Meet the Lawyer Suing Anyone Who Uses SSL

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Since 2008, Dallas, Texas attorney Erich Spangenberg and his company TQP have been launching suits against hundreds of firms, claiming that merely by using SSL, they've violated a patent TQP acquired in 2006. Nevermind that the patent was actually filed in 1989, long before the World Wide Web was even invented. So far Spangenberg's targets have included Apple, Google, Intel, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, every major bank and credit card company, and scores of web startups and online retailers, practically anyone who encrypts pages of a web sites to protect users' privacy. And while most of those lawsuits are ongoing, many companies have already settled with TQP rather than take the case to trial, including Apple, Amazon, Dell, and Exxon Mobil. The patent has expired now, but Spangenberg can continue to sue users of SSL for six more years and seems determined to do so as much as possible. 'When the government grants you the right to a patent, they grant you the right to exclude others from using it,' says Spangenberg. 'I don't understand why just because [SSL is] prevalent, it should be free.'"

Comments

So

[Ultra64]

Who's up for forming a lynch mob?

Re:So

[CuteSteveJobs]

> So even if you win the lawsuit, you might end up losing money in the end.

Try definitely. In the US your legal fees usually aren't reimbursed, so you will be out of pocket $3-5M *EVEN IF YOU WIN*. Kiss that money goodbye. Under UK rules the winner does get their legal fees reimbursed, but lawyers charge a lot more than that amount so you will still be out of pocket for say half that amount.

As soon as someone sues you for patent violation - even if their suit is a sham - you're a few million out of pocket. In theory the judge should throw out sham suits, but judges in patent troll counties are a different breed.

So...

[MozeeToby]

Nevermind that the patent was actually filed in 1989, long before the World Wide Web was even invented.

Now, don't get me wrong, this is patent trolling at it's absolute worst, but what exactly is this quote supposed to mean? We (rightly) complain all the freakin time how people shouldn't be granted patents just by adding "on the internet" or "on a computer", we can't have it both ways. If there is a valid patent to provide secure communications through USPS and the key steps of that patent are being performed as part of secure communications online, why shouldn't that be considered to be violating the patent?

Re:So...

[History's Coming To]

We need some reductio ad absurdem on the part of the courts here. Side with the lawyer, outlaw all uses of SSL without a license from him, and have all companies using SSL remove the facility for one day. He's after a little bit of money but he's claiming to want to protect the patent. OK, call his bluff, no money and a protected patent, then let's see how the rest of the world responds when they see what's happening. No more internet banking? No more online trading? No more secure internet sessions? Go on, call his bluff, let's open Pandora's Box Of Patents, it's the only way to bring this nonsense down once and for all.

'New' SSL users 'safe'

[beaverdownunder]

According to TFA, the patent apparently infringed upon has expired, however this mob can still sue people who used it in the past for the next six years.

So, if you start a new company now that uses SSL you should be in the clear.

See also Marconi being sued by telegraph companies

[dbIII]

Marconi was sued by telegraph companies that thought they had a fifty year monopoly on morse code. The communications IP legal situation has been a sick joke since at least then.