Crowdfunding Patented; Kickstarter Threatened, Asks Court To Invalidate
from the can-they-crowdfund-their-defense dept
Back in 2004, I first wrote about musicians using a platform called ArtistShare to help raise funds from fans. It was an early version of crowdfunding -- but as I noted in the post itself, it was no different than a number of similar ideas that were out there. ArtistShare was definitely a part of the first wave of similar offerings, which included things like Sellaband and Bandstocks. It's was a great idea, but it wasn't exactly original. More recently, a second generation of such companies has become much more well known and much more successful... with Kickstarter definitely being the big name in the space.It turns out that ArtistShare's CEO, Brian Camelio, applied for a patent on the basic concepts of crowdfunding back in 2003, and, while it took a while, that patent (7,885,887) was issued earlier this year, officially for "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work." You can read the details, but it basically describes exactly how most crowdfunding works today. Apparently, he then started contacting Kickstarter (and, one imagines, several other crowdfunding platforms), trying to get them to pay up. With Kickstarter, he apparently sent a couple of letters and then showed up unannounced at their offices one day.
After going back and forth with him for a bit, being threatened with a possible lawsuit, and noticing that Camelio had transferred the patent to a new operation called Fan Funded, which they believed was to be used for suing others for patent infringement, Kickstarter filed for a declaratory judgment saying that the patent was invalid and, even if it was valid, that they didn't infringe.
In an interview with PaidContent (at that link above) it appears, bizarrely, that part of the thinking on Camelio's part is that he just doesn't like Kickstarter compared to his own business:
"As an artist myself, I feel that KickStarter may be hurting artists by focusing on 'donating money' rather than celebrating the artist for what they do. Their model does not build fan relationships but just continually asks for hand outs."Here's the thing: I actually agree that this is a major weakness of Kickstarter's model and have said so to people who have asked me about Kickstarter in the past. It's a one-and-done sort of thing. But... the way to respond to that is to build a better product that serves the market better. If you don't think Kickstarter does the best job serving artists, then make your product better. Don't threaten them with patent infringement and try to justify it by claiming you just don't like Kickstarter's model.
Hopefully the court rejects such a broad and obvious patent. Perhaps Kickstarter should crowdfund its legal efforts here. Amusingly, as pointed out by THREsq, one of the latest Kickstarter projects is a book from a patent agent celebrating the artwork found in patents...
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: brian camelio, crowdfunding, patents
Companies: artistshare, fan funded, kickstarter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bread refreshing method
http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6080436.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"A method of refreshening a bread product by heating the bread product to a temperature between 2500.degree. F. and 4500.degree. F. The bread products are maintained at this temperature range for a period of 3 to 90 seconds.
Claim: What is claimed is:"
#6080436
Title: Bread refreshing method
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this spurring innovation?
His answer is to use his patent to drive the competition out of business or extract huge sums of cash because they aren't doing it right.
And because he filed for paperwork he gets to decide how this entire market space is supposed to advance and behave.
How can there be any competition when all one needs to do is write up a passable application and get it filed first, then wait for someone to get remotely close to your idea and then sue them?
Intellectual Property is our most valuable asset, that has been the battle refrain.
Intellectual Property law in its current state is killing innovation. Isn't that a bad thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://anticipatethis.wordpress.com/?s=they+invented+what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://holmansbiotechipblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/university-sues-makers-of-heart-healthy.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A patent on the process of obtaining a bad patent whereby one does one of the following
A: Bribe the USPTO examiner.
B: Use difficult words in hopes to confuse the USPTO examiner into approving a patent due to not understanding the patent request.
C: Threaten to appeal the patent rejection if the patent is rejected and follow through. Let the USPTO know that it could easily avoid a very time consuming and frustrating appeal process if only it rubber stamped your simple patent. Provide the USPTO with rubber stamps.
D: Take the USPTO examiner out to a nice fancy dinner.
F: If the above may not be working, pull the racism card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source: http://opensource.com/business/11/10/uneasy-relationship-between-open-source-and-profit
If we want to see America grow again we must slay the IP dragon now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me crazy, but but I think I'm on to something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe this exists ...
Provide a demo track or two of the album, a mock-up of the software, or a storyboard for a movie in order to track investors. They get a free copy when the product releases and a share of the profits based on the investment. The site takes a CC-like percentage.
I'm sure somebody's doing it already, buy I haven't heard of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iV THOUGHT ABOUT THIS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iV THOUGHT ABOUT THIS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From now on the rest of the world have to be complete bastards to each other.
Oh. Looks like I didn't need a copyright for that to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hes just jealous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You almost got it when you mention that the patent was applied for in 2003. But at the end of your post, you dismiss the patent as "a broad and obvious patent", ignoring the simple fact that you are looking back with 8 years of experience.
In 2003, this wasn't broad and obvious, it was a new idea. According to Wikipedia, "The term "crowdsourcing" is a portmanteau of "crowd" and "outsourcing," first coined by Jeff Howe in a June 2006 Wired magazine article "The Rise of Crowdsourcing".". So the patent application pre-dates the cool name by 3 years.
What seems broad now wasn't all that broad at the time. You cannot revoke a patent today because the market place has broadened under it.
Your misunderstanding of patent law is frightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Early examples
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) may provide one of the earliest examples of crowdsourcing. An open call was made to the community for contributions by volunteers to index all words in the English language and example quotations for each and every one of their usages. In the 70 year project, they received over 6 million submissions. The making of the OED is detailed in The Surgeon of Crowthorne by Simon Winchester.
Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed provides early examples of crowdsourcing in theatrical performances. Boal's models give emphasis to the participants, and the influence their collaboration has on their performances.
In 1994, Northeast Consulting compiled a database of trends in the marketplace. This database was collected from numerous sources, offering an example of early crowdsourcing.
....
Historical examples
The Alkali Prize
The Longitude Prize
Fourneyron's Turbine
Mathematical Tables Project
Montyon Prizes
Nicolas Appert and food preservation
Loebner Prize
Millennium Prize Problems"
More examples available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crowdsourcing_projects
What have we learned today AC? Hopefully we've learned that things can exist as a standard practice and certainly as a well known concept before someone invents a clever word for a magazine to refer to said concept or practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What have I learned? That poor examples don't disprove the patent, rather they strengthen it by showing how even those who claim to understand crowsfunding fail at the most basic levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:patent is invalid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.amptoons.com/howto/sim/173.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got some change, man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it isn't a gift, and there is some exchange of value, it functions more like a shareholder organization - if you contribute, you get value, but clearly not exactly as you don't get ownership.
I don't think just renaming or tweaking a common community concept should be patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious and Old
Just changing the technique, media, topic or the focus of begging does not make it patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
meaning: patents my clients are adverse to
Masnick has an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
He sells blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick is not a reporter. He is a patent system saboteur receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. He cannot be trusted and has no credibility. All he knows about patents is he doesn’t have any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kickstarter is the aggressor
chenchen
var docstoc_docid='165688239'; var docstoc_title='chen'; var docstoc_urltitle='chen';
[ link to this | view in chronology ]