Patent troll Lodsys now after apps with 'More Apps' links

Post by LiteOn » Wed, Jul 13, 2011, 4:01 PM UTC

Post by lukeschlather » Wed, Jul 13, 2011, 4:05 PM UTC

jamesbritt wrote: post #15

Hemospectrum wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It involves a computer -- and the examiners employed by the PTO just don't have the time or training to properly understand computer patents. That's the only explanation. If examiners can't figure out whether something is patentable, they err on the side of good faith on the part of the applicant, and leave the question to the courts.

It involves a computer -- and the examiners employed by the PTO just don't have the time or training to properly understand computer patents. That's the only explanation. That's the only explanation? Doubtful. I know someone at the patent office, an examiner who handles tech patents. When I asked about certain patents she explained that you need to look at the complete patent application and the specific behavior or…

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Jul 13, 2011, 4:13 PM UTC

chrislomax wrote: post #8

This annoys me because it is scaring off people from developing for smart phones. This patent is so vague that even if I did know every patent ever made then I would not even associate it with what patent he is claiming he has violated. Bring back Lulzsec for a day, get them to hack their systems and delete all their patents. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a patent for people communicating over the internet and…

Post by ntkachov » Wed, Jul 13, 2011, 4:14 PM UTC

oneplusone wrote: post #10

dralison wrote: post #9

What someone needs to do is get a business process patent on "Patent Trolling".

IBM has got that covered: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...

Post by dstein » Wed, Jul 13, 2011, 4:18 PM UTC

powertower wrote: post #28

dstein wrote: post #19

The only difference between Lodsys and large software/hardware companies like Microsoft and Oracle is the size of their litigation targets. I'm beyond convinced that the entire software patent systems needs to be abolished.

My understanding is that Microsoft hates software patents (at least when BillG was CEO), has only registered them out of necessity, has historically only sued relatively few other companies, and only done so with either real patents (non-obvious, read beyond the patent title) or as a retaliation of being sued itself. I’m sure there are a few exceptions here as there are always.