[Ecommerce] New controversial international ecommerce patent

James Love james.love@cptech.org
Sun Oct 6 08:09:01 2002


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PATNEWS: New controversial international ecommerce patent
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:04:21 -0700
From: clients@bustpatents.com
To: srctran@bustpatents.com

!20021004  New controversial international ecommerce patent

(Note: at the end of this PATNEWS is the announcement of a Wed. Oct 9th
  seminar at Stanford given by EPO staff on writing EPO applications.  )

     Thursday's Wall Street Journal, page B8, has an article about an
international ecommerce patent that issued this week.  The patent is
6,460,020, and is titled "Universal shopping center for international
operation". The patent has an interesting history, having received a
notice of allowment in 2000.  The company, DE Technologies (now based
in Montreal), publicized the notice of allowment (which was covered in
previous Wall Street Journal article), which led to a public outcry
that caused the PTO to cancel the notice of allowment, so that the PTO
could additionally examine the patent.

     Well, the PTO has concluded its additional examination, and issued
the patent.  Attached below is the bibliographic information and some
claims.  The patent has a priority date of December 1996 based on a
patent application.

     The gist of the patent is a multi-language, multi-currency online
electronic commerce system (boring) that generates an electronic title
record that is used throughout the shipping process for tax and customs
purposes. I say that the multi-language multi-currency part of the patent
is boring because anyone who knows anything about electronic transactions
on Wall Street knows that commercial software for stocks and commodities
trading in the early 1990s had both of these features (especially software
for FOREX trading which is incredibly multi-currency based).

     What is of more interest is the electronic title aspect of the patent.
Now in the Wall Street Journal article, I am quoted as expressing some
skepticism about the patent because of the lack of references to EDI
technology.  Other than one non-patent prior art item, the word "EDI"
appears nowhere else in the patent specification.  Since shipping records
was one area of technology that was addressed by EDI efforts, much of
which is prior to 1995 (as well as non-EDI shipping record efforts),
skepticism is warranted.  And if sufficient EDI prior art wasn't made
use of, what other relevant software technologies were also not used in
the examination?

     The president of DE Technologies dismissed my concerns as irrelevant.
The Wall Street Journal article ends with:

         Bruce Lagerman, a patent attorney who became president of
         DE this year, said the patent office had considered this
         argument [of Aharonian] and found it irrelevant. He said
         the long delay has meant the Patent Office examined it more
         closely, analyzed more old patents and "made it a stronger
         patent".

Well, I think his argument is irrelevant. If in the 2000-2002 time period,
that all the Patent Office did was examine more old patents (as Lagerman
is quoted as carefully saying), then the PTO didn't make it much more of
a stronger patent.  My EDI comments were made in light of non-patent prior
art, which from the published patent, was NOT examined by the PTO at any
time.  Maybe DE Technologies didn't take the examination seriously enough
to do any additional non-patent prior art searching to supply the PTO to
really make sure they issued a stronger patent.  I wonder why.

     Oh well, another patent that will end up in the courts.

Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service
                               ====================

    U.S. Patent 6,460,020
    Universal shopping center for international operation

                                   Abstract

    An   international   transaction   system   for   operation  over  the
    internet/intranet  provides  a  pre-transactional  calculation  of all
    charges  involved in any international transaction. Upon the option of
    the  customer,  the goods can be viewed on catalogue sheets translated
    to  a  language  of the customer's choice, and the price provided in a
    currency selected by the customer. The customer also has the option of
    initiating  the  order with automatic credit authorization, generation
    of  an  electronic  title  or  commercial invoice and arrangements and
    payment of shipping charges and any taxes and import/export duties.
      _________________________________________________________________

    Inventors: Pool; Ed (Union Hall, VA); Mauer; Doug (Blacksburg, VA)
    Assignee:  DE Technologies, Inc. (Union Hall, VA)
    Filed:     December 29, 1997
    This  application  claims  benefit of Provisional Application Ser. No.
    60/033,984 filed Dec. 30, 1996.
      _________________________________________________________________

                            U.S. Patent Documents

    4799156     Jan., 1989 Shavit et al.     705/26.
    5630125     May., 1997 Zellweger        707/103.
    5710887     Jan., 1998 Chelliah et al.   705/26.
    5717989     Feb., 1998 Tozzoli et al.    705/37.
    5799283     Aug., 1998 Francisco et al.  705/19.
    5850446     Dec., 1998 Berger et al.     705/79.
    5875433     Feb., 1999 Francisco et al.  705/26.
    5889863     Mar., 1999 Weber             380/25.
    5892900     Apr., 1999 Ginter et al.    713/200.
    5897621     Apr., 1999 Boesch et al.     705/26.
    5910987     Jun., 1999 Ginter et al.     705/52.
    5987429     Nov., 1999 Maritzen et al.   705/31.
                Foreign Patent Documents
    WO 96 08783 Mar., 1996 WO.
    WO 97 31322 Aug., 1997 WO.

                               Other References

    E.  Schell,  Business  400:  Not  Just for Catalogs, Catalog Age, Mar.
    1991, pp. 147-148.*
    T.  Middleton, Global Migration: A Midwest Manufacturer Seeks a Single
    Worldwide  Accounting System to Begins its Conversion to Client-Server
    Architecture,  Corporate  Computing,  vol.  2,  No.  4, Apr. 1993, pp.
    112-122.*
    M.  Cohn,  What's  new with old apps?, Accounting Technology, vol. 11,
    No. 5, Jun. 1995, pp. 66-81.*
    Business  and  Financial Applications, 1996 Database Buyer's Guide and
    Client/Server Sourcebook, DBMS, vol. 9, No. 6, Jun. 1996, pp. 10-15.
    C.   Lovelock   et  al.,  Developing  Global  Strategies  for  Service
    Businesses, California Management Review, vol. 38, No. 2, Winter 1996,
    pp. 64-86.
    "Business  400: Not Just for Catalogs"-Schell Ernest-Mar. 1991-Catalog
    Age-(pp. 147-148).*
    "What    Benefits    will   Global   EDI   Offer?"-Cahn,   David-Jun.,
    1992-Transmission & Distribution.*
    "Global  Electronic  Commerce Though Localization and Multilingualism"
    Global  Standards  Conference. Building the Global Information Society
    for the 21.sup.st Century, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 1-3, 1997, vol. 20,
    No. 2-3, pp. 101-109, XP00867692 Computer Standards & Interfaces, Dec.
    15, 1998, Elsevier, Netherlands ISSN : 0920-5489; pp. 104-109.
    Jan  Ramberg,  Guide  to  Incoterms,  International  Commercial Terms,
    (1990) 1-152, ICC Publishing (1991).
    Charles  del  Busto,  UCP  500  &  400 Compared, ICC Publishing (1993)
    iii-xiv, 99-100.
    Unz  &  Co.,  Inc., "A Basic Guide to Exporting", Unz & Co., Inc. 1998
    [Retrieved    on    Apr.    12,   2001]   Retrieved   from   Internet:
    .degree.URL:http://www.unzco.com/basicguide/index.html<.
    Richardson,  H-Transportation  &  Distribution  -V37N5  pp. 80-84 (May
    1996) -"Freight Forwarder Basics".*
    "NatWest Bank Surges into Cyberspace" Financial Technology Information
    Bulletin-V13 N11, pp. 1-12 (Jul. 1996).

    Primary Examiner: Teska; Kevin J.
    Assistant Examiner: Frejd; Russell W.
      _________________________________________________________________

                                    Claims
      _________________________________________________________________

    We claim:
    1.  A  computer  implemented process for carrying out an international
    commercial transaction comprising:
    running  a transaction program on a computer system so as to integrate
    processes including:
    (a)  selecting  a  language  from  a  menu  in  which to view cataloge
    information on products;
    (b)  selecting  a  currency  from  amenu  in  which  to  obtain  price
    information;
    (c) selecting a product to be purchased and a destination for shipping
    such product to be purchased;
    (d) accessing at least one local or remote database for obtaining
    (i) price information for the product to be purchased; and
    (ii)  a  product  code for an international goods clasification system
    pertinent to such product; and
    (iii)  international  shipping  information  related to an origination
    point of such product and said destination;
    (e)  calculating  costs  involved  in  moving  such  product  to  said
    destination based upon said destination and such product;
    (f)  determining a total cost of the transaction that includes a price
    of the product;
    (g)  receiving  an  order  for  such  product  thereby  triggering  an
    electronic process for confirming existence of available funds; and
    (h)  upon  confirmation  of availability of said funds, accepting said
    order,  generating  an  electronic  record,  such record including the
    content of a commercial invoice, to facilitate passage of such product
    to said destination.
    2.  The  process  of  claim  1,  comprising,  prior  to  determining a
    language,  carrying out a preliminary process of verifying information
    for  a  customer  accessing  a  computer  system  for carrying out the
    process via the Internet.
    3.  The  process of claim 1, wherein determining the currency includes
    using  customer  information  to  select  the  currency;  and  further
    comprising  determining  an  exchange  rate  based upon the determined
    currency and a predetermined exchange medium.
    4. The process of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the
    product to be purchased in fact involves an international transaction.
    5.  The  process  of  claim  4,  wherein calculating costs involved in
    moving such product further includes determining at least one shipping
    route and calculating associated costs for selection by the customer.
    6.  The process of claim 3, wherein receiving a selection of a product
    and calculating costs involved in moving such product further includes
    calculating  any  applicable  taxes,  import duties, and export duties
    based upon a selected shipping route selected by the customer.
    7.  The  process of claim 1, further comprising arranging for shipment
    of the product along a shipping route selected by the customer.
    8.  The process of claim 7, further comprising correlating movement of
    the electronic record with movement of such product along the selected
    shipping route.
    9.  The  process  of  claim 8, further comprising generating documents
    from  the  electronic  record  when  appropriate  along  the  selected
    shipping route.
    10.  The  process  of  claim  9, wherein generating documents includes
    authorizing electronic payment of expenses required along the selected
    shipping route.
    11.  The  process of claim 1, further comprising storing and anaylzing
    data  based  upon  each  customer  accessing  the  system to develop a
    purchasing profile for each customer.
    12.  The  process  of  claim 11, further comprising using a customer's
    purchasing  profile  to  select a candidate product to be presented to
    the customer.

                               ====================

European Patent Office Comes to Stanford Law School
Prosecution Overview: Prosecuting Complex Specifications and 'Written
                       Description' Concerns
Wednesday, October 9, 6:00 p.m.
F.I.R. Building, Room 80 (Moot Court Room), Stanford Law School
**FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC**

Examiners from the European Patent Office (EPO) will provide a brief,
general overview of European Patent prosecution, followed by a focused
discussion of two topics that are of particular relevance to U.S. patent
practitioners filing and prosecuting patent applications in the EPO: (i)
how the EPO views and deals with complex specifications having multiple
independent claims with distinct points of novelty; and relatedly, (ii) how
the EPO applies its substantive "written description" standards under EPC
Article 123, for example, in the context of post-filing claim amendments.
For more information, please visit:
http://lawtech.stanford.edu/events/index.html.

Co-sponsored by the Stanford Law School Program in Law, Science &
Technology, Santa Clara University School of Law High Tech Law Institute,
and SCI3.




-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040