decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Lodsys - Reexamination - Game On!
Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 11:43 AM EDT

In a story posted on earlier today it was announced that Google has now filed reexamination requests on two of the four Lodsys patents that Lodsys has been asserting: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,222,078 and 7,620,565. This is the first move by any party to force any of the Lodsys patents into reexamination. It also marks the first vestige of activity by Google to protect its interests and those of its application developers.

The actual Google filings are not yet available, but we will post them once they become available.


Lodsys - Reexamination - Game On! | 137 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 12:01 PM EDT
Clue in the title please

Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 12:02 PM EDT
Off tropic as well

Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys - Reexamination - Game On!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 12:02 PM EDT
So many people have wondered why google was not doing anything to protect
Android devs. I think we have our answer--they were not only studying the
patents, I bet they were watching to see what Apple and iOS devs would do, so
that they could take a complementary approach, in order to make Lodsys defend
on an entirely additional front, rather than just piling into the same type of
action. I wonder what Lodsys' financing is like???

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 12:03 PM EDT
Read all arbaaaaaaart it

Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes documents
Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 12:04 PM EDT
Keep up the good work

Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 12:14 PM EDT
This might turn out to be more promising than Apple's effort if prior art can
completely invalidate these patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 06:17 PM EDT
I guess it stands to reason that Groklawrians would be largely in favour of
Google challenging Lodsys on their patents, if only because Android is intended
to be a FOSS platform.

At the same time, confrontations such as this - between US Corporations - leaves
me somewhat concerned.

Corporations the world over balance a series of different objectives - but one
which cannot be avoided is the requirement to deliver what these days is called
"Shareholder Value". These investors are typically paid dividends
based upon profits earned by the company. Those same corporations are, of
course, more than capable of making voluntary contributions (corporate charity
donations and the like), but it is important for us to recognise that in most
cases companies like Google are going to have to run all their actions through a
"shareholder filter". In the event that this isn't done, the Board of
Directors risk impeachment and being kicked out.

So when we watch Google challenging the Lodsys patents, and when we see a
collective cheer given by the FOSS community, then it's important to remember
that Google are primarily going to act in their own self interest, not those of
the FOSS community.

There's an important point to concede here. More than many other Technology
companies today, Google depends upon the FOSS world for a whole raft of things.
For this reason Google have much greater vested interest in defending FOSS

Please understand, I am not doubting Google's sincerity in this instance. What
would make me much more supportive of them would be an out-and-out patent pledge
of the type offered by IBM when they firmly positioned themselves as supportive
of FOSS, and willing to defend FOSS.

What would absolutely move me in the direction of being a real fan of Google
would be any steps they may take to begin a lobbying collective to ban all
software patents. Fr much as I admire their position in the Lodsys case, the
only way to really deal with this nightmare is to abandon them all together.

Quite a few times now I've used expressions such as "Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) to describe the current state of patent usage in the
technology community. The large corporate players all have sufficient patents to
sue and counter-sue eachother, so they have effectively declared uneasy truces.
Instances like this (Google vs Lodsys and Apple vs Lodsys) are border skirmishes
when one company decides that another has "gone too far".

Thing is, none of this takes into account the "little guy" - the lone
FOSS contributor who hacks away at home in the spare time.

Let's go back to my MAD analogy. Let's suppose that software patents become more
and more widespread across the world. That's going to be a bit like having every
nation in the world armed with nuclear weapons (to extend the metaphor). How
would we feel about that? Probably not too thrilled.

So much as I might be tempted to side with Google against Lodsys in this
immediate case, the only real course of action would be to side with Google
against all software patents.

It's the only sane way out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Futility - Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 07:06 PM EDT
    • Futility - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 11:25 PM EDT
      • Futility - Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, August 14 2011 @ 01:36 AM EDT
        • Yes, But... - Authored by: sproggit on Sunday, August 14 2011 @ 03:59 AM EDT
          • Yes, But... - Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, August 14 2011 @ 01:36 PM EDT
            • Ah... - Authored by: sproggit on Monday, August 15 2011 @ 01:48 AM EDT
              • Ah... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 15 2011 @ 04:38 AM EDT
        • Futility - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, August 14 2011 @ 05:15 AM EDT
  • uneasy truces? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 14 2011 @ 11:01 AM EDT
Involving Google...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 08:36 PM EDT
Involving Google in patent litigation seem kind of counterintuitive to me. You
are wielding a weapon, which has only one significant weakness, the existence of
prior art, against a company that specializes in... Search.

Add to that, the support of a very intelligent community that remembers most of
the history of the technology in question.

Other than extracting rents in the form of legal fees, what sane company would
want to involve Google in any kind of patent litigation?

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | # ]

"story posted on"
Authored by: Yossarian on Monday, August 15 2011 @ 04:24 AM EDT
The story has an interesting data point:
>Lodsys claims its patents cover the use of in-app
>payments technology, which allows users to carry out
>transactions within the context of an app itself.

What is new about that?!
For more than a decade you pay inside a web page. E.g.
mail-order from amazon, porno download, anti-virus upgrades,
eBay with pay-pal, etc.

Is it really such a bright idea to keep that option in
(physically) smaller computers called smart phones?
Why had the patent office accepted such a patent?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Delivering through the letterbox
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 15 2011 @ 12:30 PM EDT
It has been mentioned in some places that Lodsys and Oasis? who I think is
suing Oracle are using the same address of an empty office to justify suing in
Texas. If Apple and others took important legal documents, put them into an
envelope, and shoved them into the letterbox of that empty office, would that
legally count as delivered? With Lodsys etc. losing by missing deadlines etc.
you don't notice in time?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )