Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Sued Over Fradulently Obtained Patents
An anonymous reader writes "Techdirt has a story about a new class action lawsuit against Netflix, claiming that the patents the company is using to sue Blockbuster were obtained fraudulently. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Netflix was well aware of prior art, but did not include it in its patent filing, as required by law. The lawsuit also claims that Netflix then used these fraudulently obtained patents to scare others out of the market, in violation of antitrust law. 'Certainly, it makes for an interesting argument. Patents grant a government-backed monopoly -- which should get you around any antitrust violations. However, if that patent is obtained fraudulently, then I can see a pretty compelling claim that you've abused antitrust law. It would be interesting if other such cases start popping up (and, indeed, the lawyer who sent it to us said his firm is looking for additional patents to go after in this manner).'"
Plenty of video games featured in-game stores with one click shopping. That should constitute prior art. Amazon knew about these but discounted them because the transactions were virtual.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
"and, indeed, the lawyer who sent it to us said his firm is looking for additional patents to go after in this manner"
Forget IT, go to law school.
1) Help company get patents
2) Profit
3) Help company threaten to sue infringers
4) Profit
5) Defend company against other lawyers representing other patents
6) Profit
7) Sue other companies for bogus patents
8) Profit
Heck, even if the company they represent gets burned and goes under, they still walk away with no penalty. It's like all the financial benefits of inventing something, with out the work or risk!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Now, if someone were to invalidate all software patents, that would be a reason to celebrate. This is just the (hopeful) invalidation of two patents out of two million, and perhaps the spanking of yet another company acting evil.
In the time it's taking me to write this response, I imagine three other software patents are being granted. Even if this moves forward (which it hasn't yet) we're still moving backwards.
John
While successful lawsuits of this type could result in patent reform, since having a weak patent (with clear prior art) could end up costing company's money instead of being used as corporate weapons, an instantanious problem arises.
You need to be able to prove that the company ignored prior art and if a case comes down to two people saying different things the courts will generally find in favor of the defendant.
I can see it now:
Lawyer 1: "You knew about the prior art before you filed for the patent because your secretary told me so!"
Defendant: "No I didn't!"
Judge: "Case dismissed"
In order for this cases to be sucessful, hard evidence needs to found (i.e. an e-mail saying "Lets ignore the prior art"). Otherwise the only ones who will win are the lawyers (as always).
Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
Even as a person who has used Netflix for years now and absolutely love their service, I can say that if this is true they should be nailed to the wall over it. This is the sort of Patent System BS that must not be allowed to stand if we are to maintain our technology superiority as a country.
It's said that no great idea ever comes out of nowhere. All of the greats stood of the shoulders of giants. However, if people get it into their head to abuse the patent system like this, then there will be no shoulders to stand on and in the end no great achievements.
I read the internet for the articles.
Instead of invalidating software patents, we could shorten their term to a reasonable period (two or three years generally ensures obsolescence for most software products), and drastically expand the criteria against which a particular software patent is judged invalid. Would that not be at least a workable compromise?
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
Leeches feeding on leeches.
Deleted
Yes. I have a cousin who is a patent officer in Canada (and we have some stimulating discussions on patent-related subjects when we see eachother), which I imagine is at least somewhat similar to being a patent examiner in the US. I also have a close friend who is a patent lawyer, though we don't talk about that stuff much because it bums out all our other friends.
But still, there are so many things being patented, in such esoteric fields, that even smart people with training in related fields or tangential field or whatever don't have the technical knowledge to grasp the subject at hand, or -- and this is pretty important -- don't have a way to access the information that would give them a better grasp of it.
I mean, you're probably not a dumb guy, but imagine yourself presented with a sheaf of materials that you only vaguely know about from college five years ago. It's written in technical language that, even though broken down as much as it can be, is still pretty arcane. How are you going to judge if that patent application represents something truly innovative, something truly worth granting a patent for?
We can all say, "Well, they should know," but that's much harder said than done. Another problem is that the people truly qualified to judge the patent's worthiness are often very expensive people. While the patent office may pay a lot of money to their examiners, they still don't, as far as I am aware, pay as well as private industry.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
Life is Reality