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

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#41

Post by alecco »

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…

FM didn't disclose he was funded by big players (Microsoft?). Also he is full of it with his crusade against Google.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#42

Post by othermaciej »

guelo wrote: post #40
othermaciej wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#43

Post by othermaciej »

magicalist wrote: post #39
othermaciej wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 biases, but his facts and predictions are generally accurate and his analysis seems informed.

He's predicted that it's likely that Apple will be admitted as an intervenor in the Lodsys case, let's see if that one comes true. Likewise he predicts that Motorola Mobility will likely suffer an ITC import ban due to the Microsoft case (if not settled before then). Let's see what happens on that one.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#44

Post by psn »

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.

I suspect that as a result of some out of court settlement with Intellectual Ventures, people are asked to invest. I also suspect that the best lawyers in the world - and apple and google have the best in the world - pick the fights they have a chance of winning. A similar example is http://www.iwf.org.uk/.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#45

Post by pyre »

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.

Companies pay money for patents. Granting less patents means less money. Pure and simple.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#46

Post by MatthewPhillips »

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 prior art is in relation to Lodsys' claims. Remember that patent trolls use their patents as moving goalposts. What the patent office grants and what the patent troll claims they own are not necessarily the same.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#47

Post by Kylekramer »

othermaciej wrote: post #43
magicalist wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#49

Post by sunchild »

lukejduncan wrote: post #48

What kind of resources would it take to attempt to invalidate as many of IV's patent's as possible? Is that something that could be crowd-sourced or does it require significant capital?

Doing the research for prior art seems like a great project for crowd sourcing. The lawsuits could be brought by big corporate stakeholders based on that research.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#50

Post by sunchild »

joebadmo wrote: post #33
mrich wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

I could be wrong, but I think IV's model was to pay inventors for patents that the inventor couldn't afford to enforce. IV then turns around and sells blanket licenses to companies in the portfolio market space.
Post reply on HN