Katie MarsalFiled this week by Clear With Computers, a company that actually operates out of Marshall, Texas rather than simply using it as a staging point for patent disputes, the lawsuit claims that Apple's online store, its main website, and their relevant sales and supply systems infringe on some aspects of patents granted in March 1997 and November 1994 for computer-based techniques to propose and complete sales of multiple parts in a single order.
The 1997 patent in particular lets users sign in to an electronic system and build a list of products or parts from a form, including text or visual descriptions of each option and a system to handle the payment for the combined results. The database at the heart of the system would also let the host company update information for each product without having to rebuild the entire system.
CWC's description at least superficially resembles the custom configuration approaches used by Apple and HP to sell their respective computer lines. Both allow users to choose different performance and bundle options for systems before they place an order, and are built on software platforms that let either PC builder easily add or remove new items to the store on the fly as well as change prices or options.
The method described in the patent nonetheless shows signs of its age and doesn't suggest an actual online transaction: a company would instead print out the custom offer and try to sell the product in person. CWC's complaint also doesn't address examples of prior art from other companies, such as Dell's beginning direct online PC sales in 1996.
Even so, the plaintiff is confident that it can freeze out both of the computer sales giants with a permanent injunction on their services and a request that Apple and HP pay "enhanced" damages for what's claimed as deliberate infringement. CWC supports its argument by pointing to a successful defense of its two patents in a dispute with office supply retailer Staples.
Neither Apple nor HP has commented on the new lawsuit.
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Andrew Orr
Charles Martin
Marko Zivkovic
Wesley Hilliard
34 Comments
This looks like it will be thrown out of court.PS: We've seen several lawsuits against Apple recently that have merit and then there is the recent out of court settlement for Visual Voicemail, so, as Apple stock holder, it's nice to see the BS lawsuits coming back around. I wonder if we're going to see someone claim to have had the idea to put a 3G chip in the iPhone before Apple announced their plans? We've seen hokier.
This is another bullshit suit. The fact that any imbecile can patent and idea or an algorithm without actually designing a model or writing any software is utter nonsense. Its like the Amazon "One Click" patent, when did keeping a running tab or an account with a shop become an original concept deserving a patent? I would think that the idea has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. There might not have been a mouse or online stores a hundred years ago but stores, commerce and personal accounts are not new concepts.
We need to scrap this miserable excuse for a patent system and start anew. These patents are not helping protect intellectual property, they instead are being used to steal from the real innovators.
The Patent System Is Broken
It is, but do you have a solution or proposal to fix it. I have tried to brainstorm some ideas to make it better but I have nothing.
The only reasonable idea is to make the plaintiff pay for all court fees if they lose, like in the UK. But that only hinder these small companies or individuals fighting a big corporation who has taken their idea and may be not concern a large company whose lawyers will cost considerably more than the defendant's if it were the other way around.
Any ideas?
The problem started when they started awarding patents for algorithms, business processes and genes. Patents should be awarded for actual products. You must have done more than just thought about something. The idea that you can patent a mathematical formula is inane. Imagine if that had been around hundreds of years ago. Should we have to pay every time we calculate a square root? Should calculators have to pay a license for all the calculations it may make?
I am not saying that we should not be allowed to sue. I am saying that there are too many patents and that too many things qualify for patents too easily. Patents should only be granted for really original ideas, not just combinations of old ones and the applicant must have done more than just brainstormed a little and made a diagram.
This Patent is rediculously Broad. You cant just Patent Online Shopping. It's an Idea, not a product. Although I am glad that they actually live in Texas instead of Just suing there. Is there any chance that they may have moved to Texas a year or two ago in preperation to file the lawsuit?