Here is a copy of the initial briefing paper to the Technology Law Society I mentioned yesterday.
Fraser Goldsmith Anderson Lloyd Caudwell Mob +64 25 782 209 DDI +64 3 471 5439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] New Zealand patent (No. 505284) was granted just over a year ago in June 2002 and is based on a US patent, filed in 1997. It is entitled "Universal shopping centre for international operation" The New Zealand patent has claims directed at a process and system which includes certain steps or features. In essence and in its broadest sense, these include: 1. Determining an appropriate language and currency for pricing; 2. Receiving a selection of a product and product destination. 3. Accessing a database to find: � Pricing information; � Product codes, from an international goods classification system; and/or � Transportation information relating to the point of origin and destination; 4. Calculating the cost involved in sending the product to a destination; 5. Receiving an order for the product, which in turn creates an electronic confirmation of the availability of customer funds; 6. Receiving confirmation of the funds, and 7. Generating an electronic title in the nature of a commercial invoice so as to define ownership and facilitate delivery of the product. It is understood that allegations have been made by the patentee that e commerce operators, hosting companies and ISP's are covered by the patent and that they must stop using the process or purchase a licence for US$ 25k. This in itself would not be out of the ordinary, as long as the patent is sound and these entities are infringing one or more of the claims. Obviously, the question of infringement and whether the patent is valid would be questions of fact, depending on the circumstances in each case. Views have been publicly expressed that if sustained, the patent would effectively kill eCommerce in NZ and possibly other countries and that the ideas behind the patent are not unique. One should not jump to conclusions. Questions of novelty and uniqueness have to be tested against what was known in the art at the priority date. The internet has grown rapidly and some times in unexpected directions. In other words, what may be regarded by some as commonplace today was not necessarily so in 1997! Having said this, if the reports of widespread cease and desist letters to New Zealand etailers are true, this patent will inevitably face closer scrutiny in the courts. The question will then be posed as to whether it represents some form of genuine innovation or simply an electronic (albeit more efficient) form of a more traditional and known process. --> via Canterbury Software email forum: Success through Connections Email your messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Leave or rejoin the list: http://canterburysoftware.org.nz/forum.htm
