B&N Pummels Microsoft Patent Claims With Prior Art

itwbennett writes "As Slashdot readers will recall, Barnes & Noble is being particularly noisy about the patents Microsoft is leveraging against the Nook. Now the bookseller has filed a supplemental notice of prior art that contains a 43-page list of examples it believes counters Microsoft's claim that Nook violates five of Microsoft's patents. 'The list of prior art for the five patents that Microsoft claims the Nook infringes is very much a walk down memory lane,' says Brian Proffitt. 'The first group of prior art evidence presented by Barnes & Noble for U.S. Patent No. 5,778,372 alone lists 172 pieces of prior art' and 'made reference to a lot of technology and people from the early days of the public Internet... like Mosaic, the NCSA, and (I kid you not) the Arena web browser. The list was like old home week for the early World Wide Web.'"

Comments

Why did everyone else pay?

[oic0]

If it was this easy to beat them and the prior art was that apparent, why did everyone else bow down and pay to troll his toll?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[SomePgmr]

Someone else suggested it's because they're handset makers that also have WinMo devices (or expect to, at some point).

B&N, otoh, wouldn't care. They're not in the business of making phones.

Though I admit that's a bit conspiratorial. And you'd think Google would've fired first...?

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[oakgrove]

Sure its possible but then again, what isn't? I hope they bring whatever they have. Barnes and Nobles' lawyers are blowing holes through the current ones like a crackhead chihuahua with a Gattling gun. Send more so we can either invalidate or code around those too. The last thing MS wants is real transparency.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[poetmatt]

Doesn't matter.

This is public, not under seal. This will have effects that reach far, far beyond this single case.

The strongest patents Microsoft can bring to bear would also suddenly become their biggest and dumbest decision. Why?

Can you imagine how much effort would be dedicated to invalidating them? Hint: a lot.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[c 0xFF]

Good news! If I'm reading Groklaw correctly, Google's starting to get involved.

I think the reason Google hasn't really been involved before is because Microsoft hasn't been attacking them directly. And because companies have just been rolling over, Google hasn't had a chance to back anybody up.

Google will become involved now that someone is planting their feet, hopefully.

Re:Why did everyone else pay?

[icebike]

I suspect in large part because most companies' lawyers basically tell them "Paying the licensing fee is cheaper and surer means to an end than fighting." So far as I can tell, it basically amounts to a vast conspiracy of legal departments on both sides of the fence.

Also a possible reason is that B&N is a US company and could go directly after Microsoft in a court of its choice. HTC, Samsung, et al may have subsidiaries here but they are headquartered elsewhere and can't directly access US courts as easily.

Fraud

[the eric conspiracy]

I find it inconceivable that Microsoft's technologists did not know of this prior art. Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.

Perfect move by B&N

[future assassin]

Looks like they did their homework and so did their lawers. Even if they were not to win this is a HUGE way to attract customers to their hardware/online stores especially when they win. You couldn't get a more massive good will gesture then this especially before christmas shopping holiday.

What about the others?

[WindBourne]

This will sound dumb, but what about the other companies that cut deals with MS? Can they back out of it and sue MS? It would be interesting to see law suits started against MS again, but this time, make it in multiple nations.