Search Jobs

Jobs of the week

Business Directory

In this issue

News

UK set to sidestep US patent affecting print management

Matt Whipp, printweek.com, 17 November 2008

The UK looks to be safe from a potentially powerful patent that could affect print management and other similar electronic procurement systems.

US print procurement company e-Lynxx has been awarded a patent covering competitive tendering of a specified item on an electronic platform, such as print management.

The company plans to licence the business method to users.

William Gindlesperger, patent inventor and chief executive of e-Lynxx, said: "Every organisation with an electronic procurement system... that follows the steps outlined in this new patent, will need a licence to use the patented methodology."

However, the UK patent office said that merely transferring a process that already existed to an electronic platform was unlikely to result in an enforceable patent.

"Merely computerising the whole procedure wouldn't be anything you could patent," said Jim Calvert, deputy director at the UK Intellectual Property Office.

And even if it got through as a European patent, its validity would only be asserted in the UK through a successful case under UK law.

The patent, which was published in 1998, describes "an apparatus and method of selecting a lowest bidding vendor from a plurality of vendors of a customised good or service".

Gindlesperger claims the scope of the business method would be huge, estimating that an average of up to 30% of a company's revenues could be put down to something related to this method.

However, the news comes as a pivotal case on business methods patents in the US is being decided that could severely limit the scope of Gindlesperger's ambitions.

The case, In re Bilski, was an appeal against a rejection of a business methods patent based on hedging against likely weather conditions. The Appeals court upheld the rejection, largely overturning a controversial ruling on a previous case known as State Street, also in 1998, that granted patentability to business methods patents.

In re Bilski decided that an abstract idea that is not tied to a specific machine or apparatus and that does not result in a physical transformation isn't patentable.

Pamela Jones, founder and editor of the Groklaw legal website, told PrintWeek: "Business methods are still patentable, but only if they are tied to a particular machine or apparatus and/or are transformative, like changing the physical state of something.

"I don't think [Gindlesperger patent] meets the second prong, and as for the first, I guess only litigation will determine that."

Comments

Simon Biltcliffe- Webmart - 17 November 2008

We looked into a US patent application for a "business model" -you can't do it in the EU-but as you look more into it the less likely it will be enforceable.

Something as vague as this will never be a limit to trading on an electronic platform.

Simon Biltcliffe

WEBMART

www.FreePrintSales.com

- 17 November 2008

Over 30 years ago Moores of Canada were in the same position as e-Lynxx! The business model they innovated was excellent and was used by many companies. The law in Canada and USA did not up hold there patent.

If you wish a free report on `true` Print Management , email colin@cavendish-mr.org.uk

for the report titled `The Hidden Overhead`.

Colin Thompson

Cavendish

www.cavendish-mr.org.uk

Jon Hansen - 09 December 2008

What the patent official does not appear to understand is the true nature or elements of the methodology as it relates to the patent itself.

I had actually touched on these unique elements in a post I wrote earlier this year about my extensive research, which was partially funded by the Government of Canada's Scientific Research and Experimental Development Program, on the utlization of advanced algorithms in the procurement process. And in particular, the development of my theory of strand commonality. Here is a link to the article; Similarity Heuristics, Iterative Methodologies and the Emergence of the Modern Supply Chain - http://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/similarity-hueristics-iterative-methodologies-and-the-emergence-of-the-modern-supply-chain/

The fact is that the Gindlesperger Methodology extends far beyond the mere automation of a manual process. It possess elements that are very much in line with the theory of strand commonality in which unique attributes from seemingly disparate streams of data or information are linked to produce a collective real-world outcome. And it doesn't matter if there are only two or three strands or variable streams as the primary difference is in the complexity of the algorithms \(re the greater the number of strands or variable streams, the more complex the algorithms).

By implying that the Gindlesperger invention is simply an automation of an existing or known manual process without understanding the methodology behind it, is tantamount to making a comparison between the horse and buggy and the automobile. While both are certainly methods of transportation, they hardly share similar characteristics.