Small Devs Attacked Over In-App Purchase Button Patent

Thornburg writes with this excerpt from a story at MacRumors: "Yesterday, we received word from Rob Gloess of Computer LogicX ... that he had received legal documents threatening a patent lawsuit over the use of an 'upgrade' button in the lite version of his application linking users to the App Store where they could purchase the full version. 'Our app, Mix & Mash, has the common model of a limited free, lite, version and a full version that contains all the features. We were told that the button that users click on to upgrade the app, or rather link to the full version on the app store was in breach of US patent no 7222078. We couldn't believe it, the upgrade button!?!' The patent in question was filed in December 2003 as part of series of continuations on earlier patent applications dating back to 1992. The patent is credited to Dan Abelow, who sold his extensive portfolio of patents to holding firm Lodsys in 2004. Lodsys is indeed the company issuing the threats of a lawsuit regarding the patent in question."

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Blegh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it's just best to do your technology outside of the USA and leave it to devour itself.

Re:Blegh.

[GameboyRMH]

Funny? Insightful.

Re:Blegh.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I guess having a mod of "Sadly insightful in a funny way" wouldn't work.

Re:Blegh.

[Penguinisto]

That's because there's no mod for "Gallows Humor".

Re:Blegh.

[drb226]

Funny + Insightful = Frightful?

Re:Blegh.

[Anonymous Coward]

New Zealand doesn't support software patents, you're welcome.
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-patents-in-nz

Re:Blegh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says he was making a joke? Sounds like a good idea to me. I've already been doing that for a while now. Fuck the U.S.A. until they getting fucking real on patents. This is one of the biggest leg ups that the U.S.A. is giving China.

Re:Blegh.

[Kalriath]

The New Zealand Government, a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Government, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Business Software Alliance, very much is in favour of software patents.

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

One button? First flush!

I hold the patent for Obvious Buttons

[WillAffleckUW]

The claimant is in violation of my patent and owes me license fees.

In the amount of (holds pinkie to side of mouth) one million dollars (evil laugh) ...

Re:I hold the patent for Obvious Buttons

[Anonymous Coward]

You either infringed on someone's copyright or trademark, depending on whether you believe Dr. Evil to be a real person.

Re:I hold the patent for Obvious Buttons

[Lord_Jeremy]

That's exactly how I felt when I heard about the RIAA suit against Limewire...

Re:I hold the patent for Obvious Buttons

[WillAffleckUW]

already trademarked None Of The Above.

big corporations, take notice.

[girlintraining]

Hey Microsoft, how's that Upgrade Anytime feature of Windows 7 looking right now? Like a big fat target? This case is to set a legal precident -- if you're smart, you'll help this guy now, before it becomes a multi-million dollar cock-up.

Re:big corporations, take notice.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even look like the patent should apply. Every claim requires users. Plural. Upgrading an app involves a user, singular, one or more intermediaries, and a vendor...

Re:big corporations, take notice.

[Anonymous Coward]

No because microsoft's legal team would crush these guys like I crushed Clippy in my dream last night...

Re:big corporations, take notice.

[gravis777]

Um, pretty sure that, whoever this company is, they wouldn't be stupid enough to go up against Microsoft. Even companies who did have valid claims were usually driven to the brink of bankruptcy with court proceedings against Microsoft, just to have Microsoft pick them up cheap (cough - Stacker). Now, Microsoft could do the humanitarian thing and file a preliminary lawsuit against this company.

Actually, as this is an App Store thing, and both Apple and Android marketplaces have this feature, I could imagine both companies going after this company.

Notice they are not going after Apple or Google (even though Apple announced this feature in, what was it, iOS 3), but are going after the small independant developer.

Re:big corporations, take notice.

[Fjandr]

They're going after a small, independent developer in order to establish case law in their favor against a company that does not have the massive legal budget that the big dogs do. If it ends up that they can get a ruling in their favor, they can then use that as leverage against larger companies.

Here we go with idiocy again

[uberjack]

I seriously doubt this type of an idiotic patent would fly in court. On the other side, given that this affects smaller developers who would rather not become entangled in lawsuits, this issue will likely not be handled for a while - at least not until larger companies become involved.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the patent could be absolutely baseless, but it takes money to go to court over patent cases, especially when the plaintiff has the home field advantage in choosing the court to try the case in, what judge hears it (if you don't think a good patent lawyer knows which judges rotate to what cases, think again), and when it appears on the docket (it can always be stalled), most small developers will just settle.

These are just tactics that do work almost always taken from the RIAA playbook. I'm amazed that lawyers have not been doing this sooner.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Albanach]

at least not until larger companies become involved.

According to this page the company is suing HP, Lexmark, Samsung, Hulu, Trend Micro, Canon, Lenovo and others over the same patent (amongst others).

I'd say big companies might just be involved already.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[hedwards]

Or perhaps we ought to have a time out one patents, if they can't get their application through in a reasonable amount of time, then it gets denied. I find it hard to believe that something "invented" in 1992 really would take 12 years to go through the patent process without making some pretty ham fisted mistakes.

It's almost as if they were wanting to give time for others to implement the patented idea in order to sue even more people than would otherwise be possible.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going after the small guy instead of Apple precisely because they know their case is baseless.

The proper solution to this kind of stuff is similar to the concept of rubber-hose cryptanalysis.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Anonymous Coward]

It might fly in East Texas where many patent suits are filed. :(

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it used to be worse. There are now timeouts after which time it becomes public knowledge that a patent has been applied for. The practice of applying for patents, publishing the research and then drawing out the patent approval process until a large number of people had implemented it is quite common. They're known as submarine patents.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[memyselfandeye]

Sort of. If you publish your invention publicly, the subsequent patent becomes unenforceable upon allocation. In fact, just talking about a patent application to a large enough group will make the subsequent patent unenforceable. Sometiems, even a vague mention of a similar idea can invalidate a patent. I remember a case well where we won against a competitor who posted their cool new process on their website. Whoops...

The idea behind submarine patents was to use your secret squirrel ideas unpatented for as long as possible. The minute you think someone is going to figure out your 'method', you suddenly work out all the bugs in your application and, viola, the lab that was about to RE your invention suddenly finds you have a totally novel, and enforceable, patent. In short, if you can keep the method of making some super cool invention a secret for a long time (difficult to RE or whatever) you can effectively extend your patent by the number of years you've keep it secret. This might have been used extensively by modern pharma to great sucess, but submarine patents around the world are largely defunct nowadays.

RE: The OT. My rule of thumb is thus - any patent with more than a couple pages, or more than a hand full of "real" claims, is totally worthless. I'm all for patent reform in this regard, as nobody should be allowed to patent a software process that simply calls an apple and orange, such as patent 7222078. Sadly, it really seems like the inmates are running the asylum here. Just me 2.5 cents, I have no idea how the software industry works in regards to patents and IP. I wish the 'victims' all the luck in the world defending thus. Here's hoping they all team up, but I'm willing to bet the big guys want to go it alone less they risk a terrible loss and chance of appeal. Our system at its best :(

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Dachannien]

Exactly. If litigated, this case would probably wind up with a summary judgment of non-infringement after the claim construction hearing (that's where the court ascribes meaning to each term in the claim and thereby figures out what the actual scope of the claim is). But just getting to that point is extremely expensive, far more expensive than any small-time software developer could deal with.

On the other hand, as long as these guys haven't been sued yet, they can file first for declaratory judgment, and thereby pick their venue. Since they're actually a UK-based company, though, I'm not sure this helps.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Anonymous Coward]

These are just tactics that do work almost always taken from the RIAA playbook. I'm amazed that lawyers have not been doing this sooner.

Not sure where you've been these past few years, but this shit happens all the time. My company (the one I started and grew it to a successful IPO) has been sued about ten times so far. All these lawsuits were complete bullshit, but we ended up settling nine of them because the plaintiffs were willing to accept a "reasonable" payoff. And by "reasonable" I mean six or seven digits.

We do this because fighting lawsuits is fucking expensive, no matter how much of an upper hand you may have. You see, the one lawsuit that we fought and won cost my company about six million in legal fees, not counting the hundreds of hours we sunk into bullshit like discovery and depositions. And we did not even go to trial, we won on summary judgment, which should tell you something about how strong the plaintiff's case was.

So the only news here is that these trolls have become so numerous and their "business" is so rewarding that it's no longer just multi-million dollar companies that they go after. Sue or threaten to sue a bunch of little guys, shake them down for a few thousand each, repeat.

The patent system needs fixing or we need tort reform. Actually, the latter is easier. Just make the losing party pay the legal fees of the winner, and watch this "IP holding" bullshit implode.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Zomalaja]

It might fly in East Texas where many patent suits are filed. :(

Guess where that same company (Lodsys, LLC) has already filed another suit against a boatload of others (Brother, Canon,HP, Hulu, Lenovo, Lexmark, Motorola, Novell, Samsung, and Trend Micro) ? If you answered "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas" - bingo! "On February 11, Lodsys LLC, a Marshall, TX-based company, filed a patent-infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas." Where is Marshall, TX ? around 30 miles from the Texas-Louisiana border Refs: http://www.action-intell.com/2011/02/16/lodsys-launches-patent-infringement-suit-against-brother-canon-hp-samsung-and-others/ http://www.action-intell.com/2011/05/12/brother-canon-hp-and-lexmark-respond-to-lodsys-patent-infringement-lawsuit/ Incredible......

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[KDR_11k]

Since they're actually a UK-based company, though, I'm not sure this helps.

Europe has very different laws on software patents though.

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, they are now prohibited from doing that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent/

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Dachannien]

True, but they would get sued in a US court over a US patent. Whether or not the patentee could actually get money out of them is anyone's guess, but it would probably limit their ability to do business in the US (which, since they're using Apple's App Store for much of their business, may make their incoming payments vulnerable).

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting...

Do you think if on app submission a developer restricted their products to non-US appstores (as is possible), it would make any difference?

Re:Here we go with idiocy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Software patents patent IDEAS, not things and thus should not be allowed. You can't build a better mousetrap because I patented the IDEA of a mousetrap.

Methods and systems for removing unwanted, free-ranging rodents.

Appropriate Wikipedia Result

[rabidmuskrat]

Appropriately enough, when you search for Lodsys in wikipedia. It says.... "Did you mean: lousy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=lodsys&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Is this what it is coming to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly?

Another reason to love capitalism; you think of gravity, the universe is your's!

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[Anonymous Coward]

In which universe is "your's" a word?

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[TheEyes]

Honestly?

Another reason to love capitalism; you think of gravity, the universe is your's!

Patents aren't capitalism. In fact they're almost the exact opposite of capitalism: they are government-granted monopolies on production. They were originally granted to protect individual innovators from exploitation by wealthy corporations, but almost since the laws were first passed they were used for the exact opposite purpose. They need to die, or at least be seriously reformed, but in the current pro-corporate, anti-consumer climate of, well both parties but I'm thinking of one in particular we'll never see real patent reform, just like how real health care reform and real banking reform were "compromised" to death, and even their hollowed-out husks are drawing fire from the radical right.

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[sopwath]

"your's" is a copyrighted word in the universe of Anonymous Coward. Please send payments to the undersigned for the amount of 1 space bux ($1000000 USD equivalent)

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents aren't intrinsically tied to the notion of capitalism or the free market. You could argue that they're more of a socialist imposition on the market by the state.

I think that, overall, they're a good thing, but are being utilized in fields and domains they don't belong in.

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[curveclimber]

I'd say they are absolutely tied to capitalism in that they are about ownership. There is no way to own the idea of an upgrade button the way you can own a mine, so the government created a fiction that lets corporations treat them the same way.

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[mellon]

Right. It's a government subsidy, basically. Of course, so is all property ownership--without government intervention, the only thing stopping someone from moving into your house while you're away on vacation is the security guards you hire.

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks kind of like a French word, you know, like "hors d'oeuvres", as in "I am going to a cocktail party hosted by Mr. and Mrs Your. The Your's parties are the best!

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[Quirkz]

In my's universe?

Usage: "Mom bought bumper stickers for Kevin's and my's cars."

Acceptable alternative: "Mom bought bumper stickers for Kevin and I's car."

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[drb226]

Those both seem wrong.

Better alternative: "Mom bought bumper stickers for both my car and Kevin's."
Or if you meant: "Mom bought bumper stickers for my and Kevin's car. (the car belongs to us both)"

Actually I'm not sure about that second one. Typical English speakers seem to say "me and Kevin's car".

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[MikeUW]

I pay taxes for police services and such...since they're the government-employed guys that would remove the intruders you speak of, I believe it's me and other tax-paying citizens subsidizing them, not the other way around.

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[dryeo]

Of course they're capitalist. Capitalism says to increase profits in the most efficient manner possible. Using force is the most efficient and having a proxy to use that force is even better as there is little backlash. So one of the goals of successful capitalism is to have a proxy that can use force to assure your profits as it is simpler and cheaper then producing a better product and marketing it. So our current type of government evolves from pressure of capitalist survival of the fittest.
Basically a capitalist system is always going to produce a government that props up the capitalist, this is best shown by the American government which seems to mostly exist to ensure profits for business.

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[Quirkz]

Yes, of course they're wrong. That's what makes the joke funny. Until I admit it, like I am now.

Re:Is this what it is coming to?

[Theaetetus]

They were originally granted to protect individual innovators from exploitation by wealthy corporations, but almost since the laws were first passed they were used for the exact opposite purpose.

No, they weren't. They were originally granted to encourage innovators to release details of their invention publicly, rather than keeping it a trade secret. This has been true for the past 500 years, since the first patent was granted in exchange for Brunelleschi releasing details of his barge loading mechanism in Florence. Corporations didn't even exist then.

Oh, great...

[mangu]

Take a look at their patent portfolio:

- provide online help, customer support, and tutorials

- conduct online subscription renewals

- provide for online purchasing of consumable supplies
survey users for their impressions of their products and services

- assist customers to customize their products and services
display interactive online advertisements

- collect information on how users actually use their products and services

- sell upgrades or complimentary products

- maintain products by providing users notice of available updates and assisting in the installation of those updates.

Why do they call things "inventions"? What about prior art? What about obviousness? Methinks there should be a law against ridiculous and/or frivolous patents.

Re:Oh, great...

[0123456]

collect information on how users actually use their products and services

Still, there might be an upside if companies can no longer spy on their users without paying license fees.

Re:Oh, great...

[chargersfan420]

Unless their license fee includes sharing of the collected data... then things could get worse.

Re:Oh, great...

[prgrmr]

What about algorithms? Simply taking a bunch of components (that someone else invented) and rearranging the order in which they are used or interact isn't inventive, it's just mucking about with an algorithm.

Re:Oh, great...

[kevinmenzel]

Congrats, you've listed the areas of their patent portfolio. What about their claims? Is anything original or innovative in their claims?

Re:Oh, great...

[StormReaver]

Methinks there should be a law against ridiculous and/or frivolous patents.

There is, right in the Constitution, but the patent office and courts ignore it -- just like most of the rest of the Constitution.

Re:Oh, great...

[firex726]

I think we should get rid of SW patents altogether.
I'm sure there are some genuinely inventive people out there that may get taken advantage of, but at least the one taking advantage could use it; right now you can patent it and lock it up to never been seen or heard from again.

Considering how stifling these SW patents are currently, given the choice of a "Wild West" of SW patents and what we have now, I'd much rather have the Wild West version, if simply so that they could get used and further innovated on. Locking them is a hindrance in the long run, and hurts as as a society/industry.

Re:Oh, great...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with software patents is that they're too general.

Patents used to require an implementation, and you'd patent that implementation. Isn't that how it's always worked from a technological perspective? Other inventors will see this implementation and find a different implementation that doesn't violate the patent but still serves the same audience.

For instance, if someone created a flying chair with miniature rockets and patented it, they don't own the idea of a flying chair. Other people would be able to create flying chairs if they found a different way to make a chair fly, such as with electro magnets or something (whether or not these are actually viable implementations to make a chair is not the point).

Software patents encompass an entire concept or idea that could be implemented in hundreds or thousands of ways. They basically own the idea of a flying chair, and even if someone uses some anti-gravitational technology that hasn't been invented (yet) in order to solve the problem in a completely different and ground-breaking way (hey, another implementation of getting a chair to float in the air, constantly destroy the ground beneath it), in the software patent world, the patent owner could still sue.

Re:Oh, great...

[ackthpt]

Take a look at their patent portfolio:

- provide online help, customer support, and tutorials

- conduct online subscription renewals

- provide for online purchasing of consumable supplies
survey users for their impressions of their products and services

- assist customers to customize their products and services
display interactive online advertisements

- collect information on how users actually use their products and services

- sell upgrades or complimentary products

- maintain products by providing users notice of available updates and assisting in the installation of those updates.

Why do they call things "inventions"? What about prior art? What about obviousness? Methinks there should be a law against ridiculous and/or frivolous patents.

The whole USPTO needs a shakedown. Have you written to your Representative and Senator about it?

Re:Oh, great...

[memyselfandeye]

What about algorithms? Simply taking a bunch of components (that someone else invented) and rearranging the order in which they are used or interact isn't inventive, it's just mucking about with an algorithm.

Correct. Whether you call it a process, a method, or an algorithm, the idea is the same. If you patent a wheel with spokes, someone can't come along and say "I've invented a wheel with spokes that are installed counterclockwise." That doesn't fly... well at least everywhere other than software. It all seems funny to me. The whole software IP needs a big shakeup.

Re:Oh, great...

[djl4570]

IBM was doing at least four of these in mainframes as early as 1982. TSO/ISPF provided online help panels at the push of a button, usually F1 (PF1 for any 3270 purists out there). IBM mainframes have an SMF (System Measurement Dataset) that records information on how the products are used. IBM reps were always willing to sell upgrades or complementary products whether you needed them or not. IBM sent routine maintenance and updates to their customers on tape. IBM provided both phone support and Customer Engineers to support applying such maintenance.

You Mean like...

[h2okies]

.... Amazon's One click....

Re:You Mean like...

[ackthpt]

.... Amazon's One click....

I hold a patent on mentioning Amazon's One Click shopping as an example.

I'll be suing you in the highest court in the world ... in Machu Picchu.

More seriously... this is where countries which do not respect this sort of garbage will be friskily sprinting past the USA in technology advancement, while innovators a are bled dry by these sort of leeches.

Remember how Patents and Copyrights were established to encourage innovation? Ha!

Re:You Mean like...

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Remember how Patents and Copyrights were established to encourage innovation? Ha!

I would argue that they have encouraged innovation. Look at all the innovative ways they've managed to turn the U.S. legal system into a huge MUD with lots of gold pharmers, or how many different ways they've found to transform lawyers into bedbugs and cockroaches without infringing bio-tech patents..

Re:You Mean like...

[Cryacin]

The lawyers had prior art on the bedbug and cockroach genetic market.

Re:You Mean like...

[niftymitch]

.... Amazon's One click....

....snip....
>

Remember how Patents and Copyrights were established to encourage innovation? Ha!

Err... reward innovation within bounds.
If you can find a better way to make "foo" then you
can profit from making foo. The abuse from patent
holding companies that make nothing was also not
considered in the law.

The impact of the strangle hold on software was never
considered by those crafting the law because "software"
was not a concept at the time of the law.

Because software was not a reality at the time the law
was crafted and has not been clearly addressed in
any amendment to the law it seems to me that software
should be rightly excluded from patent law.

At one time there was a requirement that you demonstrate
your invention. Most if not all of these patents were
not even prototyped or deployed.

I believe that one way to counter this is to require that
patents that apply to software must be disclosed and
that terms, conditions and valuations paid be public.

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[lennier1]

The company ran out of electrolytes. You'll just have to drink from the toilet.

Major John Plaster

[DCFusor]

had a solution to "insurgent tax collectors and parasites".

Check "The Ultimate Sniper".

Soap and ballot boxes didn't avail. The slimebags will never stop till there is a penalty. Either suck it up or do something, all the whining hasn't accomplished anything.

Re:Major John Plaster

[Scarletdown]

had a solution to "insurgent tax collectors and parasites".

Check "The Ultimate Sniper".

Soap and ballot boxes didn't avail. The slimebags will never stop till there is a penalty. Either suck it up or do something, all the whining hasn't accomplished anything.

Translation: "The magic bullet to put a stop to this bullshit is called real bullets."

Well now I know who to shoot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate those sorts of buttons. It's the reason that I didn't purchase the recent versions of Guitar hero and Rock Band. They made it difficult to tell (well, non-obvious to the novices you invited over to play some songs at least) if the songs on the list were ones you already had, or if clicking the button would take real money away from your wallet. Just like the real music industry, it stops being fun when all you see is rampant greed all over the place.

Re:Well now I know who to shoot.

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? I haven't played past Guitar Hero 4, but neither that nor Rock Band (any version) has anything like what you say. In both cases you have to go to the "music store" (not even reachable without going back to the main menu) entry. If your buddies are too stupid to know that you go to a store to buy stuff, and saying "confirm purchase" will take money away from your wallet, maybe you should get better friends.

Re:Well now I know who to shoot.

[Anonymous Coward]

False. Rock Band 3 has a "recommended song" feature which "recommends" songs you don't own.

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[Steauengeglase]

That would only be applicable if it were a trademark dispute over the term "upgrade", in this case it is about something much more lucrative, payment methods.

I'm curious to see Apple's response. Buy Lodsys and lock everyone else out?

Libertarians

[Skapare]

This is why we need Libertarians to control Congress and the White House so they will get rid of government (especially Federal government) supporting this kind of theft, and promote a fully Free Enterprise system where anyone can invent whatever they want and not worry about the government stealing it. Ron Paul officially announced his candidacy for President today. Let's find out if he is a true Libertarian or just some two-faced Republican and get him to take a side.

Re:Libertarians

[wjousts]

Yeah, 'cos I'm sure with no government getting in the way, the big boys will all agree to play nice. Yes siree, can't see any problem with that.

Patents aren't the problem, stupid patents are the problem.

Re:Libertarians

[MightyMartian]

And then when the poor rise up and kill all the wealthy who have used those principles to keep the money, deprive them of health care and anything approaching a just, decent society, you can ponder that using Libertarian principles to get rid of bad patent law is the equivalent of chopping off every man's penis to eliminate rape.

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Under statism men oppress men. Under Libertarianism it's the other way around.

Libertarianism in its modern form has been floating around for a while now. When it serves the elites (Free Trade) it becomes law. When it serves the common man (ending the war on drugs that turns cities into combat zones and saddles young men with felony convictions) Libertarian ideals are swept under the rug.

Re:Libertarians

[0123456]

The 'big boys' have a symbiotic relationship with big government, which gives them the laws that keep competitors out of the market, funnel huge government contracts their way and bail them out when they're going bankrupt.

Eliminate big government and parasitic big business goes with it. Only actual useful big business would continue to exist.

Re:Libertarians

[Hatta]

Oh aren't you precious. I almost hope you get what you want, just so I can witness your disillusionment.

Re:Libertarians

[h4rr4r]

I have an easier set of questions. Does he want government to control who marries who? What I can ingest? What women can do with their own bodies?

I am sure he will spout states rights on several. Which is just another way of him saying that he thinks the states will do his dirty work for him.

Re:Libertarians

[wall0645]

Not only stupid patents, but also the length of time a patent lasts, and the scope of what can be patented (e.g. software patents). Plus the fact you can sell patents to other companies (allowing for companies whose sole purpose is to sue people for patent infringement without making or doing anything of value). Oh and also the fact that large companies infringe on each others' patents regularly, but choose to ignore it because it's mutual (but it isn't mutual for the up-and-coming tech startup).

Wait, are we sure it isn't patents that are the problem?

Re:Libertarians

[hey!]

I'm not sure there is an identifiable, unambiguously "libertarian" position on patents.

Some people believe in the right to "own" an idea or expression in the same way one owns a piece of land or a physical object. For libertarians in that camp, the artificial institution of "intellectual property" merely institutionalizes theft by artificially restricting the owner's natural rights over his property (e.g. expiring exclusive rights to patents, or allowing fair use in copyright).

Other people don't think that ideas can be "owned" like a piece of land or a physical object. Libertarians who agree with that are bound to see "intellectual property" as restricting peoples' rights over their property by forbidding them to use it in a way that "infringes" on some patent.

The one thing that seems certain is that anything like the current system of intellectual property is bound to tick off most libertarians. It's a system in which the government sets arbitrary limits on individual behavior using ad hoc, pragmatic criteria for "the public good" rather than upon fundamental individual rights. From a libertarian perspective, limiting individual liberty "for the public good" is an oxymoron, because there is no concept of "the public good" other than the exercise of individual liberties.

Re:Libertarians

[Draek]

Paraphrasing Linus: given enough educated minds, all patents are obvious.

So no, the problem *is* that all patents are stupid.

Re:Libertarians

[Noughmad]

The 'big boys' have a symbiotic relationship with big government, which gives them the laws that keep competitors out of the market, funnel huge government contracts their way and bail them out when they're going bankrupt.

Eliminate big government and parasitic big business goes with it. Only actual useful big business would continue to exist.

I think you misspelt "corrupt" twice. It's not the size of the governemnt that matters, its who controls it.

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

a fully Free Enterprise system where anyone can invent whatever they want and not worry about the government stealing it.

Nope, they won't have to worry about the *government* stealing it. The multibillion-dollar corporations, on the other hand, will be "free" to raep anybody they want.

Re:Libertarians

[Unordained]

See the last section of this "Ask Slashdot" entry from 2008, for the Ron Paul campain: http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/08/02/05/1511225/Ron-Paul-Campaign-Answers-Slashdot-Reader-Questions

Re:Libertarians

[Skapare]

We only see these patent suits because it's something the government enforces. Patents are a form of taking property away from those who own it. Each inventor owns what he invents. But the government allows the first who filed for a patent to take the property away from other inventors. So the 2nd and latter inventors lose.

Of course, there always has been the risk that someone will see what is done and steal that, claiming to have invented it. The patent system was intended to encourage invention that never would have happened without the patent system. Most inventions today, like the upgrade button, are so trivial that no one would believe that they would only have been invented because a patent system exists.

Let me take a moment now to defend the patent system. There are a few very innovative or very expensive inventions that really do need the patent system. IMHO, these constitute a tiny fraction of patents actually issued, probably less than one percent. We need the patent system to get these inventions to come about.

What we do not need is a patent system that just issues patents for anything that comes along (under the guise that the courts will figure it out later). Because we have such an unfair court system (money rules, not justice), that means the patent system is unfair, too. And this harms the nation and its businesses, especially the innovative ones, the most. We need a complete and thorough patent system and patent process overhaul. It needs to judge each and every patent on the merit that founds the whole patent system to begin with. If an invention is something that we would have seen invented anyway, by the time it is needed, or soon after, typically because it is obvious to at least a number of people who could invent it, when posed with the problem, then that invention does not meet the real reason for a patent, and it should be denied.

The USPTO and the US Government itself are getting money because they issue these patents. And this is a big factor in why the system is so screwed up. They don't have an incentive to fix it.

Re:Libertarians

[VortexCortex]

Yeah, 'cos I'm sure with no government getting in the way, the big boys will all agree to play nice. Yes siree, can't see any problem with that.

Patents aren't the problem, stupid patents are the problem.

No, patents are the problem. Let's look at copyright for just a sec: To infringe I have to willfully duplicate all or most of an existing work covered by copyright. Now, back to patents: To infringe I can be clever in a steel box fully detached from the rest of the world and accidentally create something that's mostly similar to something some other sucker got the the patent office first with.

Know why I'm always re-inventing the wheel? Because it's damn simple to do, and blatantly obvious -- Know why I've infringed 4 "clever" patents without even knowing it? Because it was damn simple to do, and blatantly obvious to a clever person.

The purpose of both the copyright and patent system is to help society, not the inventors or authors... Yet, I create and distribute free software that benefits the general public, and can be prevented from distributing due to patents.

It's easy for a software creator like myself to avoid infringing copyright law -- I just don't look at anyone else's code. There is no way to attempt to avoid infringing patents -- I must try to not accidentally think the same as anyone who's been to the patent office in the last 20 years.

In a way you are correct about "stupid patents" being the problem. I put it to you that since patent law exists primarily for the benefit of society the capacity for any given patent to harm society makes them all stupid patents.

Re:Libertarians

[Skapare]

Oh, I'm personally not a Libertarian at all. There are a few things I do believe in that are very libertarian in leaning. The patent system overhaul I suggest, is one of those things that is, or should be, both libertarian and progressive supported. But I do like to call Libertarians to the carpet for being untrue to libertarianism. Another example is government issued marriage licenses. A true libertarian would get the government out of that business. Why should the government, at any level, be the gateway to getting married (even though for the most part that has not been a problem with it). If Ron Paul is a true libertarian, he would be seeking to remove the government from these activities. That doesn't mean that I would actually vote for him. Whether he would, or would not, I would not vote for him.

Re:Libertarians

[wjousts]

Wait, are we sure it isn't patents that are the problem?

Yes. You only restated my point, it's stupid patents that are the problem. Stupid because they aren't merit-worthy in the first place, stupid because they are obvious, stupid because they are too broad or stupid because they last too long. I don't think anybody is going to argue that patents don't need a massive overhaul, but there's no point throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Re:Libertarians

[MightyMartian]

That Ron Paul would likely work towards good things. It's the bad things that worry the hell out of sensible people. The one thing Ron Paul is not is a pragmatist. He's a fanatic.

Re:Libertarians

[wjousts]

Patents are a form of taking property away from those who own it. Each inventor owns what he invents. But the government allows the first who filed for a patent to take the property away from other inventors. So the 2nd and latter inventors lose.

In the US a patent goes to whoever is first to invent, in most of the rest of the world it is first to file.

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians who give the matter serious thought in the modern era should probably oppose imaginary property, see http://mises.org/against.pdf

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, no. That's absurd.

When the government was completely "hands-off" with corporations, we ended up with Standard Oil, who owned more than 30 cities. (yes, cities)

The cities were wholly-owned. They owned the land, the buildings, they ran the stores, they forced workers to live in these homes and buy from these stores. They employed private "police" forces, who turned out to be thugs, but since they owned the police, nobody could do anything. One time the workers went on strike because of the terrible treatment and the private security forces opened fire on the crowd, and nobody could identify individual killers, so nobody went to trial for the murders.

It was NOT all rosy and happy. So the government stepped in and things were MUCH better as a result.

See, simply eliminating the government is absolutely ridiculous polemic at its very core.

Sure, limiting its power, and downsizing... cool, all for it. But eliminating?

Re:Libertarians

[gandhi_2]

20 years after that massive "redistribution" of wealth, you would find that many people were rich or poor again.

Re:Libertarians

[unity100]

patents ARE the problem. your mishap is in that you are forgetting that 'stupid' can always be redefined.

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same thing...

All power tends to corrupt; big power corrupts bigly.

Re:Libertarians

[FriendlyPrimate]

Sheesh. I don't know if I'd consider Ron Paul to be a Libertarian anymore ever since he said outlawing abortion is a "Libertarian principle". Yea...in bizzaro world maybe.

If I can't trust Ron Paul to be Libertarian in social matters, how can I trust him to be a Libertarian at all? He sounds like a plain-old Republican to me. I might as well be voting for Huckabee.

Re:Libertarians

[Mr. Slippery]

This is why we need Libertarians to control Congress and the White House so they will get rid of government (especially Federal government) supporting this kind of theft, and promote a fully Free Enterprise system where anyone can invent whatever they want and not worry about the government stealing it.

Big-L Libertarians -- as in the Libertarian Party -- want to shrink or eliminate entirely the regulatory functions of government, not the wealth-concentrating ones. Their 2008 VP candidate was a patent troll. These right-wing propertarians have little interest in patent reform: patents are just another form of property, and in their view the state exists to create and enforce the "property rights" of the owning classes. (Still, I'll take the Libertarians over the GOP any day, at least they're not trying to bring the state into my bedroom.)

Actual libertarians -- libertarian socialists, a.k.a. anarchists, from whom the right-wingers stole the appellation "libertarian" -- want to eliminate the wealth-concentrating functions of government.

(As for Ron Paul, specifically, he's a grade A loon who is disconnected from consensual reality on abortion, evolution, and the separation of church and state, and is a liar who is either a racist or is incompetent to run a 'zine. Please, folks, get over the crush on him.)

Re:Libertarians

[maztuhblastah]

Patents aren't the problem, stupid patents are the problem.

I agree. I also think sterilization is a bad idea. Microbes aren't the problem, bad microbes are the problem.

Seriously though, saying that "bad patents are the problem" is just silly. The problem is that we've created an excellent legal tool for large corporations to pummel their competitors with.

Here's the issue: we can either make patents really easy to obtain (such that any patient soul with a couple bucks for the paperwork can get one) or we can make the process as difficult and careful as possible so as to avoid everyone patenting everything. We're already doing the first option. Clearly that's not working. So what about the second? Well... my bet is that the actual inventors -- you know, the people who make shit (rather than spending all their time securing "intellectual property" for a parent company) will be disinclined to participate in an increasingly difficult process, especially when it is completely optional.

Here's a better idea: ditch the patent concept, but keep trade secrets. That way while a product is in development it's protected, but after release it's not. You get the best of both worlds that way: the incentive for R&D is still there (since you can get the first-to-market advantage), but once an idea is out there you can't abuse the legal system to stifle competition and improvement on the idea.

Everyone wins... except the patent lawyers and the corrupt politicians.

Re:Libertarians

[RedDeadThumb]

Patents aren't the problem, stupid patents are the problem.

All patents are stupid.

Re:Libertarians

[tnk1]

You are right, if you had completely honest and competent people in all government positions, you might well have a government that is both honest and provides the benefits of centralization and economies of scale. There is nothing inherently evil about government.

The problem is, as government gets bigger, it becomes less transparent. That creates the dark corners that allow corrupt or incompetent people to get into place.

Another issue is that eventually the government runs so many things that no one voter can possibly understand everything the government does. Therefore the voters are forced into making decisions on things like science, patents, or wars based on how the issues are presented to them by biased parties and conflicting experts. This means that you can find yourself never coming into contact with an actual fact that you can independently verify about hundreds of government programs that eat up billions of dollars a year.

Even worse, with so many things to decide on, but so few choices available to make, even if you had a good grasp of most of the issues, you could find yourself forced to vote for someone who merely checks off more boxes for you than the other guy, even if the number of boxes checked off is still far fewer than even a slim majority of your preferences. And it doesn't matter how many parties you have if the number of seats in the halls of government remain fixed.

When does the realization dawn on people that, in the end, big government is effectively the same thing as a big corporation? Its not a matter of not wanting health care or to protect the environment, it a matter of pretending that you can just keep loading on more and more diverse tasks on the same organization and it will not ooze corruption and inefficiency while at the same time bolstering the power of elites who have the money and access to decision makers to actually be able to get around the bureaucracy?

Size does matter. Eventually simple size will doom even the best conceived entity to become ineffective, possibly even inimical to its own founding goals. Perhaps it is possible to redesign a government that scales better, but at this time, most of our governments were either founded hundreds of years ago, or they are based on those same governments. The corruption is here, and its only going to get worse. It doesn't matter if the new programs you add are defense related or social programs, the effect is the same. Intentions don't matter to the larger question. A democratic government that cannot be fathomed by its own people is not a democratic government at all.

Re:Libertarians

[steelfood]

The solution to this isn't less government, it's more government. It's more government by better funding the patent office so they can hire better people and spend more time doing prior art research. Possibly, they need to be rid of the current measure of productivity in favor of some other more accurate measure.

And it's more government in that more laws are needed to specify more precisely what can and cannot be patented, i.e. limit the scope of patentability. The laws that once did this were invalidated, resulting the clusterfuck we have today.

Re:Libertarians

[c0lo]

The 'big boys' have a symbiotic relationship with big government, which gives them the laws that keep competitors out of the market, funnel huge government contracts their way and bail them out when they're going bankrupt.

Eliminate big government and parasitic big business goes with it. Only actual useful big business would continue to exist.

Yes, I can imagine how nice Facebook will play with your personal data in the absence of any regulation about privacy (...and don't tell me Facebook is useful).

Re:Libertarians

[rmstar]

+1, insightful.

Still, do you have pointers to the standard oil story? It is truly scary. Rather heartening that government managed to step up and do something.

Re:Libertarians

[LordLucless]

Where "just and decent" means "I can force other people to give me money". Might want to work on your definitions a bit there.

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about Standard Oil, but the Ludlow Massacre is the gold standard for companies slaughtering people with impunity. Not content with shooting at the striking workers (who were shooting back), the mine guards shot at and knocked down the workers' tent city and set fire to the tents with wives and children inside, killing a dozen of them.

In all, one striking worker was found guilty of murder for shooting coal company militiamen and Guardsmen (and coal company militias "in National Guard uniforms") (conviction overturned by the state supreme court), and a guardsman was court-martialed for assualt for killing the strike leader after capturing him and issued a reprimand. Nobody was charged or otherwise held responsible for the death of the women and children.

Re:Libertarians

[ras]

The Prize, by Daniel Yergin gives a good a breakdown as any. It's worth a read just to expand your general knowledge of how global politics and the energy economy works.

But you don't need to look that far back. The GFC provides an excellent example. The trigger for that was a bunch of Neo-con academics (think economists who share the quasi religious faith in libertarian principles displayed in the posts above) who said "if we just get rid of the rules impeding bankers the world would be a better place". They found willing converts in Regan administration. To Regan's credit they didn't do much then, but in during succeeding Republican administrations that got a whole pile of government regulations on the banking sector ditched. These were principally rules on disclosure and transparency. The result has been a series of crises triggered by fraud in the banking sectors. We called the latest of these crises the GFC.

This paper by some criminologists spells it out pretty well, although the paper is obviously an inter-disciplinary swipe at the economists by the criminologists. Not that I blame them. The economists were saying "it we get rid of all ways of detecting fraud, the economy will run better". The criminologists thought they were insane - because in their world if you get rid of oversight crime inevitability rises. But back in the day (all this started before the Savings and Loans and precipitated it) the criminologists were ignored and the libertarian economists were promoted and paid well. This paper reeks of the criminologists coming back after the shit has hit the fan, and saying as loudly as they can "I told you so". Can't say I blame them.

Re:Libertarians

[CrimsonAvenger]

I think you misspelt "corrupt" twice. It's not the size of the governemnt that matters, its who controls it.

It's at least partly the size. When the government is big enough to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually, then spending hundreds of millions on bribes to get some of those billions becomes a reasonably investment.

And you're not ever going to find enough people to run a government (or any other organization) who won't be tempted when a chunk of "hundreds of millions" gets waved under their noses.

Nor are you going to find a way to stop rent-seeking by corporations, other than be reducing the size of the pie they're all bribing their way to a piece of.

Re:Libertarians

[meglon]

My suggestion to get a preview of what no federal government would look like: move to Somalia.

Re:Libertarians

[Sabriel]

In the US a patent goes to whoever is first to invent, in most of the rest of the world it is first to file.

No, in the US a patent goes to whoever is first to file too, it's just that if the first to invent has enough time, money and lawyers, it may be overturned.

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents aren't the problem. Lawyers are the problem. Especially lawyers that lie to themselves about their clients needing fair representation while they ruin someone's life over an obviously invalid patent.

Re:Libertarians

[MightyMartian]

Yup, that's what it means. It means you pay your goddamned taxes. Your outlet for your frustrations is the ballot box. The money you make is in very large part due to the stable, free society that a moderate government delivers. So again, pay your fucking taxes. If you don't like the tax burden, vote for the person who will lower it. But this crapola line that somehow *your* money is being stolen is nothing more than a lie built of greed and selfishness. It's very likely without the government and society you live in, you would be living under a real tyranny, something you know nothing about.

Re:Libertarians

[LordLucless]

Your outlet for your frustrations is the ballot box

Unless you vote libertarian, it seems...

The money you make is in very large part due to the stable, free society that a moderate government delivers.

Agreed. Of course, that then leads us to consider your definition of "moderate". Hint: "libertarian" isn't equivalent to "anarchist". It's not a question of "government" vs "non-government", it's a question of "how much government"?

But this crapola line that somehow *your* money is being stolen is nothing more than a lie built of greed and selfishness.

Can you provide a reasonable definition of "steal" that manages to exclude the fact that the government is able to legally take your money, resorting to force if you refuse to pay? The ability of a government to violate the rights of its citizens (to be secure in their property, not to be held against their will, their right to life - all able to be legally violated by a government) is the defining attribute of a government. That's why government needs to be limited as much as possible - the powers it holds are too potent to allow them to exercised for anything but necessity.

It's very likely without the government and society you live in, you would be living under a real tyranny, something you know nothing about.

Bull. There are thousands of styles and forms of government other than the one in which I live that do not result in tyranny. To say otherwise is nothing but a worship of the status quo. I agree, without any government the result is anarchy, which will generally evolve into tyranny, but nothing about a limited government necessitates than evolution.

Re:Libertarians

[wjousts]

Microbes aren't the problem, bad microbes are the problem.

Actually bad microbes are the problem, not microbes in general. Or have you never eaten yogurt? Or cheese?

You realize that your gut is home to billions of beneficial microbes without which you would be very sick?

Re:Libertarians

[wjousts]

No it isn't.

Stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about.

Re:Libertarians

[Sabriel]

Quoting from your own link (emphasis mine):

"However, the first applicant to file has the prima facie right to the grant of a patent. Should a second patent application be filed for the same invention, the second applicant can institute interference proceedings to determine who was the first inventor (as discussed in the preceding paragraph) and thereby who is entitled to the grant of a patent. Interference can be an expensive and time-consuming process."

So while the US in principle has a "first to invent" system, as my post and your own link points out it doesn't always work in practice. If Alice invents first but Bob files first, Alice better have the resources to fight or Bob'll be keeping that patent.

Re:Libertarians

[wjousts]

And why wouldn't that be the case. If somebody else files first then of course you'll need to provide proof that you invented first.

This is why lab notebooks have to be dated, signed and witnessed.

Move countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple as that.

Don't try an overhaul the patent system - get the fuck out.

When there are no taxpayers left maybe then big government will get it.

Re:Move countries

[shentino]

The TSA has something to say about that.

Prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no prior art before 1993 of clicking on a hyperlink?

Re:Prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

O'RLY?!?

I've been not clicking upgrade buttons for years

[cob666]

How is this different than any other 'lite' version of an application that has an Upgrade menu option (which is in reality a button)? I'm also interested in this concept of a continuation patent? Are you really allowed to just add stuff onto existing patents?

Bye guys

[Haedrian]

You're a small company, they're a large company. They have powerful lawyers, you don't.

They can pretty much sue you for anything, no matter how stupid and baseless it is.

Sorry, this is the stupid way software patents are.

Re:Bye guys

[cbhacking]

At times, there are organizations (the EFF come to mind, although they seem to cover governemnt-related cases more) that have the money and lawyers to not only win the case, but win legal fees for frivolous suits. If you can hire a lawyer that can give you a good reason why you *should* win, it may be worth finding the support to ensure you can stick to the fight long enough.

Then again, it might not, too. These things should be evaluated on a case-by-base basis.

Re:Bye guys

[Skapare]

And the Republicans are all for lawsuit overhaul ... at least for lawsuits against Republicans.

Re:Bye guys

[wagnerrp]

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, no matter how stupid and baseless it is, and unless extremely grievous, there are generally no repercussions. There won't be a change in the system until the plaintiff's attorneys have some real liability on the case to protect the defendant. Until that happens, it will be cheaper in the short term to settle out of court than to win a court case, and there will be lawyers looking to make a quick buck that are all too willing to facilitate.

Re:Bye guys

[Haedrian]

And do you think the large companies want that? They can use it to crush the little guy. Won't ever happen.

Re:Bye guys

[wagnerrp]

You would be surprised. Look at all the injury lawsuits where someone trips at a construction site. On major jobs, the foreman is allowed to dole out fairly large sums of money, to settle claims on-the-spot. It's worth a few thousand dollars, no questions asked, rather than court and lawyer fees to fight it off. Look at areas of the country where entire fields of medical practice cannot be found, because bogus malpractice suits have driven up insurance to the point you can't possibly run a solvent business.

All sorts of large, beneficial companies would love for reform. The status quo only serves to allow for parasitic business models.

Re:Bye guys

[Haedrian]

Yeah but this is a patent war.

Large companies can afford to employ people who's sole purpose is to spam out patents. Small companies can't do that.

When you step on another large company's patent, big deal, you have your own patents so you threaten with MAD. If its a small company, drive them to the ground, or extort money, whatever works for you. Patents are kinda like nuclear weapons, you keep them there to bully smaller countries and to make sure that larger countries don't use theirs on you.

Re:Bye guys

[wagnerrp]

My point is, there should be some serious repercussions for filing patent suit and having it overturned. Considerably more so if the patent itself is invalidated in the process.

Re:Bye guys

[Theaetetus]

You're a small company, they're a large company. They have powerful lawyers, you don't.

They can pretty much sue you for anything, no matter how stupid and baseless it is.

Sorry, this is the stupid way software patents are.

Gosh, it's sure a shame that software patents use different laws than all other patents.

Your complaint applies to the entire patent system, and in fact, the entire civil litigation system. Are you complaining about patents on vehicle transmissions, or litigation over defective manufacturing, too? Or is this just about software patents, which shows that even you don't believe what you're arguing?

Re:Bye guys

[Haedrian]

The problem is that with software patents a guy like me and you can be on the receiving end of one of these lawsuits.

How many small companies do you know make vehicle transmissions or defective manufacturing?

With software especially - the little guy can make his own product, and get sued for it.

Remove the upgrade button

[Synn]

Problem solved?

Unless you want to fight it in court.

Re:Remove the upgrade button

[Sunshinerat]

I wonder if a "Click here to get an enhanced experience" button would avoid the patent.
The descriptions above of other patents from this douche are as descriptive as "Pissing in a toilet bowl" and I am sure nobody would patent that (or would they?).

Re:Remove the upgrade button

[Nethemas the Great]

That doesn't solve "damages" for past use. They're not interested in eliminating competition--the original worthless/misguided purpose of patents. They're interested in fleecing anyone that happens over the bridge they're lying in wait under.

Re:Remove the upgrade button

[Anonymous Coward]

It might avoid the patent from a legal point of view (though I rather doubt it) but it certainly wouldn't avoid the lawsuit. It's the lawsuit that's the problem here, since regardless of whether the patent is valid (which I also doubt, whatever the courts might say) If the victim can't afford to mount a defense, the probable outcome of a trial is moot.

Libertarians and Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

A Libertarian IP Lawyer's argument against IP laws.

Amazing!

come on please America...

[advocate_one]

for deity's sake... it's about time all software patents were declared null and void and this entire stupidity stopped...

Stop trying to invalidate patents on technicalities and go to the heart of the matter that they are not patentable in the first place.

Re:come on please America...

[Nethemas the Great]

The problem isn't simply "software" patents. It's patents in general. Software patents were segregated out mostly as a legal strategy but the same fouling of innovation applies to the physical world as well.

Re:come on please America...

[GameboyRMH]

This is true. But voiding all software patents would be a great first step, eliminating an entire category of nonsense.

Use it or lose it

[CokeJunky]

I think that governments should be lobbied to enact patent reform to require patent holders to actively use and promote the patented technology within some timeframe of the patent being granted in order to continue to have patent protection. My reasoning is this: If a patent is so intrinsically valuable to you that it was worth filing the patent in the first place, then you must capitalize on it to be able to protect it. If you can't get funding or sell licenses to get a product to market within a reasonable amount of time, you lose the right to get the courts to do that for you. Seeing as most things truly deserving of patent protection are put in use and on sale while the patent is still pending or not yet filed, I don't think this would harm the kinds of industries that patents were designed to work for, while patent holding companies and trolls would be under the requirement to actually do something with their portfolio instead of waiting for someone else to do the hard work and then forcing them to pay through the courts. A side effect of this is that pharmaceuticals companies that decide a medicine is not worth selling and shut it down would also lose protection.

The core of the idea is to recognize that the ideas embodied by patents have no value unless someone is using them - 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. If you have the idea, and develop far enough to patent it, you can get some time protection to get it into production, but there needs to be a limit to how long you get protection without making reasonable efforts.

Maths should be unpatentable

[davidwr]

Someone recently proved that most if not all computer code was equivalent to lambda calculus.

Sooner or later a court is going to wake up and nix the idea that a patent can cover pure software or, by extension, software running on physical hardware that is not in and of itself covered by the same patent or a related one.

A patent to do x, y, or z using a particular circuit that is implemented in custom hardware, non-eraseable custom ROM, or other "this is clearly hardware" custom things, fine. But the same concepts implemented in software on top of a general-purpose computer, those are math and as such should be considered non-infringing on their face.

Re:Maths should be unpatentable

[Surt]

That wasn't recently proved unless you consider the 1930s recent.

Re:Maths should be unpatentable

[Anonymous Coward]

To /. editors, it might be!

MMM I love these topics

[The Dawn Of Time]

The comments on these topics always suffer from Slashdot Oversimplification Syndrome.

Definitely a riot to read. Thanks guys! Keep up the... work.

Re:MMM I love these topics

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "comments on this topic"?
Our are you calling the comments on the article a "topic" (which is the wrong name that a "thread" receives, but that's another history)?

Re:MMM I love these topics

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, rather than flame-baiting why don't you provide some intelligent discussion as to why this patent should apply in this case.

Of course, we both know you never intended to do such.

Re:MMM I love these topics

[The Dawn Of Time]

I have no stake in arguing that this particular patent is worthwhile of existence. I am more interested in the constant illogical attempts to "prove" that the existence of stupid patents mean that the entire system is broken.

So yeah, I had no intention of that. Never even implied that I did.

Re:MMM I love these topics

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 self-referential

Microsoft has their own version

[davidwr]

I'm forced to use a Windows 7 machine.

It's got a "Anytime Downgrade" button.

Unfortunately someone forgot to tell Microsoft that "down" is not spelled "u" "p".

prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Soleau Software games have a said "Upgrade button" which lead you to ordering information. THIS IS IN THE 1991-1995 DOS DAYS.

Buttons do things

[Anonymous Coward]

In software interfaces, hell -- even in not-computer interfaces -- buttons do things. They are attached to an action. Once the humans realized we need things that our little stubby fingers can push, innovation was over. Whether a button triggers a recompile, a download, or a purchase should not matter.

Buttons in software are there to trigger things in the physical space. We do not need, rather we cannot put up with patents that cover a button in a software UI doing physical activity X in, for all X.

Rubber hose against corporate trolls?

[davidwr]

The proper solution to this kind of stuff is similar to the concept of rubber-hose cryptanalysis.

This only works against actual human beings.

Re:Rubber hose against corporate trolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent trolls are not billion employee zaibatsus which can distill soullessness out of nothing. They are made of humans. Misguided humans who think they can do anything as long as they have a letter from their lawyer approving it.

uhm you mean church and turing in the 1930s?

[decora]

that whole turing machine thing?

Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[danaris]

Apparently, the particular patent involved in this case was originally filed in 1992, and then got a long series of "continuations".

Now, I haven't gone and looked at it, but I rather doubt that the patent filed in 1992, before what we know as the Internet existed, bore much resemblance to what is being claimed today...but that's the patent system for you. Anything that was created after the original filing date cannot count as prior art, so they can claim they thought of it all, even if they added various claims a decade later based on stuff they saw people already doing, by more "continuations."

Dan Aris

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[mcmonkey]

Now, I haven't gone and looked at it, but I rather doubt that the patent filed in 1992, before what we know as the Internet existed, bore much resemblance to what is being claimed today...

You mean what you know of the Internet. And just because you didn't know about it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[VGPowerlord]

Apparently, the particular patent involved in this case was originally filed in 1992, and then got a long series of "continuations".

Now, I haven't gone and looked at it, but I rather doubt that the patent filed in 1992, before what we know as the Internet existed, bore much resemblance to what is being claimed today...but that's the patent system for you. Anything that was created after the original filing date cannot count as prior art, so they can claim they thought of it all, even if they added various claims a decade later based on stuff they saw people already doing, by more "continuations."

Aren't submarine patents illegal at the US Federal level, due to Symbol Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, LP (PDF)?

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[CaptBubba]

The physical device disclosed is a fax machine, office phone, or cell phone that basically has an integrated survey system, then talks about aggregating that data to improve on future devices. Unfortunately the claims are so broad they seemingly encompass any sort of method of using user feedback collected via an electronic device in a product development cycle.

The patent was issued in May 20th 2007, which because of the multi-month delay in issuing allowed patents means it was allowed by the Patent Office BEFORE KSR v Teleflex (April 30th 2007) completely changed the standards of obviousness which the lower courts had forced the Patent Office to use. I would be shocked if these claims survive re-examination in a form anything like they are now.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[amRadioHed]

Oh please, the internet as all of us know it didn't exist back then. When this patent was filed spam hadn't even been invented yet.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[david_thornley]

The Internet existed in 1992. The Web, as we know it, didn't, and most discussion was on newsgroups. If I remember correctly, that was the period when there was a lot of discussion about commercial use of the Internet.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[danaris]

Now, I haven't gone and looked at it, but I rather doubt that the patent filed in 1992, before what we know as the Internet existed, bore much resemblance to what is being claimed today...

You mean what you know of the Internet. And just because you didn't know about it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Yes, thank you, I'm not a total moron. That's why I said "the Internet as we know it," not simply "the Internet." And by any measure not come up with by a hopelessly literalist nitpicking jerk, what existed in 1992 was not much like the Internet as we know it today.

Dan Aris

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[danaris]

The Internet existed in 1992. The Web, as we know it, didn't, and most discussion was on newsgroups. If I remember correctly, that was the period when there was a lot of discussion about commercial use of the Internet.

So, you support my point: the Internet, as we know it today, did not exist in 1992.

Dan Aris

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[BradleyUffner]

The Internet existed in 1992. The Web, as we know it, didn't, and most discussion was on newsgroups. If I remember correctly, that was the period when there was a lot of discussion about commercial use of the Internet.

So, you support my point: the Internet, as we know it today, did not exist in 1992.

Dan Aris

The internet is NOT the web. The internet is just a geographically distributed network of computers (arguably using tcp/ip as it's primary protocol). It's the same now as it was then.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[WillAffleckUW]

dude, I was advertising crap back in the late 70s on the Internet, back when I was an SFU student.

try again.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[mlts]

Around 1990-1991, Adobe had a CD stuffed chock full of Type 1 Acrobat fonts. You could buy the entire CD unlocked, or get the CD for free, and call Adobe to unlock what fonts one wanted at the time.

From reading the patent, this seems very close to prior art, as it uses the word "system", and at the time, calling an 800 number and putting in an unlock code could be considered just as much a system as an in-app purchase under iOS.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[memyselfandeye]

Not illegal, but a submarine patent is not regarded as enforceable once the invention has become widely adopted. In fact, if you want to forgo foreign patents, you can stealth patent with the USPTO to your hearts content. But that case, and others, did make clear one important caveat to the stealth patent. If one claim is invalidated, the entire patent becomes unactionable. This is usually the case, but sometimes not if reasonable exception that a claim was novel can be shown. However, with these kinds of patents, it's always a big fat NO.

This is a stealth attack by a patent Troll. The only people who will make money here are the lawyers. The sucker investors who bought into the patent troll will lose their shirts after "fees." The programmers and designers who built the software they are being sued over will lose, even if they win. Finally, society will lose as cool software we could once purchase will no longer be developed, or reduced in functionality.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[RedK]

Back in 1992, the Internet was a vast worldwide TCP/IP based network. It still is today. You could install a "browser" and use that piece of software to navigate on web sites, using the HTTP protocol. We still pretty much do that today. Domain names were used so that you didn't have to remember numerical addresses, and were stored and queried using the Domain Name System. Like today.

Need I really go on ? Because you didn't know it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[mcmonkey]

Actually, you've got it backwards.

The Internet as it was known to many back in 1992 does not exist today. It's been replaced by a flashy, empty-calorie Web. The difference is not literalist or nitpicky in the least.

Unless you're coming on /. and professing to not know the difference between the Internet and the Web.

Now you may get off my lawn.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[Theaetetus]

Apparently, the particular patent involved in this case was originally filed in 1992, and then got a long series of "continuations".

You use scare quotes because you don't know what those are, right?

Continuation applications are applications filed off the parent application, getting the benefit of the same filing date. The claims can be different, but must have support in the application as filed - no new matter can be added.

... even if they added various claims a decade later based on stuff they saw people already doing, by more "continuations."

Look up 35 USC 112.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[Theaetetus]

From reading the patent, this seems very close to prior art, as it uses the word "system"

It also appears to use the word "the".

That's just as good an argument.

Re:Prior art, meet procedural loopholes

[danaris]

Apparently, the particular patent involved in this case was originally filed in 1992, and then got a long series of "continuations".

You use scare quotes because you don't know what those are, right?

Not specifically, but...

Continuation applications are applications filed off the parent application, getting the benefit of the same filing date. The claims can be different, but must have support in the application as filed - no new matter can be added.

...that's more or less what I thought. And from my limited understanding of what exactly the patent filed in 1992 claimed, if the claims as they stand today are really close enough to the in-app upgrade system that they won't get laughed out of court, it wouldn't surprise me at all if at least some of the continuations would, by any reasonable interpretation, add new matter.

Thus, my use of quotes: not because I don't know what a continuation means, but because I question whether what the company did really qualifies.

Dan Aris

tell them yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

This patent was well deserved for hard work and innovation... if you would like to thank these productive members of society for their brilliance, they can be reached here:

dan@abelow.com
mark.small@lodsys.com

better start learning Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States is fucked.

Libertarians != Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You're confusing Libertarians with today's Republicans. Easy mistake to make. And even then ... The last REAL Republican was Barry Goldwater.

Patent length

[idontusenumbers]

It's cool that independent re-invention or implementing this patent from scratch would take less time than reading the actual patent.

Simple cure

[Cosgrach]

Get a gun and shoot patent trolls in the head. When will people learn?

Re:Simple cure

[Goose In Orbit]

Nuke the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure.

To quote a great man....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

How is teletext, prestel, viewdata, etc not prior art for this patent? There were working systems in the field in the 1970's and 80s.

Please don't call this guy; here is his number

[Anonymous Coward]

From the egomaniacal site http://abelow.com

Contact Information

Dan Abelow Phone : (407) 786-7422 Email: dan@abelow.com

Re:Please don't call this guy; here is his number

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, check this address, it might be his home:

3788 Watercrest Dr
Longwood, FL
(407) 786-7422

This might also be the same lame-o:

108 Bay Hammock Ln
Longwood, FL
(407) 786-3567

Re:Please don't call this guy; here is his number

[Anonymous Coward]

he has nice photographs on his site. It's well worth a visit by everyone.

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[fahrbot-bot]

in this case it is about something much more lucrative, payment methods

IANAPL, but the 74 claims of the patent seem to cover any sort of user feed-back, interaction and results display. I suspect that the /. "Reply to This" link, "Post a Comment" button and probably the entire /. site are in violation as well. Yes, the claims are that broad and numerous.

Microsoft's "send feedback on experience"...

[kfsone]

... slams into this patent.

The "upgrade buttons" are running into it at a very, very shallow level; if the upgrade button is just a button for a hyperlink, it does not interact with this patent. If their upgrade button submits feedback on their use of the application or anything like that, then there may be enough gray area for it to actually go to court =/

Re:Microsoft's "send feedback on experience"...

[Ares]

I'm inclined to agree with you. the patent seems to have a handful of base claims on which the remainder of the claims are built. Logic (which we can all guess as to its existence in the court system) would dictate that in order to infringe one of the derivative claims, the device or method would have to infringe on the parent claim.

1) A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

If we assume that the commodity in question here is the app itself, the question of whether this one is infringed hinges on whether the upgrade button is considered to be eliciting information about the user's perception of the application. This one is critical since it can easily be argued that as long as the app doesn't store and otherwise process the fact that a user has seen the upgrade option and not used it, there is no perception information gathered. Someone else can figure out the opposite argument if they are so inclined; I'll not be providing the bad guys an argument.

54) A system comprising: units of a facsimile equipment that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units and is configured to trigger a two-way interaction to occur on-line between the unit of the facsimile equipment and a vendor of the facsimile equipment, the user interface being configured to generate information about use of the unit by the user, a communication element associated with each of the units capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

This one an its derivatives ought to be irrelevant, since there isn't fax equipment involved.

60) A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity and is configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity for generating information about use of the unit of the commodity by the user, the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or support provided for users of the commodity; a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collection of the results of the interactions at the central location and provides access to the collection of results to a third party.

This one seems to require that "the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or sup

Re:Microsoft's "send feedback on experience"...

[kfsone]

Read on to the examples, as I was reading the first example case I thought "aha! this renders it completely irrelevant", but as you reach the final example (software related) it starts to look more robust.

The reason there is so much preamble in the patents is it's ancestry. The original patent was quite clever, but each successive generation gets a little more vague and a little closer to being "and you could do something like this with a typewriter too!"

Proponents of the patent system would point out here that this is a distinction between "Patent" and "Copyright", but I think this particular patent demonstrates a clouding of the distinction, to the point where this patent, as applied to computer software, is essentially speculative. The document uses a fragment of terminology to create a false air of specificity: e,g it uses the term "a memory", which sounds technical but reviewing the context indicates it could mean anything from a post it note to a networked file system that uses Bitmap images to encode data using BMP images of either a boy for 0 or a girl for 1. The "inventor" clearly did not persue any actual research or development in any of these fields.

If you extract just the software specific portions of the patent, and discount it's ancestry, it could actually cover things like tweakable web portals, Hulu's "is this ad relevant to you", ad widgets in wordpress, adsense ... All kinds of technologies that were developed from scratch without reference to the patents this patent uncreatively extends :(

Re:Microsoft's "send feedback on experience"...

[Qzukk]

a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction

It would appear that claim 1 requires that when someone presses the "Upgrade" button, the app "remember" this, as opposed to performing the upgrade so that the user receives a new "unit of commodity".

Do the upgrade buttons upgrade immediately, or does it "remember" the request to upgrade for the next time you plug in to iTunes?

OT: Sig comment

[davidwr]

From your signature:

"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Regardless of who or what, my guess is that until it is observed it believes and doesn't believe simultaneously.

This is really weird

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The referenced patent seems to be entirely focused on systems that allow users of a product to generate feedback to owners of the product, such that the owners can improve and enhance the product or even determine new directions for future products. Here's a clip from the description, which seems to show the general direction of each of the individual claims:

For products (and information systems) that contain this Module, customers may continuously inform vendors (or developers) of their current and emerging needs. The vendors of those products may have the best opportunity to respond swiftly to a much clearer view of customer problems, product problems and market opportunities than they have today. The inventor believes that within a generation it will be normal for many products and services to include this type of Module, so that customers (in aggregate, the market) comes to play a larger role in directing and controlling the commercial development of many products and services.

Then later:

Simply put, this invention helps vendors and customers by transforming their learning cycle: It compresses the time and steps between setting business objectives, creating effective products and services, and improving them continuously. It also alters their roles: Customers become partners in the improvement process along with vendors and distributors.

Reading through the claims with my layman's understanding... I don't see any of them that even suggests a click-to-upgrade scheme might be related. The closest that I can find is:

16. The system of claim 1 in which the user interface presents information in one or more of the following styles: text, lists, charts, views, arrangements, hierarchies, graphical maps, sample extracts, abstracts, summary descriptions, or hypertext.

A button could be construed as hypertext, so let's look at claim 1:

1. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

Again, it's all about reporting back on the user's experience and perception - nothing to do with upgrade. In this light, I find it extremely odd that they would even attempt to file suit for violation of this patent.

Re:This is really weird

[qubezz]

Again, it's all about reporting back on the user's experience and perception - nothing to do with upgrade. In this light, I find it extremely odd that they would even attempt to file suit for violation of this patent.

Windows error reporting, anyone. Of course everything like this is obvious to someone trained in the art, unless you are a bunch of East Texas hicks on a jury.

Re:This is really weird

[Sepodati]

I guess you could interpret a user upgrading as feedback that the application is "good enough" for the user to justify spending money on. That's feedback on some level. Not that I want to help these fuckers, but that could be how they're viewing it.

Re:I've been not clicking upgrade buttons for year

[wagnerrp]

Consider this chain... You start out with a patent for shareware software. You distribute a 'light' version of the software for cheap or free, and once you get to a certain level, or want to access a certain feature, it prints out a phone number or address to the DOS terminal to mail order a more complete version. A few years later, the internet, browsers, and graphical OSs become common. In place of the terminal printout, you hook into your OS's defined browser, and open a webpage from which you can order a more compete version on CD. Internet speeds increase, and a few years later your webpage offers a digital download. Next, you implement a secure API into your website, and allow credit card purchases from directly within your application, combined with the previous digital download, and the program now self-updates without ever exiting it. Next, you tie your website into some digital wallet service that allows a single configuration shared against multiple applications and services.

Each step along this path is a logical procession as technology and methods improve around it, the original patent from the early '90s has lapsed, so other can distribute such shareware, but your latest patent covers the latest incarnation where the software is updated internally using funds from a shared marketplace.

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[Penguinisto]

*facepalm*

Err, "whoosh"?

(damn...)

Dan Abelow: inventor or idea squatter?

[macraig]

Intent makes all the difference. Regardless, the intent of Lodsys is obvious. Should its exploitation of patents in such a context be allowed at all?

Re:Dan Abelow: inventor or idea squatter?

[Chewbacon]

I like your idea. I never looked at it that way before. If cyber squatting is illegal, why not patent squatting? I was reading not too long ago you pretty much can't publish software anymore without violating a stupid patent. It's stifling innovation.

Re:Dan Abelow: inventor or idea squatter?

[macraig]

Intent has made all the difference in courts for a long time. In a murder trial, if they can prove intent - premeditation - then they pursue a conviction for a more severe charge. In this case the intent itself would be the crime, I guess.

The easiest solution to what Lodsys is doing is to outlaw the sale or transfer of patents. Make the grants non-transferable. Patents should not be that much of a commodity, if we allow patents at all.

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[Steauengeglase]

This is true. A total failure on my part.

This /. article reeks..

[MisterJohnny]

..of shill. Maybe someday they'll learn that advertising speak isn't what normal humans use.

Re:This /. article reeks..

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Are you sure you didn't mean to post to this article?

Shareware

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely Shareware products of the early days of PCs would count as prior art and invalidate this patent? They prompted you to upgrade, and often provided a mechanism to do so from that app - either by collecting your credit card details and sending them to the author/publisher by having your modem dial their modem (this was before the internet) or giving you the option to print an order for you could fax/mail in.

Re:Oh, great... or Business Process patents

[WillAffleckUW]

I already patented the Business process of Filing Stupid Patents To Sue Real Innovators with.

You owe me money.

They also invented the question mark

[wcrowe]

We are fortunate that patents are a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. Imagine if the wheel, books, or fire had been patented.

Re:They also invented the question mark

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent insightful.

OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn - I knew I should have patented the OK and Cancel buttons - who knew you could patent something so trivial?

its a quick make money venture

[Anonymous Coward]

Its all about making money. come up with stupid patents, and wait in the dark shadows until people start to violate your stupid patents, sue, make money and you havent had to lift a finger or worked hard

prior art suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

iirc
Red Ryder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ryder_%28software%29
had an upgrade button in the interface

The patent-filer Dan Abelow lists his phone number

[Anonymous Coward]

On his web site http://abelow.com/ can be found his phone number, which correlates to: Dan Abelow 3788 Watercrest Dr Longwood, FL (407) 786-7422 It seems he invites telephone contact...

Web site of the patent author and owner

[TwineLogic]

Dan Abelow filed the patent and seems to own and operate these patent troll corporations:
http://abelow.com/

Re:Web site of the patent author and owner

[scot4875]

That website, along with those it links to, are filled with some of the most egregious weasel speak I've seen since I started reading up on SEO. This dude is a professional patent troll.

--Jeremy

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[larry bagina]

My reading was that the device prompts you for feedback, sends it to the manufacturer, the manufacturer aggregates it and makes improvements based on that. So I'm not sure if it's actually the upgrade button or something else (like asking you to rate the app).

Redonkulous

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just sayin....

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[Sepodati]

I agree. From my reading, it seems like they patented getting feedback for an application from within the application itself. The prior art listed is "distributed" feedback through marketing, on-line surveys, etc.

Good Luck

[rusl]

Good luck to the claimants. This is a satirical lawsuit to prove how ridiculous a claim one could conceivably make - right? Anyone with common sense looks at this and says that it is funny and a good reason to look at how patents over-reach, right? This is satire, not real life?

Re:The patent-filer Dan Abelow lists his phone num

[SpammersAreScum]

On his web site http://abelow.com/ can be found his phone number, which correlates to: ... It seems he invites telephone contact...

To quote TFS: "... Dan Abelow, who sold his extensive portfolio of patents to holding firm Lodsys in 2004. Lodsys is indeed the company issuing the threats of a lawsuit regarding the patent in question." So, seems like your beef is with Lodsys, not Abelow, no? Unless you want to harass him for filing a patent that probably shouldn't have been granted, in which case you should be harassing practically every tech company.

Damn well does matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the size of the governemnt that matters, its who controls it

It damn well does matter. The incentive for corruption, as well as the damage from consequences, increases proportionally with the size of government. The more power available, the more incentive to leverage that power for personal gain. The more revenue available, the more incentive to leverage that cash flow for personal gain.

Am I the only one who considers this common sense?

Re:Damn well does matter

[Noughmad]

If you take some of the power from the government, who do you think will get that power? I don't think it would be the individuals, it would go to other large organizatinons. Which again would have plenty of incentive for corruption and other criminal activity.

If you want to limit the size of governments, limit the size of corporations as well. But, while this might sound like a good idea, it would slow down progress considerably. With no large organizatins, who'd be there to build roads, utilities, moon-going rockets, or to do basic research?

The IP market IS a free market

[TapeCutter]

"free" = Anyone can participate.
"Market" = A set of rules governing transactions, the most basic of which are the rules of ownership.

IP laws basically state that ideas are private property and can be traded just like any other type of private property. The fact that anyone can buy and sell ideas means that the IP market IS a free market.

You could argue that they're more of a socialist imposition on the market by the state.

So, go on then, let's hear how a set of laws that declare ideas are private property that can freely be bought, sold, or rented, is a socialist imposition on the market.

Re:The IP market IS a free market

[mrnobo1024]

IP laws basically state that ideas are private property and can be traded just like any other type of private property.

Physical property: If you build a car, you own it. If I independently build my own car, I own that one.
Intellectual property: If you come up with an idea, you can patent it and thus own it. If I independently come up with the same idea, the government lets you sue me.

Yeah, no difference whatsoever.

Re:The IP market IS a free market

[TapeCutter]

I did not say there was no difference between physical and intellectual property, but you did a fine job of attacking your strawman.

Re:The patent-filer Dan Abelow lists his phone num

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone want to talk on the phone with a low-life who has made his living using the state to coerce others into paying him a license fee simply for having done something that they were unaware the state had forbidden anyone but him to do?

what assholes

[sribe]

I actually started reading the patent, and oh good grief. It is so far from covering in-app purchases that it is a sick fucking joke to make the claims that these miserable low-lifes are making. It is an enormous stretch to claim that--such a stretch that I cannot imagine getting this past any jury, which is why these festering pieces of shit are going after the tiniest developers. I wish there were some downside to their strategy--we really really need the possibility of punitive damages for these kinds of actions because the mere improbable possibility of a small dev taking this to court and winning is not nearly enough negative incentive to balance the probability of being able to extort a settlement based on a patent that is really not infringed. I hope Apple finds a way to rip the assholes right out of these motherfuckers, shove them down their throats and choke them--metaphorically speaking, more or less.

I am not a lawyer, much less a patent attorney, and have little experience reading patents. But seriously, go look for yourself and (try to) see what the original inventor was actually trying to claim...

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[KDR_11k]

I wish them luck with their lawsuit against Microsoft then.

Re:What Would Officer Collins Do?

[levis501]

Shareware has been doing this since before 1992, or perhaps I'm generalizing.

deep pockets

[Anonymous Coward]

From the language used in this patent enforcement action,it sounds like Lodsys just wants to settle and nab some licensing deals. Honestly, it probably would have been smarter for them to go after Apple and/or other deep pockets, if money's all they want, instead of pursuing one-man development shops; after all, you can't bleed a stone.

Bilski...

[Dwonis]

Sounds like a business method patent to me.