[ic] divine, Inc. patent infringements

Schuyler W Langdon interchange-users@icdevgroup.org
Fri Sep 20 13:08:01 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Fournerat" <robert@netin.com>
To: <interchange-users@icdevgroup.org>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ic] divine, Inc. patent infringements


> Dan Browning wrote:
> >
> > At 01:55 AM 9/20/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Quoting Charles Chang (cchang2000@yahoo.com):
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > >
> > >I certainly wouldn't. This sounds like a scam -- I have never
> > >heard of such a patent and I bet we would have....
> >
> > Here's two links to the patents in question.
> >
> >
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/net
ahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=''5,715,314''.WKU.&OS=
PN/
> >
> >
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/net
ahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=''5,909,492''.WKU.&OS=
PN/
> >
>
> I too am not a lawyer.  However, I understand that
> whomever holds the patent *has to* protect that
> patent from misuse.  And if the patent holder does
> not protect the patent, the patented material becomes
> public domain.  While it sounds like the patent
> holder is trying to protect his patent from the
> original poster, I think they would have to go
> after Amazon, IBM, Best Buy, (I'm trying to pick
> very well known examples) and everyone else who
> has an ecommerce site.
<snip>

For the most part, the holders of these frivolous patents will go after
small companies with the idea that they do not have the resources for
litigation and will pay the bogus licensing fee. A large corporation would
have the resources to have the patent overturned, which would prevent them
form making a buck by preying upon small business.

Mostly due to a lack of technical knowledge in the USPO, a few years ago you
could get away with bypassing the patent guidelines as long as the patent
covered something done electronically or over the internet. Unfortunately,
it looks like this is becoming a trend in corporate America, when you can't
compete in the marketplace -- litigate.

-
Schuyler Langdon
GatorDev