Creating A List From A Database? Prepare For A Patent Infringement Suit
from the promoting-what-progress? dept
Thanks to the whole slew of folks who sent this in: TechCrunch has the details on Channel Intelligence, a company that owns a ridiculously broad and obvious patent on creating a list from a database and is now suing a whole bunch of small websites that offer things like wishlists. Read through the claims of the patent and see if you can explain how a single one is possibly new or non-obvious to those in the space. As TechCrunch notes, the lawsuits are all targeted against smaller websites, rather than the big players like eBay or Amazon. There are a variety of reasons why this might be. Channel Intelligence may have approached those companies and actually received a token payout (cheaper than a lawsuit for those companies). Or, perhaps more likely, it's using these smaller lawsuits to bring in some additional cash and to establish the myth that this patent is valid. That was common a few years back, before people started suing everyone at once for patent infringement. Patent holders would mostly target a few small companies, who wouldn't be able to launch a strong legal defense -- use those "victories" to build up a warchest while also claiming that it showed how the patents are "valid."
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
Filed Under: database, lists, obviousness, patents, wishlist
Companies: channel intelligence
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Really a good thing...
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greed Or Stupidity?
you've see it all that something like this pops up.
I hope it's some evil genius master plan sort of
thing but that doesn't explain the patent office
granting the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviousness? --> Reexam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Related Patents = Joke
Online shopping changes based on history of the user? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5909023
"An online shopping support method and system capable of supplying proper services matching user specific needs and conditions. Purchase history information of each good purchased by each user is stored at a service offering system. In response to an input of identification information from a service use system, the service offering system searches the purchase history information of the user corresponding to a user identifier and calculates a purchase interval of each good purchased by the user. The service offering system judges, for each good whose purchase interval was calculated, whether the time corresponding to the purchase interval has lapsed after the latest purchase day. The service offering system transmits information of the good whose time corresponding to the purchase interval has lapsed to the service use system via a communication network and displaying the information at the service use system."
Is this the same as you shop at a place for a while and they recognize you and give you a better deal? I do this all the time at restaurants or bars. Oh, but wait it is online so it is now patentable. I wonder if anyone has patented doing this on a mobile phone yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF? Patent creating a file?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not know if this patent truly meets all tests under our patent laws, but I do know this...everything seems obvious once you have the answer in hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 7
It should satisfy all points on the patent, is very well documented, and is an open standard. There are others, many, many others, but I'll leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, prior art does not necessarily have to be in the form of a publication; products work as well, so long as there is proof that they were available as of the filing date and had the stated capabilities, AFAIK.
So, for example, #1 is met by Microsoft Access or any other database program capable of storing its data on a file or database server. And #61 is called "denormalized tables" and has been around for decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not totally true. In order to invalidate this patent, the products you ellude to, whether they exist or not, would have to be available either before the invention date, which may be or may not be the filing date (see 35 USC sec 102(a), or more than a year before the filing date (see sec. 102(b)).
So if MS Access has been available since 1999 and it covers everything in claim 1 like you say, then you have an anticipated patent claim that's unenforceable. However, that's assuming you're correct that MS Access covers Claim 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So if MS Access has been available since 1999
It's been available since 1992, and ADO was released by Microsoft in 1996.
It seems that this patent attempts to obfuscate basic database functionality in order to appear novel. Claim 1 covers the use of unique primary keys to identify records, whereas Claim 2 describes the concept of associated fields. The remaining claims make this particularly obvious; For example, claims 3 - 6 describe setting up a record with a generated (i.e. autonumbered) unique primary key and storing information in that record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or, if it's a more relational database for the desktop then one can cite Paradox which appeared in the mid 80s.
Not to mention SQL databases like Oracle which have been around for that long too though in server space, which is what we're dealing with here.
All more than cover and refute Claim 1.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Possibly oversimplification, but if this Channel Intelligence outfit really wants to go for meat, they should sue a bank for creating a list of transactions (think of a bank statement) or a retailer for creating a list of purchases during a single transaction (think of a reciept).
This seems silly to patent seemingly "obvious" functionality of existing technology that has existed for years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't patent Boiling Rice next. or Intuitively obvious to the most casual observer
Just another example of why software (and business processes) should not be patentable.
yes. dittos.
1. it was obvious. Get a smarted patent board. What is the recourse for a stupid decision? One-Click patent? How did this happen?
2. I thought a patent was about a particular device that did something, not an idea. Was the code the same. Burden should be on the other side (the accuser of course)
3. I like that, no soft patents. No trademarking normal words. Copyrights to run out after several years, not be extended to protect big corporate profits.
Forbidding Mickey Mouse satires does not increase creativity. It's an extension of the big, "MINE!"
--
Thanks for letting me talk, so to speak.
Thanks for letting me share, so to type.
Ah, the eternal language phenomenon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google sets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it patentable?
Anyway, shouldn't something like this be a trade secret rather than a patent? I highly doubt Home Depot, et al, read the patent and then created their web site and database. In fact, they likely had no idea who these people were when they put their inventory on line.
What Channel Intelligence "invented" is really quite obvious.
Matt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would love to start my own IT company, and it is things like this that make me hesitate (or want to move abroad).
My two cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a second...
That's like saying you're going to make a list from the phone book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUY NOW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Junk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF???
Maybe I should sue them for stealing my ideas of database structure and not paying me anything for it.
It's time to Sue the Stupid MF's who bring forth these Dumb Ass Lawsuits!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning:
Seriously though, being a web developer, the majority of websites in todays world use databases on the back-end. Hell Usenet has been "making lists from databases" for almost 30 years now. If for some reason this patent actually holds, it means the majority of the internet (and tons of software companies) will be liable for patent infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's what we do...
Then we sue over every video game on the market today.
Really. Maybe that would get people to actually do something about this lunacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply ridiculous
Is it my lack of technical understanding or this "patent" is so ambiguous that someone can just use it as an excuse to kick anyone in the head with it, with no reason whatsoever?
Why would ANYONE register such a patent?!
Makes me so sad when I read about these obscure patents that emerge out of nowhere just to annoy others.
Isn't there some regulation entity that verifies the validity of these patents? Something like: "No Sir, I'm sorry, but you CANNOT patent breathing...".
This is just bullying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simply ridiculous
Because the system is so messed up that they might just get it. With the patent they might use it to
a) sue some sucker who might cave and pay them money or
b) when some troll tries to sue them for some patent infringement, pull it out and counter sue.
Thats the way the game is played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because no one would have ever thought of any of those ideas!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and Claims
That's true up to a point. You are patenting only the specific implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. However patents also allow you to suggest to the examiner what variations to your specific blueprints should be considered trivial and should not result in a separate invention.
When used as they were intended, this makes perfect sense. For example, the inventor of the Clockwork Radio would have submitted details of his design, which might for example have described a particular sort of spring. He could (and probably did) reasonably claim that simply substituting a different type of spring does not constitute a different invention.
The problem with Patent Claims is where to draw the line, the examiner wants to allow some scope or the patent will be useless, but if he allows too much (as is the case here) it stifles innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VSAM and SQL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PTO
I hold two patents filed by companies I worked for. One should have been granted; in retrospect, the other should not have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like trying to patent the array structure in C programming.
For instance, there's no such thing as defining a single field that holds a series of x-y value pairs (example: {{x=0, y=0}, {x=2, y=5}, {x=50, y=72}, {x=100, y=100}}.
A separate 'one-to-many' relational table is required. This table has three fields: id, x, and y. To get the complete set of x-y pair values the query looks up all x-y pair records associated with the id field.
Looks like TechCrunch describes this in its patent claim. I don't think such a vague and fundamental claim can be upheld. It's like trying to claim a patent for the common array structure in C programming.
FYI: FileMaker has natively used such a list structure for as long as I can remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]