Patent On Selling Information Revoked In The UK
from the not-quite-patentable dept
We've written about E-Data's patent claims in the past. They're the patent hoarding company that claims to have a patent (from 1985) on "selling downloadable media" that is transferred to a "material object." That, as you might imagine, is pretty broad, and has let them go after such companies as Amazon.com, the NY Times, American Greetings and Hallmark for daring to "sell downloadable media," when you'd be hard pressed to prove that any of these companies got the idea for selling downloadable media from this particular patent. They also went on to sue Microsoft for its music download service. While Microsoft actually paid up, E-Data also went after Bill Gates' Corbis digital imaging company for violating their patents in Europe. After all of this, a UK judge has now pointed out that the patent is ridiculous, throwing out the case and the patent in Europe. The judge had a patent expert review this particular patent, and the guy noted that it's not at all clear what was being patented, since the patent: "is lengthy, repetitive and somewhat confusing" while using "invented pseudo-technical terminology." In fact, when you break down what the patent actually says: "[it] comes close to being a patent for selling information." It only took 20 years, countless lawsuits and a ton of wasted money on legal fees to figure that out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
This is not meaningful. The idea of a patent is that you get a limited monopoly on that thing simply because you were -first-. If I independently conceive of a thing that is already patented, only later, then my use of that thing is subject to the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
It most certainly is meaningful if the purpose of a patent is to encourage innovation. That's the argument we're making. Besides if you come up with something independently, then I think the original inventor has a hard time proving that the idea was non-obvious. If multiple people are coming to the same next step, it suggests the path was obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]