Slashdot Mirror
Google Takes a Small Step in Lodsys Patent-Troll Case
The Lodsys saga continues; reader WyzrdX writes with this excerpt from Wired: "Google has intervened in an ongoing intellectual property dispute between smartphone application developers and a patent-holding firm, Wired.com has learned, marking the Mountain View company's first public move to defend Android coders from a patent troll lawsuit that's cast a pall on the community. The company says it filed a request with the United States Patent and Trademark office Friday for reexamination of two patents asserted by East Texas-based patent firm Lodsys. Google's request calls for the USPTO to assess whether or not the patents' claims are valid."
I think the next version of Android ... Ice Cream Sandwich is going to be fully vetted for patent claims.
That's their strategy .. I think. So far, all the patent claims against Google that I have seen have simple workarounds -- so it's logical that Google is stripping it all out of Ice Cream Sandwich.
The Lodsys patent workaround is a pain in the ass.. not to mention totally bogus .. so they need to invalidate it.
Nobody has patents on the fundamental technologies which were developed in academia and not patented (for example pinch to zoom or touchscreen scrolling/panning or zoomable UIs).
Other than with the expected value of a patent monopoly, how will the maker of a new drug finance FDA-mandated clinical trials? Show a viable alternative to patents for industries that are as heavily regulated for product safety and truth in advertising as the drug industry, and the case against patents will become clearer.
Except Google doesn't use them offensively to stifle other companies.
I welcome the fact that Google finally does at least something (after months of not answering related questions from affected Android app developers), and Google did a very good job so far on patent reexaminations in its dispute with Oracle.
However, these reexamination requests are of very limited use on their own . They don't change the situation of developers who get letters from Lodsys or are actually sued by Lodsys and have to decide whether to pay up or fight. Even the combination of Apple's motion for a narrowly-focused intervention (Apple just raises contractual issues as opposed to defending app developers against Lodsys's infringement assertions per se; Apple's 'exhaustion' theory could work but it's far from certain to hold water) and Google's reexamination requests doesn't really strengthen little 'indie' app developers at this stage. Also, the Wired article pointed out that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas grants stays pending reexaminations only in 20% of all cases. Most of the time, those federal lawsuits continue unabatedly, even though the patent may subsequently be invalidated.
Short of blanket coverage from Apple and Google, what those two platform companies do against Lodsys is insufficient. It would be great if they could give their developers some real guidance -- many right now don't even dare to implement in-app purchasing or links to an app store (Lodsys also brings assertions against links, not just in-app purchasing) because they don't want to take risks. Others have removed their apps from the U.S. market because of Lodsys (which goes after international developers, too, but can only sue them if those do business in the U.S.). Apple and Google fail to create a basis on which developers would be able to simply ignore Lodsys and go about their business.
This after Google themself take a broad patent like this?
It's not as broad as you might think. The patent applies only to "a broker computer system independent of the shipper and a merchant", not one where the merchant's system directly uses the shipper's web service, and especially not one that uses a table from the warehouse ID and the destination postal code prefix to the expected transit time.
There's nothing wrong with patents for things you can hold in your hand, it's the software and business-method patents that never should have been allowed in the first place, and need to go away.
Apple's intervention claim is actually quite strong. They say we have a license to the patent, and the license terms mean that all developers can make use of our software implementing the patent on iOS without needing a license. If that argument flies, and it has a very good chance in my opinion, they can get rid of Lodsys at very low cost. All the judge has to do is check the license terms, which judges are much better at than checking patents. It does mean, however, that Apple doesn't help Android developers at all (but then there is no reason for Apple to help Android developers).
Google's intervention very nicely attacks at a different angle. So there may be twice the cost for Lodsys, who has plenty of work anyway with half a dozen cases against it for declaratory judgements.
The patent system is broken. Lodsys however can not be held accountable for that.
Big companies sueing the snot out of each other with patents: accepted.
Big companies sueing the snot out of smaller companies treading on their lawn: accepted.
Small companies sueing big companies: surely, now we have a problem?
Sure, it's the business model of Lodsys to hoard patents and sue. But the regulatory framework around patents facilitated its business model. Lodsys plays by the rules. The only really significant difference being, this time around it's a small company sueing the big boys and now suddenly there is a problem.
Lodsys nicely shows the brokenness of the patent system. We should be more thankful.
My karma ran over your dogma
According to that article, that particular case had nothing to do with Google's patents. It was in fact company called Traffic Information that sued several companies producing web street maps. Google became involved when Traffic Information notified T-Mobile that Google Maps traffic feature was infringing their patents.