MoxieJam attempting to patent multi-party payments (i.e., affiliate payments). - GoFuckYourself.com

brandonstills · 04-14-2008, 04:00 PM

I just received an email this morning.

Quote:

MoxieJam has five patent pending applications for its technology. One of the key patented features is the ability to do multi-party payments, allowing MoxieJam to direct the royalty payments to the various parties associated with the sale of a particular set.

I know another company Zivity doing the exact same thing as them already. Multi-party payments is something our industry has been doing for ages. Even CCBill lets you specify payment splits.

What does this mean to us? Can they actually patent this? What does it mean for everyone if they do? Could this be another SCO?

I wonder what the other patents are for? I suspect they are something we as an industry have already been doing for ages.

After Shock Media · 04-14-2008, 04:37 PM

Patent office is such a damn joke now adays. In serious need of total overhaul ASAP.

Probono · 04-14-2008, 05:05 PM

You cannot patent prior art. The issue is whether a patent clerk understand the patent

After Shock Media · 04-14-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Probono

You cannot patent prior art. The issue is whether a patent clerk understand the patent

They barely understand how to work the zipper in their fly.

BTW nothing stopped Acacia from getting a hold of and attempting to enforce a patent that was based on prior art.

Probono · 04-14-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

They barely understand how to work the zipper in their fly.

BTW nothing stopped Acacia from getting a hold of and attempting to enforce a patent that was based on prior art.

My point exactly

brandonstills · 04-14-2008, 06:35 PM

SCO was thought to be a joke but they went around suing everyone claiming they own a bunch of UNIX distros and everyone knew they were full of shit but they just couldn't compete with their legal department so they would pay even though they knew 100% that that their claim was complete bullshit.

FightThisPatent · 04-15-2008, 07:34 AM

"patent pending" is not enforceable.

they are doing what their attorney has suggested which is to "put people on notice", with the idea that when/if the patent gets improved, they will try to go for "willfull" patent infringement because you knew about the patent.

The clock can only start ticking on infringement when the patent is approved.

did they include the patent application number to view?

Fight the patent!

04-14-2008, 04:37 PM	#2
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Patent office is such a damn joke now adays. In serious need of total overhaul ASAP. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

04-14-2008, 06:35 PM	#6
brandonstills Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Chatsworth, CA Posts: 1,964	SCO was thought to be a joke but they went around suing everyone claiming they own a bunch of UNIX distros and everyone knew they were full of shit but they just couldn't compete with their legal department so they would pay even though they knew 100% that that their claim was complete bullshit. __________________ Brandon Stills Industry and programming veteran [email protected] \| skype: brandonstills \| ICQ #495-171-318

04-15-2008, 07:34 AM	#7
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	"patent pending" is not enforceable. they are doing what their attorney has suggested which is to "put people on notice", with the idea that when/if the patent gets improved, they will try to go for "willfull" patent infringement because you knew about the patent. The clock can only start ticking on infringement when the patent is approved. did they include the patent application number to view? Fight the patent! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

04-14-2008, 05:05 PM	#3
Probono Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Under the Rainbow Posts: 2,731	You cannot patent prior art. The issue is whether a patent clerk understand the patent