Paul Allen Has Monster Lawsuit Dismissed

Status
Not open for further replies.

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
26
Wow, so Allen's argument was: "We own patents and these companies with big bank accounts are somehow infringing upon those patents, which I refuse to name?" The guy is worth like $20-billion, what more does he want?
 

Parrdacc

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2008
567
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Wow, so Allen's argument was: "We own patents and these companies with big bank accounts are somehow infringing upon those patents, which I refuse to name?" The guy is worth like $20-billion, what more does he want?[/citation]

and people wonder why the court system is all fouled up.
 

davewolfgang

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
451
0
18,810
17
No, the court system actually worked this time - in throwing this out.

It's the PATENT office that's the problem in giving patents to "idea's", instead of something that's actually REAL.

Ya know - back in the 60's some Sci-Fi writers wrote about these cool helmets that have a built in heads up display with built in radar, radios, and all that fancy stuff - should their estates sue Halo makers, Ironman movie creators, and all the other modern games and movies that have used that same IDEA? You patent an actual ITEM - not an idea. /offsoapbox
 

makaveli316

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2010
250
0
18,780
0
This guy is filthy rich, he must be sued for greed.
Some people need to be slapped, punched in the head repeatedly or else, so they can eventually wake up and see the shitty person they are.
 

COLGeek

Cybernaut
Moderator
While I applaud the judge for doing the right thing because it is really hard to try a case when, in this case, the actual patents haven't been identified, I am sure we will see this nonsense again.

This is similar to the old SCO Unix suit a few years ago. It took forever (and a day) to finally go away.

Riches through litigation have become a popular way to make money. Often companies will pay some lesser amount than the amount being claimed just to avoid the hassle (and bad press) of going to court. Sometimes this method (unfortunately) actually works. That is not the case here.
 

hang-the-9

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]Parrdacc[/nom]and people wonder why the court system is all fouled up.[/citation]
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Wow, so Allen's argument was: "We own patents and these companies with big bank accounts are somehow infringing upon those patents, which I refuse to name?" The guy is worth like $20-billion, what more does he want?[/citation]

I don't think the fact that he has lots of money matters much if something is taken from you. If I have 3 cars and one is stolen, I'm going to file a stolen car report anyway.
 

JDFan

Splendid
[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]"The case is staying on track."How can you lose and still be on track?[/citation]

He didn't lose -- the case was dismissed for not being specific enough - so He'll go back and add more detail including what patents are being infringed upon by what company and refile and the process keeps going !
 

jalek

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
524
1
18,995
1
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507, for "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."

-- U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652, for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."

-- U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314, for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."

-- U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682, for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."

Where I a judge, I'm not sure I'd want to sit through the monstrosity he filed initially, the judge just wants it in smaller pieces.

I mean if you look up the first one,
enabling the body of information to be quickly reviewed to obtain an overview of the content of the body of information and allowing flexibility in the manner in which the body of information is reviewed.
could be anything from putting things into a table of contents to separating content from the display "manner" or structure, which is web 2.0. We have no information on how ambitious he wants to be.
 

Yoder54

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2008
398
0
18,810
11
How can you sue over ideas? Ideas like "Alerting users to items of current interest." This is ludicrous, and is one reason why the courts are getting backed-up with all of these technological law suits. If it is a specific hardware device or snippet of code, then that is one thing...but an idea?

These idea lawsuits will go the way of patenting natures bacteria for medical purposes... extinction.
 

JDFan

Splendid


Perhaps but in the process several Lawyers will make a living off of them for many years while the stock holders and taxpayers foot the bill !
 

davewolfgang

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
451
0
18,810
17


You mean some dufuss at the patent office actually APPROVED those?!?!??!??!?!?!

Gubment run a-muck by idjuts.
 

freiheitner

Distinguished
May 7, 2008
66
0
18,630
0
U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682, for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest." -- on the surface would seem to be infringed by every TV news program, stock market tickers, medical equipment and about five dozen other things in regular use everywhere.
 

jalek

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
524
1
18,995
1


That's the upside potential. The only downside possibility are court and attorney fees, which he's apparently willing to gamble, or he's found attorneys willing to gamble on a percentage of any settlements.
It's like the lottery, only using the courts.
 

iamtheking123

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2010
410
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]How can you sue over ideas? Ideas like "Alerting users to items of current interest." This is ludicrous, and is one reason why the courts are getting backed-up with all of these technological law suits. If it is a specific hardware device or snippet of code, then that is one thing...but an idea? These idea lawsuits will go the way of patenting natures bacteria for medical purposes... extinction.[/citation]

I read a bit of actual patent...it's ridiculous that it got a patent. Essentially Thunderbird's bold-texting of unread emails is infringement of it. Text message alerts would also be infringement. You can tell from the language of the patent that it was written in the early 90s though where they were using scattershot to try to patent as much technology as possible, so it's probably going to get thrown out as being far too vague.
 

jsc

Champion
Moderator
Well, let's see. Based on the original Foundation Trilogy (early '50's), Isaac Asimov's estate could sue on patent infringements of the ideas for:
microwave ovens, pocket calculators, and laser cutting implements.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]No, the court system actually worked this time - in throwing this out. It's the PATENT office that's the problem in giving patents to "idea's", instead of something that's actually REAL. Ya know - back in the 60's some Sci-Fi writers wrote about these cool helmets that have a built in heads up display with built in radar, radios, and all that fancy stuff - should their estates sue Halo makers, Ironman movie creators, and all the other modern games and movies that have used that same IDEA? You patent an actual ITEM - not an idea. /offsoapbox[/citation]


yes and no

if you have an idea but are unable to make it due to cost or whatever, if you have a fairly detailed plan, as in if you got the parts, you could build it with little modification than you win.

"should their estates sue Halo makers, Ironman movie creators, and all the other modern games and movies that have used that same IDEA"

i have to say your idea is stupid. a patent is only for things that actually exist or could exist, not someone made it in a game, thats where copyright and trade mark comes into play.
 

dEAne

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2009
2,189
0
19,860
34
Maybe if Paul Allen focus one patent say - U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682, for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest". Then specify what particular devices, application, etc. a company like google violates his patents - I think that should work.
 

Yoder54

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2008
398
0
18,810
11
[citation][nom]dEAne[/nom]Maybe if Paul Allen focus one patent say - U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682, for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest". Then specify what particular devices, application, etc. a company like google violates his patents - I think that should work.[/citation]

But that is an idea. It seems that he needs to have a hardware device or software in place that has been used without his permission for it to be an infringement. Kink of like me saying I want to patent the idea of having a "device that will alert me to when the turkey has reach the proper cooking temperature."

His idea would be to generate a database that would collect information on what the end-user likes. Then go out and identify things that maybe of interest to said user, or as they hit the internet pass it on. No big deal. This is like trying to put a patent on the idea of a GUI or even the initial keyboards. Absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY