Posting in the Magento forums has been disabled pending the implementation of a new and improved forum solution which should better serve the community.

For new questions please post at magento.stackexchange.com, the community-run support site for the Magento community. We will be providing updates on the new forum solution soon. For questions or concerns please email community@magento.com.

Magento Forum

Page 4 of 4
I got a mail from Kelora Systems LLC, saying something about patent infringement
 
onejimmy
Jr. Member
 
Total Posts:  1
Joined:  2012-03-11
 

Just got my second round letter - i ignored the first and will ignore this one too.

I do want to say something to jwebber- i understand he doesnt want to give legal advice- however, answering questions here with opinions - i think most do not think is legal advice - telling someone that should seek legal advice if they are in business serious business is wrong........ i would advise against spending money until you are actually served.  i dont put too much credit into legal advice most lawyers dont really know much about anything and they no nothing about ecommerce and certainly nothing about what this technology is about.. or patent.. 

1st thing to dispatch is the use of the term patent troll - well as it sounds liek they are scum - they do have merit and rights to legitimate patent and or technology.. usually.. though how they go about it is scummy.. though this case - is similar because they never built or used or developed the technology on the art or idea.. it is not a standard tolling case because exclusively because it bares no merit..

lets make if perfectly clear - if you have actually taken the time to read the patent - its a joke that were actually awarded a patent for this - lame very vague poor verbalized mess of a processs - which in itself - constitutes lack of anything - if you bring in anyone who is expert in english language.. next - if you are smart enough to read into what these guys think they meant to say or what they think they said—i would have to rewrite the whole patent to clearly state in such a manner that it couldnt not be legally confused- now again - maybe i am wrong - i may not have clue what they mean - again the terminology was so incorrect and so poor that its really crap.  next - the drawings no matter how i look at them - and i studied drafting and web design - and to me - they are more confusing with more notes and i see no clear understanding of what the heck they are saying any of that does..

next, they have no technology - no software - nothing that is considered intellectual property.. they describe very poorly a process- a step by step process.. which was specific to a electronic parts manufactures search platform.. this process is specif to this and exactly this - and i would argue it limited to the process which they clearly define.. if at all patentable.. which would not ecompass all the variations of search on teh web from dating sites to banking sites to ecommerce sites or any site that basically queries a db—for information and returns in some coherent order at all.. which by they way if you looked in close detail - everyone does it differntly.. if certainly a patentable idea - because there exists no technology in the patent , would be limited to a process.. and in this case an exact process - which none of us and i have yet to find someone other this this electronics parts people they use - that would use this exact process.. its like getting a patent on car - and watching some drive by in bus - and say they infrigined on your patent - because it has wheels when u didnt invent the wheel - and u didnt develop the engine or describe bus seats vs the seats in your car- or the bus transmission vs the car transmission…

i argue - that there is 0 merit for award of the patent at all.. forget for trying to look for prior artwork.. there is none - because no one in thier right-mind would develop or use the hair brain system they described.. however - there is a ton of sites that use parts of that system - and there is a tons of prior art that uses parts of that system as old as 50 years or more.... so - pls rest asure - this company has nothing - and my legal advice --

and very important ......... is step 1 - do not admit that your site uses any of thier technology if you want to call it tthat - or art - because it indeed doesnt because ur site is not like mine and mine is not like the next guy.. even though we may all have wheels on our automobiles......this patent is not for the wheel ....

next ,even if he had a well defined coherent process - its not patentable - because its obvious and logical to sort data .. there is nothign at all novel about sorting using are hierarchy or offering decisions based on available “alternatives” a joke of a term here.. for what i feel he may have wanted to say....

step2 deny the validity of thier patent .. it was in the public domain - and it was obvious - and you dont infringe on it anyway but deny it the validity
step 3 - bring counter suit .. if you must defend yourself.. doubt you will get anything if you win—which is really double jeopardy and as far as i am concerned enough reason to motion the court for dismissal..

Step 4 collaborate- with people here - people who may be expert witnesses (who understand data base design and web design) that may understand what was described in the patent - and how it is differnt from magento - or exactly what the scope of it ....

one more thing - even if all this didnt work - what this company is charging and thinking the “technology"(art) is worth—is arguable too.. and its really insane off the deep end - just ask someone who actually knows about the worth of such a system in terms of revenue.. look what - the compaq and hp and intel and ms contribute to functioning of my business and what i pay them—and how it helps me-- and in comparison how much they invested in developing real products and not just theories and ideas but testing and building and manufacturing .. - what is this jerk want from everyone… - its harassment - it i consider it fraud and extortion - just something else to add to your list of counter suit.. along with patent fraud....

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
 
ashk
Jr. Member
 
Total Posts:  20
Joined:  2010-11-22
 

Not much new going on but a little more information (and my own clarification) of what this so called “patent” is.....

Back when this all initially started, this patent was owned by a company called “Parts River”.  They got in a legal tussel with Microsoft (among others) over this “patent”.  The patent was rejected due to prior art at the time

From: PartsRiver v Microsoft

Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the claims are not identical in scope, noting that PartsRiver’s amendments “narrowed claims 1 and 2 to overcome the rejection based on the Granacki prior-art reference.”

So, what is the “Granacki prior-art reference”.  As far as I can tell it is this:
Kelora Prior Art

This is from that article:

The interface allows the browsing of the complete list of components in the library. The user can restrict the list of components at any time by selecting an entry in any column. For example, by selecting CMOS in the technology attribute column the user restricts the list of components to only those belonging to the class CMOS. The restriction by multiple attributes (for example, “TECH” {technology} and “MFR” {manufacturer}) further reduces the list to a set of components that have the attribute selected in each column (see Figure 2). Selecting an attribute highlights the particular selection and removes the other attributes from the list, components can be unselected by clicking again on the highlighted attribute, this rebuilds the lists according to the remaining selections, thus the user can move forward and backward in the query process till the desired component has been found. The list of components can be restricted by any attribute and by as many attributes as desired until a single component is selected.

This is the patent abstract:

A process for identifying a single item from a family of items presents a user with a feature screen having a series of groupings.  Each grouping represents a feature having a set of alternatives from which to select.  Selected alternatives are used as a selection criteria in a search operation.  Results of the search operations is a revised feature screen indicating alternatives that remain available to the user for further selection and searching.  The feature screen and search process, therefore, presents the user with a guided non-hierarchical parametric search to identify matching items based upon user specified criteria and priorities.

So basically that is a done deal.  This is way it was rejected due to prior art.  Seems pretty much it.  However, never count out our ridiculous legal and patent system to find a way to screw it up.

From the PartsRiver v Microsoft case linked above:

PartsRiver’s additions to and deletion from claim 1, which are indicated below in underlined and stricken text respectively, were as follows:

A method for assisting a user in identifying a subfamily of items within a family of items said method performed with a server connected to a client computer through a computer network, comprising the steps of: . . .

(h) accepting a second selection criteria comprising from said client computer via said computer network at said server wherein the second selection criteria comprises a resubmission to the server of the alternative or alternatives of the first selection criteria
plus at least one alternative selected from the revised feature screen, . . .

Yes, you read that correctly.  This was accepted as patentable again because they added a specification that there is communication between a computer and a server.  This is how stupid the patent and legal system is folks.  None of the actual search part is a valid patent, just the fact it’s between a computer and a server.

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
 
WizardHQ
Jr. Member
 
Avatar
Total Posts:  3
Joined:  2008-05-29
 

Well add me to the list. I just got a 1st letter as well. I am sending them a nice response rejecting all their assertions and claims outright and and I am certainly not paying them. I actually carry business insurance, so I let them know that if they actually try anything they will be dealing with my insurances’ lawyers; I doubt they care for that. I will keep this thread posted on what comes of it.

Ralf

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
 
oldsteel68
Sr. Member
 
Avatar
Total Posts:  131
Joined:  2008-04-22
 

Edit.

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
 
Billn
Jr. Member
 
Total Posts:  2
Joined:  2009-12-01
 

Has anyone heard anything regarding the completion of expert discovery that was supposed to happen on May 2nd, 2012?

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2010cv04947/235910/119/0.pdf?ts=1323254592

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
 
FUKel0ra
Jr. Member
 
Total Posts:  2
Joined:  2012-02-07
 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94333540/Kelora-Systems-ND-Cal-May-21-2012

Finally looks like this is put to rest.

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
 
ashk
Jr. Member
 
Total Posts:  20
Joined:  2010-11-22
 

Ding! Dong! The witch is dead!

Kelora loses......I’ll have to read through it to get a better understanding to why they lost but this is a good day.

They may still apeal but it’s even more of an uphill battle now.

http://ipwise.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/from-on-sale-to-obvious-kelora-systems-is-twice-bitten-by-a-prior-product/

This is just beautiful....

For the reasons set forth above, the Court construes the disputed claim language in the manner explained and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity. Defendants shall recover their costs from Kelora.

Enjoy having every dime sucked out of your LLC, Kelora.  BOOM!

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
 
PeltierEffects
Jr. Member
 
Total Posts:  17
Joined:  2009-11-11
 

Just in case everyone hasn’t see the judgement, Kelora Systems Patent Infringement suit has been thrown out.  The judge ruled their patent was not being infringed upon and ordered Kelora Systems to pay the legal fees of Newegg , eBay and others Kelora was trying to sue.

I hope no one paid them any money.

Here is a brief story on the case

http://www.internetretailer.com/2012/05/22/big-patent-win-e-retailers

Here is the ruling if you can’t sleep.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlresult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020120522794.xml&docbase;=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
 
youderian
Jr. Member
 
Total Posts:  20
Joined:  2009-07-15
 

Good news, indeed! 

We did a detailed story on the judgement and outcome, which includes the reaction from Kelora’s attorney:

http://www.ecommercefuel.com/ecommerce-patent-dispute/

I also wrote a personal case study discussing how we reacted when contacted by Kelora:

http://www.ecommercefuel.com/patent-troll/

 
Magento Community Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
Magento Community
Back to top
Page 4 of 4