|
Cognex Invalidates Acacia Patent '524; Next? Suing for Business Defamation |
|
Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:06 AM EDT
|
Do you remember back in 2005 a company called Cognex took on Lemelson Partnership and won, invalidating 14 of Lemelson's patents? Well, it turns out that after that, they took on Acacia Research, and they just
beat them too. Acacia is now minus one of its patents. Here's the order [PDF]. Cognex is now aggressively going after Acacia for defamation, attorneys fees, and damages, including, or so they hope, according to a motion to amend their complaint, special and punitive damages. I love this company. They take on patent trolls and win. What do they sell? "Machine vision sensors and systems"? Whatever that is, I'll take ten.
I'm highlighting it for another reason, brought out in the company's press release: “We are very pleased with the court’s decision, not only because it means that our customers will be spared from deceptive licensing demands, but also because it shows that the courts can and do act decisively to stop organizations that enrich themselves by asserting questionable patents,” said Dr. Robert J. Shillman, Chairman and CEO of Cognex. I've been seeing a fair number of comments recently about how the legal system is broken or, worse, corrupt, and it's all hopeless, blah blah. Imagine if Cognex had viewed things that way. It could have. The US patent system really is broken, after all. But Cognex knew it *could* work, if it tried. And it thought it mattered enough to try. Back in 2005, Shillman was quoted as to his reason for standing up to Lemelson, when so many others had folded: Against the advice of his most trusted associates, Shillman decided to go forward with a lawsuit in September 1998. The suit, filed in Massachusetts, said the Lemelson patents were invalid, unenforceable and not being infringed by Cognex.
"If evil is being acted upon in the world, everybody has an obligation, especially if only you had the power. Only we understood the technology. Only we could defeat this guy," said Shillman. Imagine if he had, instead, thrown up his hands, assumed there was no hope, said the patent system was a joke, the system totally corrupt, etc. and just paid for a license he knew, and as he later proved, he didn't need? Nobody needs it now. It's history. Thank you, Cognex. Cynics give up too easily, methinks. You may remember, incidentally, that Acacia is the entity that filed a patent infringement suit against Red Hat and Novell last October.
Finally, I thought it would be useful to take a look at the prior art that persuaded this judge that the patent in question was not valid, as part of our education in patent law. You can find out about that by reading the Order. You guys will understand that part better than I do, so do share what you learn with the rest of us.
The Cognex win in May isn't the end of the story. What about the defamation part?
Here's a report on Law.com: The company is also bringing business defamation claims against one of the companies for statements its officials made to Cognex's customers....
Cognex's in-house counsel, Todd Keebaugh estimated that Cognex has spent roughly $3 million to $4 million fighting Acacia, not including in-house employees' time.... Cognex claims that Acacia officials, who allegedly tried to get Cognex customers to buy licenses by threatening them with patent suits, also attempted to discredit Cognex by falsely claiming Cognex tried to buy the patent in question from Veritec for an eight-figure sum. Cognex also claims Acacia showed some customers a phony document as proof.
Cognex has filed a motion to amend its complaint, a 2nd Amended Complaint [PDF], and a motion for summary judgment [PDF] on Count V of the complaint, Business Defamation, both of which motions Acacia opposes. You can see some of its reasons in this Memorandum in Opposition [PDF]. One reason is that Acacia says it's too late to amend the complaint now, almost a year after the close of discovery. Litigation is only fun if you are winning. When you're in defensive mode, it's mainly scary. For Acacia, this may not be the fun part, and no doubt they hope fervently that the court agrees with them about the request being untimely. The proposed amended complaint asks for the following relief:
H. For an injunction permanently restraining Acacia, its officers, agents, attorneys
and others in active concert therewith from defaming Cognex and/or engaging in any further deceptive trade practices in regard to Cognex;
I. For an award of presumed damages to Cognex due to Acacia's defamation;
J. For an award of special, general and punitive damages to Cognex due to Acacia's defamation; and
K. For an award to Cognex for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Acacia opposes adding special and punitive damages to the complaint, and so would you if you were Acacia, because it can add up to big bucks. We'll see how this ends. This is all happening this month. I gather the judge will rule on the papers, without a hearing. But the truth is, with or without those damages, Acacia has lost a patent, and that costs them in and of itself.
Here's one example of a specific defamation allegation from the complaint:
25. Specifically, in an e-mail dated April 27, 2006 to a Proctor and Gamble representative, the Acacia representative, Tisha De Riamo, stated:
Your information regarding Cognex is very interesting. I hope their attorney told you that as recently as last summer, Cognex attempted to buy the '078 and '524 patents from Veritec for an eight-figure purchase price. In other words, they saw value having the patents back then. But now, as Veritec has emerged out of bankruptcy and is able to enforce its rights regarding the patents, Cognex alleges that the patents are invalid. It's incongruous. (emphasis in original)
26. Upon information and belief, Ms. DeRiamo also stated to at least one of these alleged infringers, Allison Payment Systems, a customer of Cognex for its data matrix symbol reader products, that Veritec was in possession of a letter of intent evidencing Cognex's alleged offer to purchase the '524 and '078 patents for an eight figure sum.
27. These statements made by Ms. DeRiamo are false. Cognex never offered to buy the '524 and '078 patents for any sum, let alone one with eight figures.
It's the '524 patent that Acacia just lost. The complaint goes on to state that Veritec, when it was in bankruptcy, offered to sell
its entire company to Cognex, but Cognex didn't respond to the unilateral offer. Acacia doesn't seem to deny the allegations; they say Cognex should have brought them up sooner and they have legal arguments as to why Cognex should have no relief or at least why it should go to a jury. If I might just suggest for the future another possibility when a patent troll or troll-to-be offer patents for sale: please contact the Open Invention Network to let them know the patents are being offered for sale, just in case they might be interested. I'll bet you anything that some "pragmatist" out there will suggest that Cognex should have just paid the 8 figures and avoided the litigation expense. First, that would have left others vulnerable to a patent that proved to be bogus, including Cognex's customers (the Supreme Court's Quanta decision recently has altered that picture, but back when Cognex was making those decisions, no one knew that would happen). And second, there is something fundamentally wrong with a system where your best choice is to buy a worthless patent. The complaint alleges that Acacia recently produced a "rough draft of a letter that it indicated was obtained from Veritec." Cognex was typed at the top of the page "as if to simulate authentic Cognex letterhead." However, Cognex says the letter isn't authentic, but is "rather is a total fabrication prepared by Veritec and/or Acacia without any involvement by or input by Cognex." Cognex alleges that the false statements were made for a purpose, "for the specific purpose of deceiving Proctor & Gamble, Allison Payment Systems and other companies to whom they were made into believing that Cognex has no intention of pursuing its meritorious declaratory judgment claims in this action through to a conclusion." A secondary purpose, according to the complaint, was "for the additional purpose of fraudulently inducing these companies to pay a fee for a license under the '524 patent notwithstanding the pendency of Cognex's claims." I gather that is a large part of why Cognex decided to do something about what was happening to its customers.
These issues are discussed in the Order, but the court felt there were issues of disputed facts, and the court pretty much encouraged Cognex to raise the Count V matters in a dispositive motion, "so as to minimize a delay in seeking appellate review", and so Cognex filed the motion. It's hard to get a complete picture, because some of the recent filings are sealed, but what is available gives us the big picture.
Patent trolls know now that Cognex certainly will pursue its claims to a conclusion, and they will protect their customers in situations like this. They have a history now of winning. The '524 patent is no more. It has been declared invalid and unenforceable.
Here's the complete press release about the patent win in May:
NATICK, MA, May 22, 2008--Cognex Corporation (NASDAQ: CGNX) today announced the U.S. District Court in Minnesota has ruled in favor of Cognex in its patent lawsuit against Acacia Research Corporation, Veritec, Inc., VCode Holdings LLC (a subsidiary of Veritec, Inc.), and VData LLC (a subsidiary of Acacia).
The ruling by Judge Joan N. Ericksen, issued on May 19th, held that U.S. Patent No. 5,612,524, which claimed to cover a system for capturing and reading 2D symbology codes, is both invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by the defendants during the procurement of the patent. The court also denied Acacia’s summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss a business defamation claim brought by Cognex against Acacia for representations Acacia made about Cognex after the lawsuit was filed.
Cognex, a leading manufacturer of devices used to capture, verify, read and decode 2D symbology codes, filed its original declaratory judgment complaint on March 13, 2006 after receiving information that Acacia Research Corporation had contacted Cognex customers to demand licensing fees relating to the ‘524 patent.
“We are very pleased with the court’s decision, not only because it means that our customers will be spared from deceptive licensing demands, but also because it shows that the courts can and do act decisively to stop organizations that enrich themselves by asserting questionable patents,” said Dr. Robert J. Shillman, Chairman and CEO of Cognex.
Dr. Shillman continued, “Companies and individuals certainly have the right to seek licensing fees for their legitimate, patented inventions. In fact, patents provide an important incentive to the process of innovation by granting inventors the exclusive right to profit from their inventions for a certain period of time. However, abusive patent trolling…the activity of purchasing highly questionable patents from patent holders and then asserting them against well-respected and ethical corporations in the hope of extracting large monetary settlements (which are often calculated to be a bit less than the cost of litigation)…has unfortunately become a growth “business” in America over the past decade. But, unlike other growth businesses that help our economy, patent trolling hinders our ability to innovate and costs our economy hundreds of millions of dollars each year, costs that are passed on directly to consumers.”
Dr. Shillman concluded, “Patent trolls are like neighborhood bullies; they can only be stopped by standing up to them, refusing to settle, and then challenging their patents in court as Cognex did in 2004 when it succeeded in invalidating 14 patents asserted by the Lemelson Partnership, and as it did it once again in this case against Acacia and Veritec."
About Cognex
Cognex Corporation designs, develops, manufactures, and markets machine vision sensors and systems, or devices that can "see." Cognex vision systems are used in factories around the world to automate the manufacture of a wide range of items, and to assure their quality. Cognex is the world's leader in the machine vision industry, having shipped more than 400,000 machine vision systems, representing over $2 billion in cumulative revenue, since the company's founding in 1981. In addition to its corporate headquarters in Natick, Massachusetts, Cognex also has regional offices and distributors located throughout North America, Japan, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Visit Cognex on-line at http://www.cognex.com.
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
Please make links clicky.
---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Rick Jelliffe comment explains new MS PR towards OOXML - Authored by: Winter on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:21 AM EDT
- Userfriendly: MS beat Firefox in single day downloads! - Authored by: Winter on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- SCOX Up 35% - Authored by: joef on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 10:09 AM EDT
- The MPAA Says They Shouldn't Need Proof To Sue You - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- EFF attacks foundation of entire RIAA lawsuit campaign - Authored by: kh on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- "Charming Betsy" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- almost 10 years ago: kde 1.0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Off topic thread starts here - Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Preliminary assessment of Linux for safety related systems - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- George Carlin on Corporate America - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- how do you count AP - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- Bilabial Fricative - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- A question for PJ. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 03:42 AM EDT
- Activist == Evil (and dangerous) - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 04:05 AM EDT
- Read those definitions - Authored by: TerryC on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 07:07 AM EDT
- What Groklaw is doing - Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 07:16 AM EDT
- A question for PJ. - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 10:34 AM EDT
- I look here for information - Authored by: groklaw_fan on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- Jesus, Mohamed, Abraham, Moses, and Joseph were all activists - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, June 25 2008 @ 11:14 PM EDT
- Symbian to become Open Source - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 09:48 AM EDT
- Off topic thread starts here - Authored by: robobright on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- Judge Sanctions Lawyer for Issuing Subpoena to Blogger Kathleen Seidel - Authored by: yscydion on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Today's Non Sequitur - Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- BSI Strikes Again - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 01:22 PM EDT
- Remember Ashley Highfield of the BBC? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Good article on OCR tools - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- Sources: Microsoft And Yahoo Talks Back On - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 09:36 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:13 AM EDT |
+1 for the courts
-1 for the patent office for letting this one through to begin with
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:15 AM EDT |
Amen. The patent system in the US is utterly broken but the courts are credible.
They may be slow, but they are credible.
Now, would someone please ZAP the "double-click" patent? Please ZAP
the "NOT OPERATOR" too!
.
---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You'll like them less for their next lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:32 AM EDT
- Where Microsoft Can Put It - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 06:09 AM EDT
- Patent system is broken, the courts are not - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 11:21 AM EDT
- Sorry, I cannot agree. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- The exception proves the rule - Authored by: baomike on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 01:05 PM EDT
- Patent system is broken, the courts are not - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- I still say both are broken - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 10:12 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:33 AM EDT |
As I read along, thoughts of McBride/SCO/briefcase floating
around in Europe/scam licensing kept popping into my
consciousness.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
Please include the correction in the title if possible e.g.
corretcions-->corrections
Although I couldn't find fault with
PJ's article :-)
------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 04:52 AM EDT |
Comments relating to items in Newspicks here please. Kindly start the thread by
using the title of the article as the title of the thread. If the title is more
than 4 words, do make sure it's not from AP ;-).
-----------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Gentoo - Authored by: overshoot on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- Bill Gates - Closet Free Software User - Authored by: capt.Hij on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- Newspicks - Almost 9 Distros in Almost 6 Minutes - Authored by: tangomike on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Johnson on Competition - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- HP donating file system to Linux - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Bold typeface not turned off - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Tech exec charged with spiking drinks with ecstasy - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- Apple loyal to Intel - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- Intel won't touch Vista - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 05:35 PM EDT
- Microsoft Invitation to ODF TC members - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 05:05 AM EDT
- Microsoft invitation to ODF TC members - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- Microsoft: We were naive about standards. No, really! - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- Newspicks: Judge Sanctions Lawyer .... - Authored by: Superbiskit on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- RIAA wants royalties from Broadcasters - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 25 2008 @ 04:04 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 07:09 AM EDT |
"Cognex's in-house counsel, Todd Keebaugh estimated that Cognex has spent
roughly $3 million to $4 million fighting Acacia, not including in-house
employees' time...."
This is not what I call "Working"... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
Hi all,
We are a big customer of Cognex, so: They sell reading, verifying and certifying
systems for 2D Barcodes as well as computer recognition systems. They are good.
VERY good. I mean it.
I have the possibility to influence a reading-system decision for, ahem, quite
some cash, that is due in the next 2-3 month. Cognex is by far the more
expenisve vendor, but they have won now. I'll show this article to our bigboss
and ask him, if he feels assured from US as the end-customer beeing sued by some
patent troll ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 07:32 AM EDT |
"I've been seeing a fair number of comments recently about how the legal
system is broken or, worse, corrupt, and it's all hopeless, blah blah."
Was a jurists on a DUI case last week.
A guilty person can be framed just as easy as an incident person since framing a
person really consists of an untruthful case either by not allowing the defense
to present their case however ever ridiculous or by presenting incomplete or
false evidence.
The was definitely guilty but if what in side comments was alluded to he
definitely did the right thing by driving but then again no one will ever know
since all relevant information was not allowed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 07:35 AM EDT |
They are two different elements. Acacia et al aren't lying their little hineys
off and the court is not being abused.
Courts seem unwilling (or unable) to stop abuse of system and don't like to tell
corporations they are lying (rather like MP's can't say "you liar" but
have to use euphemisms like "the right honourable gentleman is in
error").
Since this case isn't abusing the courts, there's no evidence that this would
have ended successfully for the sensible option if Acacia had gone feral.
Unless you have evidence of concordance of actions here...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bbaston on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 08:19 AM EDT |
Share "Eyeballs for ODF" feedback here. PJ says:
"Stay polite at
all times, of course, if you say anything, and you needn't say anything, but do
follow along and please keep us posted on anything you see that sounds
peculiar."
and
"Do whatever is possible to avoid engagement with trolls,
here and there."
OASIS discussion list for ODF
Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance
Links: original formation, discussion's
archive, and draft
charter.
Registered for OIIC discussion? Monitor #oiic with xchat,
etc [irc.freenode.net, /join #oiic]. Traffic there might be log-dumped to an
OIIC discussion thread - so remember to "stay polite". --- IMBW, IANAL2,
IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
Redhat should have done the same thing rather than paying those trolls - it just
encourages them to do more of such things. That would have been what a *real
man* does.
Atleast Redhat did a small wonder of protecting the community +5
Novell is a women = 0[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
I was surprised and fascinated by the twist this case took in what the court
found as prior art to invalidate the patent. What this patent is about is a
two-dimensional version of bar codes, where instead of having bars that are
scanned in one dimension, it is a more dense pattern of dots or small squares
that are scanned in two dimensions. But the 2-D aspect is not what the patent,
in its summary section, says is the innovation. The patent is about such a 2-D
system that can be read and decoded no matter what the orientation of the coded
symbol relative to the scanner.
Now here is the fascinating part: If the patent's claims had actually described
a 2-D symbol code that provides information that allows it to be read in any
orientation and a reader that could read it in any orientation and the method
for having them work together, then this case might have gone differently.
Instead, the actual claims described a 2-D symbol code that provides that
information, and a reader that can read and decode it. The writer of the patent
may have assumed that of course the scanner/reader mentioned in the claim could
read the code at any angle or orientation because that is what the patent was
about. But the Court said that the law is that what is actually said in the
claims is what counts.
The prior art resulted from the fact that the inventors had in mind the eventual
capability of reading their 2-D codes from any orientation, and designed the
code accordingly, even though their first versions of readers did not have that
capability. More than a year before the application for the patent was filed,
they had demonstrated the technology of that first version, containing a 2-D
code with the elements for orientation-independent scanning/decoding, and a
reader that could decode them when placed in the proper orientation.
Actually, as I read it, Acacia still would not have won even if the patent was
written more narrowly to only specify a reader that could handle any
orientation. All the rest of the claims for the 2-D code that contains
orientation information, and for the basic scanning capability, would still be
in the prior art of those first devices that were exhibited and sold before
November 1986. All that would have been left to be possibly patentable would be
the version of the scanner that could process the orientation-free coding to
read the code in any orientation. But how to do that may very well have been
obvious once the you have the code that is designed to be read just that way. In
fact the Order quotes testimony from the inventors indicating that those steps
were just a matter of following some well known procedures, even of they had not
yet actually built that version of the system by November 1986.
-- bugstomper: techie, not lawyer
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
Who/what do you have in mind with
I've been seeing a fair number
of comments recently about how the legal system is broken or, worse, corrupt,
and it's all hopeless, blah blah.
Cynics give up too
easily, methinks.
I'll bet you anything that some
"pragmatist" out there will suggest that Cognex should have just paid the 8
figures and avoided the litigation expense.
You seem to be
referring to some recent discussions, but it is not clear which ones.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
Thousands of books are written on how to beat the stock market. Often these
books are written by someone who indeed was rich from playing the stock market
in one way or another. But these "winners" are anomalies. That is, they
represent less than 1% of all investors. They were lucky! Read about "Black Swan
" events to get a better idea of the issue.
One just needs to read about
Harriet Miers and how Bush and the BOYS manipulated USA attorney generals office
- to see what's going on. Can one buy the justice system in the USA? Just keep
reading and you will find out
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
I've been seeing a fair number of comments recently about how the legal
system is broken or, worse, corrupt, and it's all hopeless, blah blah. Imagine
if Cognex had viewed things that way. It could have. The US patent system really
is broken, after all. But Cognex knew it *could* work, if it
tried.
The system could work, if you happen to have $4 million
available just for legal costs. That's what it took. Most companies do not
have $4 million cash uncommitted. And I'm not just talking about small
businesses here. If you look at the balance sheet of some Fortune 1000 companies
- America's biggest corporations - a lot of them do not have much spare
cash. For example, Burger King is on the Fortune 1000 list and it has $403
million in cash and other current assets. But its latest balance sheet shows that
it also has $437 million in current (not long-term!) debt (mostly
payments due to suppliers and employees in the next 30 days, plus interest on
long-term loans). Despite having a lot of cash in the bank, a company like
Burger King would have to consider very carefully before blowing $4 million
on a speculative lawsuit. There are many other big corporations in similar
positions, BK is by no means a special case nor is it the weakest F1000 company,
by a long way.
Cognex happens to be in an extremely strong financial
position. Its
latest balance
sheet shows $139 million cash in the bank, and total liabilities
(not just current) of only $66 million. In other words, Cognex has about
twice as much cash as it would need to pay off all its debts. There are very few
companies in the world in such a strong financial position. (Not even Microsoft
has twice as much cash as liabilities.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
I love this company. They take on patent trolls and win. What do
they sell? "Machine vision sensors and systems"? Whatever that is, I'll take
ten.
"Machine vision sensors and systems" are electronic devices
that are used to inspect and verify products on an assembly line. They combine a
camera, embedded computer, and software, usually all in one very small
industrially hardened package. If you were bottling shampoo, you would use them
for things like to check that you are using the right bottle, check that the
label is present, and check that the cap is on the bottle. The vision system is
connected to the assembly line so it can automatically reject a bottle that
fails a test.
The case in question seems to refer to their use for reading
2D bar codes. 2D bar codes use a matrix of dots instead of a set of parallel
bars (as in 1D linear bar codes). Almost all 2D bar codes are read using a
camera. 2D bar codes are becoming more popular because they can hold much more
data than 1D bar codes, and can be read in any orientation. Another reason for
their increasing popularity at this time is that companies like Cognex have
brought down the cost of the reading equipment by quite a bit. If you are
printing a label anyway, it is a lot cheaper to use a 2D bar code than to use an
RF tag.
Cognex is the leading company in this field. They aren't a huge
company, but its not a big field. The patent trolls seem to go after the
customers, because just about every large manufacturing company uses vision
systems somewhere and can't easily replace them with anything else. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- High density printed data - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Not quite... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 08:25 AM EDT
- Not quite... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 12:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: rsmith on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
You said:
Cynics give up too easily,
methinks.
From the article:
Cognex's in-house
counsel, Todd Keebaugh estimated that Cognex has spent roughly $3 million to
$4 million fighting Acacia, not including in-house employees'
time....
I totally agree with you that Cognex fought the good
fight and I salute them for it, because the one sure thing about paying Danegeld
is that the Danes will return.
But most of us cynics don't have pockets
that deep. :-)
Effectively, it took $3 million spent in the judicial
system to correct some invalid patents. Such an inefficiency is
appalling.
And from a business standpoint, Cognex is a publicly traded
company. If the legal fight was anywhere near as expensive as the license, they
could be in a lot of trouble with their shareholders for fighting the good
fight. --- Intellectual Property is an oxymoron. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 08:25 PM EDT |
PJ, much as I like to hear about stories like this, and thank goodness for
people like Shillman (gotta love that name!), I don't think it proves
anything
about the system. It is still outrageously slow, and outrageously
slanted to
those with time and money. I wish I could afford to counter and
carry the
costs of an unjustified lawsuit for long enough to actually win, but
like most
of us, I can't afford to do so.
Must be nice to be rich. For the
rest of us, there is still no real justice in this
system.
J [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bbaston on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
... insofar as identifying abusers of the patent system such as any who have had
a patent disqualified after approval are thereafter subject to special and
public scrutiny?
To me that makes extreme sense - to legally invoke a "not
to be taken at face value" legal requirement for such entities - and forcing a
public review of every patent application thereafter.
Our legislators can
back that up by law, and also address the fact that utilizing patent and even
copyright without public publication of the code should be denied to
abusers of the legal system, just like felons lose the right to vote.
For example, Microsoft Corporation retaining the right to monopoly through
patents - after being convicted on three continents of illegal monopoly behavior
- is a travesty in and of itself.
While we're at it, how about a law to
cancel all exclusivity contracts for a monopolist? Think no more preinstalled
Windows operating systems except by the final end user and no more obnoxious
and untrue "We recommend Windows Vista" to get discount prices,
etc.
IMHO. --- IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
I'm not sure whether this should be in News Picks, Off Topic or here but as it
relates to a similar topic, I'll put it as a general heading.
As you
know, Barracuda
Networks is being sued by Trend
Micro over their distribution of ClamAV
which they claim invalidates
this patent.
However Goran Fransson (Swedish
developer and entrepreneur) appears to have seriously
undermined Trend Micro's case.
As far as I am concerned, anything
that defeats software
patents is a good thing.
--- Open Source Software - Unpicking
the Microsoft monopoly piece-by-piece. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
Other is 4,924,078
According to the order,
Because Cognex has
sufficiently demonstrated inequitable conduct by the
applicants during the
examination of the application leading to the ’078 patent, the entire
’078
patent is rendered unenforceable.
--johnE, at work without
my password
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
I worked for them in the mid-80's. They were selling mind-blowing machine
visions systems based using PDP-11s. They laughed at bar codes and OCR fonts.
Their system could read plain old lettering just as fast. They could tolerate
uneven lighting, rotated text and poor printing back before anyone else even
knew how to do machine vision at all. It's hard to imagine how anyone could
have invented anything in this field before they did.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|