Paul Allen Amends Lawsuit Against Facebook, Apple

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."

Comments

In this first post I say

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:In this first post I say

[binarylarry]

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.

Re:In this first post I say

[denis-The-menace]

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.

Talk about a vague patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

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"?

Re:Talk about a vague patent...

[kmcarr]

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

Re:Talk about a vague patent...

[finarfinjge]

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

Groklaw

[DCFusor]

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.

Re:Groklaw

[JaredOfEuropa]

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.

Re:Groklaw

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:Groklaw

[ArhcAngel]

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.

Re:Groklaw

[smallfries]

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.

Re:If I had a $1 for every patent troll

[WCMI92]

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

There are two types of patenters

[kaptink]

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.

Re:There are two types of patenters

[gad_zuki!]

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.

What facebook should do

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Vagueware Patents

[Krazy Kanuck]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Paul Allen patents the Internet

[viralMeme]

Corrected headline .. :)

Re:Paul Allen patents the Internet

[d6]

Al Gore is gonna be pissed...

Re:If I had a $1 for every patent troll

[gnasher719]

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.