Slashdot Mirror
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)."
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.
This is my sig.
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.
...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.
"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.
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.
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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
(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.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
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.
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".
I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.