advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Wait, You’re Saying That A Hostage Video Is Not Credible?

Written by Evan Schuman
January 25th, 2013

Major electronics E-tailer Newegg received some good news Tuesday (Jan. 22), when a federal appellate panel overruled a $2.5 million patent ruling against the retailer. The most interesting part of the case, though, was when Soverain Software—the software firm trying to protect its E-Commerce patent—tried to argue that its success is proof that its patents are worthwhile. The Appellate judges looked into that claim.

“Soverain argues that obviousness of all of the claims in suit is negated by the favorable market response that was achieved by Open Market’s Transact product, which Soverain states received ‘widespread recognition in the general media,’ ‘an excellence award from the industry’ and was ‘widely licensed.'” Sounds good. So it would appear that the wide licensing meant it had a lot of fans, right?

The Appellate judges’ written decision continued: “Newegg responds with evidence that the Transact system was abandoned by its developers and almost all of its original users. Newegg points out that licenses were taken to avoid the costs of litigation, and not to use the flawed Transact system embodied in its software.”

Picky, picky. These judges probably don’t believe hostage videos, either.

The panel then looked at what Soverain’s own people testified. “At trial, former Open Market employee and inventor Alexander Treese testified that Open Market had attempted to license its patents apart from the software, but without success,” the panel wrote, adding that Treese said the licensing effort “went not very well. The record shows that the software was abandoned by almost all of its initial licensees.”

If these judges are going apply facts and evidence to software marketing claims, this is not going to be pretty.

A tiny side note. In case any of your programmers are curious what litigators today consider E-Commerce “ordinary skill,” the lawyers tried to accommodate: “The parties agreed that the level of ordinary skill in the field of this invention is a Bachelor of Science degree in computer engineering or computer science, or equivalent education, with two to three years of practical experience developing or operating software and systems
that relate to commerce on the Internet.” They should be reminded that “ordinary skill” rarely translates into respect. That requires bolder action, such as having the chutzpa to force companies at lawsuit-point to buy a license and then to tout it as proof of product quality.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.