Google Sued For Patent Infringement For Mobile Chrome
from the of-course dept
Because no new products can be released these days without getting sued for patent infringement, Google has been sued by EMG Technology -- yet another patent holder that isn't actually competing or innovating suing companies that are. The issue is Google's recently released Chrome browser for the mobile phone, which EMG claims violates its patent, 7,441,196 on an "apparatus and method of manipulating a region on a wireless device screen for viewing, zooming and scrolling internet content." EMG points out that Apple sought to have this patent re-examined and it survived. Despite the fact that the inventors of the patent all appear to reside in Southern California, EMG is located in Southern California and Google is based in Northern California, take one guess where this lawsuit was filed... Why East Texas, of course. Because that makes no sense at all. And people wonder why we say that the patent system has become a tax on innovation.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: android, chrome, east texas, patent troll
Companies: emg technology, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Favorable Veredict Practically Guaranteed
It's this sort of thing that makes me wonder whether judges in East Texas are actually getting paid for their veredicts. They say everything's bigger in Texas. Perhaps that includes the bribes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Favorable Veredict Practically Guaranteed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buzzword: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buzzword: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buzzword: Google
Tricordist I think it was
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Buzzword: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Buzzword: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Buzzword: Google
Where is angrydude when you need him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vagueness
Patents need to be more specific or else I'm gonna patent a "device to do things in a direct or indirect way leading to a specific, general, intended, or unintended outcome." and make millions suing people over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vagueness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vagueness
Kill of the software patents as they have no use. Software is covered by copyright already. If two people come to the same solution with different methods this is fine, its only not fine when someone copies the source or just copies the binary but both issues are covered by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
East Texas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: East Texas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then post a review,
Affordability - just how much money is needed to buy a patent, can only the rich companies afford it?
Safeguards- just how much background checks do they do to confirm a patent is legit, non vague, and more importantly check for prior examples
A vague patent that describes something widely used today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So is the patent for a device or web design standard? If it's a device, it's implying that the device creates a secondary site for navigation. I don't know of any browsers that create new webpages - they just reformat existing ones. And when a website has a parallel mobile site, the device or method doesn't need to do anything.
So, if that's in the introduction, how on earth does it not get thrown out before the rest of the document is even read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you fucking KIDDING ME?!
There is a patent for looking at the Internet on a smartphone? What dumbass decided that was novel? Hell, it's not just smartphones! My laptop can qualify as a wireless device! This is completely fucking ridiculous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, it's a patent for using float left on divs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They deserve it
Nobody, and I mean nobody, would have ever thought up "a way to make viewing stuff on a comparatively small device much easier".
FML.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They deserve it
Win Win
Software and business method patents should be disallowed and thrown out en masse. If it's a physical device that is marketed protect it from copying. Otherwise leave things alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would happen if
By current estimates Google is worth in excess of US$200 billion and if that money and the jobs it provides were to be suddenly removed from the US economy and moved north to Canada or west to Singapore what would that say to the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would happen if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's mine and you can't play with it!
and the trademark for 10,01,and 1001,and etc,etc, and so on
All you low life infringers out there...PAY UP!
I'm waiting...
copyright 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you ever patented anything?? My guess is not or you'd know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"apparatus and method of manipulating a region on a wireless device screen for viewing, zooming and scrolling internet content."
Surely that means that I could be infringing on that patent by holding my phone close to my face so I can read better
So yeah, I think it is fair to assume the rubberstamping of everything.
Arrrrrrrrrrr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
If they invented and patented it or bought it from the ineventor, they were the ones who innovated by definition. The infringers were the ones who stole it. Often small start-ups cant compete until they get funded. They cant get funded until they secure their patent rights -including obtaining an injunction against infringers.
"Why East Texas, of course"
If you're a small inventor you can sue someone in their back yard (eg NC) where it may take 5 or more years to make it to trial while you're ability to commercialize and your patent languishes, or you can sue where you're more likely to get a speedy trial. Naturally, infringers and their paid puppets prefer to wait until hell freezes over.
Large infringers really are paying you to write this rubbish, aren't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: another biased article
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
"If they invented and patented it or bought it from the ineventor, they were the ones who innovated by definition."
I prefer to consider something truly innovative if it actually provides a benefit to someone. There is absolutely nothing innovative about coming up with an idea that you can't produce, or worse, buying someone else's idea and still not being able to produce it. By then using a ridiculously broad patent to prevent someone else's genuinely innovative product from coming to market (i.e. providing a benefit to someone), you're being the exact opposite of innovative.
"The infringers were the ones who stole it."
"Large infringers really are paying you to write this rubbish, aren't they?"
And with these two comments you paint yourself as an ignorant loon not worthy listening to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent
"An apparatus or method that does something."
I think I should safely be able to sue everyone... so long as I do it in East Texas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is becoming some sort of meme. Or rather a bad joke. "That Harry Potter troll, was it from East Texas? har har har"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]