Patent troll Lodsys sues 10 mobile game makers, despite Apple’s intervention
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
They are using claim 15 to sue over interactive chat: "A method, comprising: monitoring a product for an occurrence in the product of a trigger event of a predefined plurality of trigger events; incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product; displaying a user interface, configured to probe for information regarding a use of the product, if the counter exceeds a threshold; storing an input received from the user interface on a device; and transmitting the input to a server. "
Now everyone wants to know how to solve the problem. If every developer needs to get a patent lawyer, it's going to be a big problem.
Plus, for some of the bigger companies you say chicken out, this is a potential winning strategy for them to stifle competition. The big companies have the funds to just settle and move on while the small companies that might pose a threat in the future may have a harder time dealing with even just a simple settlement.
I'd guess those must be the same sort of companies who engage in patent aggression themselves.
Problem is, the legislation to cover vague and broad patents may very well end up being vague and broad itself, unfortunately.
My suggested solution to the current software patent disaster:
Inventors have to demonstrate a solution (in source code and running) that covers "ALL" the claims. Earlier inventions, e.g. those from the last 17 years, that have not provided this by means of ending up in a product during this period are automatically revoked / declared invalid. Inventors can appeal against this (at cost increasing the older the patent is). Demonstrations within appeals are only possible with technology available at the date of filing.
This will automatically revoke all the fantasy patents (I call them Jules Verne Patents), bring sense back into patent filing - particularly when "pure front-end" patents are disqualified, and will help to protect us from the 1999/2000 patent litigation tsunami some are already expecting.
(Reg: 1999/2000 patent litigation tsunami - this could be caused by all those start-up companies that filed patents within the 1999/2000 bubble and then went belly-up - many of those patents might soon end up in patent troll litigation portfolios.)
Update: And patents should only be enforceable by practising entities vs. PAEs along the lines / to mitigate the issues that Google, Blackberry, Red Hat and Earthlink have outlined in their letter to the DOJ last Friday ( https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwxyRPFduTN2VTE4TXlNcW9MR2s/... )
Monkey see, monkey do. You are either against software patents, or you're not. You can't cherry-pick the companies you like and excuse them for abusing software patents. Lodsys is nothing but an exponent of a broken system large companies themselves created and are now sustaining.
It comes down to a difference between a non-performing entity and a business. Apple and Microsoft employ people to attempt to develop novel solutions to real problems for the purposes of creating products. Trolls do not.
Now, this does not excuse Apple or Microsoft for BS patents. And that's a good discussion to have. But it isn't "monkey see, monkey do."
Rather, I think the problem is that the vast majority of these patents fail to cross the obviousness bar and should never have been granted at all. I mean, seriously, a patent on sending a fax by email, when lots of things are already being sent by email? Give me a fucking break!
I think the fundamental problem is this. A patent is a deal we, the people of the US, make with an inventor: add significantly to the sum total of our technical knowledge, and in exchange, we'll give you a time-limited monopoly on the technique you invented. The problem is that there isn't anyone unambiguously charged with making sure this is a good deal for us: that the knowledge we're getting is worth the price we're paying. It's technically the PTO's responsibility, and they do make some effort, but the incentives given patent examiners don't encourage them to be hard-nosed about it.
To succeed on a patent infringement claim, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between his patent and the defendant's technology. That is, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either (1) reverse engineered technology covered by the patent or (2) directly relied on the patent itself in creating the infringing technology.
In other words, independent invention should be protected. If I get a vague patent that could arguably be construed as covering in-app purchasing, and ten years later you, in no way directly or indirectly relying on my patent, implement an in-app purchasing system, I should not be able to recover any money from you, since I in no way assisted your technology. I just happened to have gotten lucky in that I secured a patent with vague language that could be construed to cover a basic piece of tech that 10 years later became popular.
The simpler version of this is "make/do something with the tech your patent is for within X years, or you lose it."
Quote frankly I'm getting sick of the work apparatus!
Couldn't they pass some kind of legislation that says you can't have a shit shell company thats 40 companies deep or.. anything...