Yet Another Example Of Why Google Would Be Better Off Without Patents
from the it-would-stop-getting-sued-so-often dept
While patent system supporters are trying to convince people that Google could be at great risk if software patents were done away with, that seems hard to square with reality. To date, as far as I know, Google has never filed a patent infringement lawsuit against anyone. Yet, it keeps ending up on the receiving end of incredibly questionable patent lawsuits. This latest one, from a company named GraphOn involves four patents. You can take a look at each one: one, two, three and four. A quick glance suggests not only prior art on all of them (a method for creating a pay-for-service website? filed in 2004? seriously?), but that none of these should have passed the "obviousness" test. It's difficult to believe that no one else would have come up with the same concepts without such a patent.But, of course, GraphOn has long decided that there's probably more money in suing over patent infringement than in building products. While the company does have some actual products, over the past few years, it's sued a long list of internet companies for supposedly violating its patents. Their crime? Building useful web services that do rather obvious things -- but GraphOn insists that such obvious things require a license. GraphOn seems to be proving the old saying that those who can, innovate -- while those who can't litigate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: patents, software patents
Companies: google, graphon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And those clueless to both
Don't y'all have anything better to do that sit here writing stupid clueless articles about Copyright and Patent laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And those clueless to both
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And those clueless to both
You've already demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the patent and copyright systems of the U.S., so you're opinion on the articles is similarly uninformed.
It's unfortunate that you've degraded yourself to a blog troll instead of trying to understand what's being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incorrect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect
Can't tell which is worse, the just plain bad trolls or people that defend half the argument and try to ignore the other half.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect
How? You'd have to show how this invention was an obvious advancement on the state of the art at the time the invention was made, which is back in the early 90's. I don't see you pointing to any evidence that it would be obvious then. Conclusory statements are not persuasive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
Now you will, most assuredly, try to create a specific example explaining otherwise, carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect
If you have a problem with the latter, perhaps you should take a good look in the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect
The old maxim is true: ideas are easy, however, real success takes real work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect
How do you know that they did not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect
Just as surely as you always side against the patentee.
BBS systems used online databases for years, Yes prior to 1995. You really ought to try to see the other side of things. This was not a new invention, even in 1990 it was not.
1) 1995 is not necessarily when the invention was made. It likely was made earlier and was only filed-for in 1995.
2) This patent claims a much narrower, more complicated invention then a mere online database. I suggest you read the broadest claim.
3) If the patented invention really wasn't new back then, then Google should have no problem defending their case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
You seem to take pride in the fact that a company should have to pay attorneys and staff defending weak claims to stay in business. I am sure you would see it as a deterrent to doing any business if you were not on the receiving end of these fees. Hiring an attorney isn't cheap, as you know Wilton. You come by and sling it around as though it's no big deal, but obviously it is a deterrent, not an incentive to doing business. Going backwards and studying "prior art" is not innovation. The patent should have never been granted in the first place, yet all you can comment is... Well let them spend a lot of money on an attorney to prove it, then it will no longer be a valid patent."
The problem there, in case you are to blind to see it, is that those legal expenses are often the barrier to entry for small businesses and true inventors. By the way, how much do you charge for an hour of your time ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect
I'm pretty sure I did not declare anything a "specific implementation."
Any actual coder employed in the patent office would laugh these patents out.
If you say so.
Perhaps you should pick up a book on coding before commenting on things you obviously know nothing about.
And perhaps you should pick up a book on patent law before commenting on things that you obviously know nothing about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
It is absolutely ridiculous that I have to sit in fear that my date-picker-widget might infringe on someone else's "patent" simply because they went to the patent office first.
A very good portion of software patents that have been awarded fall into the "we got there first" category. That is not INVENTION, and certainly not INNOVATION. It cripples progress in the field as any competent business now has to spend resources building up legal and financial barricades to stave off those who "invented" the widget I just built on my own.
Willton, how is this "progress"? How does this system HELP your (future) clientele?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
Glad to hear you have such a high opinion of those people who make the communication medium you're currently using possible...
(By the way, no I'm not a coder. I am however intelligent enough to know that this particular dated stereotype is not true in most cases.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And those who cannot do either blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wilton, your lawyer is calling...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is difficult to present a cogent and persuasive argument when you lead off with statements like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larceny On The Grandest Of Scales
In all seriousness Google is doing lots of evil by taking other's patent properties for their and only their profit. They are also one of the favorite places for invention promotion frauds to hawk their services. Google hosts ads for a number of companies who have been busted by the FTC.
And as you point out there are many other well healed entitlement minded companies being taken to task for their blatant theft of others intellectual property.
They are all thieves.
Big companies love to complain about piracy of their intellectual property even as they are themselves committing larceny on the grandest of scales of independent inventors intellectual property. They are much like organized crime syndicates. The software crowd are more like chop shops and pick pockets. Still criminals, just the unwashed rift raft :) And yes this meant to insult the software dullards who either cannot invent at all or are just too lazy to make the investment to teach and advance the arts with patents.
Considering your mindset Mike, it is only a matter of time before you are caught and when that happens the anti-patent paper trail you have left behind will be great cannon fodder for proving willfulness. When that happens I will be sure to send you a sympathy card with a personal sized tube of KY for temporary relief :)
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Larceny On The Grandest Of Scales
Agenda noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Larceny On The Grandest Of Scales
Mr. Riley, I'm curious if you could explain to me how a gov't backed system of gov't granted monopolies that excludes competition is somehow less socialist than allowing free market competition?
I am a strong believer in property rights. But, unlike you, I recognize what property actually is, and don't try to turn non-property into property.
In all seriousness Google is doing lots of evil by taking other's patent properties for their and only their profit.
Hmm. If these other properties were so valuable, why weren't those original inventors bringing them to market and making money off of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez Mike . . . .
"Considering your mindset Mike, it is only a matter of time before you are caught and when that happens the anti-patent paper trail you have left behind will be great cannon fodder for proving willfulness. When that happens I will be sure to send you a sympathy card with a personal sized tube of KY for temporary relief :)"
Wow, threats of prosecution, anal rape and everything. This is a sure sign your on the right side of an argument Mike . . . a sure sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
An injunction only encouraged defending companies to settle quickly regardless of the merits of their accuser's case. An accusation of infringement is not proof of infringement, and an injunction unnecessarily harms a company before guilt is established. Small non-practicing companies and individuals don't deserve immediate injunctions based off an accusation of infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
As we've discussed repeatedly, that's simply untrue. Small companies quite often (certainly not always, but quite often) outrun larger companies by being more innovative, more flexible and faster to react to customer needs. To claim otherwise is pure ignorance.
Small companies simply cannot compete with larger well funded competitors.
Well, as pointed out, yes they can, and they do. Quite often in fact. Google came from nowhere to beat plenty of big well-funded competitors. Microsoft did the same at one point. And it didn't require patents.
That’s why we have patents. Get it?
But that's simply untrue. Patents were never designed to "protect the little guy." They were designed to encourage innovation -- from either the big guys or the little guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rate of technological advance
There is a better solution, one which older tech companies learned the hard way, and that is to start licensing other's inventions before using them. If these companies were not leaving the inventions unlicensed they would not be facing the likelihood that some inventor or their agents or is that a mythical ugly vicious troll will be taking a huge bit out of their backsides.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rate of technological advance
Ok, Mr. Riley: straight up question, and I'd prefer a straightup answer:
What do you think of an independent invention defense? If they actually are capable of inventing the same thing on their own, do you still have a problem with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]