Best Ways To Promote Cpa Sweeptakes Offers

Over the last eight years, the promise of the Internet has been

to level the playing field between small businesses and major

corporations.

With a website, a small business could now sell their products

in the global market place without the overhead of additional

offices. To reap the benefits of e-commerce, one only needed

a website to attract and sell to customers, and one needed a

method to collect payments from their newly acquired customers.

Since the Internet is really just a network of computers, it

made perfect sense to merge electronic transfer of funds into

the website to simplify the purchasing process for the customer.

To date, the only real impediment to doing business online has

been the safety of the consumer’s financial data. In March of

2002, this all changed.

Enter the U.S. Trademark and Patents Office. Over the last few

years, the USTPO has shown extreme ignorance of new Internet

technologies. The USPTO has approved some of the most ludicrous

patents to be presented to them.

In 1997, AltaVista was granted a number of patents on search

engine technologies, even though search engine technology had

been in use as early as 1989.

In 1999, Amazon was given a patent for “one-click purchasing.”

In 2001, McAfee was granted patents for “Auto-Downloading of

Software / Software as a Service (SaaS)”, both of which had

been in use by others since before the creation of the global

Internet.

In 2002, PanIP (Pangea Intellectual Properties L.L.C) of San

Diego, California entered the fray. They were granted two

patents: US Patent No 5,576,951 and US Patent No. 6,289,319.

The first patent covers the “use of graphical and textual

information on a video screen for the purposes of making a

sale.” The second covers “accepting information to conduct

automatic financial transactions via a telephone line &

video screen.”

Most Patent experts do not take these “junk patents” seriously

knowing full well that they will be overturned by the courts

and other processes set up to police the system. However, John

D. Trudel, the Founder and Managing Director of The Trudel

Group, pointed out that “this nonsense raises the cost of

business, since it takes years and costs $1 million or so

to break these junk patents.”

Herein lies the difference in PanIP’s strategy. Big corporations

who have deep pockets settle most “junk patents” in court.

Amazon took their initial challenge to their primary competitor,

BarnesandNoble.com. B&N had the resources to fight this “junk

patent”, so they fought.

PanIP has instead directed their attacks at small companies

who simply do not have the resources to fight! In fact, PanIP

has currently sued 50 small businesses with no end in sight.

Timothy Beere, the owner of DeBrand Fine Chocolates, had to

make a choice when he found himself in the crosshairs of PanIP.

Tim said, “I had to make a decision. Pay them the $5000 they

were asking for something I didn’t think they had a right to,

or Fight Back!” He went on to say, “It was clear that PanIP’s

strategy counted on the notion that few, if any, of the

businesses would be willing fight back. I was!”

Tim proceeded to contact the other companies that have been

sued by PanIP to build a consensus to stand up and fight.

Many have joined together in the fight starting the PanIP

Group Defense Fund, Inc.

In building his website (http://www.youmaybenext.com), Tim

said, “I knew if I could get this on the radar screen, people

would be as disgusted by it as I was.”



Source by Bill Platt

Leave a Comment