BetaNet Sues Everyone For Remote SW Activation

eldavojohn writes "Not to be out patent trolled by Eolas, a mystery company named 'BetaNet, LLC' is suing: Adobe Systems, Inc, Apple, Inc., Arial Software, LLC, Autodesk, Inc.,, CARBONITE, INC., Corel Corp., Eastman Kodak Co., International Business Machines Corp., Intuit, Inc., Microsoft Corp., McAfee, Inc., Oracle Corp., Rockwell Automation, Inc., Rosetta Stone, Inc., SAP America, Inc., Siemens Corp. and Sony Creative Software, Inc. for infringement of their patent entitled Secure system for activating personal computer software at remote locations. And of course, this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places: Marshall, TX (Texas Eastern District Court)."

Comments

BRUCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Perens move quick, they stole your stuff!

Marshall, TX

[mikael_j]

Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?

But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..

/Mikael

Re:Marshall, TX

[grasshoppa]

Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made. It would be a gross violation of their judicial power were they to legislate from the bench ( which many attempt anyway ).

Regardless, if you want to know why this particular area houses so many of these types of disputes, follow the money. They wouldn't do it if they weren't benefiting financially somehow.

Re:Marshall, TX

[strikeleader]

Or is it a revenue stream for them?

Re:Marshall, TX

[Dystopian Rebel]

maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil

You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

Re:Marshall, TX

[SharpFang]

considering the standard programmer's logic, yes.
That is if they were not idiots or in league with these trolls, they certainly would.

Re:Marshall, TX

[tverbeek]

More likely, the judges in question take their popularity as an indication that they're doing the right thing, and keep at it.

Re:Marshall, TX

[mysidia]

I wonder... why is it that companies are allowed to cherrypick the court to hear their case anyways?

I think it's an unfair advantage in favor of the prosecution that they somehow get to pick which court will be reviewing their case.

They should have to prove that the "selected court" is the closest one to where their company was headquartered at the time of the alleged abuse.

Or better yet... determine the court that is closest to an equal distance away from the place the defendant and the place the prosecutor were headquartered at.

Re:Marshall, TX

[eldavojohn]

Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?

If I may opine my nonprofessional perspective from the software field, patents (and really the copyrighting/property concept applied to ideas in general) are a fuzzy field of law. Meaning that in most of the cases, the common sense rule doesn't work. I mean that if you approached a large number of citizens, their response could vary depending on their political direction, their previous personal experiences with companies or even how you present the case. You'll notice that I came out in this summary screaming--in a very nonprofessional way--that BetaNet is a patent troll. Makes it obvious who to side with, right? But given the letter of the law, it's not that simple. Given United States legal code, there are cases when patent litigation is the answer (in my opinion rarely if ever in software but that's another topic altogether).

Now, if you can establish that it's a hazy field and outcomes are tied to differences in regions of the United States, you can also establish that there will always be a local maximum for percentages of cases awarded one way or the other. That's why Marshall, TX is so popular for the trolls. And if Marshall, TX had a mission statement tomorrow to shut down patent trolls from the get go then the next statistic maximum would be your preferred place of patent trolling.

What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom? Neither of you claim offices here or even do business here so go back to where one of you operate." Sometimes this happens but really I think this needs to be done more often. In my opinion, the solution isn't to stop Marshall, TX; it's to fix the patent system.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made. It would be a gross violation of their judicial power were they to legislate from the bench ( which many attempt anyway ).

I agree, even though some (not saying you, but some) use the "legislating from the bench" argument when a judge rules contrary to their opinion even though the law can reasonably be interpreted that way. But that's a different thread...

Still, it is awfully suspicious that patent trolls seem to be significantly more successful in East Texas compared to other District Courts. Patent issues are Constitutionally a Federal issue, so there's no legal reason for this one court to consistently rule contrary to the Federal standard for patent infringement. Perhaps a higher court should hear an appeal from one of this court's patent infringement cases and make precedent whether they are really following the law or simply "legislating from the bench."

Re:Marshall, TX

[couchslug]

They should be investigated to see if they are on the take.

Just the pressure alone could have a chilling effect, and all is fair in war.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually just one judge who seems to be hearing these lawsuits and just about every time sides with the patent holder

Re:Marshall, TX

[ThrowAwaySociety]

Or is it a revenue stream for them?

You can bet that Bumfuck, TX would have a lot fewer judges, clerks, and lawyers if there weren't so many patent lawsuits filed there. For that reason alone, they are unlikely to crack down.

Much as some states (Delaware, for example) have a nice side business iin providing corporation-friendly incorporation laws, this district generates considerable (for them) local revenue in patent suits by providing friendly jurisdiction.

I wonder how much it would cost for technology corporations to simply buy up all the land in the district and effectively evict the entire population.

Re:Marshall, TX

[L4t3r4lu5]

One of my mates was given the "blue pill" by his colleagues once (24 years old). He had one word to describe the effect:

"Relentless."

Re:Marshall, TX

[MozeeToby]

...that BetaNet is a patent troll... But given the letter of the law, it's not that simple.

Being a patent troll isn't about the letter of the law, it's about taking advantage of the law in such a way that stifles innovation in order to maximize your profit. Specifically, it is about getting patents and never exercising them and, even more so, not suing when infringement becomes obvious but rather waiting until you can get the biggest payday possible. Basically it is being a tech company that profits through the legal system rather than through technology. It is the antithesis of what patent law is suposed to do, patent law is suposed to be a shield, not a sword.

Re:Marshall, TX

[lorenlal]

"You take them to court where they do business." At least, that's what my professor said... in the one business law class I took.

So, all these businesses sell to people in Marchall (or at least can)... So they are certainly allowed to do this... Even if it sucks.

Re:Marshall, TX

[lorenlal]

I hate being the obnoxious citation guy... But this is something that (if true) is VERY interesting. Does someone have a list of similar cases? If so, is this true?

Re:Marshall, TX

[Samuar]

Mod parent up! Good common sense should prevail, but rarely does.

Actually, I don't understand the legal system in the US. It seems rather complicated and time consuming. I'm not an expect in the UK either, but we don't appear to have the same high-octane/hollywood-blockbuster-action-film-like corporate law suit actions on a semi regular basis.

Software patents seem to just suck. (NB - I am very biased, i.e. I don't have any software patents)

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges do not make the laws

Judge Dredd IS the law

Re:Marshall, TX

[JWSmythe]

Which "blue pill" would that be?

    There are approx 1,200 different "blue pills".

    Acetaminophen Hydrocodone 650/10mg - pain killer

    Acylcovir 200mg - herpes symptom reducer

    Addreal 5mg to 10mg - amphetamine stimulant/ADD treatment

    Alazopram 1mg to 2mg - anti-anxiety/sleep aid

    Viagra 25mg to 100mg - erectile dysfunction treatment

    I could go on ... and on ... and on. :) Watch popping unidentified pills, it may not have the intended result. You may find all of them (and more) in the same drug cabinet.

    If he's been popping the 5th too often, he may need the 2nd.

    He may take the 3rd to keep going with the 5th, but then need the 4th to sleep.

    The 1st may be necessary from the beating he's going to get from the husband from the use of the 5th.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Mishotaki]

Or maybe they just are threatened by all those patent trolls... and they do kill them if they don't listen, just look at the list of judges for that district! only 2 of them have ever retired! one was reappointed and one... we have no idea what happened to him...

So, in Texas, you either judge people or die judging...

Re:Marshall, TX

[Jawn98685]

Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?

But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..

/Mikael

Not a dream world, my friend, just the real world where the two highlighted phrases above aren't mutually exclusive, as they are in most parts of East Texas. Don't get me wrong, there's corruption aplenty there too, but (yes, I am making a rather sweeping generalization) that neighborhood isn't exactly known for a high average IQ. In your dream (real) world, judges are typically very well educated and possessed of a keen sense of right and wrong. One or the other is clearly missing here.

Re:Marshall, TX

[gad_zuki!]

>Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made.

These are FEDERAL laws. They are the same everywhere in the US. There's no special federal law for Texas. In other words, the judges are legislating from the bench already by interpreting these laws as more favorable to the patent trolls under the guise of a pro-business conservative mentality. They are legislating from the bench with their local mentalities, local court rules, and quick and dirty fast trials.

Re:Marshall, TX

[TheLink]

So what happens if a company doesn't sell to Marshall, Texas? Sells to everywhere else in the USA, but not there :).

Re:Marshall, TX

[gad_zuki!]

>What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom?

Err, these judges know exactly why they are there and the judges are happy to push their pro-business conservative mentality by legislating from the bench. Its pretty obvious that this district is proudly pro-IP law to the point of absurdity. To a lot of people, strong IP is an ideology that trumps common sense, especially in GOP heavy conservative districts (Hello Texas!). Everything else stinks of sharing, socialism, and communism. Its pretty much a Tea Bagger for a judge.

Re:Marshall, TX

[JWSmythe]

    You forgot to mention, they change the venue for an advantage. If the court was a few miles from the defendant(s) offices, it would be easy for them to show up. Where they're displacing the hearings from the defendants, it adds a burden on them. It's more likely that they'll weigh the options of settling versus a prolonged legal process.

    That's all part of the patent troll game though. What's it worth to the defense to just settle? Is it cheaper to keep the lawyers fighting it for years, at an out of state venue, or just pay $1 million to make it go away? The greedy patent trolls make the news, because they have to go through all the legal hoops. The smart ones just get paid to go away quietly.

Re:Marshall, TX

[MrNaz]

"Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made."

In an idea world. In an ideal world, all would be equal before the law, regardless of financial power. In an ideal world, judges would be truly independent of the executive branch, as opposed to being cherry picked due to having a history of toeing the line. In an ideal world, the legal system would be transparent to everyone with or without a legal degree.

In *this* world, however, judges serve the interests of the political parties that appointed them, making them in turn subservient to the elite who control the political process.

Re:Marshall, TX

[sorak]

Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?

But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..

Or maybe they do not consider politics. I cannot say either way whether these judges are right or wrong on any case, but, if a judge were to just wake up one morning and say "too many people are suing for x...From now on, I'm going to make it much harder to win for x", I'd want the guy disbarred. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Re:Marshall, TX

[greensoap]

My understanding is that the favorable juries are why plaintiffs tend to sue in the E.D. of Tex. The relatively high value of property rights (just look at the laws for using deadly force to protect property in Texas) and the lower average education level of the jurors leads to higher percentages of verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs and much higher damages calculations.

The other factor, is that the judges tend to fast track the patent dockets so from start to finish the average time spend on trial is much shorter in the E.D. of Tex. than in other districts (though there are faster places, but not many).

Re:Marshall, TX

[greensoap]

I said it above, but it really comes down how fast the E.D. of Texas moves these cases through the system and plaintiff friendly juries. Texas = high value on property rights = high damages figures. That is a jury decision.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Hognoxious]

Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made.

Judges don't write or amend the text of a statute, that's true. But when a judge makes a ruling it can set a precedent, which (subject to yadda yadda) alters how it applies in subsequent cases. In practice it has much the same effect.

Re:Marshall, TX

[greensoap]

Jurisdiction can be based on where the harm occurs. Has anyone purchased software product (*pick one from above*) in the E.D. of Texas? Then infringement happened there and jurisdiction is proper. Are the companies selling their products in Bestbuys, Walmarts, or other retailer located in the E.D. Texas? Do they advertise there? Maintaining an office in the jurisdiction is just one of the factors, but for patent infringement it is pretty easy to meet the test for jurisdiction in just about every district in the U.S. I imagine for software, it would even easier.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Bumfuck, TX

Isn't that supposed to be illegal there?

Re:Marshall, TX

[Coder4Life]

Hey, I resemble those remarks! I'm from Delaware!

Re:Marshall, TX

[Zordak]

Still, it is awfully suspicious that patent trolls seem to be significantly more successful in East Texas compared to other District Courts. Patent issues are Constitutionally a Federal issue, so there's no legal reason for this one court to consistently rule contrary to the Federal standard for patent infringement. Perhaps a higher court should hear an appeal from one of this court's patent infringement cases and make precedent whether they are really following the law or simply "legislating from the bench."

This paragraph does not make a lick of sense. The court in question is the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. It is a federal court hearing matters of federal patent law. And like all federal courts, its decisions are appealable to a Federal Court of Appeals. And since federal patent law is such a specialized area, Congress even gave us a special Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent appeals and sets precedent. The CAFC has heard LOTS of cases from the Eastern District of Texas, and has reversed when they felt it was necessary.

Seriously, reading a patent thread on Slashdot is like watching a couple of MBAs argue heatedly about whether it's better to write Linux drivers in AJAX or SCSI.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Tanktalus]

Seriously, reading a patent thread on Slashdot is like watching a couple of MBAs argue heatedly about whether it's better to write Linux drivers in AJAX or SCSI.

Undoubtedly AJAX. I wouldn't want scuzzy drivers on my iPhone.

Re:Marshall, TX

[notaspy]

The CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) is apparantly getting a bit fed up with the EDTX Court. In In Re Hoffman-Laroche (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-M911.pdf), they slapped them around for not transferring the case to a District (EDNC) which actually had a "meaningful local interest" in the dispute. Here's a quote which hints at their annoyance (plus the fact that it's kind of a slap in the face to highlight a spelling/grammar error when quoting from a lower Court's opinion).

The Eastern District of North Carolina's interest in this matter is self-evident. Meanwhile, it is undisputed that this case has no relevant factual connection to the Eastern District of Texas. The district court ignored this significant contrast, reasoning that "where a number of private interest factors weigh heavily in one direction, that venue has a slightly greater local interest," but "[w]here, however, the factors do not weigh heavily in one direction of [sic] the other, no one venue has more or less a meaningful connection to the case than any other." By relying exclusively on how other forum non conveniens factors weigh, rather than assessing the locale's connection to the cause of action, the district court essentially rendered this factor meaningless. Therefore, because the Eastern District of North Carolina has a meaningful local interest in adjudicating the dispute and no meaningful connection exists with the Eastern District of Texas, this factor also favors transfer.

        and this one

Meanwhile, there appears to be no connection between this case and the Eastern District of Texas except that in anticipation of this litigation, Novartis' counsel in California converted into electronic format 75,000 pages of documents demonstrating conception and reduction to practice and transferred them to the offices of its litigation counsel in Texas. But, if not for this litigation, it appears that the documents would have remained a source of proof in California. Thus, the assertion that these documents are "Texas" documents is a fiction which appears to be have been created to manipulate the propriety of venue.
This type of tactic was clearly counseled against in Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964). There, the Supreme Court explained that Section 1404(a) "should be construed to prevent parties who are opposed to a change of venue from defeating a transfer which, but for their own deliberate acts or omissions, would be proper, convenient and just." Id. at 625. A plaintiff's attempts to manipulate venue in anticipation of litigation or a motion to transfer falls squarely within these prohibited activities. The district court's contrary position here has no legally rational basis and prevents 1404(a) from carrying "out its design to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.

Add to this decision (handed down 12/2), the even more recent decision H-P v. Acceleron (12/4, Fed. Cir.) which makes it easier to file for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement (in your choice of Court) if you are -ahem- "threatened" by a patent troll, and it seems that the Fed Circuit it trying rein in what may be considered a rogue court. Note that these decisions don't really concern EDTX's disposition of the cases, but the question "WTF is this case doing in Marshall, Texas?"

Re:Marshall, TX

[Shotgun]

If they do realize that, what they see from their end is called "precedent". That is, the best they can do is look at it and say, "Oops! We screwed up. Oh well, to late now. We've already stated how the law is supposed to be interpreted, and it looks bad when we change our minds."

It will stay that way until it is overturned by a higher court. Then it isn't "we changed our minds", it's "we were told we were wrong." Somehow, the legal profession prefers the former.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Zordak]

It's an age-old tradition in the law that the first person to court gets first crack at venue. But there are limits, like the court has to be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and even if it can, the defendant can try to get the case transferred if they can prove there is a better venue. The problem is that when you sue 20 defendants that are scattered all over the county and that sell their products in all 50 states, it's hard to identify one single place that would definitely be the "best" venue for the case. So the Eastern District ends up being pretty much as good as any other random place, and that's where the case was filed, so that's where it stays

That said, some recent case law from the Federal Circuit has tightened up the venue requirements, so there actually are more cases getting transferred out of Marshall than there used to be.

Re:Marshall, TX

[bukowski01]

"pro-business conservative mentality" - wow, how wrong are you?

Re:Marshall, TX

[CharlieHedlin]

To get rid of the jury pool? Keep in mind the judges are federally appointed.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Shotgun]

Then the laws need changing, not the interpretations thereof.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this is true in Civil Law jurisdictions, but in the United States (and all Common Law jurisdictions), judicial decisions are very much a component of the law. Previous court rulings - right down to the specific language used in earlier cases - are just as much a part of the law as statutes created by legislative bodies. It could even be argued that jurisprudence is a more important component of the law than statues, due to the ability of the former to significantly modify and constrain - or even to completely void - the latter. In particular, in the US, the constraints imposed by the constitution on the scope of legislation are principally enforced by the judiciary, which regularly invalidates legislation it deems to exceed constitutional limits.

Re:Marshall, TX

[dorque_wrench]

I wonder how much it would cost for technology corporations to simply buy up all the land in the district and effectively evict the entire population.

I like the way you think.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the opportunity to be an EW on a patent case (not software) filed in Marshall awhile back and asked the lawyers why the location was so popular.

The main reason for its popularity was since they see so many patent cases, the judges have more experience than in many other districts AND the court system is very streamlined and efficient at handling all the pre-trial arguments. This helps keep costs down, which in turn made it popular with those paying the bills.

Not every district has the experience to effectively handle every type of case, which is partly why you get these "specializations." If it was only about east Texas jurors, you would see these cases popping up in most small-town districts in the southeast.

Re:Marshall, TX

[OldSoldier]

I, for one, welcome patent trolls... it slows the coming singularity.

Re:Marshall, TX

[stabiesoft]

Because it has gotten so bad, it might be interesting if sw vendors started putting a restriction of "Not available for sale in eastern texas" I wonder if it is possible to do such a geographic restriction and if it was, would it change the behavior. I don't know if the district includes dallas and/or houston, but if it did not I think it could easily be worth microsoft sales loss to simply not deal with them.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubber-stamping patent troll lawsuits is direct evidence of judicial corruption.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Z34107]

It is a federal court hearing matters of federal patent law. And like all federal courts, its decisions are appealable to a Federal Court of Appeals.

Yes, but parent was wondering why this one particular Federal court always seems to rule differently despite all that. Maybe they should have their drinking water checked, or flouridated, or something.

Re:Marshall, TX

[david_thornley]

Federal laws vary by circuit, across the US.

The Acts of Congress, treaties, and other such primary sources of law are of course all the same. However, they aren't always clear (Congress is not enjoined to write only unambiguous laws, for example, and creative ambiguity is sometimes necessary to get a law passed), and in that case the interpretation is set by the Court. If a case goes to the Supreme Court, the precedent is binding anywhere in the US.

However, if two Circuit Courts interpret an unclear Act of Congress differently, and the Supreme Court doesn't receive or hear an appeal from either, then there is binding precedent in both circuits, and the law is hence different in each circuit.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Surt]

They are in league. They get all sorts of filing fees and court fees. They make thousands in profit per case for their city.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually living in Marshall, TX, I can tell you that these people bring in their own lawyers, and that there aren't that many cases here.

The reason people bring cases here is the VERY short time to trial and that the system here is technically competent, The judge knows technology.

While it may be that juries here can be convinced of anything, that is in no way unique to this city vs any other in the nation, and i have not seen one ever go to trial.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, we can't all be douchebag lawyers like you are. Seriously, watching a couple of lawyers talk about anything other than the area they have a specialty in is like watching a retarded chimp pee into his own mouth.

Re:Marshall, TX

[DragonWriter]

These are FEDERAL laws. They are the same everywhere in the US. There's no special federal law for Texas. In other words, the judges are legislating from the bench already by interpreting these laws as more favorable to the patent trolls under the guise of a pro-business conservative mentality.

There are several problems with this argument:
(1) The fact that two judges would apply the same law differently even to cases with exactly identical fact patterns does not mean that one is "legislating from the bench" -- law is not so precise as to admit only one interpretation of how it applies to specific facts,
(2) Additionally, there is different federal law in different federal districts, because case law is law, and which precedent is binding varies by district, and
(3) Further, a district court or judge may be a more favorable venue for reasons other than the substantive legal rules it applies; procedure matters, and within certain bounds the processes and procedures applied in federal courts can --given the discretion granted to the district courts and individual judges under federal law -- vary, and
(4) Finally, even if all the above wasn't true, and the difference in results had to indicate that some judge was "legislating from the bench", that doesn't meant the one whose results you like the least is the one doing that.

Re:Marshall, TX

[psithurism]

blue pill

I think it's a euphemism for Ctrl-w. I have to pop that one on a lot of interesting but depressing stories.

Re:Marshall, TX

[neural.disruption]

Pro-business? Like patents ever helped people who know how to do business...

Re:Marshall, TX

[CaseM]

Seriously, reading a patent thread on Slashdot is like watching a couple of MBAs argue heatedly about whether it's better to write Linux drivers in AJAX or SCSI.

Idiot. Both are viable options depending on the on the megahertz of your hard drive.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much it would cost for technology corporations to simply buy up all the land in the district and effectively evict the entire population.

I don't know, but this wouldn't change anything... the problem would just move elsewhere.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, will we have no remote software activation?!! My goodness, would we have to all switch to OpenSource software?

Re:Marshall, TX

[HeronBlademaster]

it really comes down how fast the E.D. of Texas moves

It's impolite to point out others' personal problems like that. Also, I might be wrong, but I thought the problem with E.D. is that it didn't move...

Re:Marshall, TX

[jonbryce]

Company law is mostly determined by state governments rather than the federal government, so it is perfectly legitimate for a state government to decide what laws to pass in a way that benefits its residents. And it is companies themselves that chose to go to Delaware to benefit from those laws, and perhaps more importantly their favourable rates of state income tax.

This is very different from patent trolls filing their cases in Texas because the local federal judges there interpret federal patent law more favourably to the trolls than federal judges elsewhere.

Re:Marshall, TX

[gad_zuki!]

It protects business from competition. The right-wing love protecting big business. Not to mention, IP law is more or less written by big business.

Re:Marshall, TX

[fiendo]

I don't know how the judges rationalize it but the spin from the lawyers is that "the Eastern District is 'a great venue,' because the judges there are experts on patent matters, and there is always a pool of experienced patent lawyers available to serve as local counsel". I guess it's just Eastern Texas good fortune to have this natural resource of patent lawyer pools. Another lawyer shares this insight into his clients motivations "they prefer to go to ... where the judges have the expertise" So the story goes that the ED of Texas gets so many patent cases because they're so experienced and they got this expertise from doing so many patent cases. Rinse, lather, repeat! Ain't circular logic fun?

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

SCSI.. seriously .. AJAX has too high latency!

Re:Marshall, TX

[Intron]

That's odd. I use Ajax to clean the scuzz off my Blackberry.

Re:Marshall, TX

[fiendo]

The judges will respond to motions from the defendants to transfer, but in this district Judges Everingham and Ward default to favoring the plaintiff's choice and have consistenly applied a stringent test to those requests. Only if the defendants can show by predefined factors that their proposed venue is "clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff will they allow a transfer (here's a blog that tracks the court's activity). The judges don't seem to mind the extra load. In fact they pride themselves how their "streamlining" of the process for trying patent cases has drawn in so much activity. They've fondly nicknamed their court "the rocket docket".

Re:Marshall, TX

[Thinboy00]

"Your honor, your ruling was overturned" != "The appeals court is in any way going to censure you"
"censure" != "censor"

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

in the case of the people vs russia it would be tried in the court of the arctic ocean.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, they rather the "hard to get" ones.

Re:Marshall, TX

[shutdown -p now]

Seriously, reading a patent thread on Slashdot is like watching a couple of MBAs argue heatedly about whether it's better to write Linux drivers in AJAX or SCSI.

I have tried JavaScript, and haven't looked back since!

Re:Marshall, TX

[ShakaUVM]

>>It protects business from competition. The right-wing love protecting big business. Not to mention, IP law is more or less written by big business.

I think you're confusing the right wing with the left wing. Left wing loves big business, and engages in regulations and protectionist behaviors to keep the large companies around. The right wing likes all business, both big and small. Hence the tendency for right wing people to lower corporate taxes for smaller businesses, etc.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't you use Slashdot's sig field like a normal person who insists on repeating his username in the signature line. God I'm sick of seeing your slash/name over and over and over and over and over again in the body of every single one of your fucking posts.

Re:Marshall, TX

[gad_zuki!]

>Left wing loves big business

Right, like all the hippies supporting Exxon and the Seattle WTO protesters kissing executives? Or all the liberals who dont want socialized medicine?

>The right wing likes all business, both big and small.

Haha, now tell me another. Corporatism is almost exclusively a right-wing ideology. Support of IP laws is a conservative philosophy. IP reform is a liberal philosophy. If I have to explain this then your bias is just too far gone.

Re:Marshall, TX

[ShakaUVM]

>>Haha, now tell me another. Corporatism is almost exclusively a right-wing ideology.

Look at the number of big businesses that failed in left-wing France between 1960 and the present, then look at the number of big businesses in America that failed. Left wing ideology protects large businesses. Ever wonder why big companies love regulations? Because it edges out their smaller foes.

Right wing ideology believes in competition that tends to displace large companies.

Re:Marshall, TX

[dave87656]

watching a couple of lawyers talk about anything other than the area they have a specialty in is like watching a retarded chimp pee into his own mouth.

One could argue that the latter has more competence in the matter.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the same AC as the one you replied to here. Though it is a bit late so nobody will probably read this, I still find it necessary to reply.

Did you attempt to read and fully understand what I posted? Your clarifications into what "does not make a lick of sense" in my post do absolutely nothing to discredit what I am saying. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has a suspiciously high rate of ruling in favor of patent trolls compared to other Federal District Courts. Since patent law is a Federal issue, it would make sense for all Federal District Courts, on average, to follow a similar pattern of rulings. I don't think that this particular court is doing that, which leads me to believe that they are not acting in accordance with the standard for a patent's legitimacy as defined by US Patent Law. Hence, a higher court (which as you so helpfully pointed out is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) needs to hear appeals for these cases and set precedent (another tidbit you were so nice enough to give us). Now, all that is missing is for this particular District Court is to FOLLOW PRECEDENT that the appeals court sets.

Was that so hard to understand? Some of us on Slashdot actually have an understanding of issues outside of IT and CS, and I think you doth protest too much.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Zordak]

Ok, then let me go through what I was responding to:

Patent issues are Constitutionally a Federal issue, so there's no legal reason for this one court to consistently rule contrary to the Federal standard for patent infringement.

Your plea of federal jurisdiction leads me to conclude that you think there's something wrong with this court hearing federal patent law cases. So I pointed out it's a federal court. It follows federal law. It is competent to hear federal patent law cases. You also assume that it refuses to follow federal patent law. Perhaps you could show me an example of what you're talking about.

Perhaps a higher court should hear an appeal from one of this court's patent infringement cases and make precedent whether they are really following the law or simply "legislating from the bench."

And I responded by pointing out that a higher court does hear lots of appeals from this court's patent infringement cases, and reverses them when they feel it is necessary. They also hear patent cases from all the other district courts. Their decisions on these cases set precedent. This makes as much sense as complaining that "America should elect a black President" or "Apple should sell a BSD-based operating system."

I think the real problem is you are assuming that the Eastern District of Texas just flagrantly declines to follow federal patent law and Federal Circuit precedent. But what would be the motivation? They would just get reversed. Plaintiffs generally like the Eastern District (1) because of the "rocket docket" (local rules that expedite patent cases---which other district courts like so much they are starting to model their own local rules after them) and (2) the potential jury pool is considered favorable. Plaintiffs also like that Judge Ward and Judge Davis are knowledgeable about patents (since they've handled so many cases) and perceive them as "fair" (from the patentees' perspective. Defendants obviously have a different idea of what's "fair." This is the "adversarial system," and it works pretty well). They are not renegades who flout patent precedent. In fact, in many cases, the Eastern District is setting precedent. So I still respectfully maintain that your premise is flawed and that you are complaining about non-issues.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is good. Our politicians are far too fucking stupid to establish how misguided our current patent and copyright system is without being intellectually bludgeoned. The more egregiously bad consequences of the current system we have to endure, the better. In the long run.

Re:Good

[NervousWreck]

You are assuming that the politicians will get it if they are bludgeoned. Given our politicians -- current, former, and anyone electable in the foreseeable future -- I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

Re:Good

[MillenneumMan]

They are NOT stupid. They are corrupt. The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration. That is why I feel that modifying campaign finance laws so that you can only give money to a candidate for whom you can cast a vote would go a long ways toward cleaning up this mess. This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

But.... The very ones that have the power to change the law are the ones that are corrupt. So what is the chance that this will happen any time soon? Sigh.....

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That would not stop the owners of corporations from making campaign contributions with the "understanding" that the recieving politician act and vote in their favor. Stopping that would require an upper limit on the size of individual campaign contributions, say $ 5.000, and a law to prevent straw man contributions.

Re:Good

[lorenlal]

This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.

It's already illegal. Corporations are barred from donating to any specific candidate... BUT they can donate all they want to a party fund.

That doesn't prevent it from happening....Members of those organizations can donate, so corporations tent to find a way to make sure their members "volunteer" to donate all that money. It's been done before, it'll be done again.

Example.

Re:Good

[jnowlan]

Great idea. It really fits in, but nicely counterbalances, the whole corporation as legal individual idea (albeit a psychopath - http://www.thecorporation.com/)
At least from my gut reaction.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

They are NOT stupid. They are corrupt. The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration.

They are not corporate puppets, they are party puppets. The old canard about votes being bought makes good press, sells newspapers (and karma apparently), but show me the evidence.

You don't have to know a damn thing to get elected, you only need to regurgitate party talking points. It's the political parties that get politicians elected, not corporations. It's the political parties that are responsible for the dumbing down of civil discourse. It is political party affiliation that determines how congressmen vote. Vote against a few corporate sponsors, and you'll be just fine. Vote against your party and you will be squashed.

Show me anyone in congress who can extemporize intelligently on the pros and cons of copyright and patent law. Find a scrap of evidence, any evidence at all - a scrap of writing, a news report, anything - that indicates just one person on the hill knows anything at all about these issues. I'm sticking with "stupid", until someone can provide some evidence to the contrary.

Re:Good

[MozeeToby]

Just to be difficult, I'd like to point out that you'd see the same correlation of voting records to contributions if the system were working exactly as intended. That is, companies are more likely to support politicians whose views are in line with their business interests. People often assume that the correlation automatically implies causation the other way, that contributions buy votes, but that isn't *necessarily* the case. I'm not saying that it never is the case, just that the correlation can lead to more than one conclusion which are both equally valid. The exception to this argument is when a new issue comes up and companies dump money into campaign funds and the congress-critters suddenly see the other side of the issue. It's that kind of behavior that we should be watching for and it;s shocking to me that it isn't pointed out during the campaigns (probably because 'everyone' does it, so don't rock the boat).

As for your plan of getting rid of corporate and union contributions, they are already significantly limited. These limitations are worked around by setting up Political Action Committees, which employees/members are 'encouraged' to donate money to. And in theory it makes sense, a person often wants to support politicians that will help the company they work for succeed, but in reality it ends up being the same old system that was in place before they had limitations on corporate contributions.

Re:Good

[MachineShedFred]

I don't disagree with you, but here's the counterargument that would make your plan never happen:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I've bolded the relevant bits. There's also been some case law where the Supreme Court has ruled on campaign donations as free speech in the context of campaign finance reform laws in the past, but I'm no lawyer and don't pretend to understand how that affects things. Either way, such legislation would turn into a First Amendment issue overnight.

Re:Good

[JWSmythe]

    There isn't much that stops the anonymous envelope from being left, or a briefcase full of cash.

    Bribes (err, campaign donations) are made all the time. It's the rare ones that we find out about.

Re:Good

[ubercam]

We passed this type of legislation in Canada a couple of years ago. Amongst other things, it limits campaign contributions to citizens and permanent residents to a maximum of $1000/year (inflation adjusted). I'm not sure if it restricts your donations to the candidates fighting to represent you, or whether you can donate to anyone across the country, but $1000 is the limit.

Re:Good

[Xest]

Actually, it's good because I hope it means they all just drop remote software activation :p

It's been one of the biggest ball aches in software in the last 10 years or so, their servers go down? no internet access? tough shit, you can't use the product.

Re:Good

[Shotgun]

All we have to do is inspect all their freezers.

Not the same thing.

[tjstork]

The registration process that was patented involves transferring over new features to the registered user. Most shareware programs simply ship the whole shebang and the registration is just entered in as data. Conditional checks in the application then handle the data.

This patent isn't even relevant.

Re:Not the same thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The registration process that was patented involves transferring over new features to the registered user.

Like web applications do?

Customer pays for something, vendor delivers it over the network. Holy goat-fuck batman, that's what I call innovation! How unobvious!

We're going to see a few more of these patents weilded as the recession bites. I'm not sure if ultimately that'll be a good or a bad thing for those of us who'd like to see the patent system reformed.

Re:Not the same thing.

[Amouth]

Yea i noticed that too in the abstract

" a tamperproof overlay program is constructed at the registration computer and transferred to the personal computer. The tamperproof overlay includes critical portions of the main program, without which the main program would not operate and also contains licensee identification and license control data."

while someone could say that the activation code COULD be the tamper proof critical portion - the fact that they broke that out into an overlay of the mail program and licensee identification and control means it is not.

So while the activation code would be the control data there wouldn't be any "overlay" so this patent is only half passable at current activation schemes.

i doubt this will make it that far other than where they filed it.

Re:Not the same thing.

[radtea]

Yea i noticed that too in the abstract

Well, it says in one of the Harry Potter books that the choices we make are more important than the talents we have, and that's as relevant to the patent as what's in the abstract, so why are you quoting what's in the abstract rather than J.K. Rowling?

Seriously: the claims are what matter, although in this case the claims do happen to be reflected in the abstract, which is true about half the time. The other half of the time the abstract appears to have been written by someone else, on another planet.

Re:Not the same thing.

[Amouth]

to be honest the reason i trusted the abstract was if you look the filing date is in 1991.. and to be honest it has been my experience when reading and dealing with patents that the older ones are written better in that they are more precise and accurate to what they where doing.

I agree that the abstract vs. claims is important to check but it's just and age/quality thing for me.

Re:Not the same thing.

[DeadPixels]

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to discourage most of the patent trolls. But don't worry, soon enough they'll start suing each other and everything will be okay. ;)

The mostest

[electricbern]

And of course, this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places: Marshall, TX

So this is the mostest patent-trolliest of companies? Yay!
When are they going to patent "patent trolling"? It would be nice to counter-sue a patent troll with a patent trolling patent.

Re:The mostest

[mcphail]

Far too much prior art in that little corner of the world, I'm afraid.

Re:The mostest

[electricbern]

It is not like prior art and genericism ever stopped patent trolls.

Re:The mostest

[NervousWreck]

Good idea. Why not have all interested slashdotters form a 501(c) to patent patent trolling and countersue everyone.

Re:The mostest

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, why not get generic trolling while we're at it?

Re:The mostest

[GrantRobertson]

Or we could build a Prior Art Combinator: A tool to preemptively invalidate troll patents. Granted, it wouldn't be effective against all the vague and generic patents that were filed 10 years ago. But it might cut down on the new filings of troll patents.

Actually good.

[WetCat]

You know, free software doesn't need any "activations". So it'll hurt a bit some proprietary makers...

Re:Actually good.

[nine-times]

Not only that, but in my opinion "activation" is a pretty evil development in software distribution, and I wouldn't mind someone making it more difficult or unattractive for companies to use it.

Whenever possible, I avoid using software that requires activation. I don't pirate, but if I buy a piece of software, I don't want someone monitoring every time I install it. I want to be able to use imaging on my computers without worrying whether the software will disable itself. I don't want some company to be able to say, "Um, nope. You'd installed this a couple times already. We're too lazy to check whether you're installing it on the same computer or connection from the same IP, so we're just going to disable it. If this is our fault in any way, sorry, but you'll have to call us and spend an hour on hold." Or what happens if they disable their activation servers in 5 years? Are you simply not allowed to install it anymore?

Sorry, no. No activations. I'll sooner tolerate DRM on all my media than DRM on all my software.

</rant>

Re:Actually good.

[Anonymous Coward]

It hurts two things: it hurts companies that use onerous software "activation" schemes (awesome), and it hurts the case for software patents since it puts the big guys in an arm lock (even more awesome).

Keep coming out of the woodwork, patent trolls. You're doing EVERYTHING I hoped you would.

WOL previous art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, BIOS is software. WOL wakes up a computer, thus starting the BIOS.

Thus WOL violates this patent.

How long has WOL been around again?

Re:WOL previous art?

[ground.zero.612]

Jeez at least RTFS. How remote is a PC BIOS when it's always local to the PC it's booting? My answer: not very.

Re:WOL previous art?

[wtfamidoinghere]

WOL is Wake-On-Lan. It involves waking up a remote (read:in the network) computer BIOS by sending a "magic" packet to its net address.

Jeez at least learn what you're talking about!

Re:WOL previous art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez at least learn what you're talking about!

You must be new here.

Re:WOL previous art?

[ground.zero.612]

So... Now WOL not only tells my PC to turn on, but it also connects my PC to a remote server and activates some software package for me too? When did WOL get the ability to activate software for me after it turns my PC on? I didn't know it did this. Even so, the BIOS itself is not remote, and it (BIOS) is not communicating with a remote server to activate any of my software after it boots my PC.

Maybe next time RTFS like I previously suggested. Or dare I suggest RTFA.

countersuit

[tverbeek]

I think any software company that wasn't named in this suit should sue for defamation. Since this is a "Who's Who" of software developers, being left out implies that they aren't important.

Re:countersuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's prove that they intentionally picked "important" companies and then let's prove that we are also an "important" company and sue them for not suing us! Who's with me?

Re:countersuit

[interploy]

Oh God, when companies start suing other companies because they weren't sued by that company, it's officially the apocalypse. Cue the Ghostbusters quotes.

Re:countersuit

[neural.disruption]

No that happen when companies start suing each other for not being able to provide equal quality products... Oh Wait...

IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . they have a mighty frighteningly patent portfolio. If someone crops up, and slaps a ten page patent on their desk, claiming infringement . . . IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads, and says, "Well, let's take a look at YOUR infringements."

It's all part of the patent game that corporations play today. Patent trolls can shake down small companies, but not the big ones.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Overzeetop]

Ahhh, but these patent trolls don't actually produce anything. They can't be violating anyone else's patents, unless a business method patent for patent trolling has been granted by the USPTO. They have nothing to lose but the time of their (presumably on-staff) lawyers. It's a speculative cash generation business for lawyers, and nothing more. They buy a few patents (or as many as they can for the capitol they raise from their investors), then turn around and sue everyone they can find. The payouts are so large that they need only hit once every few years to make a profit. There is no down side, except to come up completely empty and lose the investor's money. That's fairly unlikely when you take a shotgun approach, especially if you can hit small companies first with enough to pay back your initial investment.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Icegryphon]

Yes, IBM is certainly a beast that you do not want to wake up.
IBM doesn't tend to stir up trouble,
but if you go looking for it the dragon will definitely bite your a**

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[3.14159265]

If they don't actually sell a product then they're not infringing anything, and they can invest everything on litigation. Great business model, really.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the USPTO is running a casino with a Keno game that uses patent numbers and the player bets by buying some numbers then filing a few lawsuits. The house would be the defendants but unless they counter-suit, they win nothing for playing. Better yet, the house is really the lawyers because they always win regardless of the outcome for the client and cash come from the second player known as the defendant.

It is sad that the US legal and financial systems have devolved to gambling due the half-baked and misguided efforts by our political critters.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[vekrander]

"unless a business method patent for patent trolling has been granted by the USPTO"

It's a shame that there's prior art for:

Step 1: Patent every idea you have, however minuscule and unprepared you are to implement it

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless a business method patent for patent trolling has been granted by the USPTO.

I think IBM are still covered.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[ben_white]

NO, this is exactly why the patent trolls can get away with this. You are correct about the patent game between "real" companies. But the patent troll companies aren't real. They don't produce anything except for lawsuits, so IBM can't counter-sue them!

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't be violating anyone else's patents, unless a business method patent for patent trolling has been granted by the USPTO.

Perhaps not issued. But applied for . . .
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/11/17/halliburton-tries-to.html

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[just fiddling around]

This does not work with patent trolls, because they do nothing, so even IBM has nothing to throw at them.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[geekmux]

"...IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads, and says, "Well, let's take a look at YOUR infringements."

IF we ever get real patent reform in place that may happen to include proving the actual USE of patents you own, corporations like IBM would likely lose 99.999% of their patent portfolio.

Sorry, I just have issues with corps. like IBM filing 1,000 patents a month for the last 20 years for nothing more than a tax writeoff and "because we can" bullshit. Prove you USE the patents you own to avoid monopolistic empires in the patent world.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember IBM filing for a patent on something that sounded suspiciously like patent trolling.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Reziac]

Along similar lines of thought, it occurred to me: the patent is 16 years old. It will run out soon. It must not have been enforceable against common practices, or they WOULD have been going after the big companies for the past 5 or 6 years at least, since remote activation became common.

Therefore I conclude that this is a last-ditch effort to make money (if only via "please go away' settlements made out of court) from a patent that doesn't really apply in the real world and had no actual value.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Beezlebub33]

I've never interpreted IBM's filing all those patents as a tax writeoff or 'because we can'. It's actually pretty damn expensive to pay for all those fees and pay the lawyers. IBM files all those patents so that others cannot claim patents on them. It's a protective coating that prevents them from having to pay more later when some obvious or prior-art piece of software gets a patent and then IBM has to pay out the nose for infringing.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[jonbryce]

Actually, that isn't true. IBM can use defensive patents against its competitors, other tech companies that actually sell products, but as there aren't any patents on sending out nastygrams and taking people to court, they are unable to use this strategy against patent trolls.

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[NotQuiteInsane]

More likely the dragon will roast your a**...

Though I've heard most dragons try to avoid lawyer-meat. Something about it tasting slimy and rather disgusting... :-)

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

unless a business method patent for patent trolling has been granted by the USPTO.

Now that is a mighty fine idea...

Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .

[geekmux]

I've never interpreted IBM's filing all those patents as a tax writeoff or 'because we can'. It's actually pretty damn expensive to pay for all those fees and pay the lawyers. IBM files all those patents so that others cannot claim patents on them. It's a protective coating that prevents them from having to pay more later when some obvious or prior-art piece of software gets a patent and then IBM has to pay out the nose for infringing.

Unless IBM is creating technology at the same rate they are filing patents(1,000+/month?), I'd pretty much stick by my initial analysis of tax writeoff. It IS a very expensive Division of their company. Somehow, I seriously doubt it is a profit center at their burn rate.

Having a reasonable "protective coating" over your technology is one thing. They have built a fortress around the entire market, making it difficult for anyone to create new tech without being paranoid of infringement.

Filed in Nov., 1990

[kimvette]

Filed in Nov., 1990, and they're just noticing these alleged "infringements" now, 19 years later? So, they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big. This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists. The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them.

Re:Filed in Nov., 1990

[PhilHibbs]

Does that apply in patent cases?

Re:Filed in Nov., 1990

[Theaetetus]

Filed in Nov., 1990, and they're just noticing these alleged "infringements" now, 19 years later? So, they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big. This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists. The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them.

You're off by six months. Prior to 1995, patent terms were 17 years from issue. This issued in June, 1993, so it's up in June, 2010. Not a big change, however.

Also, no, the laches defense requires an affirmative action on the patent owner's part - I send you a notice of infringement, you reply back with a request for a license, and I... disappear. If I never put you on notice, I haven't started the clock ticking.

Re:Filed in Nov., 1990

[dkf]

Does that apply in patent cases?

Laches? Oh yes, given that there appears to have been no attempt to deal with this matter before now, but it's different if they've been in negotiations over this for a substantial amount of time. It's entirely possible that the court will dictate the terms under which BetaNet offers licenses, but only if what we have here is a matter that's been rumbling on for years between sets of lawyers rather than being sprung upon the defendants like a particularly unpleasant gatecrasher.

Re:Filed in Nov., 1990

[dkf]

Also, no, the laches defense requires an affirmative action on the patent owner's part - I send you a notice of infringement, you reply back with a request for a license, and I... disappear. If I never put you on notice, I haven't started the clock ticking.

On the other hand, if you have a patent and don't make any attempt to prevent infringement for many years even if notified of such activity, it does reduce the level of damages that you can claim. Courts don't mollycoddle lazy dumbasses.

Re:Filed in Nov., 1990

[chfriley]

My understanding of laches is NOT that it requires an affirmative action on the patent owners part. It could be a different defense in patent law, but if so I am not aware of it.
And IAAA (I am an attorney) who took a number of IP law classes but does not practice in that area. My understanding is that in US Federal Courts submarine patents may have a good laches defense. As I said though, this is not an area of expertise.

Patent doesn't apply to a lot of software

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent specifically mentions that the registration server has to create and send down a customized app that contains "critical portions" of the software that's being registered - presumably, so that without registration, it's impossible to crack the protection scheme as vital parts of the code are simply missing. Most software today doesn't use activation in this manner. We have trial periods, even with MS Windows, so all critical portions of the software must be present for these full-featured trials to work. Even when the trials are functionally limited, in most cases the extra functionality is still there, but locked out until the software considers itself to be registered.

Re:Patent doesn't apply to a lot of software

[canajin56]

Look, the East Texas District always finds in favor of the patent holder, always, without exception. This case is unusual in that they're actually suing over something even 1% related to the patents. File the suit, pay the judge, $100 billion verdict in your favor.

Re:Patent doesn't apply to a lot of software

[Reziac]

Something like that was done with some DOS-era software -- the free part was a sort of launcher and demo, but to get the functioning innards you had to pay, and receive either another install disk or a download. Needless to say such apps did not become widespread in userland. Not sure about commercial/enterprise-level apps, tho.

UUCP - prior art

[tg123]

UUCP is prior art.

UUCP (unix to unix copy protocol ) has been doing this since at least the 1980's.

Admittedly its usually used to transfer files but uucp can still log in to a shell and remotely activate software.
( you usually have a script prepared to do this for you.)

I for one

[gmuslera]

... welcome our new monkeys welding patents of mass destruction overlords. The more they come, the closest we are to the point that is evident for really everyone that software patents (and probably not so software ones) are technology's suicide pill.

Re:I for one

[CannonballHead]

Monkeys are learning to weld now? Yikes...

Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[atchijov]

To be allowed to do most of the things in this world, you have to meet some qualifications. How come that people can sit on Jury which sometimes deal with multi $100Ms verdicts without understanding anything about problems involved? Most of patent cases are based on "prior art" or luck of it. You have to be able to understand a LOT of things to be able to see that something was (or was not) prior art. I am sure that Marshal, TX is wonderful city, but I have serious doubts that it has many citizens who are up to speed with all modern technologies to be able to serve efficiently on Jury bench in all these patent cases. Andrei

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[Theaetetus]

To be allowed to do most of the things in this world, you have to meet some qualifications. How come that people can sit on Jury which sometimes deal with multi $100Ms verdicts without understanding anything about problems involved? Most of patent cases are based on "prior art" or luck of it. You have to be able to understand a LOT of things to be able to see that something was (or was not) prior art. I am sure that Marshal, TX is wonderful city, but I have serious doubts that it has many citizens who are up to speed with all modern technologies to be able to serve efficiently on Jury bench in all these patent cases

Because the Constitution doesn't require a jury of skilled experts. In criminal cases, do we require everyone on the jury to have a conviction on their record?

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[Anonymous Coward]

After all these patent cases, who knows, maybe they are starting to get an extensive, in court, education on the matter. Fortunately this education is at the hand of lawyers, who we all know can be trusted implicitly.

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Constitution doesn't require a jury of skilled experts. In criminal cases, do we require everyone on the jury to have a conviction on their record?

I don't know about experts but they should be knowledgeable. Your "criminal cases" example doesn't make any sense as that covers a broad spectrum of cases. If you're talking specifics, lets say a murder case, then these cases often involve physical evidence, eyewitnesses, etc. All things that everyday people have experience with.

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[Nemyst]

Just about everyone that's sane and with basic common sense can understand and be jury on a murder case. There are a lot of variables, but it's usually possible to comprehend as it's rooted in reality and it's something we can, to a point, relate to.

Abstract software patents about very precise methods that have no meaning outside of the software development community are entirely alien to the majority of the population. They cannot begin to understand what it is all about without proper technical background. There's a huge gap between "did the guy murder the other guy or no?" and "did these companies infringe a patent about remote software activation?". The very concept of "patent" is fuzzy for many.

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[Theaetetus]

Abstract software patents about very precise methods that have no meaning outside of the software development community are entirely alien to the majority of the population. They cannot begin to understand what it is all about without proper technical background. There's a huge gap between "did the guy murder the other guy or no?" and "did these companies infringe a patent about remote software activation?". The very concept of "patent" is fuzzy for many.

Spoken like someone who finds the concept of "criminal defense" fuzzy. There's a lot more to a murder trial than just "did the guy murder the other guy or no?" For one, you need a legal definition of murder.

So, I think your own post succinctly refutes your point.

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[NeoSkandranon]

Or perhaps more likely, means the average person isn't capable of understanding the nuances of involved in a criminal case either...

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[Dan Ost]

I believe that the constitutional requirements only apply to criminal cases. Patent suits are civil suits.

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[Theaetetus]

I believe that the constitutional requirements only apply to criminal cases. Patent suits are civil suits.

Go see amendment seven, and then write us a 2,000 word essay on the failures of the American educational system with regard to civics.

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[rudy_wayne]

Because the Constitution doesn't require a jury of skilled experts.

However, one of the basic principles of the law is "the right to a trial with a jury of your peers". If you sue a corporation over software patents then the jury should be made up of people who understand software, patents and all the complexities. Those are the "peers".

Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case

[Theaetetus]

Because the Constitution doesn't require a jury of skilled experts.

However, one of the basic principles of the law is "the right to a trial with a jury of your peers". If you sue a corporation over software patents then the jury should be made up of people who understand software, patents and all the complexities. Those are the "peers".

And when wealthy white men are up on charges of investment fraud, the jury should be made up solely of other wealthy white men. And when a racist white southerner is up on charges of lynching a black guy, the jury should be made up solely of other racist white southerners. And when an illegal immigrant is up on charges of illegal immigration, the jury should be made up solely of other illegal immigrants.

I think I see a flaw in your cunning plan.

Im tired of this

[Lazypete]

We should burn those patent trolls on the stake and rejoice in having rid the world of such evil.

prior art

[tg123]

Whoops did not read the whole article.

However this is prior art this company has filed a patient for what is a common practice at software companies.

Re:prior art

[Reziac]

The patent is dated 1993. Whycome it took them this long to get around to trying to enforce their ownership? Practically the whole more-than-$50-per-copy software world has been doing remote activation since the early days of WinXP, so it's not like they had to wait this long for everyone to get entrenched in the practice.

Re:prior art

[david_thornley]

Which means the legal doctrine of "laches" may be in effect, and that may limit what the troll can get. The idea is that patent and copyright infringement suits should be reasonably prompt, and allowing a potential defendant to dig itself into a deeper hole is unfair. If you want more details, or a prediction on how this might affect the case, ask somebody who actually knows. IANAL, I just post on Slashdot.

Re:prior art

[Reziac]

Per some other comments, from folks who damaged their brains by actually reading the entire patent, it appears that it covers the process of withholding part of the software itself until it's registered, then providing a program to install the rest.

This was tried with a few DOS-era apps (only ones I can think of offhand were BBS-related software) and there were so many full-featured no-bullshit competitors, that it didn't go over well in the userland market (dunno about commercial apps). I can't recall having seen it since then.

Anyway, it appears what they really need is a time machine, to go back and sue a few minor companies that are long-gone from the software landscape. Lacking that, they've decided to attack the next nearest thing, straight-up activation, before their patent runs out in a few months. I assume they're hoping that someone will pay them a go-away-and-stop-bothering-us settlement, since the patent itself doesn't appear relevant.

I say we...

[Duradin]

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Or we give Texas back to Mexico with a no backsies clause.

Re:I say we...

[haruchai]

If we could find a way to force patent troll proceedings to be held in uncooled courtrooms in August, that would be punishment
enough - Marshall gets HOT.

I believe the current weather record is 112 F / 44 C.

Re:I say we...

[neural.disruption]

You sir are in violation of my Two Patents:
"How to deal fast with adversities", which covers nuking, spanking, general intimidation and cease or desist letters.
"Land exchanges between countries using words, meetings and IT".

Of course

[Sycraft-fu]

That's always what goes on with these kinds of patents, and it is how you know they are bullshit.

Personally I think a "Use it or lose it," provision needs to be added to the patent system, and would fix a large number of the problems we have. Basically I'd have it work as such:

If you have a patent, and a product comes out on to the market that uses its technology, you have one year from the time you should reasonably be aware it is for sale (more or less meaning when it is on the mass market) to contact the company about licensing. Failure to do so means your patent is invalidated. This does not apply if you sell a product that makes use of your patented technology, or if you license it to others that do. However if the patent was previously unused in any product, you've got 12 months to contact them about licensing, or it is assumed that you do not wish to collect fees and your patent is now null.

In this way, patent holders still have their rights protected for legit patents. If you have a patent and sell a product that uses it, you can stop others from doing so as long as your patent is in force. Likewise if you license your tech out, you can make sure that only those you wish to license it to can use it. However, if you aren't currently using the patent and someone starts to, well then you either have to start actively using it, or you lose it.

That would make it so companies couldn't sit on patents until the technology is very popular and widespread and then try to use the patent as a weapon to extort people, because it is too late to go back. Someone rolls out a product, you have to contact them for licensing. If they don't like your terms, then ok they have to stop selling the product that infringes but it is still in the early stages. They and others can make sure to develop products that don't infringe on your IP without massive financial harm. If you tried to sit quietly on the patent and jump on people years later, all they'd have to do is show that their product was widely available more than a year ago and you never contacted them.

I think patents are necessary, for a number of reasons, and I think this would be a good balance between them protecting rights and not being abused.

Re:Of course

[jimshatt]

That's exactly how I think patents should work! I'm actually amazed that patents don't work this way, while it's really rather simple. I do feel that 12 months might be too short for some software, and too long for others, so that might need some tweaking.

Unfortunately, since our governments are run by corporations, this will never happen... :(

Re:Of course

[Hognoxious]

How would you stop the Dutch auction problem? That's to say that if potential licensees know there's a deadline at which they can get it for nothing, they can simply wait out the patent holder.

Re:Of course

[Jason Levine]

The "use it or lose it" system wouldn't create (or solve) this problem. If I come up with a cool new technology, your company could a) license it from me, b) wait until the patent expires or c) use the technology and hope I don't sue. In cases a and b, the patent system is working as it is supposed to. In case c, you aren't waiting until you can get it for free, you are actively using my product in the hopes that I wouldn't sue (or that you would prevail in any such lawsuit).

What happens with patent trolls is a special case of c. In this case, companies use a technology that they don't think is covered under a patent claim. Years go by and using the technology becomes commonplace. Then, the patent troll emerges firing lawsuits left and right, trying for maximum profit. A "use it or lose it" system would prevent Patent Trolls from standing by while their patent is being used, waiting for the technology to permeate so much that companies can't afford to give it up. In short, "everyone's using this technology and has been for years, but the patent holder, despite being aware of the usage, didn't take any action" should be a defense against a patent lawsuit.

Re:Of course

[pipatron]

I think this part covers that:

This does not apply if you sell a product that makes use of your patented technology, or if you license it to others that do.

If you don't sell a product using the technology, you obviously don't care about it. This could of course be circumvented easily by creating a product and claiming to sell it in your own office, for a price that no one would ever pay. Then there's no need to spend much money on anything, perhaps a small ad on a website to make it look like you're still actively pushing the technology.

Re:Of course

[Hognoxious]

If you don't sell a product using the technology, you obviously don't care about it.

What if I specialise in R&D rather than manufacturing? What if I can't get a good deal from a manufacturer?

In a free market the seller has the right to walk away if he thinks the price is too low, just like the buyer does if he thinks it's too high. Where there's compulsion on either party then it distorts the market in favour of the other.

I assume you do agree that if it's my invention it's my decision as to what constitutes a fair price? If not then who decides? You? The government? Cowboy Neal?

This could of course be circumvented easily by creating a product and claiming to sell it in your own office, for a price that no one would ever pay.

That's a bit of a waste of time & resources. And if I can sidestep it like that, what's the point of the UIOLI law anyway?

Re:Of course

[Hognoxious]

Of course it would cause it. If you (the inventor) have only one year in which you must license it - which is what GGP proposed - you're hardly in a strong negotiating position when 11 months and 3 weeks have run. Peanuts or nothing.

Anybody wanting to market the invention just needs to sacrifice one year's profits now to save 15 or 17 years of licensing fees.

That's if a competitor doesn't take it up within the year. But what if they're playing the waiting game too?

Re:Of course

[Jason Levine]

From the post: "If you have a patent, and a product comes out on to the market that uses its technology, you have one year from the time you should reasonably be aware it is for sale (more or less meaning when it is on the mass market) to contact the company about licensing."

This doesn't mean that you invent X and have one year to do anything with it or you lose your patent.

This means that you invent X, I come out with something which infringes on your X patent and *THEN* you have one year to contact me for licensing. If, however, you don't contact me within a year, your future claims of "patent on X" claims are put in jeopardy. This would be intended to stop companies who see infringement and decide to wait until an entire industry is infringing and everyone is reliant on the patented technology before filing suit.

RTFP

[Tom]

(read the fucking patent)

Actually, it's not that straightforward, and I'm not certain there will be much prior art. The patent doesn't just say "call here to verify your registration number".
First, it's from 1991. Remember that year? That's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stack. A network-based software activation was certainly a couple years ahead.
Two, it isn't your "set a flag in config.ini" type of activation, either. The patent speaks about the construction of a tamperproof overlay program containing core parts of the actual application. In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.

That's pretty advanced for 1991, "software as a service" didn't become a buzzword until 10 years later.

Disclaimer: Doesn't mean I like software patents. I don't. But some are more obviously trivial nonsense than others.

Re:RTFP

[pleappleappleap]

That's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stack. A network-based software activation was certainly a couple years ahead.

Just because Windows is backwards, doesn't mean various UNIXes didn't already have this feature.

Re:RTFP

[kimvette]

That's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stack

When Windows 95 was in very early Beta I was on the phone with Microsoft tech support trying to get SLIP to work with a proprietary system - with Microsoft's TCP/IP stack. I don't remember having had to install anything extra to get it.

Re:RTFP

[DaveV1.0]

Really? Then, you should have no problem listing them. Go!

Re:RTFP

[Nadaka]

tamperproof? Ha! Does this not invalidate the claim as most activation schemes can be bypassed by a sufficiently determined hacker (or anyone who can follow directions of said hacker)?

Re:RTFP

[radtea]

(read the fucking patent)

I did. There are two independent claims (1 and 9) both dealing with the generation of an "overlay" (shades of RT-11) that contains the actual program code based on information the user provides through a "shell" program that they run initially.

On my reading, this is irrelevant to any activation system that deals solely with the data segment, so almost all conventional licence management systems are not covered. Some stuff MS does might be, but I've never used a license manger that does anything remotely similar to what's described in this patent: these days we deliver the full program, and unlock it based on data, whereas the patent covers delivering a partial program and generating a new program based on user-supplied data. That's unrelated to software-as-service implementations because there is no new "overlay"--whatever that might be construed to mean in this context--being generated by the delivery process: when I run something in my browser it isn't a custom copy newly compiled from source incorporating information I've provided. It's a bog-standard copy that may have restricted functionality based on data that is downloaded with it, a totally different thing.

So yeah, there's not that much prior art, but there's not that much "posterior art", either.

Some idiot on the bench in Marshal, Texas may of course disagree with this view, but that's based on how corrupt they are, not on how the patent reads.

Re:RTFP

[kbg]

If you think this is advanced then you obviously aren't a software engineer. There is nothing complex about this, this is basic stuff, it isn't like computers and software engineering was suddenly invented in 1991. If you have a computer and some type of connection to another computer you can do this, you don't need a TCP/IP stack. Like all software patents this is trivial nonsense.

Re:RTFP

[dissy]

In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.

And I haven't seen many products that still use that method of activation.
Certainly no products from any companies in their list, except IBM.

These days you get the entire car with a lock on your steering wheel, and the activation code removes the lock for the feature that was already there.
No need to obtain a steering wheel during activation like this patent covers, so (other than maybe IBM) none of those companies are violating it.

And IBM even was doing this with mainframes decades before 1990.

Re:RTFP

[Anonymous Coward]

UK Acorn BBC magazine "A & B computing" from 1987 contained a demo disk version of the
puzzle game "Xor". You could play the first few levels to see if you liked it. If you wanted to buy
the game, you rang a phone number (the NETWORK), gave the unique serial number of the disk
and credit card details - and in return they calculated a rather long registration string, which actually
comprised of hex 6502 op-codes (the OVERLAY program). This patched an incomplete decryption
algorithm in the game - based on your unique serial number, unlocking the full version.

Re:RTFP

[Hognoxious]

Seems it was without a TCP/IP stack that worked, which isn't much better than not having one at all.

Re:RTFP

[LWATCDR]

Actually I wonder if Lap-Link could be sited as pior art for this.
And early version of Lap-Link had the user a way for the user to copy from the serial port to a file so lap-link could send the lap-link program to the target PC over the serial cable.
That would seem to send the "overlay" over the network to activate the software.
It wasn't used for security which may not make it valid in this case.

Re:RTFP

[stoneguy]

Hey, you youngsters, 1991 wasn't the Bronze Age.

I was a systems manager 1990 for a site that used the then new Sun Sparc "pizzaboxes". They ran a CAD package that had a humngous key encoding numbers of licenses for subpackages and their expiry dates. And yes, it was painful to have those keys dictated over the telephone.

Re:RTFP

[canajin56]

All good points, but they're suing people for doing the straight forward flag in config.ini stuff, too. Adobe Photoshop doesn't have an overlay that Adobe sends you, you just enter a fucking key. Windows activates over the network, but there's no overlay program, you enter a key, it handshakes with the servers and makes sure that key isn't in use/marked as pirated, and then it sets a flag somewhere marking it as registered. I bet most of the plantiffs WISH they had a system that works like the one described, it would make it harder to pirate them. As it is, snooze, all those companies with their "bulletproof" online registration are trivially hacked. Adobe gives you a car, but they put an ignition system that doesn't work, unless you use the key they gave you, or if you slice it open and just short the wires.

They're just relying on the fact that the Marshall, TX judge always ALWAYS finds in favor of the plaintiff. That or they're trying to argue that technically a registration CD Key is technically a "code" and therefore an "overlay program" that the main program doesn't function without.

Re:RTFP

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously never had big box experience. IBM have been doing this for at least 30 years on mainframes. You don't need TCP for this. All big boxes had a modem that called IBM.

Re:RTFP

[TheRaven64]

The networking release of BSD, including the first release of the TC/IP stack and the Berkeley Socket API was out in 1988. However, 1991 was the first year in which commercial networks were allowed to be connected to the Internet. Prior to that it was just for academic and government sites. There was little point in a TCP/IP stack in a consumer OS before then, because there was no Internet for them to be connected to. Windows for Workgroups, in 1992, did include a networking stack and WinSock (a port of the BSD socket API with some extensions) and IPX and a few other protocols. Some companies, like Trumpet, provided a TCP/IP implementation that dropped into the WinSock stack.

Re:RTFP

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies like Sun, FTP Software and Beame & Whiteside were selling lots of TCP/IP products for PC's at that time.

Re:RTFP

[BitZtream]

XBox Live arcade sounds like it falls into this claim. You can download the demo, which is most larger arcade games is just part of it, then unlock the rest by purchasing it, which then downloads the rest of the package and unlocks it.

I'd argue that the demo is simply free and the purchase is for a different product completely, which it is really, but I'd say this sort of thing is what they would go after. Not your windows product key activations.

Re:RTFP

[unix1]

So yeah, there's not that much prior art, but there's not that much "posterior art", either.

I haven't read the patent but judging by the comments of the posters who appear to have done so (like yourself), it is not too far-fetched to have an activation system where a significant functionality of a program is delivered during such process. This is especially true if a software product is employing a plugin-type system where a user can purchase/acquire a registration code, enter it in the existing software package and download the plugin.

I can't remember personally using such activation process, but it wouldn't be shocking to me if one was able to download one of Eclipse's 3rd party proprietary plugins this way, or MS Visual Studio, some Adobe products. Or self-updating programs like anti-virus where once it has run out of the initial registration period, you re-activate it some time (maybe weeks/months) later, and the software updates both virus definition data and runnable binaries during the process. The same may be true for Apple's Quicktime for Windows upgrade to Pro mechanism, and other similar products.

Re:RTFP

[radtea]

I can't remember personally using such activation process, but it wouldn't be shocking to me if one was able to download one of Eclipse's 3rd party proprietary plugins this way, or MS Visual Studio, some Adobe products.

That's an interesting question, but on my reading at least the patent would not cover plugins, as the clear implication is that the user can't do anything with the "shell" except enter license information etc. Ergo, a program that has functionality of its own would not constitute a "shell" in the relevant sense.

What a dishonest lawyer and idiot judge might agree is a fair reading of the patent, however, could be just about anything, so let's hope they aren't reading /.!

Non-tech lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

What's interesting in this one is that you got a bunch of lawyers that are clearly not techies, that possibly got some bad advice and then ran with it.
If you read the patent, nobody does it the way claim 1 and 9 say anymore. If you don't violate the independent claims then you're generally good.
The patent is worthless.

Re:Actually bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, free software doesn't need any "activations". So it'll hurt a bit some proprietary makers...

On the other hand, it further validates the concept of software patents.

So, actually bad.

Re:lulz

[JWSmythe]

    Be careful. The method for utilizing the first position in a message exchange system for the purpose of stating unrelated exclamations including but not limited to the phrase "First Post", is patented.

    "Second Post" though, is fair game. :)

Re:Actually bad.

[WetCat]

Only in case of their win

Marshall, TX?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please explain to be how a court like that one in Marshall, TX can legitimately continue to exist, when it's fairly obvious that it's a biased patent trolling court? By now, I'd have expected government intervention of some sort!

Any sufficiently advanced corruption...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is indistinguishable from stupidity?

(Sorry, Robert Heinlein)

Re:RTFP - mod parent up, please

[haruchai]

Thank you for pointing out that computers and software existed before "dub-dub-dub" became a household word.
It seems to be forgotten a lot and not only on Slashdot.

Not campaign contributions alone

[chfriley]

Campaign contributions are small potatoes compared to the power of disbursing trillions of tax dollars taken from one group to another group. This gives the politician power over both the group they are taking from (some minority of voters, typically some small minority of 'the rich') by hitting them up to get the burden reduced and power over the group getting the money for fear of cutting them off. Dependence on the largess of politicians and government makes everyone beholden to them which is the goal.

This is not about money alone or even primarily, it is about the power that control over tax dollars brings. You could eliminate all private funding of elections and you would be in no better shape because campaign contributions are only a very limited part of the problem.

Until people realize that this is about power, the wrong issues will be tackled. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Acton

Arkell v. Pressdram

[Hognoxious]

In the UK it's often the case that the loser pays both sides' legal costs. This has the effect of discouraging frivolous and speculative lawsuits since the plaintiff can end up making a loss. In the US its rare to get an award for costs, so the risk is only your own lawyer's fees; if he takes the case on a contingency basis - again, more common in the US - the worst the plaintiff can do is break even.

The other side of the coin is that the there's less incentive for the defendant to settle out of court; in the US it can be cheaper to roll over than to fight, even if your in the right and you can prove it.

Re:Arkell v. Pressdram

[Shakrai]

This has the effect of discouraging frivolous and speculative lawsuits since the plaintiff can end up making a loss

Wouldn't it also have the effect of limiting access to the court system to those with a legitimate case that might be hard to win?

Re:Arkell v. Pressdram

[Shotgun]

Wouldn't it also have the effect of limiting access to the court system to those with a legitimate case that might be hard to win?

legitimate case that might be hard to win? A case that is hard to win doesn't seem very legitimate to me. If it is, then the lawmaking needs to be revisited.

Re:Arkell v. Pressdram

[Shakrai]

A case that is hard to win doesn't seem very legitimate to me.

Really, and what are you basing this on? Your years of experience as a practicing attorney?

Re:Arkell v. Pressdram

[Shotgun]

No. An understanding of the English language.

If legitimate cases are hard to win, then loser pays is not the root of the problem. Bad laws are the problem, and that is not solvable in the court room.

Re:Arkell v. Pressdram

[jeff4747]

It is quite possible for 2 parties to have different, but both legitimate positions on an issue that brings them into conflict.

Party A buys something from Party B.

Party A says the product they sold did not meet their specifications, despite Party B's promise that it would.

Party B says the product meets the specification. Party B uses a test they say is more accurate than the test Party A used.

And now you need a judge.

patented in 1993

[goombah99]

This was patented in 1993. Presumably the patent was filed for earlier. While innovative in that time period I seem to recall that there were many licesnce servers back then. So I don't think it will stand up.

Re:patented in 1993

[greensoap]

I wonder how accurate that really is. I mean, home use of the internet was not prevalent until at least after Win. 95 came out. And I mean prevalent in the percentage of Americans on the internet not the percentage of computer users on the internet. Compuserve and AOL were going strong as ISPs, 14.4 modems were higher end at this time while 28.8 was on the way. I remember a lot of software had codes your had to type in and hardware dongles were all over. It would be interesting to see what systems were really out there at this time. Windows 95 certainly didn't have remote activation, you just typed in the code on the CD cover IIRC.

Re:patented in 1993

[TheRaven64]

There might have been some license servers, but there won't have been many. It takes 2-3 years typically between granting and allocating a patent. It was probably filed before the first commercial connection to the Internet, if not then within a few months of it. License servers would have run on proprietary BBSs, including things like CompuServe, or on private dial-up servers. The former is not ideal because there were a lot of competing systems and you might have selected CompuServe, but your customers might be on AOL, MSN, and so on. A dial-up system might work, but you'd need one in each country and that would get expensive, not to mention the fact that your customers might object to the telephone costs whenever your software decided to authenticate itself. It was only the widespread adoption of the Internet that made the idea useful.

Re:patented in 1993

[goombah99]

No the liscenece servers ran on the local ethernet which might or might not have been attached to the internet.

Re:patented in 1993

[goombah99]

Sun computer's was thriving back then and there were seat-managed liscences regulated over ethernet.

Re:patented in 1993

[jonbryce]

Demon was the first commercial consumer ISP in Britain, and that started in June 1992. There was Pipex before that in 1990 providing full internet access.

Secret Ballot

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you intend to enforce that?

Secret ballots are important to prevent powerful from forcing weak to vote according to powerful's wishes. Currently, one can promise
powerful and then vote one's conscious in the booth because the ballot is secret. So it seems with your modifacation all powerful would have to do is say "Donate to my favorite candidate or your fired (or they boys will visit you, or the code enforcement people will find your business in violation...)

If I donate to a particular candidate and then I am automatically forced to vote for that candidate then my vote is no longer secret.

(How do they do it - Captcha = Discreet...)

Case law & a weak judiciary

[sjbe]

Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made.

Judges don't make statutory laws but they do make case law which is just as important. Even the best statutory laws need interpretation. Our judicial system provides that interpretation. Occasionally judges (usually the State & Federal Supreme Courts) strike down laws that are incompatible with the existing legal system or interpret them in ways that change the legal system - hopefully for the better. With apologies to Martha Stewart, this is a Good Thing (tm).

It would be a gross violation of their judicial power were they to legislate from the bench ( which many attempt anyway ).

So you would prefer that Jim Crow laws had remained constitutional? Without judicial interpretation they would have remained the law of the land for much longer than they actually did. Laws are not always fair and the interpretation of them matters. Judges having the ability to interpret laws and occasionally striking them down is something you should be grateful to have - at least in the long run. Saying that judges shouldn't interpret laws belies an immense ignorance of how our legal system actually works. What you are really arguing for is a weak judiciary and a strong legislature. I prefer they be relatively balanced in power.

Regardless, if you want to know why this particular area houses so many of these types of disputes, follow the money. They wouldn't do it if they weren't benefiting financially somehow.

The cases are housed there because the US District Court in that location have the judicial experience and infrastructure to handle these cases better than almost anywhere else except maybe Central California and the Texas court has a reputation for plaintiff friendly juries and rules for fast trial proceedings.

Good News?

[zzsmirkzz]

I can think of a good outcome of this. They win, they get injunctions and then refuse to license the IP so all software activations go away. In this case, if they win, we win.

NOTE: I do not condone patent trolling, but as king one must find the good in any situation.

The one troll I'm almost rooting for

[TomXP411]

I almost want these guys to win just to see the "remote product activation" go away... I activate a Windows installation once every 3 or 4 months, on average, and I'm concerned about running out of activations, even though I have paid for all of my Windows licenses.

Hey dummy

[BitterAndDrunk]

Arthur C. Clarke said "Any technology. . . " which is what you were referring to. Heinlein ain't a factor here.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

"Second Post" though, is fair game. :)

You sure, sir? Me, I'd wait some 19 years before being so cocky about this... ;-)

Yep, trolling away

[russotto]

First of all, the 1980s called and they want their copy protection techniques back. I doubt this was novel and non-obvious even in 1990, unless you subscribed to the very broad notion that if A,B, and D have been done, as have A,B, and C, and A,C, and D, and B,C and D, then doing A,B,C, and D is still novel and non-obvious.

Second, nearly all product activation nowadays is non-infringing. The system described in this patent is one in which some critical portion of the program code is withheld and not provided until registration time. Most product activation systems do not work that way; the entire program is provided and activation just requires a code. That sort of system is specifically mentioned in the patent as prior art (and covered by patent 4,740,890, which I believe is expired), and therefore not covered by the patent.

Doesn't matter what the claims say, trolls win.

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys win no matter what the claims say (within reason).

If the patent is at all plausible, and can't be defeated at a summary judgement stage, then all the companies will settle, because the troll will make it worth it to settle.

We always here about the big cases, like EOLAS, or RIM, or whatever. The more normal MO of these guys is to offer to settle. And how do they set the price of that settlement? Not by the actual value of their software invention (as they see it), but rather the cost to the software company for litigation. So, if I'm a troll, and I estimate it's going to cost Big Software Company X $700,000 to take the case to trial at the district level, I offer a settlement at around $500,000. And the big software company rolls over and pays.

In this particular case, even though us software types think it's as clear as day that we don't infringe because we're not sending real executing code to the client, and we're only sending some encrypted keys, do you really want to try to explain that to some hillbillies in Texas? My guess is that you've got a 50-50 chance of succeeding even with a watertight argument.

Prior Art.... BBS Software

[TrenchWarrior]

Long before the commercial internet the network of places of interests were held together by *gasp* modem and phone line. Then
came ISDN , then DSL ... all ran over the same copper.

MUSTANG SOFTWARE wrote a BBS package called Wildcat, which interestingly is still a viable product. Product is now supported by Santronics.
They used dialup (network) registration along with an auto-patching and updating for new features. The software would not run unless you registered it via dial up (later the internet) as critical components to running were uploaded at the time of registration. This system ran on DOS and little later Windows NT 3, which I believe predates the 1991"patent". The Wildcat BBS was started in 1986.

tw

Jury nullification...

[Anonymous Coward]

Next we will call Jury Nullification "legislating from the Jury Room" and say that citizens have committed a gross violation of their citizen power and should exist merely to vote representatives who make laws. Both jury nullification and judicial nullification are rare, but we should be mindful that judges are not sheep and neither are citizens and that the interplay of so-called legislating from the bench and jury nullification are sometimes the only events that wake the legislature from their comfortable position at their corporate mistresses teat and the belly of special interests to take action that favors the citizenry at large.

Marshall Texas Judges are greedy geeks

[DontLickJesus]

Once I enjoyed the life of developing software that helped Mesothelioma victims get what they justly deserved, their day in court, dead or alive. Once I knew of a wonderful little place in West Texas that, unlike California courts, allowed video and technology in their court rooms. The court saw the tremendous benefit it provided to both presenting cases and to expediting the process, and so brought on more.
I grew to know a city government run over by tech vendors, which, realizing a very real and honest opportunity to present technology to legislative America, let the salesmen loose and forgot to teach their customers how to use products.
I now know a city that legislates shady tech patents in order to pay for all the pretty toys that they continually need new versions of. This little town became Silicon Valley to the legal world, and if they let that escape, the town will bust.
I bear no sympathy for them, even the judges know what they are doing is wrong. The fruitage of the tech industry's loins, prior art, will arise to take it's place. In the mean time the court, the vendors, and the lawyers, win or lose, will all rape the industry of much needed R&D funds from creative people by telling those creative people exactly what they want to hear:

"You're absolutely right, we should sue them!"

Patent trolls are a leach on our way of life. Bleed your clients, your employers, the judicial system, and the rights of all those who worked to get their product out, and it won't mean a thing. In the end you still can't come up with your own ideas, and trying to buy them all will get you no where. History does not remember the first man who bought the cotton gin.

They're still unreasonable favorable

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, of course, that patents are a part of federal (not state) law and that there are special courts for them, but the fact is that there are only so many judges out there. And the ones in EDT are known to be patent-friendly in a number of ways (like the one where the clerk changed a filing date based on obscure local rules that allowed them to start filing the suit before the patent actually issued to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction vs. Cisco), not to mention the more reasonable advantage, where they don't let lawsuits drag out. Oh, and those local rules also require local counsel (even though this is a matter of federal law...) and the juries down there are extra favorable to patents (they really help the town's economy).

So while you're right that those complaints don't quite make sense, there's no getting around the fact that EDT is effectively a Banana Republic (as one lawyer put it) where patent plaintiffs have all the advantages. If you intend to quote me that statistic where, of the cases that are brought to trial, EDT looks no more favorable than most courts, you'll have to correct for the selection bias. Once suits are brought in EDT (which is nearly, though not quite, inescapable thanks to other rules covering venue), they tend to get settled unless the defendant has a strong case. And even then, they lose a lot.