Long time reader…I don't have anything to add to the thread except that I think you should pursue any and all legal options. Too often we see false DMCA takedowns reversed with a "oh, sorry, my bad" when called on it. You can probably quantify to some extent the financial losses due to the removal from the search results, use that as a starter cudgel and work upwards.
In case that page doesn't load: it's a video of a system developed in 1991 to use faceted search to browse a database and display the results on a map of Washington, DC.
I'd love to challenge this patent, much of what it discusses was demonstrated in 1991 by the UMD HCI group (See Dynamic Queries: database searching by direct manipulation, http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/pubs/video92.shtml).
Reading about this caused me to wonder: could a government issue a warrant or subpoena for the users who have certain hashes in their accounts? Can you send a DMCA takedown request based on "knowing" the hash or series of hashes for a given allegedly copyrighted file?
As a dropbox user, the thing they've gotten right is the dead simplicity of sync-ing data. They seem to be blowing any positive buzz from that on their privacy practices and this dropship thing.
…they could change where the domain is delegated to.
…or they could hold the registrants personally liable for the content they find objectionable (sorry, there's no DMCA exemption outside the US).
I had a neat idea for a business about five years ago. Pulled together a business plan, started writing code, put together a demo. Potential investor sees it and points to several patents and asks how I'm going to get around the patents. After checking the patents and confirming that they did potentially cover the product, I killed it entirely. The patent holder refused to license the patents, and since I know "knew" of the patents, I'd be potentially liable for the treble damages. It wasn't worth my time or money to develop the product further just so the patent holder could appear later on and paint me as some sort of thief and grab whatever profits the product had earned.
To date the patent holder (who wasn’t the inventor of record, just the current “owner” of the “intellectual property”) hasn’t released a product or service implementing the patent.
This wasn’t some sort of life–saving device. No one is going to miss another advertising platform. I’ve moved on, though the investor contacts me once a year to ask if I am still working on that product. The patent holder has lost whatever income he could have received had he licensed the patent.
I’m not entirely anti–patent, but patent–holders should be required to provide a reference implementation, and required to license the patent, especially if they’re not actually implementing the process it describes. The current system is such a nightmare that 1) I can't risk searching the patent database to actually learn anything even if I wanted to legitimately license the patent because 2) patent holders are far more interested in litigation than licensing and 3) it’s far too easy to get patents on obvious software processes because the USPTO doesn’t have the skills to do a Google search.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ed Costello.
Pursue all legal options
Re: How can a third party challenge a patent?
How can a third party challenge a patent?
Idle question…
As a dropbox user, the thing they've gotten right is the dead simplicity of sync-ing data. They seem to be blowing any positive buzz from that on their privacy practices and this dropship thing.
Monica should contact Right Haven
There’s worse things than deleting the domain… (as Edward Costello)
…or they could hold the registrants personally liable for the content they find objectionable (sorry, there's no DMCA exemption outside the US).
The secret to NYC Bagels… (as Edward Costello)
(untitled comment) (as Edward Costello)
(untitled comment) (as Edward Costello)
To date the patent holder (who wasn’t the inventor of record, just the current “owner” of the “intellectual property”) hasn’t released a product or service implementing the patent.
This wasn’t some sort of life–saving device. No one is going to miss another advertising platform. I’ve moved on, though the investor contacts me once a year to ask if I am still working on that product. The patent holder has lost whatever income he could have received had he licensed the patent.
I’m not entirely anti–patent, but patent–holders should be required to provide a reference implementation, and required to license the patent, especially if they’re not actually implementing the process it describes. The current system is such a nightmare that 1) I can't risk searching the patent database to actually learn anything even if I wanted to legitimately license the patent because 2) patent holders are far more interested in litigation than licensing and 3) it’s far too easy to get patents on obvious software processes because the USPTO doesn’t have the skills to do a Google search.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ed Costello.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt