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."

54 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 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?

    2. 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.
    3. 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!

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

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

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

    11. 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.

    12. 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?

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

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

    14. 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.

  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 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.

    3. 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/
    4. 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.
  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 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.

  6. 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 JImbob0i0 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  7. 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 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.

  8. He can't win by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:He can't win by ExploHD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are my HERO!!!

      And/Or

      Congratulations, you just divided by zero!

  9. 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
  10. 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 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>

  11. 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...

  12. 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.

  13. Geez by carrier+lost · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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...

  17. 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.

  18. 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!

  19. 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.

  20. 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.