JasonC SBB

Sometimes the little guy wins.

How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail | Ars Technica

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Sometimes the good guys win.

RedCarmel

iTrader: (7)

Wow, I thought it was just a great place to buy computer parts.

JasonC SBB

LOL ya, makes me want to buy more stuff from them.

albertogti117

iTrader: (2)

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, 'This is bullshit,'"

Newegg ftw.

TorqueZombie

iTrader: (6)

So if I understand this right someone patented the "shopping cart" or basically the idea of buying online and has been suing everyone? NewEgg 'd them and yay. Glad they won.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

Amazon won a case on their 'one click checkout' patent. But **** that Prime 2 day shipping is so damn convenient.

JasonC SBB

LOL Prime has probably quadrupled my Amazon purchases.

Efini~FC3S

iTrader: (4)

Lol at my first Amazon Prime purchase taking 15 days to get shipped to my door...

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

So I take it that every single penny wasted by Amazon, Macy's, Kohl's, etc in defending themselves from this bullshit lawsuit (and I'm assuming hundreds more) gets passed on to consumers, right?

Kinda like those asshats that sue a small Mom&Pop strip-mall store of some kind for an ADA violation (like their aisles are 2" too narrow) even though they've never been in the store just to collect on attorneys fees?

When is American going to have enough of this ****?

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

There are companies who want to change things, but people keep buying **** from Microsoft and Apple and the other 'evil' tech companies. I mean they are all pretty fucked up, but at least SOME of them are pushing to get rid of or at least limit software patents.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Although the recent Apple cases haven't been my favorite, in terms of the obsurdity of the claims, it is an entirely different issue. Apple, Miscrosoft, and all the other tech companies like them that sue over patents actually make products and sell services. They are protecting themselves from competition.

The problem that Newegg and others have faced is the wave of patent trolls that buy patents with no other purpose but to sue others that are actually using the technology to sell services and products. They do this just to get a cut of the action without adding any value to the process. That is the real issue that needs to be dealt with. It would be simple to impose a rule on patents that does not allow a company to sue over patent infringement if they do not currently use the patent and have no current plan in the works to do so. You could also make patents non transferable. This would probably be the easiest way to solve the problem.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

I like the idea, but what's to stop Microsoft from creating the "Patent R&D Division" which is 10 people who "plan" out uses for the patents they aren't using? Right now, software patents are used by the big guys to keep the little guys out. I would be wary of anything that gives the established giants any more power, which this seems to me that it would.

Besides, as the recent Apple and Sammy lawsuits show, patent trolls are really only a small part of the problem. Just because Apple and Samsung produce actual products doesn't mean they aren't trolling as much as the actual patent trolls.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

The R&D division would have to have expenses and a well documented plan for implementing the patents. If Microsoft wants to dump millions into useless R&D to protect themselves from competition then have at it. You cannot completely fix a system but you can make it more harmful to do something then its worth.

Trolls are a much bigger problem then people think they are because they slip under the radar as most cases are settled out of court. You will never eliminate the ability to abuse patents but it bothers me far less when a company does it that is actually making products that they bring to market as opposed to a shell company that just sits back and skims money off the top for nothing.

EDIT: Any detailed plan to bring a patent to use would include a reasonable timeline and if the timeline is exceeded by a certain amount then they lose rights to the patent until they actually start using it.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

Yeah but how much will it cost to make sure they are actually using it and not just fudging the books?

Yeah but I am sure that is the case for the VAST majority of normal patent cases. It is very very very rare that a patent case makes it all the way to decision. Which is part of the problem with the patent process. The big guys can delay and run you dry without ever having to face judgment. Unless of course you pay up anyway. Look at what MS did with linux a few years back and is doing with Android now. Between $10-$15 from every Android phone purchase goes to MS. Nobody is stupid enough to fight them, but they also won't even tell you which patents they will sue you with until you sign an NDA. It creates a chilling effect.

A bad patent is a bad patent. Who uses it is irrelevant in my mind. Slide to unlock, one click purchase, or Method of swinging on a swing, it doesn't matter if Jesus himself came back to earth to sue someone with them.

Again, hurts the small-time inventor MUCH MUCH more than it hurts the big players.

JasonC SBB

Even though I benefit some from the patent system (I have a couple), I've always wondered what the world would be like in the absence of "IP protection". I can understand the arguments from both sides.

Anyway, not being able to sell patents by law is silly. As an inventor I would be happy to be able to sell patents for the right price.

The seemingly simple solution to the mess above is to reform the patent office to raise the bar of what is and isn't patentable. Some of the my inventions which IMO aren't really new and novel, were patented by my employer just so that someone else can't patent it and sue us.

Also, because tech moves so fast, to shorten the patent validity timeframe, to perhaps 5 years.

Another is to make it easier to invalidate patents, through 3rd party private arbitration (cheaper) as opposed to in courts (which raise the cost for everyone due to the damn lawyers).

Pen2_the_penguin

iTrader: (4)

Newegg has one more bigger fan girl
<<<<<<<<<<

JasonC SBB

It will take tort reform.

Here's a book on that topic:
Amazon.com: The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America (9780446672283): Philip K. Howard: Books

The author thinks the root of the problem is the belief that "rights" have morphed from "negative rights" (e.g. "you aren't allowed to hit me") to include "positive rights" ("I have the right to ADA approved bathrooms... the cost of which has to be taken from someone else's pocket).

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Then what would be a solution or step in the right direction in your mind?

By definition a small investor is always at a large disadvantage. You cannot change this. Money has and always will be power. You can level the playing field as much as possible by reducing certain barriers but without favoring a small investor directly you cannot erase this disadvantage.

Large companies became large for a reason. They use to be the small guy. They were the best at manuevering the business landscape and landed themselves on top. There are certain advantages to being at the top and they utilize them.

EDIT: BTW if you eliminated IP protection you can bet your *** this would hurt the little guy far far more than the large companies. Think about it. I invent a new idea or product that is revolutionary. I work from my garage. My product takes off. Large Company A rips off my idea and starts to produce/sell it for 30% of what I can because of their massive resources. I fail and they reap the benefits of my hardwork. I can't even sell my idea because the second I show it to someone they have rights to use it without my permission and just cut me out.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

Yep. Except that today WITH IP protection, the same thing happens, because if you are working out of your garage you probably can't afford a multi-million dollar lawsuit.