|
Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys |
|
Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 12:50 PM EDT
|
"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way . . ."
- The character Malone in the movie "The Untouchables"
On Friday, August 12, Google filed inter partes reexamination requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on the two patents asserted in patent infringement claims by Lodsys against, among others, several Android developers. The patents subject to these requests are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,222,078 and 7,620,565.
We have had a chance to review the reexamination requests, and after that review we believe Lodsys is in for a rough time. We have seen reexam requests before, but when we saw these, the above quote came to mind. Lodsys, you shouldn't have brought a knife to a gunfight.
And for all of those naysayers who have shouted Google is not doing enough to protect Android app developers and that Android app developers should cave to the Lodsys demands, you need to reconsider your position.
A bit of a forewarning. Reexam requests do not read like novels. This is highly technical information addressed in the context of patent claims. Also, because of the sheer extent of the prior art and its application in these two case, the requests are quite long, running to some 250+ pages each. For that reason we have not reproduced them in their entirety in html. We do, however, provide the reexamination requests, the supporting prior art, and the claim chart exhibits for each, which you can find below.
Let's start with the '078 reexam request. The patent consists of 74 claims of which only four (1, 54, 60 and 69) are independent claims. Google is seeking reexamination of 35 of these claims, including independent claims 1 and 69.
The first thing we note is that the '078 patent was filed in December 2003, but its priority date goes back to August 6, 1992 (this is also true of the '565 patent) so prior art would need to precede that date. Of the five key items of prior art on which Google relies, the youngest was filed in 1991, and the oldest has a priority date that goes back to 1988. In other words, the prior art asserted by Google was around before the earliest date of the invention embodied in the '078 patent.
The heart of the '078 reexamination request is found in this statement from the request:
In allowing the ‘078 Patent to issue, the Examiner in the original prosecution stated that
the prior arts do not disclose or fairly teach:
a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured
to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users
and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit,
from a user, information about the user’s perception of the commodity;
a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results
of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information
about the user perception of the commodity.
As noted later in the reexamination request, the highlighted language above was a critical limitation that allowed the '078 patent to issue. It is also worth noting that this highlighted language is, to a large extent, the critical language in the claims Lodsys is asserting against the application developers.
The statement goes on:
Ex. PAT-C, ‘078 Pros. Hist., Notice of Allowability, p.2, January 19, 2007 (emphasis added). The prior art relied on in this Request discloses and teaches all the features recited by Claims 1-
7, 10-16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30-32, 38, 46-48, 50-53, and 69-74 of the ‘078 Patent, including the
above-recited features that the Examiner in the original prosecution found to contain allowable
subject matter.
In addition, the prior art relied on in this Request discloses new, non-cumulative
technological teachings that were not previously considered or discussed on the record during the
prosecution of the ‘078 Patent. Had the Examiner considered the prior art relied on in this
Request, Claims 1-7, 10-16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30-32, 38, 46-48, 50-53, and 69-74 would not have
issued. Reexamination is respectfully requested in view of the SNQs presented below.
The request then goes on to apply the newly cited prior art against these claims and especially against the highlighted language. For example, the Durden patent (listed below):
discloses the following features that the Examiner in the original prosecution
found to contain allowable subject matter:
a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured
to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users
and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit,
from a user, information about the user’s perception of the commodity;
and a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results
of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information
about the user perception of the commodity.
Hmmmm, where have we seen that language before? Amazingly, each of the other four items of cited prior art also disclose these same two critical elements. In other words, there were five patents outstanding at the time the '078 patent issued that each embodied the critical limitations on the '078 claims. What are the odds of that? We are not talking about prior art that must be combined to form an obviousness objection.
These five items of prior art go to the fact that the critical elements of the '078 patent claims are not even novel!
This fact is more specifically demonstrated in each of the claim charts, which we have also listed below. The remainder of the reexamination request proceeds to go through the application of this prior art in excrutiating detail. Let's take a look at just the application of the Durden patent to claim 1 of the '078 patent:
Claim 1 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Durden.
Requestor provides a concise statement of the substantial new question of patentability for Claim
1 based on Durden under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Please see attached Exhibit CC-A for a claim chart
comparing Durden with Claim 1 of the ‘078 Patent under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) |
Claim 1 recites and Durden discloses “[a] system comprising units of a commodity that
can be used by respective users in different locations.” Ex. PAT-A, ‘078 Patent, 91:44-46
(emphasis added).
Durden discloses set-top terminals (“units of a commodity”) that can be used by
respective subscribers in different locations.
“Each subscriber in the addressable cable system is provided with a set-top
terminal (STT) 15 by the cable operator as schematically indicated in FIG. 1.
STT 15 allows the subscriber to tune and descramble the services that he has
requested from the cable system operator.”
Ex. PA-A, Durden, 6:43-48 (emphasis added). Figure 1 shows Durden’s set-top terminal (“unit of a commodity”).
Id., Fig. 1.
Claim 1 next recites and Durden discloses “a user interface, which is part of each of
the units of the commodity…” Ex. PAT-A, ‘078 Patent, 91:47-48 (emphasis added).
Durden discloses a hand-held remote control and LED display (“a user interface”)
that is a part of the converter/set-top terminal (“unit of a commodity”).
“With the converter turned on, the subscriber depresses the keyboard keys
“PRG” and “–” of his hand–held remote control. If an access code is
required to purchase programming, this must be entered before the converter
will enter the IPPV mode and display “VCR” using LED elements.”
Ex. PA-A, Durden, 11:67–12:5 (emphasis added). Durden also discloses an IPPV module (“a
user interface”) that is part of the set-top terminal (“unit of the commodity”) and is used to
authorize a purchase of a pay-per-view event.
Module 20 allows the subscriber to authorize his STT to receive a pay–per–
view event, store the data associated with the purchase of that event in
memory 21, and transmit that stored data to the cable operator via the
telephone network 24.
Id., 6:57–61 (emphasis added).
Claim 1 next recites and Durden discloses that the user interface is “configured to
provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the
corresponding unit of the commodity…” Ex. PAT-A, ‘078 Patent, 91:48-50 (emphasis
added).
Durden discloses that the subscriber depresses keys to enter an access code and sees
the LED elements (“two-way local interaction”) of the converter/set-top terminal.
“With the converter turned on, the subscriber depresses the keyboard keys
“PRG” and “–” of his hand–held remote control. If an access code is required
to purchase programming, this must be entered before the converter will enter
the IPPV mode and display “VCR” using LED elements.”
Ex. PA-A, Durden, 11:68–12:5 (emphasis added).
Claim 1 next recites and Durden discloses that the user interface is “further configured
to elicit, from a user, information about the user’s perception of the commodity.” Ex. PAT-A,
‘078 Patent, 91:50-52 (emphasis added).
Durden discloses that the set-top-terminal is configured to allow the subscriber to
authorize a purchase of a pay-per-view program.
“Each subscriber in the addressable cable system is provided with a set–top
terminal (STT) 15 by the cable operator as schematically indicated in FIG. 1.
STT 15 allows the subscriber to tune and descramble the services that he
has requested from the cable system operator.”
Ex. PA-A, Durden, 6:43–48 (emphasis added). ). The subscriber enters an event ID for the program that he wishes to purchase (“elicit, from a user, information about the user’s
perception”).
the subscriber simply enters the three or four digit event ID number of the
program he wishes to purchase.
Id., 12: 9-11 (emphasis added). Durden also discloses that the set-top terminal is configured
to cancel a pre-bought program (“elicit, from a user, information about the user’s
perception”).
“…it is possible to step through the list of programs which have been pre-bought
with an opportunity to cancel any event which the subscriber no longer wishes
to view or which have erroneously entered.”
Id., 12:14-18 (emphasis added).
Claim 1 next recites and Durden discloses ““a memory within each of the units of the
commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including
elicited information about user perception of the commodity.” Ex. PAT-A, ‘078 Patent,
91:53-56 (emphasis added).
Durden discloses a memory within each of the subscriber’s set-top terminal (“units of
the commodity”). Figure 1 shows the memory.
Ex. PA-A, Durden, Fig. 1 (emphasis added).
Durden discloses that the data associated with the purchased pay-per-view event
(“information about the user perception of the commodity”) is stored in the memory.
“Module 20 allows the subscriber to authorize his STT to receive a pay–per–
view event, store the data associated with the purchase of that event in
memory 21, and transmit that stored data to the cable operator via the
telephone network 24.”
Id., 6:57–61 (emphasis added).
Claim 1 next recites and Durden discloses “a communication element associated with
each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local
interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location.” Ex. PAT-A, ‘078
Patent, 91:57-60 (emphasis added).
Durden discloses a transmitter (“communication element”) associated with the settop
terminal (“unit of the commodity”).
“A transmitter coupled to the memory transmits the stored billing information
over a telephone network.”
Id., 3:39–41 (emphasis added). Durden discloses that the billing information transmitted to a
billing computer (“a central location”) includes the subscriber’s authorization (e.g., access code) (“results of the two-way local interaction”).
“Billing computer 5 records and maintains records for each cable
subscriber. These records may contain information such as the subscriber’s
name, address and telephone number, the type of equipment the subscriber
has in his possession, and which pay services the subscriber is authorized
to view.”
Id., 4:51–57 (emphasis added).
Claim 1 next recites and Durden discloses “a component capable of managing the
interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at
the central location.” Ex. PAT-A, ‘078 Patent, 91:61-63 (emphasis added).
Durden discloses a system manager (“a component” “at a central location”) reads billing
information including the subscriber’s authorization (e.g., access code) (“results of the two-way
local interaction”) uploaded from the IPPV modules of the subscriber’s set-top terminal.
“A computer of system manager 8 will have a disk and controller dedicated
to the storage of IPPV information. A memory resident program of system
manager 8 will read the IPPV transactions, uploaded from the IPPV modules
in the system.”
Ex. PA-A, Durden, 5:12–16 (emphasis added). Durden also discloses that the billing computer
(“a component” “at a central location”) maintains records including the subscriber’s
authorization (e.g., access code) (“results of the two-way local interaction”).
“Billing computer 5 records and maintains records for each cable subscriber.
These records may contain information such as the subscriber’s name, address
and telephone number, the type of equipment the subscriber has in his possession, and which pay services the subscriber is authorized to view.”
Id., 4:51–57 (emphasis added).
We see the same situation with the '565 patent. The '565 patent has an even more recent filing date: August 25, 2006. It embodies 32 claims of which four (1, 15, 27 and 30) are independent. Google is seeking inter partes reexamination of 28 of the 32 claims, including all four of the independent claims.
As with the '078 reexamination, Google is relying on just five items of newly identified prior art, all patents. In fact, three of the patents relied upon as prior art in the '565 reexamination request were also used in the '078 request. So once again you have patent prior art that precedes the challenged patent.
In the '565 reexamination request the key feature (and basis for rejection) is identified as:
In allowing the ‘565 Patent to issue, the Examiner in the original prosecution stated that
the prior arts do not disclose:
incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the
trigger event, and causing the display of a user interface, configured to
probe for information regarding a use of the product, if the counter
exceeds a threshold.
Ex. PAT-C, ‘565 Pros. Hist., Notice of Allowability, p. 3, July 1, 2009 (emphasis added). The
prior art relied on in this Request discloses and teaches all the features recited by Claims 1-11,
13-15, 17-22, and 25-32 of the ‘565 Patent, including the above-recited features that the
Examiner in the original prosecution found to contain allowable subject matter.
In addition, the prior art relied on in this Request discloses new, non-cumulative
technological teachings that were not previously considered or discussed on the record during the
prosecution of the ‘565 Patent. Had the Examiner considered the prior art relied on in this
Request, Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17-22, and 25-32 would not have issued. Reexamination is
respectfully requested in view of the SNQs presented below.
SNQs are significant new questions (of patentability).
As in the '078 case, Google offers that each of the five patents cited as prior art in the '565 case establish those patents as disclosing the key feature of novelty in the '565 patent. The level of proof in each instance is just as detailed as that provided in the '078 reexamination request.
I can't emphasize the following point enough.
Most reexamination requests rely on a finding of obviousness, which is a far more subject standard than demonstrating a lack of novelty. A lack of novelty can be established by any one piece of prior art that discloses each of the key elements of claimed invention. In each of these cases Google has identified not one, but five separate pieces of prior art that each alone demonstrates a lack of novelty in the critical Lodsys claims.
Look for the Lodsys defendants to seek a stay pending reexamination once these requests are granted, and I have no doubt they will be granted.
BANG!
************
Reexamination Request of 7,222,078
- Request Transmittal Form
- Request for Inter Partes Reexamination
- Prior Art A - U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”)
- Prior Art B - U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”)
- Prior Art C - U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”)
- Prior Art D - U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”)
- Prior Art E - U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”)
- Claim Chart A - Claim Chart for Durden invalidating Claims 1-7, 10-16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30-
32, 38, 46-48, 50-53, and 69-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
- Claim Chart B - Claim Chart for Kravette invalidating Claims 1-7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 22, 24, 25,
30-32, 38, 46-48, 50-53, and 69-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
- Claim Chart C - Claim Chart for Dworkin invalidating Claims 1-7, 10-16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30-
32, 38, 46-48, 50-53, and 69-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
- Claim Chart D - Claim Chart for Banker invalidating Claims 1-7, 10-16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30-
32, 38, 46-48, 50-53, and 69-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
- Claim Chart E - Claim Chart for Manduley invalidating Claims 1-7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 22, 24,
25, 30-32, 38, 46-48, 50-53, and 69-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Reexamination Request of 7,620,565
- Request Transmittal Form
- Request for Inter Partes Reexamination
- Prior Art A - U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”)
- Prior Art B - U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”)
- Prior Art C - U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”)
- Prior Art D - U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”)
- Prior Art E - U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”)
- Claim Chart A - Claim Chart for Durden invalidating Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-19,
21, 22, and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
- Claim Chart B - Claim Chart for Kravette invalidating Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-
19, 21, 22, and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
- Claim Chart C - Claim Chart for Thacher invalidating Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-
19, 21, 22, and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
- Claim Chart D - Claim Chart for Manduley invalidating Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-
19, 21, 22, and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
- Claim Chart E - Claim Chart for Hutchins invalidating Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 14, 15, 17-
22, and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
|
|
Authored by: Ehud on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
Shear --> sheer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SJVN has Linus's comments on Android as "Linux fork" - Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- Motorola shareholder sues, says $12.5B not enough - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- Qualcomm and Nokia may fight Apple for InterDigital - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- HP - Selling PC division and WebOS to go into refigerators, etc... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- HP - Selling PC division and WebOS to go into refigerators, etc... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 06:05 PM EDT
- HP - Selling PC division and WebOS to go into refigerators, etc... - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- HP - Selling PC division and WebOS to go into refigerators, etc... - Authored by: betajet on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- HP - Selling PC division and WebOS to go into refigerators, etc... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- Palm patents? - Authored by: betajet on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 08:29 PM EDT
- HP - Selling PC division and WebOS to go into refigerators, etc... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 10:06 PM EDT
- It is what it is. - Authored by: symbolset on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 10:35 PM EDT
- HP - Selling PC division and WebOS to go into refigerators, etc... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 02:24 AM EDT
- MPL Upgrade for the Mozilla Project - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 08:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: blob2004 on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
Wanna bet we won't hear a peep from FM on Google's reexam
request?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Taking a weapon that is susceptible to a search for prior art, up against a
company that specializes in search is a bad plan.
On another note, I saw the WSJ quote FM as a patent expert. I don't get it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tz on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
And if you wake him you really, really, don't wan't to annoy him.
Google has been quiet, peaceful, not doing evil.
Then they are being attacked, or their associates.
Just like Android is iterative starting slow then eventually blowing away the
competition (the tortoise - slow and steady wins the race).
Between this and the MotoMobo acquisition, you really don't want google's teams
to become sappers (engineering corps of armies). You will be in real trouble.
Not that innovating is going to be much easier, only that the competition will
be less messy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Google, the giant you don't want to wake - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- Google has been quiet, peaceful, not doing evil - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- Android is one supercharged tortise (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Google has been quiet, peaceful, not doing evil. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 03:50 AM EDT
- Hoist by Google's petard - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 04:14 AM EDT
- Google, the giant you don't want to wake - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 02:12 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Sort of reminds me the of what happens in the beginning in "Enders Game",
Orson Scott Card:
"You might be having some idea of ganging up
on me. You could probably beat me up petty bad. But remember what I do to
people who try and hurt me. From then on you'd be wondering when I'd get you,
and how bad it would be." ... "It wouldn't be this bad," Ender said. " It would
be worse."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
.
"See, it's a good invention. It's been invented and approved at least five
times before. What could be more novel than that? if it is so obvious, why can't
people remember it?"
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ROFL .... n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 02:23 PM EDT
|
Authored by: stegu on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
> In other words, there were five patents outstanding at
> the time the '078 patent issued that each embodied the
> critical limitations on the '078 claims.
So, it seems that the USPTO no longer has even the
resources to look in its own databases for prior art.
The US patent examination process is clearly broken
beyond repair. There are obviously way too many
software patents hiding in the shadows of the USPTO
files. Even to those who think that software patents
should be allowed, it should be obvious that the
patent system stopped working long ago.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No its designed that way to generate patent fees. - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 02:36 PM EDT
- Ira Glass claims its even worse.. - Authored by: Marc Mengel on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 03:19 PM EDT
- FIVE prior art PATENTS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- FIVE prior art PATENTS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- FIVE prior art PATENTS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 12:12 AM EDT
- It makes me wonder, as well - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 04:27 AM EDT
- Makes One Wonder: - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- FIVE prior art PATENTS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 29 2011 @ 11:29 AM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
Don't provoke Google in to searching.
It's what they do and they're very good at it.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Google claims that Durden teaches
"a user interface... configured to elicit, from a user,
information about the user’s perception of the commodity;"
Granted I'm at work and don't have time to read carefully,
but I don't see that language in Durden. Durden talks about
selecting a pay-per-view program and an interface for
allowing the user to cancel incorrect selections, but I
don't see anything in there for providing user feedback
about the set-top box, which is what the patent would cover.
(The "commodity" can't mean the movie chosen, because the
interface has to be part of the "commodity". Unless you're
making an obviousness argument, which Google says they're
not doing.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
Hmmmm, where have we seen that language before? Amazingly, each of
the other four items of cited prior art also disclose these same two
critical elements. In other words, there were five patents outstanding at
the time the '078 patent issued that each embodied the critical limitations on
the '078 claims. What are the odds of that? We are not talking about prior art
that must be combined to form an obviousness
objection.
PiracyCopyright Infringement anyone?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
With all the patent trolls around, IMO Google can
start a new, for pay, service:
Give Google the patent you don't like and
Google will find you some prior art.
Such a service can make a lot of money.
I should get a patent for this idea! :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
If the various Patent Offices' databases were to be slurpable by Googlebots,
with algorithms and indexes keyed to searching for PA ...
Google could deliver a serious bit of non-evil to inventors and innovators
everywhere!
If software patents can't be abolished then second best would have to be a tool
to efficently kill off the bad ones individually.
And it would make the PO examiner's jobs a lot easier as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mexaly on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
If Lodsys thought they patented something, but it turns out somebody else
patented it first, then doesn't Lodsys owe someone else some royalties now?
Of course, waiting for the five other sharks to eat each other is probably a
good strategy.
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
It makes you wonder if the patent office is even capable of searching their own
files.
For hardware see Smart Modular vs Netlist. Oh, it also involves Google.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/5069687/in-response-to-smart-modular-
technologies-request-for-reexamination-patent-office-rejects-50-claims-of-netlis
t-s-912-patent
"The PTO rejected Netlist's '912 patent claims on multiple grounds
including that SMART's Patent Application No. 2006/0117152 invalidates claims.
SMART believes that its '152 application shows that SMART engineers invented
"rank multiplication" technology in 2003. As SMART's '152 application
was filed before the Netlist's '912 Patent, SMART believes that Netlist is not
entitled to the '912 patent."
So SMART says it has a patent on the same thing filed earlier.
http://www.adtron.com/pdf/NetList%20ReExam%20Granted%20Press%20Release%20Final.p
df[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lots of duplication, even on hardware patents - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 18 2011 @ 11:38 PM EDT
- Lots of duplication, even on hardware patents - Authored by: tce on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 01:07 AM EDT
- Innovators - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 01:07 AM EDT
- Maybe the best patent reform - Authored by: maroberts on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 01:27 AM EDT
- Lots of duplication, even on hardware patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 07:58 AM EDT
- Search - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 08:31 AM EDT
- futile, but fun - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 08:33 AM EDT
- Lots of duplication, even on hardware patents - Authored by: ionic on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 08:46 AM EDT
- Google's REAL Patent Defence: - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 09:38 AM EDT
|
Authored by: lanser on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 03:08 AM EDT |
Quick question if Google is using Prior Art Patents to negate the Lodsys ones
does that still leave Android open to attack by the Prior Art Patents holders?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 03:37 AM EDT |
Everyone here concentrates on prior art to invalidate
a new patent.
I envision this.
"Your honor, Lodsys has accused us of infringing their
705 patent. But we instead have been licensed by XXX
in their 409 patent to use the same technology."
Two ways you fight patents: (1) patent invalid, or (2)
patent valid or we dont care because we use a different
non-infringing or licensed technology.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
If an entity gets its patent invalidated, does it have to return the licensing
fees it has taken already ?
Can a licensee get a refund?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2011 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
Well, this is all very amusing, but I guess Google must enjoy being in court,
since they don't challenge software patents per se. Still using the
uber-billable piecemeal approach.
And if Google doesn't challenge software patents per se, I guess no one ever
will.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 01:55 AM EDT |
I hope Lodsys gets it's clock cleaned, but some of these Google claims look like
weak sauce. I'm not sure we should be high-fiving each other just yet.
For
example, the Durden invalidation argument rests on the claim that a user's
intent to purchase a TV program qualifies as "information about the user’s
perception of the [TV program]". That seems like wishful thinking at best. We
have no idea what a user's perception of the program is – all we know is that
they purchased it. Heck, the *user* doesn't even know what their perception of
the program is at that point, since they haven't watched it yet! The C
D jukebox rating mechanism was much more relevant
than this one, and even
that was not sufficient to prevent '078 from being
issued.
I hope Google's
other prior art is stronger, because Durden doesn't look too
impressive...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ummm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 07:01 AM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 22 2011 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 22 2011 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 07:57 AM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: AntiFUD on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 06:03 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 20 2011 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
I've apparently become the resident troll by virtue of examining the actual
applicability of Durden, so I'm just going to run with that.
Can somebody
please explain why Mark writes:
Hmmmm, where have we seen that
language before? Amazingly,
each of the other four items of cited prior art
also disclose these same two
critical elements.
Uh, we saw
that language in '078's Claim 1, which Google's lawyers are quoting,
and which
you are now requoting. I don't get it...how does this constitute some
sort of
smoking gun? Is this some sort of ambiguous rhetorical question?
Mike-710 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|