Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen suing the World and your dog.

This post has 1 Reply | 3 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,054
Points 60,735
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 Posted: Wed, Dec 29 2010 11:18 AM

I'd like to see your take on the lawsuit Allen's patent troll are trying to carry out against AOL, INC.; APPLE, INC.; eBAY, INC.; FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE INC.; NETFLIX, INC.; OFFICE DEPOT, INC.; OFFICEMAX INC.; STAPLES, INC.; YAHOO! INC.; AND YOUTUBE, LLC,

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101229064530306

There's no specific "invention" attached to Allen's patents, and it looks like he patented things that were vague, obvious, and already in wide use.  Microsoft isn't being sued, surprise, but that's probably because Allen gave them a sweetheart deal and they figured it would be fun to license and watch the rest of the world burn cash fighting the principal of the thing (plus going to court against one of your founders has never been vogue).

When I say the patents are obvious and inventions were pre-existing, I mean it:

You know that little scrolling newsticker that's been at the bottom of your TV since at least the 1980s?

On March 7, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,034,652 (the 652 patent) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device. The 652 patent describes an invention that enables information to be provided to a user in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from his primary interaction with an apparatus such as, for example, a computer or television.

Good luck suing Fox News, Paul.  If they can make a mosque funded by one of their principal owners look terroristic, you've got no chance.  Make your time.

I, obviously, don't care for software patents (even though I've spent a lot of time writing software in the last 25 years!) as I feel they're being used to artificially create a barrier for the little guy and prop up those companies with the millions needed to maintain a patent war-chest for cross-licensing.  I'd like to hear what the non-developers think and would love to see HH bring attention to this for a larger audience.

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,385
Points 31,075
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Crystal Lake,IL
rrplay replied on Thu, Dec 30 2010 9:04 AM

Pretty sure that a sane person would consider this to be absolutely frivolous and ridiculous, but then again the selected sound-byte in the media would gather attention.

& I read a respose int the posted thread by :

What sort of patents are these? Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 04:59 AM EST

explaining a bit quote "They are not process patents because no process is defined by the claims. The
claims are process steps and the shear quantity of them do not transform the
claims into a process."

OK I thinks my feeeble brain can process that info :

when I click on the Like button ? 

do not thinks Allen mentioned that one !

3vi1:

.... I feel they're being used to artificially create a barrier for the little guy and prop up those companies with the millions needed to maintain a patent war-chest for cross-licensing.

I agree with you that with media soundbits about so-called patent infractions just by filing he has brought his attention to a larger audience.

 

 

 

 

"Don't Panic ! 'cause HH got's your back!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (2 items) | RSS