Store Payment Info In Your Online Store? Watch Out For Patent Infringement Lawsuits
from the pay-now dept
Bill Squier alerts us to the news that a bunch of companies have been sued for daring to store consumer payment information and allow either stored value payments or one-click payments on their site. The article linked here focuses on Apple as a defendant, and notes 14 other companies were sued as well, but in researching this, I found that Joe Mullin actually wrote about another batch of companies (20 of them) that were sued back in April. The earlier lawsuit included Google, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, Visa, Vivendi, Disney and Western Union among others. The more recent lawsuit has (as mentioned) Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, American Express, Barnes & Noble, Citigroup and eBay among others. So... basically any online e-commerce site, credit card company or big bank.As for the patents in question, they're all a variation on a "method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens." The specific patents are 7,376,621, 7,249,099, 7,328,189 and 7,177,838. Reading through the claims, this seems like an incredibly typical online system for storing payment info and seeing if the person can actually pay. Since the patent system defenders among our readers get quite upset whenever I say something seems "obvious" to me, let's flip this around. Can anyone explain how these concepts were not obvious at the time of filing?
Not surprisingly, the cases have been filed in Marshall, Texas... and as Joe Mullin figured out, the guy who is running "Actus" is a lawyer known for representing some infamous patent hoarding companies. He also discovered that the lawyer representing Actus in these lawsuits appears to share an office (or at least the same address) with the son (who is also a patent attorney) of the judge handling the case. At some point, do people start questioning whether or not there's a conflict of interest there?
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: patents, payment
Companies: actus, amazon, american express, apple, bank of america, barnes & noble, best buy, capital one, citigroup, disney, ebay, google, jp morgan, mastercard, visa, vivendi, wal-mart, western union
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You must be a skilled, well paid shill to put together such an eloquent bit of untruth such as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's just making the point - what is annoying about how these people are abusing patent law is in the same manner that TPB abuses copyright law, standing right on the very edge of the greyest of lines, taunting the other side.
It's the same thing - open your eyes and you might understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
here is the link to what I was referring to.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090601/0644235082.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So this is The famed "Texas Justice"?
Suddenly, I don't see anything wrong with Texas becoming it's own country and seceding from the Union.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So this is The famed "Texas Justice"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So this is The famed "Texas Justice"?
In which case we should all secede from ourselves, just to make we an example...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a funny comment, because in many cities, many lawyers will have offices in the same building, often facing or near the courthouse. So would that be the exact same office address, or just in the same building?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Marshall Texas isn't exactly a "city."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Disclaimer: I'm in Tyler, TX right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, that just completely discredits your statement, doesn't it? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The point being, it isn't clear that lawyer 1 and lawyer 2 share the same offices, only that they have the same street address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is There Room on the Supreme Court for this type of Abuse?
I have no idea concerning the scope of what the Supreme Court will be ruling on, but obvious business practices should not be entitled to patent/copyright protection.
We can only hope that those advocating the elimination of patent protection will file a "friend of the court" petition full of these absurdities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This kind of...
I am also reminded of two things:
1) In an ecosystem, parasites invariably perform a necessary function.
2) Not all analogies are valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This kind of...
I am also reminded of two things:
1) In an ecosystem, parasites invariably perform a necessary function.
2) Not all analogies are valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same Address
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How represenative of "The People" is Eastern Texas?
Point is, it's very difficult to understand the logic and reasoning behind such a small town of 24,000 having the resources to properly hear, understand or speak properly to, the intricacies of not only business, but also creative, inventive, fabrication, research, and other technology-heavy processes.
Yet, the court is often saught for it's vast experience in such cases is often looked to for what is considered "A fair ruling".
Does Marshall and/or surrounding areas (let's say 100 miles) have a Fortune 10 company that devotes more than 10% of Gross Annual Income to R&D? A "Yes" may change my perspective of the decisions handed down by the Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avengingwatcher
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This gave me a good laugh
You mean you don't know yet if you can write code ?
Dude, pls leave programming and patent matters to more capable folks !
hopefully soon a patent troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
conflict
oh we question if there's a conflict alright...yours
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice try. You obviously still have no idea of how the patent system works. Patent applicants are required to prove nonobviousness when presented with prior art that makes the invention obvious at the time of filing. Have you done that? Do you ever do that? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflict of Interest
Even if the lawyers addresses weren't the same. This daddy's boy will see cases decided by his dad's coworkers (whose work addreses ARE all the same.) That's assuming they bother to prevent his dad from deciding his cases. A generous assumption, I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]