XPays Awarded Affiliate Patent from PTO

[xxxjay]

Looks like Xpays has patented the affiliate program...I don't know what to think of this. War with Dollars.com or Acacia Vol. 2?

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=5647

[Ramster]

That is very bizarre.

[Jim]

Yeah, I read the patent yesterday. It looks like they put a lot of work behind it and probably deserve it.

[Greenguy]

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the many, many, many affiliate programs that use this set up.

[cd34]

Someone just needs to show prior art that they allowed 1 webmaster to refer other webmasters prior to May 1 2000.

Gee Jim, when did we do webmaster referrals? 97 or so?

Seems like ample prior art there.

[Far-L]

The patent is not on your basic affiliate program.

As I said on another board, this is not at all like Acacia.

There is absolutely no cause for alarm.

[Far-L]

Originally posted by xxxjay
Looks like Xpays has patented the affiliate program...I don't know what to think of this. War with Dollars.com or Acacia Vol. 2?

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=5647

Why tender drama here? You know from the other board that both Fight the Patent and myself, who has been immersed in patent issues since the day Acacia decided to sue us, say this is definitely NOT another Acacia.

I don't know if this will affect Dollars.com since I don't know enough about what Dollars does to comment, but I do know that any dispute can be resolved by those companies well before any need for litigation.

For that reason alone, imo, people need to avoid heating this issue up to an all out flameout so that logic and reason and smart business prevail over rhetoric, posturing, and lawsuits...

[Jim]

Originally posted by cd34
Someone just needs to show prior art that they allowed 1 webmaster to refer other webmasters prior to May 1 2000.

Gee Jim, when did we do webmaster referrals? 97 or so?

Seems like ample prior art there.

Yeah...the program was not quite the same

[MadMax]

Yup, seems like they've developed a very specific type of affiliate program. Since their proprietary software is rolled into the patent, I think they were wise to protect themselves. I'm not worried, and I don't see any reason for anyone else to be.

Acacia buys patents for the purposes of filing lawsuits and being assholes. These guys seem to have developed a genuinely unique and innovative architecture and they're protecting it. This is the whole purpose behind patenting in the first place, to allow people and companies to protect the fruits of all their hard labor and research/development expense. I say good for them. I'm sure anyone who likes their system enough will be more than welcome to license it.

[xxxjay]

Comission Junction did the same thing way before Xpays.

[Greenguy]

Originally posted by Far-L
Why tender drama here?

We're all about the drama around here

My real concern is will this effect any affiliate program that does not "own" the paysites in the program?

I can think of about 4 or 5 big programs that don't own all the sites that are in their system.

[Kath]

Originally posted by Far-L
The patent is not on your basic affiliate program.

As I said on another board, this is not at all like Acacia.

There is absolutely no cause for alarm.

Far-L, you are always a voice of reason in an industry of chaos!



But we SOOOOOO love the DRAMA!

I agree... no cause for alarm. Many are playing "Chicken Little" because of this and most haven't even read the patent for themselves. Something to keep an eye on and watch what develops (or doesn't).... but nothing to panic about - not really...






Cause really we have SOOOOOOOO much MORE to worry about! Ooooooh! The DRAMA! lol

[Far-L]

You all want drama?

I will give you drama....

just check out my Brando impression from Last Tango...

"Bring me da budda..."

(how was that?)

[KCat]

Originally posted by Far-L
The patent is not on your basic affiliate program.

As I said on another board, this is not at all like Acacia.

There is absolutely no cause for alarm.

Thanks, Far-L! Nice to see a voice of reason when everybody's ready to hit the panic button.

[Far-L]

Originally posted by Far-L
You all want drama?

I will give you drama....

just check out my Brando impression from Last Tango...

"Bring me da budda..."

(how was that?)

Thanks to you and Kath for an endorsement of reason... I know a few out there that certainly think that I am anything but reasonable but that is probably just due to their being unreasonable....

i am just trying to do my small part to help people avoid paying their hard earned cash to attorneys rather than themselves...

[Far-L]

I should also state for the record...

I am friends with Michael and Evan. I have done business with them in the past and after a long hiatus I am about to do some biz with them again.

But business is business.

I do business with people i don't necessarily like as well as those that I do. Good business is not about being buddies. It is about business.

Business is business.

if I thought that or any other patent was valid or invalid i would make a decision based on my business concerns whether to pay or fight it. Being friends would only play a very small role into such a decision. The only part it would play is my concern about staying friendly even if I had to make a tough choice and stand against it.

Because business is business.

One of the objectives and missions of the IMPA is to be available to help communication in matters like this. We want to avoid what happened with Acacia not just for ourselves but with everyone that we do or may do business with in the future. Our intention is to research this patent and publish a "white paper" on it that will help others to decide whether the patent applies to them or not. We believe that effort is good for the profitable future of our industry as it promotes business with integrity... and I know you already know why that is so important...

That's right.

Business is business, and done right it can be prosperous for everyone involved.

[domweb]

Just another point about all this.

I don't believe that this claim is a 'blanket' patent on affiliate programs, but I remember the case a few years ago when Amazon filed protection of it's 'One-Click' purchase system. I believe the courts upheld the patent in that case. I think it bears on this.

It seems to me that someone can hold a claim to a patent on a specific variation of METHOD in transacting business on the web, but no one can claim claim patent to the transacting of basic business.

The reason the affiliate program will never be able to be patented is that it is nothing more than a sales commision structure. You can't patent salesmen.

An Affiliate makes a sale of the product/service of the Sponsor. The Affiliate is paid based on a commision structure agreed to by the Sponsor and Affiliate. The Affiliate is paid total commisions on a regular schedule.

You can substitute the word Salesman for Affiliate in the paragraph above and you will have described the method by which most business has been done in the world since the Industrial Revolution.

As affiliates, we are just salemen. Some of us are better salesmen, some are green, some are average, some are learning, some don't give a f*ck and a few make a heck of a lot of money. The few salesmen that make big money and live independant lives keep the rest of us interested and motivated.

Let's see 'em patent that.

But PLEASE...research away. If someone doesn't keep an eye the legal weather, we all get rained on before we can get indoors. Don't let em bug ya.

[Greenguy]

No, this isn't a patent on an affiliate program in general (Amazon owns that if I'm not mistaken)

This is a patent on promoting an affiliate program via another company, like XPays has done for years.

[Kath]

Originally posted by Far-L
I should also state for the record...

I am friends with Michael and Evan. I have done business with them in the past and after a long hiatus I am about to do some biz with them again.

But business is business.

I do business with people i don't necessarily like as well as those that I do. Good business is not about being buddies. It is about business.

Business is business.

if I thought that or any other patent was valid or invalid i would make a decision based on my business concerns whether to pay or fight it. Being friends would only play a very small role into such a decision. The only part it would play is my concern about staying friendly even if I had to make a tough choice and stand against it.

Because business is business.

One of the objectives and missions of the IMPA is to be available to help communication in matters like this. We want to avoid what happened with Acacia not just for ourselves but with everyone that we do or may do business with in the future. Our intention is to research this patent and publish a "white paper" on it that will help others to decide whether the patent applies to them or not. We believe that effort is good for the profitable future of our industry as it promotes business with integrity... and I know you already know why that is so important...

That's right.

Business is business, and done right it can be prosperous for everyone involved.

*wishing I could kidnap Far-L and get him to write gobs of articles for us!*

Well put - a lot of people forget that business is business and unfortunately that's why a lot of them aren't around any more today. *sigh*

[Far-L]

Originally posted by Kath






*wishing I could kidnap Far-L and get him to write gobs of articles for us!*

Well put - a lot of people forget that business is business and unfortunately that's why a lot of them aren't around any more today. *sigh*

Honored deeply by the kindness of your comments. I do have to say that I kind of get a kick out of watching others run amuck and blow their businesses up... and I don't mean in the slang cool way that connotes success either... I guess that is kind of jaded of me, but after all I have been through lately I would have to say that I think it is deserved.