Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Engineer Loses SSL Patent Case against RSA and VeriSign

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the intellectual-property-lines dept.

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."

7 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Oh boy, not this again.... by Omikr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the site:

    -----

    Stambler filed his suit in February 2001 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington. RSA and VeriSign were not the only defendants; Stambler also sued Openwave Systems Inc., First Data Corp, Omnisky Corp., and later, Certicom Corp. Omnisky later went bankrupt, and the three other companies each settled with Stambler.

    -----

    Looks like some random "genius" decided he'd make a quick buck on old technology. I'm so sick of this behavior. Anyone remember the Pocket PC fiasco? The guy claimed that MS infringed on his "Pocket PC" which was just a casino style chip that you flip to make decisions. If you don't remember you can read more at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-805115.html?legacy=c net&tag=lthd

    1. Re:Oh boy, not this again.... by dphoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd almost argue that it causes innovation, though. Fraufenhauer owns MP3. Well, that spurred the creation of OGG, which is pretty superior and free to use, for all. GIF possibly patented? Well, now we have .png, which is also a superior format. I don't think you can patent obvious ideas like "mobile PCs" anyway. It's hard to prove there isn't prior art out there somewhere, not to mention the stupidity involved with, "My casino chip was a POCKET PC!"

    2. Re:Oh boy, not this again.... by Tord · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't think you can patent obvious ideas like "mobile PCs" anyway. It's hard to prove there isn't prior art out there somewhere

      FYI, you don't need to prove that there isn't prior art out there to get a patent, it's the defendant accused of infringing on the patent that must prove the existence of prior art to get off the hook. This is one of the things that is totally backwards with the patent system, it's the accused one who has to prove his innocence, making it belong more in the dark ages than an enlightened society.

  2. Riiiite by Zanek · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This guy should have made sure his case was airtight before going up against
    some big companies. Perhaps he was just trying to make a name for
    himself and get noticed for his work.

    --


    Help pay for my wedding! Go to my kickass website
  3. And *then* they decide if the patent is valid?! by KeithH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one who thinks this trial has proceeded in reverse order? Surely it would have made more sense to ascertain the patent validity before worrying about whether or not it was infringed.

    1. Re:And *then* they decide if the patent is valid?! by rollingcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, that would be sensible but we're talking about the law here.

      There is a much higher burden of proof involved to invalidate a patent than there is to show non-infringement. No matter how obvious or stupid a patent is, it is assumed that it had a valid basis for being granted, and it requires very compelling evidence to overturn it.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
  4. Re:Good. by dvnelson72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that how do you define "do anything with them for 2 years."

    Does that mean successfully market? Have someone pay to use it? Actively market it? Continue development?

    See what I mean? A hard term of X years is not subjective and is easy to define and enforce. Your terminology brings a whole new issue to patent enforcement. Plaintiffs would need to prove that they weren't "squatting" on their ideas.

    I think a lot of you anti-intellectual property rights people don't really understand how important IP rights are to capitalistic societies. To me, it is anti-property rights and that is scary.

    If an idea is too abstract to be owned by a man because truth is "owned" by the universe, then couldn't you make the leap that land cannot be owned by man because land is "owned" by the earth. It's a slippery slope that I don't want any part of.