Posted on 12/18/2006 11:56:58 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Patent system is a mess...SCO started all this.....
> and you don't sue IBM over patents
That's the truth.
IBM's patent library is both deep and wide.
System for ordering items using an electronic catalogue
*******************EXCERPTS************************8
Abstract
The disclosed system facilitates the user in electronically ordering items from suppliers. The system is comprised of an Electronic Catlogue and an Electronic Requisition facility. The Electronic Catalogue includes a Public Catalog and a Private Catalogue. The Public Catalog is stored on a publicly available database for access by customer/Requestors. The Private Catalogue is resident on a Customer's computer system and may contain unique pricing data based on pricing agreements. The Electronic Requisition facility is used by the Customer/Requestors to electronically create purchase requisitions based upon the information provided in the catalogues and route the requisitions through the appropriate approval process within he enterprise. Requisitions are then processed through the customer's procurement system and transmitted electronically as purchase orders to Suppliers.
| Inventors: | King, Jr.; John E. (Warrenton, VA), Nilsen; John R. (Reston, VA) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Assignee: | International Business Machines Corporation (Armonk, NY) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appl. No.: | 07/589,353 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Filed: | September 27, 1990 **************************** U.S. Patent Documents
Assistant Examiner: Tran; Khai Attorney, Agent or Firm: Abzug; Jesse L. Bruzzone; Lauren C. |
Obstacles ahead for Amazon's 1-Click checkout?
***************************************EXCERPTS**********************************
By Anne Broache
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
********************************
WASHINGTON--A federal appeals court has indicated that Amazon.com's famous 1-Click checkout system might be covered by another company's patent on electronic transactions.
Amazon and a one-person Virginia company called IPXL Holdings on Tuesday made their cases before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit. Last August, Amazon won before a trial judge in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., who decided that because the 1-Click feature was designed for processing orders and shipping, and not paying for goods, no infringement took place.
Patent 6,149,055, held by IPXL, covers an "electronic financial system" dealing with storing, predicting and presenting information about users engaging in electronic transactions.
In an ironic twist for the online retailer, the 1-Click feature is no stranger to court action. Amazon gained notoriety years ago for attempting to enforce its own patent on that system against Barnes & Noble's Web operations--resulting in a now-ended boycott by the Free Software Foundation and an unusual "open letter" from CEO Jeff Bezos acknowledging flaws in the patent system.
Jan Conlin, the attorney for IPXL, on Tuesday urged a three-judge panel at the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit to overturn the lower court's decision. "It's not simply ordering a book and arranging its shipment," Conlin said of the Amazon system, "which is why the button says 'Buy now with 1-Click.'"
The courtroom discussion involved sharp questioning of both sides and centered on whether the 1-Click process is an electronic fund transfer system--such as the one described in IPXL's patent--or if it's just one component of a product ordering system that would not necessarily be covered by the patent. Amazon maintains that because Visa or another third party actually carries out the fund transfer, the patent should not apply.
IPXL's argument seemed to garner some sympathy from the bench. "If you went to Amazon's annual stockholders meeting and told them 1-Click had nothing to do with payments...you'd be laughed out of the meeting," said Judge Raymond Clevenger III. "Of course (Amazon's) system involves payment. Otherwise (the) system would be bankrupt."
And if the system doesn't "obligate" one's funds, could someone order a book, decide he disliked it, and then get away with not paying for it? Judge Randall Rader asked Amazon's attorney.
Arguing for Amazon, attorney David Callahan countered that the system, unlike IPXL's, does not actually move any money out of the customer's account. Instead, he said, third-party credit card processors take care of that job after the order placed via 1-Click is shipped.
"It's as if my wife sent me an e-mail and said, 'You have my ATM card and PIN. Withdraw $200 and bring it home to me," Callahan said.
But it doesn't matter whether the payment takes place through backend processing, IPXL's Conlin argued. The critical distinction, she said, is, "from the user's perspective...you think you've paid."
After the arguments, which lasted about 30 minutes, the court adjourned without indicating when it would rule on the case.
CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
Shutting down the internet would solve the whole problem.
Amazon currently owns more than 60 U.S. patents and many have been criticized for being “Obvious” features like 1-Click checkout system . Amazon’s criticism of IBM is that the patents Amazon is accused of infringing should not have been awarded in the first place (in 1991 – before the July 1995 launch of Amazon) as they are “Obvious” features.
IBM had 3,415 patents as of 2004 and an additional 2,900 were awarded in 2005. Amazon has 60 patents. It would seem that IBM had given Amazon a chance to make nice before it came to a courtroom solution. Is Amazon that arrogant to think that IBM doesn’t know what they are doing as far as patents go?
Not much point suing before they had any money to take. IBM isn't one to do things for the principle of the thing.
IBM could have just bought-out SCO back in 2003 as Darl & Co. were hoping, but they've probably spent more money fighting the case than the buyout would have cost. OTOH, it's probably not so much principle as it is keeping the wolves who would threaten their business at bay.
Oh dear departed mama, why didn't you tell me to be a lawyer...
HF
Thanks...I knew there had to be a reason. She wanted me to be a carpenter so I could build her a home. My lust turned me to automobiles and I bought her a home someone else smashed their thumb building...
Does this mean I won't be getting that belt sander from Amazon for Christmas?
The wife really hates sanding the wood floors by hand.
"I shut down the Internet!"
ROFL!
I guess this other patent lawsuit IBM recently filed is SCO's fault too LMAO.
http://www.channelweb.com/sections/allnews/article.jhtml?articleId=196601593&cid=ChannelWebNews
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.