The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world, Monday launched a campaign to combat what it says are the chilling effects bad patents have on public and consumer interests.
“Patents traditionally only targeted large commercial companies,” said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz in a prepared statement issued on Monday. “Now bad patents are threatening non-profits, small businesses, and even individuals who use software and Internet technology. These threats target non-commercial personal use, such as building a hobbyist website or streaming a wedding video to your friends.”
The new EFF initiative seeks to document these threats and fight back against them. EFF has pledged to file “re-examination” requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), asking the agency to revoke patents that are having negative effects on Internet innovation and free expression.
In a white paper posted on its web site, the civil liberties group targeted the following 10 patents:
* One-click online shopping (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.)
* Online shopping carts (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314.)
* The hyperlink (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662.)
* Video streaming (U.S. Patent No. 5,132,992.)
* Internationalizing domain names (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,148.)
* Pop-up windows (U.S. Patent No. 6,389,458.)
* Targeted banner ads (U.S. Patent No. 6,026,368.)
* Paying with a credit card online (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319.)
* Framed browsing; (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,841 & 6,442,574.) and
* Affiliate linking (U.S. Patent No. 6,029,141.)
“More and more, people are using software and Internet technology to express themselves,” said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. “Patent owners who threaten this expression are creating a chilling effect on free speech.”
The EFF announcement comes on the heels of two recent public criticisms of the patent system, one by the Federal Trade Commission and the other by the National Academy of Sciences.
{ 1 comment }
As usual, the only winners in this legal battle are not the consumers but lawyers. Who reimburses the companies who have spent hundreds of thousand of dollars for the patent, in the belief that if the patent is granted by the Government Patent Office, that they have a valid patent. These companies, based on that patent, then continue to spend more money in hiring people to build their business based on these “valid” patents. Now your intent is to possibly push these companies into bankruptcy, stifle creativity and new new products. Great plan!
Comments on this entry are closed.