Do Patents On Your Website Make You Liable For False Marking?
from the mark-this dept
One of the things that tends to keep patent lawsuits in check between two larger competing companies is the "patent nuclear war" scenario -- which is that if one company sues the other for patent infringement, the latter company often can hit back with an equal number of infringement charges. Thus, the incentives are for companies to stockpile lots of patents, but not necessarily use them... though it does happen occasionally. While this may be seen as a net waste (spending on patents for the sake of stockpiling, rather than for any socially or economically useful purpose), at least it keeps the lawsuits in check. One of the big problems that many companies have with the rise of "non-practicing entities" who merely hold onto patents for the purpose of suing (the so-called "patent trolls"), is that this same deterrent doesn't work. That is, because these patent holders aren't making anything, there's nothing to countersue over. That leads to unequal power, and greater likelihood of litigation. In many ways (though, certainly not all), it's similar to terrorists attacking a large country whose army is designed to battle other armies from other countries. When hit by terrorists, the army isn't designed to fight back against a non-governmental army.However, it looks like at least one company is attempting a rather novel way to try to hit back -- though it seems unlikely to work. Apparently Juniper was hit by a patent infringement lawsuit by a patent holder over some patents related to firewalls and intrusion detection. The individual who holds the patent happens to have a website where he lists his accomplishments, including the two patents. From that same website, the guy sells various services... and according to Juniper, by listing the patents and offering a service, the guy was implying the services that he offered were covered by those patents. However, the services aren't covered by the patents, so Juniper claims the guy is "false marking." This is a rule that forbids you from claiming a certain product is covered by a specific patent when it is not.
This seems like an incredible longshot, and the judge dismissed the first attempt to do this -- though Juniper has filed an amended complaint where it's trying this tactic again. Obviously, I'm not a fan of patent holders who try to stop actual innovators in the marketplace, but this counter-attack from Juniper doesn't make much sense, and hopefully, will get thrown out again as well.
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: false marking, patents
Companies: juniper
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hopefully people don't read into it what you didn't write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's amazing to see how your blog works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If he does I have a copyright on said database and the business process to bring said database to market. Also I have all "catch phrases" in that database trademarked including:
"I have to wonder"
"do you have"
"some soft of"
"database of catch phrases"
"of the day"
"work really, really hard"
"include them in your posts?"
"Do you specifically create posts just so you can link to them later"
Do you want to settle now or have your people meet my people at a latter date? By the way, my people are named Guido & Tony and they have ways of dealing with schmucks like you.
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like a toilet ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully software and business method patents will soon be history. School children will learn about the sillness and wonder what were they thinking ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This AC seems paid to be an ass-hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've posted this before but I want to post it again because I think it brings some good insight to the situation.
http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000061.html
I think patents to new problems are generally bad. For example, a patent on a one click buy or a system that lets you buy things online is a bad patent. Once we have the technology to create such systems (ie: Internet) the problem is easily solvable, we shouldn't simply grant a patent to the first person who tries to solve it (since many people can easily solve it). It's a new problem, give the free market some time to solve it (perhaps five years) and they probably will.
Patents to old problems (problems that have been scrutinized by the free market for a long time) tend to make more sense. One important question that should be asked is "how long have people been trying to solve this problem." It's generally bad (and will harm innovation) if someone grants a patent to the first person who solves a new problem because usually it's an easily solvable problem. A patent for whoever cures Aids, for example, would be a good patents since Aids is an old problem.
Of course the above is an oversimplification of the issue but it is an important thing to consider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
perhaps you should know that our wise Supreme Court in their landmark KSR decision said that a patent explicitly stating a known problem to solve is likely invalid (!!!)
Since then all patent apps are written in such way as to exclude any background section with the problem formulation
Nice
Wait for more fun stuff to come - SCOTUS is now embarking on a task of defining "software patents" in their upcoming Bilski decision
I've got a bad feeling about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The instant case where the inventor, Shipley, is named as the defendant has absolutely nothing to do with the ESR case against Juniper. Rather, it appears to be a not-so-subtle attempt by Juniper to stick it personally to Shipley and perhaps thereby try and get some leverage in the ESR lawsuit.
In my view Juniper is doing itself no favor with its suit against Shipley. Its legal basis is tenuous (I am trying to be charitable), and it runs the risk of damaging whatever meritorious defenses it may have in its lawsuit with ESR.
BTW, I did a quick search concerning Shipley and find him to be an interesting individual who most certainly does not appear to fit the mold of what may term a "troll".
On a final note, if any judge was to seriously entertain the legal theory proferred by Juniper's attorneys, it would behoove most people who have posted their resumes on the internet, which resumes list patent numbers, to take them down ASAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey rises to a new low: it's not just his regualr lies anymore - it's downright offensive and disgusting to compare holders of legal rights under US Law to terrorists..
Mikey, Mikey, have you ever been kicked in the ass by one of the offended folks ?
Wanna try ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No lies, just opinion. You don't like his opinion, start your ow blog and leave us alone. It's not our fault no one would read your stupid blog, that doesn't mean you have to come over here and take it out on everyone else. Stop trolling here and stop calling people liars just because you disagree with them. Seriously, if you can't have a civilized discussion (without personal attacks) then shut up and leave. It's bad enough corporate thugs like yourself control the mainstream media and manage to censor everything that disagree with you, now that you can't censor blogs that disagree with you you want to resort to the destructive process of personal attacks? Act civilized or get out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
football
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abuse of process of law no substitute for inventiveness.
Belligerently misappropriating others' inventions does not make the entity doing so an innovator. It makes them a patent pirate.
This kind of abuse of process of law is standard fare among patent pirates and any company pulling this kind of stunt should be subject to sanctions.
I received an anonymous tip that Juniper has pulled this kind of stunt in the past. Perhaps someone with a legal background can research rather this is the case.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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 (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abuse of process of law no substitute for inventiveness.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. SSL Services, LLC
Ref: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=43206
[ link to this | view in chronology ]