[ic] divine, Inc. patent infringements

Brandon Mercer interchange-users@icdevgroup.org
Fri Sep 20 01:37:03 2002


Schuyler W Langdon wrote:

>>Hi All,
>>
>>I've been contacted by a lawyer who represents a
>>company called divine, Inc.  They claim that my
>>website has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,715,314 and
>>5,909,492. I have been using Interchange for about a
>>year for my online store. The lawyer asked me my
>>yearly sale and proposed one-time license fee of
>>$5,000 based on my yearly gross volume sale of
>>$20,000.
>>
>>He also said that any site that uses ability to
>>accululate items and then checkout those (i.e.
>>shopping cart capability) is infringing divine's
>>Patents.
>>
>>I have no intention of infinging anybody's Patents,
>>and I always had impression that using Interchange was
>>free under GNU license.
>>
>>Should I pay the $5,000 fee and get over with the
>>license?  Or is he bullshitting?  What will happen to
>>me if I ignore this?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>Charles
>>
>>    
>>
>
>These online business method patents should not hold water, once the
>"mystique" of the internet wears off. I can't imagine that Open Market, if
>that's who really contacted you, would go after a company with your sales
>level. But purchasing a licensing fee from them would be the virtual
>equivalent of buying the Brooklyn Bridge. If these patents where applied to
>"bricks and mortar" scenerios, such as the express lane at your local
>supermarket,  they never would have been issued. Common sense (and some very
>deep pockets) would dictate that these patents will not hold up. But usually
>common sense is the last thing you get when money and lawyers are added to
>the mix. Didn't Amazon win it's lawsuit over B & N?
>
I think the really big thing that companies as well as lawers with no 
internet or technical background forget about patents, is that you 
cannot patent an idea.  You can patent a particular way to carry out an 
idea, but a patent cannot be a monopoly over a specific given function. 
 I believe someone earlier in this thread mentioned something about 
toasters... exactly, we can have many varieties of machines that do the 
same function.  Because I don't like the arrogence of lawers in the 
first place, and I think that people of such stature should really learn 
about the issue they are fighting for before they open their mouth.... I 
am rather saddened and upset by this whole thing.  There is nothing more 
frustrating than an arrogent lawer in the middle of a techincal issue 
with which they know nothing about.  You do need to act on this issue, 
but don't cooperate, just inform them of your stand and tell him that he 
needs to be in touch with your lawer in the future.  If that doesn't 
work, there's always computer viruses! =-O  

>  
>