3d Spherical Panning Patent Lawsuits

[thop]

Now extendted to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. You have to say, they have got guts!

I think they are just stupid. Those lawyers will have a nice time with them.

 

[Tim Murray]

at least they weren't totally insane and sue IBM.

 

[MfA]

It doesnt matter, they arent doing this because they think they will win ... they are doing this because they think they can win. As long as the potential pay off is high enough, and it is, these kind of lawsuits will continue no matter how slim the odds they have of winning.

Especially for the modern vertically integrated IP-purchasing lawfirms sueing the major companies seems a good, if high risk, investment of resources.

 

[Nexiss]

at least they weren't totally insane and sue IBM.

Guess they are totally insane:

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8260

HP, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, SCEA, Acer, MPC, Systemax, Fujitsu, Micro Electronics, Matsushita, Averatec, Polywell, Sharp, Twinhead, Uniwill, and JVC are all named as defendants in the suit.

 

[KimB]

Especially for the modern vertically integrated IP-purchasing lawfirms sueing the major companies seems a good, if high risk, investment of resources.

Well, considering many companies will find that it would be less expensive to settle than to fight, I don't know if it's that high-risk.

 

[Guden Oden]

Can't they be counter-sued for launching frivolous lawsuits if their patent is invalidated in the course of this mass-suit?

 

[KimB]

Can't they be counter-sued for launching frivolous lawsuits if their patent is invalidated in the course of this mass-suit?

Perhaps, but since the owners of a corporation cannot lose more than they put in, in the meantime, while all of these lawsuits are going on, they can pay themselves high salaries...then just start a new business if it fails.

 

[Simon F]

Now extendted to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. You have to say, they have got guts!

I think they are just stupid. Those lawyers will have a nice time with them.

Yeah.. the lawyers must be planning their 5 star round-the-world cruises already. AFAICS they're the only ones who are really going to win.


Seriously though, the company ("A") that is bringing these suits.... does it actually have any money, i.e., having nothing to lose therefore only the opportunity to gain? The nasty bit, I think, is that they ("A") can possibly ask for an injunction to stop their targets ("B") from selling products they ("A") claim infringe their patents.

[edit: Too many possesive pronouns - tried to make it less confusing]

 

[KimB]

The nasty bit, I think, is that they can possibly ask for an injunction to stop their targets from selling products they claim infringe their patents.

You know what? I'd really like to see a company do that, on a big enough scale that the American public actually stand up and takes notice. Unless people actually understand that these frivolous patent infringement suits are affecting their lives, nothing is going to change.

 

[davefb]

This is never really true in practice in the US because the USPTO is insane and doesn't seem to understand the concept of prior art.

.... Prior art allegedly can only be found in earlier patents.

*really* i'm guessing you know this from experience?

 

[Simon F]

This is never really true in practice in the US because the USPTO is insane and doesn't seem to understand the concept of prior art.

.... Prior art allegedly can only be found in earlier patents.

*really* i'm guessing you know this from experience?

When the examination stage is done at the Patent office, they search for prior art and flag up stuff that they believe is of interest. In my experience, the USPTO only seems to search their own database of patents.

The UK and EPO are somewhat more thorough and will often cite research papers.

 

[KimB]

.... Prior art allegedly can only be found in earlier patents.

This may apply to how the USPTO decides to accept or reject patents, but has no bearing on prior art allowed in patent infringement suits.

 

[MfA]

Of course by the time it comes to a court the people making the judgement are even less suited to the task as the patent examiner (who wasnt suited to the task either). So it all comes down to a lottery.

The odds might be stacked in favour of the alledged infringer, but that is a small consolation if you stand nothing to gain from the lottery ... and an incredible chunk of your business to loose.

The only way patents work is in an honor system, where the only parties who can judge the validity of a patent (ie. the people working in the industry) work out patent arrangements among themselves. The moment it gets to court they become just another tool for lawyers to get rich and everyone else to loose. Unfortunately honor systems and capitalism dont mix, so we are stuck with this lawyer driven mess.

 

[KimB]

Of course by the time it comes to a court the people making the judgement are even less suited to the task as the patent examiner (who wasnt suited to the task either). So it all comes down to a lottery.

Well, given salient arguments and a judge with reasonable intelligence, I doubt there could be a significant miscarriage of justice in these cases. Typically the losses for those on the "right" side come not from court decisions, but rather from settlements (which often are cheaper).

 

[Simon F]

.... Prior art allegedly can only be found in earlier patents.

This may apply to how the USPTO decides to accept or reject patents, but has no bearing on prior art allowed in patent infringement suits.

Yes that is obvious.

My comment was only WRT how the patents seem to be examined before being granted.

 

[MfA]

I was talking more about juries Chalnoth.

Even with an intelligent judge though I dont think you can expect him to form a good opinion on something as ethereal as obviousness using only partisan expert witnesses. It is a matter of taste, and in the end arguements will break down when trying to adress matters of taste ... something like obviousness can only be decided by majority IMO.

Of course obviousness has pretty much been abondoned as relevant to patent lawsuits it seems.

 

[KimB]

Well, not all trials are decided by juries. I had thought most civil suits weren't. But I guess I don't really know for sure.

Anyway, yes, obviousness probably isn't important anymore. What's likely more important is prior art. For many frivolous patents, particularly obvious ones, prior art shouldn't be very difficult to come by.

 

[Jeremy Stanley]

Is McKool Smith the plaintiff?

Am I correct in gathering that McKool Smith--the law firm--is the plaintiff in this lawsuit? I've always believed patents exist solely to benefit lawyers, but this has got to be the most blatant example of this I have ever seen. If it's true, McKool Smith is the epitome of all that is wrong in the world today, and napalm would be too light a punishment for them.

Patents should be non-transferrable. That way, they can perform their originally intended function--protecting inventors' R&D investment--but they can't be sold to shell companies whose primary income source is litigation.

 

[KimB]

Re: Is McKool Smith the plaintiff?

Patents should be non-transferrable. That way, they can perform their originally intended function--protecting inventors' R&D investment--but they can't be sold to shell companies whose primary income source is litigation.

Well, there are a ton of things that could be done to improve US patent law, but I'm not certain making patents non-transferrable would be one of them. What would you do with a company's patents if that company goes out of business, for example?

 

[Simon F]

Re: Is McKool Smith the plaintiff?

Patents should be non-transferrable. That way, they can perform their originally intended function--protecting inventors' R&D investment--

That would work against an individual inventor (or a small company) who finds he doesn't have the resources to make the product and decides to sell the patent rather than license it.