DailyDirt: Commercial Space

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Now that the Space Shuttle has been retired, NASA temporarily has no vehicle of its own to send astronauts into space. The plan is to encourage commercial entities to be more interested in manned spaceflight, and there are a handful of companies that are taking a shot at putting people on rocketships. Here are just a few interesting links on the future of commercial space missions.

• NASA is handing off low-Earth orbit to commercial enterprises and taking a look at longer-range missions for itself. The space race has essentially turned into America's Next Top Space Model... or American Space Idol... [url]
• Paul Allen and Burt Rutan have developed an enormous mothership that will launch rockets from the stratosphere. Stratolaunch Systems hasn't built it yet, but they plan to launch the first rocket in 2016. [url]
• So far, SpaceX is the only commercial company to successfully return a spacecraft from orbit. This capability is only shared by five nations and the European Space Agency. [url]
• To discover more links on space exploration, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: burt rutan, low earth orbit, manned missions, mothership, paul allen, space shuttle, spacecraft
Companies: nasa, spacex, stratolaunch systems

People Concerned About Paul Allen's Ridiculous Patent Claims Gets USPTO To Begin Re-Exams Of His Patents

from the about-time dept

Last year, we covered Paul Allen's ridiculous patent lawsuit against a ton of tech companies. He claimed that all of these companies violated four incredibly broad patents he held:

• 6,263,507: "Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular application to browsing information represented by audio data."
• 6,034,652 & 6,788,314 (really the same patent, involving continuations): "Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device"
• 6,757,682: "Alerting users to items of current interest"

The details looked really silly, and the broad daylight continues to make them look silly. A bunch of folks who were concerned about this lawsuit (including various other developers and individuals) have chipped in -- and some of these completely volunteer efforts have prompted the USPTO to begin investigating the validity of these patents in the first place.

Of course, if the USPTO were doing its job properly, it wouldn't be approving so many bogus patents that just come back to haunt actual innovators.

Filed Under: internet, patents, paul allen, re-exam, uspto

Woz Completely Changes Tune On Patent Trolling From Just Months Ago

from the is-that-the-same-woz? dept

We were really surprised a few months ago when Steve Wozniak spoke out in support of patent trolling. In particular, he was supporting Paul Allen's decision to sue a bunch of companies over some very questionable patents. At the time, he said:

I think this lawsuit represents the idea that hey, patents, individual inventors, they don't have the funds to go up against big companies. So he's sorta representing some original investors. And I'm not at all against the idea of patent trolls.... Every tech company is very aware that patents are really the heart of our innovation and invention system and (a) that you have to have your own patent position and you gotta be aware that there might be others.

Personally, I was a bit surprised that story didn't get more attention. Woz tends to be so beloved in the parts of Silicon Valley that don't like patents that I thought it would generate some discussion. However... now JJ points us to the news that Woz seems to have done a complete about face on Paul Allen's lawsuits and patent trolling in general, coming out pretty strongly against both. Oddly, neither he nor the reporter covering the story seems to note that just months ago, he was saying exactly the opposite. From the coverage at TheRegister:

"That patent-troll thing," Wozniak, said, introducing his first story. "The other night Paul Allen was speaking at the Computer History Museum and I had four tickets. And I decided at the last minute not to go, because I remembered he's suing all these companies like Apple and Google – but he's not suing Microsoft – because he bought all these patents."

From Wozniak's point of view, Allen's lawsuit will not help anyone except Allen and his lawyers. "Well heck," he said, "Paul Allen should be out there investing in companies that are doing something, making products, actually making a new future for the world, and not 'I'm ... going to sue people, and get in bed with the lawyers to make my money.' That's not the right way."

Elsewhere he said: "A lot of patents are pretty much not worth that much... In other words, any fifth-grader could come up with the same approach."

I certainly like this version of Woz better, but I'm sort of at a loss as to how to figure out which is the real Woz. So... what is it? Is Woz happy with patent trolls like Paul Allen, or so upset by them that he won't go see him speak? Will the real Woz please stand up?

Filed Under: patent trolls, patents, paul allen, steve wozniak

Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation

from the not-supporting-innovation dept

We've been covering Paul Allen's move into patent trolling in which he's suing Google, Apple, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo and others over a set of incredibly broad patents, covering things like "recommendations," "alerts" and popping up information in the corner of your screen. The EFF points out that Michael Naimark, the lead inventor on one of the patents, 6,757,682, on "alerting users to items of current interest," has put out a statement about the lawsuit.

He does note that he is contractually obligated to "defend intellectual property to which [he] contributed and to respect confidentiality," and he intends to live up to those obligations. However, he did not sign any kind of "no-speak" or "non-disparagement" agreement, and thus he's comfortable making a general statement expressing concern about how much money is focused on litigation instead of innovation these days:

I am also committed to fostering a vibrant creative culture. Long-term labs like Interval Research don't come along often, and I'm grateful for Paul Allen's support. But the stage is now set for enormous resources, from all sides, to support litigation over innovation. The creative community needs all the support it can muster, and it's a perplexing thought that the money at risk in this lawsuit will likely exceed the annual budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, possibly several times over. It could be hugely significant if all parties commit to something good for the creative community as an outcome.

While the statement is carefully worded and balanced, it's good to see him at least suggest there's a serious problem in how much litigation has taken over for actual innovation.

Filed Under: innovation, litigation, michael naimark, patents, paul allen

Paul Allen Files Amended Patent Lawsuit; Shows It's Even More Ridiculous Than We Originally Thought

from the related-items? dept

Back in August, many people were surprised that Paul Allen had suddenly decided to go full on patent troll, using a bunch of patents he had received as part of his complete business failure, Interval Research, during the 90s. Interval was supposed to be kind of like Xerox PARC, a research center focused on inventing the future, but the plan was to actually commercialize what came out of the labs. However, in the end, Interval did little of anything and, after spending many of Allen's Microsoft millions, shut down. Yet, years later, he suddenly starts suing a ton of companies over incredibly broad patents? In this initial lawsuit (apparently more are planned), he sued Google (and separately, YouTube), Apple, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Office Depot, OfficeMax and Staples. Earlier this month, we noted that the lawsuit had been dismissed due to the failure by Allen to actually explain how these companies violated his patents. Of course, as mentioned at the time, he was free to try again, and everyone knew he would. He has now filed that amended complaint, complete with the "details" of what each of these companies has done that's infringing, and it's even more ridiculous than we originally thought.

As a reminder, here are the patents he's suing over:

• 6,263,507: "Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular application to browsing information represented by audio data."
• 6,034,652 & 6,788,314 (really the same patent, involving continuations): "Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device"
• 6,757,682: "Alerting users to items of current interest"

We have the full amended filing embedded below, but his claims of what's infringing are ridiculously broad. For the first patent (the '507 patent), he basically seems to be claiming that any website that offers a listing of "related items" or uses any kind of spam filter is infringing. Basically, that's a huge percentage of content-based websites out there. Does anyone really (honestly, now) believe that without such a patent, the idea of "related content" or spam filters would never have been developed?

Then there's the next two (related) patents ('652 and '314), about "peripheral attention." According to Allen, the use of products that pop up a little notifier in the corner of your screen window violate this patent: so AOL, Google and Yahoo all violate this because of the little instant messenger/email pop up tools they offer. Apple supposedly violates this because of the Apple Dashboard and related widgets that pop up information such as sports scores and weather. Really, Paul? You want to claim ownership of any system that pops up information in the corner of your screen? That's sickeningly broad.

Finally, the last patent (the '682 patent), he appears to be claiming that it covers making recommendations to users on things they might like. So, the fact that AOL will alert you to products you might like? Infringing. Same with all the other companies, who all offer basic recommendations of one form or another because offering recommendations is one of the most obvious things out there.

To say that Allen's interpretation of what these patents cover is extraordinarily broad would be to downplay the concept of broad interpretations of patents. Allen's interpretations are so broad as to make a mockery of the entire patent system, and how ridiculous concepts put forth in a patent can (years later) cover a significant number of all websites out there, all doing obvious things to make their websites useful to users. Honestly, reading through the details makes me wonder if the conspiracy theory that some have put forth -- that Allen is doing this just to demonstrate how silly patents have become -- seems somewhat more plausible. I still don't really believe that, but either way, this lawsuit certainly represents the madness of the patent system.

Filed Under: patents, paul allen
Companies: aol, apple, ebay, facebook, google, interval research, netflix, office depot, officemax, staples, yahoo

Paul Allen's First Attempt At Patent Trolling Flops As He Forgets To Say Who Actually Violated What And How

from the it's-the-details-that-count dept

A lot of folks were pretty surprised back in August when Paul Allen jumped into the patent trolling game, using patents from his failed-over-a-decade-ago research firm, Interval Research, to sue Google, Apple, Facebook, eBay and others over some rather basic concepts. In his first attempt at patent trolling, however, it appears that he forgot to read the patent litigation rulebook. The lawsuit has been dismissed for failure to explain what the various companies actually did that was infringing. Of course, this is not the end of the lawsuit, as he's free to file an amended complaint (which he almost certainly will), but it certainly suggests some rather sloppy lawyering, which could be an indication of what's to come.

Filed Under: patents, paul allen
Companies: apple, ebay, facebook, google, interval research

Say It Ain't So, Woz: Steve Wozniak Says Patent Trolls Are Okay

from the too-bad dept

Via Joe Mullin, we learn the rather unfortunate news that, when asked about Paul Allen's decision to sue lots of big tech companies over questionable patents, Wozniak comes out in favor of "patent trolls" and patent holders suing companies who actually innovate. For someone so beloved by the tech community, these statements seem really unfortunate. He starts out by repeating the myth that patents somehow help out the small guy (ignoring that we're talking about Paul Allen, one of the richest guys on the planet):

I think this lawsuit represents the idea that hey, patents, individual inventors, they don't have the funds to go up against big companies. So he's sorta representing some original investors. And I'm not at all against the idea of patent trolls.

The interviewer, from Bloomberg TV, pushes back pretty quickly, pointing out that Paul Allen is not the inventor and there's no indication that the inventors on these patents would actually get any of the money should Allen succeed. Woz's response is again disappointing, saying that Allen "represents inventors." Nearly everything that Woz talks about comes off as really uninformed about the patent world today. For example, the interviewer notes that dealing with patents has become a "cost of doing business" and Woz seems to think that's a good thing:

Every tech company is very aware that patents are really the heart of our innovation and invention system and (a) that you have to have your own patent position and you gotta be aware that there might be others. And, yes, you might be infringing. It's very awkward, because some patents are so general. It's hard to say how they'll be interpreted. There's a lot of ambiguity in the system.

So, wait, patents are the heart of the system, but there's a ton of ambiguity. Can someone ship Woz a copy of Bessen and Meurer's Patent Failure quickly, so he can learn about the stacks upon stacks of research that have shown that "ambiguity in the system" now costs society a hell of a lot more than any innovation created by it?

Of course, back in Wozniak's autobiography, he talked about how much of a success Apple was without relying patents at the very beginning. Too bad he's now forgotten that.

Filed Under: innovation, patent trolls, patents, paul allen, steve wozniak

Is Paul Allen's Patent Madness Really An Attempt To Show The Madness Of Patents?

from the seems-unlikely dept

Last week, in writing about Paul Allen's decision to sue (nearly) every big tech company south of Seattle (notably absent: Microsoft and Amazon), I had seen a few people suggest that maybe Allen was doing this to prove how ridiculous the patent system is. Larry Downes is now exploring that option in a blog post on his site:

Maybe Allen is not the world's most famous patent troll. Maybe he's out to become the world's most famous patent reformer. Maybe he doesn't want so much to win as to publicize how dangerous his patents are.

Perhaps in asserting these patents, with their potential to unsettle so much of what is taken as settled business practices in the digital economy, he hopes to force leading tech companies and Congress to acknowledge that the system is broken and fix it. If he wins, or even if he just wears down the other side, perhaps he'll demand not financial tribute but actual reform of a system that gives patent holders like him the power to disrupt digital life.

I don't buy it. There are, obviously, lots of ways to go about pushing for patent reform, but dragging a bunch of companies and yourself through the court system seems like one of the least effective ways to go about doing so. Even if it does call attention to ridiculous patents and how they're used to punish companies who actually innovate, the message is so likely to be lost that I would imagine the chance for any such strategy to succeed is outweighed by the far greater likelihood that the strategy will backfire and actually be seen as a reason to support patents.

Filed Under: patent reform, patents, paul allen
Companies: interval

Paul Allen Becomes A Patent Troll, Sues Google, Apple, Facebook, eBay And Others...

from the those-who-can't-innovate,-litigate dept

Microsoft's "other" co-founder, Paul Allen, has had a long string of business failures since leaving Microsoft. It's actually quite impressive. One of his most high profile ventures, back in the 90's, was Interval Research, which was designed to be a pure research institute "done right." It was described as trying to replicate Xerox PARC, but that it would actually commercialize the amazing ideas. Of course, as we've pointed out for ages, ideas are only a small part of innovation. Actual execution is the really difficult part, and one thing Interval was never able to do was execute. After eight years and over $100 million of Allen's money, the operation was shut down back in 2000. That was about the last we'd heard of Interval... until now.

Because, while Interval was unable to actually execute, thanks to the wonders of the US Patent system, it was able to secure lots of patents, and now it looks like Paul Allen has gone full on patent troll. He's using those patents to sue Google (and, separately, YouTube), Apple, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Office Depot, OfficeMax and Staples -- you know, the companies that actually did innovate and did execute -- for being successful where he failed. Of course, Paul Allen has been tangentially related to patent trolling operations in the past, so perhaps it was just a matter of time. Still, this is a pretty disgusting situation all around.

The WSJ article about the lawsuits doesn't mention the actual patents (why do so few reporters actually point you to the useful info?), but they're the following:

• 6,263,507: "Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular application to browsing information represented by audio data."
• 6,034,652 & 6,788,314 (really the same patent, involving continuations): "Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device"
• 6,757,682: "Alerting users to items of current interest"

According to a report by Todd Bishop at Techflash, Interval may just be getting started: "This is the most recent step in a long process," he said in an email, "but it is not necessarily the end of the process." What a sad, sad legacy Mr. Allen is leaving behind.

Filed Under: patents, paul allen
Companies: aol, apple, ebay, facebook, google, interval licensing, interval research, netflix, office depot, office max, staples, yahoo, youtube

Forget Google, Watch Out For Chevron In The 700 MHz Auction

from the my-ISP-is-Chevron? dept

Everybody's been buzzing about the likelihood of Google bidding on the 700 MHz spectrum that's up for auction in a few weeks, that's allowed a few other interesting characters to get in on the auction below the radar. The FCC has now announced that 266 separate entities have filed to take part in the auction, so it's quite a long list. So far, only 96 applications have been accepted, but the others have until January 4th to get their applications in order. Everyone knew Google was on the list, and it's no surprise to hear names like Verizon Wireless, Alltel, MetroPCS, Vodafone and AT&T (who already got a head start buying some other spectrum in the 700 MHz realm earlier). There was some speculation about cable companies participating, and sure enough, Cox and Cablevision will show up at the auction. Then there are a few surprises. Qualcomm is planning to bid -- which could upset some of the US carriers who consider Qualcomm more of a partner than a competitor.

In a list of 266 companies, there are always going to be some long shots -- but it still doesn't hurt to point out some of the more interesting bidders. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen plans to bid via his Vulcan Spectrum LLC (reusing his favorite "Vulcan" name for companies). It's unclear what he would do with the spectrum. Perhaps even more surprising is the news that oil giant Chevron is planning to participate. What the company would do with the spectrum should it win (and it certainly has the money to win) is an open question, but there are a few intriguing ideas. As for Google, don't hold your breath for a win here. It has seemed pretty clear from the beginning that the company is only in the auction to bid $4.6 billion -- the lowest point necessary to force open access rules to kick in. It would be a huge surprise if the company bid much more than that, and it would be an even bigger surprise if no one outbid Google.

Filed Under: 700 mhz, fcc, paul allen, spectrum, spectrum auction
Companies: at&t, chevron, fcc, google, verizon