[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] OB10 patent on common e-invoicing pattern?
Mikkel, I could not read your links because a log-on popped up. I did check out patent application 20020067723 on the USPO site. 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. 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. It uses language that has little utilization in eBusiness to describe invoice document translation. "A communication routing system receives signals from sources thereof and converts them into a standard format, using mapping definitions selected on the basis of their sources. Signals in the standard format are converted into output formats according to their destinations using mapping definitions selected on the basis of their destinations." http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fn etahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22Communica tion+Routing+Apparatus%22&OS="Communication+Routing+Apparatus"&RS="Communica tion+Routing+Apparatus" Presumably, its principal claim centers on "translation" given that email has long done "routing" (and EDI was built on top of email communications). Based on the application text, tt appears to apply only to some central in/out third party processing service. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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/ Fulton Wilcox Colts Neck Solutions LLC ________________________________________ From: Mikkel Hippe Brun [mailto:mhb@schemaworks.com] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:36 AM To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ubl-dev] OB10 patent on common e-invoicing pattern? Hello ubl-dev, OB10 has received a patent on an "Communication routing apparatus" (US patent and European patent). The patent describes a middleware product (e.g. an ESB) where the ESB acts as an intermediary messaging hub between many IT-systems. It basically describes protocol conversion and content conversion of e-invoices between 1) senders 2) the hub and 3) receivers. The characteristics of the OB10 patent are that static and dynamic data is added to the input protocol and the input content. I my view this is standard functionality in many middleware products and most ESB's. I also believe that the described pattern of transformations of protocols and content describes exactly what Value Added Network Operators has been making a business on for the last 20+ years. The "VA" (Value Added) in the VAN acronym - is to do transformations on protocols and contents like it is described in the patent. There is less than 7 weeks to oppose the patent. I therefore urge suppliers of Middleware products and service providers to send an opposition to the patent. I have written a blog post with my interpretation of the patent. http://bit.ly/JxvZX I have also written a post where I am collecting evidence to be used in a notice of opposition. http://bit.ly/l0zBq See also the patent at the European Patent Office: http://bit.ly/Kh95m Best regards Mikkel Hippe Brun Technical Director @ PEPPOL.eu Cheif Consultant @ The Danish National IT and Telecom Agency
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]