When thinking about the effect of this discussion think ~distributors~. If distributing the linux kernel is contributing to patent infringement then distributors will vanish. The contributory and vicarious copyright infringement that sunk Napster was imported from patent law after all.
Note that the opinion does not invalidate the patent. Rather, it says that Prodigy (and the Internet writ large) do not infringe the patent because the Internet does not have a "central computer" or contain "blocks of information" as the court defined them and the patent requires.
Though there may not be a bar to bringing this type of claim, the doctrine of laches may be a defense to enforcement for some defendants. Basically laches says that if a plaintiff delays too long in asserting its claim against a defendant, and the defendant was prejudiced by plaintiff's delay, plaintiff loses. That prejudice may be a simple as thinking that plaintiff accepted your use of its patent and investing time and money to continue developing it. Of course, laches will not help anyone who decides to adopt infringing technology AFTER they have been explicitly told that they will be sued if they do. It also doesn't help anyone who can't prove prejudice from a plaintiffs delay. See a more detailed explanation at Converium.
The complaint is available in PDF form. Also interesting is that Michael Page (who is representing Grokster in MGM v. Grokster) is representing 321 Studios.
Slashdot Mirror
My commentary is at Bricoleur.
-Alex
When thinking about the effect of this discussion think ~distributors~. If distributing the linux kernel is contributing to patent infringement then distributors will vanish. The contributory and vicarious copyright infringement that sunk Napster was imported from patent law after all.
Note that the opinion does not invalidate the patent. Rather, it says that Prodigy (and the Internet writ large) do not infringe the patent because the Internet does not have a "central computer" or contain "blocks of information" as the court defined them and the patent requires.
is here
Though there may not be a bar to bringing this type of claim, the doctrine of laches may be a defense to enforcement for some defendants. Basically laches says that if a plaintiff delays too long in asserting its claim against a defendant, and the defendant was prejudiced by plaintiff's delay, plaintiff loses. That prejudice may be a simple as thinking that plaintiff accepted your use of its patent and investing time and money to continue developing it.
Of course, laches will not help anyone who decides to adopt infringing technology AFTER they have been explicitly told that they will be sued if they do. It also doesn't help anyone who can't prove prejudice from a plaintiffs delay.
See a more detailed explanation at Converium.
Judge Limbaugh's ruling is available in PDF.
The complaint is available in PDF form. Also interesting is that Michael Page (who is representing Grokster in MGM v. Grokster) is representing 321 Studios.
- The Harvard Journal of Law and Technology,
That have been around quire a bit longer providing leading articles on the intersection of law and cyberspace (along with many others).The Journal of Online Law,
The Virginia Journal of Law and Technology,
The Berkeley Journal of Law and Technology,
The Stanford Technology Law Review, and
The Berkman Center for Internet & Technology
-Alex