Patent On Selling Information Revoked In The UK

from the not-quite-patentable dept

We’ve written about E-Data’s patent claims in the past. They’re the patent hoarding company that claims to have a patent (from 1985) on “selling downloadable media” that is transferred to a “material object.” That, as you might imagine, is pretty broad, and has let them go after such companies as, the NY Times, American Greetings and Hallmark for daring to “sell downloadable media,” when you’d be hard pressed to prove that any of these companies got the idea for selling downloadable media from this particular patent. They also went on to sue Microsoft for its music download service. While Microsoft actually paid up, E-Data also went after Bill Gates’ Corbis digital imaging company for violating their patents in Europe. After all of this, a UK judge has now pointed out that the patent is ridiculous, throwing out the case and the patent in Europe. The judge had a patent expert review this particular patent, and the guy noted that it’s not at all clear what was being patented, since the patent: “is lengthy, repetitive and somewhat confusing” while using “invented pseudo-technical terminology.” In fact, when you break down what the patent actually says: “[it] comes close to being a patent for selling information.” It only took 20 years, countless lawsuits and a ton of wasted money on legal fees to figure that out.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Patent On Selling Information Revoked In The UK”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
greg says:

No Subject Given

“when you’d be hard pressed to prove that any of these companies got the idea for selling downloadable media from this particular patent.”

This is not meaningful. The idea of a patent is that you get a limited monopoly on that thing simply because you were -first-. If I independently conceive of a thing that is already patented, only later, then my use of that thing is subject to the patent.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: No Subject Given

This is not meaningful.

It most certainly is meaningful if the purpose of a patent is to encourage innovation. That’s the argument we’re making. Besides if you come up with something independently, then I think the original inventor has a hard time proving that the idea was non-obvious. If multiple people are coming to the same next step, it suggests the path was obvious.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...