Engineer Loses SSL Patent Case against RSA and VeriSign

MeanMF writes "eWeek reports that a jury has ruled in favor of the defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by an electrical engineer who clamed rights to a technology used in the SSL protocol. Not only did he lose the case, but next week the jury will rule on whether his patents are valid at all."

Comments

Re:Patents

[silvaran]

You have to defend trademarks, not patents or copyrights. You can sit and let a patent stagnate for 10 years and then sue the balls off everyone later. The justification? They should have done their market research.

Look at Intergraph... CNet news claims (got this from the last posting about SCO vs. IBM): "In 2002, Intergraph's income from operations was $10 million, but its net income including legal settlements was $378 million."

Nasty stuff. Anyways, IIRC, Intergraph sued Intel and some other companies because of some kind of architecture design the Pentium used, specifically the system bus. Not sure if that's accurate, but try here and here.

Makes me want to get an arts degree, frankly.

Nice thought, but no

[fizbin]

Then you thought incorrectly. Trademarks are subject to such a required defense, but patents and copyrights are not.

There is the doctrine of laches, which allow a judge to hold that a patent holder, having allowed a use of their patent to go on without notice, cannot collect damages for use of their patent prior to filing suit, but this in no way invalidates their patent nor does it prevent them from collecting damages if the same defendant should happen to infringe on their patent in the future. (Laches is basically a way of wedging the reasonable "but I didn't know it was a problem" defense into patent law)

And no, IANAL, but I do know how to use Google (TM).

Re:Patents

[ATMAvatar]

well, patents expire after seven years, so...

(2) Term. - Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of this title, from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.

found here at section 154.

Re:Hopefully they don't play chess

[Joe Decker]

Sorry, no. You can't get sued for a program like that, the patent in question has expired.

Moreover, the expired patent does not cover just XOR, it covers a system of which XOR is a part. Such a system as a whole was probably pretty novel in 1978. (Yes, software patents were perhaps too long given the pace of innovation at that time.)