While I agree with you in principle, each suit needs to be judged on its merits. In some cases, I'm sure the claims are valid.
The fact that this one was filed in this particular court makes me a bit suspicious.
Agreed, the law can't be circumvented just because it annoys us. However, the fact that these all get filed in East Texas should be a strong indication that someone should investigate the integrity of those courts. A little patent reform is in order too I believe.
Agreed, the law can't be circumvented just because it annoys us. However, the fact that these all get filed in East Texas should be a strong indication that someone should investigate the integrity of those courts. A little patent reform is in order too I believe.
Are you implying that this court district is corrupt? What kind of patent reform?
The Bilski case has changed the landscape and that's probably why some folks are filing now - trying to get ahead of the curve.
On the other hand, suing Apple is a high-stakes game. So is suing IBM, as SCO discovered (although it's not dead yet, and it wasn't for patent-related stuff).
Larry might well find that the Java patents are not worth what he paid for them - time will tell. But going after Google first is a gutsy move (typical Larry style). I don't expect either side to settle so the trial on patent-validity should help clear the air. Finally.
I'm betting that a lot of "patents" will soon be worthless.
Are you implying that this court district is corrupt? What kind of patent reform?
Here you go - someone trying to intellectually rationalize a broken system. The patent system is obviously seriously broken. And yes, if you are 75% more likely to win by filing in East Texas, the system there is in fact corrupt or all the trolls wouldn't be filing there.
So they have never used these patents. It sounds like they tread on prior public domain patents and prior art. They are using the Texas court system because they can be bought (even if it is just by giving these losers favorable outcomes so they get more cases tried).
Microsoft is a sucker for settling. Isn't there a way to counter sue these bastards? Or are they immune because they don't make anything?
What are these guys doing with their money anyway? 200 million from settling just one lawsuit for submitting some overly broad patent. Normally I don't care... but these guys didn't earn it.
The Bilski case has changed the landscape and that's probably why some folks are filing now - trying to get ahead of the curve.
On the other hand, suing Apple is a high-stakes game. So is suing IBM, as SCO discovered (although it's not dead yet, and it wasn't for patent-related stuff).
Larry might well find that the Java patents are not worth what he paid for them - time will tell. But going after Google first is a gutsy move (typical Larry style). I don't expect either side to settle so the trial on patent-validity should help clear the air. Finally.
I'm betting that a lot of "patents" will soon be worthless.
I don't understand how, but I'm not a lawyer. Didn't the Bilski case just restrict patents to machines. Last I knew, the iPhone was still a machine. You could consider software part of a machine as well. Personally I think only exactly the same technique should be contestable. Right down to the protocol implementation in this case. That will prevent knockoff products, but allow other completely different implementations to exist. These patents are ridiculous. You might as well just tear a few pages out of a computer science text book and patent the algorithms in them.
They are also suing for using open standards. L2TP was created by The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for example. Don't these standards bodies own patents that were prior to the ones they are suing for? These are not new protocols. They have been around for awhile. I bet these standards bodies have older patents covering the same things. I don't really understand why Microsoft decided they couldn't win, but I guess Microsoft always settles.
It looks like the lawyers made 30 million (20 million plus 10 million in costs) and VirnetX made $170 million on the Microsoft settlement. If you look at VirnetX web page it is full of BS. I like how they say their technology prevents DNS poisoning by not letting you access the public internet. The front page is set up to look like they actually have products, when really they only have IP when you try to learn more about them.
VirnetX Holding Company has 12 employees (according to D&B, some of them members of the same family) in a 6400 sq. ft. office, no revenue stream and was founded in 2005. Do they get to split the 170 million left after paying the lawyers equally? That is more then 10 million each. They still want more? And that was just from the Microsoft settlement. It wasn't their only one.
They also just went public. They will be paying dividends since they have no profit or value outside of lawsuits. So now you can invest in trolling.
Here you go - someone trying to intellectually rationalize a broken system. The patent system is obviously seriously broken. And yes, if you are 75% more likely to win by filing in East Texas, the system there is in fact corrupt or all the trolls wouldn't be filing there.
Would you please be so kind as to either list the patents that you have or stat where you received your law degree.
Would you please be so kind as to either list the patents that you have or stat where you received your law degree.
Since when do you need a law degree to state the obvious. It seems you only need a law degree to manipulate the system or a Ph. D. to get a vague or obvious patent.
Since when do you need a law degree to state the obvious. It seems you only need a law degree to manipulate the system or a Ph. D. to get a vague or obvious patent.
Well, let us see. At one time it was "obvious" that the earth was the center of the Universe. It was "obvious" that the earth was flat. It was "obvious" that certain races were "inferior." It was "obvious" that women were incapable of higher thought.
If the patent were so "obvious" then why didn't you or someone else come up with it earlier.
"obvious" is often wrong, and given a system as complicated as the patent system, one would hope that one would have a certain amount of expertise in the field before calling it broken.
As much as some would like to believe, not everyone's opinion is valid.
Here you go - someone trying to intellectually rationalize a broken system. The patent system is obviously seriously broken. And yes, if you are 75% more likely to win by filing in East Texas, the system there is in fact corrupt or all the trolls wouldn't be filing there.
Here you go trying to put words into someone's mouth. Sorry if I asked a question you can't answer.
What are these guys doing with their money anyway? 200 million from settling just one lawsuit for submitting some overly broad patent. Normally I don't care... but these guys didn't earn it.
I generally agree a lot of the patents seem stupid and not actually real inventions.
However IT patents can be very specific and very technical so it could be something unique. Also nobody really has an actual knowledge over the history of the patent. Fine it might now be owned by a company that doesn't do anything but sue, but before that it could have been the result of a high amount of investment. The company may have failed but a patent is still worth something and can be sold. So if that happened and the current owners invested in buying the patent why should they not now sue anyone infringing on it.
If I came up with an idea that was unique, got a patent but failed to make it into a successful business, that shouldn't give anyone else the right to use my invention for free.
While Google Android Smartphone sales may have passed the iPhone worldwide within the second quarter of 2010, it doesn't take an Oracle to see that there's trouble ahead for the business whose unofficial motto is "Do no evil.". Google Inc. is being sued by Oracle Corp. because Oracle?s Java copyright was violated with the Android OS, reports the Wall Street Journal. Eric Schmidt, a previous Sun chief technology officer, whose Google?s founder, and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison are against one another in the suit. In January 2010, the business that started Java, Sun, was bought by Oracle. Today, Java is used within the Android Smartphone as well as hundreds of other devices.
Comments
While I agree with you in principle, each suit needs to be judged on its merits. In some cases, I'm sure the claims are valid.
The fact that this one was filed in this particular court makes me a bit suspicious.
Agreed, the law can't be circumvented just because it annoys us. However, the fact that these all get filed in East Texas should be a strong indication that someone should investigate the integrity of those courts. A little patent reform is in order too I believe.
Agreed, the law can't be circumvented just because it annoys us. However, the fact that these all get filed in East Texas should be a strong indication that someone should investigate the integrity of those courts. A little patent reform is in order too I believe.
Are you implying that this court district is corrupt? What kind of patent reform?
On the other hand, suing Apple is a high-stakes game. So is suing IBM, as SCO discovered (although it's not dead yet, and it wasn't for patent-related stuff).
Larry might well find that the Java patents are not worth what he paid for them - time will tell. But going after Google first is a gutsy move (typical Larry style). I don't expect either side to settle so the trial on patent-validity should help clear the air. Finally.
I'm betting that a lot of "patents" will soon be worthless.
Are you implying that this court district is corrupt? What kind of patent reform?
Here you go - someone trying to intellectually rationalize a broken system. The patent system is obviously seriously broken. And yes, if you are 75% more likely to win by filing in East Texas, the system there is in fact corrupt or all the trolls wouldn't be filing there.
Microsoft is a sucker for settling. Isn't there a way to counter sue these bastards? Or are they immune because they don't make anything?
What are these guys doing with their money anyway? 200 million from settling just one lawsuit for submitting some overly broad patent. Normally I don't care... but these guys didn't earn it.
The Bilski case has changed the landscape and that's probably why some folks are filing now - trying to get ahead of the curve.
On the other hand, suing Apple is a high-stakes game. So is suing IBM, as SCO discovered (although it's not dead yet, and it wasn't for patent-related stuff).
Larry might well find that the Java patents are not worth what he paid for them - time will tell. But going after Google first is a gutsy move (typical Larry style). I don't expect either side to settle so the trial on patent-validity should help clear the air. Finally.
I'm betting that a lot of "patents" will soon be worthless.
I don't understand how, but I'm not a lawyer. Didn't the Bilski case just restrict patents to machines. Last I knew, the iPhone was still a machine. You could consider software part of a machine as well. Personally I think only exactly the same technique should be contestable. Right down to the protocol implementation in this case. That will prevent knockoff products, but allow other completely different implementations to exist. These patents are ridiculous. You might as well just tear a few pages out of a computer science text book and patent the algorithms in them.
They are also suing for using open standards. L2TP was created by The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for example. Don't these standards bodies own patents that were prior to the ones they are suing for? These are not new protocols. They have been around for awhile. I bet these standards bodies have older patents covering the same things. I don't really understand why Microsoft decided they couldn't win, but I guess Microsoft always settles.
If you read this:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1
VirnetX Holding Company has 12 employees (according to D&B, some of them members of the same family) in a 6400 sq. ft. office, no revenue stream and was founded in 2005. Do they get to split the 170 million left after paying the lawyers equally? That is more then 10 million each. They still want more? And that was just from the Microsoft settlement. It wasn't their only one.
They also just went public. They will be paying dividends since they have no profit or value outside of lawsuits. So now you can invest in trolling.
Here you go - someone trying to intellectually rationalize a broken system. The patent system is obviously seriously broken. And yes, if you are 75% more likely to win by filing in East Texas, the system there is in fact corrupt or all the trolls wouldn't be filing there.
Would you please be so kind as to either list the patents that you have or stat where you received your law degree.
Would you please be so kind as to either list the patents that you have or stat where you received your law degree.
Since when do you need a law degree to state the obvious. It seems you only need a law degree to manipulate the system or a Ph. D. to get a vague or obvious patent.
Since when do you need a law degree to state the obvious. It seems you only need a law degree to manipulate the system or a Ph. D. to get a vague or obvious patent.
Well, let us see. At one time it was "obvious" that the earth was the center of the Universe. It was "obvious" that the earth was flat. It was "obvious" that certain races were "inferior." It was "obvious" that women were incapable of higher thought.
If the patent were so "obvious" then why didn't you or someone else come up with it earlier.
"obvious" is often wrong, and given a system as complicated as the patent system, one would hope that one would have a certain amount of expertise in the field before calling it broken.
As much as some would like to believe, not everyone's opinion is valid.
Here you go - someone trying to intellectually rationalize a broken system. The patent system is obviously seriously broken. And yes, if you are 75% more likely to win by filing in East Texas, the system there is in fact corrupt or all the trolls wouldn't be filing there.
Here you go trying to put words into someone's mouth. Sorry if I asked a question you can't answer.
Patent Whores.
It's pathetic how innovation is potentially being held back by some greedy no-name fools.
Word!
Companies like Apple should be allowed to innovate no matter what!
What are these guys doing with their money anyway? 200 million from settling just one lawsuit for submitting some overly broad patent. Normally I don't care... but these guys didn't earn it.
I generally agree a lot of the patents seem stupid and not actually real inventions.
However IT patents can be very specific and very technical so it could be something unique. Also nobody really has an actual knowledge over the history of the patent. Fine it might now be owned by a company that doesn't do anything but sue, but before that it could have been the result of a high amount of investment. The company may have failed but a patent is still worth something and can be sold. So if that happened and the current owners invested in buying the patent why should they not now sue anyone infringing on it.
If I came up with an idea that was unique, got a patent but failed to make it into a successful business, that shouldn't give anyone else the right to use my invention for free.