Slashdot Mirror


Paul Allen Files Patent Suit Against Apple, Google, Yahoo, Others

mewshi_nya writes "A firm run by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen filed suit alleging 11 technology companies are violating patents developed at a Silicon Valley lab that Allen financed more than a decade ago. Named in the lawsuit: Apple, Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and Google's YouTube subsidiary. The suit doesn't name Microsoft, Amazon.com or other tech companies in Seattle where Allen is based, and it doesn't estimate a damage amount. The suit lists violations of four patents (PDF) for technology that appear to be key components of the operations of the companies — and that of e-commerce and Internet search companies in general."

163 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Why now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For what reason has he waited all of this time to file said suit? It's not like the timing is great.... economy is still down, if he had waited a bit longer, perhaps the companies would have more money?

    1. Re:Why now? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      For what reason has he waited all of this time to file said suit? It's not like the timing is great.... economy is still down, if he had waited a bit longer, perhaps the companies would have more money?

      Patents are over a decade old... maybe he wanted to try and get his gold before they expired.

    2. Re:Why now? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No no no, he financed the development of this a little over a decade ago. He filed for these about a decade ago and they were only actually issued about 5 years ago - Now, why he waited 5 years to sue is beyond me, but that seems to be the growing trend nowadays. Wait until the most profitable organizations are using it and then sue them for infringement and make a bit of profit.

      Is he trolling? Well, kind of, yes. But its not like he bought up these patents and are now suing anyone he wants, he actually did have invested interest in these and they were actually developed. He's playing favourites of course, he co-founded Microsoft.

      I don't think he is trolling anymore than he is just 'playing the game'. I mean how many times have Nokia and Apple gone toe to toe with infringement?

    3. Re:Why now? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's not trying to get damages out of them; he's trying to get them to settle by buying "licenses" to make the problem go away. Plus, he's suing companies that HAVE money, while they still do have some assets. If I was trying to get money out of AOL, I'd be in a big hurry too!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Why now? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      If I was trying to get money out of AOL, I'd be in a big hurry too!

      That's worth at least +1 Funny.

    5. Re:Why now? by 1729 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If I was trying to get money out of AOL, I'd be in a big hurry too!

      Me, too!

    6. Re:Why now? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mr. Allen, a pioneer of computer software, didn't develop any of the technology himself but owns the patents.

      So, he didn't buy them ... and didn't develop them ... so does that make him a bankrolling patent troll?

    7. Re:Why now? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Better that the patent trolls fight amongst themselves than smaller startups though, right?

    8. Re:Why now? by HiggsBison · · Score: 1

      Plus, he's suing companies that HAVE money...

      So, maybe the fact that he's not suing Microsoft can be taken as good news.

      --
      My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    9. Re:Why now? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 507 patent ()2001) falls to prior art - RoboBoard, bbs that downloaded graphic primitives and let you navigate through a virtual world (never mind just audio-visual data). Also the Space Quest and Kings Quest games, etc.

      The 602 and 314 patents "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device." is preceded by, among other things, those annoying tickertape displays that have been around for decades, wall clocks for anyone sitting in front of a computer at 4:55 PM, etc.

      The 682 patent "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest." (2004) is anticipated by the flag on your mailbox that lets you know you have mail, your doorbell, TV Guide magazine, the front page of any newspaper sitting at the news stand, etc. And of course, "You have mail".

      Maybe this will the the one that finally puts the end to stupid software patents.

    10. Re:Why now? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Having licensed a few of my own patents to big companies, it's very likely he's been in negotiations for 3-4 years and they finally broke down. It's not at all uncommon to take 2-3 years to negotiate a license agreement, and that usually only starts after the patent is actually issued AND the potential licensee has had 6-12 months to read and fully comprehend the issued patent.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Why now? by initdeep · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no more so than El Jobso is....

      after all, His Steveness' name is on just about every patent that Apple files, yet he has very little if anything to do with the actual development of them.

      So when Apple file suit against Nokia, it's actually His Steveness that's filing in most cases since he is the patent holder and Apple is merely the Licensee.

    12. Re:Why now? by initdeep · · Score: 2, Funny

      actually none of your examples gold up.

      there is a difference between doing something physically and doing something electronically.

    13. Re:Why now? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I think it is more telling that suits were only filed against non-Seattle companies. Seems like they are interested in avoiding a motion of change of venue. If both the plaintiff and defendant are in the same area, a local court should be used. I guess I really ought to read the article for more details but it is pretty telling that he doesn't sue his neighbors... I guess I will see which venue was selected.

    14. Re:Why now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't tell me you're still of the opinion that patent law and common sense have anything to do with each other.

    15. Re:Why now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      El Jobso

      His Steveness

      Thanks for making your trolling so obvious you do Slashdot a service by making it so easy to ignore anything you have to say so we can spend time on more serious posts.

    16. Re:Why now? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well.. now I'm stumped... it was FILED in Seattle... I expected E.Texas... Oh well...

    17. Re:Why now? by clem · · Score: 1

      What's the big deal? They're part of that huge Time Warner conglomerate -- they should have plenty of...

      Ohhhhhh....

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    18. Re:Why now? by ArcadeNut · · Score: 1

      That's not near iTexas is it?

      --
      Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
    19. Re:Why now? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative
      Roboboard was eectronic. Also, the patent totally ignores systems from the '80s like Alex that did hypertext, etc., over a 300 baud connection.

      Adding "On the Internet" or "In a web browser" is not innovation.

    20. Re:Why now? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Deciding which companies to include in your lawsuit is a lot like deciding which guy to pick a fight with on your first day in prison.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    21. Re:Why now? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Now, why he waited 5 years to sue is beyond me

      He's working on something and needs a patent cross-licensing deal to do it?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:Why now? by saleenS281 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're assuming that Microsoft doesn't already have a licensing agreement. Do you have proof of this accusation?

    23. Re:Why now? by oiron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why should there be? Is a clock any different just because it uses pixels?

    24. Re:Why now? by Sean+Hederman · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it won't. Prior art is nowhere near as wonderful defence as Slashdotters would like to believe. In fact it's almost impossible to win a patent fight alleging prior art.

      The patent has been granted, it's very difficult to revoke it, so they'd have to fight it on it's merits, which means trying to show it doesn't apply to them, not coming up with hypothetical prior art.

    25. Re:Why now? by yyxx · · Score: 1

      There is tons of prior art, both physical and electronically.

    26. Re:Why now? by RealUlli · · Score: 1

      They do, at least partially.

      I didn't read the patents themselves, but what tomhudson is saying about them. Now I did, at least in part - replacing 682 by 652...

      682: a small application I had on my desktop (ctwm, I think) in 1994 to automatically raise a flag when mail arrives in my mailbox.

      The patent is narrower, though, including the ability for the sender to specify the importance as well. I don't know if xbiff could do that. A whole bunch of RSS readers should be able to do it.

      314: (this is about a device not necessarily connected to the computer) what about a cellphone stand beside your monitor, with a cellphone sitting in it, the cellphone lighting up when a text message arrives?

      507: Slashdot. However, the patent seems to describe how to automate the process.

      What the patents describe is something I can't see on the various websites - no idea how they got the idea the other companies might be infringing. If they do, it's hidden pretty deep, IMHO.

      I could have misunderstood the patents, too - maybe the same happened to the examiner that granted them.

      Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    27. Re:Why now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can anybody sue the patent office?

      E.g. I'm suing the patent office because they approved a patent that had obvious prior art.
      I then had to defend myself from being sued, won based on the prior art, and now want to sue
      the office for not doing their job properly and costing me time, effort and money to defend against
      pointless patents.

      Is that possible? 'Cos it might focus their minds a little better over at the patent office .....

    28. Re:Why now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's actually a good question. Given Sovereign Immunity, you'd probably have to get the federal government to give you permission before you could sue the patent office. Good luck on that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#In_the_United_States

    29. Re:Why now? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      The patent office was the prinicpal defendent in the Myriad gene patent case.

      in granting the patents, the PTO went beyond what was allowed in a 1980 Supreme Court decision credited with opening up the biotechnology industry, ACLU said in court filings. It has the support of the American Medical Association and the American Society for Human Genetics.

      Biotechnology Industry Organization, the trade group of biotech companies that supported Myriad in the case, is reviewing the decision, Stephanie Fischer, a spokeswoman for the group, said.

      The judge did throw out claims that the patent office acted outside its authority in granting the patents. The judge said that, were an appeals court or the Supreme Court affirm his decision, the patent office would "conform its examination policies" to the court rulings.

      The case is Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 09cv4515, U.S. District Court for the District of New York.

      Basically, what happened is that the judge decided that, since he was able to toss the patents w/o having to rule on the validity of the USPTOs actions, he was required to ignore that part of the case, Kind of sucks, but once it gets through the appeals process, it will be another fork in the "stupid patents" model.

    30. Re:Why now? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can get them to sue facebook (poke, etc.) and kill 2 birds with one stone? A win-win.

      And TV stations for running newscasts and current events shows. And newspapers - they're dying anyway ...

    31. Re:Why now? by downix · · Score: 1

      Development... of what?

      All of these are decades old! I used to have all 4 of these technologies on Prodigy over a 2400 baud modem!!

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    32. Re:Why now? by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      If I was trying to get money out of AOL, I'd be in a big hurry too!

      LMAO now THAT's classic.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    33. Re:Why now? by Michael+D+Kristopeit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      claiming that adding "on the internet" or "in a web browser" is not innovation does not make it law.

    34. Re:Why now? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Criticising Apple in a humourous way does not make the GP a troll, unless you also count every post using "M$" as a troll.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Is it just me... by magsol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...or do the patent lawsuits that show up on /. seem frivolous to the point of absurdity?

    If so, is that sample bias? Or are all patent lawsuits intrinsically ridiculous?

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    1. Re:Is it just me... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's a fine example of what's wrong with patenting lines of code, vs a product. Welcome to screwed up city. Population: Everyone.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Is it just me... by God'sDuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...or do the patent lawsuits that show up on /. seem frivolous to the point of absurdity?
      If so, is that sample bias? Or are all patent lawsuits intrinsically ridiculous?

      More like: nine times out of ten, when it's not frivolous, it's not news because it's settled by negotiation behind closed doors. Companies have to want to make a public stand against a patent to choose to let it go to court, which means most cases involve a troll at one end or another. The tenth case is just the one where negotiations fell through. And you can tell those because they're inevitably answered by countersuits where the defendant returns fire against the plaintiff until somebody settles.

    3. Re:Is it just me... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      The lawsuits mentioned on slashdot sound more frivolous because you're only hearing half of the story. This of course doesn't explain the SCO Group case, for which the only rational response must be "WTF?!?", even if (especially if) both sides arguments are carefully examined.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Is it just me... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The lawsuits which aren't frivolous are boring enough that they don't get news stories, or even blogs, written about them.

    5. Re:Is it just me... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Slashdot tends to post or link to only a patent summary at best, and many of these sound trivial as summaries. Often it's the more detailed part of a patent that explains why something is non-obvious or truly novel, and why the scope of the patent doesn't cover what people think sounds like prior art, but something genuinely new. This also applies to scientific publications and accounts of experiments, drafts or proposals of new legislation, and other areas - a short summary of anything complex generally reads more like many other summaries than the whole work actually reads like other works.
              Personally, if the patent is for something material, I assume it actually reflects novelty in invention unless a detailed reading shows reason to doubt that. Patents for business methods and software patents seem to have more clinkers, and maybe giving them the same benefit of a doubt is a mistake.
              Patents certainly have abuses, with the chief one to my mind being that many of them are simply not worth all that much and distort the percieved value of a publicly traded company to investors, because the investors often read only the same summaries and think that the company has a billion dollar sure fire money making patent portfolio on hand, just as the typical reader here thinks there is always prior art and somebody is being a jerk by ignoring it. But this is like lawsuits in general - all too many investors regard any company suing over anything as having an inside track to making money.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    6. Re:Is it just me... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What side of the story is the patent on? In my eyes they are almost always on the obvious side.

      Yeah yeah, I know hindsight ... fuck that, either we let experts judge obviousness without lawyer written "tests" which just redefine the word or we should just rubber stamp everything and stop pretending to give a shit about obviousness.

    7. Re:Is it just me... by weicco · · Score: 1

      But it just makes the situation more hilarous! I just can't wait to see what kind of law suits and patents are coming next!

      Maybe we should start a web page to track the most ridiculous lawsuits and patents? Maybe somekind of voting system (that itself infringes some patents, I'm sure) where people can vote for the stupidiest case? It would be quite a fun, I'd think :)

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    8. Re:Is it just me... by MrHyd3 · · Score: 1

      In that context, whats the difference with people stealing guitar riffs for an example or just a few lyrics?

      --
      -------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
  3. Trial by fire by Fuseboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think this is a great idea. I hope he wins, and internet search and ecommerce are shut down en masse by injunction. Whee! Then we could have a nice look at this business of patents and how we feel about them.

    I wonder, is there such a thing as an inverse class action - by which I mean, could a whole raft of internet companies join the defending side as a show of solidarity, claiming that if the current defendants are violating, then they are too?

    1. Re:Trial by fire by TheEyes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, but did you notice that Paul Allen did not sue Microsoft? Yup, he went down the list of the top search engines--number 1, 3, 4, 5, etc--but "somehow" forgot about Bing, the number 2 engine.

      No, allowing this lawsuit to succeed will play right into his hands. It's SCO all over again: Microsoft can't compete in the free market, so they trot out another sleeper cell patent troll with its portfolio of submarine patents to try to sink their competition in the courts. And they'll keep doing it, as long as they have the money and software patents continue to be as stupid as they are.

    2. Re:Trial by fire by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      ... or he still owns a boatload of Microsoft stock and didn't want to essentially sue himself?

      I mean, there are simpler evil explanations than your convoluted evil explanation.

    3. Re:Trial by fire by mbkennel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He owns a boatload of Microsoft stock and didn't want to sue himself AND he owns a boatload of Microsoft stock and wants to sue Microsoft's competitors.

      Seems that Simple and 'convoluted' evil can exist at the same time.

      You know, like shooting somebody after the sharks with laser beams.

    4. Re:Trial by fire by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      When an independent competitor sues a large corporation for patent violation, the large corporation wins.

      Except that's not how it usually goes. What happens in reality is that the small "competitor," who has never actually produced anything in his life, sues the large corporation in a particular court district in East Bumblefuck, Texas. There, it's apparently easy to convince the local hayseeds on the jury that the most trivial standard techniques are "innovative," and that the Big Evil Megacorp is exploiting the innocent, naive Little Guy.

      At some point you'd think the big evil corporations would realize that software patents are a much greater black-swan liability than they could ever be worth as legitimate assets, and buy a Congressman or two to get rid of the problem for everybody. But it never seems to work that way.

    5. Re:Trial by fire by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the ignorance, but isn't Houston in East Texas? Are these patent suits all filed in some little town in east Texas somewhere, or in Houston? Houston isn't a small town. However, it's not exactly known for being a tech hub or a place of great intelligence either. If all these patent trials were held in Austin, I think things would be very different.

    6. Re:Trial by fire by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's probably because he's using this to demonstrate to the Microsoft Board of Directors that he's shameless enough to be Microsoft's CEO after they boot out Ballmer.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Trial by fire by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the district most famous as a happy hunting ground for plaintiffs is the Eastern district, located in a small town called Tyler, a couple hundred miles north of Houston.

    8. Re:Trial by fire by gerddie · · Score: 1

      When an independent competitor sues a large corporation for patent violation, the large corporation wins.

      Except that's not how it usually goes. What happens in reality is that the small "competitor," who has never actually produced anything in his life, sues the large corporation

      It is my understanding that for doing so, the "competitor" usually bought these patents somewhere, and that entering a law suite of this type actually requires some deep pockets. In other words, this "competitor" is by no means a poor little guy and grandpa is right:

      The only people who don't like the patent system have no money, and hence don't matter.

    9. Re:Trial by fire by Spewns · · Score: 1

      When an independent competitor sues a large corporation for patent violation, the large corporation wins.

      Except that's not how it usually goes. What happens in reality is that the small "competitor," who has never actually produced anything in his life, sues the large corporation in a particular court district in East Bumblefuck, Texas. There, it's apparently easy to convince the local hayseeds on the jury that the most trivial standard techniques are "innovative," and that the Big Evil Megacorp is exploiting the innocent, naive Little Guy.

      At some point you'd think the big evil corporations would realize that software patents are a much greater black-swan liability than they could ever be worth as legitimate assets, and buy a Congressman or two to get rid of the problem for everybody. But it never seems to work that way.

      You're talking about patent trolls. The person you quoted is talking about actual competitors.

    10. Re:Trial by fire by chaboud · · Score: 1

      The district is Tyler Texas. My uncle is an ER doc there, and it's home to the nicest trailer parks I've ever seen (not a joke). People have some near-mansion constructions of linked trailers with little gardens around the wheels.

      Houston it ain't, not that Houston is a thriving intellectual hotbed...

    11. Re:Trial by fire by chaboud · · Score: 1

      Can we all agree that the only true winners are the IP attorneys winning by the bucketload?

    12. Re:Trial by fire by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      He probably has a patent on illuminating the field of vision of sharks with small continuous wave laser diodes.

    13. Re:Trial by fire by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, there are patent trolls, and the system does facilitate them. It doesn't, however, facilitate a real small competitor. Patent trolls don't dare do anything BUT troll, because if they did they would become vulnerable to counter-suits for patent violation.

      *This* is a good system?

      Well, yes, if you're a major corporation. Patent trolls are a major headache, but you can often buy them off, and send them chasing your competition. They're good for major corporations in the same way that cows are good for grass: They kill off the competition.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Trial by fire by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Another possibility is that Microsoft has already paid to license those patents.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    15. Re:Trial by fire by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      However, it's not exactly known for being a tech hub or a place of great intelligence either. If all these patent trials were held in Austin, I think things would be very different.

      You're right. The only place in Texas with any reasonable concentration of Liberals is Austin.

      Those dumb rednecks. (hope you get the sarcasm intended)

    16. Re:Trial by fire by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be liberal to be intelligent. Austin is a tech center, meaning there's lots of engineers there. Engineers tend to be very conservative.

      However, their jobs tend to take them to cities that also have a bunch of liberals, or in the case of the Bay Area, to cities located right next to a city with a bunch of liberals.

    17. Re:Trial by fire by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      BTW, your comment is ignorant. Obama was a clear winner in Houston, as well as Dallas, San Antonio, and many of the counties on the border.

    18. Re:Trial by fire by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Maybe he has some other licensing agreement with Microsoft, seeing as he was a co-founder, the guy that actually wrote their first product (Altair BASIC), and is still (presumably) good friends with likes of Gates and Balmer? Not suing Microsoft might be a result of them not "infringing" in the sense of using without consent.

    19. Re:Trial by fire by ignavus · · Score: 1

      The issue is not "Why doesn't he sue Microsoft?"

      The issue is "Maybe he is really acting FOR Microsoft by suing its competitors".

      After all, as you recognise, he is in cohoots with the past and present CEOs of MS - and is one of its two founders.

      So the issue is: Does Microsoft get a crony to sue its competitors when MS cannot compete? There is a name for that activity: anti-competitive. Not a good look for a company found to be an anti-competitive, abusive monopolist in the past.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    20. Re:Trial by fire by patfla · · Score: 1

      Allen was diagnosed last year with a non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This is about Microsoft but it may also be about Alllen's 'legacy'.

  4. And here I thought by sconeu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That Allen was the non-evil guy from MS. Guess I was wrong.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:And here I thought by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

      He is the proverbial "lesser of two weasels".

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:And here I thought by Duradin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey now, that's defamatory speech. Against weasels.

    3. Re:And here I thought by zulux · · Score: 1

      Search Google for "Paul Allen harassment"

      I'm counting about four victims.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    4. Re:And here I thought by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      He was always the quiet guy in the background. Perhaps he's the REAL mastermind behind all of Microsoft's evil schemes ;)

    5. Re:And here I thought by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Picard was the good guy until got assimilated by the Borg. And Microsoft is even worse than the Borg, there is no easy way out, even if you quit the evilness remains.

    6. Re:And here I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair if you steal 10 dollars from a man and then give him 9 dollars. Its not really being 'nice' is it?

    7. Re:And here I thought by ejasons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He owns Ticketmaster; doesn't get much more evil than that...

  5. Really? by xrayspx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does he really need another ivory backscratcher that badly?

    1. Re:Really? by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's hoping to get an asian one to go with her.

    2. Re:Really? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      You forgot the ebony taint hair trimmer.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  6. Hmmm. Low on cash. What to do? by Lord+Grey · · Score: 1

    So Paul is running out of money, huh?

    A snippet from the suit:

    Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’507 patent [Patent No. 6,263,507]. Apple is liable for infringing the ’507 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

    I haven't tried to follow all of the claims in that patent, but I did skim the first page. Based on what I read there and the summary in the snippet, I suspect that nearly every web site on the internet is violation. Going after Apple et. al. is a blatant attempt at a money grab. Not naming other companies that probably violate the same patents the same way is blatant favoritism.

    Talk about a misuse of the system (which is already sorely misused, I know).

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  7. Lots of companies, obvious patents by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 4, Informative

    He's sued AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube (so Google ... again!). For some strange reason he did not sue Microsoft. Here are the two primary super-genius patents representing ideas no one else could have come up with:

    • 6,263,507, "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data"
    • 6,757,682, "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest"

    Having alerted you users all to these items of interest, I will now proceed to pay Paul Allen.

    1. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by God'sDuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      • 6,263,507, "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data"
      • 6,757,682, "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest"

      Having alerted you users all to these items of interest, I will now proceed to pay Paul Allen.

      Gasp! And you used my browser to do it, you patent-cheating fiend!

    2. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by straponego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet Microsoft goes to great lengths to convince people that, this time, we can trust them not to sue (see the story on .NET/Android). They learned to protect their image better in the 90s; now they use proxies like Allen's company and SCO to attack their enemies. And if some company is dumb enough to take them at their word, they can always pull out the knives once their patents are used in successful products.

    3. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Suing Microsoft would be suing himself. His company could do it but it might not make much sense financially.

    4. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by JImbob0i0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft could have settled with him and then he could have used that as an example to go after others... ;)

    5. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by gerddie · · Score: 1

      You, Sir, are an evil genius.

    6. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by tc3driver · · Score: 1

      will you be robbing peter to do so?

      --
      42 69 6C 6C 20 47 61 74 65 73 20 69 73 20 61 20 77 68 6F 72 65 21
    7. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by confused+one · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. And it would give give weight to the patents in court, since apparently (all ties aside) Microsoft saw the validity and paid.

    8. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by JImbob0i0 · · Score: 1

      I've had plenty of practice ;)

      http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/evil_genius

    9. Re:Lots of companies, obvious patents by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would probably make good sense financially. Whatever payout by settlement would be felt in stock price by roughly settlement$/shares. Not just Paul Allen's shares. If he's the sole owner of the patents (I couldn't tell from the article, and patent files make me eyes bleed), then he would gain financially by collecting all of the settlement but sharing the losses with the rest of the stockholders of Microsoft.

      It may be that Microsoft has a license agreement already (very plausible). But if they don't, its the non-financial costs that, to me, would top the list of why he wouldn't. Other big owners of Microsoft are rich, connected people that he knows pretty well. Much the same reason I don't sue my neighbors and then ask them to watch my place while I'm on vacation.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
  8. Patented inventions by roothog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I read these patents as:
    * Patenting text summarization.
    * Patenting rating systems.

    The idea that either of those is a patentable invention is absurd. Specific algorithms to do either one, sure, but you can't patent general concepts.

    1. Re:Patented inventions by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      Specific algorithms to do either one, sure, but you can't patent general concepts.

      Actually patenting algorithms is also absurd, although allowed under our bizarre patent system.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    2. Re:Patented inventions by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      What's to stop a large conglomerate, then, from creating 11 shadow companies and 'independently' discovering the invention?

    3. Re:Patented inventions by tychovi · · Score: 1

      I'm going to patent thinking...

      So nobody can think about this until they pay me. The really sad part is even if I got the patent through the USPO I still couldn't collect off of a sizable portion of humanity...

    4. Re:Patented inventions by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Specific algorithms to do either one, sure, but you can't patent general concepts.

      Algorithms are mathematical objects. They are what you and almost anyone else would call "general concepts", and patenting or copyrighting them is not really that different from patenting or copyrighting integers.

    5. Re:Patented inventions by Mephistro · · Score: 1

      ...patenting or copyrighting them is not really that different from patenting or copyrighting integers.

    6. Re:Patented inventions by Mephistro · · Score: 1

      patenting or copyrighting them is not really that different from patenting or copyrighting integers.

      And copyrighting integers is not different from trademarking common words like Apple or Windows. "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules".

      I hope none of THEM reads your post, or we'll start running short of integers any time soon. ;)

      Note: My browser had some hiccup while editing and sent my other, half finished post of his own volition, I promise! I'll leave now and discreetly perform seppukku.

    7. Re:Patented inventions by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm going to patent thinking...

      So nobody can think about this until they pay me.

      You're the first person I've heard of that suggests patenting something for which Plato is prior art...

      Anyhow, I find the timing is near perfect. The patents have lived long enough that enough big companies have become dependent on these technologies, but not long enough for the patents to expire. And we're getting close to, but are not yet in, a double recession -- a few years down the road, there may not be any money to troll for. To top it all off, the USPTO have now reverted from the doctrine of the past few years of denying and invalidating obvious patents, and are back to rubberstamping.

  9. Re:Hmmm. Low on cash. What to do? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    Yeah.

    All of those companies certainly are violating Allen's patents. The problem is, those patents (completely irrespective of how you feel about software patents in general) should never have been granted -- there's just far too much prior art for each of the four.

  10. He can't win by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:He can't win by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      that, is hilarious

    2. Re:He can't win by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I patented patenting.

      I also patented suing.

      You're in deep kim-che, friend.

    3. Re:He can't win by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      OK, yes, that's brilliant.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:He can't win by toriver · · Score: 1

      I patented posting. Aaaanndd... writing English. You are going down!

    5. Re:He can't win by ExploHD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are my HERO!!!

      And/Or

      Congratulations, you just divided by zero!

    6. Re:He can't win by xenapan · · Score: 1

      I patent communication in all its various forms!

      --
      insert funny sig here
    7. Re:He can't win by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Are you REALLY going to make us look for prior art?

    8. Re:He can't win by SoCalDissident · · Score: 1

      I am patenting recursive suing. Unfortunately, now I have to sue myself.

    9. Re:He can't win by treeves · · Score: 1

      Prior art.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    10. Re:He can't win by dugrrr · · Score: 1

      I patented the semiotic, archetypal link between thought and language... stop infringing on me! In fact, stop using language in your thoughts or I'll have my lawyer issue a cease and desist order.

    11. Re:He can't win by grepya · · Score: 1

      Awesome... Awesome... Awesome....

    12. Re:He can't win by notknown86 · · Score: 1

      And I quitely wait in the wings to assert my own patent at the appropriate moment:

      Patent Acquisition and Assertion of a Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party by a (Dirt-bag, Warmonger-ing) Third Party.

  11. He can't manage The Trail Blazers... by DittoBox · · Score: 1

    What gives him the idea he can take on a dozen major tech companies out of the Valley?

    --
    Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    1. Re:He can't manage The Trail Blazers... by God'sDuck · · Score: 2, Funny

      What gives him the idea he can take on a dozen major tech companies out of the Valley?

      That would be patent 5714015...

    2. Re:He can't manage The Trail Blazers... by mckinnsb · · Score: 1

      What gives him the idea that all of the lawyers for all of those companies would even *fit into a single courtroom?* They would need to take it to the local auditorium.

    3. Re:He can't manage The Trail Blazers... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Somebody (certainly not him) needs to pay for his bad investments!

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    4. Re:He can't manage The Trail Blazers... by DittoBox · · Score: 1

      Like the Rose Garden? I'm sure Mr. Allen rent it out to everyone for a tidy fee.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
  12. Patents In question by N_Piper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    TL;DR summing up
    But the first patent '507 seems to be for "browsing audiovisual data" or a web browser
    Patent '652 and '314 are patents for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device" or Advertisments.
    Patent '682 is for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest." or Targeted Advertisements.
    Yea you legally filed patents
    No you can't patent advertising or web browsing
    Sorry your claim is BS go back to your bridge you troll.

    1. Re:Patents In question by bpkiwi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's even worse, you should have a look at the patents themselves, such as the '507 patent...
      We claim:
      1. A system for acquiring and reviewing a body of information, wherein the body of information includes a plurality of segments, each segment representing a defined set of information in the body of information, the system comprising:

      means for acquiring data representing the body of information;

      means for storing the acquired data;

      first display means for generating a display of a first segment of the body of information from data that is part of the stored data; means for comparing data representing a segment of the body of information to data representing a different segment of the body of information to determine whether, according to one or more predetermined criteria, the compared segments are related; and

      second display means for generating a display of a portion of, or a representation of, a second segment of the body of information from data that is part of the stored data, wherein the second display means displays the portion or representation of the second segment in response to the display by the first display means of a first segment to which the second segment is related.

      So .... they appear to claim they invented diff in 1996. All other claims are based from this claim. Unfortunatly for them diff was invented in the early 1970s.

    2. Re:Patents In question by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Patent '652 and '314 are patents for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device" or Advertisments.

      Patent '682 is for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest." or Targeted Advertisements.

      Sorry, but you're wrong - it's not about ads. With those three patents, he basically patented Clippy.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  13. Want to stimulate the economy? by realmolo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If Obama and Congress want to stimulate the US (and, really, the whole world) economy, the BEST thing they could do would be to invalidate all copyrights and patents that are more than 10 years old, and abolish ALL "business practice" patents, and ALL software patents.

    1. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Some would argue that prematurely terminating existing copyrights and patents violates that provision. However, but the same token, extending currently copyrights should also be seen as a violation of that provision. To be logical, the laws that were in place at the time the intellectual property protection was initially filed for should apply for the entire lifetime of that protection. All we can really do is to prevent douchebags from doing this in the future, and then wait 20 years for existing obvious patents to age out.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama and Congress will do what their bosses tell them to do.
      Their bosses are the ones who WROTE the current patent laws. Congress doesn't write laws. Corporate ghost writers write laws and Congress signs them.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      not sure if lawyers would be able to successfully argue that or not, but the intent of that provision was that you couldn't criminalize something and then try someone for committing the crime prior to it being a law. invalidating patent/copyright protections would not be making them criminal nor trying to prosecute a person or corporation for claiming a patent/copyright.

    4. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by ComfortablyAmbiguous · · Score: 1

      Ha, government is hardly that powerless. Perhaps they could pass clarification of what non-obvious means; construing the term very strictly. The patent office would then be instructed to review every software patent for compliance with the definition, and the fees for the review hearing raised to a million dollars, should the patent owner wish to attend the review. Otherwise the patent would be summarily declared invalid.

    5. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by xclay · · Score: 1

      They would effectively kill their lucrative IP clauses in their CAFTA, NAFTA, FAFTA, WAFTA, AAFTA, BAFTA, DAFTA agreements.

    6. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      How about complicated software/algorithm patents which required tons of talent, time, money, energy, creativity and insight?

      Going to the other extreme doesn't make it okay.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    7. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Ex post facto has to do with criminalizing something, and then going after someone for something they did *before* the act was criminalized. The following would be a violation of that, to illustrate:

      1) Paul Allen granted Patent # 500 for Method and apparatus for drawing Mr. Poopypants in your browser window in year 1, a browser-based friend similar to MS Office's Clippy.
      2) Patent expires after 20 years.
      3) Google implements a browser which draws Mr. Poopypants in your browser window in year 25.
      4) US Gov't extends terms of patents to 40 years in year 27.
      5) Paul Allen sues Google for violating his patent for drawing Mr. Poopypants in year 30, claiming that Google is in violation of his patent and owes him money, and wins, because Google was found guilty of violating a patent in year 25 when the patent had already expired, and had then subsequently been extended.

      (Note: the big losers in all of this are the consumers, whose opportunity to have a friendly and technologically advanced Mr. Poopypants implementation in their browser suffers due to the chilling effect of patent litigation and intellectual property laws.)

      This would be an example of an ex post facto laws, and Paul Allen would probably be laughed out of court for trying this sort of strategy.

      I don't think terminating them early would qualify as the passage of an ex post facto law, because they are not criminalizing something and then prosecuting you for something that wasn't illegal when you did it. There might be legal challenges to the earlier termination of patents, but they should not be prevented from doing so by the prohibition of ex post facto laws.

    8. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Violating a patent isn't a crime, it's a tort.

      And as someone else pointed out, patents are supposed to be only for things "not obvious to a practitioner of the art". Congress just needs to clarify the word "obvious" (as in, we really mean it!) and order the USPTO to stop ignoring that phrase. All patents that are obvious can immediately be invalidated.

    9. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      but the intent of that provision was that you couldn't criminalize something and then try someone for committing the crime prior to it being a law

      I'm sure that was one of the intents, but are you certain that another intent wasn't to stop, say, the government passing a tax law and then saying, "Oh yeah, and you owe taxes for the past 10 years on this new law." Not being a Constitutional scholar, I don't know what the Founders intent was, but the wording is very succinct and to the point - "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - there are no qualifiers referring to criminal law or certain types of laws.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    10. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by takowl · · Score: 1

      In principle, if someone had invested in building up intellectual property in the expectation that they could recoup the investment, retrospectively destroying their investment would be an injustice. I'm not saying that they should have been doing it in the first place, or that scaling back patent & copyrights is a bad idea. But the idea of "not changing the ground they're standing on" could still be valid.

    11. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      only to find out that somebody holds a patent for "a governing body imposing rules to prevent the clarification of non-obvious". if you browse the patent list long enough, I'd bet somebody tried filing that at some point. :P

    12. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by gerddie · · Score: 1

      Looking at history. you might find out that the so called intellectual property rarely stimulated innovation, it might even hinder it. See, for instance, the case of the steam engine, or the comparison how many books where published in the 19th century with copyright (England) or without it (Germany).

      (The implications on industrial development laid out in the latter article may not be correct, but at least it can be said that the absence of a strong copyright did not hinder industrial development and it also seems that this absence was actually better for the authors.)

    13. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by Prune · · Score: 1

      A paranoid conspiracy theorist on Slashdot? Who da thunk it!

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    14. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      Don't bother going with congress doing this.

      When China buys the US in a few years (or bails them out of the next financial crisis), patents and copyright will probably be one of the first things lost.
      You'll probably loose your guns about then too.

    15. Re:Want to stimulate the economy? by Dolda2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Congress doesn't write laws. Corporate ghost writers write laws and Congress signs them.

      I guess that's what you get for not paying attention to congressional elections instead of the, in reality, completely inconsequential presidential election which instead has become the only election anyone seems to care about in the US these days. The entire reason why your founding fathers designed the electoral college system is because there's really no need to elect the president popularly -- he is merely the chief of the executive branch, whose task it is to carry out what Congress decides. You're not supposed to elect him "for his political agenda" (if anything, that's what the congressional elections are for; though I'd argue otherwise in another rant), but for his ability to lead the government. Which is why he was supposed to be elected by professional electors tasked with the elucidation of such properties in people.

      See, you're better off over there then we are here in the Democratic People's States of Europe precisely because you get to elect your congressmen personally, rather than voting for pre-selected party lists as we get to do under our varieties of proportional voting. It means that you actually can elect people on such virtues as incorruptibility and honesty, rather than the ability to climb the party ranks by spouting the party line.

      Electing a president popularly based on "political agendas" is, if anything, directly undemocratic, since it implies that the entire nation has to elect as one entity, leaving the majority with no other choice than to oppress the minority (where, of course, the "minority" is 45% or so of the people).

      </rant>

  14. Why am I not surprised? by itomato · · Score: 1

    Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services Inc.

    I'd like to run this through my legalese relationship parser to generate some relational diagrams between the methods and the claims.

    Something tells me there are some sploits to be found..

  15. As they say in Seattle.... by Blackbrain · · Score: 1

    Thank You Mr. Luthor!

    --
    Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
  16. Microsoft by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think software patents are pure, unadulterated crap, but I think the most likely reason that MS is not named in the suits is because MS licensed them already. For a penny.

  17. Stop it. Now. by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    If the USPTO continues to grant idiotic patents like these, very soon every company will start patenting everything all the time.

    If they thought they have a backlog now, they have exciting times ahead.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  18. Geez by carrier+lost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Times must be tough if Paul Allen is running out of money too.

    1. Re:Geez by city · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just realized how much he has given away.

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
    2. Re:Geez by PPH · · Score: 1

      He just needs to get laid.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Fantastic by jvkjvk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Eventually, either the economic conditions in the US will become so risky that it drives businesses elsewhere or there will be some sanity introduced.

    Who want's to bet that the "sanity" further consolidated power and becomes worse that the current situation?

    Regards.

  20. Ok everyone, send Paul Allen stuff he might like by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    Violate one of his patents by using your browsers to highlight some disguised goat.cx links, Rick Astley videos and annoying sites with a million pop up windows with background music and send them to Paul Allen and his lawyers.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  21. MSFT stock price same as 1998 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Paul cant make any money off his old stock anymore

  22. Re:INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO........ by JImbob0i0 · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up for some useful info!

  23. Re:Not even... close. by Panaflex · · Score: 1

    Oh, let's not forget France's Minitel online service.

    --
    I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  24. BIAS by Alanonfire · · Score: 1

    I have a feeling these comments would be completely different if Paul Allen was never associated with Microsoft. He has the right to go after people for violating his patents. Who cares if people are "patent trolling" ? The point of patents are to protect your inventions and ideas, otherwise he may as well just have burned all his money and companies like Microsoft and friends would just be stealing more and more than they already do from people and getting paid.

  25. I'm Sure It'll End The Same Way All Of Them Do by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Assuming Allen's not a patent troll and is actually making things, this usually ends with the companies being sued pulling out their patent portfolios and filing counter suits. Once mutually assured destruction is evident, both sides quietly settle and go their different ways.

    If one side can not assure the destruction of the other, they either settle for a lot more or go to court, where they're referred to as "The Mommy."

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:I'm Sure It'll End The Same Way All Of Them Do by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      Assuming Allen's not a patent troll and is actually making things

      He isn't making things, at least not anymore. The lab where these "inventions" were developed has already gone out of business. Now he's just trying to make some money off litigation. So he isn't worried about any of the companies suing him back.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    2. Re:I'm Sure It'll End The Same Way All Of Them Do by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      What does Paul Allen himself make? I think he just bankrolls research and has the resulting patents assigned to him. I'm not sure who you could countersue there. If the patents are valid, he's probably got them all by the balls.

    3. Re:I'm Sure It'll End The Same Way All Of Them Do by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Ah then he's just a patent troll. I believe all the companies he's suing like to fight patent trolls in court, so we probably won't hear about this case again for 10 years or so.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  26. Prior art? by joeyblades · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, none of these are actual inventions, so I'm not sure why patents were issued, but even beyond that, if you were to allow the patenting of "ideas", Interval Research Corporation didn't originate these ideas...

    Interval Research Corporation was founded in 1992. NCSA's Mosaic browser was invented in 1992 with the first public release in 1993. Most modern browsers owe their foundations to NCSA not Interval Research Corporation. NCSA also had the first web sites to host bodies of audiovisual information as well. So this claim seems to be unfounded.

    The second and third claims are even more ludicrous. There have been "attention managers" that display alerts on video displays for as long as there have been video displays. I was programming them before Al Gore invented the internet and I was programming them on the internet before Interval Research Corporation was a gleam in Allen's eye...

    Nothing to say about the 4th patent...

  27. How do you know they aren't already licensed? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    Exactly what proof do you have that he hasn't already reached an agreement with Microsoft?

  28. 35 USC 292 by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have patented suing for patent damages. And I won't license it to him.

    Read for yourself:

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080270152%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080270152&RS=DN/20080270152

    You claim you've "patented" this, but it clearly is merely the publication of a patent application, and in fact, has not been granted. Accordingly, by claiming you have "patented" it, you are in violation of 35 USC 292 which makes "false marking" illegal, and levies a charge of up to $500 for every such offense.

    I leave a settlement offer to you. A donation to Slashdot would certainly be appropriate. Cheers.

    Disclaimer: I am a patent agent. I am not your patent agent. Nothing in this post should be considered legal advice, nor should be relied on. This is merely for the purposes of [my] amusement.

  29. really... by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban#3.4

    3. 4. Effects on law enforcement officers
    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) sent a notice to every law enforcement agency when this law went into effect. Police officers with prior misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence from years earlier were no longer permitted to possess firearms under the new federal law. Several officers were fired for such past misdemeanor offenses. Several of the gun magazines printed a copy of this new ATF order at the time.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  30. Or because he owns lots of MSFT stock? by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

    You do realize that Paul Allen still owns a reported 138 million shares of MSFT?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_allen#Microsoft

  31. OMG! Interval Research! I used to work there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is amusing. Here's some history on the company. Interval Research was an R&D outfit that Paul Allen founded back in the 1990's. You've never heard of it, because they were incredibly secretive. So hush-hush that when they went belly-up no one outside of the company knew about it. Literally. It took months before the Press finally got wind of it.

    The place was a great place to be if you were doing research. Literally "let a thousand roses bloom". Unfortunately, they were horribly mismanaged. Allen blew hundreds of millions of dollars, mostly over budget, before he finally realized that he wasn't getting anything out it. They wanted to be the next version of SRI. Unfortunately, that didn't turn out.

    Top management was, at best, incompetent. At worse, downright crooks. They hired some people on certain terms, and then shortly afterwards said "Opps - we really meant to hire you at a lower level". Truly a boneheaded move. Fortunately it didn't happen to me, but the look on people's faces when they found out was unforgettable.

    Interval did some really amazing stuff; years ahead of its time. But they could never get the products out to market (though they tried), mostly due to amazing incompetence on the part of the lead engineers. You know the type. Big egos and no talent. Perhaps there was an exception to that rule, but I don't recall it.

    I'm not surprised that Paul Allen has turned into a Patent Troll; it will be the only way he can get his money back. The only thing surprising is that it took him so long. But he never impressed me as being the sharpest knife in the drawer. As for other history, they had a number of big names there, from many fields. In tech, you may have heard of Lee Felsenstein if you're familiar with history. Their office was in the Research area of Palo Alto. Near Stanford, down the street from the Wall Street Journal, between Page Mill and Hillview

    Despite that unfortunate ending, I still look back fondly on Interval. They paid well, too. I made lots of money off of Paul Allen. Thanks, Paul!

  32. Broken System by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

    There should be a rule against stupidly broad generic patents, maybe legislation or armed thugs.

  33. Obviously sample bias by rundgong · · Score: 1

    There are already two filters in place before it reaches /.
    First of all, the clear cut patents will not even go as far as a lawsuit.
    If it then is really unclear who is right it may have very low news value because "its just another lawsuit". There are probably a lot of these lawsuits. Depending on the company involved these lawsuits may have news value though.

    Then there are the "Holy crap WTF are they thinking" lawsuits. They will probably reach the newspapers and then maybe end up here on /.

    So sample bias seems very likely IMO.

  34. What a waste by EjectButton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The guy is 57 and has $13.5 billion dollars according to Wikipedia.

    So he has more money than he could reasonably spend and has 20 years tops before his body really starts to fail him. Actually probably much less than that since it was announced in 2009 that he has been diagnosed with cancer again.
    He could do literally anything with his remaining time and resources and he has decided to spend it acting as a parasite, exploiting weak spots and loopholes in the law to do damage to society in the hopes of getting an extra billion before he drops dead. I guess his dick stopped working so this is the only way he can continue to fuck people.

    I wonder if it's the personality type that is more likely to become a billionaire, or if it's the act of spending a big chunk of your life accumulating wealth that causes these people to turn into mindless, selfish, pointless money collecting machines.

    1. Re:What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      yeah sure, just continue insulting people that you have no idea about.

      if this guy is just greedy, how do you explain that he's already donated over a billion to charity, and is planning to give away at least half of his fortune?

    2. Re:What a waste by tri44id · · Score: 1
      Actually, Allen's name is the first one on the billionaires' "Giving Pledge" page (in alphabetical order) at http://givingpledge.org/ . His letter includes the comment "I’ve planned for many years now that the majority of my estate will be left to philanthropy to continue the work of the Foundation and to fund non-profit scientific research, like the ground breaking work being done at the Allen Institute for Brain Science." So some of the ill-gotten parts of his gains will be compensated by good results coming from the philanthropies.

      One of the big things that his Brain Science Institute does is coordinating maps of protein expression ( http://www.brain-map.org/ ) -- a kind of Google Earth for an interior landscape. They've only catalogged a few hundred of the 10,000 genes that are expressed in the brain, and their visualization leaves a lot to be desired, but it's an important start for an enormous project that will take more billions than even Allen has to complete.

      --
      Taxation without representation is tyranny! Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands & Pacific Territories!
    3. Re:What a waste by noidentity · · Score: 1

      The guy is 57 and has $13.5 billion dollars according to Wikipedia.

      Well, clearly he's a little low on cash and needs to raise a little more.

  35. Bilski by drew30319 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well... maybe this could be the result that Bilski should have been and SCOTUS will hold that software is not patentable subject matter.

    (fingers crossed)

    --
    JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.