An apparatus for stifling competition
Are you tired of hearing of patents granted for obvious innovations? Are you weary of hearing about old patents that are purchased by firms like Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro which "concentrates its practice in intellectual property law" and became notorious as a hugely successful "patent troll"? Do you think that the people suing Google, Apple and Microsoft for infringement of a patent ludicrously granted for "a system and method for iconic software environment management" that they claim covers thumbnail images should be granted their day in court?
Microsoft has asked for a patent to protect its idea for a smartphone docking cradle that would turn your handheld into a mini-laptop.
Microsoft Claims Patent Holder Got A Job At Microsoft To Get Info Used In Patent Lawsuits
We see all sorts of strange patent-related lawsuits around here, but this one probably qualifies for the most extreme attempt by a patent holder to come up with info for the sake of a patent lawsuit. Apparently (and this is according to Microsoft), Miki Mullor, CEO of a company called Ancora Technologies, applied for a job at Microsoft while still working for Ancora.
Last week, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office made public a new Microsoft patent application titled "Content Management System and External Data Storage System Data Synchronization." (Interestingly, it specifically mentions SharePoint by name.)
Microsoft is basically trying to patent the idea of letting data synchronization be triggered by administrator actions in a content management system. According to the Abstract of the application: "In one example, an administrator creates or modifies an event at the content management system, and if the event is coordinated with the external data storage system, the content management system is synchronized with the external data storage system."
Acacia Research Corp. (ACTG: News ) said its Hospital Systems Corp. subsidiary has entered into a license agreement with Intelerad Medical Systems covering a portfolio of patents that apply to medical picture archiving and communication system technology.
Transmeta IP sold to not-patent troll
[...]
IV said it grabbed 140 US patents and "a substantial number" of pending patent applications issued in the US and abroad. The firm intends to license the technology to other vendors on non-exclusive terms. IV is run by former Microsoft chief technology officer-turned-IP collector, Nathan Myhrvold. It claims to have more than 2,000 patents in the semiconductor field.
For all the talk among patent system defenders about how patents are most necessary for young startup companies that need to grow, most tech startups couldn't care much less about patents (other than as a bogus currency to increase their valuation in talking to VCs). Startups are focused on actually building a product and getting it out to the market. Instead, what we see time and time again is that it's the big, more established companies that use patents to stifle startups, rather than the other way around. Startups innovate, while big companies litigate.
[...]
The company was incredibly open in sharing ideas and concepts, and wasn't going around threatening others for ripping off its IP (that did come later... especially with the graphical user interface, which Jobs himself admitted "ripping off" from Xerox... which had "ripped it off" already from SRI). It's really only when you're afraid of competing in the marketplace that you rely on patents. When you're young and innovative you focus on the possibilities and opportunities in front of you, rather than on ways to block others from innovating.
In a newly published patent filing (#20090022329) known as the “Method and Apparatus for Using a Sound Sensor to Adjust the Audio Output for a Device,” Apple is working on a system that automatically adjusts the volume of the iPhone, iPods, and Macs based on a combination of ambient noise and user feedback.
After Palm showed off its new Pre smartphone, including the device's multitouch interface, at the Consumer Electronics Show last month, Apple made some threatening noises about how it would go after anybody who "ripped off" its intellectual property. As always, we didn't see how this would benefit anybody in the marketplace, since competition pays benefits to consumers, and drives participants, even Apple, to continually innovate and improve their products. Now, a wireless industry analyst has called Apple's threats into question. He makes the point that a long, drawn out IP fight won't help Apple's business in the long run: "Building on the company's legacy as one of the greatest innovators in the technology industry may be a smarter business model than taking on the rest of the industry in a battle that may be impossible to win."
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, the world's leading plaintiffs' law firm, representing IntusIQ, announced that it has filed a major patent infringement suit against Oncor, Reliant Energy, Comverge, Datamatic, EKA Systems, Sensus, Tantalus, Tendril Networks, and Trilliant on behalf of its client IPCO LLC d/b/a IntusIQ.
Each year a growing number of IP lawyers heads to the International Trade Commission, asking officials there to enforce Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. That Depression-era law forbids various "unfair trade practices," including the importation of products that infringe a U.S. patent--the goal is protecting domestic industries and jobs.
There's a lot of information here, but the takeaway point is this: Cisco says Frenkel's articles were accurate. And in the United States, of course, you're allowed to publish true information, even if it hurts someone. What Albritton said was defamatory was either true (the docket was altered), or fell into the categories of opinion and rhetoric (words like "conspiracy") or just wasn't about him, says Cisco's lawyer, Charles Babcock of Jackson Walker.
As I noted at the time it was decided, people care about Bilski largely because of what it says about legality of software patents. Software patents are intensely controversial, with many geeks arguing that the software industry would be better off without them. What I found striking about the conversation was that both guests (and perhaps the host, although he didn't tip his hand as much) took it as self-evident that there needed to be patents on software and business methods
Earlier, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) opened the patent examination process for online public participation. With the consent of the inventor, the Peer-to-Patent: Community Patent Review pilot, developed by the New York Law School Institute for Information Law and Policy in cooperation with the USPTO, enables the public to submit prior art and commentary relevant to the claims of pending patent applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security (TC2100).
This month's Official Journal of the EPO contains an announcement relating to the EPO President's referral under Article 112(1)(b) EPC on software patents. As well as reproducing the questions first announced back in October 2008 (commented on by the IPKat here, here and here) and the composition of the board, the announcement says the following:
"It is expected that third parties will wish to use the opportunity to file written statements in accordance with Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (OJ EPO 2007, 303 ff). To ensure that any such statements can be given due consideration they should be filed together with any new cited documents by the end of April 2009 at the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, quoting case number G 3/08. An additional filing of the statement and documents in electronic form would be appreciated (Dg3registry_eba@epo.org)."
The President of the European Patent Office (EPO) has referred several questions of law to the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) in an attempt to clarify the patentability of software-based inventions.
Are My Ideas Being Stolen? If So, What Then?
[...]
"...Folks, it's not the ideas; it's design, implementation, and especially hard work that make the difference."
After hearing oral arguments on May 8, 2008, in the patent case In re Bilski, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) reached a 9-3 decision on Oct. 30, 2008 to uphold the ruling by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The appeal followed the rejection by the USPTO of a patent application for a process for hedge fund risk management, filed by inventors Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw.
"IBM is proud of its patent portfolio, and the fact that they produce patents at a rate of 10 a day. With such an extensive arsenal of patents, backed by unlimited legal funds – what chances are left for the VC backed company? This is like the US going to war against Micronesia." —Daniel Cohen, Gemini Israel Funds
Comments
Jose_X
2009-02-04 16:49:28
No, that sounds like a small project (or even a weekly assignment) in an undergraduate feedback/controls engineering course.
Maybe Apple engineers reminisce for the college days. Or maybe they skipped out.
>> Earlier, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) opened the patent examination process for online public participation .. enables the public to submit prior art and commentary .. in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Finding prior art saves USPTO face and saves money of those attacking. Why would I want to contribute to that and waste my time and money doing so?
What is prior art after all? That someone published their solution 1 year ahead of you instead of 1 year after? Why would the government grant a 20 year monopoly on this sort of foolishness?
Software patents are so messed up and this is the best they can come up with for reform?
All the more reason I worry about this http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1/ despite Bilski.
>> “…Folks, it’s not the ideas; it’s design, implementation, and especially hard work that make the difference.”
Ideas are important but 20 year monopolies? Any length monopoly seems wrong, at least for fields with low costs to invent, develop, etc (as is the case for software, as demonstrated through FOSS).
Those that have great ideas have a lot of time to work on their solution ahead of everyone else. They can be first to market and enjoy those advantages.
Even if you could find some cases where you might think some length of monopoly might be acceptable, our current system is so far from that. We've been so unable to get it right. Every day we continue down the same path, so far away from the perfect balance, is another day of damage inflicted on everyone besides the monopolists.
And what about all the contributions given by FOSS to the community? Not only are the implementations more useful than the ideas alone, but much that would qualify for patents aren't exploited by the FOSS world, yet others can track FOSS development from the sidelines and then jump out a little ahead of them to block them off from the next stage of development in the most natural direction. Talk about a real loss to society and to innovators!
Maybe we should start giving patents for innovation in arguing and executing court cases and settlements. IP lawyers need a small taste of their medicine.
Oh, and actions taken by CEO's and board of directors should also be patented.
>> With such an extensive arsenal of patents, backed by unlimited legal funds – what chances are left for the VC backed company?
Wait. Maybe to stifle competition is the point of accumulating patents.
Eureka! I can't believe it took us this long to discover the raison d'etre of the patent system.
Wow! Now all the madness can end.
Stop the presses! Get the word out. Lawmakers will be shocked. Quick before more damage is done. Perhaps this nightmare will all be over by next week. [I'm so glad I visited boycottnovell for this inspiration.]
zeke123
2009-02-04 17:17:03
And if Im not wrong the word iPhone was used by some company for some kind of wireless VOIP handset I believe.
It seems that the language skills at Apple are sorely lacking.
Ok, let the fanbois now foam at the mouth now that ive insulted their precious.
I have an idea for a web service and I like the name MobileMe, I presume Apple wont have any problems if I borrow this name.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-02-04 17:28:31
Shane Coyle
2009-02-04 17:40:55
IIRC, Apple went after her cuz she used black and white ads similar to the dancing sillhouette ads they had for the iPod at the time.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-02-04 17:43:38
BTW, it seems like we're going to make another Digg front page. I'll use Coral just in case.
Shane Coyle
2009-02-04 17:51:54
We may need to at least consider the possibility of an orderly transition to a bigger machine, just don't know what that will cost yet. If that occurs, we'll have to really rap about how to migrate safely and maybe at that point try to plan in more resiliency from the start.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-02-04 18:08:27