Patent Troll Sues Apple, Dell, HP, 21 Others Over Automation

[jellico]

Here is where we could really use our legislators to do the job they were elected to do. They need to pass a law that basically says, if you acquire a patent and then attempt a frivolous lawsuit based on that patent, if you lose the patent becomes public domain. That's it... plain and simple. These patent trolls could crawl back to the sewer whence they came.

 

[rex86]

lol they're suing the entire PC industry. Except Microsoft for some reason. Maybe the patent troll is not troll after all but daughter company of Microsoft?

 

[robochump]

Patent Lawyers always out to make as easy buck suing Patent Trolling. This is the lowest form of business extortion.

 

[dgingeri]

This sounds like Symantec hiding behind a patent troll to try to avoid bad publicity.

 

[killerchickens]

I'm always happy to see some one suing Apple because they are one of the biggest patent trolls out there.

 

[PreferLinux]

[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]Patents do have a sell by date. That's the whole point of patents. Otherwise they would create indefinite monopolies.I think patent duration is 20 years from the day of the first filing in most countries these days. Way too long for some of the bullshit that can be patented these days.[/citation]
In other words, this patent expires this year...

 

[audioee]

Looking at the Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States, I think this patent has expired. Prior to June 8th, 1995 patent coverage was 17 years after that date it is 20 years. Looks like this lawsuit should be thrown out.

 

[A Bad Day]

Software automation, I'm fairly sure that even software before the DOS-era reacted to users' input

[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]I'm going to issue a formal Patent for the invention of the Wheel.I'm certain that someone forgot to patent that one.../sarcasm[/citation]

Already done in Australia: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

 

[wiyosaya]

Looking at the Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States, I think this patent has expired. Prior to June 8th, 1995 patent coverage was 17 years after that date it is 20 years. Looks like this lawsuit should be thrown out.

Exactly. In the US, this patent expires June 8, 2012. 15-minutes of fame, at best, for this company.

 

[NoCaDrummer]

A prime example would be Microsoft's ribbon menu bar. Interestingly, Microsoft is not among those being sued at this time.

I agree with rex86. I smell Microsoft (or a former Microsoft executive) behind this.

 

[azgard]

If this company really did buy the patent's and initiate lawsuits 4 day's later, it shouldn't be too difficult for the companies to respond back that the lawsuit was completely malicious and made in bad faith. It's obvious this company made no attempt to 'work' with the companies on their newly purchased cash cow, they are just in a rush to squeeze as much money out of the patent as they can before the expiration date runs out.

 

[cookoy]

This sounds like a task recorder, saving it as a macro and then executing it to automate processing the same task. Or running a batch job or a cron job. Hardly a new concept in 2012 or even 20 years back.

 

[f-14]

douglas perry, you are a shameful trolling article writer, you are about as objective as kim il sung and all the other communists spouting communist propaganda.
it's only patent trolling if your communist.
'descriptions' are not the thing patented, they are just that a brief short summary of something.
#8

On information and belief, Defendant knew of or should have known of
the ‘198 patent prior to the filing of this action because the ‘198 patent is cited in Defendant’s
own patents and patent applications.

http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/data-carriers-v-apple.pdf

i love how the commie leaves this particular gem out of his article in trying to cite 'patent trolling'

 

[clivene09]

Am I wishful thinking to think that some of these patent suits are being made to show how broken the patent system is. I want to believe that someone would come after companies like Apple for stupid stuff, much as Apple comes after companys for absolutely retard stuff like 'Slide to unlock'.

 

[Guest]

I wonder if microsoft funding got them started on lawsuits (just like SCO vs linux lawsuits). Why else would they deliberately avoid suing one of the biggest possible infringers.

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]This sounds like a task recorder, saving it as a macro and then executing it to automate processing the same task. Or running a batch job or a cron job. Hardly a new concept in 2012 or even 20 years back.[/citation]

I'll pay you around a few hundred thousand dollars in lawyer license fees if you change yours, and the judge's mind.

 

[madjimms]

Just sue Apple & leave everyone else alone, I wouldn't mind at all!

 

[agnickolov]

[citation][nom]audioee[/nom]Looking at the Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_ [...] ted_States, I think this patent has expired. Prior to June 8th, 1995 patent coverage was 17 years after that date it is 20 years. Looks like this lawsuit should be thrown out.[/citation]
Actually, the patent is still valid - it expires on April 16th 2012, thus the rush to sue everybody. Read that Wikipedia link you sent more carefully - prior to June 8, 1995 the term was the latter of 17 years after grant or 20 years after submission. With a submission date of April 16, 1992 and a grant date of February 7, 1995, the patent expires on April 16, 2012.

I'm no patent lawyer of course, but looking at the actual patent text, it doesn't seem to cover most of the claimed infringements, so the lawsuit is likely to be thrown out as inapplicable, not as expired.

As to the claims this is now commonplace - of course it is. That's not the point. The point is that it hasn't been known when it was first filed. (Unless somebody proves otherwise.) Thinking back to the software of that time, there wasn't a lot of intelligence in it for sure...

 

[DjEaZy]

... ban all patent trolls!!! Why they don't successfully implement the stuff, that they invented?

 

[Guest]

this patent system is like the catholic church...

were heading into the dark ages of technology soon. where nothing new can be invented since there are 500 companies to pay out before you can release your product.

 

[teodoreh]

There should be a patent expiration date just like in medicines.

 

[skasucks478]

[citation][nom]teodoreh[/nom]There should be a patent expiration date just like in medicines.[/citation]
There is.

 

[wiyosaya]

douglas perry, you are a shameful trolling article writer, you are about as objective as kim il sung and all the other communists spouting communist propaganda.
it's only patent trolling if your communist.
'descriptions' are not the thing patented, they are just that a brief short summary of something.
#8

On information and belief, Defendant knew of or should have known of
the ‘198 patent prior to the filing of this action because the ‘198 patent is cited in Defendant’s
own patents and patent applications.

http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/data-carriers-v-apple.pdf

i love how the commie leaves this particular gem out of his article in trying to cite 'patent trolling'

:lol: This particular "brief" actually makes the patent trolling case even worse, if you ask me. Why? Because the patent cited in the brief expired February 7, 2012 and the brief was filed on March 16, 2012.

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]This sounds like Symantec hiding behind a patent troll to try to avoid bad publicity.[/citation]

You know, you may actually have one hell of a good point there!
Like the US car companies using different 'brands' so as to not dilute the value of their high prices models; i.e. Cadillac vs. Buick.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]Hardly surprising with todays so called patent system! It needs a restart to actually encourage advances not use them for bullying the competition or like this.[/citation]

While I agree, I'm afraid any "restart" will be ruined by the ones who have already ruined our current system (by lobbying and buying changes that will allow a patent to live indefinitely, allow the wording of a patent to be too technical (There is a place for it in there, yes.) for the poor souls at the USPTO to understand all the language put in them. Since lawyers got involved in the process, legalese is a big part of the problem too.