Results 1 to 4 of 4
January 28th, 2003, 10:26 AM #1
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
- Honiara, Solomon Islands
I couldn't believe it when I saw this one.
PanIP filed a US patent which covers pretty much all internet commerce back in 1994 and now they are starting to cash in. They seem to be targeting smaller businesses outside california at the moment and plan on charging EVERYONE huge licensing fees to use their patented business model.
Unfortunately the USPTO in their very bad judgement allowed PanIP's patent to get accepted without first reviewing it more closely.
For more information here are links to news article at:Computerworld, InformationWeek.com, MAcCentral and Geek.com.
There is a site set up by DeBrand Fine Chocolates (http://www.youmaybenext.com)who have been served and have banded together with 15 other companies that have also been served with a copyright infringement lawsuit. Hopefully these companies will be successful in fighting this ludicrous patent claim and in so doing, prevent PanIP from filing further lawsuits against any online business the see as a soft target.
The patent may be viewed hereUS Patent No 5,576,951.
I apologise if I am out of line posting this here but I thought it was something that affects us all.
February 14th, 2003, 10:55 AM #2
- Join Date
- January 17th, 2005
Some people really are "crazy enough to try". My question is: why did he wait so long? Oh wait, there's no money early in the game, gotta let those seeds sprout...
I started reading the patent and decided that my legalese sucks.
February 14th, 2003, 12:00 PM #3
Our service is now researching and determining if Patent infringement by Pangea Intellectual Properties LLC (PanIP) PanIP who owns patents concerning the display of text and images on e-commerce Web sites is present on our services.
We expect to find that we are in compliance to non Patent infringement by Pangea Intellectual Properties LLC (PanIP) PanIP stated claims of violations.
If it is determined that we are somehow in direct violation of what they claim is "Patent infringement by Pangea Intellectual Properties LLC (PanIP) PanIP", then we may just have to wait and see if they target any of our networks in lawsuit form for us to react. We can honestly say that we would certainly fight any claims they may make in ownership of Patent infringement by Pangea Intellectual Properties LLC (PanIP) PanIP.
The patent claim they say they own is so vague that is truly amazing how they actually got the USPTO to stamp this approved. I personally know a few patent vendors that had to totally re-write patent claims that were far less vague than this approved patent. Is this a sign of "internal corruption"? Hmmmm .. certainly makes us wonder how the heck this patent claim flew by all the legal check points that are supposed to protect companies from frivilous patent claims that clutter our legal system.
Found at ComputerWorld:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At issue are two PanIP patents, awarded to Lawrence B. Lockwood, one of the principals of the company, in 1996 and 2001. The 1996 patent -- No. 5,576,951 -- covers a system "for composing individualized sales presentations created from various textual and graphical information data sources" using "the retrieval of interrelated textual and graphical information," according to the patent filing.
The 2001 patent -- No. 6,289,319 -- covers an automated "financial transaction processing system" in which a computer "is programmed to acquire credit rating data relating to the applicant from the credit rating service," according to the filing.
Though PanIP is currently suing only 11 companies for allegedly infringing on these patents, the total number of infringing companies could run into the millions, according to Kathleen M. Walker, a private practice attorney in San Diego who is representing PanIP.
PanIP is seeking a one-time $30,000 license fee from each company on both patents for as long as they are valid, she said. That payment would also cover a patent that PanIP claims to have pending that covers "very similar technology and may bear on these retailers," Walker added.
So far, one of the 11 companies being sued has chosen to settle, Walker said. She declined to release terms of the settlement because that agreement hasn't been finalized.
"PanIP intends to litigate for the life of the patent" and will go after other infringing sites "as time allows," Walker said. Questions have been raised, however, as to how PanIP settled on the 11 companies it chose to sue first, as they are mostly small businesses. Dickson Supply, a plumbing and heating supply business, for instance, is a family-owned business with 25 full-time employees and 10 part-time employees, located in Brielle, N.J., according to Allan Dickson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
DesignerWiz.com CEO http://DesignerWiz.com
February 14th, 2003, 12:22 PM #4
- Join Date
- January 17th, 2005
This wouldn't be the first time the USTPO granted a patent to an overly vague idea. I'm sure there's several, but one sticks out in my head: a certain subwoofer that shall remain nameless. The patent is so vague that any powered (built-in amplifier) bass-reflex sub (ported box or passive radiator added to the box) falls under it. (That's 90% of all home theater subs, FYI.)
By Vinny O'Hare in forum Legal opinions on ParasiteWareReplies: 2Last Post: December 13th, 2004, 02:30 PM
By Mr. Sal in forum Midnight Cafe'Replies: 2Last Post: May 8th, 2004, 07:05 AM
By darkstar7 in forum Virtual Family and Off-TopicReplies: 1Last Post: March 10th, 2004, 07:26 AM
Asks is at in www.cj.com, these are the quite big companies? These are each month gives the money quite many companies?By kcd in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 11Last Post: January 15th, 2003, 09:09 PM