decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference ~ Matt Levy
Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:26 PM EDT

Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference
by Matt Levy (Cross-Posted on PatentProgress.org and on DisCo.)

This is a very big day: the Obama Administration has just entered the fray to help deal with patent trolls, and itís taking steps that have the potential to be a major part of the solution to the patent troll problem.

The early press reports on the Administrationís efforts have missed the real story: the President and the Administration are publicly recognizing that the problem with patent trolls stems from the problems with software patents. You cannot deal with patent trolls without dealing with software patents.

The Presidentís Executive action to tighten functional claiming does exactly that. It recognizes that in order to stop issuing bad and overbroad patents that wind up in the hands of patent trolls, we need to specifically address software patent applications.

Functional patent claims are the claims that drive us all crazy, where a patent just claims a general idea, like, say, filtering files that might be spam, or scanning documents and sending by email, or backing up your computer over a network.

As an example, suppose I came up with an idea for a car with a gas-electric hybrid engine, but where the battery for the engine is recharged by a passenger pedaling a built-in stationary bicycle. But my patent claim is broader than that; I claim ďA motor vehicle with a gas-electric hybrid engine comprising a storage battery, wherein the storage battery is recharged using a mechanically-powered generator.Ē Itís an accurate description, although it doesnít include the specifics of what I invented. By describing the invention in terms of its functions, that is, its general features, my patent omits what should be an important limiting detail: my invention is impractically pedal-powered.

As a result, this hypothetical patent would cover nearly all hybrid cars, even though I only invented one (fairly silly) type of hybrid car, because all commercially available hybrids recharge the battery using some sort of mechanical generator. I could make a fortune suing car manufacturers, even though I wasnít the first to come up with a hybrid car, and my design is totally impractical. Thatís because the patent system strongly favors patent owners; once a patent issues, itís very difficult to prove the patent is invalid. And once a company is sued for patent infringement, itís nearly impossible to get out of the case quickly and cheaply, no matter how bad the patent is.

The hybrid car patent I described is ridiculous. And yet thatís exactly what has happened with software patents for years.

No more. The Administration is going to work with the PTO to develop guidelines for examiners to make sure that inventors canít claim more than they invented, focusing on computer-implemented (that is, software) patents. The flow of crazy software patents should stop at last, or at least slow to a trickle.

The Administration deserves huge praise for this ó many of us have been pushing for just this change for a long time. Obviously, it will take time to implement, but it is clear that the Administration is committed to making this commonsense reform happen.

We have to work with the Administration and Congress in a bipartisan way to get this done right, because there will be naysayers among certain legacy special interests.

But Wait, Thereís More!

If that were the only thing the Administration announced, it would still make my day. But there is also a newly-released study, four more Executive Actions, and legislative proposals, and thereís a lot of good stuff included.

First, the White House has released a study showing patent trolls are a huge problem that wreak damage to the economy. Not a big surprise, but itís nice to have data backing us up.

In addition to the action on functional claiming, hereís a quick summary of the other four Executive Actions announced today:

  • There will be no more hiding who owns a patent from the PTO. The real party of interest will have to be disclosed on every application and when maintenance fees are paid.

  • End users, who have been the most vulnerable victims, will get support from the PTO to help deal with demand letters.

  • There will be more academic experts brought into the PTO to study and research patent troll litigation.

  • And finally, the Administration is going to work to better enforce exclusion orders issued by the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC has the power to issue an exclusion order barring importation of goods that infringe a U.S. patent, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) carries out the order. The problem is that even if a company redesigns its product to get around a patent, exclusion orders can be so broad that CBP bars the redesigned product as well. The Administration is going to work with the ITC and CBP to try to fix this problem.
The President is also calling on Congress to pass legislation to address patent trolls. There are a few proposals he makes that are particularly good:
  • Expand the Covered Business Method patent review program ó The Administration is proposing to expand the Covered Business Method post grant review. This seems to be along the lines of Senator Schumerís bill, and itís a very good idea.

  • Protect end users ó The Administration is proposing some sort of immunity or reduced liability if a consumer or company buys a product and uses it as intended. There would also be an automatic stay of infringement suits against end users if thereís also an infringement suit against an upstream (e.g., the manufacturer) company. We need to see the details, but this looks promising.

  • Fee shifting ó Another important piece that CCIA has long supported is shifting the defendantís legal fees to the plaintiff in troll patent litigations. The Administration is supporting a type of fee-shifting similar to what is done in copyright now; basically, a judge would have the discretion to award fees to the winner. This doesnít go as far as the SHIELD ACT, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.
Overall, we are very pleased with the Administrationís announcement. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and with Congress on addressing the patent troll problem.

____________________
Matt Levy is Patent Counsel at the Computer and Communications Industry Association, where he handles legal, policy advocacy, and regulatory matters related to patents and is lead blogger for CCIAís Patent Progress.

© 2013 Computer & Communications Industry Association, All Rights Reserved


  


BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference ~ Matt Levy | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Korrections -> Corrections
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:33 PM EDT
Corrections in the title please

---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:35 PM EDT
Anything on topic should go in a separate thread

---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:37 PM EDT
Provide links to said newspick

---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:38 PM EDT
[insert something witty]

---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:50 PM EDT
Personally, I'll postpone my celebration. This administration has come up with
many positive ideas, when it comes to implementation their record is not
stellar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this not a political matter?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:50 PM EDT
Where does the truth fit in when dealing with the White House?

[ Reply to This | # ]

BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference ~ Matt Levy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:08 PM EDT
I'm shocked.. Never thought I would see the day when real
reform would be discussed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now here is one problem:
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:15 PM EDT
This is something that the current administration is starting. Now with the
next election, we might get Republicans back into government, and they need to
look different. Since their profile is patriotic (I'll shudder thinking where
we'll end up when trying to beat the patridiocy of the current "Patriot
Act" interpretation but that's a different matter), they'll try getting
behind Apple and Oracle whose innovative records have "suffered" under
the Democratic administration's steps.

And if we have enough of a "lashback" from Obama's attempts to get
bipartisan support, we'll get so far out of sane charters that it won't be
pretty.

The current situation is that if you want Republican policies, you voted Obama,
if you want off-the-chart policies, you voted Republican, and you wanted
Democrat policies, you went abroad till next election.

If the next election does not move back to offering two sides of the political
spectrum, it may well end up sacrificing the middle class anyway. And in that
case, it's entirely possible that the patent system will get rewound to provide
the equivalent of technical middle ages: a few established parties get the royal
means to squander all progress by levying heavy penalties on newcomers.

So I am actually afraid of the current administration making good headway in
anything. The next administration might feel the need to distance itself from
that. Actually even if it turns out Democrat: after all, any president wants to
look like bringing in new impulses in order to be reelected.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Glossaries? What words have to be in the glossary?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:28 PM EDT
Is the problem really that you don't know what the words in the claim mean? I
think you know what the words mean. You just don't like the meaning because its
broad.

I got news for you. Any word that you don't like in the claim that is in a
glossary is going to have that very same broad meaning in the glossary.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No. You invented the broader invention.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:40 PM EDT
"where the battery for the engine is recharged by a passenger pedaling a
built-in stationary bicycle. But my patent claim is broader than that; I claim
ďA motor vehicle with a gas-electric hybrid engine comprising a storage battery,
wherein the storage battery is recharged using a mechanically-powered
generator.Ē Itís an accurate description, although it doesnít include the
specifics of what I invented. By describing the invention in terms of its
functions, that is, its general features, my patent omits what should be an
important limiting detail: my invention is impractically pedal-powered. "


Just because one embodiment involves the bicycle, that doesn't mean you didn't
invent the whole class of "mechanically-powered" generators. Indeed,
the specification even says, the generator is mechanically powered, FOR EXAMPLE,
by a passenger peddling, gerbil in a wheel, solar powered motor, water wheel
mounted in a cup holder, steam heated by the black vinyl seats in combination
with the green house glass windshield or any other mechanism for generating
generator cranking motion.

The whiners only "feel" the claim is overly broad because you thought
of it first and they want to copy the invention. Too bad, someone beat them to
it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference ~ Matt Levy
Authored by: albert on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:56 PM EDT
Dancing around the issues.

"1. Making ďReal Party-in-InterestĒ the New Default." Whom does this
help? If I'm sued by a troll, what difference does this make? If I want to kill
a competitor, I can sell my patents to a troll. I'm free and clear. Where's the
recommendation for the troll to post a bond for the amount of damages expected?
(Bond refunded, minus costs and defendants legal fees, if they lose.)

"2. Tightening Functional Claiming." Good idea, but the examiners
aren't as stupid as most folks think. There are other reasons for issuing
bogo-patents.

"3. Empowering Downstream Users." Pure rhetoric. It needs to be made
illegal to sue end users. Don't see that idea here.

"4. Expanding Dedicated Outreach and Study." You know, the folks who
are actively involved don't need this. Really, who does?

"5. Strengthen Enforcement Process of Exclusion Orders."
Useless rhetoric. Where's the recommendation to withhold exclusion orders until
the patent(s) in question are validated, and all appeals exhausted?


Not much different than any other Executive Branch dances.





[ Reply to This | # ]

BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference ~ Matt Levy
Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT
Its way to early to think that "thrill" your getting up your
leg is due to something that right now sounds positive, this
is after all the government we are talking about; I will
reserve any further comment for now.


---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Should Make a Difference"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:50 PM EDT
Too little. It is wallpapering around the fundamental problem.

The problem is this:

Patents do not promote progress. They impede progress in obvious
inventions by creating 20 year monopolies and with them their economic
rents that impede the growth of the economy (i.e. making other discoveries,
feeding people, distributing energy, creating jobs).

Patents go back to the time of Kings when monopolies were assigned to
random people of "good fortune"; i.e. "I am a friend of the King
so he gave me
this land with you surfs." Or "My Great Great Great Uncle helped the
King cut
off the head of the Old King, so I get to extract monopoly rents from you
Surfs".

Or today: "I thought up this great obvious idea, like Icons on a Hand Held

Portable Computer Device that was similar to a science fiction book I read
from the 1950's, so the King has randomly let me extract monopoly rents
from you surfs".

Patents on information technology, or on most biology are brain-dead wrong
public policy.

Obama's administration is too stupid to recognize this. But then so are all the

politicians who are extracting monopoly rents to stay in office from the earlier

generation of random "Kings" like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers.

Some political economy. Who invented this?

Was this what our founding fathers envisioned when they used their
Enlightenment Values to push back the "Devine Rights of Kings".

-An Unhappy Anonymous Person

[ Reply to This | # ]

How will it affect post-action on Federal Curcuit Enbanc CLS Bank decision?
Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:58 PM EDT

Discussion about the recent Federal Circuit, en banc, decision regarding the CLS bank case indicated that the decision seemed to nullify many existing software patents.

Exten sive Groklaw discussion here

One hang over question with the decision was what action would the administration/patent office/congress take. Would they try to overturn the Federal Court decision to re-validate the patents already issued.

Hopefully it seems that the answer is in. Hopefully this indicates that the Obama administration will do nothing to shore up the enforcability of existing software patents.

However, I will remain waiting for the sting in the tail. I hope the outcome is not the re-validation of existing patents in exchange for more sensible laws going forward! Sleazier tricks have been tried

---
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink

[ Reply to This | # ]

End-user protections
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:07 PM EDT

One thing that's needed is, in addition to the stay of suits against end users while a suit against the manufacturer proceeds, is for suits against end users to be barred until a suit is filed against the manufacturer, and is also barred if the patent-holder has sued the manufacturer and not prevailed. Until the patent-holder sues the actual manufacturer, or if they sue and lose, any end user is entitled to an instant and automatic dismissal on the grounds that the suit is barred by law. No need to argue whether the end user infringed or not, no need for any defense against infringement, any end-user can end the suit with a single filing. There's little the patent-holder can do to prolong things, because the dismissal turns merely on the existence of an action or the ruling in an action. The most the patent-holder could argue is that their appeal of a loss should count for a suit being in progress, which saves them from dismissal but instantly stays the suit against the end user so it's not a big win for the patent-holder.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Markman Hearings
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:51 PM EDT
It should be a near-absolute (not absolute, there are valid reasons why not)
requirement for a court to inspect the working prototype of the invention at the
markman hearing.

If the plaintiff can't produce the invention, then either the invention is
deemed not to exist, or the court is obliged to give more deference to the
defendant's version of the meanings.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question: Is it possible to write a non-functional description of a software "invention"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 08:05 PM EDT

In pondering the implications of eliminating functional claims, I tried to imagine whether I could describe some of my own programs in a patent application in such a fashion as to avoid ending up with simply a list of algorithms. Having so reflected, my preliminary conclusion is that it would be difficult to do so. If that really is the case, then perhaps the elimination of functional claims would in itself put an end to software patents. My reasoning goes like this:

If I say only what the progam does, then the claim is merely functional.

To avoid that, I have to describe how the program does it, and here is where problems begin to arise. Let's say it obtains data from a remote computer, via HTTP requests. Is it sufficient to say only that much? All it does is prescribe the use of an existing communications protocol, which seems pretty much functional, to me.

One way to be more specific would be to describe the HTTP requests themselves. The problem here is that I can't give the exact requests, since URLs and data paramters are likely to vary; the best I can do is give prototypes of them, such as http://{remote-system-url}?id={object-identifier}. That turns out to be not much of an improvement, being little more than a description of a typical HTTP GET request.

The only other method be being more specific that I can think of is to provide the source code that makes the HTTP request. The problem here is that the code is really nothing more than the implementation of one or more algorithms.

Further, even if I were able to come up with a non-algorithmic claim that passed muster as not being functional, there is the problem (for the inventor) that the more specific a claim is, the more it has the intended effect of limiting the scope of the patent. For example wouldn't the HTTP specifications posited above allow others to work around my "invention" simply by using POST requests or another access method, such as ODBC?

Whatever the case, this has to be a very bad prospect for the trolls.

-Russ

[ Reply to This | # ]

BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference ~ Matt Levy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 08:05 PM EDT
The only way to fix stupid software and design patents - outlaw them entirely.

Rectangular tablet with rounded corners? come on, 3000+ year old design - who
gets to patent something that old? Apple of course - time for all of Apple's
stolen ideas that they patented to be invalidated - that means Apple would have
zero patents - they are not original thinkers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would like to know what this means
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 08:36 PM EDT

The follwing are quotes from PATENT ASSERTION AND U.S. INNOVATION - Executive Office of the President

This document, which you should read, discusses the patent troll problem, while very carefully pussy-footing around "Some firms that own patents but do not make products with them, [but who] play an important role in U.S. innovation ecosystem."

While that in itself could be a topic for discussion, that is not what I wish to discuss at this time. My issue is trying to parse the meaning of all of the following, which begins at the bottom of page 10 and ends at the top of page 12...

Aggressive litigation tactics have also been adopted by some firms that practice their patents. The recent spate of patent litigation among large technology companiesótermed the "smartphone patent wars" by the press ó typifies this behavior...

Ok - the Executive Office of the President recognizes there are smartphone patent wars going on. They recognize some firms that practice their patents adopted aggressive litigation tactics, the source of much discussion here on Groklaw. This is encouraging. What does the Executive Office of the President have to say about this?

...which also involves companies purchasing massive numbers of patents as a defense against of litigation, or as leverage in negotiating licenses with competitors.

Hmm... of all the things they could have said about companies like Apple and Microsoft trolling, they have chosen to look at how companies defend themselves from aggressive litigation tactics, rather than the aggressors. Ok - let's see what else they have to say...

Between $15-20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the smartphone industry from 2010- 2012. And in 2011, spending by Apple and Google on patent litigation and patent acquisitions exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings.

Ok so far. The Executive Office of the President recognizes that these patent wars are so serious companies such as Google & Apple are now spending more on patent litigation and patent purchases then on R&D. So now feeling encouraged by this flash of insight by the Executive Office of the President let us continue...

Indeed, Googleís $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola, according to its own statements, was undertaken in large part to prevent patent suits from competitors.

Ok. They see the lengths Google feels it had to go to defend itself. Let us continue...

"Defensive" purchase of patents has come under scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice for potentially anti-competitive behavior.

Hey - wait a minute! Suddenly we are questioning defensive moves??? They are implying "Defensive" purchase of patents is potentially anti-competitive behavior?? But what about the aggressor?

In one illustrative case, Apple and Motorola engaged in protracted legal wrangling over whether Motorolaís royalty requests were reasonable given that the technology was "standard essential", i.e. required for a standardized technology to function.

Yea - we know all about that one. Apple has been using Motorola's patent for years, but doesn't want to pay up. Instead they go on attacking Android all over the world. Now Motorola is Google, perhaps Motorola's pursuit of payment for its SEP could help with peace negotiations with Apple. So what does the Executive Office of the President have to say about all this? I'll give you a hint. They begin by taking an aside to explain what SEPs are to us. Ok, let's hear it, though we already know...

In some technical standards-setting situations in which a patented technology is being considered for inclusion in a standard (such as Wi-Fi), a patent-holder may agree to offer licenses for the technology on ďfair, reasonable, and non-discriminatoryĒ (FRAND) terms, in return for gaining access to the broad market that having a standard potentially creates. When standards incorporate patented technologies, owners of those patents benefit from expanded marketing and licensing opportunities, while the public benefits from products embodying the best technical solutions. However, a product that complies with such a standard will necessarily read on these patents, creating a potential incentive for patent owners to raise the price of a license after the standard is set.

Ok - we got that. Now back to whatever point they are trying to make here...

In early 2013, the Department of Justice and Patent and Trademark Office issued a joint policy statement on the implications of this phenomenon for enforcement at the International Trade Commission (ITC). Also in 2013, the FTC settled with Google, issuing a consent decree in which Google agreed to honor Motorolaís prior commitments to license standard essential technologies on FRAND terms.

Hmm... seems to be a bit of preoccupation about SEPs. There is also an implication that there was concern Google might have used Motorola's SEPs in some uncompetitive manner, because the FTC felt it necessary to extract a consent decree from Google to honor Motorolaís prior commitments to license standard essential technologies on FRAND terms.

Gee - I'm confused now. First they talked about the smartphone patent wars. They notice aggressive litigation tactics have been used by some firms. They recognize the situation is getting out of hand and patent & legal costs are exceeding R&D. Then they go on to talk about the company that is under attack from both Apple and Microsoft at the same time, the same that felt so threatened they had to buy Motorola mainly for the "defensive" patents, which happen to include SEPs. Are they implying this is an "Aggressive litigation tactic?" - because they don't mention Apple's ridiculous suites with patents of rectangles with rounded corners or Microsoft's troll tax on Android OEMs, so we can only speculate they are talking about Google when they say "aggressive litigation tactics".

And that's it! The article then moves on to the next section, "Conclusion". The above is all they have to say about the smartphone patent wars. It seems to be all Google's fault for defending itself with Motorola's SEPs. Nothing about Apple's behaviour or Microsoft's. Do you suppose these two got to Obama?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How to pay?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:16 PM EDT

Just curious, I thought drastic spending cuts are coming. The US government is running out of money, etc.

How will this be paid for? Aren't there people going hungry while money is put into this? Or is there always money for the well-to-do whose worst troubles are whether their patent is going to be granted or not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • How to pay? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:16 AM EDT
    • How to pay? - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:59 AM EDT
      • How to pay? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 12:01 PM EDT
BREAKING: its a great big lie
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 09:31 AM EDT
BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against
Patent Trolls Should NOT MAKE ANY Difference ~ Me

WHY because until you start on his friends at the copyright
area , this is moot.
ALL he is gonna do is hammer a few low flying fruit so his big
buds that carry on the insane copyright laws get a pass.

[ Reply to This | # ]

End-user protections
Authored by: th80 on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 01:07 PM EDT
PJ, would this law help put the kibosh on SCO and SCO-look-a-like litigation?

[ 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 )