Suing with a Patent as Weapon



  • Accenture is suing another company for violating this patent:

     http://www.insurancetech.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205100771&cid=RSSfeed_TechWeb

     And here is the content of the patent. 

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7013284.html



  • That's ok.  The other company holds the patent on patenting unpatentable inventions, so it will all work itself out.  In the event that fails, they also hold the patent on suing other companies for violating patents on unpatentable inventions.  If THAT fails, you can kiss your sweet ass goodbye.



    • A computer program
      • developing component based software
      • handling insurance-related tasks
      • data component
        • stores, retrieves and manipulates data
        • utilizing a plurality of functions
      • client component
        • receiving a plurality of tasks that achieve an insurance-related goal
        • edit the tasks
        • generating a historical record of the tasks that are completed
        • adapter component
          • component that transmits and receives data to/from the data component
          • persist data to a data repository
        • business component
          • a data cache
          • logic for manipulating the data
        • controller component
          • handle events

    So basically their patent covers: software components, databases, functions/sub routines, reports, network protocols, caching, logic, and events in the context of insurance.  <sarcasm>What an innovative company</sarcasm>

     

    Patents are good, if they actually cover something that YOU designed created and poured your life into, not a history of the development of computers, networking, and software.



  • Their patent covers a computer program for the insurance industry, not all computer programs.

    Still, as patents go, it's a load of crap.  Accenture thinks they can patent component-based programming?  One of these days the programmers and the lawyers are going to have a rumble--and we're gonna kick their pansy, pinstriped asses.

     

    "...the same thing we do every night, Pinky: try to take over the world."



  • @tenchu said:

    So basically their patent covers: software components, databases, functions/sub routines, reports, network protocols, caching, logic, and events in the context of insurance.

    Patents are conjunctions, not disjunctions. This patent covers a product which is all of those things simultaneously. Still a load of crap, though. 



  • @wolfdancer said:

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7013284.html

    I may be wrong - I'm not masochistic enough to read all the way through such utter tripe - but they appear to have been granted in 2006 a patent for a computer.



  • @ChZEROHag said:

    @wolfdancer said:

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7013284.html

    I may be wrong - I'm not masochistic enough to read all the way through such utter tripe - but they appear to have been granted in 2006 a patent for a computer.

     

    No no, you've got it all wrong. Accenture has been granted a patent for the incredibly novel concept of using a computer in an insurance company.

    What would we do without these supermen of modern technology?

    (Actually a couple mates of mine would lose the ability to make bags of money clearing up the mess that Accenture leaves at nearly every company they swindle develop ingenious solutions for)
     



  • @wolfdancer said:

    Accenture is suing another company for violating this patent:

     http://www.insurancetech.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205100771&cid=RSSfeed_TechWeb

     And here is the content of the patent. 

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7013284.html

    Patents are always full of garbage like that. They may cover a "real" "innovation", but then they're specifically written to be as broad as possible, hence their incomprehensibility. Especially the abstract, as that's what's read first. The body may be a little more specific.



  • The description starts with a history of computing. I stopped skimming after the section on OOP. The patent really does just cover using SQL Server, Exchange, and Outlook at an insurance company, along with what sounds like a few scripts and such.

    Moral of the story: Copyright code. Patent algorithms. 



  • @itzac said:

    The description starts with a history of computing. I stopped skimming after the section on OOP. The patent really does just cover using SQL Server, Exchange, and Outlook at an insurance company, along with what sounds like a few scripts and such.

    Moral of the story: Copyright code. Patent algorithms. 

    I think I'm going to patent a means of optimising the medium term income of a business, by utilising short-term investment in judicial logicians and leveraging the intellectual property assets both developed and acquired by the business, with the aim not of exerting monopolistic control but of fostering relationships with implementors, using a variety of negotiation schemes including legal judgements.



  • @m0ffx said:

    I think I'm going to patent a means of optimising the medium term income of a business, by utilising short-term investment in judicial logicians and leveraging the intellectual property assets both developed and acquired by the business, with the aim not of exerting monopolistic control but of fostering relationships with implementors, using a variety of negotiation schemes including legal judgements.

     

    The buzzword-o-meter here just blew up.   


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.