Judge Refuses To Dismiss Twitter From Patent Lawsuit Concerning Patent On Interacting With Famous People Online
from the bang-head-slowly dept
One of the absolute worst parts of the patent system is that, unlike many other legal issues, it's nearly impossible to easily get a patent claim dismissed. Thanks to rather arcane rules in how fights over patents work out, it almost always has to go trial if the parties don't settle. The patent lawyers love this, of course. It makes them plenty of money. But you would hope that in extremely ridiculous cases, courts would be quick to dump such lawsuits. Earlier this year we wrote about how patent lawyer Dinesh Agarwal had a patent 6,408,309 on a "Method and system for creating an interactive virtual community of famous people." That's not a joke. Even worse, he claimed that Twitter infringed on the patent. Yes, for daring to have a community which some famous people have decided to use... suddenly, that's patent infringement.Of course, as we noted at the time, the patent didn't seem to cover what Twitter does at all. But why let that stop you from suing? And while Twitter did try to play some games over jurisdictional issues to get the case moved (which failed), this seemed like the type of case that should lead to an early dismissal. Instead, as pointed out by Richard Gailey, the court has rejected Twitter's attempt to get the case dismissed, and now it's moving on towards trial. Of course, the judge is also pressuring Twitter to settle with (read: pay off) the patent holder, which only perpetuates this kind of ridiculousness. Here's hoping that Twitter is willing to fight this.
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: interaction, patents
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I tell you, I'm gonna patent an "instrument that revolves around itself allowing a bigger object to be moved with ease" and start suing car, wheels and tire manufacturers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are judges allowed to do this? Its basically showing a clear bias towards one side BEFORE the trial, at least, as far as I can see. I thought judges were supposed to wait until a trial was over before declaring that someone has to pay somebody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then I'll use the profits from those patents to build a program to patent such systems for every other name I can find listed at baby naming sites. I'll be the next Bill Gates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Locate biased judge
2. In the absence of (1), utilize funds to create bias in judge
3. Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course lawyers will say sue first and negotiate later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would say it to vague to use the world famous.
Beside which I think Hollywood itself is prior art to an interactive virtual community of famous people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, how does one stock high school girls?
Do they get individual shelves? Do you have to rotate the stock? So many questions.....
PS: Not really dissing your comment...that typo just struck me as funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Techdirt Staff
We are writing to notify you that your unlawful copying of SiliconJon's patent of communicating with other organic entities infringes upon our client’s exclusive copyrights. Accordingly, you are hereby directed to
CEASE AND DESIST ALL PATENT INFRINGEMENT.
SiliconJon is the owner a patent in various aspects of interentity communications. Under United States patent law, SiliconJon’s patents have been in effect since the date that Patent #101101100100100101011001010010010101110100100100110 was created. All patentable aspects of interentity communications are patented under United States patent law.
Thank you, drive through.
Signed,
Work Not Think Not Law Offices, LLC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Settlement Agreement
I, ___________________, agree to immediately cease and desist communicating with other entities in exchange for SiliconJon releasing any and all claims against me for patent infringement. In the event this agreement is breached by me, SiliconJon will be entitled to everything I have ever owned or associated with, including, but not limited to: my wife, girlfriends (past and present), personal property including all banks accounts and any other assets, favorite foods (you may no longer eat them with pleasure), DNA, deepest darkest secrets, and attorney’s fees (which is a few tons of worm food - figure out how to buy it after I already took everything belonging to you) in any action brought to enforce this agreement and shall be free to pursue all rights that SiliconJon had as of the date of this letter as if this letter had never been signed.
Signed:________________________________
Dated:________________________________
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The above may seem like wordsmithing, but this is not the case. There is a significant difference between what the title to the article suggests, and what they court has actually done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which can risk further perpetuating this sort of ridiculousness if Twitter loses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st amendment
Isn't that:
1) a form of indentured servitude
2) a massive violation of those 'famous' peoples rights
3) retarded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Claims
Apparently the judge wants the arguments to proceed. Now do you believe that Twitter is too poor to defend itself? We can only hope that if there is a principle involved the case goes to decision because that is what helps make and clarify the law. Not settlements or your moaning babble.
I'll have to give you this you started this blog of misinformation and it has served to bring you clients and provide some revenue to writers willing to mostly take your anti-patent and anti-start-up/inventor point of view. You know the point of view that pleases Apple, Microsoft and GE.
Apparently none of your partners (despite stints in technology) has ever patented anything. Certainly none of you three school chums have made a living by creating real things that others would buy. You sell words and because talk is cheap you sell smarmy words meant to mollify and placate big company PR departments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]