Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

groklaw.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#31

Post by jonknee »

monochromatic wrote: post #30
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.

... sounds like a real company to me. Do you mean they don't produce anything? None of the patent troll companies do.

It's a real company in that it has a legal registration. But it's a vehicle created by a patent attorney (or more likely multiple patent attorneys) specifically to monetize four patents. The OP said Lodsys should be mad at its attorneys which is incorrect--Lodsys is a product of its attorneys! Lodsys would have to sue itself if it was to try and sue its attorneys.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#32

Post by anigbrowl »

jonknee wrote: post #29
anigbrowl wrote: post #3

From the comments: Taking a weapon that is susceptible to a search for prior art, up against a company that specializes in search is a bad plan. Hah. Wonder if Lodsys will sue their lawyers?

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.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#33

Post by joebadmo »

mrich wrote: post #14
anigbrowl wrote: post #6

Equally interesting is that one of Lodsys's targets is seeking discovery in Arizona of whether Lodsys is a cat's paw of Intellectual Ventures: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=201108171318536

What I do not understand: Google and Apple are both investors to Intellectual Ventures. So the dog is biting its own tail quite horrendously here.

Intellectual Ventures started as a sort of patent pool for small inventors, at least purportedly. The idea was, as a small inventor, you could pay IV or, I think, contribute patents, or some combination of both, and IV would protect you from patent litigation. They only recently started suing people through shell companies. I'm pretty sure most of those companies invested in IV before it started trolling, but I'm having trouble looking up the info. I'll edit later if I find anything.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#34

Post by anigbrowl »

monochromatic wrote: post #30
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.

... sounds like a real company to me. Do you mean they don't produce anything? None of the patent troll companies do.

No, jonknee has it right. I confused Lodsys with CV2, Dan Abelow's firm that licensed the patents.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#35

Post by mvelie »

mrich wrote: post #14
anigbrowl wrote: post #6

Equally interesting is that one of Lodsys's targets is seeking discovery in Arizona of whether Lodsys is a cat's paw of Intellectual Ventures: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=201108171318536

What I do not understand: Google and Apple are both investors to Intellectual Ventures. So the dog is biting its own tail quite horrendously here.

Intellectual Ventures has way more than these couple patents. Google/Apple's user base is more important than these couple patents. They only have them to protect themselves, not to assert them, so invalidating them won't do anything.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#36

Post by joebadmo »

othermaciej wrote: post #25
arron61 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish they will do more so every news piece will stop quoting the terrible Florian Muller

Florian Muller seems to have a much better track record of accurate predictions about what will actually happen in patent cases than Groklaw. And he seems to be better at reporting the facts dispassionately. Groklaw seems to focus more on cheerleading for entities they favor (Linux, IBM, Google) and against ones they hate (Sun, Microsoft). I really don't understand why so many people seem to think they are better tha…

I don't read Mueller or Groklaw that much, and never did until recently, but when I do, it comes off to me as Mueller trying to sound dispassionate and hide his biases against certain parties, while contributing mostly FUD. Whereas Groklaw wears its biases openly.

Again, that's just the impression I got. I'd be interested in seeing a data-based comparison of predictions, though.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#37

Post by monochromatic »

jonknee wrote: post #31
monochromatic wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... sounds like a real company to me. Do you mean they don't produce anything? None of the patent troll companies do.

It's a real company in that it has a legal registration. But it's a vehicle created by a patent attorney (or more likely multiple patent attorneys) specifically to monetize four patents. The OP said Lodsys should be mad at its attorneys which is incorrect--Lodsys is a product of its attorneys! Lodsys would have to sue itself if it was to try and sue its attorneys.

Eh I'm just being a pedantic ass, sorry, been a long day. I think it's time to leave the office and grab a beer.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#38

Post by jonknee »

monochromatic wrote: post #37
jonknee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a real company in that it has a legal registration. But it's a vehicle created by a patent attorney (or more likely multiple patent attorneys) specifically to monetize four patents. The OP said Lodsys should be mad at its attorneys which is incorrect--Lodsys is a product of its attorneys! Lodsys would have to sue itself if it was to try and sue its attorneys.

Eh I'm just being a pedantic ass, sorry, been a long day. I think it's time to leave the office and grab a beer.

Have another one for me.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#39

Post by magicalist »

othermaciej wrote: post #25
arron61 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish they will do more so every news piece will stop quoting the terrible Florian Muller

Florian Muller seems to have a much better track record of accurate predictions about what will actually happen in patent cases than Groklaw. And he seems to be better at reporting the facts dispassionately. Groklaw seems to focus more on cheerleading for entities they favor (Linux, IBM, Google) and against ones they hate (Sun, Microsoft). I really don't understand why so many people seem to think they are better tha…

Groklaw's biases are definitely obvious, but I would want to see documentation of Florian's accurate track record. I think what most people object to is his sensationalism, particularly the seeming crises he uncovers that turn out to be nothing much (with considerable indication that he knew that they were nothing much).

I pick where I get my news to avoid that sort of source, so it's annoying when they start quoting him.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#40

Post by guelo »

othermaciej wrote: post #25
arron61 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish they will do more so every news piece will stop quoting the terrible Florian Muller

Florian Muller seems to have a much better track record of accurate predictions about what will actually happen in patent cases than Groklaw. And he seems to be better at reporting the facts dispassionately. Groklaw seems to focus more on cheerleading for entities they favor (Linux, IBM, Google) and against ones they hate (Sun, Microsoft). I really don't understand why so many people seem to think they are better tha…

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?
Post reply on HN