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

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#61

Post by ollysb »

joelhaus wrote: post #51
billybob wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inve…

This is a fantastic idea, it would allow the tech community to police patents itself. Perhaps a good way to streamline the process would be to simply mark a patent when prior art has been found and verified by the patent office. The more involved invalidation of the patent could happen later.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#62

Post by jonknee »

lukejduncan wrote: post #55
anigbrowl wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I find it humorous that his "Invention" site is mostly text but all in images. Humorous because his other business is web usability consulting. Not using text is probably the least usable thing you can do.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#63

Post by starwed »

kenjackson wrote: post #56
othermaciej wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're missing one of the more interesting parts of groklaw -- they pull together the relevant legal documents so you can look at them yourself, if you like.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#64

Post by protomyth »

joahua wrote: post #53
protomyth wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Judges who deal with these cases take an interest in the goings on, just like sports people tend to read the sports page, and computer geeks keep up with the computer news. People tend to act remarkably similar where their interests lie.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#65

Post by kbutler »

jonknee wrote: post #62
lukejduncan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I find it humorous that his "Invention" site is mostly text but all in images. Humorous because his other business is web usability consulting. Not using text is probably the least usable thing you can do.

> his "Invention" site is mostly text but all in images... Not using text is probably the least usable thing you can do.

Well, if you consider the problems that full text search is now causing for his patent licensee, maybe it's intentional...

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#66

Post by sunchild »

sunchild wrote: post #49
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.

Been thinking more about this: With http://www.google.com/patents, a collective should be able to prepare detailed research on prior art for all kinds of obnoxious software patents. That research could be neatly packaged and ready to go when the trolls come sniffing.

Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys

#67

Post by othermaciej »

joelhaus wrote: post #60
othermaciej wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hedging your predictions with qualifying statements is something that any good lawyer will tend to do, and also just plain intellectually honest since predictions about legal processes are rarely 100% certain.
Post reply on HN