Feeds

back to article Texas patent holder sues Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft

A Texas company has sued AOL, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, claiming that all four web giants have infringed its patent "for conducting business transactions over the Internet". Performance Pricing Inc. filed suit last week in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, a popular place for patent infringement suits. The …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Legit startups?

Seems to me that the whole US patent system has really lost its way, especially by allowing software patents. The whole concept of "patent" is to allow a person to profit from their invention for a period of time. In exchange for making their invention part of the public domain after a set period of time, the government (representing that amorphous thing called "society") spends a lot of taxpayer money enforcing the patent holders rights. Unfortunately, at 19 years, most software patents don't really add much to the value of the public domain. Let's not go into the 70 to 100 year copyright scam as it applies to software either.

So no, the USA has lost its way. The richest companies in the USA today are companies that freely copied from others and got away with it. Disney (copied Buster Keaton, and still swipes many of its stories from the public domain), Fox (moved to California from New York due to Californias lax copyright laws for the time), Microsoft (the list is very long there), and so on. Big pharma is just as guilty, blatantly copying things that shamans and witch doctors have used for centuries then claiming ownership. At least their stuff is still useful after 19 years, unlike most software.

So let's stop spending taxpayer money for a one-sided "intellectual property" deal with society that really only benefits only a few large corporations and a few wanna-be trolls. Let's let companies start competing on merits and real innovation (so put the monopolists up against the wall. Now.), not on an every growing legal community that adds very little.

0
0

Let the games begin?

And we see more rushing to litigate before the new law (presumably) passes and takes effect. I bet this will only increase into a frenzy in the next few months as more companies make last-ditch attempts to monetize dodgy patents against huge corporations. Joy.

0
0

Value?

What value does granting this patent have for society?

Maybe if the plaintiff had to pay the defendant's costs this kind of thing would be prevented?

I wonder if the process for patent tolling has been patented?

0
0
Silver badge

One question

Where has "Performance Pricing" implemented its code ? Where is it actually USING its "patent" ?

Because if it is not using it, then it should not complain about it being used. I've been hearing of Google, AOL and the rest for years now. Performance Pricing is a name I heard for the first time today.

Patent troll is their true name, and like SCO and Darl McBride, they should be strung up by the short and uglies and left to dry.

Pascal.

0
0

New idea

I have a patent to file.

My patent involves a process for the self-employed use of an external (or locally attached) appendage, a box of tissues or similar water-retaining receptacle (such as but not limited to, a sock), and personally-chosen (and applied) stimulation which may include, but is not limited to, static images and/or moving pictures, including all of the internet, printed media, electronic media, themed stationary, printed fabric, lunchbox logo's, big boobs, said employee's imagination, and a donkey.

The process is as follows;

1. Find a suitable location, either in private or a public place, which could include, but is not limited to a bedroom, a park, the disabled toilet at your place of work.

2. Prepare said stimulation with eyes open or eyes closed, giving yourself enough room (as deemed fit by the employee, or not) for a damn-good, un-obstructed thrashing. Note at this point no thrashing should comence, but may commence at the employees judgement, due to the possibility of unaccounted spillage.

3. Prepare the appendage, which could include but is not limited to a hand, a doll, a thawed turkey or an artificial limb with said receptacle. Eg, place sock in hand.

4. Take the prepared appendage and grasp your (now very erect) magic love wand.

5. Using a series of appendage-rocking motions, coupled with heavy breathing and an increase in heart-rate, thrash until the tree of love has released all of its white-hot hairless coconuts. DO NOT REMOVE the receptacle at this point, leave it in place until the magic love wand has retreated into it's bush like a frightened badger, withdrawing for a little cry. Use the receptacle to catch these final tears and then, if disposable dispose of it in a responsible manner. If non-disposable then put into storage (such as but not limited to a wallet, pocket or under a wig) for a later washing and re-use. If edible, run under a warm tap and cook until piping hot.

6. Be careful of subsequent 'twisted pair' release of urine.

All the wankers now have to pay me a license fee. Not as much as the TV license though, that would be nuts.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Only one remaining good patent ...

would be for somebody to patent the idea of registering a bogus patent like this and to waste people's time and money by wholly unjustified litigation.

These people need taking out and shooting ... along with the twits in the US Patent Office that allow these frivolous "methods" to be patented in the first place.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

It helps to know some of the background

This patent in suit was rejected by the Patent Office Examiner, appealed, and found by the Board of Appeals to be patentable - reversing the Examiner's rejection. This was not a patent that slipped by the system, but one that was analyzed in detail before being allowed to issue.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

In that case ...

"This was not a patent that slipped by the system, but one that was analyzed in detail before being allowed to issue."

In that case, its clear that the criteria they are measuring against are wrong. Which is probably proof that the patent law itself is wrong too.

You don't solve silly cases like this and like oneclick by looking at them one at a time and arguing about minute points of detail. You solve them by changing the laws to make only genuine INVENTIONS (those that involve real machines, not those that involve business methods) patentable, and by statutorily voiding any patents that no longer comply with the new laws.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I'm all for capitolism but..

These morons had their chance to cash in and make money... But did they? No. They sat on their hands and waited until the big bucks were made and now they're trying to cash in on other peoples hard work.

Screw em.

By the way, I'm patenting every hand/arm gesture process in which and individual motions "F-U" to another individual. Licensing fee will be .50 cents.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@ Master Baker

That reads more like an End ab-User Licentiousness Agreement.

New idea? I reckon any man older than you could claim "Prior Art"

Protect your IP: lock the bathroom door.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.