Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Apple and Others Launch Huge Patent Strike at Android
New submitter GODISNOWHERE writes "Nortel went bankrupt in 2009. In 2011, it held an auction for its massive patent portfolio. The winners of the auction were Apple, Microsoft, Sony, RIM, and others, who bought the patents for $4.5 billion as a consortium named Rockstar Bidco. At the time, many people speculated those patents would be used against Google, who bid separately but lost. It turns out they were right. Rockstar has filed eight lawsuits in federal court targeting Google and Android device manufacturers. 'The complaint (PDF) against Google involves six patents, all from the same patent "family." They're all titled "associative search engine," and list Richard Skillen and Prescott Livermore as inventors. The patents describe "an advertisement machine which provides advertisements to a user searching for desired information within a data network. The oldest patent in the case is US Patent No. 6,098,065, with a filing date of 1997, one year before Google was founded. The newest patent in the suit was filed in 2007 and granted in 2011. The complaint tries to use the fact that Google bid for the patents as an extra point against the search giant.'"
... how is this a strike against Android?
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
Sue the best.
Apple, Microsoft, and Sony (nobody cares about RIM), three of the biggest names in technology. Three of the most influential and powerful companies in the world. Three companies that have historically been in fierce competition with one another.
And they had to gang up on Google.
What does that say about how much they fear Google?
Apple, Microsoft, Sony, RIM, and others, who bought the patents for $4.5 billion as a consortium named Rockstar Bidco
I presume it's not, but that should be illegal collusion and an anti-trust violation.
Broken system. Too much politics, too much backstabbing, too much use of patents to tear down competitors instead of just arranging a reasonable fee.
Abolish software and "business method" patents. They're not *things*, just ideas. They're not what patents were *created* to protect.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This invention relates to an advertisement machine which provides advertisements to a user searching for desired information within a data network. The machine receives from a user, a search request including a search argument corresponding to the desired information and searches, based upon the received search argument a first database having data network related information to generate search results. It also correlating the received search argument to a particular advertisement in a second database having advertisement related information. The search results together with the particular advertisement are provided by the machine to the user.
Yep... that's the "patent". Let's narrow this down a bit:
This invention relates to an advertisement machine which provides advertisements to a user searching for desired information within a data network.
Let's refactor this:
"within a data network" - where else is he going to search? What if he's in a car? and who cares where he's searching?
"user searching for desired information" - what other kind of information would he ever search for, undesired information? That's the whole point of "searching" is to find desired for information, so let's shorten that to "user searching" to get rid of redundancy.
"to a user searching" - Who cares what the user happens to be doing at the time? What if they're scratching their ass, and the machine serves ads to the user scratching his ass? What the user happens to be doing is irrelevant.
"machine which provides advertisements to a user" - what if the user is a web-crawler? Your invention will still work if it's a web crawler randomly pretending to be a user, so the invention is providing advertisements to not just a user, but to any client that connects. So we don't need to specify the "to a user" part either.
"This invention relates to" - this is the abstract for your invention, we know what you're talking about already, don't repeat.
"an advertisement machine which provides advertisements" - What else would an advertisement machine do? make coffee? By definition an advertisement machine is a machine that provides advertisements. Let's simplify this to "an advertisement machine"
After removing all the fluff, we're left with just:
An advertisement machine.
Good job! This patent would be awesome if you also invented a time machine, because ads have been around for a very long time.
I always believed that the purpose of intellectual property to was to better ensure that the creator(s) of the thing had exclusive rights to their creations, ensuring their investments of blood, sweat and tears has a better chance of a return. But that's not what happens is it? No. What we have is an industry. And with any industry, we experience dehumanizing effects.
What's the solution? We can write an increasingly complex set of laws to address specific predatory behaviors such as patent trolling. That won't solve the problems of giant industry players from fighting each other like giant Japanese monsters on the streets of Tokyo. The real solution?
Disallow all intellectual property transfers. If you didn't create it, you can't own it. Then it reverts to its original purpose and intent and virtually removes all industrial activity. But what happens when the creators, authors and companies die? Does all that valuable intellectual property just vanish in a puff of smoke? Well? Yes. I would hope so.
I really miss Groklaw days like this