Microsoft founder sues the industry

8/29/2010 10:59 AM EDT

Is this suit fair or foul? Is this patent trolling at its finest hour? Or a real suit?

8/29/2010 12:26 PM EDT

Well, Considering that the patents were developed and owned by the same company/founder & they employed 110 engineers to do this, I would argue this cannot be considered as pure patent trolling. But then the patents in question seems very broad and if the rights are to be asserted then almost all web companies will need to pay royalty to Allen. Too bad the company is now defunct and cannot be sued back.

8/29/2010 3:26 PM EDT

It may not be pure patent trolling, but the timing certainly looks suspicious, as does the list of companies being sued and the list of companies not being sued.

8/29/2010 10:40 PM EDT

Unfortunately, this is a lot like the e-commerce techniques lawsuit from a few years ago that cost Amazon $40M plus legal fees and countless hours of time. The result will likely be the same for these other companies. While protection of intellectual property is important, you have to wonder why so many years have passed since the techniques in the current lawsuits became commonplace. Were the pockets of the companies being sued not deep enough a few years ago?

8/29/2010 11:08 PM EDT

There is two angles to this case. One is Interval is just waiting for many many companies to use their patented technologies, so that they can bring all of them to the court and earn the licensing revenue. Second side of this case is only now Interval founders understood that their patents are used by other companies. I don't think Interval is any small company which can be in the second category. As many people think may be Interval is just waiting for right moment till now. Looks like the courts are working!!!

8/30/2010 3:26 AM EDT

I think, the patent offices need to do some thinking, especially when IT products or technologies are concerned. Since, this is a purely knowledge based industry, it is unfair to grant the ownership of common ideas. I agree, that Interval might have invested research into formulating such techniques which now the biggies are employing, but if that makes them liable to Interval, I am not so sure. In any case, there should be a time parameter to such lawsuits, to prevent poaching of reputations by smaller firms.

8/30/2010 11:08 AM EDT

The whole idea behind patenting an invention is to allow a company to profit from that invention without other companies coming in and taking a piece of the pie. For a company to patent ideas and never use them except to take money away from other companies seems like an unethical use of the system to me.

8/30/2010 12:29 PM EDT

I remember years back when a prototype was required to prove the concept before a patent was granted, the patent system worked better. Now, a patent can be granted with just an idea. I totally understand the competitive nature of product ideas. The change seems to be necessary. Nonetheless, if the execution of the right is hurting the growth of technologies, I seriously have concern over the patent system. In addition, if someone has been living in your property for last 12 years and you didn't say a word in the last 12 years, do you still have the right to kick them out?

8/30/2010 1:00 PM EDT

I have concerns on a number of levels with the lawsuits. It seems "too late" for the lawsuit to be filed due to the length of time and commonality use. If (for example) Google had just come out and was starting to use the "IP" then I can see the lawsuit, but after all these years? I'm sorry not a chance, just like the squatters on property have some rights to it after some period of time without the owner contesting their presence. The patents themselves (note: did not read them but inferred from the titles) see ridiculous in their over broad reach. It seems to me that they could have just as easily tried to patent the use of keyboards and mice for navigating the web! Kinda obvious use of existing technology IMNO.
Given that the originating company no longer exists (and it appears from the article) or ever created a prototype use of their IP I find it hard to accept their claim to "injury". They did not seem to use it themselves nor does its use now hurt them. Just a few thoughts..

8/30/2010 3:04 PM EDT

People here have raised many valid concerns. However, many of these concerns have already been addressed by the patent system. For example, a patent owner who is no longer making any products of its own is limited in the damages it can recover. Damages are limited to a "reasonably royalty" rather than "lost profits." Also, patent damages can only be collected for, at most, the past 6 years. The large companies that Interval has sued are hardly the kind of defendants that one worries about, in terms of abuse of the patent system. Interval must think it has a good case, or it would not try to challenge these companies.

8/30/2010 4:06 PM EDT

This is interesting but it does again point out how much of the original user interface technology came out of Xerox. Recall the Apple versus Microsoft lawsuit which resulted in a counter suing of Xerox on Apple. It was thrown out, allegedly due to Xerox waitin to long to file suit. Thus, I suspect that the same may be true here.

8/30/2010 4:47 PM EDT

This is hilarious, especially considering who was NOT sued! The "Browser" patent was filed in 1996, has 129 claims and the first claim begins with "A system for acquiring and reviewing a body of information...". The body of the patent describes a "news browser" that integrates audio, video and text from different sources on a display.

Remember, this was filed in 1996.

Here's a thought for the day: "Intellectual Property" is neither "intellectual" nor "property." Discuss!

8/31/2010 8:19 AM EDT

If that is the best patents that 110 scientists and engineers came up with, then I am not surprised they are defunct. Why don't they sue the big TV broadcasters? Clearly, they have been using attention managers in the periphery of the display for decades. National Weather Service alerts have scrolled in the periphery under control of an attention manager since the 1960's.

These sort of patents are mostly interesting to lawyers. Everyone else, even those not trained in the art, sees them as a logical and obvious extension of existing technology.

8/31/2010 11:50 AM EDT

We have a number of opinions about the merit of this complaint. The rule of law will prevail whether it is for Paul Allen or for those his complaint is against. That is why we have courts.

8/31/2010 10:18 PM EDT

Although this is Paul Allen's company Interval Licensing LLC, who is asserting their patents, Patent infringement cases like these will become the norm. This is just an example of what should occur with the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) by companies, who are fighting against a global fraud problem.

For example, China is the E.U.'s second-largest supplier of goods, after the U.S., but leads the field as the main source of counterfeit goods entering the E.U. Last year, almost 65 percent of all articles detained by customs on suspicion of violating trademarks, copyrights or patents came from China.

Application of the law must be universal with respect to IPR, whether its Chinese companies or US companies!

9/3/2010 12:00 PM EDT

Patents are offensive weapons. If you have a big stick, using it is good business. It's not personal, just business. Like Michael Corleone said.