Uniloc v. Rackspace: court bounces patent on method for rounding numbers | Hacker News Reader

Uniloc v. Rackspace: court bounces patent on method for rounding numbers

groklaw.net

43 pointsgrellas7 comments

"The importance of this case cannot be underscored. It demonstrates that a [East Texas] court that has been favored by patent plaintiffs for years recognizes that there are some really bad patents out there, and the court is not going to hesitate to throw them out at the first opportunity."

(Obsessive-compulsive edit: actually, it can be underscored; it just was. Never mind that. Never mind that.)

I know the guy whose patent kick started what later became Uniloc. It wasn't the patent in question here. It was a real innovation. I've worked with Uniloc and they were generally a nice bunch. I've defended them in the past when they were defending their software licensing patents. I didn't want to believe they had gone over to the dark side but it's pretty hard with the evidence staring me right in the face.

i dont remember the exact quote, but John Carmack said this regarding the Carmack's reverse patent held by Creative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume

"If you give 10 programmers a specific problem to solve, two will inevitably come up with the same solution and the one to first file a patent can sue the other."

While the result may seem inevitable to many of you, it is especially gratifying that it came from the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Leonard Davis, who rendered this opinion, probably handles as many patent infringement actions as any district court judge in the country. While he didn't enter his judicial career with any particular knowledge of patent law, over the years he has developed a keen sense of the limits of patentability, and this Uniloc patent was over the top.

While we may all like to make fun of the Eastern District Court it really is the best place to be for patent lawsuits. Yes, their early cases were ridiculous but they've had a decade to build up expertise in patent cases. They have an entire legal community down there that specializes in this stuff and a pool of jurors who are familiar with software patents also.

You either go there and take your chances with a panel of jurors familiar with patent law. Or, take it to another district and hope you get 6-12 jurors who don't know shit about patents but like your idea better.

But aren't you also fighting many years of bad precedents in that district?

Yes, but the decisions have been made and the repercussions played out.

Outside of the 9th district, I believe those decisions would have ended the same way. The plaintiffs want the jury pool to be not too technically literate. Well, that basically excludes the 1st and 9th districts.

Think about who the jurors are? People who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Now there are so many patent lawsuits going on down there it's hard not to be on the jury and not be involved in a few cases. So the jurors get experience. Maybe the first dozen cases were decided poorly but the jurors are getting trained (unfortunate for the defendants in earlier cases) in how to decide patent law.

Have you noticed the decisions coming out have been more fairly decided. It's not enough anymore to just to take a patent case to Texas and assume it's going to be rubber-stamped.

It's not enough anymore to just to take a patent case to Texas and assume it's going to be rubber-stamped.

Good to hear, if true. I wonder how much it has to do with having been called a "renegade jurisdiction" by Scalia himself. I would hope that would have given them pause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com