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)."
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
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
You know, free software doesn't need any "activations". So it'll hurt a bit some proprietary makers...
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.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
. . . 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!
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
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.
(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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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.
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.
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.