[AccessD] Database Patent

Jack,
It may be instructive for you to review the case history around
Timeline's patents  and their resulting gunfight with Microsoft. This
dispute sounds very similar to your case, i.e. the patent office
granting a patent on a database idea that was intrinsically obvious.
Timeline worked very hard trying to force people to pay fees on what I
thought at the time were fundamental database design concepts. I am not
sure how much they ultimately obtained. Very interesting case as I
recall:

"Timeline's US Patent # 5,802,511; US Patent # 6,023,694; and US Patent
# 6,026,392 (herein collectively the '511 patents) have been termed
pioneer patents in the design and use of data marts and data warehouses.
The '511 patents can apply to stand alone software products or
combinations of software products."

HTH
Jim Hale
Houston

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jack Stone
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:03 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Database Patent

All,

Hello, my name is Jack Stone, new to this forum.  I am the patent,
trademark, and copyright attorney that Rocky referred to that has the
client who got the subject patent, and on whose patent my name is listed
as the attorney of record.  First, I want to express how extremely
impressed I am, not only with the vast wealth of knowledge you guys
collectively have, but also with how you are all so willing to take the
time to share it, for which I am very grateful.

As a patent attorney, I am certainly no expert in databases.  I just
represent a client before the Patent Office with whatever invention
he/she has, and do my level best to get a patent for them.  And with all
the prior art that is apparently out there, I guess I did a good job
with this one.

So while I may not be an expert in databases, after reading the myriad
of email responses that this patent has elicited, I am starting get the
distinct impression that just maybe the Patent Office granted a patent
that should not have been granted (it would not be the first time).
However, in the defense of the Patent Office, when deciding on novelty
(and "non-obviousness"), all the "prior art" they generally consider, or
have the resources to consider, are other patents at the Patent Office.
Hence, what some responses have alluded to as many people not pursuing
patents when they could have, and as a result, the Patent Office not
being fully aware of all the technology out there when granting a patent
is, unfortunately, correct.  If an inventor is aware of any prior art,
he does have a duty to disclose it to the Patent Office, but my client
was evidently not aware of any (he needs to join your forum).

Having said all that, if the invention/technology is out there, but is
not in the public domain, i.e., is kept as a trade secret, then it may
be possible for a second inventor to get a patent on the invention if
he/she subsequently independently develops it, and then charge the
earlier inventor using it as a trade secret with infringement.  Classic
example is if someone independently comes up with the formula for Coca
Cola, they could get a patent on it and shut down Coca Cola (that is, if
they didn't have an "unfortunate" accident and end up face down in a
ditch somewhere).  But it sounds like the prior technology has not been
kept as a trade secret, so my client may be SOL on that count.

But the patent may still have some nuisance value, that is, even if it
could ultimately be invalidated, it may cost a defendant a million
dollars to do that, and so such a defendant may instead settle for
$250,000 to be rid of it or even buy it.  Who knows?  I have seen
stranger things happen.

In this case, the client defaulted on payment of about $40,000 to our
firm, and we obtained a court judgment against him for that amount.  The
client says he cannot pay us, so maybe we would be trying to squeeze
blood from a turnip, which ain't gonna happen.  So we were considering
obtaining title to the patent, if it has any value.  If it did, and any
of you could help us distill that value from it, we would be pleased to
let you keep whatever we can get for the patent in excess of the
$40,000, or maybe work out some other arrangement if you would prefer.

BTW, FWIW, my client is actually using the patented idea at
http://www.webmusicdb.com, not exactly another YouTube.

Re Drew's comment below, he is absolutely correct (except for a "design"
which can sometimes be copyrighted), i.e., "You can't copyright an idea.
You can copyright code, at any time, or a book (Actually, the text
within the book).  But an idea or design must be patented."  But the
problem with a copyright, especially on code, is that it is much more
narrow than a patent, and so is generally easy to design around, and so
is generally of little value.  So we almost always advise clients to
seek a patent on a function performed by code, and rarely ever advise
someone to seek a copyright on code.

Jack Stone
Scheef & Stone, L.L.P.
5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 1400
Dallas, Texas 75225
Direct 214.706.4207
Main 214.706.4200
Fax 214.706.4242
jack.stone at scheefandstone.com


***********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and
delete the material from any computer. As a recipient of this email,
you are responsible for screening its contents and the contents of any
attachments for the presence of viruses. No liability is accepted for
any damages caused by any virus transmitted by this email.