Flame of the Week We're biased
And we don't read or understand things
[John felt Microsoft had coughed up good money on a ludicrous patent. Joseph Bucci, who originally had the patent granted, didn't think John had researched his story very well.]
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