This is just plan stupid

------=_NextPart_000_01A0_01C10E84.4F1B36A0

    charset="iso-8859-1"

Court affirms download patent Updated: Mon, Jul 16 8:35 PM EDT=20
=20
by Paul Festa, News.com=20

E-Data insists it owns the patent for Internet software downloads, and =
an appeals court says they may be right. At stake are licensing fees =
that could make the company richer than Microsoft.=20

A federal appeals court has for the second time breathed life into a =
patent that could force software vendors to pay licensing fees to sell =
their products directly over the Internet.=20

A full panel of judges on the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on =
Friday ordered a lower court that effectively had thrown out the patent =
to reconsider its scope more broadly.=20

The decision is a setback for software makers including Intuit and AOL =
Time Warner’s CompuServe unit, which have been battling a small =
Secaucus, N.J.-based company known as E-Data for years over the patent, =
which dates back to 1985.=20

E-Data’s defendants say the company’s claim would entitle it to =
licensing fees for all Internet software downloads.=20

“This is the case that would not die,” said Carl Oppedahl, attorney with =
Dillon, Colo.-based Oppedahl & Larson, which is defending Softlock =
Services in the case. “It has been going since 1995, and it isn’t over =
yet. If the patent owner prevails in its view, they stand to be =
wealthier than Microsoft.”=20

In March 1999, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New =
York ruled that the defendants had not infringed E-Data’s patent and =
that the patent had a scope too narrow to apply to Internet downloads in =
general. The patent, the court said, applied more to downloads through =
“kiosks” and other physically based retrieval systems.=20

In November 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit =
threw out that decision, ruling that the district court had too narrowly =
interpreted the patent.=20

Friday’s decision by the same appeals court meeting with all its active =
judges, or en banc, essentially upholds its previous decision that the =
patent should be read more broadly.=20

“The gist of it is that the court is sticking with its interpretation =
that the District Court had too narrowly read the claims of the patent,” =
said Neil Smith, a lawyer with Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & =
Rabkin in San Francisco. “The companies that had mostly Internet-based =
systems were likely able to get out based on the District Court’s =
ruling. They no longer can do that.”=20

The appeals court sent the case back to the District Court for a new =
hearing.=20

Defendants in the case include CompuServe, Broderbund Software, Intuit, =
Waldenbooks and Ziff-Davis Publishing

Gary Stein

------=_NextPart_000_01A0_01C10E84.4F1B36A0 Content-Type: text/html;
charset=“iso-8859-1”

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN”>
<HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200"
name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: small;
COLOR: black">Court = affirms download=20 patent</SPAN><BR> <TABLE
cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%" border=3D0> <TBODY>
<TR> <TD style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times" align=3Dright><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: = italic">Updated: Mon, Jul 16&n-
bsp;8:35 PM EDT</S=
PAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<STYLE> i { font-family: times; font-size: x-small } </STYLE>

<STYLE> p { font-family: times; font-size: small } </STYLE>

<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D1 align=3Dright =
border=3D0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<DIW><SMALL><I>by Paul Festa, News.com</I></SMALL><FONT size=3D0>=20
<DIX></FONT><B>
<DIY>E-Data insists it owns the patent for Internet software downloads, =
and an=20 appeals court says they may be right. At stake are
licensing fees that = could=20 make the company richer than
Microsoft.</B>=20
<DIZ>A federal appeals court has for the second time breathed life into a
= patent=20 that could force software vendors to pay licensing fees
to sell their = products=20 directly over the Internet.=20
<DIZ>A full panel of judges on the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals =
on Friday=20 ordered a lower court that effectively had thrown out
the patent to = reconsider=20 its scope more broadly.=20
<DIZ>The decision is a setback for software makers including Intuit and =
AOL Time=20 Warner’s CompuServe unit, which have been battling a
small Secaucus, =
DIZ.A.-based=20 company known as E-Data for years over the patent, which
dates back to = 1985.=20
<DIZ>E-Data’s defendants say the company’s claim would entitle it to =
licensing=20 fees for all Internet software downloads.=20
<DIZ>“This is the case that would not die,” said Carl Oppedahl, attorney =
with=20 Dillon, Colo.-based Oppedahl & Larson, which is defending
Softlock = Services=20 in the case. “It has been going since 1995,
and it isn’t over yet. If = the patent=20 owner prevails in its view,
they stand to be wealthier than Microsoft.”=20
<DIZ>In March 1999, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of =
New York=20 ruled that the defendants had not infringed E-Data’s
patent and that the = patent=20 had a scope too narrow to apply to
Internet downloads in general. The = patent,=20 the court said,
applied more to downloads through “kiosks” and other = physically=20
based retrieval systems.=20
<DIZ>In November 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit =
threw out=20 that decision, ruling that the district court had too
narrowly = interpreted the=20 patent.=20
<DIZ>Friday’s decision by the same appeals court meeting with all its =
active=20 judges, or en banc, essentially upholds its previous
decision that the = patent=20 should be read more broadly.=20
<DIZ>“The gist of it is that the court is sticking with its interpretation
= that=20 the District Court had too narrowly read the claims of the
patent,” said = Neil=20 Smith, a lawyer with Howard, Rice,
Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin = in San=20 Francisco. “The
companies that had mostly Internet-based systems were = likely=20
able to get out based on the District Court’s ruling. They no longer
can = do=20 that.”=20
<DIZ>The appeals court sent the case back to the District Court for a new
= hearing.=20

<DIZ>Defendants in the case include CompuServe, Broderbund Software, =
Intuit,=20 Waldenbooks and Ziff-Davis Publishing</P>
<DIZ> </P>
<DIZ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gary =
Stein</FONT></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_01A0_01C10E84.4F1B36A0–

Wow - I wonder if I can get a patent on “uploads” - make me rich
over night
. . .

<heavy sarcasm>


JD

“Of course that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong . . .” Dennis Miller


Gary Stein wrote in message
<9j11gp$5c8$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com>… Court affirms download
patent Updated: Mon, Jul 16 8:35 PM EDT

by Paul Festa, News.com

E-Data insists it owns the patent for Internet software downloads, and an
appeals court says they may be right. At stake are licensing fees that
could make the company richer than Microsoft.

A federal appeals court has for the second time breathed life into a
patent that could force software vendors to pay licensing fees to sell
their products directly over the Internet.

A full panel of judges on the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on
Friday ordered a lower court that effectively had thrown out the patent to
reconsider its scope more broadly.

The decision is a setback for software makers including Intuit and AOL
Time Warner’s CompuServe unit, which have been battling a small Secaucus,
N.J.-based company known as E-Data for years over the patent, which dates
back to 1985.

E-Data’s defendants say the company’s claim would entitle it to licensing
fees for all Internet software downloads.

“This is the case that would not die,” said Carl Oppedahl, attorney with
Dillon, Colo.-based Oppedahl & Larson, which is defending Softlock
Services in the case. “It has been going since 1995, and it isn’t over
yet. If the patent owner prevails in its view, they stand to be wealthier
than Microsoft.”

In March 1999, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York ruled that the defendants had not infringed E-Data’s patent and that
the patent had a scope too narrow to apply to Internet downloads in
general. The patent, the court said, applied more to downloads through
“kiosks” and other physically based retrieval systems.

In November 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit threw
out that decision, ruling that the district court had too narrowly
interpreted the patent.

Friday’s decision by the same appeals court meeting with all its active
judges, or en banc, essentially upholds its previous decision that the
patent should be read more broadly.

“The gist of it is that the court is sticking with its interpretation that
the District Court had too narrowly read the claims of the patent,” said
Neil Smith, a lawyer with Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin
in San Francisco. “The companies that had mostly Internet-based systems
were likely able to get out based on the District Court’s ruling. They no
longer can do that.”

The appeals court sent the case back to the District Court for a
new hearing.

Defendants in the case include CompuServe, Broderbund Software, Intuit,
Waldenbooks and Ziff-Davis Publishing

Gary Stein

how would this apply ftp downloads and free downloads?

“Gary Stein” <gestein@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:9j11gp$5c8$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com… Court affirms
download patent Updated: Mon, Jul 16 8:35 PM EDT

by Paul Festa, News.com E-Data insists it owns the patent for Internet
software downloads, and an appeals court says they may be right. At
stake are licensing fees that could make the company richer than
Microsoft. A federal appeals court has for the second time breathed life
into a patent that could force software vendors to pay licensing fees to
sell their products directly over the Internet. A full panel of judges
on the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday ordered a lower
court that effectively had thrown out the patent to reconsider its scope
more broadly. The decision is a setback for software makers including
Intuit and AOL Time Warner’s CompuServe unit, which have been battling a
small Secaucus,
N.J.-based company known as E-Data for years over the patent, which dates
back to 1985. E-Data’s defendants say the company’s claim would
entitle it to licensing fees for all Internet software downloads.
“This is the case that would not die,” said Carl Oppedahl, attorney
with Dillon, Colo.-based Oppedahl & Larson, which is defending
Softlock Services in the case. “It has been going since 1995, and it
isn’t over yet. If the patent owner prevails in its view, they stand
to be wealthier than Microsoft.” In March 1999, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the defendants
had not infringed E-Data’s patent and that the patent had a scope too
narrow to apply to Internet downloads in general. The patent, the
court said, applied more to downloads through “kiosks” and other
physically based retrieval systems. In November 2000, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit threw out that decision, ruling
that the district court had too narrowly interpreted the patent.
Friday’s decision by the same appeals court meeting with all its
active judges, or en banc, essentially upholds its previous decision
that the patent should be read more broadly. “The gist of it is that
the court is sticking with its interpretation that the District Court
had too narrowly read the claims of the patent,” said Neil Smith, a
lawyer with Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin in San
Francisco. “The companies that had mostly Internet-based systems were
likely able to get out based on the District Court’s ruling. They no
longer can do that.” The appeals court sent the case back to the
District Court for a new hearing. Defendants in the case include
CompuServe, Broderbund Software, Intuit, Waldenbooks and Ziff-Davis
Publishing

Gary Stein

Gerard Nagle wrote:
>
> how would this apply ftp downloads and free downloads?

One would wonder if by purchasing software online, you are simply
purchasing a license, and that the download is a free courtesy provided by
the company to its license holders. :slight_smile:

That is, if free downloads etc. are not covered by the patent.

I would tend to dispute that free downloads or downloads in general were
covered by the patent, since the article says the patent was created in
1985, and I’m sure we all know that it was possible to download stuff
before then, and the possibility was not created by the holders of
this patent.

If they claim they own a patent on all downloads, it could then be argued
that the patent was granted falsely or some such thing (if there is a
legal precendent for that kind of claim) due to misinformation or
whatever. There should be some legal recourse for patents that are
incredibly absurd… you shouldn’t be able to just lay claim to something
someone else created.


Shena Delian O’Brien * http://www.darklock.com/shena/ The Graphics Kitty!

> you shouldn’t be able to just lay claim to something someone else
> created.

Microsoft did. Worked nicely for them.

Gerard Nagle wrote:
>
> > you shouldn’t be able to just lay claim to something someone else
> > created.
>
> Microsoft did. Worked nicely for them.

Yeah well that’s not entirely the same thing, Gerald.


Shena Delian O’Brien * http://www.darklock.com/shena/ The Graphics Kitty!

I read in the paper the other day that some guy in Australia (in an
attempt to demonstrate the flaws in Australia’s new patent system) managed
to patent the wheel.

ROTFLMAO!

JD

Winston D. Neutel <winston@dramaturgy.net> wrote in message
news:9j2vb8$odu$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> I read in the paper the other day that some guy in Australia (in an
> attempt to demonstrate the flaws in Australia’s new patent system)
> managed to patent the wheel.

JD wrote:
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> > I read in the paper the other day that some guy in Australia (in an
> > attempt to demonstrate the flaws in Australia’s new patent system)
> > managed to patent the wheel.

It’s true, except Austrailia’s patent system is nothing like ours. This
guy can’t collect royalties on the wheel, even if he HAD invented it. It’s
more of a recognition thing than a legal bond to the product.

-Mike K.

Yea well thats not entirely my name, Shena.

“Shena Delian O’Brien” <shena@darklock.com> wrote in message
news:3B549022.8B6F3678@darklock.com
> Gerard Nagle wrote:
> >
> > > you shouldn’t be able to just lay claim to something someone else
created.
> >
> > Microsoft did. Worked nicely for them.
>
> Yeah well that’s not entirely the same thing, Gerald.
>
> –
> Shena Delian O’Brien * http://www.darklock.com/shena/ The Graphics
> Kitty! * http://www.darklock.com/abstract/ Fantasy Age *
> http://www.darklock.com/fantasy/

Gerard Nagle wrote:
>
> Yea well thats not entirely my name, Shena.

LOL sorry… habit.

Shena Delian O’Brien * http://www.darklock.com/shena/ The Graphics Kitty!