Eye Apeal declared a patented business practice by court

This just falls into Patent and Copyright abuse

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/22/51521.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There is a thread on the PCGS forum in regards to this lawsuit.

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=870629

 

This, I find very interesting. I think the court got most of it right.

 

And we wonder why the court systems in this country are bogged down...

 

Well, let's see,

1. + designations have been used by dealers to denote superior eye appeal of coins on price lists as long as I have been collecting, (mid-70's).

2. The idea of taking photos to track a certified coin has been around since the 70's as well I believe, if not the early 80's.

To me, the only thing "patentable" by him would have been his cutesy name, (AURA). I don't believe any TPG firm uses that designation.

I simply find his ideas a recombination of public domain ideas, and as such not protectable. I am not a lawyer, though.

 

Thank goodness, we don't need more

I agree with you 100%. So many patent lawsuits are frivolous...

 

Most of the causes of action were dismissed. From what I can see, the only cause of action that overcame the motion to dismiss was the one regarding the marketing of slabbed coins with a + designation. It may only be a slight twist, but sufficient to move on. Will it be successful in the end? Who knows? If forcing PCGS and NGC to settle is success, then I think a certain amount of success will be obtained.

 

I think Apple would disagree.

 

Well considering NGC's use of the * for superior eye appeal predates the use of the services + by almost ten years I would think that claiming the use of the + to indicate a statement of eye appeal doesn't hold water. And add to this the fact that ANACS was using a statement about superior eye appeal on their certificates back in the mid 1980's. And the industry was using + signs to indicate superior eye appeal back in at least the sixties. And all of these eye appeal judgements have been subjective. So unless he has some special technique for measuring the eye appeal of a coin and the measurements have repeatability, I don't think his AURA systems has any standing. if he is trying to claim the use of the + is his from a marking standpoint I think that can be tossed as well because people have used the + to try and indicate that their coin, product, whatever, is superior for decades. So I think the marketing claim doesn't have a leg to stand on either.

 

Perhaps an example, whether you agree or not, may help clear things up.

Many who play guitar call their guitar an axe and the industry has used the term for years. However, only Gene Simmons can sell and market guitars using the word axe or reference thereto (I believe this to be true).

 

Its a great example of why we need a lot less lawyers.

 

I agree. I was disillusioned when I went to law school. It is not easy being the non-stereotypical lawyer. Even I have to count to ten (actually I have a 1900 British Penny I rub between my fingers) when I deal with a large portion of them. I am just trying to survive the feeding frenzy intact.

Hey, I just made up a lawyer joke. How can you tell an honest lawyer? he is the one driving a 1986 Honda Accord. Hahahahahaha, boy, I do amuse myself!

 

Lawer jokes aside, the guy claiming patent infringement sounds deleirious, at best.
Guy

 

I don't see the relevance. The "axe" analogy would only apply if the "eye appeal" claim can be traced to a time pre-dafing the industry wide use AND a patent was filed earlier than a year after the first public use.

Edit: I read the article, and it seems the suit isn't over the eye appeal term, but rather the marketing of it. It seems the decision was made on collusion between NGC and PCGS. I ind it funny that the editor didn't fact check and see that PCGS & CU are the same.

 

There is a narrow speciality in Law, that of patent creation and defense. A lawyer patented the idea of using the tone touchpad on a telephone to signal the call receiving equipment to perform some task. ie; "press 0 to speak to an operator". He did a patent search and didn't find anything so he filed the patent, now his business is suing business that use that type of function. A very profitable business I might add.

The lesson is if you have an idea, patent it! Or someone else can.

 

The judge ruled that "+" was public domain. However, what is at issue is the marketing and sales of slabbed coins using "+" to denote that something special that separates it from other coins of the same grade.

We do not know all of the facts, but knowing that the judge dismissed multiple causes of action (or claims) and permitted this one to go forward says to me that there might be something to that single claim.

Oooooohh, the humanity! I apologize for failing to explain this more fully. Oh, please lonegun, don't lose your religion.

 

This shouldn't be the case. Patent law is VERY clear that an idea can only be patented within a year of its public release. I would assume the tone switching technology was used in computers for years.

 

only Apple? What about ORANGES and BANANA chiquita...EYE APPEAL with a WINK..... opppps I need to time out..My MONKEY now want a BANANA... wink*+

 

Very funny.

 

BTW, the title of this thread is highly misleading. The ruling was that the marketing of eye appeal could be seen as a breach of NCND. This isn't a patent law case, it's a contract / tort law case.