Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CheckFree Holdings Corp. (CKFR), the next Dell, Intel? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AugustWest who wrote (16615)	10/16/2000 8:49:44 AM
From: jjbucci	Respond to of 20297

August, Thanks, I guess we know what side of the Business Methods Patent wars this reporter stands on. jjbucci

To: AugustWest who wrote (16615)	10/16/2000 8:53:05 AM
From: Benny Baga	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20297

Not to add fuel to the fire, But the Phone companies have been doing this for years (combining statements), basically has been common practice for years. In addition a Credit Card statement serves the same purpose (a consolidation of bills from multiple billers). Not trying to cause any trouble ;-) I'm not a patent attorney, nor do I play one on TV. Benny

To: AugustWest who wrote (16615)	10/17/2000 12:02:28 AM
From: jjbucci	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20297

August, Don't know if you are interested, but here's my response to the register article. From: "Joseph J. Bucci" <jjbucci@home.com> 11:40 PM Subject: Integrate your credits cards into Windows? MS buys dodgy patent To: john.lettice@theregister.co.uk John, That was the most biased article I have ever read. Either you cannot read or you cannot understand, I don't know which is worse. Your article states; Bucci seems to have largely envisaged snailmail as the transport when he applied back in 1992, but it obviously works better if done electronically. And actually, it probably wouldn't work too well by mail, because you'd surely look at the summary, wonder how you spent this big sum on, say, Amex, then demand details - exit the single sheet of paper printed on two sides. The specification clearly states the following; In similar fashion, other hard-copy material can be included in the single envelope carrying the one-page, or more, summary of all billing statements, to carry, as well, other hard-copy material in the nature of advertising or bill-breakdown information. I had envisioned certain recurring bills, Rent Payments, Car Payments, Insurance Payments, etc. where the same amount was to be paid over and over and over again, basically cases where viewing the details would have been optional. You obviously did not read or understand this. As far as the emphasis on snail mail, maybe you don't remember how things were back in the early nineties, but back then very few people were online, and those that were, were logging on to compuserve or prodigy... It also made sense to do it this way first, more people would have been able to use it this way. Quite frankly, if this were being done via snail mail today more people would still be using it this way. Now, maybe you were a genius and saw that the internet was going to become the phenomenon that it is today, but I did not, in fact, I don't believe that I had even heard of the internet back then. Your article states; it's the sort of invention any of us might hit on while waiting for the kettle to boil That's the kind of statement you can make about anything after you've already heard about it. I say it all the time, why didn't I think of that ? Everything becomes obvious after you've seen or heard about it. You seem to be both anti Microsoft and anti Patent. You have produced a very purposely one-sided article. I note you mentioning at the end of the article "Endless possibilities based on the flimsiest of foundations", but you never mentioned to your readers that the patent withstood 5 1/2 years of prosecution in the Patent Office. You also didn't mention to your readers that because the patent took so long to issue that my attempts at securing venture capital failed, one group backed out specifically because the patent took so long to issue. You also didn't mention to your readers that on the very day I found out that the patent was finally going to issue, in fact only about an hour after I received word of the notice of allowance, how I heard a business report on the radio discussing a press release issued by a large company announcing what amounted to my product in electronic form. You also failed to mention how one of the companies I attempted to do a joint venture with in 1992 was quoted in a press release in 1997 stating how they "pioneered electronic bill presentment with XXXXXXXXXX" . Oh I forgot, not only did you not read the patent in it's entirety, you didn't even bother to call to ask any questions (I'm listed in the Phone Book). Quite Frankly, If I was your Journalism Professor, I would have to flunk you on this one. Joseph J. Bucci