Apple, Starbucks sued over iTunes promotion cards

It seems like many of the replies in this thread have not even tried to really understand the article or what the patent is really about.

1. They say things like it is too simple and anyone could have invented it. You could say that about almost any really great idea or invention. The autombile windshield sunshade for example; should that guy not have gotten a patent because it was too simple. Things are always simple when you already know the answer.
2. They assume that the people with the patent are nothing but patent squatters and have done nothing to make their own business. Wrong. It seems the people with the patent filed in 2000. That means they probably invented it well before then. I found that they have a website at http://www.vibme.com which was started in 2004. On that site they claim to have also had ripsave.com and non-virtual.com before that and those were successful.
3. They assume the invention is just plain gift card. Wrong. The invention is for specific merchandise gift cards. You can't go into wal-mart or toysRus and pick up a gift card for a specific item. You have to get a gift card for a dollar amount and use that towards a general purchase. This really is different.
4. They assume that Apple wasn't first approached and asked to license. The actual court papers which can be downloaded if you belong to a service (I do) say that they contacted people like Apple as early as 2000 and have been ever since. How would you like it if you kept telling someone your idea over and over and they keep telling you it's no good and then they just turn around and just do it making millions of dollars on something they stole from you.
5. They assume the patent office just screwed up. The fact is that Apple and everyone in the download business has patents and they certainly expect you to pay if you are going to use it. Just go to USPTO.gov and look up all the "simple" patents Apple has. The fact is computer implemented business methods patents are a major part of Apple's portfolio. Ever since 2000, art section 705 (computer business methods) require double examination and allow for outside input on whether it can be patented or not. That is making the computer business method patents among the strongest, hardest to get, and hardest to defeat.
6. They assume a patent is easy to get. No its not. Most patents cost at least $100K to get now days. I'm sure these people paid through the nose. An invention must be new, useful, and non-obvious. It took the patent office 6 years to go over this one. My hat goes off to them thinking of a much more consumer focused way of doing gift cards. Those stupid money store cards I'm told have up to 60% waste (putting money on the card that never gets used). This new gift card is something great for the user. Let's applaud them for working to bring it to the public. Most of these home based inventors don't want much. Just to be acknowledged and not tossed aside.

because they aren't selling and end product; they are essentially "virtual cash" accounts.

This is precisely not what these guys have a patent on.

Now, if Ninty offered a say "Super Mario World" card that you paid for at your Gamestop. then took it home and typed the exact thing on the card into the store and it sent Super Mario World to your Wii, then that would be infringing.

Even having a card that had Super Mario World on it, but you had to type in your number then request/finf SUper Mario World then "Download" (or whatever)...this usage is in he clear.

Its the '1 to 1' model that they have the patent on, and it is a damned clever innovative (look up what the word means...it will surprise you) way of applying the disparate stuff that is/was out there.

It *is* fairy obvious *now* but it certainly doesn't seem like it was to anyone when he got the patent for the method ;)

Type your name/e-mail. When you get the e-mail asking you to verify, a password you can use to skip verifying each time will be at the bottom of the e-mail.

Again, it is a very specific patent on a very specific thing, which as easy as it is to get around, its rather blatant on Apple's part to implement the exact same business method.

The reason why Apple appears to not have worked around it is that well, his way is the most user-friendly and kludge-free...probably why they bothered to get the patent :)

"For now, suffice to say that paying for Internet based merchandise at a retail point of sale is not and never was obvious without first seeing the teachings of my patent application."

It was obvious, it just seemed stupid.

Where is the invention here? There is none. Typing a code from a piece of paper into a computer is certainly not innovative. Using a code to grant access to a file is nothing new. Combining existing technologies is not supposed to be an acceptable way to get a patent.

Besides, those cards are dumb. Just buy the damn album from iTunes. You have to use it to get the download either way.

Oh, and prior art? Back in the 80's you could purchase a Quantum Link started kit in a store, take it home to your Commodore 64, and use it to get online service. Exact same concept.

Bite me, you frigtard patent troll.

I still don't think he has a case in the world of common sense. In a courtroom, sure, but only because the current patent law really, really, really sucks.

This guy, by his own admission, "invented" a new way of doing business but rather than creating a business around that "invention," he tried to license it to others.

The patent system was originally designed to protect innovations, but only in relation to the businesses that could be built around them. It was meant to give the innovator a head start and a competitive edge against rivals.

In my opinion, anyone who refuses to take action on a patented innovation (i.e. implement it) in a reasonable amount of time (by building a business around it, etc) should lose the rights to that patent.

Also, claiming that other companies like Apple and Starbucks are "patent squatters" isn't true to my knowledge. I haven't heard of Apple suing anyone over a ridiculous patent. Because of the screwy way the laws work regarding patents, companies these days are forced to register patents for every little miniscule thing as a defensive measure against trolls like this guy.

I don't question whether or not what he came up with was innovative, no matter how obvious it may seem now. In my opinion, though, since he never did anything with it, that makes him nothing but a patent troll. That is, he is doing nothing but waiting to make money off of other people's hard work. And that, in my book, is wrong. Very, very wrong!

FL