Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft, Google Sue Troll Who Sued 397 Companies

FlorianMueller writes "Microsoft and Google have teamed up against a company that holds a geotagging patent and sued 397 companies last year in Texas, most of them in mid December. ... Now the two tech giants have entered the fray together and want the patent declared invalid and seek an injunction to prevent further lawsuits over it. Since the patent holder has already filed for an initial public offering, this intervention may come at just the right time to prevent the worst. Google and Microsoft say that there was prior art when the patent on an 'Internet organizer for accessing geographically and topically based information' was applied for in 1996."

176 comments

  1. Temperatures plummet in Hades by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft and Google working together for good?

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *head explodes*

    2. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by xmas2003 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yea, certainly unusual to see these the Big "G" and M working together ...

      Makes me wonder if something about the patent might actually worry 'em?!?

      --
      Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    3. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by SimonTS · · Score: 1

      Would the suit be filed under "Moogle" or "Gosoft"?

    4. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mi-Go, of course. That'll get even more companies into the litigation mix.

    5. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Ancantus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pigs, frightened by the near freezing temperatures, take to the skys.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
    6. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      The good news for GeoTag is that the Nazgûl are still behind the Black Gate of Armonk.

    7. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't get too excited. Microsoft and Google both have hundreds of dubious patents to their names, so it's not like they're doing it to strike a blow in favor of sane patent reform. They're probably just doing it because once this patent trolling firm goes public, they'll have access to enough capital to start suing the big dogs (like Microsoft and Google) under these same patents instead of just going after the little fish who can't afford to defend themselves properly.

      I'm sure they'd rather spend less now to smother the company than spend a lot more later defending themselves against it.

    8. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, what worries them is someone else harming their ability to make money.

      Microsoft/Google/Apple/Whoever will quite happily work with each other when it suits their money making schemes then
      think nothing of stabbing everyone in the back 5 minutes later.

      I'm sure M or G would rather buy the troll then use it to delay/cripple their opponent's web offerings but they probably wouldn't sell.

    9. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      What do fungiform extraterrestrials from the planetoid of pluto have to do with companies being litigious?

    10. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by meerling · · Score: 1

      The correct name is Yuggoth, not some Disney character name. (Dog or God, take your pick.)

    11. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by gman003 · · Score: 4, Funny

      In unrelated news, that girl from high school has finally agreed to go out with me.

    12. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Funny

      It would be filed under "Microgoosoft".

      The corporate slogan is:

      "Our passion, our evil".

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    13. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by human-cyborg · · Score: 1

      Ooh! ... I almost fainted ... but then I didn't.

    14. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      All I can say is "Hold on tight everyone! THE UNIVERSE IS EATING ITSELF!"

    15. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah! Man, I wish Slashdot had a "Like" button!

    16. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Say what you will about Microsoft, but Google has come out repeatedly against software patents saying they hamper innovation. They hold them mainly as defensive measures against other sue-happy companies.

    17. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Might as well make it MiiGo.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    18. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Duke Nukem Forever? Is the Cake a TRUTH?

    19. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So has Microsoft, repeatedly. But then they turn around and sue someone over software patents anyway.

    20. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      This is it people! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

      I'm ready...ready for the big ride baby! Yeeeeeehaw!

    21. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      'Going public' doesn't instantly grant you magical money, people have to actually buy your stock.

      Anyone that would buy this stock because they hold a patent could invest the money in the company now and get the same result.

      Since no one knows about this company, they aren't going to get a bunch of shares sold any time soon.

      Redhat made a bunch of money because a bunch of the Linux crowd and some other major investors were fully aware of them well in advance and had already invested large sums of money in the company. They had publicity. This company has nothing.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would rather the patent troll win?

    23. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Pingmaster · · Score: 1

      uhm, well, let's see here... geo-tagging is being used by both Google and MSFT in various applications (WP7, Bing maps, Andriod, Google Maps etc). Therefore, having this patent floating around saying that they can't use it is equally bad for both companies.
      Being competing companies does not mean that it may not be in their best interests to team up every so often to take on a threat to both.

      And for all those who comment about Google 'doing no evil' and partnering up with Microsoft, keep in mind that they're also protecting the other 395 companies being sued and encouraging competition in this particular marketplace.

    24. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah! Man, I wish Slashdot had a "Like" button!

      Oh shit. I'm now afraid of the next UI-update

    25. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but isn't she, like, 45 now?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    26. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Would the suit be filed under "Moogle" or "Gosoft"?

      Filing under Moogle would trigger a trademark violation from Square-Enix.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    27. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by avronius · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm mistaken, Reuters, American Press, Canadian Press and other news service agencies have been providing location/date/time/etc. information coupled with photos via their distribution service since at least 1994. Newspapers and magazines have been storing photos WITH location/date/time information since before that.

      It shouldn't be too difficult to prove prior art - just look to the arts!

    28. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Ben4jammin · · Score: 1

      I don't know that they are working for good as much as they are working for self preservation that in this instance gives them a common enemy.

    29. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      45 year old chicks ROCK! I like 'em young!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    30. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad she's 68 now

    31. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it stops companies tracking your location, sure.

    32. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There are many things on which MS and Google work together - I mean, why not, provided it works towards the interest of both parties?

      To give one example, how'd you think IE9 ended up supporting WebM (and no other 3rd party codec)?

    33. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      If it stops companies tracking your location, sure.

      It will only stop some companies from tracking you ... this troll's company will track you or one of the companies he licenses his patent to.

    34. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      The correct name is Yuggoth, not some Disney character name. (Dog or God, take your pick.)

      Which one is Disney?

    35. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Q-Hack! · · Score: 2

      I, for one, welcome our new Mi-Go overlords.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    36. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Tmack · · Score: 1
      how is Theresa Manyan anyway?

      -tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    37. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      For a moment, just a moment, there, I read "the Black Gate of Amarok".

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    38. Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legally speaking, well sort of legally speaking, If they are successful in supressing this patent, then it could set a precedence, for over turning many of the frivlous patent suits that routinely exploit many thousands of companies all over the world every year. So inadverdantly they might be actually, possibly, accidentally, creating an air of reform, in the jungle that is patent law.

  2. Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was Apple sued? Will they team up with Microsoft and Google against this patent troll tyrant?

    Tune in next week for the next episode of "Patent Troll Saga 2011"!

    1. Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, TFA doesn't say, but I'm sure they were. I mean, I use Apple maps all the time...

  3. Of course prior art by Mikkeles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's called an atlas + gazetteer

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Of course prior art by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      But this is on a computer, which makes it totally different!

    2. Re:Of course prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should try to prove that microsoft did the same thing with the start button.

    3. Re:Of course prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet it's called naming your painting "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" (and thereby giving time and location) which happened long before photographs were common. And then people wrote locations on the back of their photo prints. Digitizing this isn't non-obvious.

  4. Two things ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two things ...

    We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".

    We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Two things ... by turbclnt · · Score: 4, Funny

      We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.

      are you advocating...messing with Texas?!

    2. Re:Two things ... by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 3, Funny

      I say let Mexico have Texas. Half the Mexicans are there anyway.

    3. Re:Two things ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      are you advocating...messing with Texas?!

      No, I'm advocating they stop letting people mess with everybody else using their court system.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need

      Yes we do. How about you get started and the rest of us will catch up in a minute.

      Since you seem to be the most motivated part of "we", what all have you done so far except complain on slashdot?

    5. Re:Two things ... by Jenming · · Score: 1

      We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".

      Neutral experts, or a neutral judge and competing experts, don't come cheap.

      The current system is to have a low standard at an outset and then a high standard if it turns out there is actually disagreement.

      You could put the high or a higher standard first, but you would have to fund it and its not clear that it would reduce the overall expense or justness of the patent system.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    6. Re:Two things ... by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.

      Oh no! Somewhere that laws are not uniform and/or uniformly enforced? Why do you think so many companies incorporate in Delaware?

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    7. Re:Two things ... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      But the other half are here in California. Is there noone left to live in Mexico?

    8. Re:Two things ... by meerling · · Score: 1

      And 90% of the Texans...

    9. Re:Two things ... by Whalou · · Score: 2

      are you advocating *puts on sunglasses* messing with Texas?!

      YYEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH.

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    10. Re:Two things ... by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 1

      We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.

      I never understood why it is that this particular jurisdiction is so favorable to patent holders. Could someone with some perspective on this please comment?

    11. Re:Two things ... by d'fim · · Score: 1

      Resort owners and drug dealers. Will this make spring break safer or more dangerous? Either way, don't use the water as mixer.....

      --
      Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
    12. Re:Two things ... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".

      That depends.

      If you have a methodological process for, say, reading your location off a GPS, checking it against a map, and tagging it manually to a piece of data... then with a computer, this is nothing but "a computer program to do what I was doing anyway."

      If however you are sighting up things by hand and manually tagging them, the integration of a GPS with the system may be quite novel.

      Patents are about novelty. Unfortunately, all novelty is incremental. Small incremental steps are obvious, though, if they come in the common sphere or they package up what's common. Say you take a picture, check your GPS, put the location into the picture... putting a GPS in the camera to tag the picture doesn't suddenly make geotagging photographs a new invention, because you're automating what people did anyway. But if nobody thought to geotag pictures before, or they never thought to use a GPS, or they always tagged with the LOCATION ON A MAP and you integrate a system that tags the GPS coordinates and looks it up on a map as needed, you've done something nobody's thought of yet.

      Novelty is subtle. There is a lot of "This is just X done with Y" and "I could have done that..." coming from people who really, really like this idea that nobody seems to have done before. There are also cases of "everyone does this with the exact same fucking tools; you just told a computer to make it user-transparent" going on, which need to be shot down.

      Bread machines didn't pioneer the making of bread, or any individual step; but they did provide the novelty of a machine that mixes, rises, and bakes the bread in one sweep, with tools that all existed before. Note that nobody put a paddle in the base of a baking pan, stuck it in the oven, cranked it several times, let it rise, cranked it again, and then heated it up; the actual process was completely different, but using the same tools (a pan, bread ingredients, an agitator, and a heating element similar to those found in an electric oven). This was not "a traditional bread machine, but with a motor instead of a hand crank."

      The same goes for a computer: is this a traditional manual process (take picture, enter GPS information into picture) done with two computers, but we put the components together and did it manually? Or is this a traditional manual process done via other means which we recognized was possible to automate by plugging a bunch of other tools together and using a new methodology that correlates to but doesn't strictly automate the original steps?

    13. Re:Two things ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Oh no! Somewhere that laws are not uniform and/or uniformly enforced?

      So, you're in favor of something like Libel Tourism where you shop for a jurisdiction that will let you do what almost every other jurisdiction would laugh you out of court for? Or is this special because it's Texas?

      From the number of stories I see where Texas is the venue for such a law suit, I find it hard to believe that either party has much, if any, actual presence in Texas. At which point, it's hard not to conclude they have really lax rules about who is allowed to use their court system.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".

      Let me fix that for you:

      We need the USPTO to stop giving out patents.

    15. Re:Two things ... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      IIRC, A lawyer, in a previous article where Texas courts are being used, posted the Texas courts are preferred because they have lots of experience in highly technical matters. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, it doesn't appear to be a case of Libel Tourism; rather shopping for true legal and technical expertise.

    16. Re:Two things ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      IIRC, A lawyer, in a previous article where Texas courts are being used, posted the Texas courts are preferred because they have lots of experience in highly technical matters. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, it doesn't appear to be a case of Libel Tourism; rather shopping for true legal and technical expertise.

      I sorta get the impression that it's because they've got rules that make them a favorable venue, and because they'll let any lawyer, from anywhere file a suit. Here's what wikipedia says.

      So, if they're taking law suits from any jurisdiction, then I would say this is a lot more like Libel Tourism than any actual 'expertise'.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:Two things ... by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      Litter has nothing to do with it.

      That phrase was created for a litter control advertisement in the 70s/80s. It doesn't mean what people think it does.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    18. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.

      I never understood why it is that this particular jurisdiction is so favorable to patent holders. Could someone with some perspective on this please comment?

      Two reasons:

      1. Its the Rocket Docket -- nick name of the court in legal settings because the judges there don't put up with BS requests for continuances. The schedule gets set and basically doesn't change unless the presiding judge gets sick enough that he can't sit through the proceedings.

      2. Most of the jury pool is educated with a fairly large distrust of larger governments and corporations, as a result every patent troll firm country maintains an office in the jurisdiction

    19. Re:Two things ... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Those rules need not be mutually exclusive. Now that you mention the favorable rules, I seem to remember that all being part of the package. I don't have a problem with favorable rules which lead to speedy trials and/or resolution in combination with technical prowess.

      Seems like a win-win.

    20. Re:Two things ... by v1 · · Score: 1

      That district in texas is to patents what china used to be for spam... and sadly it's probably about money for more than the patent trolls. I wonder just how much money court fees etc bring into that district from the gobs of patent suits filed there every year? They must have an army of judges and a campus of courtrooms, and I get the impression they're about on par with those "wedding chapels" in las vegas, practically with a drive-thru window.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    21. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the other half are here in Southern California.

      FTFY.

    22. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you do raise a good point, the patents that get spoken out against are the ones that involve things like patenting things that occur naturally or are living things, mathematical formulas, and containers / file structures.

      After all, I'm fine with someone patenting a bread machine. It's a tangible invention that serves a definite purpose. It's patent wording is likely quite clear ( a machine designed to automate the process of making bread, or something like that is probable ).

      But software patents are really quite vague to the point they could cover any number of things, and in some cases even cover file formats. The GPS tagging software mentioned above is pretty standard - GPS data is part of the EXIF data on a jepg, for instance. But if it saved in a proprietary format that's patented so nobody else can implement something similar, that's a problem. It would be similar to trying to patent a bread recipe for your bread machine.

      "Internet organizer for accessing geographically and topically based information"

      Is the summary of the patent from the article. It really does boil down to "with a computer" or "on the internet" in this case, is malevolently vague, and sounds like, surprise, Bing and Google maps. Sort of. It could be any number of things. If the patent was more clearly worded, I don't think it would be as much of an issue. If it was more descriptive of what was being patented.

      And it really could affect a large number of things. I don't remember who stores them, but you can elevation data in a blob format for many areas in the United States through their site, and I think you can do a search by clicking on parts of a map to pick a state to see the listings for it.

      Are they at risk of being sued by this company for violating their patent?

      What exactly does the patent mean when it says "internet organizer" - does that mean search engines? Flash / whatever elements that load map segments?
      What is the topical information in question? I'd imagine geographic information would be latitude, longitude, elevation and bearing, but it doesn't explicitly say that.

      These are the kinds of patents that are bad because they just aren't clear on what is patented, and are vague enough that lots of things could apply depending on how it is interpreted.

    23. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Texan, I fully advocate messing with the East Texas, cranial-rectum affixed judiciary!

      *This post paid for by the 'Don't Mess With Texas Campaign'

    24. Re:Two things ... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Rich senior citizens from the US actually. They are opting to buy villas in Mexico now rather than move to South Florida.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    25. Re:Two things ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      My uncle was one of the founders of the ad agency that came up with the slogan, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    26. Re:Two things ... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps get the Texas court in question called into question for questionable proceedings?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    27. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFClaims.

      If you have doubts about certain terms, or think something is vague, RTFSpec (the descriptive text that is the bulk of the patent). That should explain what each term in the claims really mean, and how certain methods are implemented. Note that there is some leeway in how each term may be interpreted (doctrine of equivalents), but not that much.

      If you still have doubts, or think something is overly vague, and you are a person having ordinary skill in the art (i.e. a decent software dev, in this case), then this may be a bad patent.

      But, please, don't make judgements based on the title and abstract.

      FWIW, from a brief read of the claims, I didn't see anything vague, but I do have doubts about their novelty, as the methods they use are pretty old and (IMO) obvious.

    28. Re:Two things ... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Resort owners and drug dealers.

      That's probably redundant.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    29. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's where many employees from tech companies (like TI, Lockheed, Bell Helicopter, Mostek, Cyrix, etc.) in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area retire to after inventing stuff.

    30. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".

      I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that. Sure that would have been a solution if this whole software patent problem didn't exist yet, but at this point, there are SSOOOOO many seriously wrong, malformed, mis-handled, invalid patents out there already that there's no moving back. This is a patent handed out more than 10 years ago, and we're just seeing the ramifications now. I'm pretty sure that even if no more software patents were handed out ever again, that these problems will still increase by several orders of magnitude.

      It's too late to be discussing change. The only solution at this point is the big red off switch.

    31. Re:Two things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10% of Mexican citizens have US addresses.

  5. Tolkien by SimonTS · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can't use the word 'Troll' or the Tolkien estate will be after you all.

    1. Re:Tolkien by LordEd · · Score: 2

      You can't use the world 'Tolkien' or the Tolkien estate will be after you.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/27/1940241/Tolkien-Estate-Censors-the-Word-Tolkien

    2. Re:Tolkien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *whooooosh* That's the sound of it going over your head.

    3. Re:Tolkien by SimonTS · · Score: 2

      That's OK - they'll be after you twice as badly as after me - you used the 'T' word twice.

    4. Re:Tolkien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't use the word ****** or the ****** estate will be after you http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/27/1940241/******-Estate-Censors-the-Word-******

    5. Re:Tolkien by mangu · · Score: 1

      You can't use the world 'Tolkien' or the Troll estate will be after you.

      FTFY

    6. Re:Tolkien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't use the word 'Tolkien' or the Troll estate will be after you all.

    7. Re:Tolkien by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      I can't claim prior art, but I can say this name has been my established identity for quite some time!

    8. Re:Tolkien by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You used "troll"(tm) once and then "Tolkien"(tm) once, so that's two slaps for you, same as GP.

      Whereas I'm gonna be fine 'cause I've used (tm). Watch and learn! ~

    9. Re:Tolkien by SimonTS · · Score: 1

      Ah, but someone else pointed out that 'Troll' precedes Mr Tolkien (tm) by about 300 years, so I'm clear on that score.

    10. Re:Tolkien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious err... person is... person is obvio... nevermind.

    11. Re:Tolkien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't use the word 'Troll' or the Tolkien estate will be after you all.

      I think they changed their name to "The estate formally known as"

  6. 1996 by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The patent was applied for in 1996? 15 years in internet time is like 5 decades in other fields.

    Back then, you were likely running Windows 95 and had to launch Real Player 1.0 to listen to audio online. IE and Netscape were both products you had to pay for (IE came with MS Plus!)

    Should a patent from that era really still be valid?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:1996 by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

      Should a patent from that era really still be valid? Irrelevant. A patent is as good for as long as a patent is legally good. 20 years. It's not an arbitrary number.

    2. Re:1996 by smelch · · Score: 1

      I remember Windows 95... it was useless until you torrented MS Plus.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    3. Re:1996 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torrented? Really?

    4. Re:1996 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats whats up for debate though. currently the legal duration is 20 years. But in the tech world, particularly software, is that not far too long for a sector that can adapt and (profit) many times quicker. Point of the patent system was to provide researchers (etc) with some benefit of making a 'discovery' or invention. Normally this is because traditional R&D takes years, even decades. But in software - R&D is often limited to a few months, just weeks. Deployment too is many times faster, the giants of today have all risen and fallen within the duration of a single patent. If apple was to fall as fast as they rose back again, their patents would still not even have gone even half way through expiration.

    5. Re:1996 by DocZayus · · Score: 1

      I think he meant that you went and got it through IRC... or Russian download sites...

      --
      -- http://www.doczayus.com/
    6. Re:1996 by _0xd0ad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A patent is as good for as long as a patent is legally good. 20 years. It's not an arbitrary number.

      I'm pretty sure 20 years was an entirely arbitrary number.

    7. Re:1996 by smelch · · Score: 1

      Project establish 16 years of nerd history has failed. Damn you and your tireless attention to detail.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    8. Re:1996 by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      He only just upgraded from Windows 3.1 a few months ago.

      --
      signature is pants
    9. Re:1996 by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Wikipedia says the first implementation of Bittorrent came out in 2001, only months before XP.

    10. Re:1996 by meerling · · Score: 2

      Not when they set it, it was a reasonable period of time to allow a creator to benefit from his invention with a mandated monopoly while still being short enough to benefit the public with it's eventual ending and spur the inventor to continue inventing because he won't be raking in the bucks for the rest, or even most of his life.

      (Unlike copyright, which was initially shorter than patents, and now are up to something stupid like life + 90 years someone keeps up on the paperwork. That's a monopoly for the creators life, their kids, and probably their grandchildrens as well.)

      Note that a generation (not a lifespan) is considered to be 20 years. Do you see the relevance? They gave the inventor an entire generation to try and get rich off of that one thing. You want more money, create something else, or go find a new enterprise.

    11. Re:1996 by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Why on earth were you downloading MS Plus via bittorrent in 2001 or later? Let alone still using Windows 95?

    12. Re:1996 by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Not when they set it, it was a reasonable period of time to allow a creator to benefit from his invention with a mandated monopoly while still being short enough to benefit the public with it's eventual ending and spur the inventor to continue inventing because he won't be raking in the bucks for the rest, or even most of his life.

      IOW some people got their heads together and one of them pulled a number out of his ass and they all finally said "yeah, that sounds fair enough".

      Note that a generation (not a lifespan) is considered to be 20 years. Do you see the relevance?

      No, I don't see the relevance. The length of one's career seems more relevant than the length of a generation, and most people work 40 or 50 years.

      Any inventor would want, at the very least, to be allowed to profit from his invention until he was able to retire. Note that a patent isn't even directly profitable: to profit from it you have to actually produce and sell the product, or license the invention to people who will. So it's not like having a patent just allows you to sit on your laurels and watch the money rolling in. Unless, of course, you're a patent troll and your profit comes entirely from suing people who had the same bleedingly obvious idea, but instead of sitting around they actually made it profitable.

      Finally, even once the patent expires, that doesn't mean you can't get rich off the idea anymore. The patent is just to give you a monopoly on the idea long enough to give you an opportunity to establish a monopoly in the market. An up-start who's trying to copy you will have to be either much better or much cheaper to make any headway against your monopoly, once you have 20 years under your belt as the only player in the game. If in those first 20 years you made a profitable business off the idea, you'll likely still be raking in the profits even after the patent has expired.

    13. Re:1996 by smelch · · Score: 1

      Really? The joke of me using 95 far too long was that hard to grasp?

      ... perhaps... oh god no.... I'm just not funny. :-(

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    14. Re:1996 by thomst · · Score: 1

      The patent was applied for in 1996?

      Back then ... IE and Netscape were both products you had to pay for

      Er ... no.

      Netscape Navigator was free for personal use. Plus, even for business use, the $39.95 price tag was never enforced - and rarely paid.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    15. Re:1996 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you also can't sit on the sideline watching others use your "patent" without permission.. and then go sue years later. You screwed your own pooch and basically let it go into the public domain. Not only that, if you DO sue after sitting for that long, you aren't cable to claim all those years as "lost profits" (IE> 2011 to 1996). You may get one year of "lost profits" but that's suppose to be about it.

    16. Re:1996 by chris_7d0h · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously questioning the ethics of allowing patents describing *new*, ahead-of-their-time (non obvious) kind of stuff ?
      That's precisely the kinds of patents I would like to see if we're to have a patent system at all, since ground breaking ideas pull civilization forward.
      Not that I'm saying *this* particular pattern is ground breaking, I haven't read it, but your sentiment seems to be that since it was filed looong before most of us had a clue, then its somehow unethical !?.

      What we do not want are patents which attempt to monopolize the obvious and the stuff of yesterday since those are the kinds that pull society in the other direction.

      --
      In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
    17. Re:1996 by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      But here's the thing -- had that patent holder done something with the patent in 1996, maybe they'd have a case for it.

      Instead, they waited 15 years and now they're just suing people who not only came up with the same idea, but actually implemented it as well.

      So in effect, what the patent holder is doing is to "monopolize the obvious and the stuff of yesterday."

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    18. Re:1996 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since 20 years is the basis from other fields, internet patents should be for 6 years.
      Done, problem solved.

    19. Re:1996 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An internet generation is probably about the same as a computer generation. 1.5-2 years.

    20. Re:1996 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the length that's unreasonable. It's the "get exclusive rights to develop something, but DON'T. then wait FIFTEEN YEARS and then try to sue everyone else for fifteen years worth of damages." That kind of shit needs to be cracked down on. Hard.

    21. Re:1996 by dkf · · Score: 1

      It's the "get exclusive rights to develop something, but DON'T. then wait FIFTEEN YEARS and then try to sue everyone else for fifteen years worth of damages." That kind of shit needs to be cracked down on. Hard.

      Well, laches means that they'll get the court not upholding their suits in the first place (or at least not getting big payouts). If you own a patent, you've got to take at least some steps to defend it (such as contacting potential infringers at the first practical opportunity). Submarining is very frowned-upon.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    22. Re:1996 by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Uhh... For how long have you stuck with 95 ? The torrent protocol was designed only in 2001.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  7. This is good? Are you sure? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh like Microsoft and Google wouldn't do the same if they owned a legitimate patent that could potentially bring them a lot of money? What's disturbing is this.....
    Since the patent holder has already filed for an initial public offering, this intervention may come at just the right time to prevent the worst.
    Why is it "the worst" exactly?
    Seriously if they have a legitimate patent then they ** SHOULD ** sue the hell out of everybody who infringes on it. What's the point of having a patent if you don't defend it and go on the offensive?

    1. Re:This is good? Are you sure? by Vetruvet · · Score: 0

      Did you forget this is ./ ??? Or are you just looking for a virtual beating for sounding supportive of a patent troll on ./ ??

    2. Re:This is good? Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful with that language. The Slashdot hive-mind is not too fond of using patents offensively. God forbid patent-holders get what they applied for: a 20 year monopoly on the use of their invention.

    3. Re:This is good? Are you sure? by smelch · · Score: 1

      Being quiet about it for YEARS while people infringe on your patent is not what they should be doing, thats not defending the patent, it is as you said, going on the offensive. Patents are supposed to be defense only. Also, you keep saying legitimate, but it isn't as there is prior art and does not meet a rational judgment of being novel.

      It would be "the worst" if a bunch of people put their money in a pit that is about to get their patent revoked.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    4. Re:This is good? Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you forget this is ./ ??? Or are you just looking for a virtual beating for sounding supportive of a patent troll on ./ ??

      What's './'? Do you mean '/.' - in other words the site we're on?

    5. Re:This is good? Are you sure? by Dunega · · Score: 2

      './' also means here, so either work.

    6. Re:This is good? Are you sure? by Ruke · · Score: 1

      The general feeling around here is that many software patents that are legitimately handed out by the USPTO should not have been handed out in the first place. Patents are handed out for things that are "obvious" to experts in the field, and patents are handed out where prior art exists. And if there is prior art to this patent, then Google and Microsoft **SHOULD** sue to invalidate it.

  8. I'd love to be a fly on the wall... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Ballmer: "I'll fucking kill mother fucking Google! Oh, wait, we've got a common enemy??? Get my good friends Sergey and Larry on the phone!"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:I'd love to be a fly on the wall... by zill · · Score: 2

      Get my good friends Sergey and Larry on the phone!"

      A hotline has been established between Mountain View and Redmond ever since the Cuba browser crisis.

    2. Re:I'd love to be a fly on the wall... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

      A transcript of Ballmer's side of the conversation (with apologies to Peter Sellers):

      "Hello?... Uh... Hello S- uh hello Sergey? Listen uh uh I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh-ho, that's much better... yeah... huh... yes... Fine, I can hear you now, Sergey... Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha... Now then, Sergey, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Patents... The *Patents*, Sergey... The *software* patents!... Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of those patent trolls, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his lawyers... to sue your company... Ah... Well, let me finish, Sergey... Let me finish, Sergey... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?... Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Sergey?... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?... *Of course* I like to speak to you!... *Of course* I like to say hello!... Not now, but anytime, Sergey. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It's a *friendly* call. Of course it's a friendly call... Listen, if it wasn't friendly... you probably wouldn't have even got it..."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:I'd love to be a fly on the wall... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Mein Fhurer! I can walk!

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    4. Re:I'd love to be a fly on the wall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant! Now I have to go and watch my entire Kubrick collection again.

    5. Re:I'd love to be a fly on the wall... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Kubrick, sure; I also got a little Marvin, "He called me up to wash his head at me."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  9. Pot calling the kettle black. by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

    I would agree with this if Google and Microsoft lose all of their patents. Otherwise they should shut the hell up and accept that what goes around comes around.

    1. Re:Pot calling the kettle black. by Angostura · · Score: 2

      So you're against - you know - looking at the merits of the individual patent case then?

    2. Re:Pot calling the kettle black. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Agreeing to look at the merits of each individual case gives legitimacy to the process that allowed the creation of so, so many unmerited cases. And it certainly gives legitimacy to the concept of software patents as a whole.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  10. Forum shopping by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    How many of those defendants were joined to GeoTag's lawsuits solely for the purpose of getting jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas? The irony, of course, being that they would end up having to defend their other suit in Delaware anyway because they neglected to sue Google and Microsoft straight away.

  11. Re:Thats nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    WARNING above link is to goatse.ru. (thank you, wget)

  12. Nice to have deep pockets by return+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gee, it's nice to be a multi-billion dollar corporation. You can defend yourself against this crap. A small start-up? A free software project? Not so easy.

    1. Re:Nice to have deep pockets by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 2

      Just like the criminal justice system. It helps the rich, screws the poor.

    2. Re:Nice to have deep pockets by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      That is not a bug it is a feature. This is purely intentional in both cases.

    3. Re:Nice to have deep pockets by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You people don't seem to understand that lawyers are hackers exploiting the rules of the legal system. The legal system is not and cannot be airtight; it's not possible. When your girlfriend is loose, she will get fucked by everyone; when your legal system is tight, it will fuck everyone. Unfortunately, a loose legal system also gets fucked by everyone.

    4. Re:Nice to have deep pockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rich were once poor you slashdot idiot!

    5. Re:Nice to have deep pockets by return+42 · · Score: 1

      s/feature/misfeature/

  13. Shocking, I know... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft and Google working together for their own self-interest, which incidentally is beneficial to us too.

    FTFY.

    1. Re:Shocking, I know... by izomiac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ya know, an interest shared by Microsoft, Google, and the vast majority of people is generally known as the common good...

    2. Re:Shocking, I know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Ya know,

      What are you trying to say? "You know"? "Yeah I know?" . Completely garbled communication.

      If you're trying to say "yes" like the Germans do, you should write "Ja".

  14. Re:Thats nothing by CFTM · · Score: 2

    Yes, Ubuntufan5 has been spending his/her time over the past few days posting pictures to goatse for fun.

  15. Let the inventor pay by mangu · · Score: 2

    You could put the high or a higher standard first, but you would have to fund it

    OK: have the applicants pay for the needed experts. After all, the idea of a patent is to let the inventor profit. The inventor cannot afford it? That's what banks are for. If the idea is good, he can get a loan based on his future profit. Or get a venture capitalist to fund him.

    1. Re:Let the inventor pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just who is supposed to decide that the loan is for a good reason? Oh, the same experts he needs the loan to hire in the first place. The patent system is set up so that its easy (relatively) and not costly for an inventor to get a patent on something. The alternative is that you come up with something, a rich guy sees or hears what it is, the rich guy screws you over because he doesn't need the loan to patent the thing. Or better yet, what if you just have really bad credit but you suddenly realize the physics behind faster than light travel! Should you get screwed out of the idea of a generation just because you couldn't get your finances straight or should you have to sell it to a corporation for a song when it could be worth trillions!? The current system may not be great but its set up the way it is for good reasons. Reforming it isn't that simple or they would have done it already. The patent system is being abused right now because technology is the bleeding edge of innovation. An innovation that people want to cash in on.

    2. Re:Let the inventor pay by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      You could put the high or a higher standard first, but you would have to fund it

      OK: have the applicants pay for the needed experts. After all, the idea of a patent is to let the inventor profit. The inventor cannot afford it? That's what banks are for. If the idea is good, he can get a loan based on his future profit. Or get a venture capitalist to fund him.

      You realize the most VC's are just loan sharks of the startup world, don't you?

      Another possibility would be to have those who have successfully obtained a patent and are not actively licensing it under reasonable terms pay an annual penalty. This penalty would be used to fund the expert assistance required to maintain a manageable patent system. This has three advantages: it ensures fewer garbage patents are allowed into this system; it discourages people and companies from sitting on patents; and it encourages availability of the patented technology.

      Further - it wouldn't make a process that's already too expensive for the independent inventor even more so; or unreasonably burden their future income as with VC funding.

    3. Re:Let the inventor pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK: have the applicants pay for the needed experts. After all, the idea of a patent is to let the inventor profit. The inventor cannot afford it? That's what banks are for. If the idea is good, he can get a loan based on his future profit. Or get a venture capitalist to fund him.

      That's what a patent troll and contingency fee law firm are - venture capitalists. They put thousands of hours into the case for free with the hope that settlement/verdict will compensate for the risk.

    4. Re:Let the inventor pay by bit01 · · Score: 1

      The alternative is that you come up with something, a rich guy sees or hears what it is, the rich guy screws you over because he doesn't need the loan to patent the thing.

      As opposed to the current systen where the rich guy has a thicket of patents ready to block you from doing anything useful. Patents are a weapon that anybody can use, rich guys have more of them, and patents don't change the balance of power at all, just escalate the damage.

      The superficial thinking of patent proponents is just incredible. Not to mention the endless spamming of naive view points to drown out much more sophisticated alternative points of view. The PP post has been spammed on slashdot for years. Tto this day patent proponents still pretend the sophisticated view points that many slashdotters have from years of discussing this topic don't exist.

      ---

      Has the Least Patentable Unit reached zero yet?

    5. Re:Let the inventor pay by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Another possibility would be to have those who have successfully obtained a patent and are not actively licensing it under reasonable terms pay an annual penalty.

      Rather, have a blanket annual penalty ("fee") to keep the patent going for another year. Don't pay the fee? Patent expires. Thus no need for a penalty. And it serves the rest of your purposes just as well.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  16. Prior art is not the problem by NoSig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is not that a patent was given when there was prior art. Are we supposed to think this would all be fine and dandy if only this abusive patent troll company had filed for this patent a little earlier so that there wouldn't be prior art? The patent system was supposed to be this deal: you tell the world how you did this amazing thing, and the world allows you to control your idea for a limited time. The patent system has instead become a competition to come up with an idea before anyone else does, so that those other people can't use their own idea to compete with you.

    The premise that gives the patent system value is that the world just wouldn't have the idea available if the patent holder hadn't come along. In such a case perhaps a patent is called for. If we give patents for 20 years, the standard for giving a patent should be that no one else is likely to come up with that idea for the next 20 years assuming no patent system to motivate them. Then a patent makes sense. I doubt even one patent in a thousand could live up to that standard. The 999 other patents in a thousand are a drain on humanity.

    1. Re:Prior art is not the problem by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

      Modify parent insightful, please.

    2. Re:Prior art is not the problem by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      ...The patent system has instead become...

      No, it has not degenerated. It has always been like that. Read about the patent fights between Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers attempts to run Henry For out of town way back in 1900s. Think about the patent fights over ailerons vs wing warping between the Wright Brothers and the Curtiss aircraft company (Wrigts were wrong). The bitter personal feud between Edison and Westinghouse, Westinghouse poaching Tesla from Edison. Tesla getting to huge fights with Marconi. I have read about some patent office clerk being bribed/blackmailed into time stamping one application ahead of the other, (may or may not be the Marconi vs Logdge, not sure).

      There were thousands of patent disputes, angry personal feuds, and quite a lot of underhanded dealings in the patent system. Just that in the internet age there was a mad rush and these disputes have exploded in number compared to previous decades.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Prior art is not the problem by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is good.

    4. Re:Prior art is not the problem by drphil · · Score: 1

      I'm late to the party, here, but the parent comment is *not* +5 Insightful, it's 0 Has no clue about the patent system. You cannot patent ideas. An idea must be reduced to practice in some novel way in order to considered for a patent. The problem is that the US Patent office started to hand out patents for computer software and business models. Computer software is rightly copyrighted, not patented. And patenting business models (which is patenting ideas -not inventions) is simply an atrocity that is eroding the societal benefits of the Patent System.

      "the standard for giving a patent should be that no one else is likely to come up with that idea for the next 20 years assuming no patent system to motivate them."

      This is wrong on so many levels it's not even worth addressing.

    5. Re:Prior art is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pharmaceutical patents are an example where an extended patent period makes some sense. The trial period must be long because of FDA (and trial lawyer) requirements. Without the extension, they'd have a much shorter effective patent period, compared to a mechanical or software period.

    6. Re:Prior art is not the problem by NoSig · · Score: 1

      I'll ignore your little semantic game with "idea" - define it in whatever way you need to to understand what you are reading.

      The problem is not business model or software patents in particular. The problem is that patents are used to prevent other people from using their own ideas when someone else already took out a patent on them. That is a drain on humanity and it should not happen except when the patent system can provide value that surpasses the destruction it causes. That value only exists when the ideas are so novel or expensive to produce that the patent system is the only way we can get at those ideas in a timely manner. Business model and software patents just happen to be areas where both the damage and the lack of benefit is particularly apparent.

      This situation will be extraordinarily hard to fix because the destruction caused by patents is distributed globally by international treaties, while the income gained from a patent is localized to whatever country the company taking out the patent is in. So all countries have an incentive to allow their local companies to take out patents even when those patents cause more destruction than benefit from a global perspective. It is the classic tragedy of the commons.

    7. Re:Prior art is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the standard for giving a patent should be that no one else is likely to come up with that idea for the next 20 years assuming no patent system to motivate them.

      This is wrong on so many levels it's not even worth addressing.

      I sure would like to know why this is wrong since I independently came up with the same criterion.

  17. Re:TiniUrl has a nice preview feature as well by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

    I have tinyurl preview enabled and this links to:
    http://gw001.dyndns-blog.com/
    view-source:http://gw001.dyndns-blog.com
    indeed redirects you to view-source:goatse.ru

    The shock image must be hello.jpg because new is commented out in the css. The names of the other links are bizarre as well.

    --
    "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
  18. Re:Tolkien prior art for word "Troll" by cboslin · · Score: 2

    You can't use the word 'Troll' or the Tolkien estate will be after you all.

    Nope, prior art....lol...

    troll (n.)

    "ugly dwarf or giant," 1610s, from O.N. troll "giant, fiend, demon." Some speculate that it originally meant "creature that walks clumsily," and derives from P.Gmc. *truzlan, from *truzlanan (see troll (v.)). But it seems to have been a general supernatural word, cf. Swed. trolla "to charm, bewitch;" O.N. trolldomr "witchcraft." The old sagas tell of the troll-bull, a supernatural being in the form of a bull, as well as boar-trolls. There were troll-maidens, troll-wives, and troll-women; the trollman, a magician or wizard, and the troll-drum, used in Lappish magic rites. The word was popularized in English by 19c. antiquarians, but it has been current in the Shetlands and Orkneys since Viking times. The first record of it is from a court document from the Shetlands, regarding a certain Catherine, who, among other things, was accused of "airt and pairt of witchcraft and sorcerie, in hanting and seeing the Trollis ryse out of the kyrk yeard of Hildiswick." Originally conceived as a race of giants, they have suffered the same fate as the Celtic Danann and are now regarded in Denmark and Sweden as dwarfs and imps supposed to live in caves or under the ground.

    I am pretty sure, without looking...I know very very brave of me - not to look..., that Tolkien (oops violated that one...Good one LordEd) was born sometime after 1610. Either that or he lived to over 300 years old...or there abouts.

    On a more serious note, yes hard to believe that any of us would get serious about this topic..., if you enjoyed Tolkien's Trilogy, "Lord of the Rings". I know I did back in the day, you need to visit your nearest book source and read:

    Good luck putting them down, assuming of course you enjoyed Lord of the Rings.

    And if they make those into movies, I sincerely hope they do them justice! How about 6 movies from 3 books, hint, hint...

  19. Have you seen the list by gsgriffin · · Score: 1

    I mean really, what the heck is this patent for? They're suing McDonald's, Levi's, Hospitals, Lowe's, Auto parts stores, grocery stores, heavy machinery companies, and even Build A Bear...Oh! The humanity!!!....What the heck?

    --
    jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    1. Re:Have you seen the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, come on... They're attacking everyone who has a topographical map on their web page to give directions to their location(s)....probably with features like zooming/panning.

  20. FlightPrep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're suing FlightPrep? No? Oh, oh well... :-(

  21. "[sued] most of them in mid December" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    happy holidays, with love, fuckers.

  22. Re:TiniUrl has a nice preview feature as well by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Isn't there a general firefox addon that expands short urls?

    Meanwhile, trivia of the day is that the prior copy of "real goatse" was the French .fr copy. However someone apparently got to it to take it down, so the new one is the .ru Russian one.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  23. Frozen Hell? Pigs Flying? Turtles Singing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We just purchased a new HP computer and the first thing I did after burning the recovery disks was use my Win7 Upgrade disk to do a clean install using the HP License key. Having done this in the past, I've had to call MS to get an activation code for the system. This time though, I did not and MS actually activated/validated right over the internet, ensuring that Turtles are singing, pigs are flying and Hell has Frozen over.

  24. What is the prior art? by chrismcb · · Score: 2

    I RTFA and Google and Microsoft claim the patent is invalid because there is prior art. Although they also apparently claim their users aren't infringing on the patent. BUT what is the prior art? I also RTFP and I'm not exactly sure what it is for. I THINK it is supposed to do something similar to what Google does when you do a search and it returns places nearby. That is you want to know all of the restaurants in your neighborhood. It appears the patent is saying you can give every item a geotag, and then do a search based on geo for all items with a geotag near the geo. I think. I'm not sure what prior art existed before 1996. BUT this wasn't a novel issue. I worked for a company that discussed stuff like this in 1993. Maybe not directly related to the internet. But just throwing "internet" in the patent should not make it a patent.

  25. Trolls asside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, patent trolls give patents a bad name. But to all the patent naysayers, I hope one day you have a really great new innovative idea and want to base a company around it, spend millions to setup and produce the product only to have it ripped off and mass produced before you even sell one item, and then tell me patents suck when you are filing bankruptcy.

    Patents only suck to infants thinking the world runs off of love and cotton candy.

  26. Re:Tolkien prior art for word "Troll" by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    There wasn't a SINGLE race/species that Tolkien invented himself.

    Orcs? Beowulf.

    Hobbits? The name is listed on an early 19th century list of folk tale creatures without description, the creature itself comes from early 20th century children books, including "Babbit".

    Elves, dwarves, trolls? Norse mythology.

    Tolkien did a great job digging those creatures out of obscurity. It is so much better to not have to learn what "qwerts" or "asdfaks" are in every single book, which is what copyright (*spit*) requires these days.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  27. Patent trolls, lots of 'em by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Google and Microsoft say that there was prior art when the patent on...

    And I'm SURE there was no prior art regarding any technology relating to the numerous patents that Google and Microsoft hold. Maybe they're right in the case (I don't know), but they must also be held to a fair standard.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:Patent trolls, lots of 'em by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      And I should add that a cease and desist letter from Google or Microsoft is probably worse than actually being sued by a small company, since you know defending against someone with their resources (cash) can bankrupt before a judgment is ever rendered. Those types of companies (Google, MS, IBM, Apple, Etc.) amass huge libraries of patents they have no intention of ever using in the hopes that they can license them out, which is no different than small-timers trolling.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  28. Patent Reform - things would turn out differently by MadX · · Score: 1

    Having read lately about the attempts to change the US patent system to a "first-to-file", would mean that the result would go a different way here. So does this not highlight the flaw in the "first-to-file" system ?

  29. Ampersand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USE IT

    "Microsoft & Google"

  30. Re:TiniUrl has a nice preview feature as well by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/long-url-please-mod/

    According to the description it supports 182 short URL services.

    (Works with Firefox 4 beta it he compatibility checking is disabled.)

    --
    We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  31. Oh, FMtroll again with another crack pot spin by gnufreex · · Score: 0

    Masking as Unknown Lamer while he is in fact very well known lamer. Please stop pimping your blog Florian. Nobody cares about your spin.

    --
    Microsoft's official position on standards: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/189826
  32. Hmm ... by Stooshie · · Score: 1

    ... MS and google (who would use the patent system to protect their own ideas) are trying to crush another patent for someone else's technology they don't want to pay for. Greater good? really?

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  33. Re:Long Url Please Mod by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Good try, though the pity is that it does't work for the Firefox 4 Betas.
    For now I made a fast and dirty note of the tinyurl to the goatse. I'm pretty sure there's more than tinyurl, but there can't be that many.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  34. Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to know these two companies are working for a same cause. Business Loan