Microsoft, Google Sue Troll Who Sued 397 Companies 176
FlorianMueller writes "Microsoft and Google have teamed up against a company that holds a geotagging patent and sued 397 companies last year in Texas, most of them in mid December. ... Now the two tech giants have entered the fray together and want the patent declared invalid and seek an injunction to prevent further lawsuits over it. Since the patent holder has already filed for an initial public offering, this intervention may come at just the right time to prevent the worst. Google and Microsoft say that there was prior art when the patent on an 'Internet organizer for accessing geographically and topically based information' was applied for in 1996."
Temperatures plummet in Hades (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft and Google working together for good?
Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes me wonder if something about the patent might actually worry 'em?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I'm mistaken, Reuters, American Press, Canadian Press and other news service agencies have been providing location/date/time/etc. information coupled with photos via their distribution service since at least 1994. Newspapers and magazines have been storing photos WITH location/date/time information since before that.
It shouldn't be too difficult to prove prior art - just look to the arts!
Re: (Score:2)
If it stops companies tracking your location, sure.
It will only stop some companies from tracking you ... this troll's company will track you or one of the companies he licenses his patent to.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Get my good friends Sergey and Larry on the phone!"
A hotline has been established between Mountain View and Redmond ever since the Cuba browser crisis.
Re:I'd love to be a fly on the wall... (Score:5, Funny)
A transcript of Ballmer's side of the conversation (with apologies to Peter Sellers):
"Hello?... Uh... Hello S- uh hello Sergey? Listen uh uh I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh-ho, that's much better... yeah... huh... yes... Fine, I can hear you now, Sergey... Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha... Now then, Sergey, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Patents... The *Patents*, Sergey... The *software* patents!... Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of those patent trolls, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his lawyers... to sue your company... Ah... Well, let me finish, Sergey... Let me finish, Sergey... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?... Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Sergey?... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?... *Of course* I like to speak to you!... *Of course* I like to say hello!... Not now, but anytime, Sergey. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It's a *friendly* call. Of course it's a friendly call... Listen, if it wasn't friendly... you probably wouldn't have even got it..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades (Score:5, Funny)
Pigs, frightened by the near freezing temperatures, take to the skys.
Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but isn't she, like, 45 now?
Re: (Score:2)
45 year old chicks ROCK! I like 'em young!
Re: (Score:2)
-tm
Re: (Score:2)
The good news for GeoTag is that the Nazgûl are still behind the Black Gate of Armonk.
Re: (Score:2)
For a moment, just a moment, there, I read "the Black Gate of Amarok".
Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they'd rather spend less now to smother the company than spend a lot more later defending themselves against it.
Shocking, I know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft and Google working together for their own self-interest, which incidentally is beneficial to us too.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say is "Hold on tight everyone! THE UNIVERSE IS EATING ITSELF!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ready...ready for the big ride baby! Yeeeeeehaw!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many things on which MS and Google work together - I mean, why not, provided it works towards the interest of both parties?
To give one example, how'd you think IE9 ended up supporting WebM (and no other 3rd party codec)?
Re:Thats nothing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Ubuntufan5 has been spending his/her time over the past few days posting pictures to goatse for fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there a general firefox addon that expands short urls?
Meanwhile, trivia of the day is that the prior copy of "real goatse" was the French .fr copy. However someone apparently got to it to take it down, so the new one is the .ru Russian one.
Re:Temperatures plummet in Hades (Score:4, Funny)
The corporate slogan is:
"Our passion, our evil".
Re: (Score:2)
Would the suit be filed under "Moogle" or "Gosoft"?
Filing under Moogle would trigger a trademark violation from Square-Enix.
Re: (Score:2)
What do fungiform extraterrestrials from the planetoid of pluto [wikipedia.org] have to do with companies being litigious?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The correct name is Yuggoth, not some Disney character name. (Dog or God, take your pick.)
Which one is Disney?
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well make it MiiGo.
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, welcome our new Mi-Go overlords.
Of course prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called an atlas + gazetteer
Re: (Score:2)
Two things ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things ...
We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".
We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.
Re:Two things ... (Score:4, Funny)
We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.
are you advocating...messing with Texas?!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Resort owners and drug dealers.
That's probably redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich senior citizens from the US actually. They are opting to buy villas in Mexico now rather than move to South Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm advocating they stop letting people mess with everybody else using their court system.
Re: (Score:3)
YYEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH.
Re: (Score:2)
Litter has nothing to do with it.
That phrase was created for a litter control advertisement in the 70s/80s. It doesn't mean what people think it does.
Re: (Score:2)
My uncle was one of the founders of the ad agency that came up with the slogan, so I'm getting a kick out of this.
Re: (Score:2)
That district in texas is to patents what china used to be for spam... and sadly it's probably about money for more than the patent trolls. I wonder just how much money court fees etc bring into that district from the gobs of patent suits filed there every year? They must have an army of judges and a campus of courtrooms, and I get the impression they're about on par with those "wedding chapels" in las vegas, practically with a drive-thru window.
Re: (Score:2)
We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".
Neutral experts, or a neutral judge and competing experts, don't come cheap.
The current system is to have a low standard at an outset and then a high standard if it turns out there is actually disagreement.
You could put the high or a higher standard first, but you would have to fund it and its not clear that it would reduce the overall expense or justness of the patent system.
Let the inventor pay (Score:3)
You could put the high or a higher standard first, but you would have to fund it
OK: have the applicants pay for the needed experts. After all, the idea of a patent is to let the inventor profit. The inventor cannot afford it? That's what banks are for. If the idea is good, he can get a loan based on his future profit. Or get a venture capitalist to fund him.
Re: (Score:2)
You could put the high or a higher standard first, but you would have to fund it
OK: have the applicants pay for the needed experts. After all, the idea of a patent is to let the inventor profit. The inventor cannot afford it? That's what banks are for. If the idea is good, he can get a loan based on his future profit. Or get a venture capitalist to fund him.
You realize the most VC's are just loan sharks of the startup world, don't you?
Another possibility would be to have those who have successfully obtained a patent and are not actively licensing it under reasonable terms pay an annual penalty. This penalty would be used to fund the expert assistance required to maintain a manageable patent system. This has three advantages: it ensures fewer garbage patents are allowed into this system; it discourages people and companies from sitting on patents; and it enc
Re: (Score:2)
Another possibility would be to have those who have successfully obtained a patent and are not actively licensing it under reasonable terms pay an annual penalty.
Rather, have a blanket annual penalty ("fee") to keep the patent going for another year. Don't pay the fee? Patent expires. Thus no need for a penalty. And it serves the rest of your purposes just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is that you come up with something, a rich guy sees or hears what it is, the rich guy screws you over because he doesn't need the loan to patent the thing.
As opposed to the current systen where the rich guy has a thicket of patents ready to block you from doing anything useful. Patents are a weapon that anybody can use, rich guys have more of them, and patents don't change the balance of power at all, just escalate the damage.
The superficial thinking of patent proponents is just incredibl
Re: (Score:2)
We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.
I never understood why it is that this particular jurisdiction is so favorable to patent holders. Could someone with some perspective on this please comment?
Re:Two things ... (Score:4, Insightful)
We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".
That depends.
If you have a methodological process for, say, reading your location off a GPS, checking it against a map, and tagging it manually to a piece of data... then with a computer, this is nothing but "a computer program to do what I was doing anyway."
If however you are sighting up things by hand and manually tagging them, the integration of a GPS with the system may be quite novel.
Patents are about novelty. Unfortunately, all novelty is incremental. Small incremental steps are obvious, though, if they come in the common sphere or they package up what's common. Say you take a picture, check your GPS, put the location into the picture... putting a GPS in the camera to tag the picture doesn't suddenly make geotagging photographs a new invention, because you're automating what people did anyway. But if nobody thought to geotag pictures before, or they never thought to use a GPS, or they always tagged with the LOCATION ON A MAP and you integrate a system that tags the GPS coordinates and looks it up on a map as needed, you've done something nobody's thought of yet.
Novelty is subtle. There is a lot of "This is just X done with Y" and "I could have done that..." coming from people who really, really like this idea that nobody seems to have done before. There are also cases of "everyone does this with the exact same fucking tools; you just told a computer to make it user-transparent" going on, which need to be shot down.
Bread machines didn't pioneer the making of bread, or any individual step; but they did provide the novelty of a machine that mixes, rises, and bakes the bread in one sweep, with tools that all existed before. Note that nobody put a paddle in the base of a baking pan, stuck it in the oven, cranked it several times, let it rise, cranked it again, and then heated it up; the actual process was completely different, but using the same tools (a pan, bread ingredients, an agitator, and a heating element similar to those found in an electric oven). This was not "a traditional bread machine, but with a motor instead of a hand crank."
The same goes for a computer: is this a traditional manual process (take picture, enter GPS information into picture) done with two computers, but we put the components together and did it manually? Or is this a traditional manual process done via other means which we recognized was possible to automate by plugging a bunch of other tools together and using a new methodology that correlates to but doesn't strictly automate the original steps?
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps get the Texas court in question called into question for questionable proceedings?
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're in favor of something like Libel Tourism [wikipedia.org] where you shop for a jurisdiction that will let you do what almost every other jurisdiction would laugh you out of court for? Or is this special because it's Texas?
From the number of stories I see where Texas is the venue for such a law suit, I find it hard to believe that either party has much, if any, actual presence in Texas. At which point, it's hard not to conclude they have reall
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, A lawyer, in a previous article where Texas courts are being used, posted the Texas courts are preferred because they have lots of experience in highly technical matters. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, it doesn't appear to be a case of Libel Tourism; rather shopping for true legal and technical expertise.
Re: (Score:2)
I sorta get the impression that it's because they've got rules that make them a favorable venue, and because they'll let any lawyer, from anywhere file a suit. Here's what wikipedi [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Those rules need not be mutually exclusive. Now that you mention the favorable rules, I seem to remember that all being part of the package. I don't have a problem with favorable rules which lead to speedy trials and/or resolution in combination with technical prowess.
Seems like a win-win.
Tolkien (Score:5, Funny)
You can't use the word 'Troll' or the Tolkien estate will be after you all.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't use the world 'Tolkien' or the Tolkien estate will be after you.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/27/1940241/Tolkien-Estate-Censors-the-Word-Tolkien [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK - they'll be after you twice as badly as after me - you used the 'T' word twice.
Re: (Score:2)
You used "troll"(tm) once and then "Tolkien"(tm) once, so that's two slaps for you, same as GP.
Whereas I'm gonna be fine 'cause I've used (tm). Watch and learn! ~
Re: (Score:2)
You can't use the world 'Tolkien' or the Troll estate will be after you.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tolkien prior art for word "Troll" (Score:2)
You can't use the word 'Troll' or the Tolkien estate will be after you all.
Nope, prior art....lol...
troll (n.) [etymonline.com]
"ugly dwarf or giant," 1610s, from O.N. troll "giant, fiend, demon." Some speculate that it originally meant "creature that walks clumsily," and derives from P.Gmc. *truzlan, from *truzlanan (see troll (v.)). But it seems to have been a general supernatural word, cf. Swed. trolla "to charm, bewitch;" O.N. trolldomr "witchcraft." The old sagas tell of the troll-bull, a supernatural being in the form of a bull, as well as boar-trolls. There were troll-maidens, troll-wives, and troll-women; the trollman, a magician or wizard, and the troll-drum, used in Lappish magic rites. The word was popularized in English by 19c. antiquarians, but it has been current in the Shetlands and Orkneys since Viking times. The first record of it is from a court document from the Shetlands, regarding a certain Catherine, who, among other things, was accused of "airt and pairt of witchcraft and sorcerie, in hanting and seeing the Trollis ryse out of the kyrk yeard of Hildiswick." Originally conceived as a race of giants, they have suffered the same fate as the Celtic Danann and are now regarded in Denmark and Sweden as dwarfs and imps supposed to live in caves or under the ground.
I am pretty sure, without looking...I know very very brave of me - not to look..., that Tolkien (oops violated that one...Good one LordEd) was born sometime after 1610. Either that or he lived to over 300 years old...or there abouts.
On a more serious note, yes hard to believe that any of us would get serious about this topic..., if you enjoyed Tolkien's Trilogy, "Lord of the Rings" [wikipedia.org]. I know I did back in the day, you need to visit your nearest book source and read:
Re: (Score:2)
There wasn't a SINGLE race/species that Tolkien invented himself.
Orcs? Beowulf.
Hobbits? The name is listed on an early 19th century list of folk tale creatures without description, the creature itself comes from early 20th century children books, including "Babbit".
Elves, dwarves, trolls? Norse mythology.
Tolkien did a great job digging those creatures out of obscurity. It is so much better to not have to learn what "qwerts" or "asdfaks" are in every single book, which is what copyright (*spit*) requires
1996 (Score:4, Interesting)
The patent was applied for in 1996? 15 years in internet time is like 5 decades in other fields.
Back then, you were likely running Windows 95 and had to launch Real Player 1.0 to listen to audio online. IE and Netscape were both products you had to pay for (IE came with MS Plus!)
Should a patent from that era really still be valid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1996 (Score:4, Insightful)
A patent is as good for as long as a patent is legally good. 20 years. It's not an arbitrary number.
I'm pretty sure 20 years was an entirely arbitrary number.
Re: (Score:3)
(Unlike copyright, which was initially shorter than patents, and now are up to something stupid like life + 90 years someone keeps up on the paperwork. That's a monopoly for the c
Re: (Score:2)
It's the "get exclusive rights to develop something, but DON'T. then wait FIFTEEN YEARS and then try to sue everyone else for fifteen years worth of damages." That kind of shit needs to be cracked down on. Hard.
Well, laches means that they'll get the court not upholding their suits in the first place (or at least not getting big payouts). If you own a patent, you've got to take at least some steps to defend it (such as contacting potential infringers at the first practical opportunity). Submarining is very frowned-upon.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent was applied for in 1996?
Back then ... IE and Netscape were both products you had to pay for
Er ... no.
Netscape Navigator was free for personal use. Plus, even for business use, the $39.95 price tag was never enforced - and rarely paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously questioning the ethics of allowing patents describing *new*, ahead-of-their-time (non obvious) kind of stuff ?
That's precisely the kinds of patents I would like to see if we're to have a patent system at all, since ground breaking ideas pull civilization forward.
Not that I'm saying *this* particular pattern is ground breaking, I haven't read it, but your sentiment seems to be that since it was filed looong before most of us had a clue, then its somehow unethical !?.
What we do not want are
Re: (Score:2)
But here's the thing -- had that patent holder done something with the patent in 1996, maybe they'd have a case for it.
Instead, they waited 15 years and now they're just suing people who not only came up with the same idea, but actually implemented it as well.
So in effect, what the patent holder is doing is to "monopolize the obvious and the stuff of yesterday."
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth were you downloading MS Plus via bittorrent in 2001 or later? Let alone still using Windows 95?
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh... For how long have you stuck with 95 ? The torrent protocol was designed only in 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
He only just upgraded from Windows 3.1 a few months ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Forum shopping (Score:2)
How many of those defendants were joined to GeoTag's lawsuits solely for the purpose of getting jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas? The irony, of course, being that they would end up having to defend their other suit in Delaware anyway because they neglected to sue Google and Microsoft straight away.
Nice to have deep pockets (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, it's nice to be a multi-billion dollar corporation. You can defend yourself against this crap. A small start-up? A free software project? Not so easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is not a bug it is a feature. This is purely intentional in both cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior art is not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The premise that gives the patent system value is that the world just wouldn't have the idea available if the patent holder hadn't come along. In such a case perhaps a patent is called for. If we give patents for 20 years, the standard for giving a patent should be that no one else is likely to come up with that idea for the next 20 years assuming no patent system to motivate them. Then a patent makes sense. I doubt even one patent in a thousand could live up to that standard. The 999 other patents in a thousand are a drain on humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Modify parent insightful, please.
Re: (Score:2)
...The patent system has instead become...
No, it has not degenerated. It has always been like that. Read about the patent fights between Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers attempts to run Henry For out of town way back in 1900s. Think about the patent fights over ailerons vs wing warping between the Wright Brothers and the Curtiss aircraft company (Wrigts were wrong). The bitter personal feud between Edison and Westinghouse, Westinghouse poaching Tesla from Edison. Tesla getting to huge fights with Marconi. I have read about some p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm late to the party, here, but the parent comment is *not* +5 Insightful, it's 0 Has no clue about the patent system. You cannot patent ideas. An idea must be reduced to practice in some novel way in order to considered for a patent. The problem is that the US Patent office started to hand out patents for computer software and business models. Computer software is rightly copyrighted, not patented. And patenting business models (which is patenting ideas -not inventions) is simply an atrocity that is erod
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not business model or software patents in particular. The problem is that patents are used to prevent other people from using their own ideas when someone else already took out a patent on them. That is a drain on humanity and it should not happen except when the patent system can provide value that surpasses the destruction it causes. That value only exists when the
Have you seen the list (Score:2)
What is the prior art? (Score:2)
Patent trolls, lots of 'em (Score:2)
Google and Microsoft say that there was prior art when the patent on...
And I'm SURE there was no prior art regarding any technology relating to the numerous patents that Google and Microsoft hold. Maybe they're right in the case (I don't know), but they must also be held to a fair standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent Reform - things would turn out differently (Score:2)
Having read lately about the attempts to change the US patent system to a "first-to-file", would mean that the result would go a different way here. So does this not highlight the flaw in the "first-to-file" system ?
Hmm ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So you're against - you know - looking at the merits of the individual patent case then?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreeing to look at the merits of each individual case gives legitimacy to the process that allowed the creation of so, so many unmerited cases. And it certainly gives legitimacy to the concept of software patents as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)