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."

17 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. Meanwhile, Jeff Besoz.. by dphoenix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Meanwhile, Jeff Besoz tries to patent "patenting random stupid shit." Good luck with that one, Jeff. Thank you for bringing us innovations like "One-click shopping" and "hyperlinking" and "the internet".

  3. Patents by evilmonkey_666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was always under the impression that patents cannot be inforced if the holder sits back and allows their technology to be used and adopted, only to decide that they want royalties years later, when people have come to rely on it.

    This, I thought was illegal. Owners of patents have an obligation to tell people that they are using licensed technology, and that they have a right to charge a fee.

    --


    - PS. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R where eliminated.
    1. Re:Patents by silvaran · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Patents by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.
      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  4. Patent Process... by dracken · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought I could instruct slashdot readers on how actually the patenting process works . Good luck ;)

  5. 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.
  6. why did the other 3 settle? by scorilo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What I don't understand is why did the other 3 settle? Just how big do you have to be to dispute the validity of a patent?

    Perhaps patents are becoming the scare factors that derivatives used to be (and still are), where even professionals working in the field can claim in court that they don't understand what's going on and get away with it...

    --
    "One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that ones work is terribly important." -BRussell
  7. Nice thought, but no by fizbin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  8. Good. by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Not to take joy in the bludgeoning of the little guy, but this dude is a squatter. Patents should expire if you don't do anything with them for 2 years.

    Ohhh, ohhh, I've got this really good idea, but rather than do something with it (that involves risk!) I'll just patent it and sit around until some big company does something close enough that I can sue them.

    Our legal and "intellectual property" (poverty?) system supports this - that's the news and that's the thing we should work to change.

    Cheers,
    -- RLJ

    1. 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.

  9. Re:I'm going to patent by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sorry, but I've already patented the process of patenting a process of making a patent.

    You may speak to my attorneys to arrange a use license.

    Please don't try to fight this in court. I've patented that. You'll need a license.

    The internet infringes on my license for making odd symbols, pointing at them, and grunting as a crude form of communication between any animate object and any other object ( animate or not).

    This patent itself merely extends my previous patent on forces between fundmental particles.

    Face it, you're hosed.

    KFG

  10. Hopefully they don't play chess by (1337)+God · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why patents suck: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Images/chess-flyer-crop-thum bnail.jpg

    You can get sued for writing a program like the one above. It's 3 lines of code. No, really guys. It's 3 friggin' lines of code.

    Look at it! It's a patent on the fucking EXCLUSIVE OR operation that's standard in every microchip ever made since the 1950s.

    THAT, my friends, is why I don't trust patents. You never know how they can be extended.

    PLUS they're a large gov't organization that's slow and stagnant. Let the people innovate!

    --

    Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
    1. Re:Hopefully they don't play chess by Joe+Decker · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.)

      --
      I'm a nature photographer.
  11. Re:I'm going to patent by fredrikj · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sorry, but I've already patented the process of patenting a process of making a patent.

    Hah! Two weeks ago I patented recursive patents, so it looks like you'll lose now!