Lawsuit Claims Miller High Life Loyalty Program Infringes Patent
from the it's-miller-time dept
Loyalty programs are a pretty basic concept and have jumped to the online world ages ago as an obvious progression of such programs. But, of course, where "obvious" and "internet" meet, there are almost always patents to get in the way. Mike Wokasch alerts us to the news that a company called Carlson Marketing Worldwide is suing beermaker MillerCoors over its "Miller High Life Extras Loyalty Program." The patent in question, 6,039,244 is incredibly short... and broad, and covers a form of creating a database for a loyalty program. It's only three claims long, with the first claim being the only one that matters. Read that claim and explain how this patent was ever found to be legit.Anyway, of course, Carlson is very upset about all of this, though I find it interesting that the URL that the lawsuit itself points to for the Miller loyalty program appears to be run by a company called Eprize, who seems to whitelabel loyalty programs for lots of big name brands. So perhaps there's more to it than the lawsuit notes, but when Carlson claims in its filing that Miller "owns, operates and maintains" the program, I'm not sure that's really true. Either way, it's yet another sad example of patent bullying.
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: loyalty programs
Companies: carlson marketing, millercoors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Since there will be no money to collect there is no reason to keep patenting absurds, since nobody will pay anything and it keeps people who actually do something from being copied appeasing the people who believe in such a nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So adapting to lawsuits is better than adapting to customers? What bollocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me guess, you're a patent lawyer? The only thing that would encourage would be for the innocent to settle out of court for money.
Changing the way you're doing things can be just as costly as a huge patent lawsuit.
The real solution is stop granting monopolies on ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But it gives people an escape route, it goes in the right direction to actually change things step by step.
The thing to remember here is that those in power are afraid of radical change.
It gives people the chance to experiment to find a different route is that bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Forcing a company to "change the way it does something" is very expensive and would encourage trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It reduces liability and punishment why is BS?
What do you do with patents that you can't monetize unless you produce something?
What do you do with patents that are easy to find ways around it, and people can freely experiment until they find a alternative solution?
What do you say to a proposal that even the moderates can get behind it?
The way to great changes start with small steps.
Couple those changes with Open Hardware Initiatives and you get a pretty powerful way to deal with the situation until real change can be accomplished.
The biggest problem with patents is liability. Reduce that and most of the problems go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We really need reform and a total review. Whoever is running the patent office has screwed it up and made your patent nothing but a license to litigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Later filed as a PCT aplication with the European Patent Office that obviously designated the US as one of the designated states where national applications would/could be filed.
US application filed claiming priority based upon the original 1997 filing in Germany.
US counsel prosecuting the application was Townsend, Townsend and Crew, then one of the preeminent law firms withing Silicon Valley and San Francisco, a firm that was hardly a patent application filing mill.
Numerous references were used by the USPTO during prosecution of the US application.
The specification of the patent is by no means "incredibly short" as stated here.
A patent application does not necessarily need an almost infinite number of claims to state the metes and bounds of a claimed invention. Some of the most important inventions I have ever seen mature into a patent have had an equally few number of claims.
Claims are interpreted in accordance with the disclosure contained in the application, and, thusly, are limited accordingly in scope.
To read only the claims devoid of reference to terms of art used in the specification fundamentally misapprehends claim interpretation and what may be asserted against third parties.
Bottom line: To simply read claims without reference to arguments present in the file history of the application that eventually issued as this patent represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the process by which patent applications are examined to determine if a patent grant is warranted.
Using just the claims to declare this patent to be a "poster child" of so-called "bad patents" is lacking in merit without an examination of the file history to ascertain the true scope of the claims contained in the patent.
An intellectually honest debate about this patent requires far more than the analysis presented here.
Maybe a mistake was made here, but it certainly cannot be determined using the rationale employed in this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Maybe a mistake was made here"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The patented claims are trivial - and there is plenty of prior art that would invalidate it out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If there is relevant prior art out there that invalidates the claims, then I think it would be a relatively easy matter to cite them and why they are relevant to claim construction.
Perhaps such prior art exists, but a conclusory statement without citations does fall a bit short of the mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Especially when you're trying to rack up your chargeable hours....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just ask any person in charge of acquiring home supplies and you will see the prior art and how those claims in that patent are an offense to common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
As for the comment to which you replied, it was nothing more that an insulting rant based upon nothing said here.
My daughter went to public schools.
My wife and I drive a '97 Dodge Caravan and a '98 Toyota Corolla.
I pull over to the curb when an ambulance passes, and leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In addition the history you mentioned in this case IS irrelevant, why, because this patent should have NEVER gone through, it is obvious to anyone with a brain.
I honestly don't care about what you drive, as far as "n intellectually honest debate about this patent requires far more than the analysis presented here.", well duh! That is what the internets are for moron, Mike presents his opinion and some links to relevant information, we look at what he said, DO OUR OWN RESEARCH, and agree or disagree. Then if we want we write a response, hopefully including REFERENCES to back up our opinions.
If you want to try to support a silly patent here at least do yourself a favor and back up your statements with facts & cite your sources, otherwise all you get is scorn, sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Line beneath bottom line.
To create a bureaucratic legalistic patent system that requires this level of tedious analysis of the obvious to reach any sort of conclusion is simply a drag on those who are trying to do useful work.
In short - you think that this issue requires hours of legal analysis to arrive at a conclusion. I think that it shouldn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YkoDAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=g bs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also of importance is that all those diagrams deal with abstractions of implementations and not the implementations itself, how did the USPTO accepted that is a mystery to many.
Possible solution, force all those software patents to come with source code to be filed with the patent showing exactly what is being patented, since patents are supposed to give all the remedies against copycats and it is supposed to do that, one must not be afraid to release the source code into the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly; whatever government does to fix it will be 50% corporate interests, 1% creative interests, 1% for the interests of the people and 48% confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I explained how this is done. The writer of this article apparently does not have the inclination to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless your answer is "it's legit because it's legit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
First, a history or where the patent originated, which provides some insight as to why it may contain only a few claims.
Second, a discussion about how one goes about deciding what a claim actually covers. Many people mistakenly believe that a claim can be read without reference to the specification, i.e., everything that preceeds the claims. This is not accurate because applicants are permitted to be their own "lexicographers", and, thusly, terms appearing in a claim may very well be limited in scope by how those terms are defined in the specification. Moreover, the file history, i.e., all of the arguments presented by the USPTO and the applicant during the process of examing an application, may reveal the existence of arguments presented by an applicant that limit the scope of the claims even further.
These are why resort to the specification and the file history are so important in ascertaining the true scope of claims appearing in an issued patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]