Comments on: IPO Urges Action Against Patent Reform Bill Provision

By: PHOSITA&#174 | an intellectual property blog (patent law blog) also covering copyright and trademark issues

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:14:23 +0000

[...] Patent Baristas » IPO Urges Action Against Patent Reform Bill Provision (IPO) has made a call to arms agains the patent reform legislation in the Senate (S.1145), which may be considered for a vote within the next few weeks. IPO is all-out against the dreaded Applicant Quality Submissions (AQS). (tags: patent s1145 reform) [...]

By: Will

Will — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:46:09 +0000

There is a new story in Politico about the GAO investigation of DT: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10808.html

It is pretty interesting. It looks like the Senate has asked the GAO to look into what DT actually does (shocker). I’m not a betting may, but the odds are better than nothing that they will find DT is a shell company of two crazy guys attacking banks with whatever ammunition they can find.

By: alan

alan — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:17:59 +0000

DT did create software to accommodate an electronic transfer of imaged checks and (as far as I know) banks do pay for this. The patent in question is the method of imaging and electronically transferring checks. DT claims to own this idea but as we know, the idea has been around a long time.

There are 2 very incorrect comments in this post….#1…the banks are refusing to pay for anything..just useit,abuse it and don’t pay anyone..thats the banks approach…#2…ideas are always around for many yrs…the actual execution (the process that DT has a patent for) is were value is stored and DT wants to be paid rather than stripped naked…Not an unusual request. If they are so wrong..pray-tell…how come the USPTO has stated that the patents are valid…NOT ONCE BUT TWICE.

By: alan

alan — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:17:12 +0000

There are 2 very incorrect comments in this post….#1…the banks are refusing to pay for anything..just useit,abuse it and don’t pay anyone..thats the banks approach…#2…ideas are always around for many yrs…the actual execution (the process that DT has a patent for) is were value is stored and DT wants to be paid rather than stripped naked…Not an unusual request. If they are so wrong..pray-tell…how coe the USPTO has stated that the patents are valid…NOT ONCE BUT TWICE.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:01:37 +0000

I agree, Wes, that the process of using electronic fund transfers is cheaper. And, like Scott said, electronic fund transfers are needed for national security. At this point, we may want to put some faith in our political leaders who have given the amendment their unanimous support (Senate Judicial Committee).

As for Wes’s comments about creating the method patent- the idea of electronic transfers was first posited (as are all great ideas) in science fiction back in 1887 by Edward Bellamy. DT did create software to accommodate an electronic transfer of imaged checks and (as far as I know) banks do pay for this. The patent in question is the method of imaging and electronically transferring checks. DT claims to own this idea but as we know, the idea has been around a long time. Further, the idea is so important that the Check 21 law mandated that banks have to use this method. I