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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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".

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.

[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.

Actually good.

[WetCat]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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: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: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: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.

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.

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.

Re:Good

[Shotgun]

All we have to do is inspect all their freezers.

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.

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