Guest Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Hello all, sorry for not posting in a while cus ive been very busy. Anyways heres something ive found many of you may know already. http://www.youmaybenext.com/ I cant believe this is still going on. Has anyone fallen under their prosecution yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Is that only for US based ecommerce sites? What about UK I don't think it applies to UK based site - clarification sought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbeckham Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 This is an extremely important topic, and I am surprised there has not been more discussion in this board on this topic. Here is a recent article in the L.A. Times (free registration required to view the article): http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pate...ome%2Dheadlines From the article: "If you're selling online, at the most recent count there are 4,319 patents you could be violating," said David E. Martin, chief executive of M-Cam Inc., an Arlington, Va.-based risk-management firm specializing in patents. "If you also planned to advertise, receive payments for or plan shipments of your goods, you would need to be concerned about approximately 11,000." It seems to me that this issue needs to be addressed legislatively. It is hard to believe that patents were ever construed as a device for anyone to totally dominate an entire industry, which is what the patents under discussion would do. Starting this week, I intend to call my reps and senators in congress and see what they think about software patents in general and about this case in particular. More later on my results. Artisans of the Ironwork Guild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I spoke with my book keeper and accountant plus many other friends about this and they say its just a joke. They say when you go to youmaybenext.com they ask for donations so you can clearly see its a scam of some kind. Im telling them yea its a joke cus its so stupid but it seems like its no joke and very real. The problem i think is that cus this sounds so dumb no one pays it any mind and dont see such a big fuss that you would expect if it was real. You would think everyone would be talking about it or atleast see it online more often. A former CIA technology officer is bringing EBay Inc. to trial this spring, claiming that the hugely successful trading site is infringing an online auction patent he applied for in 1995 -- six months before EBay began. Charles E. Hill & Associates, a software firm, is suing 18 e-commerce companies, including EBay, alleging that they violated its patents on an "electronic-catalog system" and a "method of updating a remote computer." If they win the lawsuit against EBay wouldnt that mean big trouble for all ecommerce sites? If they do win then this "legalized extortion" crap has gone to far. I mean expect a new trend in patents where everyone will license everything as it will be the new method of making money. I still ask: Is this a joke or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbeckham Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Is this a joke or not? This is not a joke. It's been treated seriously by the L.A.Times, by the Chicago Tribune and many reputable online news sources. For links to pertinent articles see: http://www.youmaybenext.com/news.html No one can say for sure whether or not PanIP has strong patents and that they will hold up in court; but suppose they sent you a letter that cited their patents and demanded $5000 to stay in business? Would you risk an expensive legal battle, or would you just pay up? Today this affects only a few, but tomorrow, we could all be paying tribute to this charlatan, unless we act NOW. Artisans of the Ironwork Guild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Is this a joke or not? No one can say for sure whether or not PanIP has strong patents and that they will hold up in court; but suppose they sent you a letter that cited their patents and demanded $5000 to stay in business? Would you risk an expensive legal battle, or would you just pay up? I havent got $500 to pay them nor i would. They advised me it would cost me nuthing if i was to go to court cus they sueing me. Since im a new small LLC ide prolly would tell them to go f*** themselves too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamscape Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Pangea Intellectual Properties appears to be a business that thrives on filing overly generalized patents (patents must be absolutely specific) and then suing other to make money. A few years back they sued the airlines, and of coarse lost... now it looks like they are going after small businesses cause they don't have the resources to fight a huge court battle. Quoted from CB&S Lawfirm's website ( http://www.cblawfirm.com/?wpage=32&aid=31 ): Patent Update ? "Infringement Lawsuit Poses Threat to Millions of Web Pages" Do you or your company maintain a web site on the Internet? Do you use your site to sell products or services? If the answer to these questions is "yes," then a patent infringement lawsuit recently filed against 11 small companies doing business on the Internet may impact the way you do business on the Internet in the future. Since the Federal Circuit's ground-breaking decision in 1998 to allow inventors to obtain patents for previously-unpatentable business methods, some legal scholars have predicted a flood of new computer-related, business-method patents and litigation based thereon. The recent filing by Pangea Intellectual Properties ("Pangea") of a patent infringement lawsuit alleging infringement of two of its patents relating to methods for operating web pages and selling products and services on the Internet may indicate that these predictions were not unfounded. In 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opened the floodgates for patent applications seeking protection for business methods with its landmark decision in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. ("State Street Bank"). Prior to the State Street Bank decision, business methods, including methods for doing business on the Internet, were generally not considered to be patentable subject matter. With the State Street Bank decision, however, thousands of new patent applications relating to business methods, including methods for doing business on the Internet, have been granted in just a few years. Many of these patents have been widely criticized as being directed merely to the application of computer technology to known business practices and as being too easily granted by a Patent & Trademark Office ill-equipped to handle the flood of new applications for computer-related business methods. Some business method patents have even been criticized as being inappropriate attempts to "own the Internet" which provide a basis for exploitative patent infringement litigation. The most recent example of such exploitative litigation may be the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Pangea against 11 small businesses. Pangea's suit claims that the defendants and countless others are infringing a pair of its patents issued in 1996 and 2001. Pangea's U.S. Patent No. 5,576,951 relates to a system for "composing individualized sales presentations created from various textual and graphical information data sources" using "the retrieval of integrated textual and graphical information." Because most web pages utilize such a system, Pangea claims that millions of web pages infringe its patented system. Pangea also holds U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319 relating to a "financial transaction processing system" covering the concept of online payment for goods and services. According to Pangea's suit, if you sell anything on the Internet and use an automated web interface to collect payment information, you are infringing its two patents. Pangea's lawsuit is made more controversial because it has chosen to sue small businesses rather than Internet giants like eBay and Yahoo. Many believe that Pangea is going after the small companies because it cannot afford to litigate against the giants. In addition, the small companies are more likely to agree to pay Pangea's demand for a one-time fee of $30,000 to settle in order to avoid legal fees that would probably exceed the $30,000 demand by a large margin. The fact that this is not Pangea's first patent infringement case is also instructive. In 1994, Pangea sued American Airlines claiming that American's SABREvision ticket reservation system infringed some of its patents. However, Pangea lost its case against the airline company, and some of its patents were invalidated in the course of the battle. Unfortunately, it appears that the only lesson Pangea learned from the American Airlines case was to stay way from those with sufficient resources to defeat its lawsuit and invalidate its patents and instead prey upon smaller companies which will be more inclined to settle the case for strictly economic reasons. Pangea is not the first company to stake its claim to owning at least a piece of the Internet (remember Amazon.com v. Barnes & Noble?). Further, it will not likely be the last company to file an infringement lawsuit against carefully selected defendants lacking the resources to defend against a costly infringement suit. We have had first-hand experiences with these types of predatory plaintiffs, and we would be pleasantly surprised if we never heard from another again. But in light of the exponential growth of the Internet's impact on the global economy, it is almost inevitable that infringement lawsuits seeking ownership of a piece of the Internet pie are likely to continue and will probably become more commonplace. The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chieffan Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Don't things that become so popular and common loose their patents and become puplic sector? I think this happened with Xerox when they first made copiers and people used the term Xerox so freely that it lost its meaning as the company. I think this has also happened with some pharmaceutical companies. I would see the same thing being applied to e-commerce. Maybe this is Al Gore's patent he registered when he assisted in the development of the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mork Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Don't things that become so popular and common loose their patents and become puplic sector? I think this happened with Xerox when they first made copiers and people used the term Xerox so freely that it lost its meaning as the company. I think this has also happened with some pharmaceutical companies. This is not patents you are speaking of, it is [u.S.] trademarks. Trademarks (such as Xerox, Kleenex, etc) have been lost when they enter into common language, yes. In fact, trademark holders have a duty to enforce their own Trademark rights, not doing so means they lose their trademark. If you can show a company knew about your infringement/dillution, yet did not legally act to protect their trademark upon learning of it, they'll lose their trademark (companies often make the mistake of waiting until it has grown into a noticeable threat before acting. but showing they knew years before means they didn't protect their trademark). There's 2 famous cases of companies that have done everything they can to protect their trademarks. The biggest monger is Matel (or whoever) for their trademark on "Barbie" - they are VERY agressive. In fact, there's stories of parents naming newborns "Barbie" and recieving cease & decist letters. The 2nd big trademakr monger is eBay. I've run several auciton sites, got a letter on most of them. I also own the domain name xBay.com and have had continual exchanges with eBay's lawyers. You can name your product/company "eBay" (or "xBay") as long as it doesn't dillute or confuse or compete with eBay.com's services/products/etc noted in their TM filing. That is to say, I can use xBay.com for anything in the world, *except* to run an auction site at (I can, however, link to an auction site). And it is also to say you may produce a widget named "eBay" and be legally safe (although, the law doesn't matter when you deal with companies of relativley-infinite pocket depth). Anyways, enough rambling about TM's. Just to let you know, TONS of companies file patents as a business. In fact, the process of filing patents in order to profit is probably patented. The U.S. Patent Office is a complete joke (and should be done away with). They award patents way to often to all sorts of things that have a long history of 'prior art' and/or are 'logical next steps [with technology]' (2 things that disqualify a patent application). There was a big company backed by millions ready to do battle with the major couriers of the world (FedEx, etc.) because they had a U.S. patent that covered calculating shipping expenses with a computer. They got nowhere.. in fact some of the couriers said they'd be satsified to admit defeat and move their "shipping charges calculating computers" to another country and communicate with them over a network. Anyways, if you get a letter just ignore it. IF they actually filed suit, you can defend yourself and it'll cost them money. You DO need to watch out, if they win they will take file to recover legal expenses as well. Not to worry though, the first people prosecuted by this company would create a media frenzy and some good people would probably back/assist/aid you. Theyr'e not gonna take a smalltime business to court, not worth it. The letters would be a scare tactic and paying their licensing is how they want to make money. If your a big fishy, and potentially worth a legal battle, they might come after you. Too big and they probably won't (i.e. Amazon). Don't sweat it. I've been there, done it. In my youth and the prime of the web, I got form letters from legal departments everywhere. All ended up in my garbage without seeking counsel (p.s. emailing you isn't valid. and if they do, and you know it is coming, do NOT sign for a registered letter. Simply tell the courier it is refused and to return to sender. If you haven't read their cease & desist letter, it was not properly served). Howard Stern Show, eBay, Playboy, pretty much all the movie studios - these are a few legal departments I've had to deal with. I'm perpetually broke and don't really even have a lawyer at my disposal. Just ignore it all and don't sweat it. I'm a small-fish, ignored it all (where appropriate) and have never got into actualy legal trouble. If you're doing something wrong, and you know it, then sweat it - running an eCommerce site is a.okay - hell, run it on a CDN server if you're too worried about it (although they could throw use the U.S. customer angle at you). To let you know, eBay has sent thousands of letters out - probably tens of thousands. In their entire history, they have only ever ONCE filed suit against another U.S. company (it was BidBay.com, once a popular auction site that not only played on an existing trademark to confuse consumers, but also was an almost identical clone of the color/logo/layout/etc of eBay). BidBay made millions and went on for years ignoring eBay. eBay eventually filed suit, the thing dragged for a bit while they decided what states jurisdiction it would fall under, then they dropped suit and settled with BidBay (i.e. BidBay payed some damages and moved to another domain). Anyways, the U.S. patent office is a joke. It's hard to believe that patent clerks of the world were once great minds, such as Albert Einstein, and now they are apparently mindless. Don't sweat it or halt your plans for an eCommerce site. Also, I wouldn't donate to that site for their cause either. Oh, by the way, take this all with a grain of salt (as you should any legal advice you read online) as I am not a lawyer, and I am not even an American. Actually, in retrospect "ignore any letters from lawyers" is probably bad advice. Ignore them IF you are confident it is merely a scare tactic and you are confident they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Sorry for the rant. peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schneckster Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 This sounds like something else I remember. Anyone ever remember the legal battles over sex.com? Where some bloke registered it, then a con artist came along and registered all the other tld's and tried to sue the first bloke over the .com one? This same con artist then tried taking on all the other sites and companies with "sex" in their name issuing patent lawsuits hoping that the smaller guys, like the first one, would bottle it, capitulate, and handover the rights. This, to me, sounds exactly like that. I think if such patents have existed for so long, then the big e-commerce sites would have been sued years ago and none of us would be in a position to even have this conversation. Besides which, paying money to view the "proof" is the tell tale signs of a scam. Secondly, if they really did have a case, why advertise this for money when they could sue for real money from the likes of Amazon and eBay? One word describes this... Bollocks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdi-buy.com Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 If you're small, you aren't worth their time. If you're huge enough, be thankful you're worthy of the attention. Consider it free publicity. Tell as many newspapers, tv stations, etc as you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 If you're small, you aren't worth their time. If you're huge enough, be thankful you're worthy of the attention. Consider it free publicity. Tell as many newspapers, tv stations, etc as you can!!! Thats good thinking to bad im a small busness that has to rely on go-zing.com to get money to pay for web hosting!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannuck1964 Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 The USA Patents office is in reality just a joke to the rest of the world ( you are not the center of the world) . I feel sorry for you Americans, business has been trying for years to bring the same type of rules into Canada, and to date has not succeeeded. I remember there was a post about Amazon one click checkout, what a joke, that too is not allowed up here in Canada, nor in many other countries. You American people running businesses on line have your hands tied due to big businesses, creating an artificial boundry which can not be logically upheld by any other countries. Shame on them and shame on the people for allowing that to happen. Regards, Peter M. Peter McGrath ----------------------------- See my Profile (click here) for more information and to contact me for professional osCommerce support that includes SEO development, custom development and security implementation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New 
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.