Slashdot Mirror


Newegg Defeats Alcatel-Lucent in Third Patent Win This Year

Newegg's policy of not backing down from patent trolls, even ones as large as Alcatel-Lucent, continues to result in victory. Earlier this year, Overstock and Newegg successfully defended themselves with a jury invalidating Alcatel-Lucent's main patent used to force companies as large as Amazon to settle. Naturally, Alcatel-Lucent appealed, but the appeals court quickly ruled in favor of Newegg and Overstock.com. From Ars: "Federal Circuit judges typically take months, and occasionally years, to review the patent appeals that come before them. Briefs in this case were submitted last year, and oral arguments were held last Friday, May 10. The three-judge panel upheld Newegg's win (PDF), without comment — in just three days. ... Alcatel-Lucent dropped the case over its other two patents, desperate to get back the '131 patent that Newegg and Overstock had killed at trial. 'If they had been able to revive this patent, the litigation machine would have continued on,' Reines told Reuters after the win."

143 comments

  1. Seriously? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

    They really need to stop granting patents to generic and vague stuff. Besides, the stuff in that patent was done decades before Amazon even existed.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    1. Re:Seriously? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 2

      Patent #49382

      Thing that does other things.

    2. Re:Seriously? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      They really need to stop granting patents

      eom

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      wood filler...

      http://www.google.com/patents?id=HzgAAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

    4. Re:Seriously? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A patent should require a physical object. Yes that means method and software patents die instantly, which is a very good thing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Seriously? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      The patentability of software only applies when it is run on a computer. If you never run it on the physical object of a computer, then you can't violate its patent.

    6. Re:Seriously? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Then if I run it on a differently designed computer (say ARM rather than x86) it doesn't violate the patent.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are joking right?

      Patent-ability of mathematics? Never! Math cannot be patented, and once software is set to run on a computer, all that remains is math, period.

      Software can NEVER be patented, neither can business methods *when run on a computer*.

      I personally cannot wait until every software or method patent revolving around "being run on a computer/smartphone/tablet/etc..." are deemed null and void as they should NEVER have been granted.

      If it wasn't for the graft and greed or incompetence of the employees of the patent office, they never would have.

    8. Re:Seriously? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it wasn't for the graft and greed or incompetence of the employees of the patent office, they never would have.

      And since the US has set themselves up to be an economy highly dependent on patents and copyright, I seriously doubt you'll see these patents repealed.

      The people lobbying for expanded IP rights don't want patents lessened, and they're not going to allow the politicians to take away their meal ticket.

      When Microsoft makes more revenue from Android licenses (for patents I'm not convinced they've ever disclosed) than they do on their own OS, nobody is going to allow patents to stop being so widespread.

      At this point, all of the "too big to fail" companies are so dependent on this as to make it inseparable from their core business.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Seriously? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Software patents are actually defined in terms of a physical object, the medium on which it's stored. They often include magic phrases like "a computer readable memory device having stored thereon a computer program".

      IMHO, the problem isn't with the physicalness of the invention. After all, in the end it's really the insight and effort that you're trying to reward. The problem, I believe, is that the USPTO has done a terrible job of encouraging insight and effort by granting vague and obvious patents which contain neither, and the only "insight" was in how to game the patent office.

      Judging what's insightful enough to merit a patent is tricky, but the patent trolls rely exclusively on patents where anybody "skilled in the art" would tell you that it was too trivial to bother writing down. The trolls rely on the fact that judges and juries are not skilled in the art, and are easily confused. Even in this case, the judge who came to the correct conclusion ends up making it (IMHO) needlessly complicated:

      http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF

      He explicitly makes "obviousness" a matter of law, i.e. a thing defined by the details of previous cases, rather than the universal opinion of those who would have done precisely the same thing if presented with the same problem.

    10. Re:Seriously? by greenbird · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The patentability of software only applies when it is run on a computer.

      Software isn't being patented in "software" patents. Vague ideas and idioms are patented. Pinching the screen to zoom isn't a software patent. If it was a software patent the patent should be on exactly how the software accomplishes the effect, on the implementation. If my implementation accomplishes the effect differently it wouldn't infringe your patent. The implementation is the code. The code is copyrighted. A real software patent would be redundant. The way it works now is the equivalent of inventing a special kind of drill bit and getting a patent on anything that makes holes. That's how software patents work now.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    11. Re:Seriously? by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      It's a patent for a specific formula of wood filler, which may well have been novel and non-obvious in 1865 (I don't know enough about the history of woodworking to be certain).

      BTW, the "Japan" reference is probably talking about the product that is sometimes called "Japan Drier" now. Presumably this made the wood filler cure more quickly.

    12. Re:Seriously? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Method and process patents are actually very important in certain contexts, such as the pharmaceutical industry. Some countries, such as India protect the process patents much stricter than the patents for the substances themselves. For instance, to take a historical example, the process to create aluminum was revolutionary and made aluminum a much cheaper product. Instead of trying to patent all of the various ways that someone can implement the process, which can be very difficult, it is appropriate to patent the process itself.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    13. Re:Seriously? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      While I grant that, this is only what process patents claim to do, not what they do. And obviousness is rarely considered in a reasonable way. It's supposed to be "obvious to those skilled in the art", whereas it is rendered as obvious to the most bigoted member or the jury or to the least appropriately skilled individual in the room. (Well, I exaggerate a little, but it frequently seems only a very little.)

      The actual implementation is so bad that all process patents currently existing should be deleted, and no more allowed to be issued until all people currently working in the patent office or in the patent courts have retired. Software is, if anything, worse. There ARE legitimate software related patents, but they all involve the interface between hardware and software (and not in the sense of running on a general purpose computer). I suspect that there were valid patents involved in the original Macintosh's square pixels. But there weren't any involved in reversing the y direction, despite the huge claims made for it as a "significant improvement". It did, I believe, speed drawing on the screen, but that part didn't touch the hardware interface, so while it was validly copyrightable, it didn't merit a patent.

      OTOH, please note that the place where I consider a valid patent plausible, the drawing of square pixels, may well have only have been properly describable in terms of both hardware and software. (Not, I hasten to add, that I've ever encountered a software patent that I believe properly described the purported invention. The ones I have encountered are marvels of unintelligibility, and do not reveal anything meaningful, and should therefore have been automatically rejected.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Seriously? by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That is what everyone who rails that "software is just math" completely misses. It's not the implementation in software that is eligible for patent protection, it's the idea/process that the software is an implementation of that is eligible for patent protection.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    15. Re:Seriously? by greenbird · · Score: 2

      it's the idea/process that the software is an implementation of that is eligible for patent protection.

      Ummm...I think you're missing the entire point. Ideas are NOT supposed to be patentable. implementations are.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    16. Re:Seriously? by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Processes are patentable. Ideas aren't, but a specific idea that is implemented as a process may be patentable. It's still not the software that is being patented, it's the implementation of a specific method/process, not the math involved.

      Claiming that software is just math, therefore, nothing written is software can be patented is an absurd claim. All machines are "just engineering" in their implementation, and engineering is just math, therefore, no object would ever be patentable using that absurd logic.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    17. Re:Seriously? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      When Microsoft makes more revenue from Android licenses (for patents I'm not convinced they've ever disclosed) than they do on their own OS, nobody is going to allow patents to stop being so widespread.

      I doubt Microsoft makes more from Android then Windows. Since the agreements have all been confidential, you don't know, either. As for the patents, they've been listed before. Yes, they're pretty shitty, but that's par for the course and doesn't mean they'll lose in court.

  2. A simple summary... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of the patent(s) at hand would have been nice...

    1. Re:A simple summary... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Or at least the complete patent number...

    2. Re:A simple summary... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know this is not appropriate to Orthdox Slashdotism, but if you had read TFA, you'd have found this link to the actual patent in play.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:A simple summary... by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah I'm an idiot and didn't see that there :p

    4. Re:A simple summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Patent Abstract -- #5649131
      http://www.google.com/patents/US5649131?dq=5649131&hl=en&sa=X&ei=02SUUa_iMuaLjALM8ICYCg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

    5. Re:A simple summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or TFS for that matter. It is in there.

    6. Re:A simple summary... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Am I the only one that read the patent and thought it was extremely vague and so general that it describes almost every client-server relationship since the beginning of the computing?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:A simple summary... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Informative

      I read it -- it took me 4 minutes to figure it out.

      Old way: Server sends, say, menu of 5 items with indicator to highlight first.

      User arrows down two, client sends two down arrows. Server notes this that it is on 3rd item, but only in theory.

      User hits enter. Server receives enter and decides 3rd item is selected.

      Patent: Send IDs for all that shit and client reports ID-based activities.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:A simple summary... by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Evidence at trial showed Alcatel's patent application to the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) that resulted in the issuance of the '131 patent was faulty because the claimed invention was both anticipated and rendered obvious by technologies from the 1980's that preceded Alcatel's patent application by years." source

    9. Re:A simple summary... by plover · · Score: 1

      That's what I read as well. It was so over-broad that it would have covered IBM 3270 terminals, which were a mainstay of the 1970s. They probably never tried suing IBM over it.

      --
      John
    10. Re:A simple summary... by MrDoh! · · Score: 2

      And thus the problem everyone is having at the moment.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    11. Re:A simple summary... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      My thought was "they've patented RPC (remote response of an object to an input). Or possibly HTML (terminal system displays an object according to its own capabilities)."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:A simple summary... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of the web and HTML too when reading it. In 1997 certainly everyone had heard of both.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:A simple summary... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Only 1980's? I'd be surprised if substantial part of that, at the least, didn't go back to Doug Engelbart's On-Line System demo in 1968. :-) That was a veritable treasure trove, that one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:A simple summary... by schlick · · Score: 5, Interesting
      heh the lawyer for Alcatel didn't even know which patent it was!

      "Successful defendants have their litigation managed by people who care," said Cheng. "For me, it's easy. I believe in Newegg, I care about Newegg. Alcatel Lucent, meanwhile, they drag out some random VP—who happens to be a decorated Navy veteran, who happens to be handsome and has a beautiful wife and kids—but the guy didn't know what patents were being asserted. What a joke.

      --
      "It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
    15. Re:A simple summary... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      I'd like to see that. If the SCO trial has shown something it's that you don't go up against the Nazgul with dubious claims. IBM will never back down. They probably spent much more on trial than SCO was offering to settle.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    16. Re:A simple summary... by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Only 1980's? I'd be surprised if substantial part of that, at the least, didn't go back to Doug Engelbart's On-Line System demo in 1968. :-) That was a veritable treasure trove, that one.

      Generally, when invalidating a patent, you go for the most recent prior art that's still "prior" to the priority date of the patent - there's less wiggle room when you say "this was done 6 months earlier by X" as opposed to "this was done 20 years previously by Y", because with the latter, they can respond "if so, how come no one exploited it for 20 years?"

    17. Re:A simple summary... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know there were links to entire other articles. Including ones I knew would have mention of the patent, and likely a link to THE patent. But I was lazy today, and this story wasn't that intriguing for me.

      So I just wanted to know what they were actually being sued for. I figured they had 2-3 paragraphs they could have simply mentioned "Patent involving....2-3 words"

      Some days we'd like to just relax and be lazy. ;-)

    18. Re:A simple summary... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Curious...

      "The invention is directed to a communications protocol which facilitates the exchange of interface information between a host processor and a terminal, such as a workstation, smart phone, portable computer, etc.,"

      Filing date 1992.

      First use of term "Smart Phone", 1997....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Origin_of_the_term

      Seems to me that the summary is really an expansion. And I'd wager their broad patent was done on the mainframe decades before hand.

    19. Re:A simple summary... by afidel · · Score: 1

      The patent filing date was in 1992, but it's still predated by the internet.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:A simple summary... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      If the SCO trial has shown something it's that you don't go up against the Nazgul with dubious claims.

      One does not simply walk into Armonk.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    21. Re:A simple summary... by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Actually, IBM, like most big companies, will pick-and-choose its fights. But yes, they're clearly willing to spend far more than it costs to settle in order to discourage trolls and frivolous suits. If they didn't, they'd be nibbled to death. But it's far more cost-effective for them to do so only to a certain percentage of litigants.

      Of course, SCO made several missteps right off the bat that made them an easy candidate to choose for fighting back. IBM had already invested at least a billion in Linux by the time SCO came a long. So there was a whole lot more at stake than just the cost of settling. Furthermore, they knew that both Caldera and oldSCO were regular contributors to Linux--under the GPL. And they knew what their UNIX license from AT&T said, and they knew they hadn't violated that license.

    22. Re:A simple summary... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Also SCO claimed they own Unix copyrights which was actually still owned by Novell.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    23. Re:A simple summary... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      All 27,000 of them? (The article, and those before, give the three patents in question.)

      Rather a sad end, all those years of Bell Lab's work, now in the hands of a legal department, doing no real good for anyone. (I don't consider feeding some lawyers' bank accounts quite qualifies as doing real good.) If memory serves, Bell Labs was the exemplar for doing pure and applied research on a large scale, and never really equaled elsewhere.

  3. Fuck Yeah! by idontgno · · Score: 5, Informative

    Give 'em hell, Newegg!

    Another big PC build order comin' your way! Keep on winning

    BTW, on a sad note, does anyone remember when Lucent actually innovated stuff? The legitimate heir of Western Electric and Bell Labs has fallen very far.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Fuck Yeah! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Another big PC build order comin' your way! Keep on winning

      I'm so conflicted. Amazon buckled while Newegg funded their lawsuit with the absurd restocking fees I've paid them in the past after they've failed to deliver on time and I got the stuff overnighted for $4 from Amazon instead.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BTW, on a sad note, does anyone remember when Lucent actually innovated stuff?

      I was working for them in the early 90's when they broke off from AT&T. No. I don't remember when they ever innovated anything. Even at that time, they were milking the telephone cow.

      Then I worked for Alcatel in the 2000-2002 timeframe. They were also a huge rent seeking corporation, intent on riding their old technology wagon for as long as possible.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      I just finished a build but I've got some other PCs that need upgrading. Newegg gets my business. (They have in the past, they're great. This past week though I picked stuff from my local Microcenter for instant gratification.)

    4. Re:Fuck Yeah! by wiggles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. I was a contractor there during the dot-com bust. Watched their stock drop like a stone overnight. For the company that essentially invented cellular service, the company that managed to build a global telecommunications infrastructure, and invent Unix and C on the side - it was truly sad to see what the corporate raiders did to them.

    5. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Grizzley9 · · Score: 5, Informative

      BTW, on a sad note, does anyone remember when Lucent actually innovated stuff? The legitimate heir of Western Electric and Bell Labs has fallen very far.

      Do you mean like this? Light Radio, a programmable cell tower the size of your palm?

      While true it has been a while since the hey day of Bell Labs coming out with new tech every few years, they don't seem dead just yet. I blame their current state on chasing quarterly or yearly profits and having a somewhat unfair playing field with companies like Huawei and ZTE instead of investing in the long term tech.

      Per wikipedia

      On August 28, 2008, Alcatel-Lucent announced it was pulling out of basic science, material physics, and semiconductor research, and it will instead focus on more immediately marketable areas, including networking, high-speed electronics, wireless networks, nanotechnology and software.

      That and their merger with Alcatel hasn't been very smooth. Though too, perhaps the wireless tech is maturing so there is not the low hanging fruit anymore?

      Also for clarification Bell Labs is still around in at least some form, it is the research arm of Alcatel-Lucent. Lucent merged with Alcatel back in 2006.

    6. Re:Fuck Yeah! by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Yea I agree, Newegg does seem to have gone down of late.

      They used to be great, and the shipping is still fast. But there are now cheaper alternatives with better customer support. If shit happens then you are basically fucked.

    7. Re:Fuck Yeah! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So, a match made in hell then?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    8. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone remember when Lucent actually innovated stuff?

      It started its decline after Ma-Bell was forced to split up. Somehow, the rich developed an entitlement
      attitude that divided the country into loosely two groups: us (the wealthy) and them (our servants).
      As a result, education in the U.S of A. began to decline (was does a toilet bowl scrubber need and
      engineering degree - we'll outsoure for cheaper labor!) It took a few years, but basically that's kinda
      where we're at. BTW, Mitt is of the same class of people who split up Ma-Bell (no, not 'publican, Mormon).

    9. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "failed to deliver on time" and "overnighted for $4 from Amazon"

      I've been on both sides of that same street. Newegg failed to deliver on time - they refunded my shipping. Amazon failed to deliver on time, they refunded my shipping. But, both have delivered on time, as well.

      And, neither can take credit or blame. No matter which shipper they use, that shipper usually hands off the package to the USPS. It seems to depend on exactly WHERE they hand it off to the USPS, whether my package will arrive in time.

      I've tracked packages going THROUGH Texarkana, TO Dallas, Tx, sitting there for a day or more, to be loaded onto another truck back to Shreveport, then finally being loaded onto delivery trucks bound for local post offices.

      So, the package actually passes by me, 20 miles away, on Interstate 30. It arrives 180 miles away, in Dallas, to be shipped to Shreveport, 100 miles away, and finally trucked yet again to my home town.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Huh, wut? Who invented Unix? I always though Bell Labs got credit for that. Now it's Lucent and/or Alcatel? Why are we finding it necessary to rewrite history?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Fuck Yeah! by skydyr · · Score: 1

      Package routing is just the same as network package routing. I can't directly send a packet to the office next door just because they're nearby... it has to follow the various routing paths I have available, and the physical packages are routed similarly. Also, you don't expect the truck delivering a bunch of packages to dallas to stop at your house just for a sec to deliver your package, do you?

    12. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      No - I actually expect it to stop in Texarkana for fifteen minutes, to toss off the six to twelve bags that are tagged for the ArkLaTex area. They USED TO do exactly that. FedEx STILL does that. UPS does the same. Which means, if FedEx or UPS carries my package to Texarkana then delivers it to me directly, it's an on time shipment. If FedEx or UPS carries the package to Texarkana, then hands it off to the USPS, it's an on time shipment. If ANYONE hands off the package to the USPS before arrival at Texarkana, the shipment is going to be one to three days late.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:Fuck Yeah! by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      anyone remember when Lucent actually innovated stuff?

      It started its decline after Ma-Bell was forced to split up.

      This much is true. Prior to the breakup in 1984, AT&T was a government sanctioned monopoly, permitted largely because telephones prior to the monopoly were balkanized in little, regional switching systems that often couldn't communicate with each other, making cross-continent communications unreliable (modern analogy: you can't call your friends on Sprint from your Verizon phone).

      In return for being permitted to operate as a monopoly, AT&T was limited in the way it could distribute its profits, and was also required to set up telephone service in remote and rural areas. This resulted in an unusually powerful incentive to re-invest in R&D. Thus, the miracle mill of Bell Labs was flush with cash, resulting in what was the most reliable telephone system in the world.

      The odd thing was that all that research mostly went into infrastructure, such as improving capacity, reducing copper, aggregating signals, and digitizing switching. Short of touch-tone and modularized equipment, the consumer hardly saw any upgrade from basic voice service under the monopoly regime

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    14. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lucent was the name given to Bell Labs when it was spun out.

    15. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bell Labs was spun off as Lucent, then Alcatel acquired Lucent. No one was rewriting history.

    16. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if serious.

      Bell Labs, spun off by ATT as Lucent, acquired by Alcatel.

      Signed,
      Son of retired BL/L/A-L employee.

      P.S. Grandparent about corporate raiders is spot on.

    17. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Alcatel-Lucent owns what is left of Bell Labs

    18. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Didn't they develop Triple-play?

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    19. Re:Fuck Yeah! by unrtst · · Score: 1

      If ANYONE hands off the package to the USPS before arrival at Texarkana, the shipment is going to be one to three days late.

      Ditto here. I'm giving up on the free shipping from now on, so long as I can pick my shipper. I don't want SmartPost (which is an oxymoron). In theory, it should work well (USPS already goes by every house every weekday... let them handle local delivery), but I have yet to see it work in practice. It's significantly slower every time, much more difficult to track, and I've had multiple packages get returned simply because they didn't actually drop it off when they were here (and I was home, and signed the card to leave the next day, and spoke to the postman the following day, etc)... by the time I knew it wouldn't be delivered, it was no longer at the post office and was already on its way back to newegg - and WHAM, more restocking fees.

      Lately, I've noticed both newegg and amazon sometimes limit the shipping options or don't say what type of shipment they'll use. That sucks more than anything, because there's no obvious way to vote with my wallet, so to speak.

    20. Re:Fuck Yeah! by transwarp · · Score: 1

      This IS Ceti Alpha 5! Actually a pretty good analogy, a lush and promising world turned barren and in ruins.

    21. Re:Fuck Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an actual Lucent stockholder, I'm thrilled by this win. The company screwed me out of thousands of dollars. I wish all the execs could be forced to live on food stamps for 3 lifetimes. They ruined Western Electric.

  4. Missing info from the articles by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    How did they end up owning this patent? Alcatel-Lucent is not on the original patent. Also, now that the patent has been thrown out, what changes in here? I can't find anything in there showing its updated status.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Missing info from the articles by alen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      at the trial the alacatel VP who was sent to testify had no idea which patent newegg was violating or how they were violating it. alcatel just said you must be violating one of our 27,000 patents

    2. Re:Missing info from the articles by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      A patent is property. That is why companies give bonuses to engineers that come up with patentable ideas. Only people can be awarded patents, and for the company to then take ownership, they have to pay for them.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:Missing info from the articles by Bigby · · Score: 1

      So no patent was invalidated. It is just that there was no infringement...

    4. Re:Missing info from the articles by lxs · · Score: 2

      Ah Alcatel. 27000 patents and not one usable product.

    5. Re:Missing info from the articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a person who has spent thirty years working with engineers I can tell you that both of those payments are typically one dollar. Occasionally the bonus is a little higher, but the payment for the patent never is.

    6. Re:Missing info from the articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. If you get a dollar you're lucky. Remember the US of A supports "work for hire",
      so anything you invent was just part of your job anyway. I don't know if it has changed,
      but Germany (used to?) grant patents to people irrespective of their employment relationship
      with their company.

    7. Re:Missing info from the articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 15 Euro alcatel dumbphone. Works great and has been doing so for 6 years now, which is an eternity in phoneland. Still about a week battry life (not as great as the original month, but still...)

    8. Re:Missing info from the articles by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      How did they end up owning this patent? Alcatel-Lucent is not on the original patent.

      Patents are property that can be bought and sold. Whoever has ownership of the patent has the power to enforce it by taking infringers to court, even if the owner had nothing to do with inventing the patented invention.

      Also, now that the patent has been thrown out, what changes in here? I can't find anything in there showing its updated status.

      That link goes to a google page (i.e., absolutely unofficial), and maybe nothing will change. The Patent Office may not get around to updating the patent on record, either. But barring a successful appeal to the Supreme Court, the patent is unenforceable. Alcatel-Lucent therefore cannot use the courts to compel a license fee out of anyone. In effect, this renders the patent worthless, i.e. dead.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  5. Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with a jury invalidating Alcatel-Lucent's main patent used to force companies as large as Amazon to settle.

    I don't think that word means what you think it means. Amazon wasn't forced to settle. They almost certainly chose to settle because it was cheaper. It's the corporate equivalent of the coward's way out.

    1. Re:Force by plover · · Score: 5, Informative

      Force is a euphemism for blackmail, and it's not inaccurate when applied here. "Nice web site you got here, it'd be a shame if we had a court order you to take it down. Give us $100,000 and nothing bad will happen to it, or you risk losing a $100,000,000 in court if we win." That's force to a company that doesn't have $100,000,000 in their bank account.

      Newegg's made a corporate decision that said "we don't care if it's a thousand times cheaper to settle than to risk losing a lawsuit. We have a very large pile of money, and we have promised to call every single bluff presented to us. We will never fold our hand."

      Go, Newegg!

      --
      John
    2. Re:Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, their view is somewhat more long-sighted than that. "We know settling this one patent would be cheaper than fighting, but settling would encourage a flood of other patent trolls to try and that would be more expensive."

    3. Re:Force by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 0

      "Nice web site you got here, it'd be a shame if we had a court order you to take it down. Give us $100,000 and nothing bad will happen to it, or you risk losing a $100,000,000 in court if we win."

      Well .. My answer in such case is silence, followed by several bullets in the troll head. Much better.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    4. Re:Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably jest, but this sort of things do happen.

    5. Re:Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Billions for defence, and not a cent for tribute. Long live!

  6. Good show, NewEgg! by sstamps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    THIS is why I give my business to companies like NewEgg, and have and will NEVER buy a single damn thing from ones like Amazon.

    Amazon settled because it is also a patent troll. Blood runs thicker than water, especially between patent trolls.

    --
    -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
    1. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      THIS is why I give my business to companies like NewEgg, and have and will NEVER buy a single damn thing from ones like Amazon.

      Amazon settled because it is also a patent troll. Blood runs thicker than water, especially between patent trolls.

      Amazon are not pure patent trolls or they would not have been sued. They actually use their technologies. I'm not saying they are squeaky clean, I certainly didn't like their 1 click patent, but they are not a complete troll.

    2. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL ummm no, business makes a cost benefit analysis decision. What's the cost of going to trial versus settling? In many cases, patent trolls set the price below the cost of a trial, so businesses settle. It's all about numbers. Few companies make principled stands. Principles are great but often don't generate revenue.

      What is needed is patent reform. Make it harder for a company to bring frivolous lawsuits. Make them show you the infringement, not simply say, you infringe because we have a million patents.

      I'd also make the patent troll produce something from that patent - shit or get off the pot. If you are not using the patent, then you have no right in retaining it or using it against someone.

    3. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad NewEgg's return process/policies aren't nearly as good as Amazon.

    4. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In many cases, patent trolls set the price below the cost of a trial, so businesses settle. It's all about numbers.

      "And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
          But we've proved it again and again,
      That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
          You never get rid of the Dane."
          -- Rudyard Kipling

    5. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Golddess · · Score: 2

      I'm sure these companies already factored this in to the decisions they made, but it isn't just about the cost of going to trial for this one thing vs settling out of court for this one thing. You also have to factor in how many fewer patent trolls may try to entice you to settle out of court if you demonstrate that you will call their bluff and take them to court (or how many more patent trolls may come knocking when they see what easy pickings you are).

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    6. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by alen · · Score: 1

      yep, wal mart figured this out long ago

      it has a policy of fighting every lawsuit, no matter how minor. keeps all the scam artists who slip in their stores on purpose away

      same thing happened decades ago with product liability suits. a few companies settled and then everyone started getting sued for all kinds of "defects"

    7. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by plover · · Score: 1

      I'd also make the patent troll produce something from that patent - shit or get off the pot. If you are not using the patent, then you have no right in retaining it or using it against someone.

      Actually, this is one point I'd disagree with.

      If the inventor of the patent chooses to make their own widgets, are they really making their own, or are they contracting with a Chinese factory to produce them under license? Do you require the inventor to stand on the factory line and hand-assemble each and every patented widget personally? That quickly gets silly.

      So the inventor can choose to make widgets themselves, they can license the ability to make widgets to other people, or they can cash out and sell the rights to license widget-making to someone else. Just like the inventor, that someone else doesn't have to make their own widgets - instead of selling widgets they can sell licenses to make widgets.

      If the inventor chose the cash-out option, that's it. They struck a deal and were paid for their invention. The law ends there. They may have struck a bad deal, they may have been swindled by a fast talker on www.help-U-sell-your-patent.com, but that's just capitalism preying on the careless, and is no different from the sale of any other goods or services.

      --
      John
    8. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same thing happened decades ago with product liability suits. a few companies settled and then everyone started getting sued for all kinds of "defects"

      I know, damn those Ford Pintos for blowing up when struck lightly in the rear!

    9. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad NewEgg's return process/policies aren't nearly as good as Amazon.

      That has to be a joke.

    10. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Jonner · · Score: 4, Informative

      THIS is why I give my business to companies like NewEgg, and have and will NEVER buy a single damn thing from ones like Amazon.

      Amazon settled because it is also a patent troll. Blood runs thicker than water, especially between patent trolls.

      Amazon are not pure patent trolls or they would not have been sued. They actually use their technologies. I'm not saying they are squeaky clean, I certainly didn't like their 1 click patent, but they are not a complete troll.

      Indeed, the genius of the pure patent troll company is that I can never be attacked in the same way it attacks. Since the troll company doesn't produce any useful products or services, there's no activity it does which could be considered for patent infringement, at least until one of them is granted a patent on enforcing patents as a business method.

      Big corporations wield large portfolios of patents as weapons all the time, suing and countersuing each other when it looks like that action will help profits. While this is a very damaging abuse of the patent system, it's quite different from the type of trolling described in TFA. Also, the fact that Amazon chose to settle has little to do with how that company may have abused their patents in the past. They made a decision calculated to be best for their bottom line, whether that was a correct decision or not.

      As a customer, I think it's a mistake to make broad buying decisions based solely on one aspect such as the suits described in TFA. I've been a customer of NewEgg for years because they have good prices and service and now I have yet another reason to use and recommend them. I've also been a customer of Amazon, especially of their music store which has long provided downloads unencumbered by DRM, proprietary formats or requirements to use specific client software. OTOH, I'd never use Amazon's Kindle system with its very restrictive DRM and other lock-in mechanisms.

    11. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Too bad NewEgg's return process/policies aren't nearly as good as Amazon.

      But their don't-steal-ebooks-back-from-your-customers policies are certainly much more patable than the Amazon's ones.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Good show, NewEgg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then let the blood run.

  7. Patent office should have to pay legal fees by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The patent office should have to pay the legal fees of the winning side every time a patent is defeated in court.

    The patent office are the gate keepers. They are currently enabling all the patent shakedowns.

    For proper control every system needs proper negative feedback. If the patent office gets money for granting patents and does not lose money for granting bogus patents they are going to grant everything under the sun to encourage more applications and more incoming money.
    Only by penalizing the patent office for improper patent granting will there be a proper measure of control.

    1. Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe not only the patent office, but both the company that filed or bought the patent should get to pay. Not just the legal fees, but a penalty on top. That should make people consider more carefully when they buy or file a patent.

      --
      I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    2. Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but this is probably the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. The do realize the US patent office is a part of the federal government, right? You further realize that the federal government's sole source of revenue is taxes, correct? Do you realize that you are espousing that we, as the taxpayers, pay the litigation costs for a company winning a patent battle against a bogus patent?

    3. Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe not only the patent office, but both the company that filed or bought the patent should get to pay. Not just the legal fees, but a penalty on top. That should make people consider more carefully when they buy or file a patent.

      Forget fining the patent office -- all that will do is reduce the funding available for patent examiners to do their jobs causing the reverse effect of letting more bad patents slip through. But a fine on the patent holder for certain kinds of invalidations sounds good to me. It is my understanding that it is the patent filer's responsibility to seek out prior art as part of the application process. If a patent is invalidated for what is essentially failure to follow the filing process correctly then I think a big fine is appropriate.

      What we do not want is to turn the system into one where a big company can simply out-lawyer a small patent holder and then add insult to injury by forcing them to pay a fine too. That increased risk would discourage little guys with validly patentable inventions from filing in the first place (or force them to settle out of the court on poor terms).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees by Divide+By+Zero · · Score: 1
      And reduce the funding to pay for more patent examiners? So the worse they do, the worse they get. Beatings will continue until morale improves.

      Some internal controls are warranted. (If n of your patents gets invalidated, you're canned and we hire somebody better to take your place.) Taking money from the gatekeeper so that he can guard the gates better isn't the way.

      --
      Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
    5. Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees by dweller_below · · Score: 1
      The US PTO gets a great deal of positive feedback from granting patents. That feedback loop has spun out of control. At this point, A little negative feedback may help, but it's probably too late to keep this mechanism from consuming us all. There are just too many crappy patents.
      But, I feel there is still some value in documenting this train wreck. There may be a few survivors. Or maybe someday, the children of Patent Trolls may wish to do something else. Plus, there may be isolated nations that wish to learn from our mistakes.
      Here is my Google Plus page on reforming the Patent Office: https://plus.google.com/b/101806809558932714222/101806809558932714222/about
      In my opinion, the critical mistakes are:
      • We thought Patents were Progress. But, Patents don't guarantee production or innovation. They only enable lawsuits.
      • Running the US Patent Office as a cost-recovery operation is a mistake.
      • It is a mistake to organize the US Patent Office to create economic incentives to grant poor patents.
      • Scaling up the Patent Office to produce more poor quality patents is a mistake.
      • It is a mistake to grant all patents that meet minimum standards.

      Miles

    6. Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Maybe demand the filing party put a value of the patent into an escrow account. If the value of the patent goes up, just put in more money. After the patent expires, the company gets the money back.

      If they file a suit, they can't value the patent at more than is in the escrow account; i.e. MS uses a $10 unlicensed patent to do $100M in business means the company can sue MS for $10.

      If they lose, the escrow account goes to the winner.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  8. Lesson from primary school by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best way to deal with a playground bully is to punch him in the face. Even if he has his buddies with him. Even if you'll get disciplined by the school. You do that a few times, and no one will mess with you.

    The same principle applies to patent trolls: Always fight if you can at all manage it.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Lesson from primary school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up.

      Worked for me when I was a scrawny funny-accented kid two years younger than my classmates.

      Or as R. G. Harper put in in 1798: "millions for defense, not a penny for tribute."

    2. Re:Lesson from primary school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Two wrong don't make a right" and to prove that important point, those cowardly teachers will keep overlooking the first wrong and only punish the second wrong.

    3. Re:Lesson from primary school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best way to deal with a playground bully is to punch him in the face. Even if he has his buddies with him. Even if you'll get disciplined by the school. You do that a few times, and no one will mess with you.

      Unless you are in Florida. Then they'll arrest you and throw you in jail.

      • Suspended students who show up at schools have been charged with trespassing.
      • Those who throw spitballs were charged with battery.
      • Those who shouted or used profanity were accused of disrupting a school function.

      http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-09/news/fl-school-arrests-jail-pipeline-20130209_1_school-arrests-show-disabled-students-school-bus

      Of the 12,000 students taken from school to jail by police in 2012, 67% were accused of misdemeanors, such as disorderly conduct. Oftentimes, disorderly conduct amounts to little more than a student disobeying a teacherâ(TM)s order to put away a cell phone or stop talking in class.

      http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/thousands-of-florida-students-arrested-annually-for-actions-that-used-to-merit-a-trip-to-the-principals-office-130213?news=847052

    4. Re:Lesson from primary school by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Who in his right mind would live in Florida ?

    5. Re:Lesson from primary school by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Old retirees who hate kids.

    6. Re:Lesson from primary school by Creepy · · Score: 0

      Tried that once. Several kids (the bully's posse - kids that had "done a hit for him" by beating up kids he didn't like) teamed up and beat me down. While I was lying on the ground in pain, bully drag-threw me by one arm across the blacktop, skinning both knees and my elbow severely (it needed stitches). Then he kicked me in the ribs a half dozen times and was stomping on my back and head when a teacher pulled him off and scared off the rest of his gang. His punishment for the crime? He apparently spent 10 minutes in the Principal's office before being sent back to class because it was just "kids being kids." They didn't even call his parents. I GOT FU*KING stitches, and was lucky to not have broken bones.

      This is like fighting patent trolls in east Texas. You can try to fight, but they have dozens of friends and a sympathetic judge (in my case, Principal) and the deck is completely stacked against you.

      On the other hand, my mom was APPALLED by the inaction and transferred me and my brother to a different school. This is like moving to Canada because the US rules are batshit crazy.

    7. Re:Lesson from primary school by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Oh, I lost the fights I got into, although nowhere near as badly as you did. But you know what? It still worked, because bullies are basing their decisions about who to go after on the odds that something bad will happen to them, and I hurt them enough that it qualified as something bad.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  9. too bad its not precedential by alen · · Score: 1

    i wanted to scan the opinion, but there is none. and the decision says nonprecedential.

    not a lawyer but it seems this decision cannot set a legal precedent for future cases

    1. Re:too bad its not precedential by wiggles · · Score: 2

      That's why the lawyer quoted in the article was lamenting not being able to move forward with his appeals - he keeps winning at lower levels, and the other companies drop the lawsuits because they don't want a precedent set.

    2. Re:too bad its not precedential by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe not a 'legal' precedent, but most certainly a 'social' precedent.

      It tells everyone that the trolls can be taken down. Notice how the trolls are backing off of Newegg. The trolls know Newegg will fight back. The trolls know that Newegg will take out their best moneymakers. Better to go pick on somebody that won't put up a fight. Well, when the rest of the playground sees that the bully will back down if you punch him in the nose, the bully's control is greatly curtailed.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:too bad its not precedential by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i wanted to scan the opinion, but there is none. and the decision says nonprecedential.

      not a lawyer but it seems this decision cannot set a legal precedent for future cases

      There was no precedent to be set here. Basically, the appeal was Alcatel trying to get its favorite patent un-invalidated, and the the judges looked at the case and are basically telling Alcatel "There's nothing wrong with the lower court's decisions - it stays invalidated. Now go away and quit bothering us".

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    4. Re:too bad its not precedential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolls they will now skip NewEgg proceed with the next victim on their list. This victory in court does not make anybody in business safer from trolls, except NewEgg for a while.

  10. East Texas jury invalidated Alcatel-Lucent claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/newegg-nukes-corporate-troll-alcatel-in-third-patent-appeal-win-this-year/#p3 explains the case.

    Essentially everyone had given up. The patent covered eCommerce.

    NewEgg did not give up.

  11. Newegg is no mom 'n' pop. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Newegg might be smaller than Lucent, but they are still not a Mon 'n' Pop. I know that in the corporate mind anything under a thousand employees is "small business" but, face it, Newegg is not small business.

    The real tragedy with patent trolls is that the *real* small business can not fight them. They can shut down a business writing innovative software with 2-3 employees just like that.

    Good for Newegg, but treating it like a David vs. Goliath win is not too smart.

    1. Re:Newegg is no mom 'n' pop. by suutar · · Score: 1

      were I in a small business facing this kind of situation I might see if Mr. Cheng is interested in moonlighting so he can try out those strategies he's been working up. Worst case you're in the same boat as before, best case the troll gets flattened, middling case the troll runs away :)

  12. Suck it Lucent/Bell Labs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I worked for ALU doing an internal start up.

    While we were in stealth mode, the ex-Bell Labs "chief researchers" were desperately trying to obtain our product ideas and data mine the patent filings we'd made. What their intention was, I don't know. However, any attempts at friendly conversation failed and they actively worked to inhibit our progress - slowing funding and equipment purchase requests. They failed and we eventually won initial trial contracts with several big US telecom providers.

    1 month before we came out of stealth mode and delivered prototypes to those companies, the Bell Lab's jerks orchestrated a reorg placing us under their umbrella. When we released, the ALU marketing reports trumpeted, "...another ground breaking innovation from Bell Labs!" Far from it, the @$$'s actively impeded us every step of the way until we couldn't be stopped.

    The did eventually get their way though. After successful trials and initial product delivery, the "strategic acquisitions" arm of Bell Labs, elected to spend millions on start up run by the son-in-law of one of the senior VPs. Our customers were pissed, as the other product sucked in comparison and was very slow in delivering requested enhancements during the side-by-side bake off between us and them. ALU then proceeded to ship our work to a maintenance team in eastern Europe and forced us, under threat of firing for cause, to train the scabs.

    ALU and Bell Labs can DIAF... Go Newegg!

    1. Re:Suck it Lucent/Bell Labs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This did not happen. You're just a bitter troll that got laid off due to the falling economy and need someone to blame. Plus you even state you worked for ALU at the time so anything you did was effectively owned by the corp.

      I did get laid off, but immediately got a new job (no down time in between), have a *far* better position than before, a banked chunky severance and have stories of corp idiocy and nepotism to tell for the rest of my life. I'm actually appreciative of the outcome.

      In some parts of the world, the down turn in tech only hits the bottom 5%. Top 5%'ers like myself have no problem getting work. If the HR departments stopped colluding, we'd actually start seeing salaries increase again.

  13. Apparently the judges thought so too by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Am I the only one that read the patent and thought it was extremely vague and so general that it describes almost every client-server relationship since the beginning of the computing?

    It seems the answer is no. The judges, in the trial and the appeal, also thought it was a bogus patent.

  14. Consequences? by ggpauly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What happens with the settlements that Amazon and others made over this patent? Can that money be clawed back?

     

    --
    Verbum caro factum est
    1. Re:Consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon will be painted in the dunce hat.

    2. Re:Consequences? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Amazon gets nothing back. They entered an agreement to license the patent, irrespective of whether or not the patent was valid. That's why patent trolling works - no risk of a negative outcome (a zero outcome is still possible).

      Same thing happened to Research in Motion. They were sued by NTP for patent infringement. After RIM lost the court cases and the SCotUS turned down their appeal, they were backed into a corner and forced to settle with NTP for $600+ million. Then the USPTO decided to review the patents and invalidated some of them. (They're still in the process of being reviewed AFAIK. The courts have put NTP's lawsuits against other wireless companies on hold until the review is completed. Fat lot of good that does RIM. We'll always wonder if they would have fallen as badly as they did if they had had $600 million extra to put into R&D back in 2006.)

    3. Re:Consequences? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What happens with the settlements that Amazon and others made over this patent? Can that money be clawed back?

      Depends on the terms of the settlement agreement. Frequently, there will be a clause that says that future royalty payments are terminated if the patents are invalidated. Rarely - as in almost never - there might be a provision to return some past payments. And similarly rarely, there are contracts where royalty payments continue even if the patent is invalidated.
      The settlement is just a contract - whatever you agree to in that contract is what happens.

  15. I love NewEgg by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

    I loved NewEgg plenty BEFORE this, but where I rated them a 9/10 in my mind before, now they're closer to a 15/10.

    And now, a shameless testimonial from a real NewEgg customer - last year I built my first PC in almost 7 years and NewEgg made the experience really easy with good pricing and an awesome "wishlist" feature that let me compile a list of parts and tally cost as a I went. I would never consider building a PC without them, I had a really positive experience building my rig with them.

    Go NewEgg.

  16. I love newegg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other window currently has half of a new pcs parts picked out.

    Maybe i'll pay for the extra fast processing today. (total bs but hey wtf)

    yay newegg!

  17. Amazon by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    So, does Amazon now get to sue Alcatel-Lucent for the amount of their settlement, as they were being extorted for greenmail on something that now doesn't exist, and isn't enforceable?

    Let the blowback begin!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. If you settle over an invalid patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the extortion victims entitled to refunds now? It seems as though settlements based on invalid patents are made under false pretences and fraudulent. Certainly letting them keep any of the money they stole from their victims sets a very bad precedent.

    1. Re:If you settle over an invalid patent... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      They didn't steal it. They didn't want to fight and just handed it over. They pussied out and shouldn't get squat.

  19. Compound Preparation by xdor · · Score: 1

    You've got to admit, any wood filler that requires two gallons of Japan is pretty novel

  20. Design Patterns by xdor · · Score: 1

    I think they're essentially trying to patent the Adapter Pattern for any telecommunications protocol

    Though it reads like you can get around it by including spaces in any encrypted strings

  21. Basic Research by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    It it truly amazing how stupid people are when it comes to investing in, respecting, and keeping Basic Research free from market pressures and profits. How many countless breakthroughs and completely new markets have been created by some free thinkers who were allowed to do just that? But from an idiot congress critter chairman on the House 'science' committee to the scourge of humanity (anyone with an MBA), they all see basic research as a waste of time and money.

    This is why we'e doomed as a species; the population and power of morons and greedheads far outweigh those folks who can still think abstractly and can see beyond the next fucking quarter.

  22. Still by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    There's something creepy when Newegg now sends me emails about 30% off rice cookers. Not sure if they have to deversify as the PC market (um, matures?), or they want to go head to head with said Amazon.

  23. Is This What You're Looking For? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

    The SHIELD Act was introduced by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) on February 27, 2013.

    It creates a "loser pays" system for certain types of lawsuits, in which do-nothing patent holders will be forced to pay the defendant's legal bills if they lose their lawsuit. However, losing defendants won't have to pay, so it's more like a "losing plaintiff pays" system.

    Following up, another act introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on May 2, 2013, seeks to dramatically lower the cost of patent litigation.

    Call/write your congressman.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  24. Printed software code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a physical object .

    Nice try, but the physical object argument has many loopholes.

    1. Re:Printed software code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not, that is a stack of paper and not patentable.

      Care to try again?

  25. Alcatel is not your average Patent Troll by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    From what I know -I've met some people there- Alcatel has some very serious development - and a lot of experience with being ripped of by chinese copycats. Not what you associate with patent trolls. So I'm a bit surprised by the wording in the article.Then again. I don't know Lucent.

  26. Unfortunately, Plan 9 is still released under the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, Plan 9 is still released under the Lucent Public License.
    I truly believe patents (and the vehicle, agriculture and pharmaceuticals industry earlier on) have brought the United States to it's knees. Once it became possible to litigate instead of innovate, progress came to a halt.
    The worst part is realising just how devastating the patent laws have been to the computing sciences and the software industry. Two decades of progress and innovation have been misspent on fixing UNIX in the form of Linux instead of targeting Plan 9. Layers upon layers of abstractions written to solve inherit design problems that should have been addressed from the bottoms up. Concurrency, inter-process communication, interpreters, window mangers... So much time spent on answering the wrong questions. On writing frameworks and toolkits that abstract and hide the failing of the system's kernel and the system's programming language. On trying to comply to standards, conventions and design paradigms that were never meant to survive for more then a few years under different machines an usages but instead lasted 3 decades.
    Just seeing what passes as innovation in this age of darkness... Electrical engines in cars, targeted drugs, genetically engineered crops, Cloud computing...
    We're decades behinds where we should have been all because of the patents laws.

  27. Re:East Texas jury invalidated Alcatel-Lucent clai by iroll · · Score: 1

    That is the article linked in the summary, ya rube.

    --
    Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
  28. AT&T Powergrab? by shipofgold · · Score: 1

    Looking at the filing date and the Assignee's on the patent you will see that this patent was originally filed by AT&T in 1992. This was in the glory days between the original 1984 divestiture of the Bell operating companies and the 1994 split of AT&T Long Lines and AT&T Networks (aka Western Electric). AT&T Networks became Lucent Technologies, which then merged in 2007 with Alcatel to become Alcatel-Lucent.