Priceline Founder Jay Walker Becoming Full On Patent Troll: Sues Facebook For Friending And The Powerball Lottery For Lotteries
from the this-is-not-innovation dept
All the way back in 1999, we were already pointing out how Priceline's Jay Walker was a lot more focused on locking up various ideas via patents than actually building sustainable businesses. Even at the time, "Priceline" was an aggressive patent defender and was really an offshoot of Walker Digital, the firm he set up to hoard patents and to extract money out of actual innovators. Over the years, we've noted the various ridiculous patents he's received. It's also worth noting that Priceline pretty near tanked under his leadership -- once again highlighting the vast difference between idea and execution.Joe Mullin has an article highlighting how Walker is now suing Facebook for violating a patent he got back in 1999 (5,884,27) for "establishing and maintaining user-controlled anonymous communications." According to Walker, the very basic "friending" feature on Facebook violates this patent. That claim, alone, pretty much highlights what's wrong with the patent system. The process of setting up such a system is not at all complicated, and thousands of programmers could come up with a similar system in a very short period of time. Note that Walker never actually did anything here (or, if he did, it's pretty much lost to history). Yet Facebook actually implements such a feature well, and suddenly it needs to pay up? How does that make any sense at all?
Mullin's report also highlights that Walker has been getting more aggressive in his patent lawsuits lately -- even going so far as to sue the organization behind the Powerball lottery, claiming that they violated his newly issued patent (7,740,537) on "applying lottery multipliers. Seriously. How is that possibly patentable?
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: jay walker, patents
Companies: priceline, walker digital
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
um ...the interent as prior invention
this is whats again wrong with the patent system look how stupid that patent sounds , first thing popped into my mouth was proxies....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lottery patent may stick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine#Reels
So it wouldn't surprise me if something as obvious as lottery multipliers would stand up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How or Why?
Because Dmitry Suhol, Primary Examiner, likes his government job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will the people be compensated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will the people be compensated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When will the people be compensated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again in the design of "The Well", and I can probably name 10 developers of older social networking (MUDD for example) that were doing the same thing.
Jay Walker isn't just a troll, he is a forgetful & stupid troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay Walker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, if fate is being especially cruel to our eyes...Darryl?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It�s The Invention, Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It�s The Invention, Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It�s The Invention, Stupid
Or to put it another way, the idea is only 1% of the invention and putting into practice is the other 99%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The end is nigh! Like the arrogant of Netheril, we shall fall to dust!
No more calculators! Worse, no more computers!
As was foretold, in 2012 civilization will crumble! We'll all be reduced to unthinking hairless apes, rooting around in the dirt, counting things on our fingers and toes, ruled over by those few foresighted or lucky enough to own an abacus!
The new Dark Ages are nearly upon us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why did they get a pass in the first place , I can only assume that it was due to the sheer incompetence of the USPTO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You pay the Government but they give you NO PROTECTION unless you can afford it. Have you ever known an Artist to have money or resources to sue for infringement? Good luck on that one. It's not like getting into a car accident where the attorney will work for a cut. You have to have the down payment and to get good representation is $500.00 bucks an hour.
I find the entire system to be offensive to Artists and Creative people and a great great block to creativity. If you are worrying about being sued for your idea or work? Why bother to do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sustainable businesses
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. If you don�t like it, tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: �we�re using your invention and we�re not going to pay�.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sustainable businesses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sustainable businesses
Funny, I see small entities commercializing all the time. Staff caught making stuff up again.
If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it.
Which actually hurt a ton of small businesses that came up with similar ideas independently or built better products that would benefit the market.
Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision
This is not true. Injunctions are absolutely still available, it's just that they're not default. Staff shouldn't lie. It looks bad.
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: �we�re using your invention and we�re not going to pay�.
Or, "we came up with a vague idea that tons of others also had, and now we're not going to let anyone develop it unless they pay us a toll."
Thing is, studies have shown repeatedly that my version is what's happening. Your version almost never happens.
Thanks for playing, and we'll see you next time on "this is how patent lovers lie."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't wait
Patents, like most American law today, have become an absolute joke in this country. While my earlier paragraph was a joke, it did make me consider filing a patent application on it just to see if the US patent office is stupid enough to actually issue one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't wait
Never heard of 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103, I see.
The USPTO is not stupid, you are. American law is not a joke, you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can't wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't wait
Never heard of 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103, I see.
The USPTO is not stupid, you are. American law is not a joke, you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sustainable business (MM)
You miss the point. Small entity invents, spends to commercialize unless too expensive to do so, big entity steals it, small entity steamrolled, unless small entity can create something else so it can be stolen. Small entity stays small and big entity gets the big bucks and donates to help fund TechDirt.
-STV-If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it.
-MM Which actually hurt a ton of small businesses that came up with similar ideas independently or built better products that would benefit the market.
Both correct, a patent registration system (like copyrights) where copying severely punished but independent invention would merely pay a reasonable royalty so the first inventor gets his Constitutional "reward" incentive, would solve this dilemna.
-STV"Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision
-MM "This is not true. Injunctions are absolutely still available, it's just that they're not default. Staff shouldn't lie. It looks bad."
Talking past each other, I see. MM wrong, as injunctions are seldom available for an NPE inventor now, which is not necessarily a bad thing so long as an researcher/inventor still gets a fair reward as an incentive to continue to research and invent.
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: �we�re using your invention and we�re not going to pay�.
Or, "we came up with a vague idea that tons of others also had, and now we're not going to let anyone develop it unless they pay us a toll."
Both wrong. patent hoarder, patent troll, NPE, etc. mean no injunction, but reasonable royalty remains. Problem is, the Constitution calls for "securing for limited Times. . . the exclusive Right" and eBay v Merc takes that away for many NPEs. However, since copyrights come from the same clause, I think it would be reasonable to have a similar registration system which would take a billion dollars of PTO cost out of the patent system. We could replace it with a patent royalty tribunal similar in function to the copyright royalty tribunal so inventors got a fair reward. The advantage would be super quick publication (perhaps even instant), PTO examination as to novelty only, and we would take a billion dollars out of the patent litigation costs since we would have court determination only as to copying (in similar fashion to copying determinations in copyright cases)
-MM Thing is, studies have shown repeatedly that my version is what's happening. Your version almost never happens.
MM version, that injunctions are still readily granted for NPE's, is BS and is NOT what's happening in the real world. Which is TechDirt -- DumbasDirt or DishonestDirt. I'm thinking Dishonest
Thanks for playing, and we'll see you next time on "this is how patent lovers lie."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sustainable business (MM)
1. If the evidence suggested that was a regular occurrence, you'd have a point. Tragically for you reality deniers, it's not all that common a case (yes, there are some exceptions). The really innovative stuff is (1) not easy to just copy and (2) usually not realized as innovative until the first company has a pretty damn good head start.
Stop living in denial.
Separately, please tell me who these companies are who are donating money to fund Techdirt? Otherwise, stop your lying. Really amazes at the fact that folks like you would stoop to out and out libel.
Shame.
STV
Hmm. Interesting that Bruce calls "staff" "STV". Looks like Bruce knows who staff is.
Problem is, the Constitution calls for "securing for limited Times. . . the exclusive Right" and eBay v Merc takes that away for many NPEs.
Not that you will, but if you look at the history on this, it's rather compelling that when the framers wrote this, they meant "exclusive right to profits," not exclusive rights to the invention and or content. Just so you know.
We could replace it with a patent royalty tribunal similar in function to the copyright royalty tribunal so inventors got a fair reward
Given how the CRB works, I think it's funny that you think a gov't granted tribunal made up of judges who don't know a thing about economics has ever come up with results that would be considered "fair."
Why do you dislike fair market capitalism so much?
MM version, that injunctions are still readily granted for NPE's, is BS and is NOT what's happening in the real world.
You misread what I said. I was saying my version -- i.e., mostly independent invention rather than anyone copying an idea -- is what's happening.
Which is TechDirt -- DumbasDirt or DishonestDirt. I'm thinking Dishonest
Ah, Bruce. I always know you don't know what you're talking about when you resort to childish playground insults.
Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]