Forum Moderators: not2easy
The site in question claims to be a "a Patented Knowledge Sharing system" and uses a "patented point system". I even found the patent that they hold on the United States Patent and Trademark Office Home Page.
The site I wanted to create isn't aimed at that sector but is very similar in concept. Members gets points with which to ask questions and members who get their answers accepted receive those points. This will lead on to top 10 lists etc.
I was unaware that someone could patent a website concept. It would amaze me even more if someone could patent a website concept and stop anyone else in the world from creating a site with a similar concept.
For example, why didn't Yahoo patent their website directory years ago or why didn't Ebay patent their auction website. With the Internet being a global entity, how could a patent registered in one country hold any ground if someone from another country launched a similar website.
My main questions are, do patents for website concepts mean that nobody else can create a similar website without having to pay out some sort of royalty? Do patents of website concepts really mean anything i.e. do they hold any ground?
What sort of problems am I lining myself up for if I were to go ahead and create a similar website? From what I have read before the laws surrounding the Internet are a bit gray in some areas but could I end up receiving some sort of lawsuit in the post if I go ahead?
I won't lie to you - my understanding of patent/copyright/trademark law are minimal at best, so please excuse any obvious wrong assumptions I have made :)
[edited by: rogerd at 12:44 am (utc) on July 4, 2005]
[edit reason] no specifics, please [/edit]
2. The USPTO.gov website is about as good a resource as you will find online for addressing your questions.
3. You really need to address questions like this to an attorney if you are going to invest in starting up a business.
4. Generally we avoid link drops so you might want to redact the link and use a generalized description of the website you have in mind instead.
5. Welcome to WebmasterWorld - a font of knowledge on most matters WWW. Read the TCU/TOS and forum charters before posting, honor them and you'll fit right in.
I appreciate that webmasters aren't intellectual property lawyers and that any advice given here is the poster's opinion only. What I was hoping for was just some general advice and thoughts on the questions I posted, which I feel isn't beyond the scope of this forum since there seems to be a lot of similar such posts and replies here already.
I've spent some time on the USPTO website but so far have not found any specific information about this topic. For instance, a search of their website with the terms "website patent" brings up a list of unrelated topics.
Any general advice would be much appreciated.
Simplest way is check the first design dates in the patent, web site registration date, then use the oldest date they have, and find an other website/occurance that did it at least a year before them.
Of course, if they are making money, they can still spend $20 million trying to sue you, and you in turn defending it.
Remember USPTO requires you to have an IQ of 12 or less to be hired as reviewer/researcher. So, you can still patent the napkin if you get the "right" person reviewing your application.
For the company that I last worked for they are submitting five software patents for work that either I did or work that I did with collaboration. Additionally the disclosures that I was named on for a bunch of different things that were hurried out before my last days at work, will result in as many as ten more patents, mostly for hardware related things and circuitry, and one pretty cool number cruncher.
I would say one or two of them is legitimate and the rest of them are just stupid. (I am assuming that no one can ever track my real identity on here<g>)
The patent office in the different countries of the world seem to be willing to patent anything, and I suspect that you could patent the lighting of a methane discharge if you didn't use folk venacular to describe it.
Consider Googles latest patent, which, if you remove the fancy wording says, "If people click on a site and then don't stay, then it probably wasn't what they were looking for."
In my book that is so obvious that a ten year old could think of it. But they still spiff it up, make it sound complicated and then patent it.
I have considered starting a website and listing thousands of possible inventions of stupid stuff like that, just to get it in the public domain before someone actually patents it.
[google.com...]
Do not look for specific answers to your specific fact patterns on public forums. No lawyer worth his law degree would ever provide a fully detailed - and therefore "useful" - legal opinion about your circumstances in the setting of a dialogue in a public forum.
There are too many "pretenders to the law", willing to offer their expert opinions in forums, that do so without the slightest obligation or responsibility towards you to "do it right".
When you get serious about this you'll know it because you'll lay out the money for a professional consultation and guidance.
I think you may be referring to their recent patent application, not an actual patent awarded by the US patent office.
There is a big difference between asking and getting.
Do patents of website concepts really mean anything i.e. do they hold any ground?
Unfortunately, they do.
A lot of business process patents have been overturned in court, but a lot of others have not been overturned.
And either way, if they sue you for violating their patent, you are going to court, so you might as well talk to a lawyer *before* you decide to cross the line into intentionally infringing on their patent.
What you can do is join the effort for patent reform. It doesn't solve your immediate problem, but hopefully it will stop the USPTO from granting the junk patents that have been coming out for the last 20 years.
No lawyer worth his law degree would ever provide a fully detailed - and therefore "useful" - legal opinion...
I believe all lawyers have to pass this as part of their Bar Exam...
I think, I recall the fine print at the bottom of the test. ;-) Was it right after the part, or was it before, where it is required to run for political office and create new meaningless and obfuscating laws if you are horrid in the courts?
(Yes, out of context. so, sue me! LOL)
You may also find that because the point idea isn't completely new, the patent you're looking at is so specific that just a little tinkering with your own concept will remove it from the patent's coverage.
