Company patents wishlists, sues almost everyone
Posted by Majesticmerc via TechCrunch on 24 July 2008 - 07:53 · 21 comments & 6090 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Majesticmerc
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Majesticmerc
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by +shakey_snake on 24 Jul 2008 - 08:00
- lol. F*ck them.
-
#2 Posted by theh0g on 24 Jul 2008 - 08:07
- We have several online stores with wishlists. I'd LOVE these idiots to try and sue us, oh please do, destroying retards like that in court would make me happy. I wish US would finally do something about the broken patent system.
-
(2 replies)
#3 Posted by monkey13 on 24 Jul 2008 - 08:21
- "A method for configuring a database system to store information regarding a plurality of items"
So they have patented database queries with grouping or as I like to call it SQL. -
#3.1 Posted by +mrbester on 24 Jul 2008 - 10:08
- Which means the mighty can be involved in this. By "mighty" I mean IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle etc. who have been using "a database system to store information regarding a plurality of items" for decades. Oh, but CI aren't going for them because they know they'd get ruined."Patent"Filing date: Dec 28, 2001
Issue date: Jul 12, 2005
So it took some ignorant twonk 3 1/2 years to approve (on a system that no doubt uses exactly the methodology specified in the patent, oh the irony!
something that is fundamental to database management. Whoever approved this should be fired and the patent revoked. -
#3.2 Posted by Xeta on 24 Jul 2008 - 16:19
- Patent number: 6917941
Filing date: Dec 28, 2001
Issue date: Jul 12, 2005
Inventors: Robert Wight, Josh Griffin, Timothy Tryzbiak, Anibal Santiago, Dale Couch, Edward H. Benson, III, David A. Crossmier, III, David M. Schrader
Assignees: Channel Intelligence, Inc.
Primary Examiner: Greta Robinson
Secondary Examiner: Cheryl Lewis
Attorney: Patton Boggs LLP
Application number: 10/035,635
So does that mean that Greta Robinson and Cheryl Lewis are the patent officers? As in, the ones that should be fired? Because this is a pretty ridiculous patent. Especially that it was approved in 2005. This appears to fall under the category of a "painfully broad" patent.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by jelli on 24 Jul 2008 - 08:25
- Patenting a method is fine, it protects the research and development of that implementation. Companies or individuals can research and develop different methods to accomplish the same task or license the original method from a company.
Patenting an idea is retarded and should never be allowed. -
#4.1 Posted by HalcyonX12 on 24 Jul 2008 - 14:42
- (jelli said @ #4)Patenting a method is fine, it protects the research and development of that implementation.
That's what copyright is for actually(jelli said @ #4)Companies or individuals can research and develop different methods to accomplish the same task
The patents are usually broad enough to cover many implementations... It's software, and they describe the goal of the software in the patent, not the code. So usually patents cover a broad area that could be implemented many different ways.
Patenting software is a ridiculous idea, since there are API calls created for specific purposes, and the idea is if you use them in a certain order you can patent that. But that's how programming languages and APIs are supposed to be used. You're supposed to be able to chain together functions to create programs and methods of accomplishing tasks, any programmer's analytical mind will break down steps to accomplish a task, and there's nothing particularly innovative about using code to move around bits. You might as well be patenting mathematical equations. However you should be able to copyright your product and prevent identical copies, and be able to sell it. But that's not patenting.
-
#5 Posted by monkey13 on 24 Jul 2008 - 08:30
- Just read the patent. Their patent is for a database system where objects within the database have a "relationship" between each other and information can be obtained based on these relationships. Wow this is ground breaking stuff.
-
#6 Posted by HoagieKat on 24 Jul 2008 - 10:15
- Also read the patent, it seems it covers any database with a list of items, with a separate database for the list relating to those items. So i guess it also covers checkouts, shopping baskets, eBay search listings, and wish lists. What a stupid idea to have software patents.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by C++ on 24 Jul 2008 - 10:25
- I wish I could patent lawsuits. Wouldn't that be awesome? I could sue anyone who sues anyone else.
-
#7.1 Posted by Drugar on 24 Jul 2008 - 12:29
- (C++ said @ #7)I wish I could patent lawsuits. Wouldn't that be awesome? I could sue anyone who sues anyone else.
LMAO...that is some funny stuff right there..I dont care who you are
-
#7.2 Posted by Glassed Silver on 24 Jul 2008 - 13:00
- Yea... something like a sue police would be nice:
SP officer: "YOU DONT DARE GOING TO COURT FOR SUCH RIDICULOUS STUFF"
company: "But I have this patent"
SP officer: "Patent my a**"
company: "okay!"
Glassed Silver:mac
-
#8 Posted by +ckempo on 24 Jul 2008 - 10:47
- Another case that highlights why it's ridiculous to allow patents on software.
-
#9 Posted by +Volatile on 24 Jul 2008 - 11:41
- Ridiculous. Stupid law suits are going to bring this country down. People sue for anything.. centered around the dollar.
-
#10 Posted by +shawncm217 on 24 Jul 2008 - 14:28
- I'd really like to know how they even got the patent in first place!!!
-
#12 Posted by RPDL on 24 Jul 2008 - 14:58
- I hate copyrights and patents. Their purpose used to be to protect people with new ideas or inventions, now its just another way for big companies to sue just about anyone as a way to make money.
-
#13 Posted by obsolete_power on 24 Jul 2008 - 18:15
- I say F*ck them and let's move on. Who the hell cares about patents and copyrights??? What are you now going to sue an 8 year old kid on Christmas Day because he has made a wishlist for Santa??? What the f*ck is the matter with this "Channel Intelligence" company??
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by Guol on 25 Jul 2008 - 07:27
- Don't all online sites use shopping cart's which are basically the same thing?
How pathetic..
-
#15 Posted by roadwarrior on 25 Jul 2008 - 16:43
- This would also seem to cover things like the wedding and baby registries in major retailers like Target, Wal-Mart, and Toys R Us, as all of them use databases in the same way.
Specifically, the wishlists in question are lists of desired products from the defendant's websites that the user would like to purchase, which are then stored in some form or other on a database.
CI are claiming that allowing users to create these lists needs their permission as they are the owners of patent 6,917,941 - "A method for configuring a database system to store information regarding a plurality of items", which was issued in July 2005.
Strangely (or not), CI have not made claims against larger companies such as Amazon, Ebay and other large online retailers, all of whom are offering exactly what CI have patented.
Surely the USPTO needs to start reviewing it's practices for Intellectual Property if more and more frivolous 'inventions' like this are going to become weapons for taking other peoples money?