky (702757) | about 6 years ago | (#24295249)

Yes, but that's a double-edged sword. What if the patent troll were to win?

LMAO - ROFL (1)

startxxx (733595) | about 6 years ago | (#24294851)

that s why i read slashdot thanx for making my day

You BASTARDS! SUE me... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 6 years ago | (#24294887)

OK, I'm gonna bite...

I use Lotus Approach (the award-winning (well, at least in the 90's) database front-end) to manage my self-created applications (ranging from ships to screenplays), and I have in it a To-Do list, which essentially is a wish-list, collecting what, why, how inspired, when entered, thought of and due.

Other screenplay apps do this, too, making scrap books and what not. So, SUE me you pricks. Somebody needs to go chop off some heads in USPTO if there is a patent issued for this bullshit.

Re:You BASTARDS! SUE me... (3, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | about 6 years ago | (#24294945)

and I have in it a To-Do list, which essentially is a wish-list

No it's not.

How it went down... (1)

nategoose (1004564) | about 6 years ago | (#24294951)

I've just come up with a great idea! I'm going to store lists within a data storage system designed to store several lists.

Sued for storing data in a database... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24294983)

Ok, you store data in a database, a wishlist is just data.
What's next, a patent on putting gas in a fuel tank, and then suing everyone who fills their tank with unleaded?

That's not just obvious, it's a bloody requirement!

Gee, maybe I'll patent the removal of ore bearing rocks from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary matrixes. Then sue all mines in the world.

Well, if you've played D&D, you know the only way to permanently get rid of a Troll is to burn them to a crisp. Let's get the Torches and hunt some Patent Trolls !

Sharepoint is screwed! (1)

mightybaldking (907279) | about 6 years ago | (#24294989)

Take a look at the table descriptions which provide a bit of a schema. Sounds like the Sharepoint database to me. Maybe this is all a ploy to get Microsoft!

Shoot them. (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 6 years ago | (#24295005)

There has evolved in our society a class of villains who would destroy the republic for love of profit. They are amoral and sociopathic, delighting in the money they steal from its citizens, allowed to thrive by our fatally broken legal system, and in the end relying on the armed strength of the government to confiscate their misgotten gains.

I no longer see a reason why these subpeople should be allowed to walk freely among the citizens of our country. They are guilty of treason by criminal negligence, and have forfeited their right to be considered equals under the law by their utter contempt of the same.

Damned be democracy in the modern age: (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24295017)

If this troll's case wins, that means anyone who votes for (or wishes) for a candidate in any election (state, city, federal, etc.) and has that information stored in a database, is in direct violation of a patent.

Therefore it would invalidate ALL votes that are casted and stored in any form of electronic database for tallying whatsoever.

Does Florida REALLY want to count those votes again? Likely not.

Just read TFPatent -- it's that bad (4, Interesting)

jeko (179919) | about 6 years ago | (#24295019)

I read the summary and couldn't believe they could patent putting a list in a database.

So I read the patent and that's exactly what they did. The abstract just describes a relational database in incredibly convoluted language. The mind reels.

Well, if they can get away with that, then my new patent is going to make me richer than God. I propose storing and manipulating information by reducing it to a set of states, said states being either "something" or "nothing" I propose these states be represented by two differing digits, "1" or "0".

Now, who's got my check?

Tighten up software patents: specific implementati (2, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | about 6 years ago | (#24295189)

If software patents had the same limitations as pharma patents, this patent could have to pretty much provide the database schema and pseudo-code for managing that database.

Sadly software patents these days appear to be more about patenting concepts rather than concrete implementations. Until the rules are tightened up, these patent problems are just going to keep on popping up, as they have been already for many years.

The main point of a database is to store information. Therefore patenting "Common everyday collection of data, IN A DATABASE" is bloody pointless. Other software patent favourites include: ON THE INTERNET. OVER A WIRELESS CONNECTION. ON A COMPUTER even. All patents that couple common obvious or everyday activities and concepts with one of the above should be deleted. What other ones can you come up with?

PS: It's 2008, why the short comment title limit?

Fixing the system (2, Interesting)

pseudorand (603231) | about 6 years ago | (#24295191)

I just thought of the perfect way to fix the patent system. If you sue over a patent and there are more than, say, 3 defendants, if the defendants can all demonstrate they came up with the technology independently of you and of each other, then your patent is invalidated. Clearly, if an idea is so simple that three different people or companies are able to implement it before you're able to file suit, it must be an obvious idea not worthy of patent protection.

my scheme to get rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24295245)

I have put in for a patent of storing data in a db that can be accessed by a "unique key." I will be rich rich rich when I sue everyone!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>