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)."

12 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Marshall, TX by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  2. Re:Marshall, TX by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  3. IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . 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.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . . by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  4. Re:Marshall, TX by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  5. Filed in Nov., 1990 by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  6. Re:Marshall, TX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  7. Re:Good by MillenneumMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. I say we... by Duradin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Good by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Marshall, TX by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >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.

  11. Re:Marshall, TX by Zordak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.