Patent infringement megasuit

Steve

Steve

En-Route
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
4,178
Location
Tralfamadore
Display Name
Display name:
Fly Right
this seems to be a recurring theme lately

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ul-allen-tries-again-with-patent-megasuit.ars

...Interval Licensing LLC filed an amended patent infringement suit on Tuesday which spells out how Apple, Google, Facebook, and eight other online companies violate its patents.
.
Google's Android operating system is directly targeted by the lawsuit
.
Along with Apple, Google, and Netflix, the lawsuit also names AOL, eBay, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube.
 
I am not sure if these guys were also on Apple suit, there is going to be a very interesting IP legal game being played. I have been notified I will be having to turn over documents related to the Apple suit.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk
 
I just read the entire complaint. In my opinion, it's a stunning argument (1) against software patents, and (2) for "loser pays."

It's sad that Paul Allen has been reduced to patent trolling.

-Rich
 
Hmm.. So much for my idea that a major tech innovation will lead into the next economic 'boom'. It's hard to invest in R&D if there is always going to be someone waiting to say "I thought of that first".
 
CJones said:
Hmm.. So much for my idea that a major tech innovation will lead into the next economic 'boom'. It's hard to invest in R&D if there is always going to be someone waiting to say "I thought of that first".
Click to expand...

It's even harder if you spend years developing an idea and everyone can rip you off immediately.
 
Read carefully...the original name of the company was Interval Research. The new one is Interval Licensing. There is no doubt what its business plan is.
 
TMetzinger said:
Read "Cryptonomicon" and think "GateTech".
Click to expand...
that book made my head asplode ... come on - 6 pages of description of the parking lot with snow and cars? and on and on and on ... but I hung with it, skipped a bunch of pages here and there and there and here and made it to the end ... and I like to read! :)
 
An active, strategic, and committed IP plan is just a normal part of being a technology company. In the end, it's not so much about inventions and "protecting what's mine" as it is to build an arsenal to be used in "the game." In the end, it'll all work out with cross licensing deals on IP so that everyone's happy - with the attorney's being the most happy of all.

I spent that last phase of my career in ultra high end telecommunications products in the 90's; own several patents that have come under attack by rivals; and played the game myself. We didn't make the law and the game is going to get played so you might as well try to be the big stack at the poker table when the industry calls for a "shuffle up and deal."

It sounds a bit like Allen is using more of a parasite approach to IP than anything I would consider honorable or productive. But in the end, he may make a few bucks and can certainly afford to have the best legal attack dogs money can buy.
 
gkainz said:
that book made my head asplode ... come on - 6 pages of description of the parking lot with snow and cars? and on and on and on ... but I hung with it, skipped a bunch of pages here and there and there and here and made it to the end ... and I like to read! :)
Click to expand...
I've read several other Stephenson novels (Snow Crash and the three volume Baroque Cycle extravaganza) but haven't tackled Cryptonomicon yet. It looks like I can get it in eBook form though so I'll probably read it one of these days.
 
gkainz said:
that book made my head asplode ... come on - 6 pages of description of the parking lot with snow and cars? and on and on and on ... but I hung with it, skipped a bunch of pages here and there and there and here and made it to the end ... and I like to read! :)
Click to expand...

interesting... I liked it - even the parking lot.
 
gismo said:
I've read several other Stephenson novels (Snow Crash and the three volume Baroque Cycle extravaganza) but haven't tackled Cryptonomicon yet. It looks like I can get it in eBook form though so I'll probably read it one of these days.
Click to expand...

Baroque cycle was tough for me. Zodiac is great, and the Big U (about Boston University as far as I could tell) was pretty good too.
 
There was some general pushback, even from bloggers at Economist... here:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property
Note that the blogger apparently fails to realize that defensive patents offer no defense against a patent troll who has no product. There is a lot of confusion that requires education, maybe even re-education. Unfortunately not much can be done, just the painstaking argumentation and scholarly research on the effects of patents for many years.

To scope the size of the mountains we have to climb, check out the thread about space launch, where our fellow pilots still labour under the delusion that patents advance innovation:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=742306#post742306
(far from the only one, just scroll down and laugh - or cry)
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
To scope the size of the mountains we have to climb, check out the thread about space launch, where our fellow pilots still labour under the delusion that patents advance innovation:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=742306#post742306
(far from the only one, just scroll down and laugh - or cry)
Click to expand...

I think there is a good argument that patents help advance innovation. If you can protect your costly-to-develop IP, it encourages you to engage in R&D. If you can't, your efforts will go for virtually naught, as your competitors knock-off whatever you extended yourself to develop.

There is a counter-argument too, but it certainly isn't cut and dried.
 
I just realized I referenced the wrong book a long time ago... the correct book is "Mother of Storms", by John Barnes, that contains GateTech, a company that is in the business of following basic research done by others and preemptively patenting possible outcomes of that research, thus forcing those others to pay GateTech to build some of the products that their research enables.

Good book in all sorts of ways... TV looks more and more like Passionet every day.
 
> the blogger apparently fails to realize that defensive patents offer
> no defense against a patent troll who has no product.

Bingo.

Software patents suck. (I am mostly a software guy.)

IMHO; the Judiciary really screwed-up when they forced
USPTO to begin issuing software patents. Not unexpected
though ... it's simply ex-lawyers (the jurists) creating a gravy
train for practicing lawyers.
 
Last edited:
Let's not take this one down the political road, either. Tnx.
 
To the person who said it was distressing that Paul Allen was "reduced" to Patent trolling...

Paul Allen hasn't produced a single successful software product written by his own hands, ever.

What's the surprise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top