Re: [ubl-dev] OB10 patent on common e-invoicing pattern?

Dear Mikkel,

On linkedin.com there is a groups called Service Oriented Architecture Special Interest Group with over 10000 members. Maybe it is a good idea for you to drop your concerns on this patent there.

The URL is: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=36604

I am looking into this patent and from what I can read it looks like a very high-level conceptual proposal for how such an communication apparatus should work.

Whereas most of the functionality proposed comes from what enterprise service bus and soa architecture are providing. So I am surprised and I wonder how the patent offices validate these kinds of requests.

kind regards
Danny Gaethofs

From: Mikkel Hippe Brun <mhb@schemaworks.com>
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 10:19:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] OB10 patent on common e-invoicing pattern?

Fulton,

I do apologize about the links. Copy paste from web-mail is not advisable.

My interpretation of the patent can be found here: http://bit.ly/JxvZX
Blogpost where I am collecting evidence to be used in a notice of opposition: http://bit.ly/l0zBq. Please help out collecting evidence.

US patent: http://bit.ly/DfgOP

European patent: http://bit.ly/fa5LM

Observe the difference between the US patent and the European patent. They could not get the US patent approved in Europe without adding "salt and pepper".

You do highlight a significant concern although the concern is probably
better addressed to the many entities involved specifically in the

translation of electronic invoices, which very well might impact for example

vertical applications from SAP, Oracle, etc.

You are right - I was hoping that some of these entities were following this list. Does anyone know of a more appropriate forum to raise this concern in?

The patent application (from 2002) does not reference an existing
instantiation, but instead is apparently a purely business method patent

application. It describes a conceptual describes a single point of

translation, with an "apparatus" determining how to translate an inbound

invoice based on from whom it is received and how to translate the inbound

document based on to whom it is going. It references storing the document in

an intermediate form although that feature is characteristic of many-to-many

translators.

Yes that is what I find so upsetting.

So - would an "off the shelf" product like BizTalk (available in 2000) be covered by the patent? Or is it only the use of BizTalk in the scenario specified by the patent, that is covered? To me the patent could be reduced to the following essence:

Take an "off the shelf" middleware product

Use it like any other VAN would use it
Add "salt and pepper" to the conversion (that's the unique part)
Done - that's the patent.

Based on the application text, tt appears to apply only to some central
in/out third party processing service.

But could it not cover products that has this capability? Is it only processing services? They are putting a significant limitation on the use of "off the shelf" products with the patent. How would you do it any other way if you were a service provider running with a "three corner business model"?

The resulting patent, if approved, apparently would not apply if the sender
(or the sender's agent) does translation into, say, UBL, and at the far end

the receiver (or the receiver's agent) does translation from UBL into the

receiver's chosen output.

Agree - there are ways around the patent, but traditional business of Value Added Network operators, where they do all the conversion is covered.

Also, it apparently would not apply if in-network translation was determined
not by something specifically associated with the originator or receiver

point, but instead by something embedded the document – e.g. information as

to UBL invoice version or ANSI EDI version, etc.

Well - you would need some table with information about the expected format of the end receivers.

From what I saw online, the applicants' U.S. Patent Application does not
reference the existence of prior art although clearly invoice translation

processes have been around for a long time – back into the early 1980s.

Hundreds of EDI translator packages and in-network translation services

available in the 1980s and 1990s provided invoice translation.

Do you have any references to these? I have found evidence of the Commerce One solution using xCBL on the wayback machine: http://bit.ly/KBOga

The European patent varies a little form the US patent. It has the following sentence added:

"... characterised in that the input processing means (9a, 9b) is configured to: add static data to the signal received from the input transmission line means when processed into the standard intermediate form, add dynamic data to the signal received from the input transmission line means when processed into the standard intermediate form, and validate the processed signal in the standard intermediate form before storing said validated processed signal at the data Warehouse."

Source: http://bit.ly/fa5LM

In my world this translates to: "Add salt and pepper".

Given that the application does not cite prior art, it does not assert its
differences nor in what respect it offers an improvement.

The application does not claim that its method for the translation of

invoices is in any way unique as compared to, for example, the translation

of purchase orders or ship notices or any other structured document. It does

not assert nor demonstrate that some previously existing translation process

working to translate POs, etc. would not work equally well for invoices.

Agree - it is a new patent on the wheel.

The U.S. Patent Office has initiated a peer review service which might be
helpful to OASIS in watch for patents that involve standards domains. - see

http://www.peertopatent.org/

Very usefull thank you. How do we make sure that we do not discover something like this less than two months before a decision is finalized. It is very frustrating that we have to watch our back like this. I respect patents on genuine inventions. This patent is just obstruction, wast of money and time. And worst of all - it is delaying global roll out of electronic invoicing. I guess it is the "immune system" of an old service provider trying to fight the "viral" technologies and business practices.

All the best

Mikkel

Mikkel Hippe Brun

ubl-dev message