• Lodsys Group v. Bank of America et al (2:2012-cv-00284)
• Lodsys Group v. Becker Professional Development (2:2012-cv-00286)
• Lodsys Group v. Foster and Smith, Inc. et al (2:2012-cv-00287)
• Lodsys Group v. Rosetta Stone Inc. (2:2012-cv-00288)
• Lodsys Holdings Group v. Dell, Inc. (2:2012-cv-00289)
• Lodsys Holdings Group v. AVG Technologies USA (2:2012-cv-00290)
• Lodsys v. GMCI (2:2012-cv-00291)

In short, Lodsys is suing the entire inhabited earth. This Most Holy Patent stuff is getting out of hand, don't you think, considering that Oracle lists long and chunky paragraphs of prior art for each of the four patents asserted by Lodsys?

This is getting to be too huge not to be repulsive. Including the seven new cases, Lodsys has now filed eleven cases in the Eastern District of Texas alone, involving 70 defendants. And that isn't even counting all the ones going on in Wisconsin and other jurisdictions. There are a couple of new cases filed *against* Lodsys too, on top of the one by Oracle and the others by the New York Times, Wolfram, ESET, Foresee, RightNow Technologies, LivePerson, OpinionLab and DriveTime.

Here are the two new declaratory judgment cases against Lodsys:

• ThinkingApe v. Lodsys (Washington State)
• PCS Sales v. Lodsys (Wisconsin)

Blech.

Ditto in the Wolfram litigation. There are a number of such cases where Lodsys in the alternative wants the cases sent to Texas. Natch.

Ryonet and ESET have terminated their actions against Lodsys, but there's no indication of any payment, but that doesn't mean there might not have been.

And here is the bad news: some of Lodsys's victims actually are paying up to get out of this madness. Combay [PDF] and Samsung [PDF] appear to have decided to do that, for example. Who wouldn't want to escape the Eastern District of Texas? Unfortunately, when people pay, trolls then take the money and fund new cases with it.

Here is a list of all the victims of Lodsys so far:

Brother International Corporation, Canon U.S.A., Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Hulu, LLC, Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lexmark International, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., Novell, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.,, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Trend Micro Incorporated, BBY Solutions, Inc., Best Western International, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Sam's West, Inc., Stanley, Black & Decker, Inc., The Container Store, Inc., The Teaching Company, LLC, Vegas.com, LLC, Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., adidas America, Inc., Combay, Inc., Iconfactory, Inc., Illusion Labs AB, Michael G. Karr d/b/a Shovelmate, Quickoffice, Inc., Richard Shinderman, Wulven Game Studios, DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc., ESET, LLC, ForeSee Results, Inc., LivePerson, Inc., OpinionLab, Inc., The New York Times Company, Rosetta Stone, Inc., Foster and Smith, Inc., Recreational Equipment, Inc., Walgreen Co., GMCI Internet Operations, Inc., Playboy Enterprises, Inc., RK Netmedia, Inc., Score Internet Group, LLC, Vouyer Media, Inc., AVG Technologies USA, Inc., GFI Software, Inc., Kaspersky Lab, Inc., Raxco Software, Inc., Symantec Corporation, Webroot Software, Inc., Dell, Inc., Becker Professional Development Corporation, Cabela's, Inc., Charming Shoppes, Inc., HSN, Inc., Nike, Inc., The Men's Warehouse, Inc., Tivo, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Epicor Software Corporation, Hoovers, Inc., Market America, Inc., Network Solutions, LLC, Overstock.com, Inc., Sleepy's, LLC, The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.

It's no wonder the US economy is in the tank. Companies can't survive this kind of attack over and over. It's like the economy is eating its own heart.

Does Intellectual Ventures really think patents like this are a benefit to anybody, to the economy at large, to innovation, to anything but its own personal greed? I'd really like to know how they justify something like this. And please don't mention Most Holy IP or fighting for the little guy. These patents are simply ridiculous. There's no other way to say it.

So you'll understand why I say that, I'd like to repeat here all the prior art Oracle has listed, so you can see just how appalling this tidal wave of patent litigation is, and how damaging it is when the USPTO issues software patents. Now we all must reap what they have sown. And may I ask why the USPTO couldn't find ANY of this prior art, leaving it to victims of patent trolls to do their work for them? Oracle's list:

39. Claims 1-37 of the ’908 patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of, and to otherwise comply with, one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103 and 112. At a minimum, the claims of the ’908 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based upon at least the following pieces of prior art in view of Lodsys’ apparent application of the claims of that patent: U.S. Patent No. 4,245,245 (“Matsumoto”), U.S. Patent No. 4,546,382 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,345,315 (“Cadotte”), U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”), U.S. Patent No. 4,689,619 (“O’Brien, Jr.”), U.S. Patent No. 4,740,890 (“William”), U.S. Patent No. 4,816,904 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,829,558 (“Welsh”), U.S. Patent No. 4,862,268 (“Campbell”), U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 (“Pitts”), U.S. Patent No. 4,973,952 (“Malec”), U.S. Patent No. 4,912,552 (“Allison, III”), U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”), U.S. Patent No. 5,001,554 (“Johnson”), U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”), U.S. Patent No. 5,029,099 (“Goodman”), U.S. Patent No. 5,036,479 (“Prednis”), U.S. Patent No. 5,056,019 (“Schultz”), U.S. Patent No. 5,065,338 (“Phillips”), U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”), U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”), U.S. Patent No. 5,117,354 (“Long”), U.S. Patent No. 5,138,377 (“Smith”), U.S. Patent No. 5,207,784 (“Schwartzendruber”), U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157 (“Kaplan”), U.S. Patent No. 5,282,127 (“Mii”), U.S. Patent No. 5,283,734 (“Von Kohorn”), U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”), U.S. Patent No. 5,335,048 (“Takano”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,449 (“Meyer”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 (“Filepp”), U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”), U.S. Patent No. 5,496,175 (“Oyama”), U.S. Patent No. 5,740,035 (“Cohen”), U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”), JP H2-65556 (“Kita”), JP-03-064286-A (“Garza”), JP H3-80662 (“Ukegawa”), JP S60-200366 (“Tanaka”), and JP S62-280771 (“Furukawa”). These examples of prior art are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, and Oracle reserves the right to assert other specific pieces of prior art....

43. Claims 1-22 of the ’834 patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of, and to otherwise comply with, one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103 and 112. At a minimum, the claims of the ’834 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based upon at least the following pieces of prior art in view of Lodsys’ apparent application of the claims of that patent: U.S. Patent No. 4,245,245 (“Matsumoto”), U.S. Patent No. 4,546,382 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,345,315 (“Cadotte”), U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”), U.S. Patent No. 4,689,619 (“O’Brien, Jr.”), U.S. Patent No. 4,740,890 (“William”), U.S. Patent No. 4,816,904 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,829,558 (“Welsh”), U.S. Patent No. 4,862,268 (“Campbell”), U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 (“Pitts”), U.S. Patent No. 4,973,952 (“Malec”), U.S. Patent No. 4,912,552 (“Allison, III”), U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”), U.S. Patent No. 5,001,554 (“Johnson”), U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”), U.S. Patent No. 5,029,099 (“Goodman”), U.S. Patent No. 5,036,479 (“Prednis”), U.S. Patent No. 5,056,019 (“Schultz”), U.S. Patent No. 5,065,338 (“Phillips”), U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”), U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”), U.S. Patent No. 5,117,354 (“Long”), U.S. Patent No. 5,138,377 (“Smith”), U.S. Patent No. 5,207,784 (“Schwartzendruber”), U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157 (“Kaplan”), U.S. Patent No. 5,282,127 (“Mii”), U.S. Patent No. 5,283,734 (“Von Kohorn”), U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”), U.S. Patent No. 5,335,048 (“Takano”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,449 (“Meyer”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 (“Filepp”), U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”), U.S. Patent No. 5,496,175 (“Oyama”), U.S. Patent No. 5,740,035 (“Cohen”), U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”), JP H2-65556 (“Kita”), JP-03-064286-A (“Garza”), JP H3-80662 (“Ukegawa”), JP S60-200366 (“Tanaka”), and JP S62-280771 (“Furukawa”). These examples of prior art are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, and Oracle reserves the right to assert other specific pieces of prior art....

47. Claims 1-67 of the ’078 patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of, and to otherwise comply with, one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103 and 112. At a minimum, the claims of the ’078 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based upon at least the following pieces of prior art in view of Lodsys’ apparent application of the claims of that patent: U.S. Patent No. 4,245,245 (“Matsumoto”), U.S. Patent No. 4,546,382 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,345,315 (“Cadotte”), U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”), U.S. Patent No. 4,689,619 (“O’Brien, Jr.”), U.S. Patent No. 4,740,890 (“William”), U.S. Patent No. 4,816,904 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,829,558 (“Welsh”), U.S. Patent No. 4,862,268 (“Campbell”), U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 (“Pitts”), U.S. Patent No. 4,973,952 (“Malec”), U.S. Patent No. 4,912,552 (“Allison, III”), U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”), U.S. Patent No. 5,001,554 (“Johnson”), U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”), U.S. Patent No. 5,029,099 (“Goodman”), U.S. Patent No. 5,036,479 (“Prednis”), U.S. Patent No. 5,056,019 (“Schultz”), U.S. Patent No. 5,065,338 (“Phillips”), U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”), U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”), U.S. Patent No. 5,117,354 (“Long”), U.S. Patent No. 5,138,377 (“Smith”), U.S. Patent No. 5,207,784 (“Schwartzendruber”), U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157 (“Kaplan”), U.S. Patent No. 5,282,127 (“Mii”), U.S. Patent No. 5,283,734 (“Von Kohorn”), U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”), U.S. Patent No. 5,335,048 (“Takano”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,449 (“Meyer”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 (“Filepp”), U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”), U.S. Patent No. 5,496,175 (“Oyama”), U.S. Patent No. 5,740,035 (“Cohen”), U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”), JP H2-65556 (“Kita”), JP-03-064286-A (“Garza”), JP H3-80662 (“Ukegawa”), JP S60-200366 (“Tanaka”), and JP S62-280771 (“Furukawa”). These examples of prior art are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, and Oracle reserves the right to assert other specific pieces of prior art....

51. Claims 1-32 of the ’565 patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of, and to otherwise comply with, one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103 and 112. At a minimum, the claims of the ’565 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based upon at least the following pieces of prior art in view of Lodsys’ apparent application of the claims of that patent: U.S. Patent No. 4,245,245 (“Matsumoto”), U.S. Patent No. 4,546,382 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,345,315 (“Cadotte”), U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”), U.S. Patent No. 4,689,619 (“O’Brien, Jr.”), U.S. Patent No. 4,740,890 (“William”), U.S. Patent No. 4,816,904 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,829,558 (“Welsh”), U.S. Patent No. 4,862,268 (“Campbell”), U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 (“Pitts”), U.S. Patent No. 4,973,952 (“Malec”), U.S. Patent No. 4,912,552 (“Allison, III”), U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”), U.S. Patent No. 5,001,554 (“Johnson”), U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”), U.S. Patent No. 5,029,099 (“Goodman”), U.S. Patent No. 5,036,479 (“Prednis”), U.S. Patent No. 5,056,019 (“Schultz”), U.S. Patent No. 5,065,338 (“Phillips”), U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”), U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”), U.S. Patent No. 5,117,354 (“Long”), U.S. Patent No. 5,138,377 (“Smith”), U.S. Patent No. 5,207,784 (“Schwartzendruber”), U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157 (“Kaplan”), U.S. Patent No. 5,282,127 (“Mii”), U.S. Patent No. 5,283,734 (“Von Kohorn”), U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”), U.S. Patent No. 5,335,048 (“Takano”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,449 (“Meyer”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 (“Filepp”), U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”), U.S. Patent No. 5,496,175 (“Oyama”), U.S. Patent No. 5,740,035 (“Cohen”), U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”), JP H2-65556 (“Kita”), JP-03-064286-A (“Garza”), JP H3-80662 (“Ukegawa”), JP S60-200366 (“Tanaka”), and JP S62-280771 (“Furukawa”). These examples of prior art are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, and Oracle reserves the right to assert other specific pieces of prior art.