Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#51

Post by joelhaus » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 1:05 AM UTC

billybob wrote: post #5

billybob wrote: post #4

TL;DR: "Most reexamination requests rely on a finding of obviousness, which is a far more subject[ive] standard than demonstrating a lack of novelty. A lack of novelty can be established by any one piece of prior art that discloses each of the key elements of claimed invention. In each of these cases Google has identified not one, but five separate pieces of prior art that each alone demonstrates a lack of novelty in…

If this is true, surely the judge will ask: if each of these claims can be invalidated by five separate pieces of prior art, why in the world were the patents granted in the first place?

The answer would surely be: Google has far greater access to organized/relevant information than the patent office (or any other entity) has ever had in the past...

I wonder how effective this will be in fending off the patent trolls (e.g. IV), probably not very ...unless... Washington could implement/regulate a streamlined method of invalidating patents with prior art, it could go a long way in protecting valid inventions, while creating a disincentive for firms filing frivolous lawsuits and patents.

I know the patent office is under-staffed/funded but, you've got to believe that far fewer patents would be filed if there was a more effective system for invalidation in place.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#52

Post by felipemnoa » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 1:08 AM UTC

killerswan wrote: post #15

magicalist wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aren't like 80% of patents invalidated on reexamination? (which is, of course, significantly different than 80% of patents being invalid) the judges are probably pretty used to crappy patents.

I haven't seen statistics, but I know of many that have passed a reexam or two with flying colors.

That is why he said that 80% are invalidated. The ones you heard about probably fall under the 20%.

Mr. Obvious to the rescue!

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#53

Post by joahua » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 1:08 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #13

magicalist wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aren't like 80% of patents invalidated on reexamination? (which is, of course, significantly different than 80% of patents being invalid) the judges are probably pretty used to crappy patents.

Also, judges live in the real world too, and I would expect some of the current patent talk has leaked into their social circle.

Real world or no, I doubt many of my non-geek friends are aware of the patent/innovation/whatever discussion that we're pretty saturated by here in HN-land. Perhaps in certain jurisdictions that hear a disproportionate number of IP related cases it would be otherwise, but if judges are of the 'real world' I'm not convinced they'll be across this as you might assume…

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#54

Post by othermaciej » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 1:12 AM UTC

Kylekramer wrote: post #47

othermaciej wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one thing, he correctly predicted that in the Nokia vs Apple case, Apple would end up paying Nokia a royalty, which seems to be what actually happened. For another, his predictions of the judge's likely reactions to damages requests and requests to suppress evidence in Google vs Oracle seem to be largely playing out as predicted. I do get the feeling sometimes from reading his stuff that he may have anti-Google b…

So, the one definitive prediction he had so far is that a patent case would end in a royalty? Forgive me if I don't take that as a sign of an insightful commenter.

I gave two examples, you picked out one, and you appear to assume that this is the only time Muller has been right about anything. Somehow, it does not seem to me like you are on a dispassionate quest for truth here.

However, just in case you are: Apple and Nokia were both suing each other over various patents, and had various defenses. Often such cases end in a cross-licensing deal with little or no money changing hands. He correctly assessed that in this case Nokia had the upper hand and that Apple would end up paying. That conclusion was not obvious to casual observers at the time.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#55

Post by lukejduncan » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 1:20 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #32

jonknee wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lodsys is their lawyers. It's not a real company. It's a patent attorney who registered a company specifically as a vehicle to monetize the four patents they purchased/licensed from Intellectual Ventures.

Yes, sorry. I was thinking of Dan Abelow, the original 'inventor' ( http://computing2.com/ ) but on reflection, he's already got his license fee so I suppose he has no reason to care.

I never thought to look the guy up. It's one thing to file a bad patent. There are potentially many reason, such as your employer forces you to. But I'd feel dirty doing so. He seems to love it.

Has he commented at all on the state and use of his patents?

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#56

Post by kenjackson » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 1:29 AM UTC

othermaciej wrote: post #42

guelo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be that Groklaw hates certain companies based on some principle? Or do you think they just randomly pick which side they're going to support?

They seem to stay silent or downplay it when IBM is a patent aggressor. So I don't think their friendliness towards IBM is based on principle.

Yeah, I really don't like how Groklaw tries to play the principled moral leader. I generally don't read Groklaw (including this article). You can just tell me who the principals in the case are and I can tell you what Groklaw's opinion on the "merits" are. The fact that I can pretty consistently do that tells me all I need to know.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#57

Post by Steko » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 1:35 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #18

This is a nice piece of work. And it is refreshing to see Google jump in here. When I saw they paid $12.5B for the Motorola patents I wondered why, if they were willing to play at that level, they couldn't set aside 200 - 300M for a bunch of greybeards and IP lawyers to sit around dissecting the patent database, every journal article ever printed, etc and just obliterate a crap ton of the stupid patents. Now an evil…

A lot of the speculation re: Lodsys was that the license Apple et al had from IV for these patents prevented them from contesting the validity of the patents (standard language apparently).

So what's great here is Google either confirms that this is not the case or that they found a way around it or are ignoring it.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#58

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 1:58 AM UTC

dpcan wrote: post #26

melling wrote: post #24

Someone should create a database of all similar patents that are granted so it's easier to prove that other patents are invalid because they are equivalent to the ones found to be invalid, essentially disarming them.

Someone did. Listen to the "When Patents Attack" podcast: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... Someone created a system where they can enter a claim and go back and see how many times that claim was already granted in a patent. The one they looked up found something like 5000+ prior claims. Why the USPTO doesn't use this software before approving patents is beyond me.

[deleted]

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#59

Post by killerswan » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 6:13 AM UTC

felipemnoa wrote: post #52

killerswan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen statistics, but I know of many that have passed a reexam or two with flying colors.

That is why he said that 80% are invalidated. The ones you heard about probably fall under the 20%. Mr. Obvious to the rescue!

No, he asked a question, and I simply shared an anecdote. Do you have a link to proof for 80%?

("Obviousness" is not just a problem for patent examiners, I see.)

Some facts: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/Reexamination_Information...

Ex parte re-exams result in 66% with claims changed and 11% with all claims canceled. Inter partes re-exams result in 43% with claims changed and 44% with all claims cancelled. Not bad.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#60

Post by joelhaus » Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 8:33 AM UTC

othermaciej wrote: post #54

Kylekramer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the one definitive prediction he had so far is that a patent case would end in a royalty? Forgive me if I don't take that as a sign of an insightful commenter.

I gave two examples, you picked out one, and you appear to assume that this is the only time Muller has been right about anything. Somehow, it does not seem to me like you are on a dispassionate quest for truth here. However, just in case you are: Apple and Nokia were both suing each other over various patents, and had various defenses. Often such cases end in a cross-licensing deal with little or no money changing h…

I've noticed that Florian Muller is more skilled at covering his own behind, rather than predicting patent litigation outcomes.

Every prediction he makes is hedged with a statement about how the alternate outcome is possible "even though many don't believe it's likely". Whatever his preferred outcome, he will make the stronger case for that.