Slashdot Mirror
IBM Wants $167 Million From Groupon Over Alleged Patent Infringement (reuters.com)
On Monday, IBM asked a jury to award the company $167 million in a lawsuit against deals site Groupon for using patented technology without authorization. The patents involve e-commerce technology that had already been licensed to Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet for between $20 million and $50 million per company. "Most big companies have taken licenses to these patents," IBM's lawyer, John Desmarais, said. "Groupon has not. The new kid on the block refuses to take responsibility for using these inventions." Reuters reports: Groupon lawyer J. David Hadden argued that IBM was overreading the scope of its patents and claiming ownership of building blocks of the internet. "A key question for you in this case is whether these patents cover the world wide web," Hadden told jurors. "They do not and that is because IBM did not invent the world wide web."
An IBM executive is expected to testify during the two-week trial about licensing deals with technology companies like Amazon and Google, providing a rare glimpse into IBM's efforts to derive revenue from its large patent portfolio. The Armonk, New York-based company invests heavily in research and development and has secured more U.S. patents than any other company for the past 25 years.
An IBM executive is expected to testify during the two-week trial about licensing deals with technology companies like Amazon and Google, providing a rare glimpse into IBM's efforts to derive revenue from its large patent portfolio. The Armonk, New York-based company invests heavily in research and development and has secured more U.S. patents than any other company for the past 25 years.
Which will prove only that Google and Amazon didn't challenge the stupid patents, not that they are valid.
I'm sure Groupon's counsel will have thought of that though.
Patents are a bad idea.
Multiple people come up with the same ideas.
Nobody should be given exclusive rights to the ideas.
Software patents are even worse than other types of patents.
Time to reform the patent system and ban all patents.
There's still a Groupon to sue?
The length of a US patent is 20 years. I think this is just about right where it is supposed to be. I don't like it, but I see that it is necessary.
I also like watching giants duke it out in court for the entire 20 years.
I think there are 2 reforms that need to happen with our patent system here in the states.
1. Use it or lose it. End patent trolling for good.
2. Limited applications. Half the reason we have so many dumbass patents (rounded corners, swipe left ect..) is because we allow giant companies to apply for patents en-mass. Apply for 500 frivolous patents a day. if even one gets approved a quarter, you can unleash the lawyers and recoup the cost of all of the failed applications and rent seek for another 20 years. If you can afford huge upfront cost, or already have the lawyers for doing your legit patents, you gotta keep em busy.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
No source, so take with an appropriately sized grain of salt.
Back in the early days of Sun, IBM came in and said, "You're violating this patent we own. We want you to pay for a license." Sun's engineers sat down, looked at the patent, and went through all the various claims it made, and basically proved that Sun did not violate that patent.
IBM's response: "We have a portfolio of $BIGNUM patents. You can either pay us for a license, or we will find one that you are violating, and sue."
Sun folded.
In the context of computer hardware at the time, IBM was the 200 kg gorilla in the room, and if you didn't have a patent portfolio of your own, you were at their mercy. I don't know if IBM still has the same level of legal clout in this particular area, but I'd not want to be in Groupon's shoes right now. Lawsuit vs patent license... a very tricky situation, especially since IBM could, potentially, drag out dozens of lawsuits over dozens of patents as a form of legal harassment.
I hope IBM have their arse handed to them (but they probably won't).
Which will prove only that Google and Amazon didn't challenge the stupid patents, not that they are valid.
I'm sure Groupon's counsel will have thought of that though.
IBM has had an incredible R&D team for decades and decades. They research real technology.
Groupon is just another dipshit web based retail type of company that tries to pass its self off as a tech company to get stupid people to value it more than it should be. It's done nothing worthy of being called technology. Like Uber and Lyft.
I see it time and time again, some Silly Valley company exclaims that they've done something innovative and it was really done many years ago.
I swear to my personal God, I could start a pizza parlor in Silly Valley, throw up a website and create an app, and it'd be called an innovative tech company and valued at $100 billion.
The last innovative company out of Silicon Valley was Cisco.
Most of you have been brainwashed by marketing people into thinking that certain name brand products are new technology when they are just a rehash of shit that was done years ago.
That's right! That jock in marketing is outsmarting you geeks.
AND they are STILL getting the girls and not you.
IBM is the furthest thing in the world from a patent troll.
Need I remind....
- IBM has had the record of the most patents per year for the past 25 years, in a row
- IBM grants free access to its entire patent portfolio (again, the world's largest - see above) to initiatives like The Linux Foundation and OASIS Standards.
- IBM has used its massive patent warchest to act in the interests of Open Source and Linux many, many, many times over the years.
- IBM allowed Google to purchase some of their patents to aid in their fight against Oracle's ridiculousness that would have killed all open source Java as well as Android
In general... IBM spends a massive amount of money on R&D and for the most part, their patents are real inventions. They then either license those patents on reasonable terms to others, or hold them as defense against other patent trolls, or use them to help open technology movements.
" ... "A key question for you in this case is whether these patents cover the world wide web," Hadden told jurors. "They do not and that is because IBM did not invent the world wide web." ..."
The patents could easily 'cover the world wide web' in a general sense while at the same time covering only a subset of it. Nor is Groupon a company whose product 'cover[s] the world wide web', it covers a subset of the world wide web.
IBM has no need to prove it 'invent[ed] the world wide web', it only has to prove it invented some processes for eCommerce and received patents for them (whether such patents should have been issued is another story, but none the less, they were granted, so that is a simple fact) and that Groupon has used these patented processes in it's business without obtaining a license authorizing their use.
World Wide Web does not equal eCommerce on the web, nor does eCommerce on the web equal the World Wide Web.
Sound like they have little to offer to defend themselves against the suit., and are trying to deflect the issue they are being sued over. Obviously an armchair assessment, but it looks bad for them to me.
No they're a derivative patent troll. None of their patents constitute a commercial market, they simply look at what's happening and patent around it.
"IBM also said it patented so-called “single sign on” technology that allows consumers to log in to a retailer’s website with their Facebook or Google account. "
This case in point.
Worlds biggest patent troll, hasn't innovated since the 1950's.
Mandatory "I am not a professional in any field dealing with IP law but I have common sense, which doesn't always relate to legal stuff" disclaimer.
I didn't see this in any comments and the article obviously isn't written for people who want to know what patents IBM is claiming infringement upon.
"Two of the four patents at issue relate to Prodigy, a late-1980s forerunner to the internet, developed by IBM and others, that describe a system for showing applications and advertisements that reduces server loads."
* I suspect that those two patents will be shown to be overly broad and obvious unless there's some radical work to reduce the server load. I'm thinking the word 'cache' will appear.
"IBM also said it patented so-called “single sign on” technology that allows consumers to log in to a retailer’s website with their Facebook or Google account."
* I don't know that I've seen a site lately that doesn't allow connectivity to other accounts. SSO is so prevalent and there's so many sites that use it without licensing that this one will be diluted to the point of irrelevance. The connection between Facebook and Google licensing the patents would be on the back end, not the front.
Quoting the lawyer: Groupon lawyer J. David Hadden argued that IBM was overreading the scope of its patents and claiming ownership of building blocks of the internet. "A key question for you in this case is whether these patents cover the world wide web," Hadden told jurors. "They do not and that is because IBM did not invent the world wide web."
This guy just made my day as the stuff he said is so hilarious. So in general he's not challenging the validity of the patent but actually challenges where it gets used. If IBM didn't invent the www, then they can't claim anything on their patent because it's being used on the www. This guy just literally invalidated 100% patents in all countries world wide. Because if nobody invented Earth, then everything invented to be used on Earth is not a patent.
"AI Plus a Chemistry Robot Finds All the Reactions That Will Work"
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
This is a prime example of why patents are absurd and should be discontinued.