Intellectual Ventures Sues Motorola Mobility For Infringement; Guess Who's Trying To Cause Trouble For Google?
from the ah,-the-fun-fights-of-billionaires dept
You can almost hear Intellectual Ventures' lawyers cackling with glee in announcing that they've filed their latest patent infringement lawsuit against Motorola Mobility -- the company that Google is buying for its patents. Clearly, this is a shot at Google. As for the patents in question, let's take a look:- 7,810,144: File transfer system for direct transfer between computers
- 6,412,953: Illumination device and image projection apparatus comprising the device
- 7,409,450: Transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) packet-centric wireless point to multi-point (PTMP) transmission system architecture
- 7,120,462: Portable computing, communication and entertainment device with central processor carried in a detachable handset
- 6,557,054: Method and system for distributing updates by presenting directory of software available for user installation that is not already installed on user stastion
- 6,658,464: User station software that controls transport, storage, and presentation of content from a remote source
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
Companies: google, intellectual ventures, motorola mobility
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unfortunately that type of defense is useless against patent trolls because non-producing entities by definition don't produce anything Motorola/Google can counter sue for. All IV has to do is keep throwing weak patents against the wall until a judge in East Texas lets one stick.
Getting a worthless patent or two invalidated doesn't really matter to IV because they have a lot more worthless patents to draw on. The real danger that they face is making enough big companies like Google mad at them that software patents get tossed out as invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pish
I heard a rumor from an allegedly reliable source that the Googster totes has a couple Ninja Attorneys on retainer. If those guys(?) get the case, IVy-trollingston will not only lose, it will Quake (or is that Doom?) in fear!! (mwa-hahahahahah!)
So... yeah, no worries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
So contenders give up before even trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patents
Candle and hands - a device to projecting an image on a wall
7,810,144: File transfer system for direct transfer between computers
Luckly computers do not directly transfer files to each other they have something between them be it a router, media, or component in the computer but not the computer its self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual Vultures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual Vultures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intellectual Vultures
Quite possibly, but honestly it is good to see the trolls come back to Capistrano. I was worried by the lack of trolling lately.
I think we really do need to trolls. I prefer the higher quality trolls that actually make valid points. They contribute to the quality of the discussion. I even value the feeble trolls that have dominated the traffic lately. Even the mindless and feeble trolls let us know that xPAA takes TD as enough of a threat that they are willing to give us some attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In layman's terms...
- FTP, SAMBA, HTTP, SFTP, or even just a damn USB cable
- Projectors. Any kind of projector.
- Wifi routers. All of them.
- Any and every smartphone that includes a cradle or dock.
- The Apple App Store, the Android Market, Synaptic on Linux, any other "app store"
- Dropbox, the cloud in general.
Isn't there supposed to be some sort of test for, yanno, obviousness? Shouldn't ALL of these patents FAIL that test? Or prior art? Or just the "you've got to be shitting me" test in general?
I mean nevermind the lawsuit. Hell, nevermind the bad patents. In this case, if one patent examiner approved more than one of these patents, someone needs to either fire him, or move the examiner out of his cave to a new residence that has electricity. Seriously, half the issue here is the village IDIOTS working in the USPTO who couldn't take a 10-second glance at this (as I did) and see how blatantly obvious it is that these are BAD PATENTS and SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO BEGIN WITH! To anyone! Ever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In layman's terms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In layman's terms...
What did you really expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In layman's terms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely this is a better long term strategy than continually wasting time year-over-year on these patent wars...
These companies are flush with cash, I'm pretty sure if say only ~50 of these companies contributed money to a generic fund this would not be shareholder-revolted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]