Selling Stuff On The Internet? Why, That Infringes On A Patent!
from the prepare-to-get-sued dept
Erich Spangenberg was mentioned here earlier this week for having to pay $4 million for shuffling some patents around to shell companies and suing a company he had already agreed not to sue over those patents. Of course, that’s not slowing him down apparently. Not only has he asked for a new trial on that ruling, he’s continuing to file new patent lawsuits — with the latest one apparently being for a patent on selling stuff on the internet. Yes, the patent may say it’s about selling vehicles, but of the 47 new companies being sued over this patent, it looks like they’re all selling other stuff, not cars. Basically, it looks like he’s trying to sue every internet retailer there is — because, of course, none of them ever would have come up with the concept of selling stuff online if this patent didn’t exist.
Filed Under: erich spangenberg, online selling, patents, selling
Comments on “Selling Stuff On The Internet? Why, That Infringes On A Patent!”
Wow ..
…what an a-hole!
Ya know, this whole patent thing is getting really depressing. Well, that and the RIAA and the MP-whatever the hell and the warrentless searches and spying on generally law-abiding citizens, and the lawyers, and …
I have GOT to stop reading the news.
Blessed are the clueless for they shall be truly happy.
I just applied for a new Patent
No longer can anyone pass an anonymous round of effluent body gases. I am patenting the “Silent and Deadly” Fart. Not only the method for presenting the flatulence in an obscure manner, but the eye watering, room vacating, odor/vapor produced by said flatulence.
Once I get it, then I am suing everyone for patent infringement, and then I am going to sue everyone that first smelt it, since they mostly dealt it.
I am also going to sue those noses that smelt if for copy right infringement as they illegally reproduced the smell in a biological electrical signal to the brain.
So let’em rip while you can.
Re: I just applied for a new Patent
DMCA Takedown Notice:
The above comment infringes on the IP of “Silent But Deadly” which I won in a nude mud wrestling match.
Please cease and desist from thiking, or I will sue….
^got that from lowyur skool
I've said it before...
Taking an existing action or business model and adding the phrase “over the internet” to the end of it does not make it a new idea nor should it be patentable – unless you already hold the patent on the default action.
This same rules applies to new technologies as they become available, and so it also applies to “via a wireless connection”, “via a 3G wireless network”, etc….
This means that people who took actions like “Conduct an auction” and added “over the internet” to it shouldn’t be able to get a patent unless they invented auctions in the first place and still hold a patent on the concept.
Re: I've said it before...
Not only that but patenting a business model or method shouldn’t be allowed either. I still say the patent office should go back to requiring a working model of a patent. That alone would stop most of this nonsense because it would demonstrate they didn’t really event anything and that the ‘invention’ was pretty obvious extension of prior art.
Re: I've said it before...
Try telling THAT to Eolas, who fouled up several million websites when they decided that running a program, on a computer, => over the internet
Thinking
I’m going to patent the thought process, or thinking in general. Unfortunately I don’t think I’m going to get rich.
Blessing in disguise?
If he has enough $$$ backing, maybe a constant flow of these ‘patents’ will cause a judge to snap and try to do something.
Mike,
Again you should how little you actually know about patents, but yet act like your an expert enough to discuss them!
Claim #1 of that patent CLEARLY states “for selling vehicles”, and ALL of the other claims of the patent are “Dependant” on claim one, so if something of claim one doesn’t apply, then NONE of the claims apply, including claim one.
In essence, THIS patent only relates to selling vehicles and does NOT cover “selling *anything* on the internet”.
So, either you are jumping off a bridge like the idiot in front of you who is incorrectly claiming that it covers ANY selling on the internet, or this is not the patent that he is suing over. Either way, unless you are well versed in patents, you shouldn’t being making false claims if you want anyone to respect your other opinions.
Re: Re:
Buddy, you’re giving an example of Mike’s knowledge of a SPECIFIC patent, not his knowledge of patents and patent law in general. That in and of itself is enough to show that you don’t know enough of what you’re talking about.
Seriously, it’s like you saying you know quite a bit about skiing and then me calling you a retard because you haven’t read the rules at the ski lodge in my town. Well, why DID you chew gum while skiing if you knew soo much?
Re: Re:
1) It’s obvious you didn’t read Mike’s comments correctly:
“it looks like he’s trying to sue every internet retailer there is”
2) It’s also obvious you didn’t follow any of the links in the article. If you did, can you please explain how defendants like Gap, Old Navy and Victoria’s Secret have absolutely anything to do with selling cars over the Internet? I’d really like to know because they are defendants in the latest lawsuit from the (in my personal opinion) patent troll.
Re: Re:
It really doesn’t matter what kind of goods are covered. It’s criminally ridiculous either way. This abortion and every patent official and judge that let him get away with it belong in the slammer.
Re: Re:
“…this is not the patent that he is suing over.”
As noted in the article, at least two, and possibly three, other patents are involved…none of which are limited to the sale of “vehicles”. Regarding the patent mentioned in this article, it is not at all mentioned in the linked article.
Re: Re: Re:
Should read:
As noted in the linked article…
Re: Re:
> In essence, THIS patent only relates to selling
> vehicles and does NOT cover “selling *anything* on the
> internet”.
Maybe the patent only covers autos, but the point of the article is that Mr. Scumbag is suing businesses who have nothing to do with selling vehicles over the internet. Try reading the source articles next time. For your lazy ass I quote:
> Two days ago, Apple and Hewlett-Packard were sued on the
> same patents.
Woe unto lawyers and patent trolls. What we need around here is some good old fire and brimstone raining down on these jerks.
Re: Re:
Fire and brimstone? WTF has your false god (bad news folks, there is no god) got to do with american copyright law? No No No! Fire and brimstone would be an insult to us, if we actually allowed the law to run so amuck that we needed sanctions from a higher power to save us from our legal department? PFT. I would be ashamed indeed if the hand of god tried to help us out.
What we need is for american citizens to handle this situation. Someone needs to just kill him. Let it be known to all that abuses of the law will not be tolerated.
Re: Re: Re:
Amen.
Selling Stuff
I just started a web business and then I read this… I thought I can’t win in this country anymore. I gave up my small store front to do this and please note; I haven’t made a dime yet. So give us all some freedom to retail something without the hits. Live is more fun if we try different things.
Send me a lawsuit...
I sell products online. Please send me a lawsuit too, I’m running low on toilet paper.
I think capital punishment should be considered for idiots like this guy….
I’m about to patent selling stuff over the phone and by means of classified print ads and while sitting in a chair or standing up. Or outdoors. Or indoors. Or while breathing.
And, of course, on nuisance patent lawsuits, and on being a total asshole. This jerk, as well as any patent official who allowed such a patent to make it past the front door both belong in Guantanamo.
Yeah1!!1
Fire and brimstone is soooo 20th century.
I hope the Machine Gods grind this guy in their threshing gears, and shove his carcass through their tubes, which are not like trucks.
Of course he's not the only problem.
This guy is scummier than a urinal at Cubs Park, but outfits like Chrysler that let him get away with it are just as bad. What in hell are they paying their high-priced lawyers for, anyway, if they can’t stomp on this piece of dirt flat and broken?
OOOh! I can’t wait to counter sue!
Someone should patent suing people over non-sense patents as a business model.
I was going to kill this guy...
…but he owns the patent for the concept of a gun. He will shortly be sueing Smith & Wesson.
What a unique and novel idea, selling vehicles over the internet. Nobody else has ever thought of doing that. We are all in awe of this great visionary.
Re: Re:
You should check out some of the patents listed under Citations and Referenced By. It’s clear that the patent office will approve anything.
blya mudaki
WTF are you talking about ?
You have no clue about the subject
At some point he will sue the wrong people and at that point Erich will end up in a landfill.
Can we round up the patent examiners that approved these patents and shame them in public? Perhaps we can pelt them with eggs, garbage, feces and whatever nasty materials or liquids we can find. Maybe then they would get the message?
Erich Spangenberg
I hope this guy get a flat tire during rush hour.