Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Paul Allen Amends Lawsuit Against Facebook, Apple

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the gunning-for-the-top dept.

itwbennett writes "A Federal judge dismissed Paul Allen's initial patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Facebook, Google and others earlier this month because it was too vague and gave Allen until Dec. 28 to file an amendment providing more details of his claims. His lawyers responded with a 35-page document filed late Tuesday. The amendment details features of the defendants' websites that are alleged to infringe on the patents and also includes a last-minute amendment that targets Google's Android mobile operating system in a move that could spell trouble for phone manufacturers and app developers."

91 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. In this first post I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt Android users are trembling. 1) the thing has already been dismissed once, we'll see if the "new detail" is enough, and 2) it already has Oracle coming after it in its mad dash to monetize Java.

    1. Re:In this first post I say by HelloKitty2 · · Score: 1

      If only google implemented Java instead of some incompatible clone, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    2. Re:In this first post I say by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They would still be getting sued. Oracle has patents on java on mobile devices.

    3. Re:In this first post I say by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      Yes but they inherited a patent covenant with anyone who fully implements the Java spec.

      That said, they could probably try to find some technicality to say Google broke it. Hell, it was probably designed with that built in.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:In this first post I say by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't estoppel (if that is the correct term) apply? Isn't Java available under the GPL, and aren't others allowed to modify and redistribute GPL code as much as they see fit?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    5. Re:In this first post I say by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably.
      Google does not call their language "Java" and with GPL V2, copyright issues are moot
      With GPL v3, Patents are moot as well.

      Oracle has no case but they must press on or be sued by their own stockholders.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    6. Re:In this first post I say by Rysc · · Score: 1

      If Google had used Java it would have had to use the crippled "Java Mobile Edition" and not the full suite. It is precisely because Google used the full suite as the basis for their language, and not the mobile subset, that Oracle has any problem with them at all.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    7. Re:In this first post I say by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That would then still apply. Dalvik code would have to be GPL, but I thought it was already. Since you can reuse GPL code all you like for anything else GPL.

      Yet, they are still suing.

    8. Re:In this first post I say by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Yes but they inherited a patent covenant with anyone who fully implements the Java spec.

      Did google *fully* implement the java spec?

    9. Re:In this first post I say by icebraining · · Score: 1

      with GPL V2, copyright issues are moot

      Redistributing GPL licensed code with a different license (Apache) is most definitively a copyright issue.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  2. Talk about a vague patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If, as TFA indicates, the same patent can be violated by iTunes and a spam filter, then it seems pretty likely that the patent is trying to assert a claim over an *idea* and not a specific invention. Can you imagine the impact if Henry Ford had been able to patent "thing with wheels on it and a motor"?

    1. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by kmcarr · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he probably would not have. He fought and defeated the Selden patent, which was just this sort of troll patent.

      http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsseldona.htm

    2. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the impact if Henry Ford had been able to patent "thing with wheels on it and a motor"?

      Nope - Prior art! This might be news to Americans, but Henry Ford didn't invent the car.

      --
      This is blinging
    3. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the impact if Henry Ford had been able to patent "thing with wheels on it and a motor"?

      Nope - Prior art! This might be news to Americans, but Henry Ford didn't invent the car.

      Or, indeed, the train.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    4. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by finarfinjge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Henry Ford refused to pay George Seldon royalties for his patent for a "Road Engine". Up to that time, every car manufacturer in the United States paid Seldon a royalty. Seldon would today be called a patent troll. The only reason Ford won in court was the vehicle patented by Seldon did not function when finally built according to the idea that Seldon had patented. Had Seldon patented a "Thing with wheels on it and an engine" Ford probably would have lost.

      Cheers

      JE

    5. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      wow pretty impressive similarity. Question is with modern courts would selton have lost, and actually if I recall correctly ford's big contribution wasn't the automobile itself, but the manufacturing process. If ford wanted to patent troll, he would have to do so with the assembly line, Back then even the most determined and foolhearty troll wouldn't have believed in patenting an idea like that, These days, I wouldn't put it past anyone.

    6. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by d6 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the first patent troll? probably not, but an interesting read that sent me off looking for more info on Selden

      thanks for that link.

    7. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the impact if Henry Ford had been able to patent "thing with wheels on it and a motor"?

      That right there explains why 'on the internet' is patentable. It doesn't broaden patents, it narrows them.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      More early patent trolling. A form of eminent domain is needed as long as people keep trying to claim that we're dealing with real property here. And the states should have a right to tax it as such as long as it can be held privately with restricted access.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      As long as it doesn't move, no problem, I have the patent on "mechanical thingies that move" - and I'm not afraid to sue to protect my IP.

      --
      BM3
    10. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by Sun · · Score: 1

      I would like to think that had Seldon tried to patent a "Thing with wheels on it and an engine" back in the early 1900's/late 1890's, he would have been laughed out of the patent office. It is my impression (that might be wrong) that the patent examiner's output is deteriorating over time (which means that it is improving when going back in time).

      Shachar

    11. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by jhylkema · · Score: 1

      Or, indeed, selling war materiel to the Nazis.

    12. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Henry Ford refused to pay George Seldon royalties for his patent for a "Road Engine". Up to that time, every car manufacturer in the United States paid Seldon a royalty. Seldon would today be called a patent troll. The only reason Ford won in court was the vehicle patented by Seldon did not function when finally built according to the idea that Seldon had patented. Cheers JE

      Nitpick! Straight from guess where:

      The legal fight lasted eight years, ... and ended in a victory for Selden. In his decision, the judge wrote that the patent covered any automobile propelled by an engine powered by gasoline vapor. Posting a bond of $350,000, Ford appealed, and on January 10, 1911 won his case based on an argument that the engine used in automobiles was not based on George Brayton's engine, the Brayton engine which Selden had improved, but on the Otto engine.

      IOW his car did work, but people actually used a better engine by then. Funnily enough, that was one year before the patent would have expired anyway.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    13. Re:Talk about a vague patent... by Dabido · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the impact if Henry Ford had been able to patent "thing with wheels on it and a motor"?

      Yeah, a lawsuit for prior art by people who invented the car. Ford just stuck it all on a production line, he didn't invent the thing. Now, if he had of patented a "production line of any sort for things with wheels on it and a motor" he might have killed off GM, Toyota, Nissan, etc etc before they could start up ... or got lots of money from them emulating him, or got sued for monopolistic practises if it became impossible for people to compete.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  3. Groklaw by DCFusor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Has been covering this one. Allen's Interval has patented things that absolutely everyone has been using for decades, if not longer, and this may just help with the fight against software patents generally, as virtually no one is untouched -- he's only sued less the half the relevant world so far -- big media is a possible target for some of his claims as well. GoodLuckWithThat, they are even feared by lawmakers. Let's hope they go all out so this stupid mess can be ended. Here's the groklaw current link.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:Groklaw by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Sadly, that's not the case. Allen's company Interval Licensing exists for the sole purpose of "inventing" stuff, i.e. getting a bunch of people together (there's one very famous SF writer doing part-time work for this firm, I forgot his name though) to brainstorm up this "one step beyond the immediately obvious" crap, patent it, then licence and/or sue. And the company knows that despite the fact that some of this stuff shouldn't be patentable even under the broken patent system, they know that they can still make money by threatening with litigation, getting companies to settle or buy a license.

      In the case of these particularly ridiculous patents, the last thing Paul and his company want is a court decision. They want the other companies to pony up in an out of court deal.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Groklaw by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that Paul Allen had the balls to sue AOL over this. After all AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were giving people hyperlinked images and sound before the world wide web was a household name and definitely before Gore cosponsored a bill that gave consumer access to the internet in '92 with the Information and Infrastructure Act.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:Groklaw by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative
      List of parties being sued:
      • AOL
      • Apple
      • eBay
      • Facebook
      • Google
      • Netflix
      • Office Depot
      • OfficeMax
      • Staples
      • Yahoo
      • YouTube

      He's not suing the entire world but he's suing some pretty big players. Players that have the money and wherewithall to see this to the bitter end.

      The details of the suit:

      • 507: Categorize and correlate information before segmenting and presenting it to a user. Basically any display like Yahoo! News that separates out categories. All parties sued.
      • 652: Present information to the user in a non-distracting way from the user's primary interaction. AOL Message pop-ups from the taskbar, Apple widgets, Google gadgets, Yahoo gadgets.
      • 314: Present information to the user in a non-distracting way from the user's primary interaction. Similar to 652 but a tad more interactive. Covers all IM and talk clients.
      • 682: Indicating to the user that a particular online content is of interest. Covers the "other items that might interest you" feature of many, many websites.

      Looking at this patents, all of them are very generic ideas and not anything that should be patentable.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Groklaw by DCFusor · · Score: 1
      No, I don't think it's on purpose (though one could hope) -- but I think that may be the result of this if they push it hard enough. At some point it becomes a kind of national issue, when a troll comes out of the woodwork and basically says "all your work for the last couple decades is mine".

      At some point the powers that be can't let it happen even if technically/legally it's true in some odd way. Think of the implied surprise wealth transfer by legal force this implies if taken to the limit -- bigger than most whole large companies (including MS).

      As we say in stock trading, bears do well, bulls do well, pigs get slaughtered. Whether PA and interval are seriously trying to own the internet or not, it sure looks like waking the system up and pointing some serious flaws in it, which one could hope lead to improvements. Maybe a vain hope, dunno.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    5. Re:Groklaw by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Nazgul will do us a favor and sweep down upon this company, rending it to pieces and providing warning through the broken skulls to anyone foolish enough to do such a thing again.

      Oh, and if they fail there's always Apple's lawyers too.

    6. Re:Groklaw by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      The one thing that makes me sad about this list is that SCO isn't somehow included.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    7. Re:Groklaw by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      To make a non car analogy to what you are saying. It's like Paul Allen is Worf trying to clear his father's name and the Court, who is like the Klingon High Council, convinces him to accept his father's guilt because the criminal's (Google, MS, Apple, Facebook, et al), who are like Duras, family has become so powerful that exposing his crimes now would cause great political upheaval in the empire.

      Yeah, I can kinda see that except Worf in this case is evil.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    8. Re:Groklaw by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I have a pocket watch hanging beside my monitor to "present information to the user in a non-distracting way from the user's primary interaction." Once Allen has finished with the biggies, he'll eventually work his way down to me. I've been doing that since 1992 or so. Bring it!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    9. Re:Groklaw by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

      It seems to me, in a country where law is based on precedent and more money buying better lawyers, a winning strategy would be to sue the least wealthy of the offenders, who don't have the financial resources to defend themselves, and then sue bigger and bigger offenders, using your now established precedent to help win.

    10. Re:Groklaw by smallfries · · Score: 3, Interesting

      652 in particular seems like a weird one. The patent was filed in '96 and Windows gained the taskbar in '95 with widgets that display notifications. It's not even as if the windows taskbar was the first to do this, but it is a mainstream application that meets the specific claims that are being cited a year before the patent was filed.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    11. Re:Groklaw by wytcld · · Score: 1

      Here's a toast to Mr. Allen's health, which may depend on there being no significant Russian or Sicilian investors in any of the following firms:

              * AOL
              * Apple
              * eBay
              * Facebook
              * Google
              * Netflix
              * Office Depot
              * OfficeMax
              * Staples
              * Yahoo
              * YouTube

      Note that I do not mean to imply any judgment regarding Russian or Sicilian business practices in saying this.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    12. Re:Groklaw by GeoSanDiego · · Score: 1

      Uh Oh. My local supermarket is going to be upset when they realize they have violated this patent. Right there in the cereal aisle: Grouping healthy cereals together, kids cereals together, etc.

    13. Re:Groklaw by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I hope so because the thought of Paul Allen seriously suing for a patent on web surfing makes me want to cry.

      He's an investor. Why would you expect him to have scruples? Because he started a charity? Because he co-founded Microsoft? Because he bought sports teams?

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    14. Re:Groklaw by darealpat · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm a little slow,,,but could anyone tell me how come Microsoft isn't being sued/has not violated any of those patents?

      --
      For every present, there is a past
  4. Re:If I had a $1 for every patent troll by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Patents that don't have a specific invention attached to them should be invalid. Ideas aren't supposed to be patentable, specific inventions are...

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  5. There are two types of patenters by kaptink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are two types of patenters. The first patents invetions he or she built or designed to stop others from copying it. The second patents vague ideas that do not tie to any invention or product with the goal of suing anyone who might possibly be seen as infringing. Otherwise known as a Patent Troll.

    This guy appears to be the latter. Given he is a Microsofty doesnt help him either.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
    1. Re:There are two types of patenters by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

      Err, those are the same thing. If I get a patent on an idea, which is what software patents are, then I can sue anyone infringing. Copying and infringing are the same thing.

      The problem is that we are using 17th century solutions (patents) for modern problems. Its laughable that we even take these things seriously. Sadly, its 100% legal to patent "one click shopping" and other concepts. Software patents are too vague by their nature. Patents are old fashioned and make no sense in a modern economy. Perhaps someday our leaders will understand this.

    2. Re:There are two types of patenters by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Two words...

      Try Decaff

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:There are two types of patenters by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Wrong. There is another type. Companies who patent ideas they are using to keep patent trolls from patenting it later and suing them. These are "defensive" patents.

      The problem with excusing such behavior is that those companies have a tendency to go out of business and get bought by patent trolls, and because they were the first company with the idea... you get the idea. Or the board decides the CEO isn't making enough money and replaces him/her with someone more litigious, who fires all the engineers, hires a dozen lawyers, and turns the company into a patent troll.

      I don't care how big the company is; deliberately vague patents are inexcusable.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:There are two types of patenters by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Add Lithium, Xanax, and Prozac to the Decaff.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    5. Re:There are two types of patenters by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      Hurrah! The troll!Bot is back! :)

      why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

      you're completely pathetic.

      BOOO!!! I wanted new material! You dissapoint me!

    6. Re:There are two types of patenters by MichaelKristopeit337 · · Score: 1
      ur mum's face dissapoint me!

      cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

      you're completely pathetic.

    7. Re:There are two types of patenters by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    8. Re:There are two types of patenters by Rysc · · Score: 1

      Err, those are the same thing

      No, they're not.

      If I make something and then get a patent on some or all of it, that's legitimate. If I don't make anything but one day say "You know what would be cool? Buying things on the internet but, like, you don't have to fill out a whole form, you only have to click once!" and then patenting it, then later suing online merchants who actually do this.

      Overly broad patents based on real products are also problematic, too, of course.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    9. Re:There are two types of patenters by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      Take last thing I said and turn it around: check!

      Make comment about having a pseudonym: Check!

      Use canned line "you're completely pathetic.": check!

      Come up with something new and different or contribute meaningfully to the conversation:

      Seems you're missing something =)

    10. Re:There are two types of patenters by MichaelKristopeit339 · · Score: 1
      continue to cowardly post ignorant hypocrisy while claiming no responsibility, feeb.

      you're completely pathetic.

    11. Re:There are two types of patenters by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      I think someone is running a bot on /.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  6. Go Allen! by dingen · · Score: 1

    And another example of how terribly broken the US patent system is. Maybe this time things will change. Until then I support every patent troll out there.

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  7. Don't be naive... by injustus · · Score: 1

    He clearly wants to loose.

    1. Re:Don't be naive... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      ...to loose the hounds upon the peasants? ...Toulouse-Lautrec?
      I suspect that your spelling is a touch loose [reference.com]. I think you meant "lose [reference.com]".

      I think he _meant_ loose. From my dictionary:
      "Loose" verb [ trans. ]
      set free; release : the hounds have been loosed.
      untie; unfasten : the ropes were loosed.
      relax (one's grip) : he loosed his grip suddenly.

    2. Re:Don't be naive... by shking · · Score: 1

      The original text was "He clearly wants to loose." I think that "injustus" has trouble spelling, but is also fascinated by a certain dead French midget and artist (aka. Toulouse-Lautrec)

      --
      -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
  8. What facebook should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    is to cancel all accounts from Paul Allen's family and anyone working at his company, and send them an email saying that they are not allowed to have a new account until this patent case is solved.
    I'm pretty sure that if this guy has a daughter, and she cannot have a Facebook account, Mark Zuckerberg will be able to hear the screams from his own house.

    1. Re:What facebook should do by TechNit · · Score: 1

      is to cancel all accounts from Paul Allen's family and anyone working at his company, and send them an email saying that they are not allowed to have a new account until this patent case is solved. I'm pretty sure that if this guy has a daughter, and she cannot have a Facebook account, Mark Zuckerberg will be able to hear the screams from his own house.

      Well now, that is a DAMN GOOD IDEA!!! The wailing will be relentless!! Bummer is - PA has never married....... For this to work PA himself needs to feel the pain.

      --
      Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!
  9. They say that the Internet... by bmo · · Score: 1

    is the Wild West.

    It's not the Wild West until you can take people like Paul Allen and shoot 'em, like in a Sergio Leone movie.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:They say that the Internet... by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      like in a Sergio Leone movie.

      I was thinking more Sam Peckinpah.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  10. Vagueware Patents by Krazy+Kanuck · · Score: 2

    From TFA:

    The relevant patent is US Patent No. 6,034,652 on an "attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device".

    I pretty sure you could apply this definition to TVs, Dashboards (Cars, Planes, etc), Phones, Planes, Toasters, Tickers (Banks, ESPN, Weather Channel, Ads), Operating Systems (Windows Sidebar), Signs (Street, Construction, Hwy Advisory), and on and on.

    So good luck with that. I'm still waiting for someone to patent storing data in a binary format.

    1. Re:Vagueware Patents by sammyF70 · · Score: 1

      Why the narrow definition? I already own the patent on "storing, manipulating and using data in any form whatsoever", My lawyer is just checking whether I can file a posthumous lawsuit against Gutenberg.

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    2. Re:Vagueware Patents by Krazy+Kanuck · · Score: 1

      Which is why I'd make a lousy patent troll.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. prior art? by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    wait..."peripheral attention"?

    didn't both AOL and ICQ back in the late 90's use those annoying flashing taskbar icons when there was a new unread message?

    1. Re:prior art? by timelorde · · Score: 1

      The AOL Instant Messenger software infringes by displaying information including, e.g., email

      The NextStep system on my desk has been doing this since at least 1991, which is before Interval Research was even founded. The Mail app icon changes whenever there's new mail available, in "an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from his primary interaction".

      Oh, wait, I've got it configured so that it also plays a barking dog sound when the mail arrives - not quite unobtrusive.

      I bet that's probably patented as well...

    2. Re:prior art? by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      even more reason why I detest software patents

  13. Paul Allen patents the Internet by viralMeme · · Score: 2

    Corrected headline .. :)

    1. Re:Paul Allen patents the Internet by d6 · · Score: 2

      Al Gore is gonna be pissed...

    2. Re:Paul Allen patents the Internet by korgitser · · Score: 1

      Patent by surprise!

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
  14. Guilty of Apples to Apples comparison? by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

    Really, the defendants are guilty of "comparing related information" using a computer system. If data is not related then exactly what is the point of comparing it? If the patent was about how to compare Apples to Oranges then perhaps there might be something to it, but this patent fails all reasonable tests for validity. Mr Allen better be ready to pay all court costs for all the defendants legal fees, and there will be many.

  15. AP by Dgawld · · Score: 1

    And, uh- PAUL ALLEN. I killed Paul Allen with an axe. In the face. His body is dissolving in a bathtub in Hell's Kitchen.

  16. What is with Paul Allen? by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Of the two founders of MS he was FAR less of a jerk than Gates. What's up with him lately? All of a sudden I'm getting wave after wave of Evil (TM) vibes?

    1. Re:What is with Paul Allen? by Melted_Igloo · · Score: 1

      They cant win by competing because Microsoft is a giant slow moving behemoth They already lost an anti-trust case in the past Patent trolling is their last desperate hope before they go extinct

    2. Re:What is with Paul Allen? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Since Bill has slowed his evil down to a trickle Paul sees the opportunity to catch up.

    3. Re:What is with Paul Allen? by gtall · · Score: 1

      The fish always rots from head on down. Gates and Allen set by example the odious behavior that MS prizes. Allen was no less a jerk than Gates, just presented a more polished persona to the press.

  17. Re:If I had a $1 for every patent troll by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

    This patent was filed in 1996. This means it will expire in 2016. At that time, it will go into the public domain and be available for all to use as they see fit, free of charge. This is, in my opinion, superior to copyright. Copyright lasts forever (practically, if not literally). If Allen had copyright, rather than patent, the protection would last much longer. (An American law expert can confirm whether patent expiration timing starts from time of filing or time of grant)

    Nonsense. You can have copyright protection on whatever you post here for eternity, I still have the freedom to post what _I_ write and you can do nothing about it. Copyright gives the copyright holder protection from theft, but it doesn't give them any power over anyone else's creation. Patents, on the other hand, stop others from doing the same thing independently.

    That's why we complain about _stupid_ patents like these here, because they stop or try to stop people from doing things that are trivial. You will find very little complaints about patents for things that are actually new and innovative and that others wouldn't produce themselves easily.

  18. Why is Amazon missing from the list then? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

    652 Patent

    Then Amazon should be on the list. '...other people who purchased yyy also bought xxx'.
    I wonder why they aren't on the list?
    Perhaps Mr Allen is a shareholder in Amazon inc?

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  19. prior art and related phenomena... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    These days, I wouldn't put it past anyone.

    Well, we can't depend on a court to display intelligence. All it can decide is who has the best lawyer. From TFA: For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 24, when a user receives a new Google Voice message, the Android Operating System and Google Voice software display a notification in the status bar screen for a short period of time.

    This seems so damn similar to the decades-old biff, it's not funny.

    It's about time patent offices and laws were closed down for good. They no longer serve any useful purpose as far as innovation is concerned (their original function), merely serving to enrich the lawyers who persist in acting like sharks.

  20. Is it ever gonna be enough? by sdguero · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen
    "Paul Gardner Allen (born January 21, 1953) is an American investor and philanthropist who co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates and is one of the wealthiest people in the world with a personal wealth of US$12.7 billion as of 2010."

    Reminds me of this song:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRtd8ArvH_s

  21. Al Gore should sue Paul Allen by RealityThreek · · Score: 1

    .. since he actually invented the internet. (The lawsuit involves 300 patents Allen claims were pivotal to the development of the internet).

    --
    :wq
  22. Re:If I had a $1 for every patent troll by zeroshade · · Score: 1

    Uhm, a patent is supposed to be directions on how to implement an idea. The specific implementation (creation of the invention) is what is patented, not the idea itself.

    At least, that's how it's supposed to work......too bad no one actually cares about the rules....

  23. Re:If I had a $1 for every patent troll by grolschie · · Score: 1

    ...Copyright gives the copyright holder protection from theft, ...

    Really? I should probably copyright my house and contents then, rather than paying for insurance. ;-)

  24. Paul Allen's Downfall as a Human by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Paul Allen has gone from being moderately useful to technology (a single unified Windows platform) to becoming an absolute pariah to the average user. If he just went away now quietly 99% of the world wouldn't miss him for a moment.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  25. What a shame by Dega704 · · Score: 1

    A man of his stature reduced to a simple patent troll. What on earth is he thinking?

  26. Yeah! by kentsin · · Score: 1

    I think he will continue to try to destroy the system.

    Change it before he done!

  27. Re:If I had a $1 for every patent troll by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    Insurance doesn't give you protection from theft... Locked doors and laws relating to the ownership of property and restricted access to private property do that (when enforced by the police).

    Insurance provides you with financial compensation for when the above protections failed to protect your house and belongings. If you fail to have basic protections such as locked doors then your insurance won't pay you a penny.

    However now that I think about it, copyright and patents are more like insurance than a protection...

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  28. Re:Vailum by MichaelKristopeit344 · · Score: 1
    cower some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.... display your license per its terms, or you're a felon. simple as that.

    i live at 4513 brittany ct. eau claire, wi. 54701.

    present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i'll bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

    why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

    you are NOTHING

  29. Re:Vailum by zeropointburn · · Score: 1

    Threatening violence is also a felony in many states. Take care that your psychotic trolling doesn't actually land you in jail.

    --
    -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
  30. Re:Vailum by MichaelKristopeit345 · · Score: 1
    you feel threatened? that is very telling.

    cower some more, feeb.

    you're completely pathetic.

    JUSTICE WILL FIND YOU

  31. Re:If I had a $1 for every patent troll by grolschie · · Score: 1

    Insurance doesn't give you protection from theft... Locked doors and laws relating to the ownership of property and restricted access to private property do that (when enforced by the police).

    Insurance provides you with financial compensation for when the above protections failed to protect your house and belongings. ...

    Yes, true. :-)