Prior Art for Hyperlink Order Tracking in Email? 44
Davesbud asks: "I'm trying to invalidate a patent that claims to have invented 'placing a hyperlink in an email which in turn provides the recipient with order status or tracking information.' I am searching for any web pages, articles, newsgroup/forum discussions, brochures or the like, published before December of 1997, that describes this idea. You've seen this if you've ordered almost anything online or shipped by FedEx or UPS. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks."
What constitues prior art? (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't help with this one, but there've been a few
Re:What constitues prior art? (Score:2, Informative)
The more bureaucratically oriented E
Re:What constitues prior art? (Score:4, Informative)
In order to qualify as "prior art," public disclosure of an invention potentially doesn't have to be very public, if it was known or someone was using it in the US (I assume you are asking about US patents) before the "inventor" trying to obtain the patent invented it. See 35 USC 120. [findlaw.com] Prior art can also be public disclosure after invention but more than a year before the patent was filed.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
. . .
A useful basic article entitled "When is something prior art against a patent?" can be found at
http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/ [iusmentis.com].
Re:What constitues prior art? (Score:1)
Re:What constitues prior art? (Score:2, Insightful)
kind of useless to talk about this if we don't have the full patent info to look at...
Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:1, Insightful)
Nothing in the history of commerce has posed such a threat to technological progress as the patent system. It's outlived it's usefulness - and is doing nothing but hampering innovation while being abused by those who want to make a quick buck. It deserves to be killed.
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:1, Offtopic)
When there are companies dedicated to purchasing patents and suing people, however, you know something is wrong. Just like
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:4, Insightful)
but then so would eliminating patents completely.
A limitation of patents to only drugs that make people live longer would have a good effect
Oh great. No new pain killers. Or cures for non-fatal diseases like macroreticular degeneration. Or psychological disorders like bipolar disease.
but then so would eliminating patents completely.
So who is going to spend a billion dollars developing a new drug without patent protection? It's the most idiotic concept I have seen in a LONG time.
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:5, Insightful)
Genetic engineering will change all that. We'll be able to do this: "Hey, this bad protein is doing this bad thing to this other thingy. And I've figured out that if I had a molecule that looked like this (pulls out a model of a molecule) I could make the bad protein stop doing the bad thing." Then the monkeys in the chemical factory would make the molecule.
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm about to go to Graduate School in Bio-engineering, and this is exactly the case.
Traditional drug development methods are literally trial-and-error on a MASSIVE scale.
The new understanding of biology due to the advances in the past, hell short as a, decade are poised to change that. Already, we can use NMR and x-ray structures of enzymes and receptors to narrow the initial trial-and-error search.
Soon, we'll be able to bypass that to a greater de
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:1)
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:1)
Look at their goverment SEC fillings (Score:1)
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:2, Insightful)
What i do think is the problem is allowing patents to be granted for ideas that are really just unique premutations of common and patented knowledge. Example:
You should be able to patent a new networking protocool which allows 1Tb transfer speed over phone lines (i know this doesnt exist) but you should not be able to patent using this tec
Re:Burn down the fucking US patent office. (Score:1)
Here (Score:1, Troll)
SELECT order_number FROM order WHERE customer_email = thepatentofficeisretarded@uspto.gov
Seriously, this can't be defensible. It's a database lookup. I mean I know USPTO is fucked, but this is ridiculous.
Can't prove it but... (Score:5, Informative)
check mwave.com (Score:4, Informative)
Obivous? (Score:2)
Re:Obivous? (Score:2)
Re:Obivous? (Score:2)
The 'obviousness' test is dead. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tracking Status? (Score:2)
Also, shouldn't any old Bug Tracking system that would email you a link to watch the status count?
Then again, what about all those URL-watchers that would email you whenever a link changed? Those, I know, I was using back in 94 or 95.
Re:Tracking Status? (Score:4, Informative)
You made me really curious, so while typing this up, I pulled up one of my old archives. My page was last updated on Aug 28 1995. The first link on it was to the GNA (Globalwide Network Academy) Project at MIT. I remember this project, because at the time I was responsible for going through schools request and accepting/denying them. You might consider contacting them about this issue, as I was receiving emails telling me to go on and check the status of this or that -- I am sure the schools did as well.
Hope that helps.
Links or URLs? (Score:1, Interesting)
You can include links if you're using HTML mail, so the patent would still be a problem in that case.
Re:Links or URLs? (Score:1)
Chris Benard [talkingtoad.com]
Re:Links or URLs? (Score:1)
Erik
ComputerLand (Score:1, Informative)
The way the system worked was unique, as far as I know. CL HQ was essentially a freight aggregator. Computer and parts shipments from vendors were warehoused at HQ. Every day orders were placed to HQ, and you could dial in and check your order status, and receive detailed information on stock/backo
Side step it (Score:2)
Or provide a link to a page that provides links to lots of status pages (past orders).
Then you can examine the patent at your leisure.
Sam
WTF (Score:2)
Then again, somebody did try and trademark Linux.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
why prior art? (Score:2)
Prior art is definately useful, but it seems to me that once you've made the jump to selling things on the web, anyone with half a brain would come to the conclusion that some sort of confirmation/tracking be implemented. Last I checked
Re:why prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why prior art? (Score:2)
First a patent is afforded an assumption of validity, including the assumption that the invention is nonobvious.
Second, the question of nonobviousness is presented to a jury, most likely mainly made up of people that have only used AOL and have NEVER done anything remotely similar to programming.
Third, an obviousness or 103 rejection, requires the pieces of prior art that teach or suggestion that these pieces should be combined AND in their combination, each and every element of the invention is