Slashdot Mirror
Spring Design Sues Barnes & Noble Over Nook IP
bth writes to let us know that Barnes & Noble has been sued by a company called Spring Design, which alleges that the recently announced Nook e-book reader infringes its intellectual property. This isn't a patent troll kind of situation; rather, the claim is misappropriation of trade secrets. Spring Design claims that they have been developing a dual-screen, Android-based e-book reader since 2006, filing patents all the while; and that they showed pretty much everything to Barnes & Noble in the expectation of working together with them to bring their reader to market.
I'm shocked I tell you! Huge company with an armada of lawyers steals everything from a startup. Next thing you know the execs at B&N will be rewarded for their cleverness.
It's never happened before.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
If they've been filling patents all this time, shouldn't that protect them?
Oh, right. This is in the U.S.A., where money equals justice.
This case actually may be as legitimate as they come. Seriously, if these guys had NDAs and B&N pulled a Microsoft on them, they have my sympathy-- though this was the obvious way to make a new e-reader, these days. Linux, and now Android linux, are the obvious choices for the OS on any consumer device these days. You'd have to be morons not to have seen that (for Linux, ~6 years ago-- sorry Palm, too late; for Android, basically on announcement).
But in general, every new tech product or service that comes out in the US seems to be hit by lawsuits as soon as it appears it will be successful. At the very least this reduces competition and increases prices. It's also a huge boon to countries which don't give a rat's ass about IP (see China). We're killing ourselves. The US has become a terrible environment for innovation.
It's sometimes extremely hard to get a large corporation to look at your prototypes, much less sign an NDA before you walk through the door. Be it computer software, hardware, or the new mousetrap, being the little guy trying to find a mega-distributor sometimes comes with unanticipated risks.
You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of blaming the victim. Sometimes you make a showing on good faith, and by the time you realize the empty promises of a partnership are just that, you've already shown too much.
How does this not fall under the obvious clause? There are millions of these on shelves everywhere already.
Xerox PARC: So we invented this really handy user input device, want to see?
Apple: Sure!
Xerox: Promise you'll license it from us?
Apple: Of course!
Always always always get the NDA's and License Agreements signed before you show the goods off.
Or, you know, buy a competitor's product instead that already does what you want and save yourself the time.
Not a typewriter
I tend to agree but then I have not seen the patents yet. Hardware patents I feel are fine for the most part. It is stupid software patents that get to me.
The question is what did they patent. I mean is a two screen device going to be patentable? Couldn't you claim the Nintendo DS as prior art since people have used it as a book reader?
As I said I have not read the patents so I am not sure where I stand on this but yes it could be a good use for patent law.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
OK, we all want to support the underdog here. I know I do.
But seriously, what new, patentable ideas, do you need in an eBook? Make a computer (covered by existing patents), give it an e-paper screen (existing patents) an input device (touch screen, keyboard, rollerball, touchpad - all existing patents), storage (existing patents), OS (existing patents) and some applications (most notably, an eBook reader - existing patents).
I know people patent all kinds of obvious ideas, but I can't for the life of me see any novel ideas that need solving, cobbling together existing components into an eBook.
Hmm...maybe they're very similar because they're attempting to solve the same problem. If there is only one good way to do something given the constraints of the problem, why wouldn't you expect the products to be very similar even if independently developed?
*sigh* back to work...
If something is patented, then how can an NDA apply to it since it's already, by definition, public?
The article was woefully lacking in details, but I'm guessing the most likely thing going on here is that Spring thought they had an implied contract with B&N.
I have trouble believing that any patent in this area that is less than 3 years old will stand up to scrutiny. Prior art and obviousness are too big a hurdle for anything less than 10 years old or so.
*sigh* back to work...
There's several possible scenarios here.
Spring: We've got this neat thing you want to see. Sign this NDA!
B&N: We're working on something similar, but we'd like to see yours to see if we can work together (signs)
Spring: We've got a signed NDA that covers something you're going to be producing. See you in court, suckers!
Spring: We've got this neat thing you want to see. Sign this NDA!
B&N: We're working on something similar, and we'd like to see yours to see if we can work together, but since we've got a project going we won't sign the NDA.
Spring: Well, okay. This is what we've got so far.
B&N: Ha ha! Now we've got your secrets.
Spring: That's our work that you're going to be using.
B&N: So sue us!
Spring: We've got this neat thing you want to see. Sign this NDA!
B&N: We're working on something similar, but we'd like to see yours to see if we can work together (signs)
Spring: Now that we've got the NDA, here's what we've got so far.
B&N: Ha ha! Now we've got your secrets, and since we have this research project going we can lie about where we got our ideas!
Spring: We'll sue!
All of these are plausible; it's also possible that it's a genuine misunderstanding, and Spring had reason to think B&N took things that they'd actually come up with independently.
I'm not blaming anybody without more information.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The summary is a bit off. The Android preview SDK was first released in Nov. 2007. It would be hard for Spring to be working on an Android device for at least a year before the SDK was released. I didn't see anything about Android in the article.
The RIM thing was because the judge refused to allow a delay while the patent validity was decided, and RIM blinked. RIM was NOT, contrary to your assertion, fined "even after the fact that the patent had been rejected." RIM was never fined - they settled rather than proceed with the case, given that the judge wouldn't allow the delay.
If RIM had actually been fined, they could have had the judgment vacated.
The whole thing IS bogus, because they claim, in part that they started developing this in 2006; Android wasn't even released until 2007. All they had was a concept - not an "invention."
It's bogus, they have no case, and they know it. They're hoping to squeeze some money from BandN, and it's not going to happen.