LawGeek

We ask the PTO to revoke the Clear Channel Live Recording Patent

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release

For Immediate Release: Tuesday, February 14, 2006

EFF Challenges Clear Channel Recording Patent

Illegitimate Patent Locks In Artists and Threatens Innovators

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a challenge Monday to an illegitimate patent from Clear Channel Communications.  The patent -- for a system and method of creating digital recordings of live performances -- locks musical acts into using Clear Channel technology and blocks innovations by others.

Clear Channel claims that its patent creates a monopoly on all-in-one technologies that produce post-concert live recordings on digital media and has threatened to sue anyone who makes such recordings with a different system. This has forced bands like the Pixies into using Clear Channel's proprietary technology, and it hurts investment and innovation in new systems developed by other companies.

"Clear Channel shouldn't be able to intimidate artists with bogus intellectual property," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "We hope the Patent Office will take a hard look at Clear Channel's patent and agree that it should be revoked."

The request for reexamination filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office shows that a company named Telex had in fact developed similar technology more than a year before Clear Channel filed its patent request.  EFF, in conjunction with Theodore C. McCullough of the Lemaire Patent Law Firm and with the help of students at the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic at American University's Washington College of Law, wants the patent office to revoke the patent based on this and other extensive evidence.

"The patent system serves an important public purpose in our economy," said Schultz. "Keeping illegitimate patents out of that system helps up-and-coming artists and entrepreneurs succeed for all of us."

The Clear Channel patent challenge is part of EFF's Patent Busting Project, aimed at combating the chilling effects bad patents have on public and consumer interests. Illegitimate patents currently in effect could prevent you from building a hobbyist website or even streaming a wedding video to your friends.  The Patent Busting Project seeks to document the threats and fight back by filing requests for reexamination against the worst offenders.

The Reexamination request.

The evidence against Clear Channel.

This release.

Disney tries to patent Happy Wifi Meals

From a recent Walt Disney Patent Application:

[0024] It can be seen that the downloading of small sections or parts of content can be spread out over a long period of time, e.g., 5 days. Each time a different part of the content, such as a movie, is downloaded, until the entire movie is accumulated.

Thus, as a promotional program with a venue, such as McDonald's restaurant, a video, video game, new character for a game, etc., can be sent to the portable media player through a wireless internet connection, such as Wi Fi, as an alternative to giving out toys with Happy Meals or some other promotion. The foregoing may be accomplished each time the player is within range of a Wi Fi or other wireless access point. The reward for eating at a restaurant, for example, could be the automatic downloading of a segment of a movie or the like, or a short animated clip or cartoon.

(via engadget)

PTO issues patent for anti-gravity space vehicle

United States Patent: 6,960,975.

Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state

A space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state is provided comprising a hollow superconductive shield, an inner shield, a power source, a support structure, upper and lower means for generating an electromagnetic field, and a flux modulation controller. A cooled hollow superconductive shield is energized by an electromagnetic field resulting in the quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a gravitomagnetic field that forms a spacetime curvature anomaly outside the space vehicle. The spacetime curvature imbalance, the spacetime curvature being the same as gravity, provides for the space vehicle's propulsion. The space vehicle, surrounded by the spacetime anomaly, may move at a speed approaching the light-speed characteristic for the modified locale.

Check out this part of the specification:

By creating alternative anomalies and modulating their parameters, the space vehicle's crew would dilate and contract time and space on demand. The space vehicle, emitting a vacuum pressure modifying, controllably-modulated gravitomagnetic field in all directions, would rapidly move in the uneven spacetime anomaly it created, pulled forward by gravity or pushed by the repulsion force. The time rate zone of the anomaly is expected to have multiple quantized boundaries rather than a single sudden boundary affecting space and time in the immediate proximity of the vehicle. Speed, rate of time, and direction in space could be shifted on demand and in a rapid manner. The modulated light-speed could make the space vehicle suitable for interstellar travel. Because of the time rate control in the newly created isospace, the accelerations would be gradual and the angles of deviation would be relatively smooth. The gravity shielding would further protect pilots from the ill-effects of gravity during rapid accelerations, directional changes, and sudden stops.

Article on why this is silly here.

(Thanks Eric!)

Silly Software Patent #25: Online Suggestion Box for Employees

From SF-based Charles Schwab & Co. comes U.S. Patent No. 6,961,756 ("Innovation management Network"):

Issued: November 1, 2005

Filed: August 16, 2000

Abstract:  An application allows employees to submit suggestions and ideas for improving how a company does business. A presently preferred embodiment of the invention supports multiple points of entry, which can include an entry portal, which is a single point of entry to a Web application; a point of entry for employees within a specific business unit in a larger entity for submission of suggestions related to the business unit; a point of entry for motivated submitters with an idea about how to change the company's business; a central point of entry for ideas and suggestions; and a point of entry for ideas on improving a specific aspect of the company, for example the company's use of the Internet.

 

The claims of the patent are actually a bit more complex than a simple suggestion box, e.g., using search tools and dividing submissions by "innovation zones" (whatever the heck that means), but still, seems like a pretty simple method thats been practiced for years in companies and now just has some PHP behind it.

And, of course, no company would ever invest in a web-based suggestion box system without a government-granted 20 year monopoly on the idea, so it's a good thing we hand them out.

<via Gen-Eric>

The Difference Between Software and Drug Patents

Brookings Institute Scholar Ben Klemens has a nice little OpEd over on BI's site about patent reform and why there is an important difference between software patents and other kinds of patents:

However, the key distinction between a drug and a method for using a computer is that few of us own the equipment or have the desire to manufacture drugs. Meanwhile, computers are ubiquitous--and as a result, so is software authorship. If you are reading this at work, there is probably someone in your building writing software right now: perhaps in the form of a company web page, or a script to make the accounting database work better. Thus, a patent on a drug creates potential liability for those companies in the pharmaceutical business, while a software patent creates potential liability for any company with its own website or software customizations, regardless of its business.

Brother, Can You Spare a Patent License?

Full-on self promotion here, but I'm pretty happy with the OpEd that Terri Forman (EFF's Dev. Director) and I did for the Convio Newsletter on the evils of business method patents on online fundraising techniques (Brother, Can You Spare a Patent License?).

Here's one of my favorite paragraphs:

Furthermore, online techniques used to maximize giving are far less expensive for nonprofits than those in the offline world. As donors demand more accountability, online tools make it more cost effective for organizations to raise money. They also make interaction between the donor and the nonprofit much more immediate and convenient. In the ongoing quest to improve the ways for doing business, nonprofits borrow best practices from each other. This isn't stealing, this is community — the bedrock that philanthropy has relied upon for decades. Shouldn't technology enable us to do more and to do it more effectively? Restricting our use of fundraising tools limits the number of people we can engage, the volume of donations we will receive, and ultimately, the universe of people we can help.

Let them eat half-frosted donuts

In Re The Absurdity of Design Patents, check out this one on Dunkin Donut's design for putting frosting on one half of a donut.

Via IP Funny.

EU Software Patent War Photo Gallery

Ha! Check out this cool photo gallery of images from the recent battles over software patents in the EU. I love the David v. Goliath water battle!

via Boing Boing

Silly Software Patent #24: Collecting Buyer Feedback

So it's been a while since I posted a silly software patent. Here's a new one:

Amazon has applied for a patent on Profiling item sellers to inform item purchasing decisions and build trust in a multiple-seller marketplace, i.e. having buyers rate marketplace sellers. Duh, why didn't I think of that?

Here's the main claim:

1. A method in a computing system for mediating among sellers in a multiple-seller marketplace, comprising:

for each of a plurality of sellers: collecting buyer feedback data characterizing the level of satisfaction of buyers with the seller;

collecting seller performance data characterizing the prior performance of the seller for sales made through the marketplace;

and determining a numerical seller score for the seller based upon the collected buyer feedback and seller performance data;

for a selected item: identifying sellers among the plurality (1) that are offering the selected item for sale, and (2) whose seller score exceeds a predetermined score threshold;

choosing as the featured seller of the selected item the identified seller that is offering the selected item at the lowest price;

receiving a request for information about the selected item;

in response to the received request, serving a web page containing information about the selected item and an ordering control for the selected item;

receiving an indication that the ordering control was activated;

and in response to receiving the indication that the ordering control was activated, effecting ordering of the selected item from the featured seller.

So people buy things; they give feedback; that feedback is summarized; and then people use the feedback to buy more stuff. Wow.. what a concept. I wonder if Zagat's should get an opinion letter? Amazon claims to have invented this on December 31, 2003. I mean, really, besides rating systems being pervasive on the Internet prior to that date, do we really believe they invented it afterChristmas and not before? Pshaw...

United Way CTO Fires Salvo at Fundraising Patents

Michael Schreiber, head tech over at the United Way of America has published a scathing editorial about the nasty impact that business method patents could have on the future of non-profit/community service organizations:

Consider what the future looks like for nonprofits operating in a landscape where activities as important and efficient as online fundraising are patented by one company or even a few companies. Nonprofits face a few scenarios, and none of them are good:

• Divert a greater percentage of every dollar raised to cover license fees just to operate — money that previously was earmarked for and still needs to go to programs and services making a positive difference in the lives of constituents.

• Settle for other, less effective and efficient technology solutions to avoid the higher cost of patented solutions as well as the threat of being sued.

This certainly is not how donors envision their contributions being used. Donors do care how their money is leveraged to achieve sustainable societal change.

Nonprofit organizations exist to address complex social, environmental, and educational challenges. The last thing we need is another structural impediment like business method patents that could seriously distract us from the creation of tangible and sustainable change in our communities.