well...
<if you read this post:
www.publishamerica.com/cg...s/1669.htm
you may get an idea of why they didn't publish her. It would be too much work for their editors....or whatever they are.
if that link is taken down, i have a copy of the message saved. i'll be happy to send it.
maybe this is a turnaround point for PA. maybe they are monitoring quality...>
I think it'll be a cold day when PA gives a hoot about quality. I wonder, however, whether this could possibly have anything to do with it?
"Who Owns Print-on-Demand?
Amazon.com, Others Sued for Patent on Common Net Practice
By Cade Metz
PC Magazine
March 11— This time, Amazon.com has landed on the other side of the patent debate.
In 1999, the pioneering Internet bookseller famously sued chief competitor Barnes & Noble.com, claiming that the rival's Express Checkout service infringed on patents for the 1-Click system that lets customers quickly order from the Amazon Web site. The suit caused an uproar among Internet users, many of whom held that such an obvious business process idea wasn't innovative enough to warrant a patent.
Last week, the tables turned when Amazon proved the victim of a business process patent. On March 4, a jury in a St. Louis federal district court found that the print-on-demand services run by Amazon and two other companies, Lightning Source Inc. and Ingram Industries Inc., infringed on a patent held by the On Demand Machine Corporation (ODMC), a company based in St. Louis. ODMC (
www.bookmachine.com) was awarded damages of $15 million for past infringement up to December 2003.
Lightning Source, a subsidiary of Ingram Industries headquartered in LaVergne, Tenn., started its print-on-demand service in 1997, providing a library of digital texts that are printed only when customers purchase them. In 2000, Amazon entered a partnership with Lightning Source, selling the company's print-on-demand titles through the Amazon.com Web site.
A Problematic Patent?
According to the district court jury, these print-on-demand businesses infringe on a patent issued to the late Harvey Ross, founder of ODMC. Ross first filed for a patent involving "a system and method of manufacturing a single book copy," but the initial request was abandoned. He filed again in July of 1993, and two years later, the patent was granted. In 2001, after a reexamination, the Patent Office discarded six of the patent's eight claims but upheld the last two, and these were the basis for the jury's decision.
The patent describes a computer-based hardware system that "may be utilized in many environments, but it is especially well suited for direct retail consumer sales." Many object to the grant, saying that the patent covers a broad idea rather than a specific invention. "The Patent Office essentially read a 3,000-word essay on print-on-demand and issued a patent for it," explains Bob Young, the former CEO of Linux packager Red Hat, who now runs the print-on-demand company Lulu.com. "This was not an invention that was awarded this patent. It was simply a description of an idea."
Douglas Goldhush, a patent lawyer with the international law firm Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, disagrees. "This claim is fairly specific," he says. "It talks about storing the text of a book, it talks about storing sales information related to a book in the computer, which is a critical part of print-on-demand, and it talks about how the customer can view the book and command the computer to print the text."
The question may be whether the patent is too specific to be applied to the services run by Amazon and Lightning. Unlike these services, which include a vast collection of servers, printing technology, Web sites, resellers, distributors, and stores, the system detailed in the patent seems to be a single piece of hardware.
Harold Ross and ODMC did eventually build systems much like those described in the patent, but they were never commercialized. "We got a couple of prototypes out but never got to the point of actually selling the product," says Bruce Baebler, current president of ODMC. "We were primarily a development-stage company." These prototypes were intended for use as kiosk-like devices within brick-and-mortar retail stores. "The model that ODMC developed was a self-contained system for retail point-of-sale," continues Baebler, "but our patent has a broader scope than that. Lightning and Ingram are doing a warehouse, centralized type of operation, but it does infringe on our patent claim."
Murky Future
Amazon, Ingram, and Lightning are likely to appeal the jury's decision. "This is only a district court decision out of St. Louis," says Goldhush. "With $15 million at stake, I would be very surprised if they didn't appeal."
If the courts continue to uphold the patent, other print-on-demand companies, including Lulu.com, my have to pay damages, licensing fees, or both to ODMC.
"If the patent stands as valid and is infringed," continues Goldhush. "On Demand could have the opportunity to assert it over anyone else who is using a print-on-demand system or method covered by their claims."
Perhaps I'm thinking of the wrong company, but isn't Lightning PA's sole printer?